I didn’t mean to post and run. I was assigned an editing job this morning and I’ve been working on it for the last seven straight hours. That didn’t leave me any time to think or write about the Netroots Nation situation.
I see that you all had no such limitations and you need a new thread because the old one is full.
So, here you go.
It kind of sucks you get assigned new work on the weekend. That’s not very progressive.
Were trying to put this year’s College Guide to bed this weekend, so we’re all working long hours. I don’t mind because we have a lot of stretches that are pretty relaxed in between our deadlines.
I’m glad it works for you.
It seems like we basically are re-arguing the entire presidency of the President in that thread, kind of got away from the initial question a little
Ruth Marcus was particularly despicable on the subject of Black Lives Matter this morning:
http://crooksandliars.com/2015/07/ruth-marcus-whitesplains-black-lives
Even the normally placid Gwen Ifill responded, in essence, “Bitch, please.”
Raw Story
Billmon
Of course, the other half of his tweet acknowledges:
“My white privilege notwithstanding, I think I can see the validity of what BlackLivesMatter is doing — from their political POV. When you don’t even have a shot at gaining real power through the “normal” political channels, why try? why respect the “rules”? And since the hegemonic deck is so stacked against the progressive left — of whatever color — part of me says, why not? It is about life and death, after all — and BlackLivesMatter is in the very front lines of a struggle against cop fascism. But to see how easily US left (such as it is) gets diverted into fighting intersectional wars against itself is still depressing.”
— Elon James White (@elonjames) July 19, 2015
The other thing I’m noticing all over twitter (from what I’ve seen) is the standard “If you don’t support Bernie, it’s Hillary/Jeb!” That sounds awfully familiar…oh, yes, it’s the standard Democratic appeal of “vote for us, we’re not as bad!” Shoe seems to be on the other foot…
“vote for us, we’re not as bad!”
Well, it is true.
I should add, referring to the Democratic party versus the Republican party — not Bernie versus Hillary. Not sold on Sanders.
I like Billmon for his often unique perspective, frequent enough wisdom, and expertise in certain financial/economic areas. That said, he’s more cynical and more pessimistic than I am at my core. He’s also younger (after he started his blog, had to point out to him “Alabama Song” (Whiskey Bar) was a cover and not a Doors creation. Jim Morrison was dead before Billmon was even a tween).
Also, he’s a much better writer than the tweet format allows. He immediately stood out when he showed up at dKos in Oct/Nov 2002.
Besides the fact that it’s a true statement, I don’t see the Hillary camp actually saying that. Besides the fact I don’t like supporting don’t have a chance candidates. I want to win and govern.
Bernie is polling even with Republican candidates in states like Virginia…and that’s with a lot of “undecideds” due to lack of name recognition. He has just as much of a chance at winning as she does if he were to win the nomination.
Sanders 39% – Bush 40% – Not Sure 21%
Sanders 38% – Rubio 40% – Not Sure 23%
Sanders 38% – Walker 39% – Not Sure 23%
Sanders 43% – Trump 39% – Not Sure 18%
—————————————–
Clinton 46% – Bush 38% – Not Sure 16%
Clinton 47% – Rubio 43% – Not Sure 10%
Clinton 47% – Walker 42% – Not Sure 12%
Clinton 49% – Trump 39% – Not Sure 12%
Do you know how old “It’s the Supreme Court!” has been a stand-in for voting for the lesser evil?
Yes, and I endorse the message as a reason for voting. I just find it amusing that a lot of Bernie Sanders supporters who might not otherwise vote for Clinton should she win the nomination are deploying it as a reason to support Sanders.
Well I say vote Sanders over Clinton if you would rather not spend the money and manpower to jump into all sorts of foreign wars. Keep those resources at home and use them to make black and brown and red lives matter.
The Supreme Court was lost almost thirty years ago — and it wasn’t so great during the decade before that. So, as motivator for people to vote, it is a fail.
So, the Supreme Court is permanently lost? I thought the Bill Clinton and Obama nominees are all the ones on the liberal side of the court, and that the next President will be putting forth nominees for any SCOTUS openings.
The most dastardly decisions in recent years have all been 5-4 decisions, and many Circuit Courts are also hanging in a tight balance. The Presidency’s role in shaping the Federal Judiciary from top to bottom is huge.
So the Court of the ’70’s didn’t have a record many, many miles better than the current Court? Gee, don’t know that I agree. Here’s one of many tests that could be created: would the current Court have found the right to privacy that animated the majority opinion in Roe v. Wade if the case arrived to them fresh today?
Let’s see. Almost thirty years ago — that would be approximately 1986. The decade before that would be 1976-1985. Roe was decided in 1973.
If you want an answer to your test, go ask Kennedy. He did after all find a right to privacy in Lawrence v. Texas. OTOH, he’s a Catholic and abortion is a no-no.
It’s just my opinion that the Warren Court was phenomenal and the first half of the Burger Court was quite good.
The Rhenquist and Roberts Courts’ decisions have ranged from tolerable to dreadful. Not since the Bork nomination have Senate Democrats rejected a GOP nominee.
How’s Obama doing in getting his federal court nominees confirmed?
It’s entirely possible that there won’t be an opening on the SC in the next five years.
So Hillary is “evil” now, apparently. Other than the fact that she is not evil, good analysis.
I’ve contributed to Sanders and have not contributed to Hillary, but I will be a very strong supporter of her if she wins the Democratic Party nomination, because the gulf between what she would do as President on the issues we care about and what any plausible GOP POTUS candidate would do is extremely broad, particularly if the Republicans were to keep partial or full control of Congress.
http://www.lawyersgunsmoneyblog.com/2015/07/how-to-be-a-hack-nixon-was-a-liberal-edition
I read the linked post yesterday and thought of some of the lovely discussions I’ve joined on the Frog Pond.
Marie3, Atrios speaks a bit closer to your truth:
http://www.eschatonblog.com/2015/07/uninformed-people-can-have-better.html
Make sure to keep reading past the headline; it doesn’t represent his landing point very well.
Not in agreement that “what should be people” are uninformed or “what can be people” are informed or that following the lead of “what can be people” is generally a good idea. It elevates pragmatism as the best course when it may in fact be a step backwards or sideways. Sometimes doing nothing at all gets closer to “what should be” than doing anything.
I recall a brother and sister (yes, I did know both of them) who each inherited half their mother’s estate that was almost exclusively invested in one blue chip stock. Rather than liquidate the stock holding, the executor transferred title in the stock to each of them and whatever taxes and other obligations were due. The brother was an attorney and financially astute. The sister barely survived and had been getting by on variety of odd, part time jobs for a couple of decades.
The brother diversified his portfolio to increase his gains and continuously told his sister that she should do the same. Indecision immobilized her. And the relatively small dividends that she began receiving were significant to her. Six years on after frequent stock sales and purchases, the value of the brother’s portfolio was half what it had been when he inherited it. His sister’s had doubled in value.
“Not in agreement that “what should be people” are uninformed or “what can be people” are informed or that following the lead of “what can be people” is generally a good idea.”
I posted the link, and urged you to read the whole thing, because Atrios lands pretty close to you on this. Activism that aspires to move the public forward from what it views as politically possible at the moment is vital.
Our differences are very narrow in the end. I believe it has meaning that Obama governed much more liberally when he had a liberal Congress, and that it has meaning that Hillary is not Bill, and that she has not been lockstep with his views on public issues.
From the standpoint of 2016, if you choose to have the most cynical view of Hillary and view her as a pure opportunist, we can take comfort that the political moment is much different than it was throughout Bill’s Presidency; hell, the political moment is different than it was when Hillary was in the Senate. Even you would agree that every Hillary nominee to the Supreme Court would be superior than every GOP POTUS nominee, given the ever-increasing radicalism of the Republican Party.
From our side of the aisle, those fighting for more liberal policies nearly across the board are ascendant in comparison to the strength they held in the ’90’s. It has meaning that a man who is not even a member of the Democratic Party because he is left of the Party platform in many areas is running much more strongly than expected for the Democratic Party POTUS primary. That’s very unusual, just about unique, in fact. This should help us in our fight to hold Hillary to the left through her campaign.
I can’t find myself in agreement that your family story acts as a fair parallel to, say, the ACA, but there we’re definitely in the area of opinion which could be debated in good faith. Me, I say the actual outcomes for real people have been good, well worth the resentment and anger I feel over the enrichment of Big Pharma and private insurers that the ACA brought.
I read the whole thing. Far too broad brush to resonate with me. The historical person that I’d most identity as unrelenting on a “what should be” is Susan B. Anthony. She devoted over fifty years of her life, and at great cost to herself, to women’s suffrage. Did her mission get diffused and slowed down by the “what can be” women or did she slow it down by being resistant to “can be” possibilities?
Strategically it appears that Anthony got it wrong — but who is to say that if she hadn’t also been out on the public stage with the “should be” that the state-by-state efforts would have succeeded anywhere? What both lacked was a robust organizing principle. Getting that piece in place (and we can be sure that the various factions has as many heated arguments was any found on blogs today), the dominoes began to fall.
(The story in my comment was only about nothing is sometimes better than “should do” or “can do.” And how unwilling we tend to be in accepting how much of our lives can’t be managed and are unpredictable.)
You seem to have taken Duncan’s piece as a variation on “Don’t let the perfect be the enemy of the good.” I think, as often is his wont, that he was making a point that “should” and “can” are more complex and neither position stands well on its own.
You and I probably don’t differ much on our political orientation. Our interpretations of what is liberal and conservative does differ. Most of Obama’s appointments were Republicans and from the right wing of the Democratic Party. If the feds give corporations $9 and the people $1 (even $5 dollars each if one were to assess Obama’s policies most generously), that’s not liberal IMO.
I have no interest in fighting to hold Hillary to the left through her campaign. (Was that a tell that the fight should only be through her campaign?) She is who she is. Asking (begging) her to tell us lies seems pathetic to me.
“She is who she is.”
Every politician can be moved by a well-organized, compelling campaign around an issue whose time has come. It wouldn’t be a matter of getting Hillary to “tell us lies”- it’d be a matter of getting Hillary to take action on issues we care about.
The idea you propose is that Hillary will not be moved by anything our Movement may do. That is just not true; I don’t believe that’s in the area of opinion. The messaging of the campaign she is running this time refects that she has been moved since 2008. That is meaningful, and cynicism should not persuade us otherwise.
Does masses of organized money stand in our way? Sure. Would it be preferable to have a nominee who does not need to be moved by us on very many issues? Of course. But keeping the White House and regaining the Senate are necessary.
My comment was independent of any election cycle or candidate. And “lesser evil” is nothing other than generic hyperbole. Please don’t ascribe something to me that I haven’t said.
It’s true that policies/legislation enacted during the Obama administration are more conservative than those during Nixon’s time. That doesn’t mean Nixon was a liberal — he wasn’t. The times and Congress limited how far he could push a conservative agenda and it wasn’t much. Plus, if a matter was liberal and popular, he cared more about retaining his position that he did a conservative agenda.
So no, Nixon was not more liberal than Obama. However, a Democrat like Obama during the 1969-74 period would have been to the far right of the party wrt to economy and not so different from Nixon on foreign affairs.
The policy achievements Obama enacted with the 111th Congress are superior to those of any Congress during the Nixon administration. The 112th and 113th Congresses meet your comparison with Nixon’s Congresses, though.
This leads us to draw an unavoidable conclusion about the agenda the President would have preferred to pursue throughout his terms. It’s not the agenda that has been on the menu since 2011.
The Republicans are the problem. Obama’s bouts of rhetorical centristm (bouts we’ve barely heard for quite a while, BTW) pale in comparison.
In your opinion.
The ERA, EPA, NOAA, and Clean Water Act are pretty big deals imo. As was SALT I and detente with China. And while I personally thought Revenue Sharing wasn’t the best approach to federal funding of local needs, it was better than what came later.
Again, not small matters. And tens of millions of women were positively impacted by that.
It’s not productive to debate whether recent policy achievements by the Obama administration are superior to those enacted over forty years ago by the Nixon administration. Medicare/medicaid was groundbreaking — S-Chip added a new component and did Medicaid expansion. If one believes that private, for profit health insurance for most and mostly private, for profit medical services is the best way to achieve affordable health care for most (it’s not UHC), then assigning a rating of “superior” to the legislation at this point is reasonable.
The stimulus was botched on several levels. Dodd-Frank is a bandaid (how far along is the implementation?) Nixon didn’t inherit a raft of bad domestic legislation and policies that required unwinding, but his GOP predecessor hadn’t been as reckless as Clinton had been.