Progressive bloggers don’t write about single-payer because they are afraid of Rahm (Chris Bowers)
Lambert has a breaking story--progressive bloggers don't write about single-payer because they are afraid of being personally admonished by Rahm Emanuel, Harry Reid and Nancy Pelosi:

Speaking of breaking eggs.... (0.00 / 0)

Single payer actions in 11 cities.

Too bad single payer stuff like this never gets front-paged on "progressive" blogs, but I guess Harry, Nancy, and Rahm might raise concerns in the next conference call.

I am in earnest -- I will not equivocate -- I will not excuse -- I will not retreat a single inch -- AND I WILL BE HEARD.

by: lambert @ Fri Oct 30, 2009 at 13:03

That is pretty damning-lambert has uncovered a vast conspiracy of cowardice on the part of progressive bloggers to not write about single-payer, for fear that they will fall out of favor with Rahm Emanuel, Nancy Pelosi, and Harry Reid.

It is pretty well sourced, too. Lambert does, after all, live inside the head of the "progressive" blogosphere.

It is remarkable that he discovered that none of us were acting in good faith, and are instead mainly cowards worried about access.

He nailed us.

Hah! Very funny.
As Betty Cracker was just wondering, Lambert could be a Cigna plant for all we know.

Having followed Correntewire for a number of years, I don't think he's a plant.  My impression is that he genuinely believes that there is a conspiracy among A-list bloggers.  They allegedly threw the 2008 primaries to Obama, and then helped him get elected.  And now, they are defending his policies rather than.. well, rather than what isn't clear.  

The point is that in the infotainment age that we live in, spinning the argument is fair game, even if it means using fallacious rhetoric.  At least from the point of view of those who are on the outside of power.

As far as the issue of Single Payer goes, I find that Lambert short-changes the subject considerably.  First of all, Single Payer has a variety of forms, as Sick Around the World so clearly points out.  Not just the Medicare for All variation that Lambert likes to tout. Second, there are those of us who like the health plan we currently have.  Taking something away from me, or others like me, is not a winning strategy. Finally, Lambert conveniently uses the 10 million people that will be supported under the public option as a stick to beat his favorite dog, ignoring the fact that these are the 10 million that are most in need of care.

But is this really about health care?  In Lambert's case, I don't think so. I think it's about inequity in power.

When were the blogs ..
ever in favor with Rahmbo?  or Obama for that matter?  Rahm despises us .. because we make trouble for his corporate sellout Blue Dogs .. Obama puts up with us(though barely) cause a lot of volunteer and do the important stuff
I write the WH every day about Rahm
I'm not a blogger, but almost daily I either mail, email or phone the WH to tell them that the precise reason I worked so hard to elect Obama over Hillary was that he was NOT like Emanuel. If I had wanted Rahm Emanuel influencing the WH, I always point out, I could have had Hillary with a lot less work and a lot less risk than it took to get Mr. Audacity of Hope past all barriers he had to get past.

To have him then turn around and hire Emanuel was a bitter blow. Obama was supposed to be Howard Dean with charisma, I tell him, but he turned out to be Hillary Clinton without teeth.

Rahm Emanuel is the very epitome of everything that was wrong with Democratic party to begin with - causing us to cast aside the anointed nominee that they told us was inevitable - and also the epitome, and very likely the direct cause, of everything that's gone wrong with the Obama presidency.

I hope bloggers and individual constituents like myself continue to rake Obama over the coals for capitulating to the corrupt old leaders of the Democratic party. He said "change we can believe in", "not this time" and so on, but capitulating to Emanuel, like praising Baucus and Snowe, makes all his glorious words sounds positively Orwellian.

To add
To add, it was also sweet that lambert made this comment on Open Left less than 24 hours after complimenting me for asking Speaker Pelosi about single-payer on a conference call. In fact, lambert posted nine comments in that thread, nearly 20% of the total comments in that thread.

So, lambert knew full well that I was asking Democratic leaders about single-payer on conference calls, and then posted a comment on Open Left saying that "progressive" bloggers don't write about single-payer because they are afraid of being admonished by Nancy Pelosi on conference calls.

Really, it is the sort of thing that makes you feel like lambert was engaging in Open Left in good faith.

In fact, there was so much good faith, that last Friday I emailed lambert asking him what course of action he was suggesting on single-payer. He never got back to me, even though he found time to write 51 comments on Open Left since I sent that email, and post 6 quick hits. Which again left me with total confidence that he was acting in good faith.

I deleted the 6th Quick Hit he wrote, which linked to an article he wrote on Corrente about a month ago. In the comments to this article, lambert provided me with even more confidence that he was acting in good faith on Open Left:

So, it's not a question of numbers, it's a question of where Bowers is positioned in the discourse. If (say) OL is the TNR of the blogosphere (ouch!) then that's a very significant position, and we should both leverage it, and call him to account.

I see. So, lambert is engaged in some attempt to create "leverage" through his participation on Open Left.

All in all, it really feels like a good faith engagement from lambert here.

He's just a jerk
The more the guy writes, the fewer people support single payer. I'm glad he's obscure.
[ Parent ]
Come on, Chris
You're treating lambert as some kind of troll, which he clearly is not, when even recently you thanked him for being "productive," saying "it's been a big help."

Disappearing a Quick Hit does not exactly strike me as good faith, either.

But the main thing is you're taking a single instance of snark and turning it into a full-blown conspiracy theory which it obviously isn't-OK, fighting snark with snark, I suppose-and ignoring the issue that Open Left hasn't been covering single payer news, at least to the extent that seems warranted. Asking Democratic leaders about single payer on conference calls and writing about single payer or featuring front-page posts are two different things. It's possible for Open Left to be fully in support of a public option and still report favorably on those who are fighting for single payer as well. It makes Open Left more credible, not less, if it does so.

[ Parent ]
Huh?
If the definition of a troll is someone who derails a thread for his own agenda, then Lambert is most definitely a troll.

Second, that thread where Chris told Lambert he was being productive?  That's what we call sarcasm.  Lambert has been as insulting as you can possibly be.  I have no doubt that if Chris behaved as Lambert has on Correntwire, then he would have been banned ages ago.

Third, the rhetoric that Lambert regularly uses is pretty hacky.

[ Parent ]
Exactly.
And it's hypocritical for Bowers to blast people who use quick hits to gripe about other members only to turn around and do the exact same thing he's taken others to task for.  He needs to grow up at some point.


[ Parent ]
He was a Hillary supporter
So he obviously doesn't actually care about single-payer. It's pretty obvious that he's just still bitter over the outcome of the primary.
You're just pissed
that Obama pwned you. It's not Lambert's fault. You were used. Face it and move on.
[ Parent ]
PUMAs are so 2008
Get over it.
[ Parent ]
Like I said
You were pwned. Bamboozled. Played. Used. And you know it.
http://www.blogcatalog.com/blo...
[ Parent ]
Bitterness doesn't make anyone look good
Hillary lost the primary fair and square. It's time for you to get over it and move on.
[ Parent ]
Face it
and move on. The administration is not progressive. It is not liberal. It does not even engage in the dreaded triangulation; it's motivated by pure self-interest. Nothing more, nothing less. You should be pissed at Obama, not Lambert.

Denial doesn't help. Play along if you like, but don't trash those who refuse to.

Here's a suggestion:
Admit that you are powerless over Obama and that the situation has become unmanageable. Call him out, not me, not Lambert.

Or continue to be used. Continue to be part of the problem. Give up. Be pwned.
 

[ Parent ]
Look
I know you're upset that you couldn't hand the White House to McCain and Palin out of spite last year, but it's really not healthy to hold a grudge for this long. Hillary lost. Get over it.
[ Parent ]
Hillary lost
McCain/Palin lost. Obama won. You were pwned.  
[ Parent ]
No, you were pwned
You tried to keep Obama out of the White House and failed.

Your candidates lost. It's time to move on.

[ Parent ]
As an unapologetic Kucinich voter, I echo that sentiment.
The Obamabots' reaction to what amounts to, "we told you so," is indeed telling.  If what we've been saying wasn't absolutely true, they wouldn't be reacting with such venom.


[ Parent ]
You don't inspire venom in me
Just amusement. And pity.
[ Parent ]
Funny, I was gonna say the same of you.
Except I don't pity right-wingers like you;  You don't deserve any.


[ Parent ]
Hey Michael
[ Parent ]
A lot of that going around lately

[ Parent ]
single payer now
just like deaf president now.
WTF?
Is there any reason I should care?

If I post enough, will you Quick Hit me, too?

Wish I could give you a 4 for that comment.
This is ridiculous.
[ Parent ]
IF you continue to act like a douche
Then yes.
[ Parent ]
4
[ Parent ]
Well
Lambert the Sheepish Lion is a bit of a douche, so those claims by him shouldn't surprise.
Let's make it a given that present company is excepted.......
I am not accusing you or OpenLeft of anything.  I am just wondering what your opinion of this is?  
bold is all mine...

GLENN GREENWALD: Well, I think one of the most significant issues of the Obama administration has been what role progressives-the progressive infrastructure has played in applying pressure on the Obama administration. One of the very first things that the Obama administration did-and Rahm Emanuel has specialized in trying to control and silence the left; I mean, that's how he built his power base-in the House of Representatives was, they created these weekly meetings called Unity '09 and Common Purpose, where members of all of the allegedly progressive groups devoted to progressive causes meet every week on Tuesday, often with members of the White House communications team, including oftentimes Rahm Emanuel, and they coordinate their messaging. So, instead of being devoted to, for example, pressuring the administration on issues relating to labor or to choice or to gay issues or to war, instead they're coordinating their messaging to insure that their real allegiance is to serve the interest and the agenda of the Obama administration. And it's really enabled the Obama administration to annex large aspects of the progressive infrastructure and to remove what ought to be an important pressure point.

I think they've done the same with lots of progressive pundits, who aren't necessarily attending these meetings, but who have voluntarily ceded their role in the progressive world and in progressive opinion making and activism. And you see this conflict more and more, I think. For example, the Huffington Post had an article critical of the Obama administration, reporting, for example, that they were working behind the scenes, in contrast to what Obama was saying, to sabotage the public option. And you saw in various places, on Daily Kos and others, suddenly declarations that the Huffington Post was suspect, and they were right wing, and they were the enemy, because anyone who reflects negatively on Obama has to be discredited. And I think you see that conflict, and I hope it will continue to grow, because it's healthier than having progressives devote themselves to cheerleading for the President.

You, of course, are not being asked to name names, but in general, do you think their is substantial and or growing truth to what he says?   One can blow off the Huffington Post is a Nazi diary as not a part of the FP; but if the poll in the current diary is correct, I wonder how many of that 40% are insiders deliberately working to neuter dkos.  The scope of the soup donut Nazis stifling criticism and dissent in the diaries, seems to be a whole new phenomena at dkos. I've been there since 04, and I have seen pie fights; but I don't recall anything like this.  Behind the scenes, OTH, I don't have a clue.  Kos may be personally kicking butt.  All I know is that the facade is sure different than it use to be, which could mean - not a thing.



They're asking for another four years -- in a just world, they'd get 10 to 20. ~~ Dennis Kucinich  

it's called "overcoming audience atomization"
don't listen to me, listed to jay rosen.

it's what jay rosen calls overcoming audience atomization. see jay's post, Audience Atomization Overcome: Why the Internet Weakens the Authority of the Press:

Now we can see why blogging and the Net matter so greatly in political journalism. In the age of mass media, the press was able to define the sphere of legitimate debate with relative ease because the people on the receiving end were atomized- meaning they were connected "up" to Big Media but not across to each other. But today one of the biggest factors changing our world is the falling cost for like-minded people to locate each other, share information, trade impressions and realize their number. Among the first things they may do is establish that the "sphere of legitimate debate" as defined by journalists doesn't match up with their own definition.

jay rosen on bill moyers:

BILL MOYERS: One of the subjects not in the debate over health care reform is single-payer. And contrary to what many people think about it being a far left proposal, the polls show that it has substantial support among a large swath of the American people. Many of whom would not call themselves far left.

But Senator Baucus said, its not in the discussion because we've gone too far now to go back and consider single-payer. There it seems to me is a very good example of how a legitimate idea gets delegitimated in the debate between the powers that be.

JAY ROSEN: I think it's a classic example of the real religion of the Washington press, which is savviness. And from a problem-solving point of view, we would certainly want to consider single-payer, because it's an important option in a debate. But from a savvy point of view, the inside players know that single-payer is never going to be the answer. And they're already factoring that into their political calculations about what's likely to result.

Which in a way cuts off the debate that we need to have. And so, the inside players in Washington are able to kind of contain the debate by anticipating the outcome, and then talking about the things that are most likely within that set of assumptions. And this is a normal process in Washington that goes on all the time.

jay rosen interview with glenn greenwald:

Salon Radio: Jay Rosen on the media's control of political debates

How do journalists decide which viewpoints enjoy consensus status, which ones are legitimately debatable, and which ones need not be heard?

And that's why I go, an earlier piece which also talked about in your column, about savviness being the kind of real ideology of Washington journalism - it's not liberal or conservative or even power-worshipping. It's savviness, it's this notion that that might be a good argument, but that's not what the committee is going to do, you know? And this kind of religion of - I call it a religion because it's a faith - that if you're savvy, that you are realistic, and again, you are vulnerable to irresponsible elites when you do that. You can cut yourself off from your naturally constituency which isn't them, but an informed and engaged public.

You don't need to conspire to be a coward.
Maybe if you actually did something to prove people like myself and lambert wrong, you wouldn't feel the need to justify yourself for having compromised on principle.


"Maybe if you actually did something to prove people like myself and lambert wrong"
I wasn't aware that was the purpose of OL.
[ Parent ]
It is you hope to make a case to people.
Really, what has Lambert said that isn't absolutely true?  When was the last time, if ever, Bowers had a front-page piece about single-payer or its advocates that wasn't a snarkfest?  When was the last time, if ever, that Bowers advocated for single-payer - even if only from a starting position from which to bargain down to a strong public option?


[ Parent ]
There comes a point...
...when you realize it's best to pry it out.
[ Parent ]
I'm asking the same questions, Mike
and coming up with pretty much the same answers.
[ Parent ]
if only Lambert had his own (inexplicably oft-visited) blog
where he could post whatever he wanted rather than linger around here and troll people who didn't join him when he went PUMA

if only

[ Parent ]
lol
[ Parent ]
Donate to Open Left







QUICK HITS

Friends of the Earth thanks the OpenLeft community for the ideas you generate and your contributions to the progressive movement.
As an anti-spam measure, there is a 24-hour waiting period after registering before new users can comment.
blog advertising is good for you
blog advertising is good for you
LIBERAL INSTITUTIONS
STATE BLOGS
SEARCH

   

Advanced Search

Home | RSS/XML Feed | Register | Contact

  © OpenLeft 2007-2009, Powered by SoapBlox