Michael Maiello's picture

    Big Brother Obama

    By Michael Maiello on Thu, 06/02/2011 - 11:23am | Politics

    My column for The Daily today is about the reinstatement of The Patriot Act and how the fact that the government can and will spy on 300 million Americans is now just an accepted fact of life, and is no longer something that inspires serious debate.  I believe that we will live with The Patriot Act forever and that government and corporate abuses of privacy are just going to get worse.

    Both political parties are acting on the Mark Zuckerberg theory of people and their privacy which is that when you first take their privacy away, some people whine, then they stop whining and everyone moves on.  Really, this has been proven time and time again in the market place.  How much personal information have you given to your credit card lender?  To the utility company?  To now bankrupt Blockbuster Video?

    Among Democrats, issues of warrantless wiretapping, domestic spying and the establishment of a vast (and illegal) database of call records that pre-dates 9/11, all came to an end when then Senator and Candidate Obama voted to immunize the telecom companies from the legal consequences of providing private data to government agencies in violation of the 1986 Telecommunications Act.

    As President, Obama has clung to every power claimed for the White House by the Bush Administration without apology or explanation.  His Justice Department is currently prosecuting an NSA whistleblower who probably should be getting a reward and public commendation.  We Democrats have had to content ourselves with the notion that since Obama is a better intentioned and smarter person than Bush, that these powers are somehow being put to more moral or forgivable use. I'm not so sanguine.

    For a nation of supposed rugged individualists, we all seem quite happy to bow to unaccountable authority.  I suspect that as the threat of Middle East based terrorism continues to recede that the government will use the powers it won for itself since 9/11 for all sorts of other purposes, mostly law enforcement related, but sometimes not.  As there are no effective checks on these powers, I don't expect to hear much complaining about them. The Surveillance Society is now a fact of American life.

    Topics: 
    Politics

    Comments

    Children born since 2000 will never know a U.S. where every phone call doesn’t have a silent third party.

    Made me think of the local party lines in the 1950s when there were even more and not all that silent either. :)

    But seriously, as you point out so many of us voluntarily surrender so much of our privacy to become better easier marketing targets, it is practically impossible for those of us who do object and resist to maintain our privacy despite ticking all the appropriate little  boxes.   Those ticks are somehow turned off the next software upgrade.  How many of us even read the continually updated and amended terms and condtions of the sites we visit.  They have become a joke that will eventually turn on us, if they haven't already.  

    So why should we be alarmed that the government is doing more or less the same thing?  We take the abuses and deal with them one at a time on a personal level until there are enough people upset that somehow things are changed.  That is how anonymous authority works.  You just have to have enough people in agreement to be the authority.  Apparently just now we aren't enough people which is why you have to keep talking about it.

    Keep on keeping on.  

    ☮


    by EmmaZahn on Thu, 06/02/2011 - 12:07pm

    My Aunt Bella was a Ma Bell operator in NYC.  She was always afraid that the mob would find out that she'd overheard some of the things she'd overheard.


    by Michael Maiello on Thu, 06/02/2011 - 12:16pm

    Some good fiction in them thar calls, I imagine.


    by Peter Schwartz on Thu, 06/02/2011 - 1:03pm

    Funny you should  bring this up. Because I noticed a reaction to Big Brother @ Thinkprogress.org with their switch to a software system which requires commenters to be logged in to Facebook, or to comment via a Yahoo, AOL or Hotmail email account.  (i.e.., there is no actual site registration anymore, it's in collaboration with one of those 4.)

    Results so far: looks like commenting on Yglesias' blog has dropped to like less than 1/4 of what it was; only those who were in the habit of using their real name before seem to be commenting.

    Perhaps if I am really itching to say something there, I will go through the trouble of setting up a false email in order to comment there. (Someone who was really concerned about privacy might want to use an anonymizer to do that, too.) But so far I think I will resist.

    It's kind of ironic seeing more and more "progressive" sites embrace the "too big to fail" doorways to internet activity--buying it hook, line and sinker.


    by artappraiser on Thu, 06/02/2011 - 2:28pm

    Makes me glad I set up my pseudonyms with their own e-mail accounts years ago.  I may have a couple still around you can use if you want. 

    Now that reminds of the bugmenot utility from back when news sites were requiring registrations and look!, they are still around and already have a couple of accounts set up. 

    http://www.bugmenot.com/view/thinkprogress.org

     


    by EmmaZahn on Thu, 06/02/2011 - 2:32pm

    Did it ever occur to you that if you use 'bugmenot' it is conceivable that your use of it could make you a suspect in someone else's use of that same password, which is readily available to anyone thru bugmenot?

    I looked up some comments under a bugmenot logon I was using, and shocked at the comments, I deleted them all down to the last one (which you can do when logged on, on most sites), and never used it again anywhere.

    Artappraiser makes some good observations on the ubiquitous use of facebook/yahoo logon.


    by NCD on Thu, 06/02/2011 - 5:10pm

    Why would you censor people who were commenting anonymously using a shared login? Or did you just delete your own comments?

     


    by kgb999 on Thu, 06/02/2011 - 5:18pm

    GTK....never used bugmenot except as a novelty when it first came out ...  Just remembered it from ages ago and it was still in my bookmarks.  I really need to do something about the clutter on my computer.

     


    by EmmaZahn on Thu, 06/02/2011 - 6:23pm

    TPM kind of did that too, though they left some way for you to use your old screen name.  It's funny because, after I left Forbes, I've been more and more open about Destor23 and my non-super hero identity, but that doesn't mean that I necessarily want everything I write on a blog linked to my damned Facebook account because I'm frankly writing for different audiences here and there.

    But, of course, Mark Z. would like you to be active and logged into his service whenever you're on the Internet and more and more sites are going to decide that it's just easier to let him be the Web's universal logon than for them to maintain their own subscription services.


    by Michael Maiello on Thu, 06/02/2011 - 2:42pm

    "So why should we be alarmed that the government is doing more or less the same thing? "

    Uh... because the government holds the power to arrest you, detain you, and depending on the charges, allow you to use certain evidence in your trial, but not other if they deem it a 'national security risk' to do so, and they set those standards unilaterally.

    Please check the google page I left below to see how many peace and other activists are being harassed by the FBI and other Homeland-y organizations.

    Not only has Obama not given up any of the Bush-era Patriot Act, as Destor pointed out, he has tweaked things even more secretly:

    "Sens. Ron Wyden of Oregon and Mark Udall of Colorado, both Democrats, proclaimed that the Patriot Act's surveillance powers are being used far more expansively than most Americans realize. But they can't disclose what they know, they said, because the documents that detail how the Obama administration implements the act are classified. As members of the Intelligence Committee, Wyden and Udall are privy to secret briefings.

    "Today the American people do not know how their government interprets the language of the Patriot Act," Wyden said. "Someday they are going to find out, and a lot of them are going to be stunned. Some of them will undoubtedly ask their senators: 'Did you know what this law actually did? Why didn't you know? Wasn't it your job to know, before you voted on it?' "

    In an interview, Udall said he wasn't even allowed to discuss details about the government's intelligence-gathering with fellow senators unless they go to a secure room in the Capitol designed to thwart eavesdropping.

    But in a statement before the vote, Udall said the law allows the government to "place wide-ranging wiretaps on Americans without even identifying the target or location of such surveillance; target individuals who have no connection to terrorist organizations, and collect business records on law-abiding Americans, without any connection to terrorism."

    Not so much like giving Facebook TMI, IMO.


    by we are stardust on Thu, 06/02/2011 - 5:27pm

    Uh... because the government holds the power to arrest you, detain you, and depending on the charges, allow you to use certain evidence in your trial, but not other if they deem it a 'national security risk' to do so, and they set those standards unilaterally.

    Whereas powerful private parties can make your life miserable in so many other ways.   

    My point was the general public indifference to Homeland Security surveillance is an extension of the general indifference to the everyday surveillance of marketers.   We are so thoroughly demographied* that what the government is doing is probably redundant.  They could have just bought most of the information in the free market.

    We have so been trained by advertisers to give up so much for so little.  It will be a long road back.


    by EmmaZahn on Thu, 06/02/2011 - 6:34pm

    "As there are no effective checks on these powers, I don't expect to hear much complaining about them. The Surveillance Society is now a fact of American life."

    I wouldn't despair of rolling the surveillance society back. It'll take a whistleblower, or a blatant case of abuse of the surveillance capabilities.

    Switzerland had a massive scandal in the '90s where it was discovered that almost one in eight swiss citizens had extensive secret surveillance files on them - mostly labor activists, pacifists, feminists, third-world and environmental activists. In short, pretty much any and all leftists. The scandal shook the country, and led to much tighter oversight. People react when they realize the extent of the surveillance. Otherwise they assume the best of law-enforcement authorities.

    The files can still however be used by judges looking for background on people on trial for illegal civil disobedience style activities - as recently as 2005 they were introduced as evidence against labor leaders involved in an illegal transportation strike here in Geneva.

    I can't find an english language summary, but here is a french wiki page.

    http://fr.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scandale_des_fiches

     


    by Obey on Thu, 06/02/2011 - 1:10pm

    Might be so, Obey.  But in the meanwhile, there are lots of activists being spied on and harassed by the FBI.  Especially those Dirty Fucking Hippie Peace kind. 

     


    by we are stardust on Thu, 06/02/2011 - 1:52pm

    Until there is evidence of real abuse rather than speculation about potential future abuse, most Americans will not see themselves as personally threatened by Big Brother listening in.  Moreover, Americans are like other people in that security and order are high priority, whether internal and external threats. 

    And to the extent that these powers are used for law enforcement, it will put those fighting these powers to say in effect "I would rather that the child pornography ring not be broken up so that I can not have someone listening in on my correspondences."  Without any provable examples that 2011 has truly become 1984, the abstract concept of civil liberities tends to take a back seat to the more visceral threat of terrorists and russian mobsters.


    by Elusive Trope on Thu, 06/02/2011 - 3:15pm

    Well, I, for one, would rather that the child pornography ring not be broken up so that I can not have someone listening in on my correspondences.


    by Michael Maiello on Thu, 06/02/2011 - 3:24pm

    Are you communicating with child pornographers? Seems like a somewhat narcissistic self centered attitude ('I', 'for one, 'I', 'my'). I for one don't give a crap as long as the cops get the right people, if you don't want to risk monitoring, get a courier like OBL, although it didn't do him much good.


    by NCD on Thu, 06/02/2011 - 5:08pm

    Oh, yes. You guys are MUCH much better than having a bunch of republicans in charge.


    by kgb999 on Thu, 06/02/2011 - 5:27pm

    I guess I have no idea if I'm communicating with child pornographers.  I know that I'm not one, that I don't consume the product and that I'm not involved in its sale or creation, that should probably be reason enough for me to be able to ask authorities investigating such matters to leave me out of it.


    by Michael Maiello on Thu, 06/02/2011 - 5:54pm

    An interesting (as in disturbing) escalation of the "If you don't support the Patriot Act, you are against America!" genre, no?


    by kgb999 on Thu, 06/02/2011 - 7:10pm

    Totally.  I feel like NCD is trying to forcibly deputize me in some sort of war on kiddie porn.  Let us see your emails, it might help us catch a bad guy!

    No.


    by Michael Maiello on Fri, 06/03/2011 - 8:23am

    I think NCD was being facetious.


    by Rootman on Fri, 06/03/2011 - 12:42pm

    Oh hell, these days I just assume half you folks are gov employees just waiting for somebody to snap like that poor Ripper dude did at the old cafe.  Maybe testing out psychlogoical prediction algorithms or something. No?   Come one, spill the beans...no one will believe me anyway. 


    by Saladin on Thu, 06/02/2011 - 8:06pm

    Greetings Destor!

    You may recall that some of us raised as much of a ruckus as we could about what Obama was really all about the moment he double crossed his supprters on his promise to filibuster retroactive immunity for the telecom companies.  At that time, the oh so much more serious, smarter and pragmatic among us shouted down anyone who pointed out that Obama was a liar and a willing tool of the corporate interests.  Most of that crowd continues to bleet and babble endless excuses for his flip flops and lies.  It is those people who fancy themselves so pragmatic and wise who naively believe that the politics of the nation are little more than a coke vs pepsi challenge.  Those people cheer for their squad to win no matter what.  They have no principles that are lasting or meaningful: they just want to "win" whatever the hell that is when you've sold your birthright down the river.  The Obamabots are no better than the dark minions of Bush who blindly followed wherever Dear Leader led them no matter how illegal or just plain stupid his policies were.  The bots continue to assert their increasingly weak argument that Obama is better than a Republican but the truth is the longer he is in office the more indistinguishable Obama is from the Republicans.  He will be re-elected because the opposition is insane not because he deserves re-election because he doesn't.  Sadly, there will be no challenge to his weak Bendict Arnold leadership from the left, but he richly deserves a challenger and were one to appear I'd gladly vote against the lawless, Democratic tyrant who picked up Bush's banner and carried it since the moment he was nominated for President.


    by oleeb on Fri, 06/03/2011 - 1:52am

    I just hate it when you mince your words, Oleeb.   ;o)


    by we are stardust on Fri, 06/03/2011 - 6:41am

    It's good to be appreciated.  :)


    by oleeb on Fri, 06/03/2011 - 12:32pm

    ...he richly deserves a challenger and were one to appear I'd gladly vote against the lawless, Democratic tyrant who picked up Bush's banner and carried it since the moment he was nominated for President.

    I would, too, but no one else is running, so I am volunteering for Obama 2012. That doesn't mean I'm "no better than the dark minions of Bush." It just means that I only want to win and that I have no lasting principles.


    by Rootman on Fri, 06/03/2011 - 7:58am

    Aren't we awful early in the process to so confidently declare "no one else is running?"

     


    by kgb999 on Fri, 06/03/2011 - 10:21am

    Well, to be more accurate, it doesn't appear there will be any challenge.  Personally, I doubt any will materialize but I do hope I'm wrong.  I'm in agreement with Glenn Greenwald on the subject of witholding support from two-faced corporate politicians like Obama.  If liberals/the left support these assholes no matter what then they'll keep the same bullshit act going forever which is to appear to be at least sympathetic to the left and major liberal causes/issues during election time and then completely shut them out while in office.  Unless and until the left has a notable negative impact on the corporate sell out politicians that are the DC Democrats (with Obama at their head) they will continue to ignore the Democratic base and instead spend all their time kissing the asses of the right wing Republicans and Wall Street as Obama has done since being sworn in.


    by oleeb on Fri, 06/03/2011 - 12:30pm

    No one ever says "here's the person who should primary Obama." Is there anyone we can all agree on? Hillary Clinton, Edwards, Kerry, Pelosi, and Biden are out.

    I'd vote for Gore.


    by Rootman on Fri, 06/03/2011 - 12:41pm

    Kucinich


    by Donal on Fri, 06/03/2011 - 12:45pm

    If he could lead, he would run, but he can't, and he won't.


    by Rootman on Fri, 06/03/2011 - 12:47pm

    Fuckit. I want a Dylan/Nicholson ticket. 


    by quinn esq on Fri, 06/03/2011 - 2:15pm

    Not him ...


    by Donal on Fri, 06/03/2011 - 2:29pm

    I agree that we need a challenger.  Even if it's a foregone conclusion that he wins the nomination, we need some tally of the left.


    by Michael Maiello on Fri, 06/03/2011 - 8:30am

    Who do you like for 2016?


    by Rootman on Sat, 06/04/2011 - 12:36pm

    In speaking about the real left...

    The problem, as I see it is, they never win. And they never win because they always fail to convince enough people of their ideas. Or they give up too easily. Or they're lazy.

    (Cue the corporate media excuse...)

    (Cue all the polls that presumably show the country really likes liberal ideas...)

    I've heard much talk of how Obama's win was a victory for the progressive left. They put him over. What happened to them the day after? Where were they in 2010? Did they take their ball and go home when Obama snubbed them or told a lie?

    The progressive left stands on principle, but forgets about the long march that backs principle and gives it flesh and blood. As soon as their candidate does something wrong, they shout "Liar!" and give up...or go looking for someone else.

    Think about it: No president with a progressive agenda has won since LBJ. Genghis and TMMcarthy have it right.

     


    by Peter Schwartz on Fri, 06/03/2011 - 1:24pm

    *belch*

    How about we skip this fight and have another round? 

    I got the last one.

    *blaaaaaaaaart*

    *scuse*


    by quinn esq on Fri, 06/03/2011 - 2:32pm

    Hehe...

    Who's fightin'?


    by Peter Schwartz on Fri, 06/03/2011 - 3:31pm

    I would qualify what you write Peter by noting that after LBJ got the Voting Rights Act passed in '65 he was essentially finished, and not just because of Viet Nam. The GOP came back with a vengeance in '66.  Personally, I don't believe that those in the aggregate who crticize Obama have a realistic chance of attaining the legislative agenda they seek regardless of who sits in the Oval Office.  To the extent that the "left" so to speak in this country has potential clout, I think it's found in the grassroots, and I think the grassroots approach remains essentially untapped or disrupted by a hodgepodge of non-essential and competing mishigas.

    I understand, respect, but ultimately don't buy the false consciousness argument, to wit that the American people are fooled and therefore do not vote for someone like a Kucinich.  Ultimately, a Kucinich doesn't win because he doesn't get enough people to vote for him.  

    Finally, oleeb and many others knew where Obama was coming from in 2008, or where he was going.  Nobody should be surprised by where we are now.


    by Bruce Levine on Fri, 06/03/2011 - 2:44pm

    I could be wrong about this, but...

    I never hear the right blaming lost elections on the people not knowing what's good for them.

    In my memory at least, virtually the entire right stood behind Bush until the last days of his presidency, when they finally started with "he's not really a conservative and we have to go back to first principles." That is, they waited until he was out of the picture before trashing him. And they didn't trash too hard, I might add.

    Where's that drink, Quinn?


    by Peter Schwartz on Fri, 06/03/2011 - 3:37pm

    The republicans finally started peeling in mid '05-'06 ... the run up to the 2004 election was really all the longer Bush could keep a lid on his many scandals. And, apparently, mid 2009-ish was about how long it took the Democrats to decide Bush's many scandals weren't that big a deal after all.


    by kgb999 on Fri, 06/03/2011 - 4:04pm

    Bruce, this is not at all correct.

    Obama flatly lied and deliberately misrepresented himself to the voters.  A very small number of us were not fooled by his lies. That small number understood when he pulled a 360 on retroactive telecom immunity.  He and all of his supporters claimed that was a one time sort of thing and he hid behind "national security" for his flip flop.  It is apparent now he was simply lieing all along.  He was always in favor of granting the telecoms retroactive immunity and thought the Democrats would stave off a vote, but instead the literally sold out to big telecoms. You can check the record of the top Democrats in Congress and see the relationship between the flood of donations they recieved and their sudden revesal onthe retroactive immunity bill.  Obama was one who sold out, but that's not really an accurate way of putting it since he really was only holding out for a better offer the whole time.

    No one thought Obama was lieing about everything back in 08 Bruce, but those of us who are honest can no longer deny that was the case.  He has done nothing but be a servant for the very same malignant forces in Washington that Bush served.  He has bent over backwards to protect the status quo his entire candidacy was built upon changing.  Nobody thought he was really a Republican but that's what his record demonstrates that he is.  Nobody thought he would cave in in advance to the Republicans on every major issue from the moment he was sworn in.  Why do you think he does that Bruce?  The answer is obvious: because he agrees with them.  He has been itching to cut Medicare and Social Security along with those idiots but hasn't quite felt comfortable enough to pull the trigger on that betrayal.  That's what his budget commission led by the right wing extremist Simpson was for but it was so unpopular he had to walk away from it.  Despite the fact that not even a majority of Republicans want to gut Medicare he keeps flirting with the idea. Adding insult to injury he has escalated the Afghan war and has no intention of withdrawing from either Iraq or Arghanistan.  He is conducting an illegal war in Libya (whether you agree with it or not it is in open violation of the War Powers Act) and he's curtailed civil liberties even further than Bush did.  He is persecuting any and all whistleblowers in the government contrary to his campaign promises and he's allowed the rich to continue to have their undeserved tax cuts.  He's not so bad for a Republican these days, but as a Democrat this guy sucks.

    So, no Bruce.  The idea that anyone thought Obama would be this bad, this much of a liar, this much of a capitulator is going way too far.  Even the most cynical among us could not have imagined how he would single handedly destroy all the momentum the Democratic Party had built up during the Bush years for reform and substantive change.


    by oleeb on Sat, 06/04/2011 - 1:48am

    Oleeb:

    As always, thanks for your thoughtful reply.

    I'm not defending the president's record.  My defense of the president is fairly confined to what I think is a truism, and that is that it is better to have a Democrat in the White House than a Republican. And, from a different perspective than I recall you had back then, I always scoffed at the notion that Obama was going to transcend American politics.  Frankly, it irritated me to no end.

    I don't see Obama as the serial liar as you do.  As to his record, I'm not surprised, I'm not surprised at all by what I understand to be the product of the American political process.   And part of that process is that money plays an extraordinary role.  I would, of course, be interested in the flow of money data that you refer to from the telecom industry, and I don't think it's irrelevant.

    But there's no groundswell among the American people in response to the president's record.  He could lose in 2012 to some guy like Mitt Romney, but if he does lose it will be because the economy still sucks.  Such a loss wound not mean that our fellow citizens, the ones who vote, are interested in electing someone with a more progressive record than President Obama has compiled.  And I also do not believe that the way people vote is ultimately a function of the money that is injected into the political system, and I don't think that that is the product of a false consciousness brought on by corporate control of media, etc.

    I do believe that the American political process has, since 1789, consistently favored candidates who are able to capture the middle of the electorate.

    Bruce

     


    by Bruce Levine on Sat, 06/04/2011 - 8:15am

    In an odd twist of fate--and heretofore unremarked upon--former Obamabots now criticize those who don't think Obama is the worst Democrat ever as being...wait for it!...Obamabots!


    by Peter Schwartz on Sat, 06/04/2011 - 11:18am

    What would be strange, or could properly be called "an odd twist of fate", about a person believing the promises of pre-election Obama and being highly in favor of his claimed positions, and so then voting for him, and then, after seeing that those positions were just electoral b s which he did not ever fight to uphold, changing their support for him and then criticizing and characterizing those others who will not acknowledge their quite obvious mistake?


    by A Guy Called LULU on Sat, 06/04/2011 - 12:22pm

    Nice job, Lulu; I rec the comment, and deleted the rest I'd written that sorta poked fun at Peter's OCs about 'progressive'.   ;o)


    by we are stardust on Sat, 06/04/2011 - 1:03pm

    I guess the question boils down to whether you think he lied...never held those positions...whether you think the person made a political calculation...perhaps correct, perhaps not...about what he felt was politically feasible once he got into office and other actors and events became part of the mix.

    I think, if you look back, that it is the rule that a politician's term(s) in office almost NEVER go as he planned or as he proposed. This is because, when he's on the stump, he can have his druthers. When he's in office other things impinge on him.

    When I look at what Obama said on the campaign and what he's done since, I'd have to say that on the big things, he's moved in the DIRECTION of where he said he was going to go. In some cases, he hasn't, and those cases are glaring.

    But I have to tell you this is the case with every single politician I've ever watched. Every single one. Sometimes, things have turned out better than the politician promised. I'm not sure FDR was all that inspiring in the beginning. Sometimes, they turn out worse--LBJ comes to mind.

    Only an Obamabot--not a supporter, but a bot--would ever have harbored the notion that things were going to turn out the way he portrayed them on the stump and get all twisted up when he found out that the Messiah had not yet arrived.


    by Peter Schwartz on Sat, 06/04/2011 - 1:12pm

    Which promises were those? Like Bruce, I never saw Obama as anything but to the right of Hillary Clinton on most matters. Not a lot to the right, but to the right.

    I think I also observed that I had no doubt that people me and others who got called out for our less than ecstatic support of whomever the Dem nominee was going to be would, no doubt, be defending Obama when he didn't get you all magic rainbow ponies, immediately.

    There was a lot of myth built up around the President, but it always occured to me that peope didn't read what he actually said. He said he was aganst stupid wars, but made clear he wasn't against all wars. He said Iraq was stupid, and he got us out. What did he say about Afghanistan? Healthcare? Really? If it was that important to you, why did't you back Edwards, like I did, or Hillary, like Bruce did? Both to the left of Obama on healthcare. Firmly.

    So please, tell me what it is you are SOOOoooooo disappointed about, because frankly, he's done pretty much what some of us figured he would, and some of you folks are acting totally as was predicted, as well, which is amusing and disappointing.


    by Bwakkie (not verified) on Sun, 06/05/2011 - 2:33pm

    Wow; that graf starting with 'The progressive left' carries some strange slander and mis-fires in it, but I agree with Q, you can keep it.  Personally, I like the idea that the past is NOT the future, and people may be seeing austerity and anti-union overreach, and rethinking their politics a little, and may one day soon be open to a populist message.  But where is one?

    http://www.politicususa.com/en/russ-feingold-beats-walker-2


    by we are stardust on Fri, 06/03/2011 - 6:19pm

    I agree--they are feeling an overreach.

    It may not be new to say, but the American public, like a pendulum, seems to seek the center.


    by Peter Schwartz on Fri, 06/03/2011 - 7:58pm

    It ain't slander if it's true.


    by brewmn on Fri, 06/03/2011 - 11:00pm

    Free legal opinion, brew?  LOL, always a pleasure being treated to your cute little disses!


    by we are stardust on Fri, 06/03/2011 - 11:36pm

    I don't think it's slander. Oh, forget slander, I just don't think it's correct.

    If we're going to say that progressive were the KEY to Obama's victory, then we also have to wonder about 2010--less than two year's into his presidency.

    Either...

    • Progressive were the key and they decided to take a powder in 2010.

    Or...

    • Progressives were NOT the key, but just one piece of the puzzle composed of people with many different ideas and political proclivities.

    How else do we account for our losing Ted Kennedy's seat in the most liberal state in the union?

    I know the candidate sucked, but we've moved to a semi-parliamentary system where you need more Ds than Rs to overcome filibusters and get anything done. Progressives should know that.

    This is not a diss of progressives. It's an attempt to gain some perspective.

    I agree: We need to be looking to the future with the hope that the consensus will change. Following the New Deal and Great Society, we had a liberal consensus. Now, not so much.

    We can hope for Republican overreach, but that isn't really a plan or a program or a persuasive set of ideas. It's like winning a game on the other team's errors.

    Your final question "Where is one [populist message]? is also mine.


    by Peter Schwartz on Sat, 06/04/2011 - 11:29am

    Interesting. I recall Obama and Biden presenenting a health plan that featured no preexisting condition, no mandate, national exchanges, a public option, drug-reimportation (and drug price negotiation) and a wealth of other progressive dodads and thigamahoochies. It made a bit of a splash at the time; I'm surprised you managed to totally miss it. Look. Another summary that highlights the same promises. Has Obama's signature on it and everything ... what an inspirational pose. Let me guess; HCR wasn't a major campaign issue? Or are you honestly going to try and argue that the policy specifics laid out in official campaign materials does not look an awful lot like the liberal fantasy vis a vis HCR (shy single payer)? Or maybe you assert Obama didn't win the election?

    Yes, yes ... nobody has ever won an election since LBJ by promoting liberal policies. What planet do you people live on? Wherever it is, I'm pretty sure the water is heavily dosed with LSD. You realize that ALL the stuff he ran on is written down, right?

    Now for the bonus: accepting the absurd premise that Obama didn't run and win by promising liberal/progressive policy solutions (never mind the campaign materials and Democratic platform), name one politician since LBJ that has run on a MORE liberal set of policy proposals than Obama/Democrats did in '08 and lost as a result. Dukakis? Just once I'd love to see one of you bozos actually lay out a logic-based case for your assertions regarding the wider electorate. You pissed voters off in 2010 by passing a bunch of corporate mush instead of what was promised and now you proudly declare: "Because our policy approach has driven the electorate away in droves it proves our policy is JUST RIGHT for today's voters." Fucking brilliant.

    Truth is centrists never run an election on the policy they intend to pass. They always masquerade as supporting one of the legitimately popular ideologies come election time. Then after liberal/conservative promises deliver the win, they claim actually doing what they said they would during the election is impossible - and instead promote policy solutions on behalf whoever waves the biggest contribution (nothing like a couple million to make shit possible as a motherfucker). In the real world we call that being a sold-out liar.

    Just because you guys are able to marginalize the majority within your own party by siding with the GOP (thereby increasing your own power internally) doesn't change the perspective of the wider electorate which inarguably elected a president who ran well to the left of policy you now say is as far left any politician could possibly go and attract the exact same voters. Centrists are using post-electoral procedural tricks and bullshit assertions about independent voters to maintain the iron law of institutions. Centrists would rather destroy our nation and their party than yield to a better approach if it might loosen their grip on the levers of power. Better to throw in with the GOP than "lose the party" to the DFHs.


    by kgb999 on Sat, 06/04/2011 - 2:19pm

    KGB: "Yes, yes ... nobody has ever won an election since LBJ by promoting liberal policies. What planet do you people live on? Wherever it is, I'm pretty sure the water is heavily dosed with LSD. You realize that ALL the stuff he ran on is written down, right?"

    PS: Are you saying that if he had promoted the HCR plan as written down he would not have encountered the Massive Wall of No? You seem to think that if Obama simply waved the paper with his campaign promises, the massive opposition to "government run" health care would have disappeared. The critique of Obama's HCR performance always seems to come down to, "He didn't fight hard enough," not that he would have won the battle because so many people were on his side.

    KGB: "Now for the bonus: accepting the absurd premise that Obama didn't run and win by promising liberal/progressive policy solutions (never mind the campaign materials and Democratic platform), name one politician since the days of LBJ that has run on a MORE liberal set of policy proposals than Obama/Democrats did in '08 and lost as a result."

    PS: I'd have to point to McCarthy, Kennedy (both of them) and McGovern. Gary Hart. There's Dean, of course. You might to throw in Mo Udall, Fred Harris, and Jerry Brown who were beaten by centrist Carter at a time when the Republican brand was DOA. Many of these guys couldn't even win in their own party with a "majority" progressive element (as you say).

    KGB: "Just because you guys are able to marginalize the majority within your own party by siding with the GOP (thereby increasing your own power internally) doesn't change the perspective of the wider electorate which inarguably elected a president who ran well to the left of policy you now say is as far left any politician could possibly go and attract the exact same voters."

    PS: Well, if you guys are such a big majority, then why couldn't you hold on to Kennedy's seat in the most liberal state in the union? Too many Republicans there? And where was this "wider electorate" elsewhere in 2010? You think they were walking around with Obama's campaign promises and just decided to stay home?

    And if that is so, then I'd have to say, as I did elsewhere, they are fair weather sailors.


    by Peter Schwartz on Sat, 06/04/2011 - 2:36pm

    Lord-a-fuck.  Just for the one about Scott Brown; man, you guys have short memories; this comes close:

    http://bostonist.com/2010/01/19/why_did_scott_brown_win_the_massach.php

    Oh, and just to clarify: the ACA act was soooo far from progressive.


    by we are stardust on Sat, 06/04/2011 - 2:42pm

    From the article, which is a muddle:

    "Looking at Brown's campaign literature, he did not campaign against the idea of universal insurance coverage, which the bill would enshrine. How could he? Massachusetts is rightly proud of the fact that 98% of our citizens have health coverage. Instead, Brown campaigned on the idea that we should "slow down" health care reform so that we could "get it right." In a state where it's hard to find a doctor and high deductibles keep people from even trying, that doesn't sound so bad. Neither does putting the brakes on a bill that made the same mistake that Massachusetts made by failing to control costs by statute, resulting in an unnecessarily expensive program."

    PS: So what is the point here? Where does the progressive left fit into this picture? Did they vote for Brown in order to slow down the process? Did they stay home, hoping the Dem would lose and THAT would slow down the process? Or get the whole thing repealed? Last I heard, MA is trying to IMPROVE the bill they have to do a better job of cost-containment. I fail to see what's so horribly wrong with that.

    "People hate the health care bill. Progressives hate it. Teatards hate it. And, as we've seen, many independents hate it. It's a bill that's especially hard to love in Massachusetts, a state that already has many of its strongest attributes—universal coverage and bans on denying coverage for pre-existing conditions. What's in it for us? Brown tapped into this sentiment and rode it to victory. That he's wrong doesn't make the victory less real."

    PS: I thought, just above, Brown didn't run against it because MAers are "justly proud" of one of its strongest attributes? Why would MA progressives want to deprive the rest of the country of something they are so "proud of"--even if THEY already had it?

    It's worth noting that "people," "progressives," "independents," and "teahards" all hate the bill for DIFFERENT reasons. Republicans, too. So if, at the end of the day, the bill is repealed or defunded, etc., it's not like we'll be closer to a bill we like. We'll just be at square one, hoping the political winds shift, the Republicans play possum, and next year "government-run" health care won't be demagogued or sound so scary to so many people.

    Star, this article is a jumble and it really doesn't answer the question why MA progressives, who must be powerful and numerous as all get-out in the Bay State, let the Democrat go down.


    by Peter Schwartz on Sat, 06/04/2011 - 4:12pm

    Okay, I only scanned it, but my point was a whole summer of Tea Express, Koch Funded, to get the pitchforks out against ACA, no nuttin', no surrogates out from the WH, and minimal help for Coakley's crap campaign until the last minute.  Obama finally twigs to what's going on, and the anger at the banks and his protection of them, the degree to which he and Geithner are tanking good fin-regs, and brings out the previously and utterly discareded and mothballed Paul Volcker to show how tough he'll fight for good regs.  Lie; he and Brown tanked some more, and I think it was the end-user exceptions loophole; sorry to be in a tear today, but RL is busy.

    The degree to which so many of you are sanguine about what the hell the man is not doing in terms of fin-reg, prosecutions of bank fraud, jobs stimulus, loosening credit, but IS doing prosecuting whistle-blowers, arresting people under federal law for pot in states that have passed medical marijuana laws (16 of them) after 'saying his admininstration wouldn't) and more is simply mind-boggling to me.  Gotta go.  Sorry about any typos.


    by we are stardust on Sat, 06/04/2011 - 6:13pm

    Okay, I agree with you--on all counts.

    I simply fear--much worse.

    Folks were apathetic about the 2000 election. Many people said there was no difference between a Democrat and a Republican--in that case, it meant there was no difference between Gore and Bush.

    Nader made this point often, as I recall.

    But if Gore had won, we'd have had a president who was concerned about the environment and one who PROBABLY would not have gone into Iraq. He was also something of a populist and reformer of government.

    But those first two points alone would have been worth the price of admission for me. And by that I mean not just my vote, but my money and my time working for him.

    This is NOT to say that Gore didn't run a bad campaign; I think he did. But voters had to vote for him and people had to work for him. And they didn't.


    by Peter Schwartz on Sun, 06/05/2011 - 8:21am

    Ummm.  It was a stolen election, and Gore failed to push it.  The two teams are pretty similar in Oligarchical policies; some social stuff around the edges, SCOTUS appts.  If there decent Senators, they are Dems and a Socialist. 

    Don't want to keep debating it, but your 'why people stayed home' at the midterms just doesn't track for me.


    by we are stardust on Sun, 06/05/2011 - 9:29am

    Hey, don't count me as "you guys". I've voted for four national-level Democrats in my life. I'm an independent who tends third party and has generally been on the rightward side of the political divide most of my life. Notice I usually speak out against the local gun prohibitionists and such. Interestingly, my traditional alignment has been largely because of the Democratic love for freetradeism/anti-worker policies and my confusion that these policies were representative of the left via the ubiquitous "Democrat = Left" fallacy.

    As for the MA election ... if you bothered to do some rudimentary opinion research ... you lost that MA seat because there was like a 25 point swing among independents (number pulled out my ass; but it was BIG) and independents make up around 50% (real number) of that state's registered voters. The most common reason sited by independents for voting against Coakley is that the Senate HCR bill didn't go far enough; lack of a public option was also a majority complaint. Remember, these were/are the only people in the nation actually living under Romney/Obama care and they realized the shortcomings ... they were hoping HCR would deliver solutions for them, not duplicate the problems nationwide. Even if the far-left had participated to the levels of the presidential year (seriously? you think that's fair?) it would have just made the loss a little less embarrassing.

    And what about the DNC and DSCC? Obama fired everyone remotely independent (or liberal) and the apparatus didn't provide a LICK of support  to the race until the Friday before the election ... with phonebanking taking another two/three days  ... did they even get canvass/GOTV feet on the ground? Obama's centrists had control of the entire infrastructure and all the resources. And you want to blame the fucking liberals for not delivering it to you? You have some nerve calling THEM lazy.

    JFK was before LBJ. McCarthy, RFK, and Gary Hart were never on a presidential ballot; nor were the others you list. Don't blame the wider American electorate that your faction has the Democratic party apparatus rigged. That was one of my major points. It sure isn't the so-called conservative independents that kept Democrats from nominating a non-republican and force the national centrist leaders to consistently leverage party resources against liberals at the state primary level.

    I'm not sure I entirely agree McGovern's platform was MORE liberal than Obama's (more anti-war, yes; but that is only one piece of a platform) ... that was a bit before my time for direct observation; but I will give you that as a legit liberal candidate. So, the electorate has been given the opportunity to vote for a liberal platform twice since 1968 with one loss and one win. The loss occurred the better part of half a century ago, the win happened in the last election. I'm not sure how that proves your thesis at all.

    (Note: I assert Clinton also *ran* and won with a quite liberal/progressive platform and rhetoric before governing to the dollars, but yield the point for this debate - remember "Man from Hope?")


    by kgb999 on Sat, 06/04/2011 - 4:15pm

    Hey, don't count me as "you guys". I've voted for four national-level Democrats in my life. I'm an independent who tends third party and has generally been on the rightward side of the political divide most of my life. Notice I usually speak out against the local gun prohibitionists and such. Interestingly, my traditional alignment has been largely because of the Democratic love for freetradeism/anti-worker policies and my confusion that these policies were representative of the left via the ubiquitous "Democrat = Left" fallacy.

    PS: Guns are a recent issue, relatively. Democrats moved free trade, etc., and went for the money because they were losing elections. Clinton started off liberal, but got hammered in 1994. That's why they moved rightward and toward the money. The Republicans had all the money and were beating them. Traditionally, and this may be before your time, Democrats have been the most pro-union, pro-worker party. Talk to the AVERAGE American about how they feel about unions. The AVERAGE person would not be a union member as, in the private sector, they only account for about 7%.

    As for the MA election ... if you bothered to do some rudimentary opinion research ... you lost that MA seat because there was like a 25 point swing among independents (number pulled out my ass; but it was BIG) and independents make up around 50% (real number) of that state's registered voters. The most common reason sited by independents for voting against Coakley is that the Senate HCR bill didn't go far enough; lack of a public option was also a majority complaint. Remember, these were/are the only people in the nation actually living under Romney/Obama care and they realized the shortcomings ... they were hoping HCR would deliver solutions for them, not duplicate the problems nationwide. Even if the far-left had participated to the levels of the presidential year (seriously? you think that's fair?) it would have just made the loss a little less embarrassing.

    PS: You keep arguing that progressives are this sizeable, powerful force that won the election for Obama. And yet here, in arguably the most progressive state in the union, you admit that it was the independents who swayed the election. As for what the independents were "hoping for" in voting for Brown, they were pretty stupid if they thought voting for Brown was going to move them TOWARD a public option.

    And what about the DNC and DSCC? Obama fired everyone remotely independent (or liberal) and the apparatus didn't provide a LICK of support  to the race until the Friday before the election ... with phonebanking taking another two/three days  ... did they even get canvass/GOTV feet on the ground? Obama's centrists had control of the entire infrastructure and all the resources. And you want to blame the fucking liberals for not delivering it to you? You have some nerve calling THEM lazy.

    PS: Is it too much to ask progressives to win elections in the most progressive state in the union?

    JFK was before LBJ. McCarthy, RFK, and Gary Hart were never on a presidential ballot; nor were the others you list. Don't blame the wider American electorate that your faction has the Democratic party apparatus rigged. That was one of my major points. It sure isn't the so-called conservative independents that kept Democrats from nominating a non-republican and force the national centrist leaders to consistently leverage party resources against liberals at the state primary level.

    PS: I meant Teddy and RFK, both ran AFTER LBJ. The triangulating centrists really only came into being during Clinton's time--it was his way of prevailing against Republicans, stealing their weapons. This "faction" didn't really exist per se prior to him, though of course people were more or less liberal always.

    It's silly and ahistorical to concoct this "faction" that's existed through time and controlled everything. Actually, prior to the 70s, there were very few primaries and the candidate WAS picked by power brokers ("factions" if you will) in smoked filled rooms. And THAT was a time when the party was at its most liberal. Since then, the primaries have opened up the process to "the people" much more.

    Bringing in primaries is valid because you can't get onto the national ticket unless you go through the primaries. They couldn't have run as Republicans and third party candidates have always been a non-starter. As I say, the system of selecting candidates through the primaries is a far more open (to ordinary people) process than existed back when the party was a reliable liberal force.


    by Peter Schwartz on Sat, 06/04/2011 - 5:00pm

    Clinton started off liberal, but got hammered in 1994.

    Ok, so that's another presidential politician since the time of LBJ who campaigned as a liberal and won the office. I'm surprised you haven't started to grasp my problem with folks making blanket assertions this has not happened.

    The first politics I personally remember as politics are related to the 1980 election. James Brady was shot in early 1981. So as far as *my* perspective, is concerned guns have been an issue for my entire life - and my position on the issue has generally gotten me labeled "right" (to put it charitably - as at times anyone against Brady was characterized as Hitler meets Stalin to make Rosemary's Baby). My personal politics began with me ... not the founding of America, or even when you came into political awareness.

    As for MA, you project on me an argument I have never made. One might start to conclude that the "are progressives a driving force that deserve more influence in the party?" contextualization of my every comment belies your motivation to perpetuate exactly the dynamic I highlighted. I'm just observing the conditions centrist politics are creating in the non-Democrat electorate and highlighting the electoral outcomes they are achieving for Democrats (failure).

    It is kind of odd that you would accuse me concocting a faction you claim Carter won under the banner of in 1980. As for the pre-70s stuff ... up to this point we have been talking about Post-LBJ which puts us at 1972. (Back in colonial days ... man, were things different then! You know women couldn't even vote?)

    You nail it on the head. The triangulation was Clinton's innovation, which was why I observed him in my footnote (and a fear/expectation Hillary would do the same was one of the big negatives she brought with her). But it *seems* to me that from 1980, Democratic centrists were basically trying to run as centrists and losing. Clinton harnessed the rhetoric of a populist liberal to win the election and then triangulated to achieve his unstated objectives (which, of course, result in WJC: public servant, kajillionaire). But it's deeper than that. During the period between Carter and Clinton the entire populist workers movement morphed - essentially abandoning their traditional power for a "seat at the table" or something. The leaders ended up making the Union movement wholly beholden to the Democratic party. I'm not sure how/why it happened, but by 1985 Trumka refused to allow general strikes which, for all practical purposes, busted the coal miners unions in West Virginia and Kentucky. He and Stern have been providing that kind of leadership decimating unions ever since. They won't call a general strike no matter what gets done to their workers ... a few noisy PR stunts; looks like democracy - and everyone just goes right back to it, a few less workers and a little more screwed than before. There are deep, deep problems across the entire infrastructure and constituency range that Democrats have cast themselves as the protectors of while demanding the protected abandon self-determination to huddle under the umbrella. Under those conditions if the party promising protection sells the people out, the people have made themselves essentially powerless against the resources of the most powerful interests on the planet who now control their "protector" as well. And it seems to me that it is the philosophy of centrist relativism within the Democratic family that says "If it helps us, fuck those guys! Without us, nobody will save them anyhow." Ironically, this is the exact faction that claim the last three Democratic presidents as adherents to their philosophy (one honest who doesn't deserve the rap exactly IMO, two sleepers who totally do).

    No way bringing up politicians knocked out in partisan primaries is valid. The entire debate is over non-Democrat voters and if they would ever support a politician who promotes a liberal agenda. None of these voters would be expected to participate in a primary. The implied position you have taken is that YOU are totally in favor of liberal policy ... were it not for the "voters" out there that would never elect a politician who promoted such crazy ideas.

    (PS. if you select the text you are quoting after pasting it and hit the [ " ] icon ... it will display that text in a different color so it's easer to tell the difference between you and they when answering folks point by point.)


    by kgb999 on Sat, 06/04/2011 - 7:52pm

    Ok, so that's another presidential politician since the time of LBJ who campaigned as a liberal and won the office. I'm surprised you haven't started to grasp my problem with folks making blanket assertions this has not happened.

    Yes, but then he got hammered in 1994. That's why he moved to the right, not because he was lying about what he had intended to do. Right out of the gate, he focused on gays in the military, as I recall. He spilled a lot of capital on health care...

    I don't have time for the rest of your comment now. You make some interesting points on the labor movement. The causes for that morphing should give you pause about the ulterior motives of "centrist Democrats." If labor is selling itself out, well...

    Bruce might have some interesting perspective on that as he's a labor lawyer.

    Thanks for the help on quoting; makes a big difference.

     


    by Peter Schwartz on Sun, 06/05/2011 - 9:11am

    You can also highlight in and select another color form the A menu.  Or select and italicize.  ;oP  No boxes that way...)


    by we are stardust on Sun, 06/05/2011 - 9:36am

    Thanks.


    by Peter Schwartz on Sun, 06/05/2011 - 12:37pm

    You are levying ad hominems in response to the notion that the legislative process waters down campaign proposals as a matter of course, and that elections are generally won by the candidate who maintains his or her base and captures the middle. I agree with you that the president's campaign proposals on HCR were far more progressive than what was eventually enacted.  I think that's how things work in DC, just about always.  

    Personally, I'm not going to spend too much time now, or next year, trying to convince folks who are angry about what President Obama has done during his first term to suck it up and vote for him anyway.  To some extent I respect those who will stick to principle and act accordingly.  I will submit that if the economy is improving by next year President Obama will be re-elected with or without the active support of the left, or the so-called left portion of his base from 2008.  I'm a lousy gambler and I could be wrong.

     


    by Bruce Levine on Sat, 06/04/2011 - 2:46pm

    You apparently have no idea what ad hominem means. Common problem.

    My premise is simple. Obama RAN on a platform chock-full of policy specifics that are far more liberal than the "legislative-reality" policy liberal Democrats generally complain of not seeing implemented and certainly far more liberal than anything he has actually promoted since going to Washington. I highlighted the exact HCR policy Obama published and made his speeches based on (if you think I mischaracterize the policy details - why?). He won with that platform. Ergo voters actually did precisely what Peter claims they have not done since LBJ ... and did so in the last presidential election.

    I made that case with facts and reasonable inference from those facts. My choice of tone and the not-so-veiled observation that the person on the other side of the debate kind of comes off like a talking-point-spewing dip are just a matter of style and an observation, not used to advance the core premise in any way.

    I didn't weigh in on the common-yet-absurd centrist assertion that a party holding the presidency and both houses of legislature is some how hobbled from implementing an agenda ... immediately on the heels of the Bush years no less. This also requires throwing a fact-based look at history out the window and replacing it with a demonstratively false random assertion of impotence. But that isn't a case Peter decided to make ... which makes sense as we're kind of talking about what people support and vote for, not why Democrats apparently can't deliver once they secure the votes by promising what people support.

    I assume your agreement that there is a large difference between what people voted for and what was actually promoted and passed in Washington means you agree that as far as the voters go, when casting a ballot in '08 they had every reason to believe they were voting for a president who would aggressively promote the Obama/Biden health plan? (which contains many features Peter et. al. assert could never attract voters on a national scale)

    Personally, I don't think it matters. Obama is going to win the election and come out of the presidency a very, very wealthy man. That's the whole point of centrist politics. It's rest of the Democrats that will be decimated ... again. There is an outside chance the electorate will snap and give us Bachmann/Palin; but they are making sure GOP side will require a move just that crazy to get rid of Obama's ass. Medicare and Social Security are fully on the table; no Republican president could ever neutralize the Democratic party to pull that off. He's fucking golden. Maybe you consider that winning - but America loses.


    by kgb999 on Sat, 06/04/2011 - 5:33pm

    I gotta go outside again to do some work, but I stuck up a video on that AZ fire story I put up In the News.  My son is on the video; pretty fun.   ;o)  Alive and well he looks.


    by we are stardust on Sat, 06/04/2011 - 6:07pm

    Stardust, I wish that the luck of timing had been different and I could have met your son. Your daughter too, but right now I am thinking about smoke jumpers and other Forest Service firefighters. The couple that I have been acquainted with and what I know about their work convinces me that they are tough, hard working men and women who share the comradery often found in the military among those who face real challenges and real danger and form strong bonds with those they come to both trust and depend upon, yet in the case of these guys their dedication and brave service is always directed towards a good cause.
    I don't pray but I do send out best wishes for the safety and success of people doing hard dangerous work, especially when it benefits us all  as well as it benefits the planet. Now, if we can just figure out how to get them to do it gratis so we can keep taxes low on everyone who is living fat.  


    by A Guy Called LULU on Sat, 06/04/2011 - 7:50pm

    What a lovely comment, Lulu.  I wish either of the kids might have been here to meet you, too; they would have appeciated you as much as we do.

    And you're just right about comeradery and service.  Obi (one of his many nicknames) longed all his life for a group to bond with.  This is substitute gig for the military, it's clear.  His birth father was a soldier, so maybe it's also a bit of genetic predisposition.  ;o) 

    Jobie teases about his job 'saving babies and bunnies', though he hides his pride and desire for his own Hero's Journey in the irony.  He's a good kid, and has become a Christian, though mum and pop...aren't religious.  I do pray, as I may have told you, without quite believing in God, but at least in the efficacy of prayer and intentionally constructive thoughts and wishes changing the vibrations that reach the mix of cause and effect somehow.  I am, after all, a peace and love hippie.  ;o)

    During fire season, if J calls with news that they have time off in a hotel, I yell at him about wasting my tax dollars so profligately!  He seems to get a boot out of it.  But the irony you intended about keeping Fat Cat taxes low is fun.  After all, we know from this administration and the last: the rich provide the jobs to us Lowly Worms, yes?  But goddam; this worm needs a new boot!

    I'm sure glad to have you as a friend, Lulu.  And I think I may have just heard from Diachronic from Cafe Days at my.fdl.  What a poetic soul he has/had, as do you. 

     


    by we are stardust on Sat, 06/04/2011 - 9:24pm

    I didn't weigh in on the common-yet-absurd centrist assertion that a party holding the presidency and both houses of legislature is some how hobbled from implementing an agenda ... immediately on the heels of the Bush years no less. This also requires throwing a fact-based look at history out the window and replacing it with a demonstratively false random assertion of impotence. But that isn't a case Peter decided to make ... which makes sense as we're kind of talking about what people support and vote for, not why Democrats apparently can't deliver once they secure the votes by promising what people support.

    I think if you look back in history--which you sometimes do and sometimes make fun of--you'll see that the Democratic party has almost always been a chaotic web of uneasy alliances. FDR had to leave race and Jim Crow alone to get his New Deal passed.

    So, it's pretty clear to me at least that there is very little in common between a Heath Shuler or a Ben Nelson and a Russ Feingold or a Nancy Pelosi. So this "control" you talk of is a Republican talking point and is, in fact, illusory, except on certain issues. If you think it would have easier to get an HCR with a PO passed than what did pass, given these realities, I think you're mistaken. Republicans and conservative Democrats didn't put up resistance because the HCR wasn't LIBERAL enough. Teabagger Nation didn't arise because the HCR wasn't liberal enough.

    The Republicans, certainly since Reagan, have been much more disciplined and one-pointed. My pet theory is this: Republicans basically stand for doing nothing, except perhaps, doing less. This is basically what Buckley meant when he stood athwart history and shouted "No!" The only thing they LIKE to do is build up the military.

    This gives them an inherent advantage. Inertia is a powerful force and it's always on their side. People prefer inertia in their personal lives. It's almost always easier to do nothing. Democrats are always about doing SOMETHING. This necessarily costs money and brings uncertainty, because you never know how things are going to turn out. But once you've done something, then inertia works for you because it takes effort and often costs money to undo it.

    This is why almost ANY HCR would have been good. It puts inertia on the side of reform. It's a start. It's a beach head that can be expanded and improved. History shows this has often happened. Undoing it will be a bit harder for Republicans than if they'd been able to block it in the first place. Then we'd have nothing and this nothing would have been easier for them to maintain and defend. Inertia would have been on their side.

    Newt made a revealing comment the other week when a reporter pointed out to him that he himself had been in favor of a mandate back in the 1990s and rolled the tape to prove it. Newt said, in essence, he had only taken that position to thwart HillaryCare. At bottom, he didn't want to do anything about health care except, maybe, tort reform and cross-state compeititon.

    I assume your agreement that there is a large difference between what people voted for and what was actually promoted and passed in Washington means you agree that as far as the voters go, when casting a ballot in '08 they had every reason to believe they were voting for a president who would aggressively promote the Obama/Biden health plan? (which contains many features Peter et. al. assert could never attract voters on a national scale)

    A vote is a blunt instrument. You vote for one person, but there are many issues, many events that occur. Your image of the Burger Flipper In Chief is silly.

    Personally, I don't think it matters. Obama is going to win the election and come out of the presidency a very, very wealthy man. That's the whole point of centrist politics. It's rest of the Democrats that will be decimated ... again. There is an outside chance the electorate will snap and give us Bachmann/Palin; but they are making sure GOP side will require a move just that crazy to get rid of Obama's ass. Medicare and Social Security are fully on the table; no Republican president could ever neutralize the Democratic party to pull that off. He's fucking golden. Maybe you consider that winning - but America loses.

    Not necessarily; not if the economy doesn't start getting better. I don't think they'd have to be too crazy to vote for Pawlenty or Romney. Who are "the rest of the Democrats"? The Pelosi wing tends to come from safe districts and they weathered 2010 fine. Progressives like Feingold, who come from mixed states, didn't do so well. And of course the conservative Democrats, who can't shake the D no matter what they do, are gone. But passing an HCR with a PO would NOT have saved them. IMO.


    by Peter Schwartz on Sun, 06/05/2011 - 9:04am

    No offense, but I think this is wrong, pretty much top to bottom. It is, perhaps, somehow soothing to Obama's supporters, but I don't think it works as a storyline.

    1. If there's one thing the Republican Party has not been these past 30+ years, it's "doing nothing." They have radically changed income-related policies and the tax code, just as a starter. In fact, I think it very likely that they have been the most powerful political force in the world for changing the very terms of the debate. Which is why the rest of the world gives a shit when the Democrats take another step to the right, BTW - because the whole world then has to follow.

    2. The Republican unity line is way overblown. They have had a decades-long process going on of "cutting away" their moderate and liberal wing, with the Maine Senators being just the latest to find themselves on the ledge. 

    3. On health care, the WH amplified the power of each individual member of Congress by the way they played it. In behind the scenes, when they did take a stance, I find it hard to see how one can argue they weren't pulling it rightward. And apologies to all who wish to have hope that the new thing is somehow a foothold, but outside of a couple of clauses, it really doesn't seem that way to me. It seems to me that it provided very little for most Americans in the pre-2012 window, and as such, is a walking shit-magnet. I am seriously blown away that it wasn't designed to front-end load as large a set of benefits as was possible. Not only does this tend to help you win that next election, but it creates a set of constituents who stand to benefit, and thus, will lobby the politicians to vote for the damn thing. The idea that a supposedly major step toward "universal health care" in the US should have generated so LITTLE in the way of people whose themselves as gaining, is a staggering political failure. Thank God the Republicans have Paul Ryan is all I can say.


    by quinn esq on Sun, 06/05/2011 - 1:48pm

    Okay, I don't really disagree with this.

    • On point one, I don't really have time to discuss and maybe it's a matter of the way it's framed. I agree with your conclusion, but would say the greater burdens imposed lower down were disguised--and thus hard for people to detect as such--in apparent tax breaks for all.

    • So at the end of the day, the Republicans look like they're letting you keep more of your money by taking away taxes, even though some folks find the economic burden heavier and others find it much easier.

    So it's not that they're doing nothing at all; it's that they want government to do very little except keep up defense and funnel money to their favorites. But these are relatively easy to do and hard for most people to detect (apart from the wars). They aren't big, costly, public events like, say, revamping the health care system.

    • On point two, hard to argue about matters of degree. This cutting away of moderates has been going on since Reagan and has now reached its terminal phase (I think). But when you think about it, what other bedrock principles do they have other than small government, fewer regs, and lower taxes, and a hefty defense? This has always been pretty much it, but with greater moderation in earlier years.

    • On the foothold question, we'll have to agree to disagree. On the backloading, it was an attempt to make the plan look less expensive, I think, and give the states time to set up plans, etc. On the political side, I think it's complicated. Most people have insurance and were scared of losing what they had. So it wasn't as though the majority didn't have coverage and would lobby to get some.

    I think Obama's big mistake--but which was his original appeal to a lot of people--is that he thought he had a "partner for peace" in his opponents. But all he's done (I think) is piss off the most vocal parts of the right and the left.


    by Peter Schwartz on Sun, 06/05/2011 - 8:10pm

    If the Pew Research Center poll accurately reflects where people are, then one can see it will be awhile before there is any political will in DC to take on the Patriot Act:

    "Public views of the Patriot Act, whose renewal is being debated by Congress, have changed little since the Bush administration. Currently, 42% say the Patriot Act is a necessary tool that helps the government find terrorists, while somewhat fewer (34%) say the Patriot Act goes too far and poses a threat to civil liberties."

    What is also indicative of the citizens in this country, a sizeable 25% say they "don't know" or otherwise have not formed an opinion. 

    Also interesting is that support for the Patriot Act has increased not only in general but also for Democrats, although more still think it goes too far than see it as a necessary tool (but not by very much).  The same goes for Independents. 

    Also interesting:

    "There is less public awareness of the debate over the Patriot Act than there was in 2006 or 2004. Today, just 32% say they have heard a lot (12%) or some (20%) about the issue. In January 2006, 51% heard at least some about the Patriot Act; 44% heard at least some about it in December 2004.

    Among those who heard at least a lot or some about the Patriot Act, 49% see it as a necessary tool while 41% say it goes too far. In 2006, opinion was more evenly divided among those who had heard at least some about the Patriot Act (48% necessary tool, 46% goes too far)."

    So even the ones who are engaged somewhat on the issue are not overly concerned about the PA.  Of course, what is not told is the source of information that people are using to hear "a lot" or "some about" the issue.


    by Elusive Trope on Fri, 06/03/2011 - 5:08pm

    Oh what a revelation!  the woefully uninformed people of America can successfully repeat the message they hear from the corporate media!  Therefore, because they've been misinformed by our leaders and have adopted the line that the powers that be want them to adopt let's not do anything to try and change it.  Instead, let's be fatalistic and throw up our hands and say "see, people like the Patriot Act" when they don't actually know the first thing about it and if they did they would oppose it.  When national Democratic leaders led by Obama abandoned their own publicly stated principles in favor of supporting a growing police state and thus abdicated their responsibility as public opinion leaders, it should come as no surprise that millions begin to accept the rotten policies.  After all, do they ever even hear dissenting views on the corporate news?  Rarely if ever.


    by oleeb on Sat, 06/04/2011 - 1:54am

    "After all, do they ever even hear dissenting views on the corporate news?  Rarely if ever."

    This where I think I differ most from you oleeb.  You buy the Chomskyesque explanation for why things are the way they are, i.e. this false consciousness created by the corporate media.  And I think it's just an unsupported excuse for why people aren't marching against the Man.  Just anecdotally, and off the top of my head, I think it's a view contradicted by the role of the media with respect to the civil rights movement, the Viet Nam War, and Watergate.  

    You are correct that most people don't understand the Patriot Act; even those who oppose it (not talking about you and most of the folks we correspond with on this and other websites).  That ignorance is not a function of corporate media touting the virtues of the Patriot Act.  The so-called corporate media has addressed the Patriot Act from head to toe--although perhaps not in the New York Post, etc.  People who are inspired to learn about things aren't precluded from doing so, in particular given the ever-expanding choices people now have in the modern age of the internets.

     


    by Bruce Levine on Sat, 06/04/2011 - 8:46am

    Not to mention that's it's awfully American exceptionalist to think that the majority of Americans would buck virtually all of the historical examples (and not just one Pew poll) of security issues trumping civil liberties issues for majorities in organized civilizations. Hence most governments don't put national security vs. civil liberties issues up for referendum; majorities have shown time and again above all other things, they want security from government and are more likely to agree with cracking down harder than elites. Protecting civil liberties is virtually always a minority or elite proposition, and often left to the judiciary, because the rule of the majority might give them away when security is threatened.


    by artappraiser on Sat, 06/04/2011 - 10:08am

    You (oleeb) buy the Chomskyesque explanation for why things are the way they are, i.e. this false consciousness created by the corporate media. ... I think it's a view contradicted by the role of the media with respect to the civil rights movement, the Viet Nam War, and Watergate.

    Different century, Bruce. Way different media. Your choice of evidence supports oleeb's case.


    by acanuck on Sat, 06/04/2011 - 5:11pm

    Fair enough.  How so ack?


    by Bruce Levine on Sat, 06/04/2011 - 8:06pm

    I've watched the evolution/transformation/deterioration of the media from pretty close for decades, Bruce. Your examples are from the era of Cronkite and Bradlee, whose journalistic standards were set by pioneers like Murrow. Today, we've got the likes of Beck, Ailes and Murdoch, and the lightweight wannabes of the rest of the infotainment industry. Their bread and butter is politicians' lies about tweeting "junk shots" or fathering kids out of wedlock, not inflated body counts, presidential overreach or failed military strategies.

    Yes, there is the occasional flashback -- as when the same papers that broke the Pentagon Papers also published some of the Wikileaks revelations (though the New York Times did so with apparent reluctance). And yes, "people who are inspired to learn about things" have greater resources than ever. But that's not how mass opinion is formed.

    Most people get what little information they do from television, where strings of rapid-fire sound bites have driven out what in-depth reporting there was. Where anchors hired for their looks and voices cut off knowledgable, intelligent interviewees in mid-sentence to go to "breaking news" about some puppy blown away in a hurricane miraculously making its way back home or Lindsay Lohan showing up for a sentencing hearing. A far cry from Murrow skewering McCarthy or Cronkite ending the Vietnam War with a single sentence.

    It's that absence of rigor, principle and seriousness that has fueled the political rise of Palin, Bachmann and Trump. Even the current batch of make-believe journalists can see these people are incompetent, ignorant jokes. But they still go through the he said/she said charade, because hey, these boobs bring in the eyeballs. Today's media have concluded the American public is stupid, and they play to and reinforce that fact. Cynical, cowardly and anti-democratic.

    That's the only point I was making.


    by acanuck on Sun, 06/05/2011 - 4:22pm

    Nice ta see ya back in town, Stranger.


    by we are stardust on Sun, 06/05/2011 - 4:42pm

    I wouldn't count myself as some one who "understands" The Patriot Act, given its length and complexities and the fact that I haven't spent years studying it, nor have I ever tried to read the bill in its entirety.

    That said, when I hear that people "support" or, more likely, "tolerate" the act, I tend to assume that they're not thinking about domestic spying and warrantless tapping and are instead talking about provisions like the creation of the Department of Homeland Security (a Democratic idea in the first place) or intelligence sharing between agencies, which most people think of as a no-brainer.

    We all have a partial understanding, so it depends what you want to focus on.


    by Michael Maiello on Sat, 06/04/2011 - 7:32pm

    I agree des.  Great blog by the way.  I guess the issue that I'm focusing on is whether it is the so-called corporate media that is influencing people to overlook or not understand the scope of domestic spying and/or warrantless tapping that is permitted under the Act.   I don't think that dog hunts, and even less so in the age of the internets.


    by Bruce Levine on Sat, 06/04/2011 - 8:13pm

    First off, I never say we shouldn't do anything.  What this indicates is finding a politician (let alone something close to a majority) who would be willing to put their necks out there for this issue is going to be difficult because of where the people are.  If one is truly interested in fighting the Patriot Act rather than stating one opposes it, it means one has a lot of work to do with the people.  It would require a constant media campaign.  In the end, I was merely describing the current landscape in which the opposition must work in.

    And in such a campaign, which is basically dealing a law and order issue as well as a civil rights issue, one of the biggest mistakes made by opponents to things like the Patriot Act is the assumption that if they did know anything about it, they would oppose it.  As with any issue, there are going to be people who stand on one or the other side and would be on the other side if they were more informed about it.

    Yet believe it or not there are people who look at all the issues involved, weigh them, and then conclude that supporting security efforts - whether from internal or external threats -- takes priority over an individual's right to privacy.  A less severe example is people having no problem with the police setting up the roadblocks to check for drunk drivers. Under normal circumstances, the police shouldn't be able to pull over someone for "no reason" other than to just to see if by chance they are intoxicated.  But the deaths and injuries caused by drunk drivers is such a problem to some, they are willing to let this civil right to go the by the side of the road.

    You may not like their conclusions.  But if one believes that all supporters support such things as the Patriot Act as a consequence of ignorance will only lead to an unsuccessful campaign to alter the landscape.

    Finally, since the people are so brainwashed by the corporate media, then I take it their opposition to the bank bailouts and their desire to see the war in Afghanistan ended should also be ignored as the opinions of those who have been misinformed by our leaders.


    by Elusive Trope on Sat, 06/04/2011 - 9:41am

    Latest Comments