This is politics: No permanent friends | No permanent enemies.

[nashville_brook]

It's best to learn this early in political life. It's the core of power-building, so accept it, or find another hobby or vocation. No permanent friends, and no permanent enemies. Not everyone is going to come along on every campaign, but we still need each other in the long run. Also, you remember when people come to your side when it wasn't easy for them.

"No permanent friends, no permanent enemies," is one of those beautiful imperatives that enables society to function -- like the separation of church and state.

If your issues are workers rights, healthcare, Social Security, you're going to find those who are champions for your cause, who might be on the opposite side of the next issue, policy idea, or economic proposal. You work with those who bring themselves to the table with enthusiasm. If you're playing by gentleman's rules, you step around those who insist on being obstacles. But, "no permanent friends, no permanent enemies" means you'll always have the room to critique policy ideas and economic proposals that injure our interests.

Many Dems held their tongues on the president while working to GOTV, and voting for him (I'm sure that's the case with every president ever -- it's not new to Obama). Everyone knew Obama was going to have an extraordinarily short honeymoon this year, because everyone knew the lame duck session was going to be a huge fight for those opposing cuts in Social Security (such as unions and c-3's who just worked their asses off helping Obama get elected).

As the lame duck session reaches it's crescendo and I start to see the old "you're not a loyal dem, you emo-firebagger," non-sense, I have no sympathy. "No permanent friends, no permanent enemies," means that among equals, you never bully people or show contempt because next week, next month or next year you're going to need them in your coalition.

The lame duck fight happening right now…the one to protect Social Security/Medicaid/Medicare…is not being fought "among equals." You've got Pete Peterson's coalition of CEOs, "Fix The Debt," and you've got "rank and file" dems (little old ladies, workers and college students) coming up against party leaders who can't/won't have our back against this odious proposal. Subbing for Rachel Maddow the other night, Ezra Klein pointed out that everyone on the beltway food chain fears losing access and influence, and so they are counting on us, the rank and file with no access or influence to risk, to get loud and be heard.

Let's get real. Obama governs as a right-of-center Dem who too-often has sided with interests that seriously hurt the economic security of the rank and file. It's our right and responsibility to stand up for our interests. This is about survival, not whether we get a big enough bonus this year.

So here it is, Mr. President: This Social Security cut terrifies people. I've seen old ladies break down in tears describing how they already can't afford rent and medicine. The fear and shame is shockingly palpable. Seniors simply can't cut anything else from their budgets, and it's unconscionable that we'd ask them to. Future generations like myself will have even fewer resources available beside Social Security. I'm 46 and I know no one with a pension. I know no one with more than $20,000 in their retirement account.

No one is speaking for those of us who are terrified: not any beltway journalist or elected political figure who peddles influence. The people who do speak up are…well, they are heroes.

And clearly, not everyone is hero material.

[CaliforniaPeggy]

1. Well said.

How Obama can be even suggesting cuts to SS is beyond me. I don't care what kind of compromise he wants to make, this is beyond the pale.


Don't do it, Mr. President. Don't.

[nashville_brook]

2. It's a bridge too far...

...and we were looking for the bridge to the 21st Century.

[CaliforniaPeggy]

4. Exactly!

[nashville_brook]

5. I remember taping those old Clinton speeches,

those were inspirational words.

[DonCoquixote]

9. but do you slam Bill

whenever he swerved right?

If so, good,
if not, your words hold no water.

[DonCoquixote]

10. Yes that sounded mean

But I do get tried of people named Clinton getting passes from the same people who yell at Obama. Yes, I do include the lady who actually got us into another ME war in Libya.

[nashville_brook]

16. I completely agree with what you said in both posts...

and it took a while for me to get there. I fought so hard for Clinton in '92, and thereafter. I turned 18 in 1984 -- I only knew Reagan and Bush. Clinton's "new democrats" principle wasn't understood well enough by me. "Globalization" was a fuzzy, new idea that seemed to hold promise.

But what I kept coming back to was that confounded bridge we were promised. I didn't realize when he actually built it, because my vision of that bridge was so much different than his.

And, I was pretty hard on my friends who peeled off in 2000, refusing to vote for Gore, because I still didn't see what that bridge was made of: the destruction of the American Dream...of the job, the family, the vacation once-a-year with the kids, retiring at a reasonable age. This is what the bridge was made of, and we crossed it, and here we are smack-dab in the midst of a 21st century that promises no improvement.

[graham4anything]

21. you got it backwards

I was NOT a fan of the Clinton's either of them
and I was led to that by breadcrumbs followed that were bad breadcrumbs

the trail was wrong

and then Al Gore was wronged. So in 2004, for fairness sake, he should have been given a rematch, but 9-11 interfered with that.

He ran a shitty campaign in 2000, yes he did.

In retrospect, it was shitty. And Kerry ran a shittier one in 2004

Alot of good it did, LOSING and get over it- they lost.
one can whine again and again about why they were not seated, but not being seated is losing.

Now people want to give it all up again, to bloviate over this or that.

When healthcare is made EVEN BETTER because the system cannot sustain it, then the 10% won a few years ago will be seen as genius it was.Without that, it would never be made better.
And when it is, people will not need to rely on their SS anyhow. It will be included, like in France among all the new benefits.

$1000 saved a year on healthcare from a better health care system, will overcome any $60 increase a month or year or whatever.


And I get the feeling that there is really NO cry out from the people anyhow-except for the political junkies using it to promote other causes and to fracture the party

Go ahead and fracture it-
1968, 1980, 2000 show what happens

and now i LOVE the Clinton's. Because age and looking backward shows how great they were even when one or three things were not of liking

Age means being realistic, or it should.

so I changed my opinion totally on the Clinton's. And Hillary45 will be a continuation of the Obama years in 2017 to 2025.

Because i don't want any radical change from this administration. Any radical change will move us backward. instead of forward

To move forward, one has to go step by step slowly and look at the end picture, which most don't see.

To those- take off the blinders.
Obama is not a wild 2 yr. old horse.
He is a mature Secretariat now(if using race horse terms).

to go along with the rope-a-dope and chess and football analogies.

[DonCoquixote]

24. I appreciate that

Though honestly, I do think Gore would have made a better bridge,especially an environmental issues. Granted, he should have never picked Lieberman, but I think it is near impossible to have been as bad as W.

and I do believe that we can and shouldkeep pressure up, because the DLC sure as hell will, however, I also rail at those who think that if they drop out, the system will crumble and viva la revolution.. That trick will not work with people armed with nukes.

[nashville_brook]

36. i loved Gore, and thought he would have been a way better POTUS

and agree on Lieberman wholeheartedly. i was at the rally in Nashville when Gore introduced Lieberman. we were supposed to be excited about it. but i looked around at the crowd of a thousand or so, and didn't see much excitement. the air seemed still with "wtf."

[DirkGently]

13. That's a bit off in the weeds. Clinton was wrong on things. Obama is too.

No one needs tick off the list of every Democrat who ever embraced monied interests over people in order to speak.

[nashville_brook]

51. that is true, but he was on point with Clinton as that was watershed for me.

Ending "welfare as we know it" and all.

[DirkGently]

3. Our leaders work for us. Our role is to tell them how, under pain of their

political lives. They don't ask for our votes out of a sense of puppies and snuggles, and we don't offer our continued support on that basis either.

[nashville_brook]

67. never snuggle your electeds -- first off, if you're not a millionaire, they get angry

secondly, the scales leave a briny smell on your clothes.

[hfojvt]

6. I do find it to be curious

because it used to be that BOTH parties were scared of the AARP. You'd think with aging boomers that the AARP would be bigger and more powerful than ever. And yet they seem to be silent.

But then again, perhaps they have been shown to be a paper tiger. Republicans voted for the Ryan budget, which would end medicare as we know it, and they paid no political price for it in 2012.

I wonder if there has been a drop in AARP membership too. I know that I am determined to not join. Maybe the number of potential members has grown, but the number of actual members has shrunk.

[cheapdate]

23. AARP was an early, official supporter of the PPACA.

[Romulox]

43. AARP is the largest private health insurer in America. Let's just say they have a dog in this fight.

They haven't been silent. That's for sure.

[nashville_brook]

73. AARP is against Chained-CPI:

http://www.aarp.org/politics-society/advocacy/info-11-2012/social-security-budget-deficit-chained-CPI.html

[woo me with science]

7. This is such an important post,

Last edited Sat Dec 29, 2012, 11:18 PM - Edit history (6)

because it NAILS why we keep losing more and more ground to the one percent. We are propagandized to vow permanent loyalty to the Blue Team regardless of policy, regardless of human consequences, and regardless of the values and principles that led us to be Blue Team members in the first place. And we are propagandized to attack anyone who is not Blue, or who is insufficiently loyal to Blues, also regardless of all these things.

Talk about a recipe for getting people to fight for policies that work against their own interests:

Look what absolute nonsense we have seen here lately. When Paul and Kucinich agreed to demand more transparency on drone strikes, we were admonished with a straight face by some here that we should condone drone strikes and refuse to support that effort, simply because a Red politician was involved. "Fuck the Red," even at the expense of our values and principles, and the policies that would actually help us.

More and more, we are discouraged from talking about policy at all, except as spin. We are taught, through responses to our posting, that actual policies should be mentioned here if and only if they reflect highly on the Blue Team. Every policy must be spun in the best possible light or not mentioned at all. Attempting to criticize policy will elicit immediate nasty attacks and accusations of demoralizing or being disloyal to the Team.

More and more, instead of being encouraged to have pride in our party based on its behavior and policies, we are fed flowery pictures of our "leaders" and are encouraged to let our hearts beat with pride at the very image of them. Or we are purposely fed stories of how this or that Red Team voter out in the country somewhere did something hateful and despicable, and to generalize our hatred and that attitude to anyone who is Red.

This is how they keep us divided. This is how they get us to defend policies that are indefensible, or at least to shut up about them. And this is how they keep us from joining together to stand up for what is right, regardless of who might join our side. This is why we ALWAYS accept another rightward move and another corporate assault.

Permanent loyalty must be to our values and principles, not to politicians or team colors. We choose a team based on how closely that team reflects our values and principles, and if the team wishes to keep us, it must continue to fight for those values and principles. And we should not hesitate to accept help in fighting for those values and principles, no matter where or from what color that help comes. The vast majority of Americans, Red and Blue, want to protect Social Security. This is a coalition that the one percent cannot defeat, if we can work past the Hate Propaganda to build it.

I can't express how grateful for this post I am. I think it should be pinned to the top of the forum, because the message here could save our party and our country.

[DirkGently]

11. This would be a worthy OP in its own right.

[nashville_brook]

19. +1

[nashville_brook]

12. "Permanent loyalty must be to our values and principles,"

not to politicians or team colors. We choose a team based on how closely that team reflects our values and principles, and if the team wishes to keep us, it must continue to fight for those values and principles..."

Very, very well said.

I could dig deeper, but I don't think I'd be able add anything. It's amazing how such simple concepts get lost. And how we forget where our power comes from.

[DirkGently]

20. It is a simple concept. But it is getting lost. Needs more saying.

[nashville_brook]

71. and there could also be less talk about party fealty.

b/c all that does is show how bereft the discourse is. it's irrelevant.

[sabrina 1]

15. Excellent post and I agree completely with this:

Permanent loyalty must be to our values and principles, not to politicians or team colors.

Exactly. I just saw an OP actually stating and I think it was serious, that when our side does it we should not be blamed for supporting it even if we opposed it when the other side did it. I at least appreciated the honesty there as there was no attempt to try to justify such an incredibly hypocritical sentiment.

[nashville_brook]

66. saw that thread this morning -- a stinky pile to wake up to

[DirkGently]

75. Saw that. It isn't hypocrisy when *we* do it!

[sabrina 1]

76. I know, and it actually got recs!

I suppose we should be thankful for the comfirmation, since usually they deny the support for the exact same policies they opposed under Bush. Amazing really.

[Bonobo]

26. A tour-de-force post, WMWS!!! nt

[PETRUS]

40. +1

[nashville_brook]

49. this is something else to know...

there's plenty of professional activists and organizers that use this site, and know well how this game is played. When you're taking heat from the "sit down and shut up" crowd, they're trying to silence you b/c DU is google-enabled, and our discourse is searchable.

when they're trying to silence online speech, they're not giving you the respect they'd afford colleagues in real life. In real life, you step back and let people have their say. when there's total disagreement, you don't attack them. you build your coalition with others, instead.

so, it's pernicious, what we see here.

[liberal_at_heart]

59. we must not give anymore to the 1%!

[nashville_brook]

65. it's time to hold the line. how come no one is talking about revenue?

raise the tax rates back to Clinton-era levels. it's the inequality that is killing us.

[bahrbearian]

8. Another Excellent Post

[sabrina 1]

14. Correction, Bernie Sanders is speaking for those who are frightened by the

games they are playing in DC with their income.

Otherwise I agree with your post.

[nashville_brook]

17. :) I stand corrected.

That is true. Makes this Florida girl want to pack up the dogs and move to Vermont.

[JDPriestly]

18. Thanks. There is no reason for picking on Social Security and the elderly people, present and futur

who are or will be dependent on it.

In life, all kinds of unexpected things can happen.

I have friends who had a flourishing business that failed when they were in their 50s due to economic conditions that they did not create, friends who had worked for an employer for 20 years and were fired following a buyout of the company in their 50s, friends who suddenly became ill and could not work in their 50s. All of them spent their reserves, their retirement savings just to stay a live. None of them were poor or even on the brink of being poor.

When I post strong messages opposing the chained CPI, I talk about myself because I am now on Social Security.

But I am better off than these friends. I am really thinking about these friends who have been ruined due to the evil of the bankers and not due to their personal mistakes. I don't want to talk to much about them because they have a right to privacy about their personal lives.

2008 just devastated the middle class. The news media says nothing of this. There is a deadly silence. All we hear is about Europe and austerity.

The same sordid characters are running many of our big banks and brokerage houses. They have paid fines but never been called to answer or explain or apologize publicly for their enormous errors and crimes.

And now my friends in their 50s and I at almost 70 are being asked to accept lower Social Security payments.

No, a thousand times no.

And the claim that Obama has stopped talking about chained CPI and cuts to Social Security does not calm my fears or help my friends.

As long as the real suffering that people have gone through is not acknowledged, as long as the financial sector has not publicly taken responsibility and cut their excessive pay, as long as the financial sector is not paying its fair share of the taxes, as long as the losses have not been restored, we cannot be sure that the lessons have been learned from the fiasco that happened in 2008.

[nashville_brook]

33. we need to tell these stories -- people have to be made to understand

we get it that the banksters were allowed to rob us blind, and then rob the government blind. and we watched as those TARP monies were spent on huge bonuses while we lost our homes, our jobs and our retirements.

We're drawing the line in the sand: you can't touch Social Security.

[DirkGently]

44. It is utterly insane that we would even CONSIDER hacking at SS

while the rich and corporations pay the lowest effective taxes in decades.

[nashville_brook]

46. it's b/c Wall Street is demanding a new pot of gold

[DirkGently]

48. They want middle-class mortgage interest deductions, too.

They want, quite simply, all of it.

[nashville_brook]

55. yep -- and it's not going to stop at tonight's "cliff-hanger"

this is going to be the defining issue of 2013 unless our new electeds put a stop to it.

I'm looking at you, Grayson.

[nashville_brook]

62. now they're talking about raising the age limit, again.

it's already 67 for me.

[Fuddnik]

22. Kick and rec!

Awesome post, and some awesome responses.

[nashville_brook]

72. thanks -- anxiously awaiting today's news

it's a nail-biter.

[Malikshah]

25. Lord Palmerston's famous quote-- Use it often when teaching history...it's timeless

We have no eternal allies, and we have no perpetual enemies. Our interests are eternal and perpetual, and those interests it is our duty to follow.

Speech to the House of Commons (1 March 1848), Hansard’s Parliamentary Debates. 3rd series, vol. 97, col. 122.

[DirkGently]

32. Well that pretty well nails that .

[nashville_brook]

41. beautiful -- i had no idea this activist saying had a classic precedent.

[forestpath]

27. K&R. If President Obama doesn't care about seniors - and he obviously doesn't - then

how on earth can anyone buy for an instant that he cares about the middle class, either?

[nashville_brook]

45. This is how DC sees seniors:

[reACTIONary]

28. So Obama is your Frenemy. OK. So what I'd like to know is...

...do you want to cut a deal or go over the cliff? If so, what sort of deal do you think would be acceptable to both sides? If not, what do you hope to gain and what do you think we might lose?

[nashville_brook]

34. there's no reason not to kick this to the curb.

and guess what? the world won't end.

[reACTIONary]

38. Thanks for the answer...

... I take it you believe we can "go over the cliff" without great damage at least short term. Maybe you think that the tax increases and sequester is a good, or at least acceptable, condition for a sustained period of time.

Or maybe you agree with the conventional wisdom - that we probably can't sustain that condition for long, without a recession or other hurt. If you agree, we still have the same question - what sort of deal would you look for, acceptable to both sides? Or do you think the Republicans will just cave and let us write our own ticket?

[nashville_brook]

50. the very serious granny starvers need to look elsewhere for plunder.

[sabrina 1]

68. Any deal that includes SS cuts should be DOA to a Democrat.

SS had zero to do with the deficit, cutting benefits will do nothing to help lower the deficit, this is merely a right wing lie and by accepting Democrats are feeding the decades old lies told about SS by the Right in this country. It is 'austerity' under a different name and will do to this country what it is doing to sovereign nations in Europe.

Once Dems make it clear that SS is off the table, then they can get serious. And the way to lower the deficit is to create jobs, end the wars which cost millions of dollars EACH DAY which we seem to have no problem finding. If we go over the phony 'cliff', the Bush tax cuts will expire, that alone will help lower the deficit.

Then we will have the new congress elected in November where Dems have control of the Senate and the WH and have gained at least 9 seats in the House, and we can start working on cutting the spending that actually caused the Deficit.

So yes, as someone said 'no deal is better than a bad deal'. Go over the 'cliff' and hands off SS.

[nashville_brook]

70. the deal our dems wanted was chained-CPI in exchange for raising the debt ceiling.

talk about selling out cheap. debt ceiling used to be pro-forma. now it's grounds to destroy the New Deal.

right now the talks have stalled with the ball in the GOP court -- they can easily come back and take chained CPI.

[DirkGently]

35. Exactly wrong. Not friends. Not enemies. Leader & constituent.

That's part of the problem. Obama isn't a junior high school girl whose social circle we're all in. He's the President we elected to serve our interests.

The "cliff" is a synthetic emergency, and the suggestion that there is now somehow no choice but to attack SS to appease Republicans is false as well.

[reACTIONary]

39. Synthetic or not...

...it is real, and will go into effect on 1/1 unless a deal is struck. So it doesn't matter whether it is synthetic or not.

Perhaps the sequester and tax increases are OK by you. But if not, you would need to cut a deal - you have made it plain that would not include SS. What would it include?

[nashville_brook]

42. the payroll tax cut starved Social Security -- I can afford $30 a month

Under the Chained CPI, a person who retired at 65 in 2000, if they live to 92 will have one month cut annually as a result. They can't afford that, and it's my calculation that throwing our most fragile citizens into poverty will put an even greater drag on the economy, than my teeny-tiny tax increase. The math is simple.

[DirkGently]

53. The "deal" is that cuts to SS are intolerable. The rest is up to

Congress and Obama. It is not our responsibility as constituents to help them out of the situation in which wealthy interests really, really, REALLY want to cut Social Security.

They can't. So they can start somewhere else and do something else. Period.

[nashville_brook]

54. you better believe that when Wall St says "figure this out" they hop to it.

[DirkGently]

56. That's the whole point of the "fiscal cliff."

Create a false emergency. Bring us to the brink. Conclude that there is "just no other option" than to impoverish and destroy the most vulnerable Americans. Because we just couldn't convince the half dozen rich people running things to let our parents and grandparents live.

Sigh. What else can we do? Sigh. Sigh.

[nashville_brook]

58. eggsactly. if the sequester happens, the world won't end.

and the new congress will take it up again, piecemeal.

[liberal_at_heart]

61. I can't say I'm not worried about education cuts

Neither party seems interested in properly funding education now before the cuts. What motivation will they have to restore cuts after the sequester happens?

[nashville_brook]

64. our current leadership seems to think that privatization of education will "solve" the funding

problem.

at every turn it seems like Dems hop from one foot to the other to appease the GOP. it's time to stop this in its tracks. stop building roads and schools in Afghanistan, so we may some here.

[DirkGently]

74. It's the Overton window -- corporatists are framing

the entire conversation. Obama and too many other Dems are too willing to let them.

[reACTIONary]

60. Thanks for the answer (nt)

[Raine]

29. On point!!! nt

[hay rick]

30. Let's get real...

Thanks for an excellent post.

[nashville_brook]

31. ...

[riderinthestorm]

37. I have nothing to add - either to the OP or the most excellent posts that follow

Just a big K&R!!

[liberal_at_heart]

47. well said!

Senior citizens deserve to have their voice heard and those of us like you said will have less Social Security available to us and cannot save enough for retirement must use our voices as well.

[spanone]

52. K&r...

[In_The_Wind]

57. Hear. Hear.

Mr. President: This Social Security cut terrifies people.

[nashville_brook]

63. and, this morning he using that terror as evidence of his "seriousness"

http://videocafe.crooksandliars.com/heather/david-gregory-president-obama-youve-gotta-ta

[nashville_brook]

69. sam stein via Twitter -- dems traded away seniors for a higher debt ceiling.

"The major problem right now: Republicans want chained-CPI without lifting the debt ceiling. Dem aide calls that a "poison pill."

[woo me with science]

77. Kick for any who missed this OP. nt

[woo me with science]

78. Kick.

[woo me with science]

79. kick