(Cross-posted at Daily Kos, My Left Wing, and my blog.)
[editor’s note, by RenaRF] This is in response to Barack Obama’s diary at Daily Kos earlier today. I was almost crying when I typed it.
Dear Senator Obama,
Thank you so much for your thoughtful post this morning. My reply to you, contained within this diary, is solely my own thoughts and impressions and is intended to provide some insight for you. I have a deep and abiding regard for your character and it is to that which I appeal.
In no way do I mean to criticize you or attack you, though the overall tone of my following response may be interpreted that way. My issues with your post are multiple, the most acute ones being related to the fact that I think you are viewing and responding to symptoms and not considering the root causes.
And so I’ll begin.
I think the defining statement of your letter was this:
…win the right to appoint [judges] by recpaturing the presidency and the Senate. And I don’t believe we get there by vilifying good allies, with a lifetime record of battling for progressive causes, over one vote or position.
That excerpt says two important things: First, it tells us that we simply must be focused on taking back control of the executive and legislative branches. We are in violent accord on that issue, though I will foreshadow that we disagree dramatically on what needs to be done to make that occur. Second, it immediately chastisizes those of us who have stepped up and criticized Democratic senators who voted to confirm John Roberts. I will ask you to consider this: What if the criticism you reference is really a broad metaphor for an across-the-board abandonment of progressive values on the part of Democrats? Please keep that question with you as you read this, because I would submit to you that it’s not just about the Roberts nomination.
Senator, we haven’t forgotten all the efforts made by Democrats on everything but the Roberts nomination. My mother raised me with a variety of truisms, one of which is particularly apt for this particular discussion: you reap what you sow. If Democrats portray weakness as a party, Democrats will be labelled and branded as weak. Coming back and gently, articulately criticizing us for actually calling the Democratic party weak reminds me a bit of a situation with my now 20-year old stepson. In going through his room, I found something which allowed me to catch him in a lie. When confronted with that lie, he was angry that I had gone through his room. He totally missed the fact that he had lied and that I had a right to be disappointed in him. The methods employed in proving the lie are irrelevant. I don’t find decrying criticism from your own camp entirely dissimilar.
As I stated in a comment to your diary, the definition of insanity is doing what you’ve always done yet somehow expecting different results. Democrats have striven for congeniality in their approach to opposing the majority and have been repeatedly and squarely defeated in that tactic. Nowhere have I seen a cohesive and unified “calling out” of the opposition on their tactics. Coming back to common sense truisms, Senator, I would say that the only way to deal with a bully is to stand up to that bully. When the bully knows that he can intimidate you and muscle you to achieve his end goals, he will do so. Fighting back is the only thing he understands and Democrats have not been fighting back in any meaningful way against the bullying tactics of the majority party. For example:
- Where is a coordinated and public admonishment on the part of Democrats for the lies and deceptions perpetrated by the majority party in going to war in Iraq?
- Where is a coordinated and public demand on the part of Democrats for accountability on
- the Downing Street Memo?
- the outing of Valeria Plame?
- the assertion that Iraq was seeking uranium from Niger?
- the billions of dollars missing from efforts in Iraq?
- the policy that condones torture?
- Where were unified Democratic legislators simply screaming at the tops of their lungs about all the unnecessary deaths in the wake of hurricane Katrina?
- Where is a unified Democratic voice yelling for the resignation of Tom Delay?
- Where is a unified Democratic voice demanding a full accounting of the Able Danger fiasco?
The above list doesn’t even approach being exhaustive – I’m sure what little I have provided gives you a flavor for the generalized frustration progressives across the country are experiencing. “Calling out” Democratic Senators on the issue of John Roberts is the result of an accumulated sense that the Democratic party is, at the least, ineffective and, at worst, irrelevant and obsolete. Espousing ideas that issue a call for comity further speeds the certainty of irrelevance. Our hopes and our hearts die with every capitulation – each of which is one of the 1,000 cuts that will eventually spell our death.
Ask yourself this: why is it that the vast majority of progressives who frequent Daily Kos are able to sum up the Republican party’s platform in six words? Strong Military. Lower Taxes. Family Values. Yet this pool of often brilliant thinkers can’t do the same for our own party. It’s not because we don’t agree with a platform that has been put forward – it’s that the Democratic message itself is contrary and lacks unity. Don’t ask us to rally around the party if you can’t provide us with the words we need to issue the cry. You can’t have the support if you’re not willing to do the work required to put it in place.
Most importantly, we’re tired of getting punched. EVERY DAY brings a new item that we hold as absolutely imperative that we find has been sacrificed on the altar of “statesmanship”. It’s not time to make nice with the majority party. It’s the time to get angry and knock them out. They haven’t hesitated to do so with us and yet we’ve stood there, taking it, hoping that their eventual missteps would spell their own demise.
Well it hasn’t, Senator Obama. It hasn’t. The Republican party has shown time and time again its resilience in the face of consequences associated with their policies and actions. They take the heat – they stick to the script and to the plan – they ride it out – and it works. It works because no one is standing over them kicking them in the face when they try to get back up. It’s not enough that the Democratic party start building frames of its own (and I see precious little of that type of activity) – we have to simultaneously obliterate the frames within which the Republicans operate. Nothing short of a full assault will do and we’re running out of time and influence with which to do it. I hope that it isn’t already too late.
Senator Obama, I do see great promise from you. You are a skilled and inspiring orator and one of the best chances we have as we move into the future. Hence my near-hysterical reaction to your letter, a letter which seemed to me to say the same tired old things and promote the same losing tactics. More importantly, I’m dumbfounded by your lack of anger at the way you and other Democrats are simply kicked around by the Republican party. They are humiliating you while you try to straighten your tie. They’re punching you in the face while you try to shake their hand. I realize that one-on-one relationships with opposing party members are not like that – but the end result is that you wind up beaten bloody and left to die while they walk away laughing.
I’m pretty moderate as far as this site goes and yet I’m ready to take to the streets and do what the Democratic party won’t or cant – it’s that important – and I’m frankly shocked that you don’t see it.
Hope springs eternal but it IS fading, Senator. It’s sad when average people are willing to be more courageous and daring than our elected leaders.
LEAD, damnit. Stop telling us why we’re wrong and lead.
Respectfully,
RenaRF
That was much more reasonable than my response.
Senator Obama taught me two things today:
To the specifics of his screed, I can only say that by capitulating to the White House’s refusal to provide background information on John Roberts, Democrats and Republicans both have ensured that future Supreme Court nominees can only be opposed on either trivial or ideological grounds. I could not care less about the next nominee, as at this point I see no plausible way for Senate Democrats to suddenly band together in opposition on any rational basis. I apologize for my extreme cynicism, but that is my analysis.
The problem with Senate Dems (and Obama in particular) is that they are not willing to change the broad status quo. In particular, in his speeches Obama appeals to already established voter inclinations or perceptions thereof just too much.
It is important to think about tactics and winning, and I do not suggest that Dems should never vote tactically. But when they ALWAYS vote only according to their tactical illusions… that’s disgusting.
“You never change things by fighting the existing reality. To change something, build a new model that makes the existing model obsolete.” — Bucky Fuller
Wow, Rena — thank you so much for writing and sending this letter — this is exactly it, isn’t it?
My first reaction to his diary was well, all of this sounds good, but not realisitc at all….your letter is excellent.
My first reaction was, “same shit, different Dem”.
Rena, you summed up how so many of us are feeling beautifully. I hope Barack gets to read it.
sheeet, discovered the “3” was me, got it fixed now…
Wow RenaRF. Just Wow!
You nailed it. I hope someone makes sure the Senator himself reads this.
I only wish our elected officials could be half as articulate as you are.
Thanks Rena. I share your desperation. I was quite dismayed to read that diary this morning. I believe there were two points the Senator clearly made — a call for civility and a request not to ditch an ally because of one vote — and I agree with both of those.
That said, his reasoning and the supporting “facts” were extremely discouraging. First, merely reacting to what Americans think is not the sole purpose of our politicians. I second the appeals to lead, to give voice to the other side. The political climate has slid so far to the right because our side hasn’t been holding up its end of the conversation.
Also, it seems to me that his statement about the judicial appointments fails to make the crucial distinction between cabinet appointments and judicial ones. All appointments are not the same. His argument would be sound for a cabinet member. For a judge on the Supreme Court, it is failing to understand the Senate’s job.
We need to make distinctions and, yes, sometimes compromise, but we also need to make clear what we’re compromising on, what we’re fighting for. You can’t just capitulate without putting up a fight first. You don’t just go forward with the compromise without even articulating your objections — what is so hard to understand about that?
And you’re correct — when one side has crossed the line over into criminality and abuse, treating the situation as reasonable is a flawed strategy. I’m sorry the politicians involved can’t see that. It seems that we’re stuck in a crazy trap of refusing to make distinctions that matter and taking a nuanced stance in territory that doesn’t exist.
I agree with you….a sad state of affairs !!
what now????
I’m not positive, but I think we just carry on — speaking truth, exposing lies and corruption, changing the dialogue, working locally, trying to get good people into office, and holding the current officeholders accountable. When we encounter a person like the Senator — someone on our side who we think has a good heart — we work to persuade them of the errors of their ways. The upside of today’s events, in my opinion, is that they show our politicians are hearing us. I say we pump up the volume.
and you know, I agree with his original intent as well.
I don’t think that calling the Bush administration incompetent is uncivil if it has been shown that they are, in fact, incompetent. I don’t think calling someone a liar is uncivil if they have, in fact, lied. Know what I’m saying? Who better than Barack Obama to carry the torch of righteous indignation?
I do know what you’re saying and agree 100%. You said it really well, too. And I think you’re right about Barack Obama — he delivers such powerful speeches, I believe he could probably call them six kinds of liars and it would sound wonderful!
This part:
” “Calling out” Democratic Senators on the issue of John Roberts is the result of an accumulated sense that the Democratic party is, at the least, ineffective and, at worst, irrelevant and obsolete. Espousing ideas that issue a call for comity further speeds the certainty of irrelevance. Our hopes and our hearts die with every capitulation – each of which is one of the 1,000 cuts that will eventually spell our death.”
Wow.
And this part:
“Most importantly, we’re tired of getting punched. EVERY DAY brings a new item that we hold as absolutely imperative that we find has been sacrificed on the altar of “statesmanship”. “
Even better.
You have the most-recommended diary at BooMan Tribune and at Daily Kos at the same time.
And even more miraculous, you’ve spawned some of the best commentary I’ve seen in months on that other site.
Good job again!
I kicked off a shitstorm over there!! Wow!!
Ok so here’s the funny thing – It was top there, here and at My Left Wing. Is there some kind of trifecta-type cash award I should be trying to collect?? 😉
Rena, I saw you at the march Saturday and now I’m really sorry I didn’t walk up and shake your hand. You have articulated every moment of frustration I have been forced to endure over the last 5 years.
The last line says it all,
LEAD damnit, LEAD
Obama breaks my heart. I once thought he was strong and could maybe run for President. But seeing him try to explain that we should sell out is sad. Especially over Roberts.
I once was hopeful due to Obama. Democrats not only stayed silent on most issues and attrocities but now they are telling us to simmer down? To understand the gaming called politics? To trust them while they empower such threats as Roberts?
(shakes head in sorrow and disbeleif) a common occurance nowadays.
Mine too. I couldn’t wait to vote for him. During his speech at the Dem convention last year, I said to my husband, “wow, he’s going to be President one day”.
Obama has been a terrible diappointment. I don’t expect him to be a big fire-breather. I do expect to see some backbone and some decent constituent services. I haven’t seen either, and I get more disgusted with him all the time.
I wrote this a couple of weeks ago, and I’ll write it again: I want them all out. Every single one. I throw away every mailing I get from the DNC (and there are a lot!) and every mailing I get from a candidate who already holds office. Furthermore, I’m not giving a single penny until I see some leadership and a coherent message.
They’ve had meatballs tossed their way and did nothing. All who voted for the Patriot Acts without reading them (or so they say now) They have remained silent about so much bullshit and now to tell us that we should “understand”??? Excuse my language but fuck that! How many legless boys and girls need to come home? How many more rights taken away? How much more bible shoving down the throuat of this country can we take?
To me, Roberts is a threat – and Obama can’t or won’t see that.
Lynne Woolsey, Barbare Lee were at the concert and spoke up. Maxine Waters, did too … but she said wait for 2008… Uh NO! I want these liars out NOW.
One of the many things I learned this weekend. I’m not a Democrat. The Democrats don’t speak for me because the don’t SPEAK UP!
I’m a Liberal.
I’m still holding out hope for John Conyers, Jr.
Damnit Janet, you rock!
I still think he can. That’s why I wrote it – and something tells me that his staff will carefully cull the responses to his diary and mine and the other Obama diary and take it into account. Don’t lose hope – that’s why I wrote to him.
Reason I stood down and didn’t write to him, because the calm yet angry voices need to get through to him… right now I’m pretty pissed off LOL
It’s sometimes “wise” to let voices of reason speak up. So hoping your letter gets through to him. I know when to scream… and right now isn’t the time yet. But the clock is ticking 🙂
Limelite has a diary up too that also speaks for me – he mentioned Martin Luther King, Jr… and those who didn’t just wait patiently for their rights to be given to them…
Rena, Thanks for your strong response to Obama’s posting.
I was chagrined as I read OBama’s piece – particularly since it advocates a viewpoint that is more and more pushed forward in that not-to-be-named place where I read it. I particularly dislike the “savior of the party” attitude that is attached to him, as well as the “let’s all keep to the middle of the road” movement.
Good work, good words, Rena
…heart-felt and polite response to the Senator, and one which may very well get read if it isn’t drowned out by the tons of material sent in by the screamers.
While I agree with about 80-90% of what you wrote, let me address two troublesome areas that you talk about.
I hesitate to call the first one “framing,” because I hate that word, and I think it’s gotten too much attention by people who think style is more important than content. That is, if we just pick the right words, the right slogans, the Democratic version of “weak on defense” or “tax-and-spend,” we’ll soon be knocking off Republicans in elections as far as the eye can see. That’s plain nuts.
But, you write:
Well, I don’t know about you, but since November 4, I’ve read scores of Daily Kos Diaries, maybe hundreds, as well as other blogs, with thousands of comments about this inadequacy. And people DO put ideas forward for succinct, hard-hitting phrases that embody what they’d like to see the party stand for. But. we. just. don’t. agree. And everybody wants nuance.
And I think that’s where the difficulty comes in. For instance, what is the Democratic version of “Strong military”? I’ve seen a discussion about this in which two- and three-word proposals soon developed into paragraph-long slogans filled with qualifiers. Not easy to craft the perfect choice.
Secondly, I couldn’t agree more with you more about taking “to the streets,” a phrase which I see as including a bevy of extra-electoral techniques to push the party (and the country) in the direction not enough in the party have shown a willingness or ability to do. We took it to the streets for civil rights, we did it against Vietnam, against nuclear armageddon and Central American intervention, and we’re starting to do it again this time around. Frankly, in my experience, it’s the only way we’ll get anything done; with the exception of the New Deal, it’s always been the only way.
As you write, however, it would sure be nice to have a dozen or so Senators or Representatives at the head of the pack. But, truly, that’s not how politics have ever worked in this country. It wasn’t Republican party leaders who made the transition from permanent minority status to their current juggernaut.
And people DO put ideas forward for succinct, hard-hitting phrases that embody what they’d like to see the party stand for. But. we. just. don’t. agree. And everybody wants nuance.
“Equal rights and justice”. (to quote Peter Tosh)
Who can’t agree with that?
I agree we’re having some trouble finding our voice, but I think it’s because our party isn’t currently willing to live up to our traditional principles. As I see it, the democratic platform — representing the people — is these three things: Freedom, Opportunity, Equality.
Everything we stand for, all of our issues, are rooted in those. The three snappy Republican issues are lies, really, but they work because the Republicans are true to their agenda — they are representing the powerful and working for them.
The whole idea behind conservatism is keeping and consolidating power and maintaining the status quo. Their three things reflect traditional ways of doing so — force, money, religion — those three things are strongly rooted in conservatism and their main weapon to keep the powerless voting for them is fear.
Liberalism is rooted in dispersing power and shaking up the status quo. Our main weapon against fear is hope.
The Rs have been succeeding because they have been doing exactly what they’re supposed to be doing — serving powerful interests. They lie to the people about their agenda and no one contradicts them. In the meantime, they consolidate power and the rich get richer.
We’re having trouble with the message because our representatives have been working against our principles. We can’t say we’re for freedom when we support the wars on drugs and terror. We can’t say we’re for opportunity when we’ve signed on to outsourcing and an unaffordable higher-education system. We can’t say we’re for equality when we’ve willing to ditch chunks of our constituency.
They’ve let the Republicans gain wealth and power from legislating the hell out of the poor and draining the middle class. The Republican’s true constituency is doing really well in all of this. We need Dems who are willing to take some of that power away from them and give it back to the people. If they actually do that, the words won’t matter so much. If they’re not willing to do it, their words will continue to be irrelevant.
Strong military? Take that budget away from the contractors and corporations and put it into the troops and their families — healthcare, housing, education, pay.
No taxes? No such thing. The rich and corporations aren’t paying their fair share. Why isn’t anyone coming out and calling for tax cuts for the poor and increases for the rich? No one has cut taxes for the poor and working classes or promised not to raise them. Why? A country needs money to run and no one’s willing to take that money from the ones who can afford it.
Family values? Well, we’ve talked and talked about those. We know it’s code for prejudice. People will vote their fears when there’s nothing else in it for them. Give those voters something real, and survival will trump prejudice every time.
Sorry this got so long — I get incredibly frustrated at these “messaging” discussions because I think we absolutely do need to back up our talk with action and people would get it. Merely stemming the tide of the other side’s agenda isn’t cutting it.
Also, a last note about people taking it to the streets — I do believe they did that for the New Deal as well. Perhaps not as many marches, but definitely demonstrations and sit-ins. There was the whole union labor movement, picketing and shutting down factories, and I know the WWI vets marched on Washington for benefits. I think it was all much bigger than is widely known now. There were definitely a lot of folks taking it to the streets in those days. Many of the wealthy supported the New Deal simply because they were afraid of revolution.
…DURING the New Deal. But most of those – Flint sitdown, for instance – came after the basic parameters of FDR’s purloined-from-leftists program had already been set. The unions did have a major impact, but they didn’t even have a legal right to organize until Roosevelt rammed such a law through Congress.
While we could go on and on about what makes good policy – I certainly agree with 90% of what you’ve said in that regard – I’d prefer to see ACTION. But what I hear too much of (I am not attacking you or anyone by saying this) is demands that reforms, changes, vision be bottom-up at the same time there is despair that nothing (or very little) is coming from the top-down. Personally, I’d recommend just taking the Democratic platform’s boilerplate, putting three pieces of proposed legislation to each major bullet point and then getting some Democrats to push these ideas.
Of course, until the party has a majority, and the White House, next to none of them will be enacted.
Thanks for setting me straight about the sequence of New Deal events!
I think I’m pretty much agreeing with you on the rest, too. I think we need both — leadership from the top and pressure from the bottom. I don’t think one will work without the other. And I’d love to see the Dems proposing legislation. I guess the trick for us is to maintain the pressure without name-calling or something. 🙂
All right. Now that I’ve exercised I can focus.
To your first point. I hear you. To use a personal example, I’ve taken a lot of really good-natured kidding about being Type-A since the march in DC this past weekend (NO NO – do NOT go off on a march tangent, everyone reading this). Simply put, we needed a way to stay together on the march, especially since most of us had never met face to face before that day. We also needed a way to communicate in a crowd. I brought a bullhorn. When warranted, I used it. “We’re moving out.” “Everyone stop.” Things like that. It worked. So I guess I’m saying that leadership has to pick up the goddamned bullhorn on the issue of our values – think about it, consider it, weigh the options and alternatives, and articulate it. Then stick to it. And repeat it. And stick to it some more. Then repeat it again. NO ONE will be happy with all aspects of it. But it has to be just agreeable enough that there’s something in it for everyone. The lack of clarity starts at the top. If they articulate it and keep screaming it through the bullhorn, people will follow. I guaran-damned-tee you that Republicans, without that leadership, would be having the same bitching, moaning disagreements.
And to your second point, I couldn’t agree more and it somewhat brings me back to the whole “take to the streets” arguments that have raged here on Daily Kos since last weekend. I found it energizing and if the majority involved did as well, then we’re loaded for bear and ready to get the word out – whatever that word is. 😉
Whoa, whoa, whoa, MB, I see you haven’t been keeping up. Didn’t you know it’s all about media now? Street protest is so 20th-century! Ask Kos, he’ll explain it to you.
Then he can explain it to the French labor unions. The people of Ukraine. Etc.
…my Diary complaining to Kos about his views on this very topic.
No I didn’t. Thanks for the link. I agree 100% with everything you say, MB.
Where????
Now this is a false frame…
Seven words. It covers the domestic agenda pretty well, but doesn’t even start on international issues.
I was very disappointed by Senator Obama’s diary today — but I will balance his diary against his other work.
I liked this diary (above) but the other diary below this one on Kos is very counterproductive. The argument seems to be that you have to be more combative to be effective.
But I am not concerned with how loud people are when they condemn Bush — what I care about is what they say — and I am not happy with what I’m hearing. Where are the values? where is the agenda? what is it that Democrats are willing to fight to the death over?
If Senator Obama is not happy that people are disparaging Senator Feingold over his vote in favor of Roberts, then tell us, Senator, what crosses the line in your view? What issue is so important to you that you will stand up and say “over my dead body”?
But does this wishy-washiness begin and end with the Democrats in Congress? I don’t think so. If the people over at DailyKos are so unhappy because Obama advocates “moderation” (my words), then what are we to make of the fact that Markos himself applauded the Democrats over the judicial compromise back in May that installed three radical judges and led to Roberts easy confirmation? Isn’t that, in fact, the same behavior being condemned now? And when several Senators announced they would vote for Roberts there were more than a handful of Kossians willing to say it was a “pragmatic” move on their part.
I’m tired of the debate being about whether the Democrats are anti-Bush enough. Yes, the Democrats in Congress are wimps and are rolling over. But if every Republican alive today were to move to Aruba, what would you want the Democrats in Congress to do? And can we agree on that.
RenaRF very wisely writes that everyone knows the Republican mantra: Strong Military. Lower Taxes. Family Values. And basically asks where is our mantra?
This is what we should discuss and agree on. If in the end, the Democrats end up with something “too progressive” for some I say so what? If the call to arms is too moderate I say so what? At least Americans will have been given a choice.
When Thomas Jefferson wrote “When in the Course of human events it becomes necessary for one people to dissolve the political bands which have connected them with another” he was justifying revolution and the creation of a new nation. That same principal works with political parties: if the Democrats will not stand up and fight for the issues important to us, we can declare our independence and create a new party consistent with the ideals we always believed the Democrats stood for.
Screaming does not create change, action does. It is time for the Democrats to caucus and decide on a course of action. It would be a dramatic but effective act if the Democrats were to have a convention early next year in which party members could voice their opinions and create a platform. Newt Gingrich did this, in a way, in 1994 as a way of telling voters what the Republicans stood for in the mid-term elections. Gingrich’s “Contract with America” made the mid-term election a national referendum on Democratic rule in the Congress. Whether this strategy worked I do not know. But the House of Representatives has been controlled by the Republicans for the past six election cycles.
It is time for Democrats to stand for something.
But does this wishy-washiness begin and end with the Democrats in Congress? I don’t think so. If the people over at DailyKos are so unhappy because Obama advocates “moderation” (my words), then what are we to make of the fact that Markos himself applauded the Democrats over the judicial compromise back in May that installed three radical judges and led to Roberts easy confirmation? Isn’t that, in fact, the same behavior being condemned now? And when several Senators announced they would vote for Roberts there were more than a handful of Kossians willing to say it was a “pragmatic” move on their part.
It is the same behaviour, and many of us condenmed it then, and we condenm it now. But too many people are only realizing now how failed this is.
It represents a right wing moderate support that is unacceptable to the left and beyond being simply counterproductive to a real progressive movement, it shows the Dems as disfunctional at worst, and apolitical at best.
I read Obama’s diary and appreciated it. He came across as humble, yet strong; fair-minded, yet willing to stand on deeply held principles, open-minded, yet unrelenting to those who would attempt to denigrate basic human rights.
I felt a bit guilty about calling out various congresspeople like Feingold for his affirmative vote on Roberts because Obama reminded me that there is always a bigger picture and I am not always right when I’m in a reactionary mode. Regarding the Roberts nomination (and perhaps because I’m too huge a fan of Law and Order), I felt that if the Dems could be convinced beyond a reasonable doubt that he would act as he said he would, they ought to confirm him. If there was reasonable doubt – as I believe there was – they should have voted not to confirm. But, the Senate is not a jury room in that strict sense. The politics are much more muddied. I’m an idealist. I’m not a politician. But, I’m also a practical idealist and because of that I know that, as Obama reminded us, practical considerations must be taken into account in life.
The Dems have stood over them and kicked them in the face. The problem is that, as you said, no matter what the Dems do to them, the Republicans repulsive strategies work. The trick, as Obama put it, is to convince the American people of a better choice. Insanity is doing the same thing over and over – expecting different results. If anything needs to change, it is the message of the Democratic party as a whole – not simply as the opposition – but as a party that stands for the most basic needs and rights of all Americans.
I have a lot to say about the subject of anger, escpecially from a Buddhist perspective, but I’ll just say this: anger is destructive. One must always look at what lies behind it ie. fear, humiliation, embarassment, sadness, hopelessness etc. Once that root is found and the anger can be moved aside, only then can a rational response be found. Think Ghandi. Anger for anger’s sake accomplishes nothing.
Obama stated that the party needs to focus on the new possibilities of the future while focusing on dealing with the realities of today. I don’t think his approach is soft, weak or non-responsive. I believe it is thoughtful, practical and open-minded. Yes, he’s new, he’s idealistic and he may well be seen as naive, however, in the realm of jaded colleagues and faded dreams that he inhabits each day as a senator, that breath of fresh air needs to be encouraged – not stifled.
Nice post with some great, thought-provoking insight.
I will say that I’m not an angry person (ok – except in traffic). I would submit that the anger is better used as a tool to refuse to be pushed around. I think a better word I could have used would have been “outrage”.
I would submit that the anger is better used as a tool to refuse to be pushed around.
And some would say that the strength of one’s convictions is the most effective tool. That strength may have been borne of anger but it has evolved into something positive.
righteous indignation?
It’s a marvelous concept. It isn’t anger, and it’s very very powerful.
You picked up the bullhorn. Why dont you Lead, dammit, lead?
Why are you looking to Senators, who by their constitutional definition are not leaders, to lead?
The fact is Obama was right and there is NOTHING that can be done at the congressional level UNTIL the Democrats ( or whomever you want to insert instead)regain control of the white house and senate.
If the Republicans put up a qualified candidate without skeletons in closet, the Dems must approve or risk even more reprobation at the polls in 2006. Its the system stupid. To the winners go the spoils.
Until then, your sentiments, while noble and apparently emotionally charged by your tears, are meaningless in the political process.
He was asking us to give the Party a break, not Senators. Therefore she is asking, no begging the Party to lead, not Senators. Besides, there are plenty of instances of Senators being leaders, for good and for bad, which I don’t have the time to go into right now as I’m walking out the door, but I will return to your comment later.
I just posted a diary on this subject you might want to comment upon, as well.
Maybe I misread but she was asking Obama to lead, wasnt she? He is a senator. Thats where my comment originated.
For both you and Supersoling – Yes. I’m looking for leadership and I’m looking for the type of leadership that I trust to compromise when necessary but also that will fight when warranted. That’s really kind of it in a nutshell.
My original issue with Mr. Obama’s letter is that it provided counsel to the converted, know what I’m sayin’? And had he balanced pleas for moderation with strong and unequivocal demands for majority party accountability, I don’t think I would have written it.
ToqueDeville has an EXCELLENT diary up at dKos (which is becoming Obama-fest) the first line of which is this:
That kind of summed up, without the emotion, what drove me when I originally wrote the letter.
*Whew* I’m all blogged out!!
ReanRF, excellent, I agree 100% with your diary.
Your passionate analysis ought to be the basis of our D campaign NOW and in the coming years. ‘Tis a pity we have no one in the D hierarchy, other than Howard Dean, who even comes close to “getting it.”
I can assure you that your comments on this will in a few short minutes reach both progressive and neanderthal Ds here in ND.
Here in Fargo, Sen Conrad’s staff will get your comments by email. And Sen Dorgan and Rep Pomeroy’s staff will get a hand delivered hard copy if not Sat then Monday morning.
The good Senator taking the time and making the effort to communicate with us about the realities of being a minority Senator, I am really impressed with your response.
Many of us feel that time is running out, if we are to be able to fix all that is wrong with our country. Many think that our Democratic leaders seek reelection by doing as little as possible to draw attention to themselves. Someone might be upset, if they take a stand against the war, John Roberts, the Schiavo fiasco, Social Security reform, the wanton plundering of our treasury by the tax cut and spend GOP, the Katrina response, our counterproductive energy policy,or a president who does not give a rip.
Many feel that the Democratic leadership must articulate a different, progressive, and do-able view for America’s future. A view that meets the many problems we face head on, willing to take risks to meet them, unafraid of failure.
Many feel that government is about governance. Many feel that we need our leaders to lead. You said that and more in a very powerful, persuading way.
The comments he is getting from bloggers here and elsewhere are eye-opening.
Even though we disagree with him, I hope he continues to communicate on the internet with us. I hope our other Democratic congressmen do as well. If they do, they will read entries like yours and gain an appreciation for the feelings of the American people who are being betrayed by the current administration. That may help them develop a Democratic platform that we can rally around.
Thanks for your thoughts, and your ability to express them effectively.
One viewpoint is that Barack’s posting summarized a very well thought out, moderate, compassionate, and practical mainstream “electable” Democratic platform. Obviously a lot of liberal bloggers don’t agree with that.
Considering this difference of viewpoint, it might be worth trying to figure out exactly why Obama posted that article. My hypothesis is that the party leadership is struggling with the question of “what to do about the bloggers.”
On the one hand, Kos and his thousands of followers claim to be working for the good of the party. On the other hand, they are demanding statements and platform planks and actions from the party that simply aren’t going to happen–because they will drive away voters. (Or at least that’s what the party regulars think.)
So Dean and Gore and Clinton and Obama and Lieberman have a big problem on their hands: How to continue to use the liberal blogs as ATMs, while not dragging the party to an unelectable platform? Right now the party is pretty much standing back from the blogs–in case you hadn’t noticed–and from blog-triggered events like the DC demonstration. It sure looks like they’re not wanting to move as far to the left as the blogger activists, but at the same time wanting to keep their fingers on the associated blog money.
The question is going to come down to this: As the 2006 election starts to ramp up over the next couple of months, will the blog ATM continue to support people with moderate views like Obama’s? Or will the netroot money eventually go to the Greens…
Who says it is unelectable? No one has tried for decades. No one has made the case effectively, and insurgents who’ve tried to just bring some of it get come down on HARD by the established party.
Cowards. They tell the same myths about Mondale, Carter and McCarthy over and over again, WITHOUT filling in the parts where the various corrupt Democratic machines sabotaged our own candidates.
The slide to the right thing has led to loss after loss. Time to try a swing to the left.
That’s the crux of the argument, isn’t it? My mother, who is SO liberal that she makes me look conservative, said today that the country itself is substantially more conservative. I’m interested in knowing what that means… Does that mean that they want fiscal discipline? If so, the last part to exercise such were the Democrats.
I think we have to start with two things: first, if the country is, in fact, more “conservative”, we have to fidn out what that means. After doing that, we have to decide if that “middle” ground is really conservative or if it matches fairly well withour core liberal values.
Time for a massive overhaul, I think.
it doesn’t mean anything, really. It’s like people who say they are “fans” of a singer or a sports team so they will fit in at work. Most people have no idea what it means.
Consensus is manufactured, and no one has tried to make the progressive/liberal argument in decades.
Couldn’t agree more. I don’t understand what they’re so afraid of.
Yeah, yeah – faking the punt is a risky plat to retain possession of the ball. But no guts no glory. I can’t believe it’s enough for Democrats to hold onto a dwindling minority – when are they willing to risk to take back control? Are they complacent? Is this enough for them? Do we need to go out and find a Paul Hackett for every seat in every race?
I don’t have the answers. I wish I did.
I am absolutely in agreement with Markos, Obama, and whoever else that we must WIN – starting in 06 – or we will lose what little hope we still have for our country. The damage that is being done by the Republicans is a nightmare and must be stopped as soon as possible. As it is, the repairs will be a huge task.
Where I part company with them is on HOW we can win. Last, oh say December, when we were all in a state of shock that Bush could get enough votes to even make it possible to steal that election, it might have been reasonable to argue that the majority of Americans were too ignorant of what was happening and too content with their comfortable life styles to question much.
But that has changed now. Even last December I would have argued that we had a better chance of winning with candidates that do not come across as “I’ve done the polling and the focus groups and don’t worry I won’t say or do anything that might alarm or offend you, dear tepid, uninvolved voter. Just vote for me because I’m not a Republican. And the Republicans are not nice folks.” That even then, that there was a huge pool of voters who didn’t vote or picked a candidate at random because, “All those politicians are alike. It doesn’t matter if I vote or who I vote for.”
Now – after Katrina, the endless war, the coming fuel shocks to our economy, etc etc etc etc – “Let’s don’t offend anyone” is a sure loser at the polls. And Markos, Obama et al are right – losing would be a horrible disaster. I just hope that they don’t “lead” us right off that cliff.
The number of comments that your diary has garnered, Rena, I think is a sign of people’s hunger for real leadership from the Democrats. And that hunger is not being felt by just us liberal politics junkies who hang out on the blogs. Talk to your friends, neighbors, colleagues, family. It’s everywhere.
Dennis Kucinich would probably say that followers of the liberal platform are unelectable, given his fate in the Democratic primary. The Green Party would probably agree, since their platform almost exactly duplicates the liberal viewpoint.
Until people actually vote for liberals, liberals aren’t going to win. Watch what happens over the next few months. A liberal will run against Hillary, but the “liberal” blogs will endorse Hillary. Just watch.
I found Obama’s diary very very disappointing.
Perhaps I should send him a Neville Chamberlin biography….
…still looking for a leader besides Cindy Sheehan.
Excellent letter Rena!I started reading his diary, and a few things truly bothered me.
1)He thinks it is the first time that Dems roll over.
2)Same old argument that in order to win elections, we must attract more people to vote for Dems, and therefore it is ok to ignore or betray the Dem base.
3) But above all what bothered me was his argument that in order to nominate these judges, we must win elections, and he seems to forget that Democrats keep winning elections and that republicans keep stealing these elections.
I am form Chicago and he is my Senator. I will write him and send that letter on Monday. I also would like him to read your letter, so if it is ok with you I would like to send it to him to make sure he gets it.
Somethings have to be said. And there are some things (like your letter) that Democrats should hear!
What he said is true. The Republicans control the senate. Even if all the Dems had voted against Roberts, he would still have been confirmed. That wasn’t a refelection on stolen elections. He was just stating the truth.
Hi Catnip.
Yes you are right. but he did open his letter with:
“There is one way, over the long haul, to guarantee the appointment of judges that are sensitive to issues of social justice, and that is to win the right to appoint them by recapturing the presidency and the Senate.”
My point was that we did win elections, to have them stolen by the republicans.
Elections were rigged and stolen.
And yes, they do have the majority, and they would have won anyways, but I would have liked to see them win 53 to what ever, instead of the 78.
I get that, but Obama can’t do much about stolen elections besides working for election reform.
Believe me, I think every last Democrat ought to have voted against Roberts.
Election reform…a must!
We have to be able to trust the results of elections.
There is no perfect electoral system, and as long as the results are almost exactly even there will be some question about whether small errors might have thrown the overall result in the other direction.
The “reform” needed is to figure out how to get 60:40 votes instead of 49:51.
Gee. . .this is what bothers me about all of this. . .and I know this is an over simplification of things. . .but. . . .
If I am in a room where everyone wants to grab a rope and hang the guy they have tied to the chair, everyone but me, it is a pretty foregone conlusion that the poor guy in the chair is going to end up hanging from the rafters. . .but I don’t have any idea at all how I can sit there and not voice my objections and do everything within my power to influence this crazy mob. I am not willing to be silent or be silenced because it is a matter of the most dire principle with me. . .
It seems to me the party I used to associate with, the Democrats, have NOT ONE ISSUE they are willing to go to the mat for because they are out numbered and probably won’t win. IS WINNING ALL THAT MATTERS? HAVE THEY NO INTEGRITY? This is why as of the past month I am no longer willing to be identified with any party.
I actually think we would be better off if all parties were dismantled and done away with. People run for office as just a person not a party. (Yes, I know, very idealistic, etc, etc. . .but I am done with them all).
but I don’t have any idea at all how I can sit there and not voice my objections and do everything within my power to influence this crazy mob. I am not willing to be silent or be silenced because it is a matter of the most dire principle with me. . .
That seems to be where the dichotomy is. Dems have voiced objections. Some have done everything within their power. What I see being called for here in response to Obama’s diary is that all Dems should scream all the time. He’s saying there’s much more to the matter than just screaming, but it seems many who have responded to Obama see the Dems in black and white – an all or nothing look that says if they’re not all doing something, no one is. That’s a false premise.
Obama also asks Dem supporters to look at the methods of opposition and proposes that they don’t participate in circular firing squads by writing off some senators for one vote on one issue etc.
I’m kind of at my wit’s end here because I am in a very small minority that supports his vision and message in that diary and I feel overwhelmed by the loud cries of the angry masses surrounding me. I don’t know that staying in the midst of a shouting crowd while calmly asking for some introspection and reason is effective at all at this point, so I’ll just leave it at that.
This commentary is not solely directed at you, Shirl.
Catnip, I have read most but not all comments in this diary, but I have read yours and find myself in agreement.
The one point I can agree with Shirl on is the “get rid of the parties and lets just have open elections. I know this is an impossible dream, but meanwhile I think bashing of our representatives is a little like the bashing of sports figures or teams for a bad season or mis plays in a game. They are great when winning, but out when not.
Our team won’t even go on the field… I think that is the problem here
That’s exactly the kind of all or nothing thinking I referred to: they are on the field, but the crowd wants them to score a touchdown every time – even when they’re playing defense. That’s not the way the game works. Do some players need more training and practice? Absolutely. That doesn’t take away from the incredibly strong players, however, who are doing everything they possibly can to unify the team so they can win.
well said, catnip, the sports metaphor fits very well in this scenario.
Living near 2 prominent baseball team, Angels and Dodgers, I have seen the anger and flailing that goes on when the teams are down….sometimes I wonder how they will rise up again with all the vitriol at their backs.
When the teams are winning, much back slapping and clapping goes on, but that can be quickly wiped away when things go bad.
Well when they finally go to the field and at least try to win… then I will join the crowd in backslapping.
But until then, I think it is a great disservice to all to support this madness. We rail at the GOP when they support in lockstep Bush’s ineptitude so why should we support Reid’s and Pelosi’s ineptitude.
Many sports fans are fairweather – as are political party supporters.
as are friends….fairweather that is!
They are NOT on the field.
They spent more time planning how to cover their own butts for capitulating than time spent examining Roberts.
How can you say they’re not on the field? I just don’t get that.
They did not even demand all the forthcoming documentation regarding Roberts… that is abandonment of post.
With all due respect, Parker, that is bullshit. Do you need me to post some links as proof?
Here are the documents that were refused to had over to Democrats.
You said the Dems didn’t request all of the documents and then you link to a letter from the Justice Dept to Dean that shows they did.
These are the documents that dems asked for…. Dean “went to the field” and requested them under the FOIA… and he is not even in the Senate and he did more to get to the truth than our Senators.
First you say that no Democrats demanded documents. Then you say the Dean did – apparently he is not a Democrat. You then go on to say that Dean did more to get the truth than the all of the Dem senators. What proof do you have to back that up? Just a Dean FOIA request?
No I didn’t say “request” I said DEMAND.
Okay. In other words, you are challenging me to come up with links to prove you wrong, right? I’ll do it if I have to but I can’t believe you haven’t heard of thsoe demands before this.
This has put a dangerous precedent on the table that not even the minimum request for documentation needs to be given before the Senate confirms a Supreme Court justice.
The Democrats did not say “ok”. What recourse did they have after the WH refused over and over to release the documents? A filibuster? And what would that have accomplished? Would those documents have been released? Absolutely not. The Republicans would have attacked the Dems once again and would have won even more favour from their base. The Democrats spoke loudly and clearly about their opposition to the WH about the documents. What would you have advised them to do?
Yes, filibuster on principle. Not releasing all documents is not acceptable and the democrats should have used whatever means at their disposal to protest that refusal. “Winning” isn’t everything. Taking a principled stand to demonstrate the party’s attempts to maintain the integrity of the process is a win for the base. It would send a sign to the base that they will fight. What the republicans say or how they try to frame the democrats position is of far less importance than what the democratic base thinks.
Do you think the Democratic base would have been happy if they’d filibustered? Not the Democratic base that I’m familiar with – the base that, no matter what the Democrats do – find criticism, criticism, criticism. You know the part of the base that I’m talking about – “they should have saved the filibuster for next time…now they just look stupid and weak…blah blah blah”. And for the public that has not followed the ins and outs of Roberts history and attitudes, this would have looked like fighting just for the sake of a fight – turning people away from the Dems. Really, the Dems were in a no-win situation with this one. And, we need to remember – half of them voted against Roberts. Doesn’t that count for anything?
I don’t see how they had a choice. Next time there will be a far lower threshold that nominee’s and the parties who support them will have to meet as far as what documents they will be required to release and how many questions will need to be answered. The procees was a joke to begin with. Now it’s nothing more than a made for television moment.
I can’t speak for the part of the public that doesn’t pay attention to Robert’s history, but I’m inclined to think that those people probably don’t vote much either if their level of interest in a Supreme Court Chief Justice is so low that they don’t bother to learn his history.
I simply disagree that the majority of the base would find a reason to critisize the democrats for standing on principle. In fact, and this is just my opinion, I think the opposite would be true. I think there is now a majority out there who wants them to do just that. There will always be those who will complain and try to frame the democrats as being weak, but standing down for that reason only serves to let the republicans continue to do that. Why wouldn’t they? Standing down only shows that it works. That they were intimidated into being silent once again. That must stop.
Why can’t they filibuster both. The filibuster is a legitimate resource for the party in the minority. There’s nothing extraordinary about the filibuster. They republicans made a big deal out of the democrats basically using a filibuster on John Bolton. I doubt many people thought they should use it there, but they did, and Bush appointed him anyway. IMO it didn’t look good for Bush to do that. I haven’t heard anything like critisism about how the democrats handled Bolton. All the poll numbers I’ve seen show Bush at 40% approval across the board. People ARE paying attention and thet’re seeing Bush as the problem, not the democrats. There was a poll a few weeks ago asking people how they thought they would vote in the 06 mid-terms. Rep. or Dem and the response was 50% Dem, 38% Rep. I have the link Btw if you want it.
I’m pretty sure the people are ready for the democrats to show some leadership and to start showing how they would lead differently.
I appreciate your response and, no, I’m not going to go through it all now point by point to destroy it. 🙂
All I’ll add is that the larger strategy needs to be taken into consideration and we can disagree til the cows come home about how to handle that. I’ve said before that, afaic, all the Dems should have voted against Roberts but I do understand why some supported him and those reasons are not uniform. I’m not a senator or a politician and I’m prepared to be wrong in my analysis because this was a tough situation to handle in some ways. I just get discouraged when some (and I’m not saying you) prefer to rail at those who voted for Roberts as if they’ve single-handedly just detroyed the Democratic party as a result without looking at the bigger picture.
If all of the Dems voted against Roberts or filibustered as a result of not getting all of the documentation, would that have increased support for the Dems from those in the public who weren’t as sure as we are that they ought to be the party in power ie. the fence sitters or swing voters? I don’t know.
Bushco has been hanging itself with the horrific hurricane response, rising gas prices, the Iraq war, scandal after scandal etc. The Dems shouldn’t sit back and just watch them implode but I think, as far as public opinion goes, those are the major factors driving the low poll numbers for Bushco. I don’t think the Roberts coronation – even though it should have – really has that much effect out there because of the vagueness involved in his positions.
Well thanks for sparing me the embarrassment of public destruction :o)
I’ll just say that I believe that some voted for him out a genuine feeling that he’s alright (disturbing enough) but I think the fact that half voted for him shows a strategy on their part. I don’t agree with it but that’s how I see it. I mean, Fiengold? That makes no sense unless there’s some plan.
Thanks for your reply Catnip
Not that I like defending the Roberts vote by the Dems, but considering that most supremes are approved by majority or near majority (I’m talking >95% yay votes), Roberts got a lousy 78 votes, and to my knowledge, Thomas was barely confirmed (I think it was like 2 votes over what he need?).
So, although we all would have liked to see Roberts-and more importantly, the deliberate hiding of information on Roberts-unanimously confirmed, this was by no means a resounding approval.
What recourse did they have? To vote “nay” — or “present,” which has the same effect. That is what is to be done (per parliamentary procedure) when evidence needed to make a full determination is not possible because evidence is withheld.
And that is the strategy to take re the selection of the next nominee. I know Roberts’ nomination was going to go through. That is not the point. The point is to influence Bush to not select, as is expected now, an even more conservative nominee for the next round.
So the next round already is lost.
And that is reason for anger on the part of all of us who worked so hard in the last election, listening to Dem leadership about it all being about SCOTUS.
Btw, I have even more reason for my anger at my Senators — both Dems, both voting “yea” on Roberts . . . TWICE. Because both of my Dem Senators voted “yea” on the Judiciary Committee and then again voted “yea” on the Senate floor. I voted for them, I worked for them — and in return, they voted for Roberts FOUR TIMES.
No other state can say that. So my Senators are getting copies of Rena’s letter, you bet.
And I think I’ll send it to each of them TWICE, for a total of FOUR TIMES.
Or maybe eight times — once for my daughter and each of my nieces, whose lives may be forever changed for the worse because of allegedly “progressive” Senators.
I don’t know about having just independant candidates as a solution, but I do know how it feels when the party you support goes off the rails. That happened with the Liberals in Canada when they moved to the center and sacrificed some of their basic social principles during the 90s. I know what it’s like to hurt for your neighbours who are hurting as a result.
When your leaders go astray, they must be held accountable but, at the same time, each person must take up the torch and do whatever they can at the local level to help those neighbours instead of waiting for the leaders to wake up and change. I also agree with Obama’s sentiment of supporting those leaders when they do right. They need to hear when they’re going in the right direction. They need to hear that they will be supported when they do so. I wonder how much more time we spend complaining about what they’re doing wrong and threatening them rather than offering some positive reinforcement.
My decision to leave the D party are not based on ONE vote on any one item brought before the Senate. I already knew they would not oppose Roberts for the Court. It is cumulative. It is based on YEARS of no direction except election and dropping anything from the platform that seems the least bit uncomfortable to them. . .women’s rights, gay rights = human rights, voting reform, etc. etc etc. We are continually asked to understand that all that matters is getting elected and whoever “they” decide that should be, we should support without question.
NO! I am not a sheep, I am not a good follower. I know how to compromise and participate in give and take. What they have been doing for years now is capitulating, it is all give and no take. They have no principles and no integrity, or at least none that they show publicly. . .which is one of the reasons so few women run for office. . .it is hard to want to live in that framework. JMO (sorry guys, not intending any suggestion that all men are without integrity)
I am not really addressing this to you, catnip. Nor was my previous remark particularly addressed to you, although I did put it under your remark. I probably should have posted it as a stand alone comment. I understand your view, I just cannot incorporate it as my view. When I forgo my principles and integrity, I think it is time for me to leave this planet.
I really don’t want to get into this. Frankly I am sick to death of all this caterwalling from Repubs, from Dems, from Blogs. . .We have been told for years now, “Just get Dems elected no matter what they are for, then we will change things.” I think I had my belly full after the bankruptcy vote. . .almost all of the Dems voted wholeheartedly for it. I can not yet get an answer from any of them How this serves the best interest of their constituents. This was purely a gift to the Credit Card Industry, and such a gift that they wrote the legislation themselves.
I could list, as I am sure most here could, the point by point that we have been told, “Not now. Now is not the time to appear uncooperative. We are saving it for something even more important.” What in the world is this illusive, “more important thing?” I haven’t seen it yet. I can not at this point believe it exists.
If I could find a candidate, from any party or no party, who would tell me clearly, without hedging what she or he stands for and then go to the Senate or the congress and stand up for that. . .I would be their biggest supporter. And no it doesn’t have to be every little thing I may think is important but it does have to be HUMAN RIGHTS first last and forever.
I want honesty and I want accountability. I do not want to be pandered to, marginalized, told to sit down and shut up, told now is not the time for opposition to stripping away our rights. I want some damn integrity. If that is too much to ask, then moving out of the country is not such a bad idea for me. Not suggesting others do as I do or think as I think. . .that’s just where it is for me.
I don’t really think most of us are asking that they scream all the time about everything. But I do think that we would like to hear some seriously opposing remarks when basic human rights and democratic principles are being shredded. So far we seem to have John Conyers all the time, and some part timers like Waters, Slaughter, Kennedy, and Boxer. Most everyone else seems to be missing in action.
Those of you who can continue to stomach this non-performance from your party, I encourage you and admire your stamina. Carry on.
I now understand why nearly 1/2 of voting age Americans no longer vote.
And catnip, I take no offense at your remarks, nor did I feel they were directed soley at me. Keep up the good fight.
Much of that sums it up for me except I refuse to believe that there is such total void of principled leadership that we can’t get some of it back. THAT is why i wrote Senator Obama. I saw the entire thing as an opportunity.
Or even someone like Paul Hackett. The Hackett lesson is HUGE – the mainstream Dem party didn’t think he had a chance and therefore he didn’t get their money. Without their money he was free as well of their “consultant” standing there telling him to SYFP.
We can learn and we can find these people.
Good for you and that was a totally awesome letter you wrote to the Senator.
I applaud your efforts and encourage your desire to go forward.
Thanks for the reply.
By all means – take whatever you need from me to give to his office. I’m flattered you’d do so.
is bad politics.
Ask Walter Mondale, who told the truth about taxes and got wiped out by Reagan, who lied about taxes. Ask Jimmy Carter, who told the truth about the ‘malaise’ the country was suffering, and got hammered in the media for being too negative.
Tell the people what they want to hear. That’s politics.
Because the US is NOT an ‘imperialist brute’. Not not not.
Not.
OK?
Americans are nice, and they know they’re nice, and most of them can’t even spell ‘imperialist’ but they know it sounds bad and they know what a brute is and that’s not them.
OK?
Now let’s vote.
[Same comment I made on the DK thread. Thanks for a great diary, Rena.]
I would just like to quote David Michael Green from his article, “George Bush in Hell” (I wish):
“The demise of the right is now likely to be true even if Democrats continue hurtling down their current path toward breaking all world records for cowardice by a major party. Indeed, the worst of the Democrats may now also be in trouble amongst the base – as well they should be – for their cozy associations with the right, enabling its destructive march to the sea these last years.”
I said this over at dKos and here in Parker’s diary:
Front pagers over at dKos can promote diaries and their agenda all they want, but the numbers do not change the reality. You shift to the right and you lose the base… The REAL LEFT BASE.
Is it worth grabbing a few moderate right wing votes to piss of the entire left?
NOPE!
Great diary RenaRF…
Trot out the “Trusty Negro” to sell the natives our plan for capitulation.
There is something about his “presentation” on Kos that reeks of Powells presentation to the UN… all Obama needed was a Power Point presentation detailing the location of the Democratic Party Spine and photos of the roving Democratic Spine Mobile.
I think he has been hanging out with the Clintons too long… he is beginning to triangulate in his sleep.
I wonder if Obama is now going to be trotted out everytime some senator sells out the party base. I also find it interesting that he did not include the habitual other sell outs ie LIEberman, Salazar and Nelson in his plea for mercy… That kinda supports my initial theory that the librul Dems traded places with the likes of Hilliary and Reid.
“Trading Places” with their votes to not “typecast” anyone pro or against Roberts and a perfect 21/21 split not to typecast the Democratic Party pro or against Roberts. Gee with leadership like this who needs to be an opposition party.
I guess Feingold and Leahy were assured that progressives would NOT attack progressive Senators over ONE VOTE, Obama made clear to state. Looks like they were shocked when progressives saw this not as ONE VOTE but a series of Democratic failures…
So when the natives became restless they threw out their ace “Colin Powell” card and trotted out Obama.
holy shit Parker. I don’t want to agree with this assessment, but it’s really hard not to given the preponderance of the evidence.
Very funny and right-on!
Please, please, don’t forget sen. joei biden – a presidential wannabe.
Trot out the “Trusty Negro” to sell the natives our plan for capitulation.
That is patently offensive and false. No one trotted out Obama. He posted on DKos of his own free will. Just because you don’t agree with what he said does not mean there is some grand Dem conspiracy to use his race as some kind of strategy to make him a token spokesman for a more moderate approach to civility.
Race has nothing to do with this.
While I tend to agree with you, Catnip, I would be hesitant to go too far. It would not at all surprise me that someone in the Dem leadership asked the senator to pen that diary. Obama is a freshman Congressman, after all, so it wouldn’t be an unusual request.
I guess I’m just not that cynical. To make him out to be the token black messenger is ridiculous because there is absolutely no evidence to suggest that.
Feingold ignored us, his constituents angry then, when he voted for Ashcroft. He has ignored us on other votes since. So if this finally wakes him up . . . nope, he’s not in his home state to stay up to date. He’s running around country, running for President, so he probably will ignore us again.
If anyone ought to have been sent out to speak out at DKos, it ought to have been their favorite, Feingold. He already has diaried there before; he knew the territory. He had the most to explain with his “yea” vote — twice, on the committee and on the floor — while Obama voted “nay.”
So that they didn’t send Feingold, that they sent a freshman Senator who voted correctly, so that Feingold’s presidential campaign could be protected . . . well, your post makes me realize how despicable that is of the Dems, and makes me think even less of them.
I think a lot of the problem with Obama and the Democratic response is that they think we are still in political battles as they were played out 50 years ago. This Bush/Cheney/Rove crowd is DIFFERENT. Our democracy is at stake. And we need a new playbook.
I don’t think just raging against the R’s will work either. But we need a sustained voice that speaks to the danger of the cliff on which our democracy is hanging. One of those changes is that we need to recognize that these people DO NOT compromise. We might still have to occasionally to get things done, but we need to know that the other side no longer does. Being naive about where things are and what we need to do to change things is dangerous at this point.
It is heartbreaking for me to witness Obama begin to play the game, particularly when he doesn’t have to.