People — no one cares about what Jane Hamsher thinks about Obama. So let’s stop discussing that topic.
There is one thing I would like you to do for me, though, you readers of Jane Hamsher and Peter Daou: every time one of them writes about how Bachmann or Perry (or Cain or Santorum) is more serious than people think, is treated unfairly by the press, or about how “you can’t blame voters” for supporting Bachmann or Perry (or Cain or Santorum), I’d like to hear about it in the comments. I find that stuff very amusing.
Gemina13
This sounds like something that’ll require popcorn, crispy fudge, or a full-on barbeque. Count me in. I make a fantastic grilled pork tenderloin.
JenJen
Full moon, DougJ.
But, as a test, do we care about what Joe Scarborough thinks of Sarah Palin AND Barack Obama? ‘Cause this is pretty funny.
Baud
Almost makes me wish I read Jane and Peter.
Warren Terra
It’s this sort of post that makes me wonder what No Quarter and Riverdaughter and their ilk are up to these days. Or at least, wonder about wondering about it; I’m not actually dumb enough to go and look.
Corner Stone
There’s a better statistical chance of my wooing Tricia Helfer than this actually happening here.
Jenny
It won’t be long before Hamsher and Daou pull a full Hitchens and join wingers.
Corner Stone
It’s almost like you’re choosing to incentivize certain people to continue their endless masturbation regarding someone no one here gives a shit about.
Cat Lady
So we don’t care about what Hamsher thinks about Obama, we care what Hamsher thinks about Obama’s potential opponents? Well, that’s totally different then, carry on.
Corner Stone
Pace Jennbot at number 6.
Bruce S
The issue in the previous thread wasn’t about Obama – it was about auditing the Fed. Frankly, I’m not fully up on the particulars of the audit issue – although I’ve long thought the Fed was fucked up, since reading William Grieder’s compelling and well-reasearched book years ago, but when I hear someone called a “cocksucker” for proposing something and then find Chris Hayes considers the issue significant and the proposal positive, and Bernie Sanders is co-sponsoring it, it doesn’t reflect well on the person who’s engaged in crude dismissal based on a grudge.
The FDL link on this post is an example of someone who truly has their head way up beyond their ass. (I’ll admit that I didn’t read but about half, because I consider such morons a waste of time – they are the “seperated at birth” twins of PUMAS who were insignificant irritants of ’08.) But I also know that some of what’s expressed as Hamsher Hate here is equally irrational, in that it spills over onto any questions about the White House agenda or raising of significant issues like Fed transparency, as evidenced by the comment that triggered the go-round in the prior thread.
Hunter Gathers
@Jenny: Hanoi Jane has already joined forces with Grover Norquist once, when they tried to kill HCR, and Daou won’t go full metal winger, he’ll be found dead in his bathroom with slit wrists before that happens. The only thing contained in his suicide note will be ‘Obama sold us out’.
Ian
Do you want us to set up a Hamsher troll scam here? and can we get paid for it??? I would find THAT amusing
Yutsano
:: applauds ::
Three hundred post troll thread done masterfully. Well done DougJ!
danimal
…and I thought Cole had the market cornered on blog self-trolling…
hhex65
Here’s an idea: stop being big, get over being a baby and start debating like a human.
Corner Stone
Man, ICE has seized ilemi ? What a bunch of fucking assholes.
Villago Delenda Est
Hamsher’s alliance the vile sack of neo-feudalist shit that is Grover Norquist should discredit her, for all times, with anyone who imagines themselves to be “liberal” or “progressive”, regardless of what she writes about Obama.
Jeffro
If someone gives T-Paw the quiet rogering that he has coming, do you want to hear about that too?
http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/right-turn/post/michele-bachmann-wins-big/2011/03/29/gIQA9JMvDJ_blog.html?hpid=z3
Shorter Rubin: Pawlenty’s “shot his wad” just ahead of Santorum.
I didn’t know you could put stuff like that in a family newspaper…
cmorenc
@DougJ:
If you don’t give a shit about what Hamsher etc. have to say, why then do you want us to repeat what they say in the comments for your amusement? I’m not going to waste my time sifting through Hamsher and the firebaggers’ ramblings simply in hopes of coming across some nuggets others might find amusing.
Drive By Wisdom
Cannot blame a voter if he finds Bachmann more serious than a President who summers in the Hamptons. Massive deficits, high unemployment, what change is in store for us next?
dr. bloor
@Baud:
Me too.
No, not really.
Yutsano
@Drive By Wisdom: Oops. Troll geography fail.
TK421
@Cat Lady:
Also, Jane Hamsher once joined forces with a right-winger, so she’s the Devil. But president Obama joins forces with right-wingers all the time, which makes him a saint.
dr. bloor
@Jeffro:
If you’re going to talk about Santorum, it’s pretty hard to keep “shot your wad” out of the conversation.
Dennis SGMM
Can we also eschew giving a flying fuck about what Andrew Sullivan thinks about any fucking thing?
kwAwk
Ms. Hamsher really gets under your skin doesn’t she?
kwAwk
@Dennis SGMM:
And Megan McArdle too?
The Sheriff's A Ni-
If it wasn’t a Saturday night, this thread would’ve already hit the moon.
curious
i think you should be dougj mcgirt next.
eemom
oh REALLY. As opposed to the HORDES of people who care about what fucking Megan McArdle and Andrew Sullivan think, to which YOU alone have devoted enough posts to consume eleventy gazillion internets.
Pot? Kettle. How ya doin.
Dennis SGMM
@kwAwk:
Oh God yes. Why do we persist in shooting sitting ducks?
Bruce S
I really wish Hamsher was spelled with a “c” – “i” – “a” -“l” – “i” – “s” – like that “S” word that is all over Tea Party signs but you can’t get in a comment here without excruciating work-arounds.
It’d improve the blog
Southern Beale
Speaking of fucking amusing, this photo of Michele Bachmann eating a foot-long corn dog? Umm … yeahh.
gbear
Here we are now. Entertain us.
Jewish Steel
Stop thinking about pink elephants post.
Heh heh. Good one.
General Stuck
For people who say they don’t give a shit about Hamsher, some of you get mighty defensive and concerned with those who point out her douchebaggery.
The way I look at it, anyone who gets themselves on national teevee on a regular basis, and purports to speak for the “progressive” or “liberal” community as a whole, is fair game to attack morning noon and night, when you are a Obama supporter of his reelection, and Jane Hamsher, or for that matter Greenwald or any of the other grifter asswipes claiming to represent the dem base, are working against that Obama reelection. Anyone who doesn’t like that, can just grim and bear it.
I don’t like people speaking for me on teevee, when they don’t share my goals in politics. And it makes no never mind whether they have a D by their name or not. And the whiny ass blog scolds on this blog these days, lookin at you Bruce S, on what is and what is not worth the discussing, will just have to make do with the rest of us not seeing your viewpoint of what is relevant, or worthy of talking about.
Don’t know why I care still, this will be a full firebagger blog, instead of half a one, the closer we get to the election. You lilliputians need to talk about what you want to talk about, and the rest of us will do the same.
Cole should have a bigger supply of fainting hankies with this bunch.
Bruce S
Actually “eemom”, “HORDES” of people actually are exposed to McArdle (in her absurd and unfortunate perch as the Biz and Econ editor of one of America’s “great magazines”) and Sullivan because he previously shared that masthead and is now a featured writer at Tina Brown’s Next Big Deal. I could pick out a couple of folks among – for example of a group that is semi-random, but real – the numbers stored on my cellphone who would know who I was referencing if I mentioned Sullivan or McArdle beause they read semi-mainstream “middle-brow” media. Pretty sure none of them would have a clue if I mentioned Hamsher. She’s big among obsessives of various stripes – normal people, not so much.
Jewish Steel
@Southern Beale:
Mrs Polly, blingee master edition.
Derf
What I find amusing is that some people around here think I am a troll but think the Hamsher mouth breathers and various other posters who only post bad things about Obama/Dems are serious posters.
Ripley
Self-trolling? Winning!
gbear
Smells like troll spirit.
Jeffro
@dr. bloor: I think she slipped and couldn’t help herself…Dan Savage’s powers are vast and mysterious.
a hip hop artist from Idaho (fka Bella Q)
And what if we are not amused? What then?
Belafon (formerly anonevent)
@General Stuck:
Or on newspapers, or in blogs. Opinions should never include the word we unless written by two or more people.
Yutsano
@Ripley: I personally think this post is masterful. Especially when DougJ all but announces that’s what he’s doing here. And the bait is still snapped up. Awesomeness.
Big Baby DougJ
@kwAwk:
No, not at all. Peter Daou does, though.
Southern Beale
@Jewish Steel:
Dang. She’s just asking to be mocked. She’s begging for it.
Belafon (formerly anonevent)
@Bruce S: Except she gets on TV, “representing” the left.
Omnes Omnibus
@Southern Beale: Some foods should not be eaten in public by public figures.
Big Baby DougJ
@eemom:
I link to Sullivan much less than John does.
Anyway,
@Bruce S:
I try not to believe anyone cares what McMegan thinks, but I know a lot of people that listen to that “Marketplace” show that she’s on.
Joel
@Jeffro: Rubin is useless scum. Breivik proved that to the world.
Bruce S
General Stuck – that was a fine whine. Discuss whatever the hell you find interesting. As will I.
I do find it hilarious that I’m a scold and you’re very serious in offering up “concern troll” crap about “Don’t know why I still care, but this will be a full firebagger blog, instead of a half one, the closer we get to the election.” Well get out your fainting hanky, and up the volume on that whine. And shove the “firebagger” for anyone who doesn’t share your particular brand of political purity up your ass.
You’ve shifted into near-total moron.
Jewish Steel
@Southern Beale:
titters
Southern Beale
Wonkette had fun with that Michele Bachmann sucking a corn dog photo too….
Southern Beale
@Omnes Omnibus:
You’d think someone … Marcus perhaps … would have told her no to do it.
Heliopause
We don’t care what Jane Hamsher thinks, but we care about what Janet Rhodes thinks? Has Balloon Juice really devolved to this?
ChrisNYC
I tried to read the screed linked but failed. You know what the prof left’s problem is? They expected Obama to follow orders. Sorry for the flame aspect but, having been a rampant consumer of the vitriol, it’s the only conclusion I can reach. They looked past the very transparent presentation he made as a candidate and thought (sorry, for the incendiariness, because he’s black) that they could boss him around. By way of comparison, think back to B. Clinton. Would *anyone* particularly any Dem have thought they could hijack Clinton’s agenda? No. Not in a million years. Unthinkable. I’m an Obot but one thing I absolutely love about the guy is that he says, “I won the office and I’m not letting other people define it for me/ tell me what to do.”
PS: It’s been an education. Seeing people refusing to give him (sorry) the powers of the office and thinking they can set his agenda. It’s where we are as a country. Some of our fellow liberals/Dems, have, from the start decided that they won’t follow the black guy. Won’t cede to him what he won fair and square. Again, sorry if this makes people crazy. I’ve paid attention, and it’s what I think.
Corner Stone
@Belafon (formerly anonevent):
Yeah, sure she does. Her and Cronkite, on the nightly.
Omnes Omnibus
@Southern Beale: It should be like the foods you don’t order on first dates, you know, common knowledge.
Achrachno
Seems like no one wants to check in at FDL. Well, I just did. It’s a site I’ve seldom visited but often see mentioned here. What’s the problem exactly? Is this something historical — groups have formed and are feuding over past slights and missteps? I read several posts and found them to be generally unobjectionable. I even found one by the dreaded Hamsher and couldn’t get too mad about that either. It seemed reasonable too, even if some might disagree. Here’s what I read from her:
http://fdlaction.firedoglake.com/2011/08/13/the-transpartisan-imperative/
Have we formed one of those famous liberal circular firing squads? Is there no hope of a negotiated settlement? Shouldn’t we be trying to win the larger battles?
I suppose I’m missing something, or am just ignorant of some past really big issue that can never be forgotten or forgiven. Probably the trying to work with certain right-wing cretins on shared interests issue.
Jewish Steel
Yeah, totally. If I was a campaign manager I would ban my candidate from eating in public.
gbear
If John Cole hasn’t totally abandoned us for the twitters, he’s going to be posting soon with a link to the funniest story I’ve seen all day.
burnspbesq
You want to be amused? Go find the photos of Richard Thompson in a morning coat and top hat and Annie Lennox in a formal dress for their OBE investiture Buckingham Palace. Two fish very much out of water …
Quiddity
There once was a guy named Pawlenty;
thought that Ames was the optimal entry,
for a race to the top,
but it turned out a flop,
now he’ll never be head of this country.
Bruce S
“@Bruce S: Except she gets on TV, ‘representing’ the left.”
Shocking – some self-annointed, half-baked, self-righteous pundit nobody gives a shit about or knows where they came from actually gets on TV. Just don’t try to convince me that Hamsher has even reached “recognizable” among that gaggle of morons. There are several dozen folks I’ve basically never heard of in any other contexgt speaking as Democratic or Republican “consultants”, and whose names I can’t (refuse to?) remember – but I see them on my TeeVee far more often than Hamsher. I can actually only remember seeing Hamsher once or twice – and I watch a fair amount of MSNBC. She truly is fodder for a certain kind of obsessive.
As for Greenwald, in no sense am I “aligned” with him and I find him sort of prickly and professional-pain-in-the-ass, but I think he’s a valuable gadfly commentator. Anyone who would want to shut down Greenwald’s critiques has the mentality of a petty party brown-shirt. Debate Greenwald and push back both on the policy substance of his arguments where he over-reaches and – generally more to the point – his starched, too-pristine version of the politics, but don’t think that name-calling or umbrage about the 2012 election has even an ounce of credibility in countering his arguments, except among people who either aren’t very intelligent or who are so knee-jerk partisan that they don’t matter. Peevish shit like the weak offerings of General Stuck only make a critic like Greenwald seem more plausible.
(edited for clarity – I need to go and start my evening drinking to clear my head – Bulliet has a new rye whiskey out that I highly recommend. The same cool Deadwood bottle, with a green rather than orange label.)
datarat
@ChrisNYC: This…exactly.
PeakVT
@kwAwk: McAddled may have nothing useful to say, whether is about business and economics or the evolution of kitchen design, but she is almost a perfect example of someone dishonest and ignorant being promoted because they spew a right-wing line. She’s worth highlighting as an example of this phenomenon.
Warren Terra
@Southern Beale:
Yeah, rather disturbing picture (it helps that in addition to the obvious symbolism, the photographer caught a truly horrid contortion of her face).
But did you notice this part?
Damn creeping Sharia. Doesn’t she know that any Real American would have proven their American-ness by going for the all-pork Kielbasa? Or maybe that other all-American choice, the scrumptious bacon-wrapped all-pork Bratwurst?
ETA
@Southern Beale:
Dammit, don’t you read your own hyperlink?
Make your own Wifely Submission and Anti-Ghey therapy jokes, please.
Omnes Omnibus
@burnspbesq: I remember how uncomfortable Bob Geldof looked when he was knighted.
srv
@Belafon (formerly anonevent):
And no doubt the token “liberals” that serve as whipping posts on Hannity and Fox News panels represent mainstream Obamabots.
danimal
@Southern Beale: Top this, Snowbilly Snooki!
Michele! just won the Starbursts primary.
agrippa
I have no interest in Hamsher. I have no more reason to have an interest in Hamsher than I have for George Will. Neither one have any sense.
Amir Khalid
@Jewish Steel:
Or at least from eating those things, or any food item of similar shape, in public.
General Stuck
@Bruce S:
Great, the I’m rubber and you’re glue response.
It is like when racists call those who point out racist behavior as also being racist. You spend half your time on this blog whining about how we’re doing it all wrong in your elevated opinion of discourse on this blog. Pointing that out is not whining, it is pointing out whining.
Firebagging has nothing to do with political purity, it has to do with “don’t blow smoke up my ass and tell me it’s raining”. Which is what we get by a non stop stream of bullshit slung at the dem president, on a dem blog. It means not being able to back up what you allege.
I’m not the one whining that Jane Hamsher shouldn’t be debated on this blog, or any other person or topic. That would be you.
Southern Beale
@Warren Terra:
Yeah I did read it actually. Marcus eating that corn dog would have been the money shot.
Jewish Steel
@burnspbesq: I’d pegged RT as more of a republican. Guess I was wrong.
@Amir Khalid: Bratwurst, bananas. Out of the question.
Oh, and dicks too. No public felatio. Bad optics, yo.
agrippa
@ChrisNYC:
I agree with what you wrote.
Obama has wit and wisdom that people like Hamsher can ever hope to have.
Southern Beale
Well that photo is now EVERYWHERE. Look for it on the Daily Show and Colbert Report.
I’m sure we’ll all get to hear what big, fat meanies the evul libruls are for making fun of Michele Bachmann for doing something worth mocking.
But you know, anyone who dares say one word about how mean liberals are for this can have a steaming cup of STFU with a side of this photo. And the Dukkakis/helmet photo. And this photo of Obama.
And on … and on …
Omnes Omnibus
@Jewish Steel: In some ways, getting an MBE or OBE for services to the arts is a lot like the Kennedy Center Honors here.
aisce
@ stuck
how many times are you going to threaten to run away from home now? you’re like a preschooler. only because this is the internet, you don’t have to feel the humiliation and panic of seeing nobody running out to get you when you round the block with your little knapsack, and so you keep doing this fucking act over and over and over and over.
just shut up already. you’re never leaving. we aren’t that lucky.
Warren Terra
@Southern Beale:
Well, if you had noticed that Marcus had signally failed to dissuade her from accommodating the impressive wiener in her mouth, you should have made this clear. Or at least said that you thought he had a therapy program that could help her fight those urges.
Unless – distressing thought – maybe the biting down and chewing is part of the therapy program?
Sly
@Bruce S, 10
Bernie Sanders wants an audit of the Fed because he wants to know who they made loan guarantees to in order to highlight it as an issue of social justice, i.e. “This bank got a whole lot of money from the Fed but keeps paying out huge bonuses and has an ever decreasing Federal tax liability, etc.” Jim DeMint wants an audit of the Fed because he sees that as political leverage against further quantitative easing; he wants the economy nice and shitty going into 2012. Ron Paul wants to audit the Fed because he thinks such a thing will expose the institution as a group of shadowy Freemasons or Bilderbergers or Satanic Jews or whatever, and the public will rise up and righteously smite them like in some Alex Jones / Turner Diaries fantasy.
Not sure what reason Hamsher has for supporting it, and I don’t have the patience to wade through that site to find it. I’m simply content in the knowledge that there are a multitude of reasons why someone would want an audit of the Federal Reserve, ranging from the positive to the nefarious to the moronically paranoid, and… well… I’ll just say that Ms. Hamsher’s reputation precedes her.
Biff Longbotham
Apropos of nothing, I am thankful for Peter Daou for introducing me to this blog. He did the pre “War Room” blog on Salon where he culled quotes from lefty and righty blogs. This was back in the day before the scales had fallen off Cole’s eyes. But even in wingnut mode, I recognized him as a talent worth reading, even if not agreeing with his viewpoint. So, thank you Peter Daou!
General Stuck
@Bruce S:
LOL quite a rant. Of course you don’t really care about Greenwald or Hamsher, that is why you lose your shit, like with this comment, defending them against “peevish shits” like moi. You are a clown, trying to cast yourself as some kind of master of elevated debate, when in reality, you’re just another major asshole like the rest of us on this blog.
But carry on there Obi Wan. This is somewhat entertaining watching yer head explode, here in the land of hot air.
Jewish Steel
@Omnes Omnibus: I see that he is now ‘Sir.’ I didn’t think the OBE came with knighthood, but I don’t know.
Didn’t John Lennon give his back?
General Stuck
@aisce:
Some day my hope for you is you learn to understand what you read. I said nothing about leaving BJ, but your addled brain apparently can’t tell the difference.
Bruce S
I am very close to having a conspiracy theory about the self-acknowleged neo-con who publishes the Atlantic (Bennet? not sure) having come up with fairly clever method of giving some utterly bankrupt “journalists” who he’s aligned with ideologically credibility they probably couldn’t garner elsewhere by mixing them in with some others who are actually good writers with journalistic integrity. Getting The Atlantic is like subscribing to two magazines – one of which totally sucks and the other which is worth a read. Maybe I’m paranoid, but I think it’s a strategy on the part of a douche-bag publisher. (Actually TNR is sort of like that as well, but I’ve got a better handle on the trajectory of that mess than I do on The Atlantic, which I didn’t read for years until I got hooked on Fallows and, now, Coates.)
I also hate that Aspen Ideas Festival crap. It’s for people who think Thomas Friedman is one of America’s foremost intellectuals. (Now if you want to talk about douchebags all over my TeeVee pretending to speak for some utterly daft version of “liberal opinion,” I’m willing to spend the rest of the evening pissing on that clown. He actually does get “hordes” of attention for nonsense about needing a “Third Party” challenge. I think it’s all gasbaggery, but more than a few presumed “serious” people read and discuss that guy’s crap.)
Omnes Omnibus
@Jewish Steel: An OBE does not come with a knighthood; it is two steps below it in the Order of the British Empire.
The Beatles, IIRC, received MBEs, one step below the OBE, and Lennon returned his because of his disgust with British conduct wrt Biafra.
Ronbo
I love Hamsher and Daou. They think, they don’t follow.
Many here are just following the trojan-horse down to the fuck Social Security parade. I hope you don’t screw it up for all of us when we realize that road apples are all that Obama is leaving for the “little people” who actually pay taxes.
My paycheck takes money out for “social security”. Why does this government steal that to pay for the neverending wars and tax cuts for the non-“job creators”? Followers don’t think and thinkers don’t follow.
Thoughtful Black Co-Citizen
Fixellated.
Dennis SGMM: I’ll drink to that.
aisce
@ stuck
you “don’t care” about balloon juice in the same way bruce s. doesn’t care about jane hamsher.
you two dipshits are made for each other.
Bruce S
General Stuck – “you lose your shit”
Sorry pal. I’ve hardly lost my shit. And if you want the definition of “head exploding” the comment by one of your flaky comrades that I originally pushed back on was the dictionary definition. “Someone I hate said something! Doesn’t matter what they said – just matters that I hate their guts!”
The only reason I’m aware of you is because you have, literally, “lost your shit” with me – seems now like serially – in some weak-ass name-calling when I made what can certainly pass muster in these threads as substantive comments that had a point beyond being spittle-inflected.
Unfortunately, when a character like you “loses your shit” you lose everything. It’s pretty much all you’ve got.
Bruce S
aisce – I really DON’T care about Jane Hamsher. What I DO care about is the “Firebagger” name-calling whenever White House politics are considered here beyond drawing infantile lines in the sandbox. It’s tired.
That’s the fucking truth. That’s the kind of “dipshit” I actually happen to be. Get your dipshit categories right. That’s all I ask – one prickly asshole to another…
Ronbo
Bruce S is off his meds again. He is back on his hate-wagon. Or did he fall off the wagon again and again and again.
General Stuck
@aisce:
Gawd, you are dense. What I said
Are we sniffing glue tonight aisce. Where saying I care still, is saying “don’t care” . Not knowing why does not change the fact you are a reading comp challenged gadfly.
bob_is_boring
@Dennis SGMM:
Fuck and yes.
General Stuck
@Bruce S:
Dude, your near complete lack of self awareness is an awesome thing.
Jenny
@Southern Beale:
http://3.bp.blogspot.com/-k22dbmKa0CQ/TkX2zh2n6zI/AAAAAAAABTQ/oo_2Xn9YNPw/s1600/article-0-0D69133800000578-856_468x336.jpg
He sucks at fellatio.
bob_is_boring
@Dennis SGMM:
“Can we also eschew giving a flying fuck about what Andrew Sullivan thinks about any fucking thing?”
Fuck and yes. Jebus H. Vishnu.
Jewish Steel
Omnes: MBEs. Yes, that was it!
Remind me never to take you on in a trivia contest.
Bruce S
#81 – Sly. Believe it or not, I understand the complexities of some of the alliance involved. That’s worth discussing – but not as much as the merits of an audit that can only be achieved by an alliance of the “gadflies” at left and right. Linking to such a discussion as evidence of someone being a cocksucker strikes me as reinforcing the reputation of the commenter I responded to as being knee-jerk and shallow.
Now, in response to Ronbo’s concerns, I really am going to go have that drink. This has been less than wonderful time spent in what’s alloted to me on this earth. Unfortunately, I’m a very imperfect person. If my wife weren’t away on a visit my worst tendencies to engage inconsequential shit on the internet would be under better control. Hers.
steve herl
If you believe in the “It’s the Economy Stupid” principle and you’re a progressive then it’s probably time to think about where you want to deploy your time and money for 2012. If you’re a high roller, put your money on M Bachman…there may be a slight chance Obama can beat her. The safer bet is to try to help Mitts block Perry. Not to get all racialist but I don’t see how Obama can beat a white guy when the unemployment rate is 13 to 15% and the Dow is in the tank.
Bruce S
Gen Stuck – anyone here is welcome to check comment #92 to gauge my lack – or not – of self-awareness. And certainly relative to yours…
Omnes Omnibus
@Jenny:
Isn’t that rather the point?
Gemina13
I should really read this blog more often. The pie fights are almost as entertaining as those on DKos.
So . . . anyone up for fudge? No? How about bananas?
Quiddity
@Bruce S: I agree that there’s something suspect about the Atlantic’s stable of writers. McArdle (aka Jane Galt) has no business writing about business.
As to the New Republic, as a long time occasional reader of that magazine, it seems to have gotten much better in the last year or two. I think Marty Peretz’s retreat from running it makes a big difference. It was pretty good in the mid ’80s, then went weird in the ’90’s (edited by Sullivan, Kelly, Lane). Beinart was meh. Foer and Just seem to have brought it closer to its original liberal roots. Still has some neocon inclinations about the Middle East, but is very good at debunking the right-wing thinktankers. Unapologetic Keynesians, which is in short supply these days.
But yes, McArdle at the Atlantic is a glaring flaw.
Mark S.
@Jenny:
Dear God, no wonder he has to pray away the gay. He’d be a total failure at it.
Michele, on the other hand, looks like she knows her way around a corndog.
Ian
@ChrisNYC:
Not sure if im troll feeding, but those of us in OFA were taking orders, not the other way around. We have a right to criticize, since we will be doing the trench work again next time around. Will you be knocking on doors in 2012, or are you all talk?
General Stuck
@Bruce S:
That they can. That they can
@Bruce S:
My my, thou protests a bit too much. Nobody cares that you care about that. just sayin…
hilts
Salud DougJ,
Now go home and get your fucking shinebox.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2oP1NMB_I0s
guckertgannon
@Southern Beale: That photo is scary brilliant in terms of political optics…much worse than Mike Dukakis in a tank.
Sly
@Bruce S:
Working with someone of a different ideological persuasion in order to achieve a mutually shared goal is one thing. Working with someone who wants something completely different then you, but there is some procedural overlap in terms of the process the two of you are using (in order to ultimately, I repeat, go in opposite directions) is quite another.
Ron Paul wants to get rid of fractional reserve banking. That’s, like, his thing, man. And he’s parasitically using resentment of financial institutions to move forward on that goal. I seriously doubt anyone with liberal or left-leaning credentials and/or goals would want the same thing. Same goes for DeMint. The alliance isn’t complicated, the alliance is stupid; it ultimately demands that every faction stab each other in the back at some point, and does so openly. How’s that supposed to work?
Not to mention the fact that the conspiracy-minded elements of said alliance is pointing to the Fed’s resistance to an audit as evidence that their specific paranoid fantasies are actually real conspiracies. The whole thing is just ridiculously pathological.
Danny
@Bruce S:
If Jane Hamsher has a problem with being called Firebagger/Emobagger/Nutroot/Magical Progressive/Whatever why doesn’t Jane choose a name that suits her, but is descriptive and fair.
The reason for those labels is because Jane’s been trying to steal the “progressive”, “liberal” and “the left” labels for herself and been trying to make out people who dont agree with her to be “centrists”.
But that’s wrong.
As everybody should know by now ~80-90% of liberal democrats consistently supported Obama up until now (Gallup). So the Emobaggers don’t represent “liberals” or “progressives”. Only a small minority of “progressives” are spending their time online advocating Obama as the great satan. And far from every Emoprogger is even a progressive. Some of them are just Op Chaos:ers, PUMAs and conservadems.
So these unfortunate names the Emobagger crowd’s been picking up, they brought them on themselves – by trying to steal the “progressive” label from the mainstream (and eventually soil it with their clownish antics), and by ranting and bitching and being annoying assholes.
If they don’t like the meanies, how about shaping the f-ck up? (You know, in much the same way as how if you dont like being called a Teajihadist, one solution is to stop acting like a jerk, get off the kool aid, and start listening to other people.)
eemom
I’m back. (Went off to watch the new Jane Eyre movie with my mother: quite good.) Hope I haven’t fallen TOO far behind on the Breaking News here.
Lyrebird
@General Stuck: Hey General! Thanks for sounding reasonable… though rilly I think the most clear difference in self-awareness in this thread comes from that handy link from Jenny (97)…
I’ll disagree w/Omnes and Mark S. — I don’t think we’re getting a fair skill evaluation. I think that Marcus has more self-awareness than Michele, and he actually realizes that he’s being offered a chance to chomp on the biggest phallickiest thing in the fair with a million cameras at the ready. She on the other hand shows no embarrassment whatsoever!
This has been your late-to-the-game random tangent contribution courtesy of the letter B.
Best regards!
Liberty60
@Jeffro:
FTW
Odie Hugh Manatee
If I remember correctly, it was an FDL member who coined the term “firebagger” at FDL. I could be wrong but I seem to remember that was how the term was coined.
If the foo shits, wear it. Especially if you put it on in the first place. ;)
Omnes Omnibus
@Odie Hugh Manatee: If the foo shits, you’re cleaning it up. I never want that filthy thing around here to begin with.
Danny
@Odie Hugh Manatee:
That settles it. IMHO, “firebagger” is both descriptive and fair. “Emobagger” for the fellow travellers who dont necessarily frequent FDL.
William Hurley
Hamsher and those who contribute to FDL posting perspectives casting negative light on the President are – essentially – irrelevant. The question behind the matter of the negativity they express, which I’ll readily confess I share, comes down to some very plain facts that must – yes, must – be debated within the “left” (as it is) if the self-representational functions of democracy are to be realized. In the absence of that exchange – heated, friendly or otherwise – the entire exercise becomes one of ceding individual sovereignty as a “demos” in favor of a subject beholden to in-group presumptions and the resulting anointment of leaders and leadership.
For the moment, I’ll side-step a soliloquy on policy and the politics of achieving policy goals. What I will put forward is this; certain facts of this moment and of the moments preceding this that – under reasonable assemblage – give the very strong suggestion that the President is not re-electable. Some of those facts are:
– 17% of Americans are either unemployed or underemployed.
– 9.2% unemployment rate is an increase not….
– 25% more US homeowners are in arrears on their mortgages than in the months preceding the housing “crash”
– Wages & salaries for income earners bringing home less than $85l/yr continue to lose ground against inflation.
– 1,000,000+ immigrants have been summarily deported, more than under any prior Administration.
– Healthcare reform that was poorly constructed rehash of the model the GOP itself proposed several years ago.
– Americans over 50 have lost between 25% – 50% of their retirement savings, and have not recouped those loses.
– On-going wars in Iraq, Afghanistan & Pakistan with the additions of Yemen, Libya, Somalia, ….
– Cost of above wars during Obama’s tenure >$1.5 trillion
– Continued advocacy for Rhee-esque, Charter School alternatives regardless of multiple highly visible failures and rampant corruption.
– Persistent disinterest in the standing of unions and unionized workers.
and this is the short list.
Obama’s not only embraced the terrifying policies that Bush/Cheney institutionalized under the rubric of “Unitary Executive” authority, he and his senior advisors have radically expanded upon this implicit rewrite of major portions of the Constitution.
All of these are internal issues that people who consider themselves to be Democrats, liberals, lefties or a DFH should be willing and eager to debate. Some of these issues are within immediate and/or largely controllable purview of the President and majority party, but most aren’t. Still, responsibility and the opportunity to set effective policy courses across the range of Executive branch reach remains with the sitting President.
Has Obama been the beneficiary of unwavering GOP obstruction. So too was Clinton – to the point of actual impeachment hearings and an impeachment trial. Intransigence and obstruction are the GOP’s singular posture regarding any Democratic Party efforts. Making a issue of their current version of douchebaggery is legitimate – to a point. After that “point”, it becomes decidedly whiny and is a “tell” to the electorate that your opposition has the better of you.
Hamsher and her flock may and often do beat the drums loudly. They do so, I believe (a belief born of reading and commenting “over there”), because each contributor is writing from a point of frustration and lament at each opportunity misplayed, under-realized or simply lost.
25+ million un/under-employed Americans know some of these facts, some less than that. The one thing each and every one of them knows is that their work situation and the lives they and their families are now living haven’t measurably improved in the last 36 months. The other thing they know is that those prospects don’t appear to be headed for a reversal anytime soon.
FlipYrWhig
@William Hurley: There’s internal debate, and then there’s all the crazy-ass theoretical constructs for why Obama can’t/won’t do the Right Thing. Much of that involves willful disregard for the fact that a minority party really has had this much power to bring things to a standstill all along, but never dared, because they used to fear looking bad because of it, and (at least for the moment) this particular minority party doesn’t fear that anymore.
And that has to be part of the vibrant discussion you say you crave: an awareness of what _can_ be done with the pieces currently on the board, including _many more_ non-liberals than liberals within the Democratic party itself. Would that it weren’t so. But denying it thwarts the possibility of coming up with soliloquies on policy and politics that ring true.
The Raven
I can’t think of a time when Hamsher has done that. If, after 120 messages, no-one has provided a cite, I think it’s likely that she never has. She has also opposed primarying Obama though, to be fair to your side, it is largely because she doesn’t see a credible opponent. No idea about Daou.
The closest thing I can think of is the remark, from what source I do not remember (it wasn’t Hamsher), to the effect that the public voted against permanent war and authoritarianism in 2008, and they did it again in 2010.
BTW, read historian Tim Burke’s comparison of Obama with James Buchanan, if you haven’t already. Post.
Danny
@William Hurley:
I agree in general that firebagger nonsense gets in the way of serious, important dialogue that we need to have. Firebagger nonsense, and other nonsense, e.g. your nonsense.
If you wish to be taken seriously start with being serious instead of posting a laundry list of various concern trolling. Some examples:
– You cant fairly discuss Iraq, Afghanistan and Libya without acknowledging that Iraq is being wound down by Obama; there’s a deal in place to hand over Afghanistan by 2014; we don’t have any actual troops in Libya and the cost is a fraction of Iraq and Afghanistan. By november 2012 US troops deployed in war zones will be much fewer than they were in november 2008.
Not saying you dont get to be sick and tired of the endless wars or critical of the Afghani surge or Libya – but you got to start out being fair about the facts as a minimal requirement when discussing our own team; if you can’t or won’t you’re not worth my time.
– Healthcare reform taxes the rich and pays for single payer for 10 million (medicaid), and HCI insurance subsidies for an additional 25 million. Those people get no help today, and their financial situation will be vastly improved when those provisions goes into effect in 2014. That’s the big transfer of wealth from the rich to the poor and working middle class we’re all asking for. Furthermore it includes loads of strict regulation of the private HCI business where their administrative costs are capped, they’re forbidden to refuse sick customers, etc, etc. From a progressive viewpoint the PPACA is an improvement on Status Quo in every single way (except possibly the mandate which is arguable in the context of a progressive worldview).
Whether some republicans once – in another era and another political fight – pushed one or two of the policies that ended up in PPACA is neither here nor there; the right question is whether it’s better and more progressive than what we have now.
A reasonable progressive critique of PPACA acknowledges the good it does but discusses whether the individual mandate is fair. Or something…
– The unemployment and housing troubles were caused by the biggest recession since the 30s. The recession was caused by a financial crisis that was caused by the Reagan revolution in the 1980s and the conservative congress of 1994-1998. The recovery was then weakened by the 2010 midterms and resulting teaparty austerity implemented on the state level while congressional republicans obstructed further recovery measures on the federal level.
A reasonable progressive criticism from the left acknowledges all that and offers constructive ideas on how we best fight against all that. In the end we may still not disagree, but at least we’ll respect each other. Reasonable progressive critics doesnt just drop the mess that Obama’s been unfortunate to inherit in his lap and pitch the preferred conservative narrative that he owns all of it. There are others to do that job.
– Unitary Executive, well you got to get to the specifics. There’s probably a reasonable case from civil libertarians w/r/t some tactics originally implemented as part of the so called GWOT. But a fair criticism acknowledges Obama ending US torture policy, trying to close Gitmo (but getting shot down by republicans and congress), running a generally extraordinarily transparent and clean shop – perhaps the least secretive and scandal prone White House in a century. Maybe he didnt drag Bush and Cheney to court, maybe he let some things slide, and maybe he kept to some of the counterterrorism measures that are murky re: our civil liberties. But he cleaned out the filth and by all appearances is doing a historically excellent job of keeping our government honest and our public informed.
Without balance, criticism from the left that doesnt rise above hit-job isn’t worthy of discussion. That’s not opening up a dialogue, that’s just friendly fire and pissing inside the tent.
You propose – as others also have done – that unemployment, war and other calamities inevitably affect the mood of the country in general also including the progressive base, and that that in the end also will determine Obama’s success. And all that is true.
But that’s a piss poor excuse for why highly energized, informed progressive grassroots should spend their time fanning the flames. You shouldn’t. You should spend your time being fair, giving props where they are due, and when you feel you have to speak up about something, speak on topic, on the merits and be prepared to listen.
NobodySpecial
Has Stuck threatened us with another vacation yet? Maybe he can get Matoko to cover for him. She’ll have to agree to using smaller English words, though, so it might be tough.
kay
Grover Norquist’s organization, Americans for Tax Reform, served as a conduit for funds that were used in the course of the unlawful and secret activities conducted during the Abramoff scandal/campaign. This was revealed in Senate testimony, and was widely reported.
That’s one example of Grover Norquist’s commitment to transparency and the rule of law in government. There are many, many others.
He’s a crook.
That’s why Jane Hamsher’s pointing to him as someone with whom anyone, anywhere should form an alliance to promote “transparency and the rule of law” is a joke.
Does she not know this? Or is she simply pretending his long record of involvement in illegality and efforts to conceal US government actions from ordinary people doesn’t exist?
Because it goes all the way back to his work with Oliver North.
Norquist is a crook. People’s objection to him isn’t “tribal”. People object to him because they’re well-informed regarding his long, long really sordid history.
kay
This is our stalwart ally in transparency and the rule of law in government? Please. Don’t make me laugh. He’s a crook, and he’s always been a crook.
kay
Here’s the argument. Norquist is a crook. He’s opposed to transparency and the rule of law in government. I know this because of his actions over 3 decades, where he subverted transparency and the rule of law in government to achieve his political and ideological ends.
That’s rational. It’s not “tribal”.
Odie Hugh Manatee
If Calamity Jane would ever accept that she could possibly be wrong about something then we could have that discussion. Your quotes kill any argument that she has that would legitimize her banding together with Grover but I bet she would be quick to disagree with your quotes. Jane needs to feed her throng so that they will feed her cash to live on. IMO, that’s the only reason why she was so quick to pair up with that asshole Norquist.
Jane don’t care about transparency one bit. That’s how she makes money. Fools and their money are soon parted and Jane has surrounded herself with fools.
She’s no fool, she just thinks she is fooling everyone.
WereBear
I think Jane Hamsher is doing what the right does all the time… only on the supposed “Left” side.
But in each case it is telling the logic-challenged what they want to hear. And since what they want is so outlandish is will be unlikely to actually happened, the crazies turn into cash cows.
So it’s no wonder she teams with Norquist: birds of a feather.
Omnes Omnibus
@kay: I think you have really hit on the nub of the problem here. There is a huge difference between working with someone like Norquist, who is not only a crook but also a a professional political operative, and working on civil liberties, for example, with someone like Bob Barr, who is really on the correct side on that issue even one would disagree with him almost everything else.
Carbon Dated
you have, literally, “lost your shit” with me
Eww. We didn’t need to hear that. It literally made me puke a little bit.
Kay
@Omnes Omnibus:
Thanks. It bothers me that we’re not drawing this distinction. There is also a huge difference between Norquist endorsing or backing a policy or position, and working with Norquist on something.
He has ethical problems. Not mentioning those huge ethical problems almost seems unfair to the people who don’t have a 30 year history of really shady dealings. Particularly if we’re talking about “transparency and the rule of law”. Those aren’t just words. They’re actions. And Norquist isn’t credible on those issues, because of his own history.
Danny
@WereBear:
Find me one example of a prominent movement conservative in full out war, spending all his / her resources on attacking a republican President in office and I’ll buy that. I’d wager you’ll have to go back to the Birchers – and WFB helped kick them out of movement conservatism when they went after Ike.
Say what you will about conservatives, but their guys running the show aint stupid enough to allow fifth columners like Hamsher a platform. They spend their time and money attacking us.
WereBear
@Danny: Sorry: maybe I didn’t make clear I was referring to Hamsher’s way of using politics to rake in money. But it’s an excellent point; why can’t she rake in money attacking Republicans?
Danny
@WereBear:
Ah, ok! Got you. Your point is important as well and imho all of that is somewhat related. I’d say that one success story within movement conservatism is how good they’ve been these last 40 years or so at channeling grassroot energy, action and money into stuff that really helps forwarding the conservative agenda.
One contributing factor I think was shrewd thought leaders like WFB willing to smack down people who got out of line with to wacky agendas, or trying to enrich themselves while de facto hurting the movement. Those people made sure that if you’re gonna be making money in the conservative movement you’re gonna do it by attacking liberals and promoting conservatism, and not by promoting factionalism.
Bruce S
Danny – I tend to be dismissive (and in fact generally get into arguments with) ALL of what I consider lame Obama-centric liberals or “progressives” (stupid tag, BTW, but it seems to have stuck in most circles.) I think those who are defensive about the White House agenda and consider criticism “divisive” or “emo” are as full of shit as idiots who attack the President as some sort of sell-out or continuation of Bush’s policies. What I want to see more of is organizing around issues, pressuring the White House, pressuring congress and helping to put a more coherent agenda for dealing with the current crisis on the table. Because it is a crisis – Christina Romer calls unemployment a “national emergency” in today’s Times and calls for measures that will increase the deficit, recalling both the pragmatic lessons as well as the spirit of mobilization in crisis we saw in WWII. As it happens, Obama’s former CEA chairwoman is a bit more of a firebrand in hoping for the kind of urgency we experienced in WWII than I consider plausible, but I give her credit and she is right on both the economics and the direction of needed policies. If this kind of push isn’t coming from the White House – and my bet is that it isn’t – it needs to come from the grass roots. Maybe the “Rebuild the Dream” coalition can add some fuel to the embers. Obama-centrism is pathetic politics, whether it’s Jane Hamsher’s or those lame-ass emails from Jim Messina. I consider myself a bit more of an adult than treating Obama as Lord and Savior – one of the reasons I’ve been a big supporter since early ’07 is because he didn’t claim the mantle, but put it on grass-roots supporters to continue the efforts that would allow him to lead successfully. Didn’t much happen through OFA, after it became a DNC project, but them’s the breaks.
I know this is crazy talk in a blog – talking about maybe getting off of our asses. I’m trying to find some local political spaces that might be catalytic – it ain’t easy. I would just suggest that bitching about Obama or bitching about people who bitch about Obama is weak. Fine – let’s all express our opinions but we’ve pretty much heard all of this crap by now. And there will be no primary challenge. And Obama’s base will support him. My own position is that while I won’t be able to give as much money to campaigns in 2012 that I gave to Obama in ’08, he doesn’t need my carefully targeted modest sums given his hegemony in the party establishment, and I’ll be donating to congressional candidates, because that’s where the need from more politically discriminate, smaller donors will be this time around. I’ll work for him, but I’m also going to be more committed to issues organizing than just the election. I think this is the best way I can continue my support of the President himself, and the agenda that I think he would like to get behind if he could.
(That said, I see a lot of flaws in the current White House strategy – especially in the way they frame the deliberately destructive and almost wholly phony deficit debate. Frankly, Obama has done more than Jane Hamsher could dream of doing to legitimatize some utterly toxic ideological zealotry as “common sense” by allowing Jay Carney to talk about Medicare cuts in his press conference, and by not making crystal clear that talk about raising the Medicare eligibility age to 67 was NOT “on the table” in his negotiations with Boehner if it wasn’t. And why that’s a terrible idea which would actually increase the cost of care to seniors not simply “out-of-pocket” but as share of GDP. If it was “on the table” as reported, he was aiding and abetting bad ideas from some of the worst among us. That said, I’m not demonizing him – just talking straight about pros and cons, and I can defend my position with facts and figures on the example I noted if anyone’s interested in some level of conversation about it beyond “Firebagger!”
But in the current climate These comments pretty much crystalize what I see. And why I don’t like discussions of Democratic politics and how to proceed that essentially begin and end with what one’s opinion of Obama’s policies happens to be. I have a mixed view – which means I tend to get into it with anyone who has hardened opinions. But I think I’m far more representative of Obama’s “base” in that regard than the more self-righteous types.
Bruce S
Danny – it’s not totally applicable to your argument given that there isn’t a Republican in the White House, but the GOP is totally characterized by enforcers with big money and big sticks in the primaries against incumbents they don’t consider reactionary enough. Do you think that Norquist gained the power he has simply by promoting “party unity.” The right is much smarter about using “the base” along with far-right donors initiatives to move their party more to the right and scare their pols into The Crazy, even when they know it’s BS. This has complicated results, but the power of the TeaBaggers in the GOP isn’t “establishmentarian” and liberals could learn at least a couple of things from them. Mostly about the power of merely getting off of one’s butt and very visibly giving a shit about something. Anything. And IMHO another lesson we could learn from the Right is that the White House isn’t the game-changer it’s often made out to be. It’s Congress.
Bruce S
One more thing – everyone here who has referred to the complexities of the legislation for auditing the Fed has avoided simply answering the question of whether Bernie Sanders was wrong to ally with Jim DeMint or to seek the votes of folks who were voting for his bill because they were right-wing nuts. Of course it was a bizarro alliance. That was obviously the point and unavoidable if it was to be passed. I seriously doubt any legislator weighs the quality of the Yea or Nay, to make sure it’s being offered for reasons that meet some standard. But, of course, “Jane Hamsher sucks cock” makes even thinking about such stuff in the world that actually exists beyond blog comments moot.
William Hurley
@FlipYrWhig: I’m inclined to assume that you concur with the summary of conditions enumerated in the post you replied to, but I’ll not jump ahead of myself nor you and do injury to our respective positions on those points and their implications in parts and sum. I will address myself to the complaint you raised, being
Firstly, I don’t think I “willfully disregard[ed]” the impact of GOP obstructionism. Evidence for this belief is found in my reference to the hostilities encountered by both Obama and Clinton. There is also, as you note, my opening comment regarding the fact of GOP intransigence that I acknowledge as part of setting the narrative thesis framework for my prior post. Our differences here maybe in emphasis, or in the potential effect on the President’s re-electability factor.
What I can say about the President, factually, that pertain to the quality and robustness of his “liberal” and/or Democratic achievements speak to both the politics of political competition in the realm of setting and realizing policy goals. Let’s consider the ACA as one example. There are others, plenty of others, but the ACA is, to my mind, an excellent prism by which the light of PR and electioneering can be disaggregated into a rainbow of component actions, intentions and outcomes.
The caveat here is that in remaining selectively and narrowly focused on ACA, here and now, I’m intentionally ceding breadth for specificity and, of equal importance, choosing to accommodate as best I can the constraints of this sparse medium. As such, please do not construe more – or less – of the remainder of this response to be anything other than it is in being merely one example among examples toward clarifying my position and in addressing your legitimate criticisms. Note also that I’ll not now include external references to points to be made as I believe much of what I’ll be writing is drawn from “common knowledge” or public domain. Again, my intent is neither evasiveness nor opacity but concision in-line with the objective(s) declared above. If you or others find the lack of references to be an obstacle, I’ll be glad to provide them in a follow-up posting.
In his life prior to being sworn in as “44”, Senator & Presidential candidate Obama spoke forcefully about the requirement for health-care reform. The components he variously argued to be most in need of reform, were (in no specific order) access, insurance costs and coverage differentials, payment & provider billing reconciliation, “risk/reward” incentives regarding diagnostic testing and the costs of “health-care” in total to the nation – “nation” being the public & private sectors and to individuals.
One of the most stark points of reversal from a position Obama declared prior to becoming “44” is the “mandate” component of the ACA. It’s to me quite obvious that the political theater was bathed in the (dim) glow of so-called RomneyCare, as it was the only obvious and seemingly successful alternative solution to reforming health care in the nation. The “framing” of health care politics before Obama’s election necessarily required all “serious” politicians to speak of or about health care through the Massachusetts experience. In the course of earning himself the required “serious” points with the Village press, Obama, then a junior and oft described “under experienced” Senator, addressed reform in the manner following that all all of his contemporaries – by concurring with or condemning “RomneyCare” in parts or whole.
The “mandate” was a part of the MA law that Obama specifically cited as being onerous, unfair and of specious legality (the latter being an opinion offered by a Constitutional law practitioner he himself would note). In declaring his opposition to reform that rested on an MA-like mandate, Obama compared such a requirement to compulsory home-ownership – among other unfavorable comparisons. Then, Obama become the 44th President.
Once in office, Obama set about pushing health care reform. You & I may, or may not, quibble over his decision to push the House & Senate to “take the lead” on championing his defining policy objective, but I do believe it fair to conclude that “outsourcing” the motivation and leadership on a policy objective of such magnitude was a flawed choice. As I said, we may disagree on the wisdom and even contextual necessity of the choice – but the choice was made though even he seems to have wavered (to put it politely) on its wisdom.
The evidence for the covert wavering of Obama’s own faith in his own decision, a choice he repeatedly defended in public, is to be found in the revelations that the White House, including the President himself, had convened audience with various stake-holders across the health care industry. The fact that this President, like all Presidents, used his unique position to meet privately with “stake-holders” is neither unusual nor inherently corrupting. However, the specific mode and means by which this President assembled these “meetings” is wholly troubling – again put politely.
Obama’s “meetings” with groups of insurance execs and their lobbyists, and providers’ execs and lobbyists, doctors advocacy associations and their lobbyists, drugs & device makers’ execs and lobbyists and other groups were not only held in secret, set in secrecy and produced outcomes that were intended to remain secret – all in contradiction to his repeated public remarks about his role and intentions – these “meetings” weren’t simply meant as an exchange of ideas nor as vehicles by which endorsements were won for Congress’s efforts through proposed compromises. These “meetings” sought and delivered conclusive agreements between the White House – and by fact of political hierarchy – and the majority party’s leaders in the House & Senate regardless of the dynamics of the legislative negotiations between the 435/100 elected members of Congressional bodies.
It was out of these meetings that the Obama “mandate” was determined. It was out of these meetings that “state opt-outs” were determined. It was out of these meetings that price/payment norms were determined.
While all of these conclusions were being determined, the nation watched as proto-Tea Party astroturfers began to congeal in the theatrical political labs funded by entrenched right-wing political and business groups (names withheld because there are too many). The groups funding these reborn “Know Nothings” were, in better than 80% of cases, exactly the same groups that the President was making secret deals with that were supposed “quid pro quo” their support for his acquiescence. In the meantime, dozens of House Democrats and Senators found themselves barraged by ignorant mobs of “citizens” who were equally ignorant of health care reform details as they were the funding/funders enabling their “spontaneous” mass revolt. All the while, the President and his PR/marketing department loudly and angrily denied the growing rumors of the aforementioned “meetings” with “stake-holders” across the health care industry.
I’ll wind down here, somewhat abruptly, as you know and everyone else knows the rest of the story. Plus, I’ve long passed the point of “concision” I had hoped to stick to.
In the end, the fact of Obama’s secret meetings become public knowledge – a suite of revelations that infuriated the White House & “44” as much as they did “the base” – though for opposite reasons. Additionally, many Democratic House members who ultimately voted in favor of the final ACA bill were speared on the tip of that legislative victory in their own subsequent elections – ceding the majority in historic proportion to an annoying minority turned fully empowered obstructionists. To this last point, witness the legislative output focus and differential between the Pelosi House & the Boehner House. And yes, Beohner’s inept – but as a minority leader his ineptitude was at best assistive when not wholly irrelevant.
Though this reply is coming to a conclusion, finally, the story and history of Obama’s health care reform efforts are as yet far from concluded. As the Federal Appellate Courts batter the ACA around, it is clear that the final arbiter of the legislation’s future as well as its socio-economic and political impact will be determined by the SCOTUS. Will the SCOTUS “take” the matter in the 2012 session? That is, as of today, a factual TBD – but to my mind it seems unlikely that – foregoing some tangible legal necessity/requirement – the SCOTUS’s Falangist majority would choose to by-pass the opportunity in an election year. Furthermore, I also am of the strong belief that the same Falangist 5 who have no regard for the parameters of Constitutional questions incorporate in the matters they take, who have no regard for stare decisis and who lavish in unashamedly partisan advocacy will follow a “jurisprudential” course other than to render ACA hollow and ineffective if not wholly unconstitutional. To this point, the ultimate obstructionists within the nation’s political system, the Falangists of the SCOTUS, have been there deeply entrenched and smirkingly unmovable long before Obama – the Constitutional Law scholar – announced is candidacy.
I have more I’d like to say on this subject and others too, but I’ve said enough – more so – already.
Thanks for prompting me to render more clear my thoughts and expressions on the matters pertaining to the upcoming Presidential election and the prospect for keeping the White House blue. I look forward to your – and others – responses.
General Stuck
@William Hurley:
Wow, that’s quite a manifesto of Obama skullduggery. I particularly was impressed by your knowledge of what went down in “secret” between Obama and the private industry players.
Here is the deal, I have no doubt Obama agreed to not push hard for some components like the PO, in exchange for the industry folks to stand down largely, from going all out to defeat any kind of health care reform. Such as they destroyed the Clinton plan in the early 90’s. But it is a fundamental misreading of politics FOR THIS PARTICULAR ISSUE to hold that Obama with his bully pulpit would have been effective in manhandling dem senators or indies in their caucus to get to the 60 votes needed in the Senate, and certainly not repub ones.
This issue is much bigger than that, and congress was going to need to be the ones to act out their preferences, more so than normal with such a huge country changing proposition, and the huge amounts of cash involved with health care in this country. Clinton thought he could steamroll those in his own party trying to pass HCR and found out that would not work, because it didn’t work, and failed quite miserably.
And all the Monday morning quarterbacking in the world and making complex the reasons we got what we got, is pretty much wasted effort, when none of it did or could have swayed Joe Lieberman, non democrat, and THE vote needed to pass either a PO or a medicare expansion. The guy who campaigned and voted for the wingnut over Obama in the POTUS election. You can’t get past that fact, and that fact renders all other navel gazing to the contrary inert and irrelevant.
35 million more Americans should be able to get insurance after 2014, that couldn’t before, or wouldn’t if this law did not get passed into law. And short of the politically inoperable single payer plan, that is the bottom line for liberal mind to hold onto, when all is said and done.
THAT was the liberal progressive cause to begin with, and the class warfare arguments, that I am sympathetic to, if allowed to take precedence here, would have certainly ended the possibility for those folks to get the vital insurance they need, when they need it, to stay above ground a little longer. Or, do you hate rich people more than you love sick people who can’t visit the doctor when they need to? Think about that.
And whatever form of HCR that might have passed, the wingnuts would be trying to kill it, and the right wing SCOTUS would get to weigh in on that as the final arbiter of the that law, as well as the ACA law staying on the books.
Bruce S
Unfortunately, we’re currently faced with a different set of problems. And the White House appears to be MIA.
http://krugman.blogs.nytimes.com/2011/08/14/little-or-nothing/
Gus
Hey, I discovered this web site through the Daou report back when that was a Salon feature. I was looking for some kind of conservative blog that didn’t make me want to punch babies, and one of the first posts I saw was a beer post. Plus John was on his way to becoming a Democrat, so I was pleased to have discovered a good blog on the “right” side of the Daou report.
T. Scheisskopf
I knew Peter when he was “NY Pete” over at DU.Nice guy, solid Dem. Then he went to work for Hillary. That seems to have changed him.
I never understood Jane’s assumed gravitas. But you can bet her anger goes back too the last election.
marginalized for stating documented facts
Kudos for a great line from the movie Goodfellas. Joe Pesci is the very embodiment of a modern GOP candidate. I’m just waiting for one of ’em to stab an intern to death with a pen in the neck on live TV.
Will
@Warren Terra:
I’m embarassed to admit that I keep tabs on No Quarter. It has gone full-Republican and right wing. No one there– including Larry Johnson–really seems to even remember that they were once Democrats and liberal on any issue at all. It’s nothing but conservative ideology, all the time, as if that’s what they were saying from inception.
Also: wall-to-wall, spirited, acknowledged and unapologetic racism.