This notion that somehow we are willing to compromise too much reminds me of the debate that we had during health care. This is the public option debate all over again. I pass a signature piece of legislation where we finally get health care for all Americans, something that Democrats have been fighting for for a hundred years. But because there was a provision in there that they didn't get, that would have affected maybe a couple of million people, even though we got health insurance for 30 million people, and the potential for lower premiums for maybe 100 million people, that somehow that was a sign of weakness, of compromise.
If that's the standard by which we are measuring success or core principles, then let's face it: We will never get anything done. People will have the satisfaction of having a purist position, and no victories for the American people. And we will be able to feel good about ourselves and sanctimonious about how pure our intentions are and how tough we are.
And in the meantime the American people are still saying to themselves, [I'm] not able to get health insurance because of pre-existing conditions. Or not being able to pay their bills because their unemployment insurance ran out. That can't be the measure of how we think about public service. That can't be the measure of what it means to be a Democrat. This is a big, diverse country. Not everybody agrees with us. I know that shocks people...
This country was founded on compromise. I couldn't go through the front door at this country's founding. If we were really thinking about ideal positions, we wouldn't have a union.
Damn. About time somebody said this. For the record I'm not thrilled with this plan and there are many strikes against it, but the President is right. We can have a purist, idealist victory and millions of Americans can be screwed, or we can try to actually help people.
And save your anger for the Republicans who "took hostages" as the President mentioned this afternoon. This speech needed to be said. those are the bad guys here, not Obama. In 2012, you want Obama or Palin/Romney/Huckabee/Gingrich/Bolton?
Thought so.
Posts
21 comments:
one thing you must know about the lefties is that we're policy wonks. good policy will make this country better. why did we scream bloody murder about trading away the public option? because policy-wise, it cut the cost of health care by reducing the profit incentive, it reduced the deficit and was, you might remember, something our president campaigned on. without it, the policy is much less effective (and not so incidentally, much less popular). so now we're screaming bloody murder about the bush tax cuts, because policy-wise, they cost a lot of money making rich people richer, they didn't help the economy, could be better spent elsewhere, and oh yeah, something our president campaigned against. rail against firebaggers all you want, but when it comes to policy, our president doesn't always stand up for the best one. and just because the president, or you, don't want to hear it doesn't make it less true. and when our president stands with the bad guys for bad policy, what's a poor policy wonk to do? and that's not even touching the horrible politics of our president calling a press conference to defend HIS bush tax cut deal when he never, ever called one to shame the republicans into extending unemployment benefits.
And I've come down on Obama for the policies I didn't agree on (Iraq/Afghanistan, civil liberties, I would have liked the public option too.)
I also know that we got a good deal here...far better than under a President McCain or whoever will run for the GOP in 2012.
Forest. Trees.
Fuck Obama. I'm done with him.
@Both of the above commenters:
Y'okay. Get it out of your system, I really understand the maddening frustration. I'm frustrated as hell, too. Vent. Blow steam. Be furious.
Take time. Honestly, I'm not even being snarky. Then come back, and take a fresh look at the next 18 months.
Absolutely nothing will be accomplished without a maddening compromise attached to it, and the Republicans are perfectly happy to allow nothing to be accomplished. We, everyone from center-right to lefty-left, know Shit Must Get Done.
Honestly, and for really reals, buckle up for a truly rough ride to campaign season. If we are going to prevent the wholesale dismantling of the safety net, that will make Ireland's austerity program (http://zandarvts.blogspot.com/2010/12/irish-eyes-are-crying-part-10.html) look like a tickle fight with the lower and middle classes by comparison, we have got to find a way to stick together, and channel this anger in a way that is productive, and doesn't burn down our party.
there's something fundamentally wrong with people who don't get what a pissy jerk-off obama comes off as in that speech.
Z, you deserve credit for being much less of a bobble-head obama fan than your frequent critics here suggest you are. that doesn't make obama's little rant yesterday any less revolting and your support of it any less lame though.
at some point in the future you may wake up to how utterly bankrupt the "enlightened adults know that compromise is the way to get things done" position really is when you're dealing with folks as detached from the mainstream as the current republican party.
i'm not among those who believe that obama is a "manchurian candidate", but he is doing immense damage to the cause of progressivism right now. to keep insisting time and again that borderline-crazy republicans have to be placated to get any legislating done ignores the fact that this kind of behavior clearly emboldens them. somebody needs to stand up or this is going to go on and on and on. when democrats are in control they'll continue to barely address the concerns of most of the country and the watered-down legislative gruel we get will be rammed down our throats with a reminder that "it could have been so much worse" or "hey, we had to do something or else...". there'll always be an excuse for doing as little as possible and explaining that we should be grateful for it.
no.
You seem to be laboring under the assumptions that a) Obama has dictatorial powers; or b) that the Senate Dems, after two years of dithering and killing every good piece of legislation to come out of the House, was suddenly going to grow a pair and get all the Blue Dogs to sail in the same direction; maybe c) a combination of both.
Ain't gonna happen. Obama had to cut a deal (which, by the way, the conservatives are already declaring DOA). The point he makes about screwing millions of people in the name of good politics is a apt one, and I've yet to see "progressives" do anything more than heckle from the cheap seats.
no.
we all understand that the democratic caucus is too unwieldy for certain things. that doesn't excuse obama for giving away the store BEFORE negotiations even begin.
beyond that, indulging the republicans as they get more and more extreme is simply a mistake. it's bad for the entire country. obama is not stupid. the democrats are not stupid. they have to know what a huge mistake they're making. meeting lunatics at some halfway point brings one dangerously close to crazy territory.
Yeah, Obama came off as pissed. Do you blame him? We gave him some 60 plus more Republicans in the House and six more in the Senate and told him "Now be more progressive!"
He hasn't said anything I haven't put on this blog about how the firebaggers have been acting.
You want gruel crammed down your throat? Let the Republicans back in power.
What "negotiations" are you talking about? Here's how it goes: the House passes a decent bill, the Senate Republicans unify against it, Harry Reid spews some bullshit about maintaining the "comity of the Senate", Christmas comes and they all go home. It happens EVERY FUCKING TIME.
Promoting gridlock might be good politics, but it's shitty governance. You want to be upset with someone? Look at the Senate.
@teadoust:
explaining that we should be grateful for it.
I'll wholeheartedly agree that whizzing on the base to establish Sensible Centrist Street Cred is as counter-productive as it is exhaustingly predictable by now. I'll agree even more strongly that accomplishing 90% of the bare fucking minimum necessary is no reason to expect handshakes and back-claps all around. But,
at some point in the future you may wake up to how utterly bankrupt the "enlightened adults know that compromise is the way to get things done" position really is when you're dealing with folks as detached from the mainstream as the current republican party.
strikes me as self-contradictory, because not getting even "almost but not quite barely rock-bottom adequate" accomplished in our current political and economic situation is a road to electoral doom in 2012, not to mention the increased suffering of millions of Americans in the meantime.
Do I want put hundred of billions of dollars under billionaire's Christmas trees, just to ward off a soup kitchen Christmas for the unemployed? Fuck. No. But I agree with Steve M.'s read on this deplorable situation. This fight was lost by the President and the Congressional Donk leadership a year or longer ago. Retreating will embolden the Republicans, I completely agree, but it was either that, or standing our ground and losing ten times as big, slowly and inexorably over the next 12 months, and through to 2012 and beyond.
If you've got a read on how the Democrats can get any of the things that must be accomplished in the next session of Congress over the goal line without some sickening give-aways to the GOP, please, I genuinely want to hear them.
Promoting gridlock might be good politics, but it's shitty governance. You want to be upset with someone? Look at the Senate.
Plus, ten thousand times this.
if i recall correctly, obama told us to push him in the direction of progressivism, didn't he?
"Let the Republicans back in power."
stop it.
you honestly have no idea how hollow that threat starts to sound when it's repeated over and over and over.
not all of those who disagree with obama are doing crazy things like forging alliances with grover norquist. some of them are simply raising entirely legitimate questions about what it is obama is doing and why he seems almost eager to sell out progressive ideas going into every single fucking negotiation.
some of them are simply raising entirely legitimate questions about what it is obama is doing and why he seems almost eager to sell out progressive ideas going into every single fucking negotiation.
This is my own personal read on the situation, supported by extremely little except my sniffer. You're right, this happens at the beginning almost every major policy or legislative rollout. My sniffer says this is the public face of private negotiations that have been going for a while in the background in preparation. Doesn't mean I like it, it's just my presonal read on the "why."
you honestly have no idea how hollow that threat starts to sound when it's repeated over and over and over. Well, except that you'll see in the next legislative session what 60 more Repub representatives get us, which will pretty much letter that threat in solid gold.
The millions of people on unemployment, who will be spending that money because they have to, because they need to buy necessities, would no doubt find their empty cupboards more upsetting than that threat.
I would like the Hamsherites, starting with rich, insured, Jane, to live on oatmeal for a week and see how they feel. I really would.(full disclosure: I'm on unemployment--could you guess?)
I would like the Hamsherites, starting with rich, insured, Jane, to live on oatmeal for a week and see how they feel.
Silly Mrs. Polly, how can the One True Liberalism be adequately served without a three martini lunch at Spago?
Banks still running America? Check.
Two endless wars? Check.
Guantanamo still open? Check.
Americans being spied on and worse? Check.
Economy screwed? Check.
Social Security screwed? Check.
Insurance companies still run health care? Check.
LGBT, minorities, and women still second-class citizens? Check.
Supreme Court still coming down on the side of big corporations? Check.
Liberals and progressives still being told to shut up and take it? Check.
Boy I'm sure glad I didn't vote for McCain, we would have been really boned then huh there Zandar.
If this is a win what the hell does a loss look like?
Really? Do I have to say anything more than the word "Iran?"
Really?
the goalpost keeps getting moved closer and closer to "crazy" thanks to the republicans. just the word "iran" is supposed to put us in our places. where will be in another ten years? praising a democrat president who was kind enough not to deploy tactical nukes when he bombed iran? yikes.
and i've only been occasionally employed in the last three years and consider myself "working poor", if that.
the goalpost keeps getting moved closer and closer to "crazy" thanks to the republicans. just the word "iran" is supposed to put us in our places.
I was snarking at Peter J., Teadoust, not you. You, I'm trying to have a conversation with. You're bringing something to the discussion, and plus, we've crossed paths in blogland plenty of time. You get respect that trollypants upthread there does not.
I realize I keep forgetting to use my snark tags to differentiate comment styles (d'oh!), but I really was sincere when I was asking for your read on ways to hang tough and still get things done.
@teadoust: Right on.
"Boy, it's a good thing that the Republican law allowing slavery is only temporary for the next two years instead of permanent. Good for our Democratic President for not caving on that!"
There's a time and a place to say "no more". Say what you will about Clinton but he did that and he won.
Granted. However, it was almost a year into Clinton's second Congress that he dug in his heels, and it was over an issue the general public was going to get his back on.
Retreating and surrendering are not the same thing. Believe me, I don't want to retreat, at all. But mark my words, we have to pick this battle very carefully. We have to have a decent plan and be ready to execute it. And, and this is why I'm bothering to have this discussion, we will all have to hang tough and hang together for a lot longer than three weeks this time, because the Republicans care even less about governance, now.
Post a Comment