The Loop Current
(Jim Morin of the Miami Herald)
(The Loop Current this parodies is the one that pushed warm water from the Caribbean up and through the Gulf of Mexico and finally out to the Atlantic.)
Which is apparently alot truer that anyone really knew:
Banks, investment firms and other financial companies, including Citigroup Inc., Visa Inc. and Goldman Sachs Group Inc., employed at least 1,447 former lawmakers, congressional aides and executive branch employees as lobbyists since January 2009, according to a new study.
The lobbyists include at least 73 former members of Congress, a list that includes former Speaker Dennis Hastert, former Senate majority leaders Bob Dole and Trent Lott, and former House majority leaders Dick Gephardt and Dick Armey, according to a study by the Center for Responsive Politics and Public Citizen.
And they wonder why people are angry.
I think one thing that people have started noticing (I hope) is how powerful corporations have become. It’s hard to get any legislation through that isn’t supported by corporations (look at watered-down health care reform & financial reform). I really think progressives need to make the case about the corporate control of our government. The problem I see is that progressives do a terrible job, they go the Ralph Nader route – both parties are the same, which doesn’t help anyone.
Progressives do a terrible job because they let elected officials off the hook too easily. I don’t think that it is so much going the “Ralph Nader route,” though. Geezer said it well the other day when he said that liberals are afraid to speak out against Obama because they don’t want to help his enemies.
If progressives continue be afraid to speak out and demand more, then we will get exactly what we’re getting today (as U.I. pointed out): “watered-down” bills that cater to corporations over people.
Geezer said it well the other day when he said that liberals are afraid to speak out against Obama because they don’t want to help his enemies.
This is a big problem I see. Some progressive groups only have attack mode. Obama had only been in office a month or two and some allies were already attacking him. Yes, I understand the need for urgency but do some progressives understand how the legislative process works? Obama is not a dictator that can impose his will on Congress, unfortunately. One thing I liked about Obama was that he wasn’t like Bush – he did seem to recognize the separation of powers and he wanted to be the president of everyone not just his base.
The problem I saw in the health care fight was that progressives were making a fundamentally different case than the rest of the Democratic party. Democrats talked about access and outcomes. Progressives of course cared about this too but were also making an anti-corporation argument. It’s an argument that I agree with but progressives didn’t argue this to the country at large hardly at all. They just kind of assumed it was proven, I think. You saw this huge disconnect when the public option was dropped. Most Democrats saw the bill as still worth passing since more people would get coverage and access while some progressives (I won’t lump everyone together) saw the public option as the whole point of reform.
I think if we want better outcomes we need to communicate better. It’s much tougher for us because we don’t own any media. But it has to be done. Progressives rely way too much on the idea that they can just show the data to convince people. We need to work on the emotional appeal as well.
I see things slowly getting better and I see Obama trying to turn American thinking in the right direction. It doesn’t help when critics from the left echo the message of critics on the right. It just strengthens the arguments of the right and not the left.
Obama is not a dictator that can impose his will on Congress
Bart Stupak might disagree with you. As would Blanche Lincoln and Mary Landrieu, among many others whose will was bent by Obama.
No, Obama is not a dictator but he can impose his will on Congress to very great extent for the things he wants. Unfortunately Obama does not want the same things progressives want.
I’m just confused that some progressives see the best way to get Obama to do things they want is to attack him and elect Republicans. Did that work with Clinton?
I’m just confused that some progressives see the best way to get Obama to do things they want is to attack him and elect Republicans. Did that work with Clinton?
It worked with Specter and it almost worked with Lincoln.
In Lincoln’s case, it is Obama who is helping to elect Republicans, not progressives.
Obama doesn’t seem to care much who controls Congress. He doesn’t care how watered down or Republicanized the bill is; he’ll sign it and declare victory. Progressives have to speak out against that, while moderates can just remain silent, or worse, tut-tut about all the attacks from progressives.
I am not saying “attack him and elect Republicans.” I don’t want to see republickins elected, either. But neither do I want progressives to be silent in the face of lies and broken promises because of fear. We shouldn’t not point out when Obama lies to us just because the right says the same thing. We shouldn’t be silent when Obama does the same egregious things that Bush did, particularly when we were criticizing the right for not speaking out against Bush.
I am sorry to disagree, but many progressives really don’t see Obama turning the country in the right direction. He is losing the support of his activist base while trying to please corporate interests. This is really clear – just read the reports from the America’s Future Now conference in Washington. This was a meeting of hardcore grass roots activists and organizers that the Dems depend on. They’re mad – in some ways even madder than they were under Bush – because they feel deceived.
The statement issued from the senior WH official last night was basically kicking sand at the AFL-CIO and the middle class working people that they represent. It was deliberately cruel and unnecessary, but it reinforces the message that middle class Americans don’t matter to the powered elite, including Obama.
BTW, Clinton was not a very progressive Democrat either, and the Monica Lewinsky scandal was totally avoidable.
UI: The thinking is that politicians are motivated mainly by fear. Unless they are made to fear defeat at the polls, they will not modify their behavior. Further, if defeating Blanche Lincoln in a primary serves as a wake-up call to Obama, that’s a small price to pay, since neither Lincoln nor Halter is likely to win in November (Nate Silver rates the probability of a GOP win at 92%, even higher than Castle’s 90% chance of victory).
It worked with Specter and it almost worked with Lincoln.
That was spending money and energy electing “better Democrats.” It didn’t come through attacking Obama. I think pressuring our elected officials to move in our direction is a good use of time & money. Specter ended up being a good Democrat and Lincoln might have accidentally strengthened the financial reform bill. Let’s pat ourselves on the back for that.
Obama doesn’t seem to care much who controls Congress.
Absolutely totally wrong. Obama managed to get movement on his priorities with this Congress. Making it more teabagger-y will guarantee nothing gets done.
More and Better Democrats – that’s what we need.
He is losing the support of his activist base while trying to please corporate interests.
It’s not clear how big & influential this part of the base is, I think. The problem I see is a lot of activists thought their job ended on election day, when it’s really the beginning of the job. What Obama is trying to do is extremely difficult. The status quo has great power and has rigged institutions to keep it that way (look at the Senate, for example). Getting what we want takes a lot of hard work but I saw progressive activists throwing up their hands within months.
If you don’t believe Obama is trying to change the way people think about government, read his speeches. He’s very clear about how government can help and when the private sector can’t. 30 years of Reaganism is hard to dislodge, especially since conservatives control the media.
The statement issued from the senior WH official last night was basically kicking sand at the AFL-CIO and the middle class working people that they represent. It was deliberately cruel and unnecessary
I can’t argue with that. It’s another example of ham-fisted messaging.
I totally agree with you Geezer. The whole carrot/stick thing. Spending money on Halter was worth it and I think the tension between labor and the WH will end up being a positive rather than a negative. Blue Dogs have a lot of power because they’re willing to derail legislation if they don’t get their way and it works for them because they are fighting for status quo and not change.
I just don’t see how echoing the criticisms of the right does anything but strengthen the right. What I see happening is that the media is writing a narrative – that we’re a center-right nation and Obama tried to do too much and be too partisan. If a bunch of Republicans beat Democrats (and progressives sit on the sidelines) it’s going to feed into that narrative. I think it will force Democrats to the right rather than to the left.
Lincoln is a Dead Senator Walking (as Geezer notes) and Sestak isn’t especially progressive.
Progressives have to speak out against that,
This is not about speaking out. This is about creating a governing atmosphere where more progressive ideas get some traction. That means a Better Democrat strategy in Congress which gets less attention than counting the ways that Obama has sinned against progressives. You can look in your own backyard for what the failures look like — Tom Carper selling us out to corporate interests at every opportunity (really, people, how hard did you work to get him to vote for the Public Option?) and even our candidate for the Senate certainly will not come up to the Kaufman standard, right? So we have lots of folks who will spend more work criticizing Obama (who is working with the legislature he has) than actually trying to change that legislature even in their own backyard.
There is a certain level of progressive critique of Obama — I’m speaking largely of what gets to this blog — that is just plain lazy and short sighted. There is a Congress here and instead of pushing for a more progressive Congress, these people just want to pretend that Obama is the King of the World and can make everyone do what he wants. Even though — no matter how successful Obama might be — pushing a Congress to be more progressive has a longer lasting impact on how this government runs than any President. But most progressives have been providing real shelter for Democrats to get MORE conservative — not less.
But hey — people calling for purity will never have the chops for any long lasting impact.
people calling for purity will never have the chops for any long lasting impact.
I can buy the argument that progressives should support some conservadems on the grounds of “more Democrats.” I’ve done it myself.
The problem is, we have been doing that for 30 years, slumbering while these conservadems have reached leadership positions, and they now define the Democratic agenda, while blocking anything remotely progressive.
The result is Republicans don’t even need to win elections anymore to get their agenda enacted.
There are too many of these problem Democrats, and they are too powerful. I am really fine with them getting beat by Republicans. Better to overturn the chess board and try again later with fresh progressives.
And speaking of “chops,” it is the middle-of-the roaders who keep telling progressives to shut up and sit down, who are responsible for minimizing the size and force of the current liberal backlash and Dem wave.
these people just want to pretend that Obama is the King of the World and can make everyone do what he wants.
The problem is that when the villains are winning, Obama keeps his Clark Kent glasses on.
But when Obama does decide to put on his Superman cape, he punches out the good guys and lifts up the villains.
Even Jimmy Olsen would eventually start wondering whose side Superman is on.
“these people just want to pretend that Obama is the King of the World and can make everyone do what he wants.”
I don’t know anyone who feels this way. I do know many people, like myself, who would simply like to see him fight for what he promised and to tell the truth, even if he loses. That is what we hoped for. That was the change that we wanted. It has nothing to do with “purity” or any other straw dog.
I am now hoping for a scenario in which many conservadems lose, Rahm is fired in a shakeup, and Obama comes back on the center-left instead of the center-right. From there, he can try to rebuild momentum from the Dem wave and liberal resurgence he has been squandering.
I can buy the argument that progressives should support some conservadems on the grounds of “more Democrats.” I’ve done it myself.
I’m not even making this argument. I’m definitely on the Better Democrats phase, especially in places where Democrats already hold seats.
Again I’m back to our own backyard. I was at the Democratic City Committee meeting this week and there was not a single progressive face on the Exec Committee or leading a ward. Not One. So where are all of these progressives unhappy with the middle of the roaders? Here at least, not of you certainly are not in the business of capturing the flag in ways that actually push a Better Democrats agenda. Tom Carper pays no price (and doesn’t even get the same criticism that Obama gets) for specifically derailing as much progressive legislation as he can. Where are the progressive candidates here looking for office?
Most of those progressives are hanging out here and other places online bitching about the middle of the roaders and the conservadems. If you aren’t out taking over committees, running and funding good candidates, getting on the groups that rewrite the textbooks then you are always vulnerable to people telling you to sit down. If all you bring to the table are complaints, it is very easy to ignore that when everyone else around you is fund-raising, working their committees and getting the grind work done.
Man, anon and A1 have no grasp of reality. But neither does Newt Gringrich for that matter. From the introduction to his new book: