Liberal Bloggers to Obama and Dems: We Told You So

[IndianaGreen]

Liberal Bloggers to Obama and Dems: We Told You So

Peter Daou.Political consultant, former adviser to Hillary Clinton
Posted: January 19, 2010 09:08 PM

It took more than half a decade, countless American and Iraqi deaths in a war based on lies, a sinking economy and the drowning of an American city to finally kill Bush-Cheney-Rove's dream of a conservative realignment.

Democrats, controlling the White House and both houses of Congress, have managed to kill their own dream of dominance in 12 months.

How did it happen?

Theories abound, but two diametrically opposed narratives have taken hold:

The first, promulgated by conservatives, is that the new administration has moved too far to the left and alienated a large swath of independent and moderate voters.

The second, pushed by progressive activists and bloggers, is that the administration hasn't been true enough to fundamental Democratic principles, has embraced some of Bush's worst excesses on civil liberties, and has ditched popular ideas (like the public option) in favor of watered down centrist policies, thus looking weak and ineffectual.

The conservative argument is unpersuasive. After years of a systematic effort by the right to use Overton-style tactics to radicalize our national discourse, the center has moved so far right that the left is barely recognizable. With a military surge in Afghanistan, a denuded health insurance bill limping through Congress, Bush-era detainee policies reinforced, a deflated climate summit, and a windfall year for bankers, among other things, it's almost ludicrous to claim that the new administration is run by a gang of lefties.

The case by progressives that Democrats are undermining themselves with faux-bipartisanship and tepid policies gets much closer to the heart of the problem. I've written a number of posts arguing that it's all a matter of values and ethics. In essence: when you fail to govern based on a morally sound, well-articulated, solidly-grounded set of ideals, you look weak. All the legislative wins in the world won't change that. People gravitate to people who exude moral authority. The vast majority of voters lack the detailed policy knowledge that would enable them to make an accurate assessment of policy differences, but they do have a visceral sense of when a candidate or an elected official believes in something and fights for it. It's why campaigns are laden with moral arguments; politicians ask to be elected because they'll "do the right thing." The right thing in the current administration's case was to be the anti-Bush, nothing more, nothing less. The ethical antidote to a radical administration. It was both politically smart and morally right. And it worked wonders for Democrats as the entire subtext of the 2008 campaign.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/peter-daou/liberal-bloggers-to-obama_b_429031.html

[msongs]

1. bipartisanship at all costs, how's that working so far? purge the bushies and wall streeters nt

[IndianaGreen]

4. NY Times is reporting another attempt to reach to Olympia Snowe

How crazy is that?

[amborin]

30. did bi-partisanship get even 1 vote for the stimulus bill from rethugs? No

[ProSense]

2. This is the most asinine misread of what just took place.

Whatever led to Brown's win has nothing to do with national politics. The consequence, however, is that the Senate just move one step to the right.

[FVZA_Colonel]

3. And I'd imagine there are a few who think that's a good thing.

[IndianaGreen]

6. If you had read on, it has pretty good analysis

There are lessons to be learned, and solutions to be applied, if we are to avoid a repeat of 1994. This will require a good measure of self-criticism, and constructive solutions.

[Kaleva]

8. "constructive" being the key word.

[IndianaGreen]

9. Yes, it must be constructive, and we must resist the circular firing squad temptation

This is going to require work.

My useless Senator Evan Bayh was on local TV tonight already backpedaling. I don't think appeasing the likes of Lieberman and Snowe is the answer. I think we need to rally around a couple of core issues, jobs and holding banks accountable for example, and hold to a coherent message and policy.

[TankLV]

42. Indiana - you're analysis is SPOT ON.

It's amazing how some refuse to get it...

[Milo_Bloom]

47. Don't worry, democrats won't learn their lesson.

They didn't in 2000, they didn't in 2002, they didn't in 2004..

THOUGHT they may have in 2008.. but alas... and they won't learn it now.

[harun]

48. They won't. As long as they keep trying to pull in all the corporate funding

for their campaigns, legislating for big business, then campaigning on fixing the problem they have created they will get no where and we will get nothing done.

[Zenlitened]

52. President Obama says you are flat-out, 100% WRONG

...The president also said the same voter anger that swept him into office in 2008 carried Brown into office on a stunning upset victory Tuesday night over heavily favored Democrat Martha Coakley.

"Here's my assessment of not just the vote in Massachusetts, but the mood around the country: the same thing that swept Scott Brown into office swept me into office," the president said in an exclusive interview with ABC News' George Stephanopoulos. "People are angry and they are frustrated. Not just because of what's happened in the last year or two years, but what's happened over the last eight years."

http://abcnews.go.com/WN/Politics/president-obama-scott-brown-massachusetts-victory/story?id=9611222

[Kaleva]

5. So this explains why 22% of Dems voted for Brown?

[Marsala]

21. Yes, they wanted to punish Obama for not being liberal enough

:sarcasm:

[fascisthunter]

7. depressing but on the money

[gravity]

10. Well I hope you are happy

I am tired of all these Naderites.

If the Democrats are ever going to get anything done, we need to unite and push back against the Republicans instead of going after our on party.

[demwing]

11. This doesn't have to be about Nader

but if everyone who questions the leadership is perceived to be outside of the party, it certainly makes it easier to believe that there is no internal restlessness or turmoil.

[gravity]

19. You can question the leadership all you want

But when it comes down to the line, the Democrats have to unite and fight the GOP if they are ever going to get shit done.

When I hear about there is nothing different about the Dems and the repubs, it makes me want to scream. They were the same arguments in 2000 and we got 8 years of Bush because of it.

[paulk]

33. how can we "unite and fight the GOP"

when our own leadership is practically breaking it's knees sucking up to them?

Eight years of Bush and Obama wanted bipartisanship.

He ran as a change agent and people believed him.

Now we are paying the price.

[gravity]

35. Part of that change was bipartisonship

The GOP rejected it, and the Dems were still on the verge of getting healthcare reform passed without any of their help even though it is an uphill battle. The Democrats put their differences aside and united for change.

It is the Republicans who are the real enemy and the more energy you expend against them, the more it will give the Democrats room to move to the left.

[paulk]

37. if that was part of the "change" Obama believed in

then he is a fool.

And there are plenty of Democrats who think the healthcare "reform" is anything but. Democrats were united for change - what we got was the same old same old.

Taxing union members health plans instead of taxing the rich? Which Democratic Party is that?

And the lesson the Democrats will learn from the MA debacle is to move even further to the right.

Bet on it.

[PVnRT]

38. They are still rejecting it

The GOP wants nothing to do with bipartisanship right now, and they've said as much. So why are we still kissing their ass?

[salguine]

23. That's why I have whoever that is on "Ignore".

[Obamacare]

12. ITA with that article

The dems in MA are voting for a rethug for a reason, hmmm and what might that possibly be? Well, maybe they are feeling like the rest of us who are pissed off at a do nothing congress and maybe even a do nothing president!!!! I love Obama and I voted for him, but do tell me why he isn't fulfilling any of his campaign promises? Why aren't we out of Iraq, why did he start a 2nd war, why did he fire(no he didn't resign he was fired) Van Jones for calling rethugs what they are stupid, why did he change his speech to school children when rethugs whined about it being a socialist speech, why didn't he put Joe "you lie" Wilson in check for interrupting him during his speech, why didn't he force HC reform through back in May or June 09,why doesn't he get that his attempts at bipartisanship are an EPIC FAIL LOL etc etc, I could go on & on? Now I'm starting to think maybe Hillary should've won and he should've been her vp. After 8yrs of hell, and bully pulpit tactics from the Bush era, this is not the time to buckle under rethugs and play mr nice guy, which has gotten us absolutely NOWHERE!!! Some of you are in a dream world if you think things are going good, wake up and smell the teabags.lol Oh well, some of you will just have to learn the hard way.:spank:

[Nedsdag]

17. I agree as well.

The Naderites are the boil on the butt of humanity.

All talk, no action.

[treestar]

13. I know you're happy about this, but

the country just took a turn to the right.

[IndianaGreen]

18. I actually agree with David Sirota's analysis tonight

After a 2008 campaign that saw Democrats promise to genuinely take on the health care and financial industries, we've seen a 2009 that has asked Democratic voters to fight for extremely small, extremely modest scraps. We've been relegated to having to mount fierce campaigns to keep things like the public option in the debate and not to stop trillion-dollar bailouts - but just make sure they have one or two flimsy strings attached to them.

We've loyally mounted these campaigns. They haven't been fun, and worse, they haven't been legislatively successful (at least not yet). But beyond the substantive failure is the embarrassment that comes with even having to mount such campaigns in the first place.

There is something deeply embarrassing about Democratic voters/groups having to fight with Democratic leaders to get those leaders to even seriously try (much less pass) even the smallest, most modest shreds of their promises. Having to do that evokes feelings of genuine shame - shame in front of the other voters we told to vote for Democrats because it supposedly "mattered," and shame when we look in the mirror at a self that may have allowed itself to be unnecessarily duped.

http://www.openleft.com/showDiary.do?diaryId=17005

[ibegurpard]

22. wow

that really nails my feelings on all of this

[ej510]

29. I agree.

IndianaGreen I actually agree with David Sirota's analysis tonight
After a 2008 campaign that saw Democrats promise to genuinely take on the health care and financial industries, we've seen a 2009 that has asked Democratic voters to fight for extremely small, extremely modest scraps. We've been relegated to having to mount fierce campaigns to keep things like the public option in the debate and not to stop trillion-dollar bailouts - but just make sure they have one or two flimsy strings attached to them.

We've loyally mounted these campaigns. They haven't been fun, and worse, they haven't been legislatively successful (at least not yet). But beyond the substantive failure is the embarrassment that comes with even having to mount such campaigns in the first place.

There is something deeply embarrassing about Democratic voters/groups having to fight with Democratic leaders to get those leaders to even seriously try (much less pass) even the smallest, most modest shreds of their promises. Having to do that evokes feelings of genuine shame - shame in front of the other voters we told to vote for Democrats because it supposedly "mattered," and shame when we look in the mirror at a self that may have allowed itself to be unnecessarily duped.

http://www.openleft.com/showDiary.do?diaryId=17005"]Text

This is spot on.

[Phoebe Loosinhouse]

41. Yes. One feels duped. And it's sad to see hope become cynicism

I think that is the worst thing to come out of this year.

[TankLV]

44. My feelings and thoughts exactly...

But still the right wing trolls here continue to bash us and expect our vote and support...

[TankLV]

43. Wrong - as usual...

This was JUST MASSACHUSETTS.

NOT the "whole country" as your delusional RIGHT WING brain may wish...

[Zenlitened]

53. Great moments in DUchebaggery.

"I know you're happy about this."

Face it, you have no political insights to offer AT ALL. You've made it plain that you don't understand anything about anything.

And your ham-fisted attempts to divert discussion get more clumsy and obvious by the hour.

[inthebrain]

14. The Democrats are too in bed with Wall Street

Remember that we already have Obamas HCR in this state. We are mandated to purchase health insurance and folks don't like it. Our healthcare costs have gone up and healthcare workers are getting laid off like crazy.

The Democrats locally have not differentiated themselves from the Republicans. Deval Patrick's term as governor is no different than that of Romneys. He's been cutting state workers like crazy.

[freddie mertz]

15. Dean said it succinctly tonight.

Time to get tough.

[ChiciB1]

32. Not Sure the WH OR Congress Critters Are Going To Hear Us Yet!

We shall see. What SHOULD be done may have already been compromised with "other" promises behind closed doors!

Transparency??? What's that?? Oh, I thought I heard it a couple of times! Maybe not!

Outta here, going to go night-night!

[ShortnFiery]

16. KnR

:thumbsup:

[girl gone mad]

20. We should have been singing We Are The Champions..

not Kumbaya.

[frazzled]

24. Then BIll Clinton shouldn't have endorsed Coakley over Capuano

who was the progressive's choice.

Look, this finger pointing has to stop. Martha Coakley should have stepped up to the plate tonight and said "I falied you and I am sorry." Instead, she and her staff spent the day pointing fingers at Washington. That is the great moral lapse, Mr. Daou. That isn't done. People gravitate to people who have moral authority, as you said: not who whine and blame others before the numbers are even in.

[martymar64]

28. Capuano would've kicked Brown's ass.

Another nail pounded in the coffin of our party by Rahm and company.

[frazzled]

34. Rahm had zero to do with it

Where do you people get this conspiracy theory that Rahm Emanuel controls the Democratic primary voters in Massachusetts, as well as everything else in every bumfuck local issue in the country?

I just put the facts to you: Martha got a ton of money from Emily's List; she got Bill Clinton to endorse her. She had a known name as AG for many years. She had all the primary votes from (more conservative) her home district, western Mass, and the Boston Dems didn't bother to come out and vote. The Democrats in Massachusetts overwhelmingly voted for her in a primary (which had super low turnout) ... and your answer is .... Rahm Emanuel? That's plain fucking nuts.

[PolNewf]

25. Reality by the numbers

US Elctorate:
40% Conservative
20% Liberal
40% Moderate

Liberals need to join with 75% of moderates to win elections.
Conservatives need to join with 25% of moderates to win elections.
Moderates need to join with 25% of conservatives or 50% of liberals (or some combination) to win elections.

You can pretend that up is down and down is up but it doesn't make it so.

[ibegurpard]

26. Excuse me?

You pulled those numbers out of thin air.

[PolNewf]

27. Unfortunately I didn't, here is some data for you

PRINCETON, NJ -- The increased conservatism that Gallup first identified among Americans last June persisted throughout the year, so that the final year-end political ideology figures confirm Gallup's initial reporting: conservatives (40%) outnumbered both moderates (36%) and liberals (21%) across the nation in 2009.

http://www.gallup.com/poll/124958/Conservatives-Finish-2009-No-1-Ideological-Group.aspx

[amborin]

31. a sample of Colorado voters are not happy either: article:

Donny Seyfer, the manager of an auto repair shop here, had high hopes when President Obama and Congress tackled health care as their top priority early last year.

snip

Mr. Seyfer’s disappointment was echoed in dozens of interviews here and in Fort Collins, Colo. People from both sides of the political spectrum — and apolitical consumers — said they were deeply skeptical about the health care bill being put together by Congress and the White House.

The concern illustrates the challenge Mr. Obama and Democratic lawmakers face in trying to meld House and Senate bills in a way that can be sold to the public. All kinds of issues are still in play, from how to cover abortion to whether to tax high-cost health plans.

snip

But Republicans are already using the bill as ammunition against Democrats who voted for it, like Senator Michael Bennet of Colorado.

About 800,000 Colorado residents, representing one-sixth of the state’s population, are uninsured. The state’s politics are mixed and somewhat unpredictable. Colorado has a sizable contingent of people who want a single-payer government-financed health care system, as well as libertarians and Tea Party protesters opposed to big government.

Few of those interviewed here expect to see direct benefits from the legislation. Many complained of sweetheart deals done to win votes in the Senate. Liberals and conservatives alike said Congress was too influenced by special interests.

Tamara L. Kirch, who is uninsured and stands to benefit from the legislation, bristled at the proposed requirement to buy insurance.

“We have a frontier mentality,” Ms. Kirch said. “I don’t want the government telling me what to do.” (She feels the same way about abortion: “The government should not tell a woman what to do with her womb.”)

Democrats, Republicans and independents each account for about one-third of registered voters in Colorado.

Mr. Obama carried the state with 54 percent of the vote in 2008. But Gov. Bill Ritter Jr., a Democrat who was facing a tough fight for re-election, pulled out of the race last week.

snip

“Republicans misled people and tried to scare seniors by putting out misinformation about death panels,” Mr. Vaughn said. “Then to pass a bill in the Senate, Democrats stooped to bartering for votes. It demeans the whole process.”

James W. Noon, who runs a packaging supply business here, said he was irked to see Senate leaders secure votes by promising extra Medicaid money to Nebraska and Louisiana.

“Don’t they realize how dumb that looks?” said Mr. Noon, a Republican.

Michael R. Stone, a private investigator who describes himself as a political independent, was bothered by those deals, too.

“President Obama campaigned on a promise to change the way things are done in Washington,” Mr. Stone said. “But it seems like business as usual to me.”

Richard F. Barkey, a former chairman of the Jefferson County Democratic Party and a leader of the advocacy group Health Care for All Colorado, said: “We had huge expectations for President Obama and the Democrats in Congress. But they could not build a dam big enough to stop the flood of money from corporate interests that have influenced the health care debate.”

Eliza Carney, a member of the same group, said, “Obama and his administration have really — I won’t say betrayed, but — disappointed us.”

State Representative John M. Kefalas, a Democrat from Fort Collins, said: “Not enough in either bill focuses on: How do you increase the value of our health care system? How do we bring down costs?”

A government-run insurance company, or public option, could hold down costs by putting competitive pressure on private insurers, Mr. Kefalas said. But it was “bumped out of the Senate bill because of special-interest influence,” he said.

Brandon C. Shaffer, a Democrat who is president of the Colorado Senate, said, “It’s amazing to me how the insurance industry lobby has shaped the debate in Washington.”

That sentiment was echoed on the other side of the political divide.

“Congress and this administration don’t listen to us anymore,” said Lesley A. Hollywood, a Republican and member of the Northern Colorado Tea Party group. “They are catering to special interests, health insurance and pharmaceutical companies.”

Colorado has been an incubator of innovation. Denver Health is considered a model for public hospitals. Health economists point to Grand Junction, Colo., to show how collaboration by doctors and hospitals can produce high-quality, low-cost care.

snip

http://www.nytimes.com/2010/01/11/health/policy/11health.html?sq=colorado independents&st=cse&scp=1&pagewanted=all

[O is 44]

36. Well I hope the bloggers are

happy now that another NO vote has joined the Senate.

[treestar]

39. go home and be smug then

You got the Republican you wanted.

Enjoy getting THEM to get you single payer.

[TankLV]

45. Continue to bash us and expect us to agree with you - nice...

[Hello_Kitty]

51. They have stellar talking points, don't they? eom

[leftynyc]

46. There are miles of difference

between single payer and the gift to the insurance and pharma companies this bill has. That's why people hate the bill. They see all the compromises (having a mandate without a public option?!!). The bill is crap and everyone knows it.

[Hello_Kitty]

50. Dirty fucking hippies! It's all their fault!

The DLC can do no wrong.

[Vidar]

40. K&R.

[kwolf68]

49. I dont get it

The Republicans had a much weaker majority and got so much Bush bullshit pushed through. The Dems had a great majority and couldn't get shit done. Leadership must go.

Also, what else was the Dems doing? Anything? It seems the ONLY thing the Dems were working on (badly) was health care reform.

The Republicans were blocking shit with 40 fucking votes somehow...now they have 41 and they are acting like they just won 100 seats. I can't imagine later this year when the Republicans take another 4 or 5 Senate seats and numerous house seats, likely closing in both houses.

Literally NOTHING will get done Republicans don't want. The Democrats are pussies.