ok (0.00 / 0)

Shorter Lux:  "Stop being mean to my friends."

I was exaggerating, mostly. 

---

by: Matt Stoller @ Fri Oct 12, 2007 at 22:14:18 PM UTC

In some ways (0.00 / 0)

I think what you said is unfair about "insiders" in general.  On the other hand, if you're talking about Party leadership, you're basically spot on.

I support John McCain because children are too healthy anyway.

---

by: Sam L @ Fri Oct 12, 2007 at 22:23:09 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

I take everything you say extremely seriously, (0.00 / 0)

because you are after all a very serious fellow.
And I would take after anybody being mean to you, too.
But the thing is, not all insiders are worth defending, just the ones who really are good people. And even for the ones who are not my friends, I think we should understand that at least some of these decisions are a little bit complicated. 

---

by: Mike Lux @ Sat Oct 13, 2007 at 02:09:06 AM UTC

[ Parent ]

He is as you say a (0.00 / 0)

Very. Serious. Person.

---

by: pierredude @ Sat Oct 13, 2007 at 02:25:53 AM UTC

[ Parent ]

No way! (0.00 / 0)

There is no way Matt Stoller is a Very. Serious. Person.

I mean, he thinks we should get out of Iraq and have no residual troops there.  What a laugh!  No Very. Serious. Person. would ever think that!

John McCain <3 lobbyists

---

by: Fran for Dean @ Sat Oct 13, 2007 at 04:42:20 AM UTC

[ Parent ]

A chasm is appearing (4.00 / 1)

I think we are at a fairly rare moment in time when the germs of a progressive base are so far, realistically, ahead of the political insiders who in more normal times might be on a similar trajectory that there is going to be this kind of disjunction. And we'll be calling them names.

Folks here (Open Left--much of the left blogosphere) are simply miles ahead of "our representatives" (and the pundits and the "opinion leaders") on the war, on restoring rule of law, on climate crisis. We are almost out of touch with them -- yet the polls say more Americans are close to us than to them.

Interestingly, something very similar is going in the gay community over ENDA -- our "leaders" say dump the transsexuals but the base, having internalized a different frame about gender, is screaming "NO."

In my lifetime, the only time when there was as wide a disjunction was in the late '60s when every young person with any gumption was way to the left of the whole political system on Vietnam, on culture, on everything. It wasn't well thought out or deep, but it just swept past "our leaders" to their shock.

We might be about to live though a similar period, though we  are just gaining heft and the meaning of all this will depend on how well we ride through it.

Can it happen here?

---

by: janinsanfran @ Sat Oct 13, 2007 at 04:38:45 AM UTC

[ Parent ]

This chasm has been there for a long time now... (4.00 / 2)

There is nothing new to this chasm. It's why I left politics in the early 90's. It's just same ol' same ol'.

The establishment Dems are, to an unfortunately large extent, contemptuous of the grassroots and always have been. Class warfare has always been a large aspect of Dem politics. The rabble are highly prized in September and October, but much after that.........

That said, Lux seems to be one of a sizeable number of exceptions to this class rule of Dem internal politics (think the old 80/20 rule--it's the 20% that give the other 80% their legitimacy).

I've met more than a few myself. They're out there and have been for more decades we can reasonably count. They're the ones that make a trip to DC a fun and engaging experience. The hacks are the ones that make it much, much less pleasant, replete with a nice rhetorical kick in the teeth.

  Rather than use the insider/outsider frame, I would choose the hack vs. activist frame--there are people on both sides of the "-sider" fence that fit into those categories, no?.

The party hacks are starting to become much more open in their hostility to the grassroots, because the grassroots are challenging them in ways they couldn't before. That's why net neutrality means everything in terms of who gets to sit on top of the heap in the long run. That's why certain Dems will gladly give up NetNeutrality if it will help them preserve their status.

A hack will prefer to be king/queen of a trash heap than a mere rank and file member of something that actually matters. You can find them in Moline just as easily as DC.

Oh, the hacks are also the sole source of corruption in government, near as I can tell. For the Republicans it's a little less complicated: everyone's corrupt.

"More than any other time in history, mankind faces a crossroads. One path leads to despair and utter hopelessness. The other, to total extinction. Let us pray we have the wisdom to choose correctly." -Woody Allen, My Speech to the Graduates

---

by: Emocrat @ Sat Oct 13, 2007 at 05:59:05 AM UTC

[ Parent ]

Good formulation. (0.00 / 0)

I like it a lot. Although I would add a third category: I think there quite a few politicos who aren't totally hacks, but feel pressured by many of the powers that be to do hacklike things- it's the culture of caution thing I have written about before. Call them activists wothout much courage, or perhaps hacks with a heart.

---

by: Mike Lux @ Sat Oct 13, 2007 at 14:18:43 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

Total hacks far out weigh whatever (0.00 / 0)

good might be in the system, and one can't be a hack and have a heart, either.  Democrats and Iowa need to be soundly dumped on their asses, and Michigan is fed up enough to do it.  I mean what the hell.  Since the Democrats don't want or need our votes anyway, Michigan will just vote for Ron Paul in the primary and the general.  Screw them all and the horses they rode in on.

---

by: dkmich @ Sat Oct 13, 2007 at 20:01:09 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

Nice formulation (0.00 / 0)

We all have lots of hacks around. The more Democratic our locality is, the more the local hacks get out of clogging up the turf -- my point is that in less dire circumstances, most of us would probably let them. But the last few years have taught a lot of us that enough is enough.

And, yes, there are some good people in politics and government -- no quarrel with that. Somebody has to do the hard work of actually understanding and envisioning policy prescriptions that actualize progressive aspirations. And there are people that do, for darn little respect or benefit.

Can it happen here?

---

by: janinsanfran @ Sat Oct 13, 2007 at 15:19:53 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

I think you are right. (0.00 / 0)

There has always been a chasm, but it has really been growing in recent years.

---

by: Mike Lux @ Sat Oct 13, 2007 at 14:20:28 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

Enduring gulf -- seriousness of times (0.00 / 0)

I think those on the outside are far less deluded today than usual that "the people" are really on our side. :-) The result is acrimony that DOESN'T GO AWAY. That's the difference. In other times, most people on the outside leave running things to the insiders after experiencing normal discouragement from "their leaders."

We are cursed with "interesting times."

Can it happen here?

---

by: janinsanfran @ Sat Oct 13, 2007 at 15:09:27 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

huh (4.00 / 4)

I think it was the wrong thing to do, but I am not going to condemn her as a person for doing it.

Well, I don't know what "condemning her as a person" means, but how about as a leader? What does it take to make you bite the hand that feeds?

I understand your points about there being ups and downs. It's a long game and like most things progress (when it happens) comes in a two steps forward/one step back kind of way.

However, in my admittedly short four years of direct experience, I've seen precious little to inspire confidence in the establishment, and certainly no moments of courageous defiance such as you mention.

This is probably partly a communications problem -- part of the problem with the progressive establishment is its incompetence in sharing information -- but I'm tempted to press you on specifics. Who put their career on the line most recently, and what was it all about?

My experience has been one of broken expectations, and those were the good times. Most insiders simply remain elite and/or clandestine. They seem to prefer not to be seen or to share their actual plans, ideas, motivations and concerns. If they're unknown (or simply inscrutable) then they can't really be critiqued, and I think that's intentional.

Or to put it another way, why shouldn't we expect the Speaker of the House to explain her actions? Seems like the sort of thing you'd want in a democracy.

Me | My Work | Future Majority

---

by: Josh Koenig @ Fri Oct 12, 2007 at 22:21:35 PM UTC

Certain kinds of strategic moves can't be said out loud (0.00 / 0)

or, if they are, have to be said under false pretenses.  That's what it even means to have insiders and outsiders: because some tactical moves need to be made under the cover of darkness, in order to grant say the element of surprise against a strategic opponent, insiders are those defined as those who know what is really going on and why, and outsiders are those who have to look at the visible machinations and wonder.

I mean look.  Suppose Pelosi's aim is to strengthen her relationship with the CBC, so she has them solidly in her corner when the inevitable showdown with Steny Hoyer finally occurs.  The CBC asks for her support for Wynn, and a million dollars from her donors to him.  She agrees.  Recall that we out here want to see Pelosi strengthened relative to Hoyer, that is a very very very good thing.

So she agrees to hold a fundraiser for him.  She can't be honest and transparent and accountable for why she did it.  If she said "well, I think Wynn sucks, but I'm doing this to lock down the support of the CBC so I can kick Hoyer's ass", then what.  She makes Wynn look terrible, she pisses off the CBC, and she's weakened in the fight against Hoyer: exactly the opposite of what she's trying to accomplish.

Now, it's possible to swear off any strategies that require stealth or any other behavior that's engaged in for tactical, rather than principled, reasons.  But I can't think of very many people in any field who have won by forswearing these things entirely.

---

by: texas dem @ Fri Oct 12, 2007 at 23:07:24 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

Good point... (4.00 / 3)

....but I think it's become more an issue of what Miss Nancy has said, rather bluntly, to the nation. She said, 'Impeachment is off the table...' she said, 'If they were poor and they were sleeping on my sidewalk, they would be arrested for loitering, but because they have 'Impeach Bush' across their chest, it's the First Amendment.'

If you want to make an argument that this sort of speech is being made for some 'stealth' tactical reasoning...That there is a 'secret' plan that absolutely required the re-election of Bush Dog Wynn.

Go ahead.

To me it's the ranting of an over-the-hill politician who is desperately out of touch with what the nation and even her own district. Of someone who has a very different agenda than we progressives do.

And as such I reject it and her.

Peace, Health and Prosperity for Everyone.

---

by: ACitizen @ Fri Oct 12, 2007 at 23:22:55 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

Handy excuse, eh. (0.00 / 0)

Another of my favorites:  "Well, the ____ bill isn't perfect, but..... ".  Be sure to use a really high pitched pitiful whine when saying it. 

---

by: dkmich @ Sat Oct 13, 2007 at 20:03:04 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

Pelosi vs Hoyer (0.00 / 0)

I think if Madame Speaker had any real courage (or even ambition) she would be enlisting the support of the public in driving her agenda. This has been done before to great effect. Palace intrigue is wastful and ineffective as a governing strategy, not to mention undemocratic.

In any competitive arena the element of surprise is crucial, but when was the last time we saw anything that was surprising that was good? I reject the notion that there are generally "good reasons" for politicians to be secretive. I think that in the vast vast majority of cases it's because they don't want their actions to be scrutinized, and/or because they are unable to make a case that citizens would accept.

I see far more effective governance, both in terms of getting things done and doing away with corruption, though greater transparency and participation on the part of the Public.

Me | My Work | Future Majority

---

by: Josh Koenig @ Mon Oct 15, 2007 at 00:09:36 AM UTC

[ Parent ]

Pelosi (0.00 / 0)

should explain her actions, I agree. I think it was a bad decision. But as others have commented, not all decisions or deals by politicians can be spelled out in public in a completely open way.
Sometimes when politicians do gutsy things, it's all out in the open, like when Mezvinsky cast the deciding vote on the budget in 1993 and losing her seat as a result. But most of the time it is in the backroom when the slicing and dicing is being done, and someone, for example, risks their committee assignment to hold the line on some really important budget item. 

---

by: Mike Lux @ Sat Oct 13, 2007 at 02:20:00 AM UTC

[ Parent ]

Open Left? (0.00 / 0)

But as others have commented, not all decisions or deals by politicians can be spelled out in public in a completely open way.

Wow. I fundamentally disagree with that assertion. I think everything can be spelled out openly, it's just a question of whether or not doing this is politically expedient, and arguments of this nature feel exceedingly elitist to me.

Tactics might dictate secrecy or misdirection, but for the most part what I perceive is people avoiding sunshine in what seem like a corporate cover-your-ass attitude, or else addressing citizens exclusively through the prism of Public Relations, which is essentially dishonest, not to mention patronizing.

I mean, honestly, don't you think things aught to be a hell of a lot more open than they are? Shouldn't you be able to come up with a nice example of courage without going back fourteen fracking years? Are we going to actually change this, or continue to enable dishonesty and incompetence?

Me | My Work | Future Majority

---

by: Josh Koenig @ Mon Oct 15, 2007 at 00:04:01 AM UTC

[ Parent ]

Hm. (0.00 / 0)

Well yes, in theory you would absolutely want a very transparent legislative and executive process.  That's partly because in theory government is about a series of public policy choices, and everyone should be maximally informed on them for good public policy to happen.

On the other hand, in addition to public policy choices, government is about an absolute shitload of money and power.  Lots and lots and lots of money coming in the IRS and going out in the appropriations bills, and lots of very rich and powerful people trying to capture those huge streams of money.  That big army of lobbyists and all the money they're paid is 90% about capturing revenue streams from the congress and the executive.  And 90% of what these lobbyists succeed at doing for their fabulously wealthy clients would make every american citizen vomit if we ever heard about it, and for that reason we don't ever hear about it.  The system is cloaked in secrecy because it HAS to be cloaked in secrecy to get away with the revolting stuff that it does, continually.

That sucks but there's very little reason to expect it to change anytime soon.  A band of angry citizens working in their off hours is not gonna take DC back from 1) the professionals of K street, 2) the galaxy of powerful interests that hired them, and 3) the politicians who have grown used to this state of affairs, 95% of whom are also now compromised by it and bound to it, because by now 95% of them have done something that could get them disgraced or jailed or worse.

That's not the end of the story.  The populace has forced a "new understanding", more on its own terms, with the powerful on a number of occasions, pointed to in Lux's post today: in the New Deal most spectacularly, in LBJ and Nixon's Congress, in TR's administration, and maybe in Jackson and Lincoln's times.  But even then, the populace didn't get what it wanted by purging the government of corruption and secrecy; it just forced that corrupt and secretive government to do certain things or be defeated in election en masse.  LBJ was utterly corrupt as was his entire era, and FDR operated in secrecy too.

Take FDR again.  Did he know about Pearl Harbor in advance?  Or take the weaker case, that he was provoking the Japanese into a war intentionally, knowing they would make a spectacular first strike somewhere (Manila?), and desiring that as the lever to get us into Europe.  I don't know but I think one of those two is exceedingly likely.  In that case, the pivotal event of the 20th Century (the American entry into WWII-Europe) was engineered in secret by a political class that was working against a public opinion that was wildly against war in Europe.

Secrecy and corruption suck, but there's a case that they've always been with us, and even a case that the presence of them is not directly related to the success or failure of a governing regime.  I'm just starting to think about these things systematically so I admit I could be utterly wrong, or even be following lines of logic that lead to contemptible places.  But this is a subject of significance, and I'm not wrong to be examining it.

I wonder if the Freedom of Information Act was one of the stimuli for government contracting and privatization... I assume contractors are not subject to FOIA and can't have their behavior examined.

In any case, obviously a transparent government is the democratic ideal and is the public policy ideal, but I think there's a lot more to be said about transparency and secrecy than just that.  That's the beginning of the story, and it might even be the ending as well, but I do know there's a lot of complicated stuff in the middle and I don't know what the ending is or should be.

---

by: texas dem @ Tue Oct 16, 2007 at 23:08:46 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

Holla (0.00 / 0)

Thanks for the thoughtful reply.

"Because that's how it is" has never been a compelling argument for me. Frankly I would like to see the 90% suckage cut down significantly, and I don't see why -- in a democracy -- we shouldn't be able to achieve something a lot better. In my mind, that begins with the refusal to accept "the way things are" as morally justified.

I mean, comparing BS decisions by the House Speaker in what may or may not be an internal power struggle against a sold out corporate hack who wants her job to WWII is not a strong argument. The mismatch in stakes here reflects the pretzel-like thinking you get into.

I commented on Mike's latest post, a bit late though. Believe it or not I do see the big picture and I'm incredibly pragmatic. It's just that we're simply not going to see any real progress until we quit coddling our elites. Congress has a 10% approval rating, for crying out loud. The public is fed up, and the activist class should be getting in front of that energy and using it for change, not making excuses for failures of leadership.

Me | My Work | Future Majority

---

by: Josh Koenig @ Wed Oct 17, 2007 at 16:36:23 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

Matt and Mike... (4.00 / 1)

You guys are a good balance to each other.  I'm glad you're working together here.  Its like the old story about four blind men describing an elephant, and the descriptions varying by which part they grab hold of.  None get the picture totally  right, but none are totally wrong.  I think we need Matt's "harsh spotlight on the problems and flaws" tendency, but also Mike's appreciation of other qualities and dynamics that are more positive and hopeful. 

I also appreciate Matt's interest in the "mass psychology" element.  We're dealing with a massively complex dysfunctional "elephant" here, so really understanding how it functions--at macro and micro levels--seems helpful in the task of "training" it to be more democratic, effective and humane before it stampedes madly off a cliff, potentially dragging it with us (pardon the overstretched metaphor).  I have a similar feeling about Paul R's long posts designed to blend historical and psychological perspectives.  We don't want to get bogged down in academic theories, but we do want to internalize useful insights that can help channel our efforts most effectively.

Consider this a pat on the back to OL founders for progress to date.

---

by: mitchipd @ Fri Oct 12, 2007 at 22:52:34 PM UTC

Agreed. (0.00 / 0)

I love the back and forth and the balance of perspectives. I think it helps make Openleft an important and interesting place to be.

---

by: Mike Lux @ Sat Oct 13, 2007 at 02:22:09 AM UTC

[ Parent ]

Exaggerating? Matt? (4.00 / 1)

There's this persistent white hat/black hat tendency in the lefty sphere, compared with a good helping of high school-style cliqueyness that's just a wee bit disappointing; thus, particular pols are identified as favorites - We like her - about whom no criticism will be brooked - or the reverse.

Needless to say, moments of agonizing reappraisal may be necessary when pols migrate from the first group to the second. (Thus, in 04, there was Stephmania in the sphere; in 07, La Herseth is a verminous Bush Dog.)

And there's a general bipolarity about political situations: the wholly mythical charge against the Alito nom, for instance. Typically, spheroids take a thoroughly Pollyanna-ish view of the prospects for - shall we say, passing a conditional funding bill for Iraq? - building up hopes founded not so much on sand but on thin air. And then, when this view is predictably falsified by events, there's a lurch into the slough of despond.

The insistence on identifying bogeymen (Rahmbo and Steny, say) on which to vent spherical ire comes in part, I'd suggest, from a reluctance to engage with the messy complications of the reality of the situation - in particular, to work through historical and institutional factors that shape the activities of some of those insiders that Matt was talking about.

Perhaps also there is a particular need for an online community to find ways of evidencing solidarity between its members (given that the personal relationships to be found in communities IRL are typically absent): Rahm Emanuel = Emmanuel Goldstein!

Unfortunately, unlike in 1984, the hate sessions last oh so very much longer than two minutes...

---

by: skeptic06 @ Fri Oct 12, 2007 at 23:14:58 PM UTC

cheap shot (4.00 / 1)

Identifying bogeyman is a key part of institutional change.

---

by: Matt Stoller @ Fri Oct 12, 2007 at 23:27:43 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

Yeah.... (4.00 / 3)

that

There's this persistent white hat/black hat tendency in the lefty sphere, compared with a good helping of high school-style cliqueyness that's just a wee bit disappointing; thus, particular pols are identified as favorites - We like her - about whom no criticism will be brooked - or the reverse.

really, really annoys the David Broder in folks. It's so...so...so...

Partisan and disruptive to the good order of 'Versailles'.

I'll just be quiet now and let Plato's Guardians set the agenda. I humbly apologise for being so annoying as to have an opinion about said Guardians.

If you need my I'll be writing,

"I shall not have an 'lefty sphere' opinion"....

on the blackboard ten thousand times.

Peace, Health and Prosperity for Everyone.

---

by: ACitizen @ Fri Oct 12, 2007 at 23:31:45 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

Herseth (4.00 / 1)

> (Thus, in 04, there was Stephmania in the sphere;
> in 07, La Herseth is a verminous Bush Dog.)

I contributed (from a far-distant state) to Herseth's 2004 campaign on Atrios' recommendation.  Atrios knew, and I knew, how she would act once elected.  And I had no problem with that because having a nominal Democratic Representative from South Dakota who took conservative stances was better than having a wild-eyed Radical Righty.  I don't begrudge Ms. Herseth her votes (although I did not contribute to her re-election; I figured she was on her own at that point).

Now, please explain to me Obama's "sometimes you have to trim your sails" vote after he took _Illinois_, a state trending massively blue despite an idiotic Democratic governor, with 65%.  Sixty-five frickin' percent and he has to "trim his sails" in the face of Roberts and Alito.  And he wonders why I don't respond to his fundraising e-mails.

sPh

---

by: sphealey @ Sat Oct 13, 2007 at 00:20:24 AM UTC

[ Parent ]

I think the "trim his sails" comment (0.00 / 0)

was about the tort reform bill. 

He voted against Roberts and Alito.

Nevertheless your point still stands.

And, Obama was obviously worried about his future in national politics, not his reelection from Illinois.  Because you're right, he could vote like Wellstone and be reelected from Illinois forever, as long as he doesn't fuck with the Daley machine that is.

Obama doesn't want to be Wellstone or Feingold, clearly.  What the hell he wants to be, I have no idea.

---

by: texas dem @ Tue Oct 16, 2007 at 23:18:19 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

Practicallity (0.00 / 0)

I have acquired a certain desire to be practical in my politics and in my demands of politicians.  I think that we harm ourselves as a movement when we demonize our leaders as quickly as we sometimes do, or when we draw lines in the sand over purity on issues and fight bitterly with our allies accusing them of being less pure than we are.

I think is says a lot that Barney Frank is the one being condemned for being willing to compromise to get legislation passed to help the queer community.  Nor do I think that it really helps end the war for us to be dogmatic on No Residual Troops.  The difference between a candidate who will say that and one who won't is more a measure of what they are willing to say to get elected than what they will do once elected.

Politics is the art of the possible, and if we want to improve our country and people's lives we have to accept that compromise is a part of that art.

My job is not to represent Washington to you, but to represent you to Washington- Obama
Philly for Obama

---

by: Luam @ Fri Oct 12, 2007 at 23:33:04 PM UTC

Every time I hear the words (0.00 / 0)

practical or pragmatic, I automatically look for the white flag.  No guts, no glory!

---

by: dkmich @ Sat Oct 13, 2007 at 20:04:09 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

"Messy" - a comment (4.00 / 6)

> Politics is a messy, frequently ugly business,

You will forgive me but at my age (higher than the average for this site per the last published stats), and after the events of the last 5 years, I turn off/stop reading as soon as I encounter the word "messy".  I know that without fail what will follow that word is an explanation of why it was necessary to betray the people who undertook considerable effort and personal sacrifice to get a politician into office.  A good example is my Senator: in a red/purple state many people literally risked loss of job and ostracization from community to get him elected - and he immediately turned around and betrayed every promise he had made to his base with the excuse that "real politics is messy".

Yes, it is.  But somehow the Radical Right managed to navigate that messiness without violating its core principles.  Is is too much to ask the Democrats, the self-styled 'reality based party', to do the same?

sPh

---

by: sphealey @ Sat Oct 13, 2007 at 00:14:29 AM UTC

I did not excuse or explain a betrayal. (0.00 / 0)

You said it happens without fail, but I wasn't excusing anything. Sometimes politicians do shitty things, and they should be called out for it. But whether you like it or not, whether it is too frequently used as an excuse for doing the wrong thing or not, politics is messy, that is just a fact. In a democratic system people from different perspectives, demographics, professions, regions, and temperments come together and try to find the votes to decide on policy. They argue, they compromise, they broker deals, they form and unform and reform coalitions. It's messy. It's also good because that's what democracy is. 

---

by: Mike Lux @ Sat Oct 13, 2007 at 02:37:57 AM UTC

[ Parent ]

Resolution of "messiness" (0.00 / 0)

Except that without fail for the last 20 years every "messy" situation has been resolved in a way that favors the more-conservative (and usually more Republican) position.  Not a single messy situation that I can think of has been resolved in favor of progressive, much less liberal, principles.  While I would expect Republicans and the Radical right to attempt to develop "bipartisan" solutions that favor their side and tilt the playing field in their direction, it is utterly unclear to me why Democratic politicians follow the Republicans' (and now even the Radicals') lead time after time after time.  Presumably they are hoping for a pat on the back from David Broder, but the reality is they don't even get _that_:  Broder will still find a way to sneer at the Democrats even when they cave in the direction he advocated.  So they are are resolving  "messiness" in the right's favor, betraying their base, and getting what in return?

sPh

---

by: sphealey @ Sat Oct 13, 2007 at 17:03:18 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

I don't agree. (0.00 / 0)

The 1993 budget fight was messy as hell, but ended up resulting in the most progressive budget in the 47 years since 1965. Other budget fights, including 1995's when we stood up to Gingrich's govt shutdowns, and 1998 when we got S-CHIP passed, were messy as hell but we won on those, too. And Dem filibusters since Bush took office have stopped a ton of bad things from happening.

---

by: Mike Lux @ Sat Oct 13, 2007 at 18:42:01 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

Not Condemning Pelosi As A Person (4.00 / 6)

When she became Speaker, she became something other than just a person or just a politician. She became the leader of the Democratic majority in the House. So IMO, it is more than fair and just to condemn her ACTIONS in that position. To date, what we are seeing is a complete Blue Dog agenda being enacted in the House. Any initiative by the Out of Iraq Caucus or by more progressive members is shot down by Dem leadership within hours of it being proposed. The most recent example is proposals by Rep. Obey.

Also,when Democratic politicians who say they were against the invasion of Iraq and want to see it end choose to campaign for the most hawkish members of their branch of government, I for one question their honesty and creditability on Iraq. It appears that protecting an incumbent has a higher priority than any issue.

Now granted there are a few exceptions in the House and in the Senate, but the great majority do seem to put protecting their seats and the seats of others insiders as the top priority. 

---

by: MO Blue @ Sat Oct 13, 2007 at 00:33:21 AM UTC

Obey's position wasn't shot down. (0.00 / 0)

It still holds. Some Dems complained about it, but Obey is the Aprops chair and he's not backing down.
As has been discussed a great deal on this blog, between the GOP and the Bushdogs, we still have a conservative governing majority in congress. Pelosi hasn't always been effective or strong in dealing with that reality, but it's not her fault. I have my problems with her, but am not yet ready to cast her into the pit of hell.

---

by: Mike Lux @ Sat Oct 13, 2007 at 02:43:35 AM UTC

[ Parent ]

I'll tell you why Pelosi sucks .. (4.00 / 3)

it's because she has no clue how to negotiate .. what good does coming out first thing and saying impeachment is off the table do? ... It gives Smirk and Darth Vader a blank check .. what did caving on FISA do? ... I would like to ask Mike a question since he was once an insider ... who do the Dems give in so easy to The Decider and his crappy approval ratings? .. Are they that afraid of O'Falafel and Rush Limpd-ck? .. are they that blind that they don't see all but the dead enders dislike the current president? .. do they not see that the rest of the world thinks us a joke because of Commander Codpiece?

---

by: Calvin Jones and the 13th Apostle @ Sat Oct 13, 2007 at 04:07:46 AM UTC

Culture of Caution. (4.00 / 2)

I think there are multiple reasons why Dems are operating the way they are, including small margins and too many Bushdogs, the power of lobbyists and money, and a traditional media that values compromise at any cost to doing the right thing. But I truly believe that at the root of the Dem problems is the culture of caution I have written about many times before, what some other writers have called the battered wives' syndrome, that sense that they can't afford to be bold because the Republicans will beat them if they "go too far".

---

by: Mike Lux @ Sat Oct 13, 2007 at 14:29:02 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

But the Republicans will .. (4.00 / 1)

still talk sh-t about them no matter what ... you see the polls ... why do you think people think Hillary is Lenin reincarnate when she is actually pretty close to Bill and Nelson? .. it's because the right has succeeded in smearing her no matter what Clinton does ... the right isn't afraid of getting smeared .. it's like the Democrats in DC(except for maybe Feingold and a few others) have forgotten FDR

---

by: Calvin Jones and the 13th Apostle @ Sat Oct 13, 2007 at 16:05:24 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

I meant to say ... (0.00 / 0)

she is close to Bill and Ben Nelson ..  not Bernie Sanders(like Faux would make you believe)

---

by: Calvin Jones and the 13th Apostle @ Sat Oct 13, 2007 at 17:45:40 PM UTC

[ Parent ]