New Developments III

[taki15]

I agree with Mister Tee that there are people like Hamsher whose shrillness actually undermines the liberal causes they supposedly work for. But you got to admit that Obama and the White House have proven repeatedly that they have a tin ear when it comes to satisfying the Democratic base.
As Josh Marshall said almost a year ago (and have posted back then) people weren't furious with Obama because he didn't pass public option, didn't end DADT and DOMA or failed to pass imigration reform. They were furious because he didn't fight for them.

Just look what happened the last two days. Obama saying that his biggest mistake was that he didn't compromise enough with Republicans is not only insulting the intelligence of everybody that follows politics during the last two years, but an affront to all those people that defended him against Republican obstructionism and intransigence.
And floating the name of Melissa Bean (one of the most bank-friendly Democrats) as the head of the newly created Consumer Protection Agency was the surest way to anger and disappoint reformers who thought that there was a chance for the administration to crack down on predatory lending.

Actually, Obama's trajectory until now reminds me of Nixon.
Both took over during a major crisis, only four years after their party had suffered major defeats.
They had to confront a financial downturn and an unpopular war.
They were both well into the mainstream of their parties but the opposition demonized them, despite the fact that they tried to incorporate a lot of its ideas.
Both faced a major protest movement (anti-war students/hippies for the first, teabaggers for the second),
Their elections heralded the beginning of a new era in American politics.
And most important, they both ran as a conservative/liberal and eventually governed as moderates, to the point that they angered the bases of their parties.
And as of now Obama is likely to face some right-wing extremist in 2012, just like Nixon faced McGovern.

Curiously though, these two couldn't be more different character-wise.

[Mister Tee]

They can gripe, say it was the wrong time, and the Firebaggers of the world can persist in their "It didn't socialize medicine, ergo it was nothing" stance. But a balanced reading says, they used those majorities to achieve something that no administration/Congress together has managed in 8 decades of trying. Bravo.

You keep undermiming what the "imbalanced" view (as opposed to the "balanced" view, I guess) is by making sure you use words like "socialization" in place of "progressive" - which is a lack of balance on your part - but have you ever once defined what this it was that the administration did? Because for a year the only acheivement I've seen you crow about is that the bill managed to get passed. If it's not progressive, and it's not status quo redux, what is it?

I've had limited computer access for two days, so haven't been able to get to answer you.

My response is, I do think the health care bill was a progressive achievement, for all the reasons most Democratic supporters do -- adding 30 million people to the rolls of the insured; eliminating exclusion for pre-existing conditions, and ending lifetime caps; allowing young adults to stay on their parents' policies; fixing the Medicare gap; allowing negotiation through the health exchanges. This isn't to say I didn't want more. In fact, I wanted most of the things the disgruntled did -- certainly the public option at this juncture, but, ideally, something closer to the Canadian system. I wasn't at all meaning to demean those liberal/progressive goals. I merely am maddened by the fact that, once it became clear such wide-sweeping changes weren't in the cards at this point, those styling themselves as The Only True Progressives turned into the "Kill the bill" crowd" -- willing to toss away someone else's half a loaf because it didn't meet their standards of lefty purity. Maybe I can be too dismissive of them. But when I see Jane Hamsher on TV cackling with delight about Democratic losses, it's hard to work up much understanding for her group's position.

Even beyond the bill itself, I wanted to see the narrative changed. The history of the fight for health care in this country, esp. in the past 40 years, has been of liberals wanting more than the system could bear, rejecting a halfway approach, and ending up with not just nothing, but with the growing presumption that health care was always going to be a bridge too far for the progressive coalition. Ted Kennedy was said to have regretted, later in life, not snapping up Nixon's blueprint -- a blueprint widely seen as more progressive than anything Hillary ever proposed in '94. In that year, '94, the GOP (well, Chafee/Dole) offered a paler-still plan (though it was at least as progressive as what we got this year) -- but, once again, liberal Dems rejected it as not enough. It's easy to see the trajectory here, and it's not something the left should be thrilled with. (Another 20 years along that route, plans would be lucky to include Wal-Mart prescription cards) I (along with the president, and many in Congress) thought this was the time to finally plant a flag -- make it clear that health care is an essential right for citizens, one in which the government is willing to take a part in insuring.

The law is not, no one needs to be told, perfect. But it's also not finished. The history of the beloved Democratic programs (Social Security, Medicare, Civil Rights) is that, once they get a wobbly foothold, they are improved upon in subsequent years. The Republicans (and their insurance allies) realize this, which is why they fought so hard to prevent its passing. They know it'll be far harder to dislodge, or prevent the advance of, a law already in place than to prevent passage of a still-theoretical bill. So, my celebration of the health care bill is for both its specific achievements, and for the future gauntlet it throws down.

[Okri]

I do hope Tee does one of his trademark summations after this is over.

See if this suffices.

It did indeed. Thanks.

[OscarGuy]

Let's also go back for our history lesson.

Historically, mid-term elections mean the party in power loses seats. There are only 10 instances of 50 where the party in power did not lose seats in the last 100 years. Only 3 of those 10 were house increases or no-changers.

And let's recall Ike's 1958 losses: 13 senate seats and 48 house seats. Harding lost 8 and 75 in 1922. Taft 10 and 57. And while I'm only highlighting the Republicans to show that it's not a party-specific issue, there were also Democrats who fared poorly (FDR, considered one of history's greatest presidents, lost 9 and 45 in 1942; Truman lost 12 and 55 in 46, but still managed to gain re-election in '48; Clinton lost 9 and 54 in '94 and went on to victory in '96).

So, you can make this all about Obama's policies or the tanking economy, but he was going to lose seats in the house and senate regardless of what he did. And if you take out the factor that losses were expected, the only thing that makes the Dem losses so high was the +R PVIs of several districts that had Dems just managed to shift back to how the district typically votes. So, the people who got punished most in this election were the Dems that, as Republican's might call them, DINOs.

[Big Magilla]

NEW YORK – MSNBC says Keith Olbermann will be back on the air Tuesday, ending his suspension for violating NBC's rules against making political donations after two shows.

MSNBC's chief executive Phil Griffin said late Sunday that after several days of deliberation, he had determined that two days off the air was "an appropriate punishment for his violation of our policy."

The left-leaning cable network's most popular personality acknowledged donating $2,400 apiece to the campaigns of Kentucky Senate candidate Jack Conway and Arizona Reps. Raul Grijalva and Gabrielle Giffords. NBC News prohibits its employees from making political donations unless an exception is granted in advance by the network news president. In this case, Olbermann's bosses didn't know about them until being informed by a reporter.

"We look forward to having him back on the air Tuesday night," Griffin said in a statement.

Liberal groups had taken on Olbermann's suspension as a cause. An online petition calling for his reinstatement, run by the Progressive Change Campaign Committee, had exceeded 300,000 signatures Sunday, and Michael Moore had tweeted his support. The committee's Adam Green said Griffin was repeatedly e-mailed updates on the petition drives.

"Progressives proved that when one of our own are targeted, we will have their backs," he said.

Left unanswered is the question of why Olbermann would do something he undoubtedly knew would be provocative, or whether he was trying to make a statement against NBC's policy. He did not immediately return an e-mail message seeking comment Sunday.

On his Twitter page, Olbermann wrote: "Greetings from exile! A quick, overwhelmed, stunned THANK YOU for support that feels like a global hug."

[Sonic Youth]

I just think it's silly, some of the "reasons" being given for the losses....

----------

....It's not about which districts flipped, although here Jay Cost makes the case that this was really the Bush voting coalition coming back.

Stop. Your irony is killing me.

[Big Magilla]

The assumption here, I guess, is that he'll be running against Sarah Palin, who might scare off moderate Democrats and some independents unless she somehow convinces them she can govern better than Obama (and that is possible if he continues to lose support over the next 2 years). But that assumes she gets the nomination, which is not a guarantee.

I'll say it isn't. Her favorability/unfavorability numbers aren't so hot, especially among independants.

The question being asked is "Do you have a favorable or unfavoralel opinion of Sarah Palin?"

It's a benign question. Of course the majority of Republicans are going to say they have a favorable opinion, but ask them if they think she's qualified to be President and half of them will say no.

However, she could still get the Republican nomination by winning enough early primaries as to make her seem invincible. That would be the best thing that could happen for the Democrats. Since more people come out to vote against someone or something than for, Obama should win in a landslide.

I'm thinking, though, that the Republican machine will somehow stop her, put up Romney and run someone of her ilk but with a few more brains, such as as Mark Rubio, as Romney's running mate.

If the Republicans keep up this nonsense of the last few days, i.e. saying their number one priority is to throw out "Obamacare" they're going to lose across the board. The electorate may not like the new health care - hell, nobody likes everything in it - but the number one issue is the economy, primarily jobs and the housing market and until those two problems are perceived as being on the road to real recovery, which may take another two or three years, no one is going to look good, not the President, not the House, not the Senate, nor anyone in those two chambers.



Edited By Big Magilla on 1289180976

[taki15]

I'll say that criddic has written a lot of nonsense but today's post is a new high (or should that be low?) for him.
It seems like something out of David Broder and Doug Schoen's wet dreams.

BTW, even if the Republicans take the Senate and the White House in 2012, the law will still not be repealed because (guess what?) the Democrats will filibuster any such attempt.
Ain't democracy grand?

Well that is possible, but they'll need enough to fillibuster. I also think that short of repealing the law, they can de-fund it. If a small Democratic majority can pass the bill, a small Republican majority in both chambers can repeal it. Ain't democracy grand?

LOL! A small majority of 60-40.

And if you really believe that after the 2012 elections the Democrats will have less than 41 senators then you are even more clueless than Sister Sarah.

[criddic3]

I'll say that criddic has written a lot of nonsense but today's post is a new high (or should that be low?) for him.
It seems like something out of David Broder and Doug Schoen's wet dreams.

BTW, even if the Republicans take the Senate and the White House in 2012, the law will still not be repealed because (guess what?) the Democrats will filibuster any such attempt.
Ain't democracy grand?

Well that is possible, but they'll need enough to fillibuster. I also think that short of repealing the law, they can de-fund it. If a small Democratic majority can pass the bill, a small Republican majority in both chambers can repeal it. Ain't democracy grand?

[taki15]

I'll say that criddic has written a lot of nonsense but today's post is a new high (or should that be low?) for him.
It seems like something out of David Broder and Doug Schoen's wet dreams.

BTW, even if the Republicans take the Senate and the White House in 2012, the law will still not be repealed because (guess what?) the Democrats will filibuster any such attempt.
Ain't democracy grand?

[criddic3]

Their loss this year signals that. at least in part, people were expressing their disappointment with President Obama's performance and policies. You can't hide that fact by saying..."oh these were only Republican voters anyway."

Wow, this is where the phrase "Way to miss the point" comes in.

The assumption here, I guess, is that he'll be running against Sarah Palin, who might scare off moderate Democrats and some independents unless she somehow convinces them she can govern better than Obama (and that is possible if he continues to lose support over the next 2 years). But that assumes she gets the nomination, which is not a guarantee.

I'll say it isn't. Her favorability/unfavorability numbers aren't so hot, especially among independants.

I just think it's silly, some of the "reasons" being given for the losses. The whole idea that they simply had to do a better job of selling their plans, rather than that the plans were not good. Or that the losses weren't really so bad, because after all, many were in red districts. Or that, gee they really won because they passed the bill wanted to pass. In other words, winning re-election isn't the goal but passing a bill by any means is the goal. Neither one should be the goal. Common sense dictates that passing a good bi-partisan bill that will truly benefit the people should be the goal. Then the election would still have been about the economy, but at least they could say they did what they did for the right reasons, and I think most voters would have given them the benefit of the doubt on that, thus lessening the anger that rose as a result of the perception that they just weren't listening. The problem about health care is that Democrats selfishly wanted a "Democrat Victory" more than they wanted a bill people could possibly like. Added with all the other issues that didn't add real jobs to the private sector, they were blamed for not making things better and lost an election.

It's not about which districts flipped, although here Jay Cost makes the case that this was really the Bush voting coalition coming back. Between Bush and Obama coalitions there will ultimately be a battle in 2012, and I suspect that no matter what happens Obama will lose some states. If those states include Ohio and Florida, he may not be re-elected. As I said before, that means Obamacare could be repealed, since it really isn't implemented until 2013.



Edited By criddic3 on 1289169384

[Sonic Youth]

Their loss this year signals that. at least in part, people were expressing their disappointment with President Obama's performance and policies. You can't hide that fact by saying..."oh these were only Republican voters anyway."

Wow, this is where the phrase "Way to miss the point" comes in.

The assumption here, I guess, is that he'll be running against Sarah Palin, who might scare off moderate Democrats and some independents unless she somehow convinces them she can govern better than Obama (and that is possible if he continues to lose support over the next 2 years). But that assumes she gets the nomination, which is not a guarantee.

I'll say it isn't. Her favorability/unfavorability numbers aren't so hot, especially among independants.

[criddic3]

Another point to make is about half the 60-or-so member Blue Dog coalition of conservative House Democrats lost while only about 5% of the 80-or-so member Progressive Coalition of House Democrats lost. That means the ideological change in the House was not as great as the party change.

If the economy really did decide the election, then this is only apropos. But let's not forget that most of those seats were in Republican-leaning districts, so they're the ones you'd expect to do badly anyway. Now the question is, will they truly go by their ideological principles or go along with Obama's new Republican Outreach program?

If that consoles you, that's great. Remember, though, that many of the people who lost also were ushered in on the wave of Obamamania in 2008. Their loss this year signals that. at least in part, people were expressing their disappointment with President Obama's performance and policies. You can't hide that fact by saying..."oh these were only Republican voters anyway." They were giving the Democrats a chance to govern from the center, which is largely how President Obama sounded in his speeches in 2008, claiming he would bring in a period of bipartisanship and better stewardship of the economy. Throwing money at the problem seems to be the only answer they have, and people got angry about that. If Democrats want to pretend that messaging is the reason they lost so many seats, and so many supporters, they're not going to be able to rebuild the Obama coalition they won with before. Maybe Obama doesn't care about being re-elected, but Democrats surely care about losing the ability to extend their agenda into the far future. That will be very hard to do if they lose in 2012.

The assumption here, I guess, is that he'll be running against Sarah Palin, who might scare off moderate Democrats and some independents unless she somehow convinces them she can govern better than Obama (and that is possible if he continues to lose support over the next 2 years). But that assumes she gets the nomination, which is not a guarantee. The better way for Democrats to help re-elect Obama is for them to work in a real way with Republicans. Token lip-service to their concerns won't do it.

[Sonic Youth]

They can gripe, say it was the wrong time, and the Firebaggers of the world can persist in their "It didn't socialize medicine, ergo it was nothing" stance. But a balanced reading says, they used those majorities to achieve something that no administration/Congress together has managed in 8 decades of trying. Bravo.

You keep undermiming what the "imbalanced" view (as opposed to the "balanced" view, I guess) is by making sure you use words like "socialization" in place of "progressive" - which is a lack of balance on your part - but have you ever once defined what this it was that the administration did? Because for a year the only acheivement I've seen you crow about is that the bill managed to get passed. If it's not progressive, and it's not status quo redux, what is it?

[Sonic Youth]

Another point to make is about half the 60-or-so member Blue Dog coalition of conservative House Democrats lost while only about 5% of the 80-or-so member Progressive Coalition of House Democrats lost. That means the ideological change in the House was not as great as the party change.

If the economy really did decide the election, then this is only apropos. But let's not forget that most of those seats were in Republican-leaning districts, so they're the ones you'd expect to do badly anyway. Now the question is, will they truly go by their ideological principles or go along with Obama's new Republican Outreach program?