I like Cenk Uygur a lot but he is desperately confused. He’s kind of on the right track in the beginning of his analysis but he makes a common mistake. He correctly identifies Obama’s move to the center when he got to Washington but he attributes it to some kind of character trait rather than simple arithmetic. He thinks Obama made a choice that wound up empowering Joe Lieberman, when the truth is that there isn’t a single bill that can pass through the Senate without Lieberman’s vote if the Republicans are united against it. That isn’t by anyone’s design. In fact, things could be worse. It was Biden who flipped Specter, and Obama tried to get rid of Judd Gregg and replace him with a better vote. It was the Obama administration that orchestrated the change in Massachusetts’ Constitution, allowing Paul Kirk to become the 60th vote needed for health care reform. These moves weren’t centrist or progressive; these moves were practical and necessary.
Something a lot of progressives don’t understand and haven’t understood all year is that we could not have a health care bill that was one iota more progressive than Ben Nelson is progressive. Unless, that is, the bill was catered to Olympia Snowe instead. She wanted a triggered public option and had no interest in anti-choice language. But, boy howdy, did a lot of progressives throw a fit in August and September when the administration was trying to win her vote. We wound up having to satisfy Nelson instead, and look at how much worse we did as a result!
It’s not even Cenk’s analysis of Obama’s character that bothers me. It’s his proposed solution.
We have to attack Obama relentlessly from the left. Right now he is a giant that is unmoved by anything in his left flank, he keeps looking to his right and ducking and worrying and moving to accommodate them. They are so loud and so visible. It’s hard to miss them. We have to make him look left. We have to shake him off his foundation.
Rahm Emanuel gave a wonderfully condescending interview to the Wall Street Journal where he explained that the White House has nothing to worry about from the left. That’s exactly what we have to change. Unfortunately, the only way to capture their attention and make them accommodate us rather than Fox News Channel is to hurt them. When we can put on the same kind of pain and pressure on the Obama White House as Fox does, that’s when they’ll have to move, at least to get out of the way.
You inflict political pain by voting things down. So far progressives have been completely unwilling to do this. They got rolled on healthcare because they had no intention of putting their foot down – and everyone knew it.
But this is all fantasy. Progressives didn’t get rolled on health care. Progressives failed to convince at least five Democratic senators that a public option was necessary. They pushed and pushed and pushed to get a public option into the base Senate bill without realizing that it would be as simple as Joe Lieberman saying ‘no’ to kill it prior to Conference. Do you think Joe Lieberman doesn’t hold a grudge against Jane Hamsher after the whole blackface campaign she waged against him during the Lamont challenge? That’s only one reason among many that I don’t need Hamsher fighting for anything I support. She thinks she can get progressive senators to kill a year’s worth of work on the president’s number one priority, but she can’t. What she can do is convince Joe Lieberman that he isn’t going to do anything to please a woman who is attacking his wife. Hopefully, Rahm Emanuel won’t take the same attitude and punish us all for the sins of one loud-mouthed blogger.
Yelling louder isn’t going to change shit. Progressive politicians aren’t going to do what these progressive activists are asking them to do. Attacking the president relentlessly, as Cenk advises, isn’t a strategy. The president should be criticized when it is warranted, but not attacked relentlessly. If you want to change outcomes in Washington, you have to look first and foremost at the Senate. And you need to realize that the people who hold the real power are the Dem centrists. And you can’t influence them by attacking them relentlessly or by attacking their wives. You need a better plan.
Won’t be the first time I’ve thought Cenk was wrong.
And what do you know, I thought he was wrong on two issues with his latest two videos: this one, and the one about pushing Obama to the left.
Obama might need to get more on Congress, but he isn’t our problem. One day the left is going to learn that unless you’re willing to bulldoze over how this country operates, then you’re not going to get things you want solely via the President; the last two, and probably only Presidents willing to do that have been George Bush II and FDR.
In any case, this “moving the island” theory is a sham. Cenk, pressuring the President is great, but he has no power to change how the Senate operates. They have their own rules.
I also liked how in his other video, he assumed that pressure from the left is what prompted a response from Obama in the latest PBS video about “rolling up his sleeves.” No, Cenk, pressure from the left didn’t do that: have you been paying attention to this debate like I have? He’s been trying to get a bill to Conference since the summer, and he wanted it there before the August recess. He said that’s where he was going to get involved deep in the process back in his conference call with the bloggers. So iunno why you’re patting yourself on the back. Pressure is great, and we should keep it up, but I don’t congratulate myself unless I accomplished something.
Bleh, I should have edited this comment more so it suited this thread better.
Sorry, Cabingirl, I copy/pasted a comment I made over at Dkos from Teddy Partridge’s diary:
http://www.dailykos.com/story/2009/12/25/819162/-Cenk-Uygur:-Jane-Hamsher-
Except Obama doesn’t have to enable idiots like Nelson and Holy Joe … why not use reconciliation for the things that can be done through reconciliation? Give yourself some leverage?
Give yourself some leverage?
perhaps that’s what this is all about…playing ping pong…the inside the beltway version:
perhaps it should be renamed donkey pong, then we could license it to atari to pay down the hrc costs….just a thought…. so much for transparency, eh.
hcr costs……freudian slip.
Because using reconciliation first would definitely not get him 60 on the passage of this bill. Second, people like Feingold are opposed to using reconciliation, as are other liberals (and “centrists” like Conrad).
We don’t know what’s going to happen in the future. He put the ability to use reconciliation in the budget for a reason, we don’t know what that reason is yet, or even if he plans to now that a bill has passed.
My thought is that if the bill failed to reach 60 votes, he could at least expand Medicaid. That’s what the plan was.
But who knows? What I do know is, using reconciliation first when you can reach 60 votes is not a smart strategy. Using it second? Much more apt.
He might not use it at all, though. It remains to be seen. However, we can use it any other time in the remaining three years, with little to no fight because of our wins in ’06 and ’08. We couldn’t use it first and then get 60 votes, though.
Why do you post here if you don’t read anything? I’m pretty sure this has been explained to you before.
The only plan that will work is the plan of how we spend our money—the little that we do have.
Wal-Mart is a bad company. Do not shop there. Get rid of your cars. Do not buy gas or oil. Coca cola is a bad company. Do not drink it.
Stop shopping. Buy local.
Reduce, re-use, recycle. How much simpler can it be?
Are we dumbasses, or what?
That all sounds good, but it’s not that simple. The “Vote with Your Wallet” thing is ineffective and silly. I buy stuff that offers what I think is the best bang for my buck.
And, no, I don’t shop at Wal-Mart.
Why is it ineffective and silly?
It’s ineffective and silly because we don’t actually want to do what it takes.
How silly!
Ineffective because they inevitably fail to reach critical mass, and silly because you wind up with contradictory situations (like Whole Foods).
But Drew,
Aren’t you an individual that doesn’t care about “critical mass”? And why do you give a care about Whole Foods, if the truth is the truth?
There IS truth and goodness, you know—contrary to popular belief, that is.
I don’t care about critical mass. Calvin asked why I thought they were ineffective, and I answered.
As for the rest, I really haven’t the slightest idea what you’re trying to say with any of it.
Okie dokey then.
Sorry, I guess I spoke out of turn, Drew. No offense.
ANd yes, Drew, it is that simple.
Follow the money…
Not sure what kind of local drugs you are on but this thread ain’t about Walmart. 🙂
In reference to a blogger influencing Obama one way or the other, I guess what I don’t know is if the blogs really make that much difference. Reading well respected progressive bloggers over the past couple of years, they have said that in reality the blogs and political cable shows have a very, very small audience and therefore don’t influence a majority of the voters. Seriously, as important as they are to us to allow us to communicate with each other, how can they be that different than say a Maureen Dowd or Frank Rich column? And since they don’t influence the average voter, how do we find out if blogs and cable shows have any sway with Congressmen/woman and the Administration?
It IS about WalMart because—
—wait, yeah, you know what? I take it back. Booman isn’t about Walmart.
Excuse me. Forget about the economy. Forget about where we spend our money. We are helpless. Oooh! Help! We have to ruin our local economy by spending all our money at WalMart. It’s cheap! Cheap, cheap, cheap!
Gosh, who could have predicted our downfall?
Agreed that the audience for blogs is small. It never ceases to amaze me how many left-leaning people I encounter have never heard of even the well-known blogs.
It’s hard to believe that anybody with common sense WOULD believe it would work. But the alternative is to believe they are doing this out of egotism and desire for revenge against Rahm for his dismissive attitude toward Progressives.
At any rate, it won’t work, any more than FDL’s “tactics” to flip votes worked this summer. They are now escalating the nastiness and stupidity – politician’s wives? Is that misogyny or just idiotic?
Can they marginalize themselves further? I thought they had hit the wall.
All this talk about politics, and this and that, who means this and who means that and the other, gets on my last nerve.
This is it.
Karma, people, karma. As you sow, so will you reap.
Forget the so-called FOUNDING FATHERS. Instead, remember how this country came to be. Think about what this country is still doing.
Think about it.
FDL, Cenk – they ARE part of this country. And I don’t like what they are doing. And the Founding People were about Freedom of Speech. A 300 year time gaps makes events non-comparable at any rate. But, why are you on a political board? Talking is what members do.
In terms of motives, for me, that’s instructive as to how I will judge actions.
I’m a part of this country too, (though a teeny part) and although I’m not sure what the hell you’re talking about, I think I can safely say, “Huh?”
Rereading yours I’m not sure I got your original post either, LOL. Feliz navidad.
Thanks, GC.
I don’t always come across all that great. The internets has her faults after all.
You are very welcome!
So Evan Bayh’s wife being on the board of Wellpoint doesn’t bother you? Or Lieberman’s wife being a lobbyist(who’s trying to water down or kill HCR)? And if it does, what to do about it is a different story. But I’d at least like people here to acknowledge it’s bothersome.
Oh, it’s bothersome alright, Calvin. I hereby acknowledge it.
Also too, our federal, state, and city government does not represent us either.
WHAT TO DO!!!???
It’s awful! And I learned a friend of mine was an insurance lobbyist. I feel very differently about her knowing that. And I think Jane is dreadful in many ways. And I want JL gone. And I never agree with Cenk. And, and, and…it would be easier to be a Palinite or other extremist…
Dreadful? Is there any other reason besides the three likely ones(The two Lieberman related ones .. and partnering on one issue with Grover)?
Those are huge.
Merry Christmas. No one thinks about Iraq or Afghanistan anymore. I think we should though.
Peace. Peace.
…that weasel Rahm Emmanuel doesn’t reassure me one bit. He loathes progressives. He’s a Clintonista. The whole DLC plan was to get centrists in Congress to stymie or water down liberal aims to make them palatable to vaunted Repubs. Don’t say Rahm wasn’t a part of that. The DLC set it up that way, and instead of dismantling it, Obama decided to keep it. It’s even been discussed over at Jack & Jill Politics. But using these strategies in 2009 is a bankrupt policy.
Hamsher’s going at this the wrong way, and so is Cenk Uygur. But I still like the idea of moving the levers on both Emmanuel and Obama (who actually shrugged that public option was like Sixties struggles in one interview–a pronouncement that made me want to tell the shade of his dead mom to go slap him one upside). I want those levers to move so that they will have to deal with us, as much as they both loathe progressives and confrontation.
First and foremost, that would mean that those centrist Dem senators and representatives would have to go. They would have to be kicked out at the polls, despite how much outlay they would get from the party. In other words, there would have to be a complete break from what our own party apparatus would want us to do–that is, to reelect these guys. We would have to put up really good candidates that would defeat them, or make these centrists sweat bullets about why we mean business.
As long as we have these centrist types in the Democratic Party, Obama and Emmanuel have legs and boots with which to kick progressives and liberals, especially on issues that are important to us. I think that we still have to take the long road and get rid of all the rocks and boulders in the way. And that little puke Emmanuel is one great big boulder. Now isn’t the time to discredit his ass, a la Jane Hamsher, but his time is definitely coming.
Note that attacking Obama relentlessly IS a perfectly good strategy, for those who never supported him in the first place.
It’s all good. They’re unmasking themselves now. That trick can only be played once.
Sherriff, I voted for Obama. I don’t listen to those who say I told you so, or, why are you surprised? How could anyone be surprised? I wasn’t surprised, how could YOU be surprised. I told you so.
I don’t listen to them.
Fuck strategy and/or unmasking it.
Nevertheless, I have become his Nemesis. She is a one-trick pony as well.
But not yelling will surely condemn us to the ineffectual mediocrity of Barack the Triangulator.
“Change” was nothing but a campaign slogan. Hamsher’s tactics are stupid but her frustration is understandable.
“Change” was nothing but a campaign slogan. Hamsher’s tactics are stupid but her frustration is understandable.
I don’t know about her tactics but I do know, now, that change was nothing but a campaign slogan. I also know that progressives can’t agree on how to take a bowel movement, much less anything else.
I also know that I GIVE UP.
Invisible, Are you sure you’re going to GIVE UP? Since you’ve been on a roll here (not sure about what but on a roll nonetheless) that would be WELCOME change I could believe in. I hope you make an effort to keep your word.
Seems to me that it’s Jane Hamsher of FDL who gave up. She became weak because no one of importance was listening to her so she decided to band with the right wing fringe who were also laying on floor level with her wanting some much needed attention. Awwwwwwwww. Sad. So disgusting!
Thanks CabinGirl! Great post. Apparently Jane Hamsher and her Puppiebaggers are getting ready to take all the credit now on health care reform! Yep, if a final bill is passed they will all give themselves a high-five for banning with the right wing fringe of American, because in their mind….throwing a temper tantrum and yelling, “Kill the bill!” is what earns them this praise. Nice huh? I think Jane Lieberman should move to Connecticut to be with her Lieberman herd.
Obviously we have to have more progressive senators in Congress. But therein lies the problem. Do you honestly think that somewhere in Nebraska we are going to find a “progressive” candidate that satisfies the far-left progressives in this party and can beat Nelson? No. Nebraska is not a progressive state. Period. So throwing temper tantrums and going after someone’s wife (not matter how loathsome her job is) is just going to piss off the centrist Democratic voter in Nebraska (or Arkansas, Louisiana, etc). The vast majority recoil with these tactics and might actually drive votes away from a progressive and/or democratic candidate. IMHO. Until these senators see a backlash on their votes from their constituents we aren’t going to see much movement to the center-left from them. Changing the rules in the Senate to only needing a simple majority would be monumental in passing legislation, but of course, that will also work for the Republican party when they take over some day. I don’t see how constantly attacking Obama within his own party is going to be beneficial in the long run. Imagine the soundbites in the next election. It’s a gift to the Republicans. I don’t mean that you can’t criticize the President but there are better ways to do it instead of stomping your feet and screaming at the top of your lungs. Although I guess within the Republican Party that worked for the teabaggers, but I thought we were better than that.
Nebraska is not a progressive state.
Can left-leaning populism work there? And how do we know who can get elected where? If a progressive doesn’t run, then we have no chance. How much backing did the DSCC give Scott Kleeb? To use another state as an example. Yeah, Idaho is one of the reddest states in the country, but they’ve had the same makeup for a long time. So how did Idaho ever elect Frank Church? Or why is Evan Bayh being such an idiot when Obama won Indiana? Or for that matter the Maine twins.
Amen, CabinGirl. I think us real progressives ought to wage an all out attack on Jane Hamsher and FDL. We need to take them out before they cause enough damage that the democrats lose control of the government.
Are you serious? Do you really think Hamsher has that much power? And nice to see you are such a purity troll.
Why are you using that language here? This isn’t Dkos.
What language?
Ummm, purity troll. I could be wrong but I keep getting the sense you are on here to agitate people.
Really? On the contrary, I am just trying to ask the uncomfortable questions. Look at today. It’s looking more likely that the House is going to have to eat another shit sandwich. And we know that Lincoln, Nelson and Landrieu hate the middle class and love rich people(Where do the taxes come from in the Senate bill?).