It seems to me like the Democrats are finally starting to take the advice they’ve been getting from the left since Obama took office. No more interminable negotiating with the Party of Hell No. No more preemptive compromising. Starting to get tough on holds and filibusters and setting aside time to get some confirmations through. Which is all good, because they will never get financial, immigration, and climate reforms, a new Supreme Court nominee, the budget, and appropriations done unless they fly through their agenda. As it is, there aren’t enough legislative days on the calendar to do all that and still get over five dozen outstanding nominees confirmed.
As I’ve said, I think they’re being too ambitious, but I’d rather see them try and get most of it done than spend another year like 2009 where we got strung out and took a political beating only to pass a piece of shit health care bill. Yeah, we absolutely had to pass it. And, yeah, patience last year set us up to be impatient this year. But it was painful and I’m glad to see signs that this year will play out differently.
I recall you railing against HFCS .. looks like a bunch of companies are rethinking it’s overuse: http://industry.bnet.com/food/10001771/the-death-of-high-fructose-corn-syrup/
Because Little Finn gets a skin reaction whenever CabinGirl eats dairy, I’ve had to start reading labels very, very carefully.
Try this. Go to the grocery store and try to buy a loaf of wheat bread that doesn’t have either dairy or HFCS in it. At Wegman’s there is only one loaf that fits that bill. At Giant and Acme there are a few more options, but even Pepperidge Farm has HFCS in it. In bread!! for chrissakes. It’s everywhere.
This nation needs a Council of Dirty Hippies. They have been right on every major policy issue in the past 50 years. We could save a whole lot of time and money and political bickering by just letting them run the show.
I sure hope so.
It has to get tiring being the bottom b!tc# when you’re in the overwhelming majority.
.
@BooMan listed with the mention “no backbone”. Many refer to Obama’s Middle-East policy and keeping Lieberman on as chairman of powerful Senate commissions.
"But I will not let myself be reduced to silence."Booman, like you I’m glad to see signs of backbone and hope it continues. I’m also glad to see signs of strategic vision combined with tactical opportunism.
I think we saw one example after Scott Brown’s election. Pelosi took the lead in demonstrating backbone and Obama took advantage of the Republicans (in retrospect foolish) harping on the lack of televised negotiations to make them a tactical offer they couldn’t refuse. The health care summit, combined with seizing on announced health insurance rate hikes, helped get health care reform passed into law.
I think we see it now with Reid and Senate Democrats pushing forward to force a cloture vote, with them taking advantage of (rather than stumbling around with) Blanche Lincoln’s “conversion” on derivatives regulation, and with taking advantage of the SEC’s announced suit against Goldman Sachs.
We may be seeing a third example in the reports of plans to move forward with comprehensive immigration reform legislation—an issue all but guaranteed to bring out the extremists in the Republican coalition.
Having said all that, I doubt we’d be seeing this kind of action from Senate Democrats if they hadn’t been through the “trial by fire” of health care reform.
For all 60 of them to hang together last December and pass legislation without a single Republican vote, and then to come back after losing Ted Kennedy’s seat and remain united enough to pass the House’s reconciliation bill in March was, I suspect, a powerful and even (for some) transformative experience—an experience that makes it easier for them to hang together in 2010.
You won’t get what you don’t ask for. The big agenda speaks for boldly, it is about a party of action & a party of try. As long as the agenda remains on our table it leaves the party of ‘yeah but…’ spinning itself in the corner with zero issues left to slop around on their platform.
“As I’ve said, I think they’re being too ambitious, but I’d rather see them try and get most of it done than spend another year like 2009 where we got strung out and took a political beating only to pass a piece of shit health care bill.”
Yes. I’ll go from being totally totally unisurable at any cost to paying about $130 a month. That’s some real SHIT.
Jeebus.
Too ambitious?!
That’s nonsense. Obama would not have been elected if this country were in a piecemeal, incrementalist, water-it-down mood. And because Obama adopted the “I don’t want to be too ambitious but just do enough so that I look ambitious” posture, his support and aura have weakened. No, I don’t have polls at the ready to backup my claim but I know that I am tired of preemptive compromises, begging CEO’s to “join us,” begging Republicans to “join us,” begging Fox Noise to “join us,” and shivving dirty hippies because it’s the easiest, funnest thing to do.
To ask is human, but to beg is pathetic.
Delongo, but I think there’s another interpretation of Obama’s actions.
Assume Obama is a savvy politician—albeit one whose instinct is toward conciliation. Maybe he’s decided that he’s more likely to enact a progressive agenda by making it clear that he welcomes the support of moderates, independents, Republicans, even Wall Street CEOs.
There’s a difference between begging and asking. Obama asked repeatedly for Republicans to work with him on health care, but when they refused he went ahead anyway.
Think of it this way: Some percentage (8? 10? 15?) of the people who voted for Bush in 2004 voted for Obama in 2008. Obama’s trying to make clear to those voters that he respects them and will listen to them…even if he doesn’t always do what they want.
Yellow Dog Democrats, DFHs, or whatever progressives may call ourselves (or be called by others)—we’re going to vote for Obama over any Republican nominated in 2012. As long as he keeps moving, however haltingly, in a progressive direction, I can live with that.
I grant that immigration makes me incredibly nervous… but I also remember you, Booman, posting a diary recommending that Dems tackle immigration just before the Repub primaries in 2012 so we can get all the Repub presidential candidates on record making racist comments.
Does that logic not also apply this year, with all members of Congress?
It’s really the different dynamics between winning state and local elections.
Tom Tancredo couldn’t win a statewide election in Colorado because he wouldn’t get a single Latino vote. But he could win in his district quite easily without worrying about how racist he sounds.
A presidential election is 50 individual statewide elections (plus DC). So, the more the GOP Tancredoes itself the better for Obama’s reelection prospects. But on the district level, the people most likely to lose over immigration are Democrats in very white districts, particularly in the South, Southwest, and Midwest, but pretty much anywhere that there is a Democrat in a abnormally white district. The Republicans have already lost almost all the seats they’d stand to lose over anti-Latino hate.
So, all else being equal, I’d rather do this in an off-year, and if we do it in an election year, let it be a presidential election year.
That’s why I’d prefer to do it in late 2011 as the GOP contenders are vying with each other to win over the GOP base. But if we’re going to do it this year, I’m on board and ready to go.
Thanks. OK, I can buy that for the Congressional seats.
For the senate, though, the races are statewide, and some of the Republican candidates are pretty far to the right.
I have to admit, the decision to tackle immigration now makes me wonder if Obama expects to lose Congress in November and has decided to get it all done now, then spend the next two years letting Republicans show how useless they are.
I don’t know, but he’s got more on the calendar than he can possibly accomplish.