See, bipartisanship is only for purist, sanctimonious Republicans and Jane Hamsher. It’s not for Democrats who want to reach a consensus on a bill and pass it. Hamsher’s purity demands and sanctimony toward Democrats are not the problem; the problem is that I want Hamsher to stop being a sanctimonious puritan. See how that works?
But wait, there’s more. According to Kevin, Jane Hamsher pushing the public option on her website is a progressive credential. Prior to the passage of health care reform, this blog featured more than seventy posts related to the topic of the public option; so by those lights, I’ve done at least as much as Jane Hamsher. Where is my PAC to milk?
The reality is that eighty-three senators voted for unemployment extension and oligarch tax cuts last night. Eighty-three. Meanwhile, DADT and START sit waiting while the clock runs out. Expiry for the oligarch tax cuts is a winning issue for Democrats in 2012, so the real question is what FireDogLake will do to help. (Answer: shout at Obama some more.)
As for the charge I made yesterday that Hamsher serves another agenda, I would say the net effect of all the bill-killing hoopla is exactly what Republicans just happen to want to do: slow things down and prevent change. Whether by malice or mindlessness, the effect is the same. So I challenge Hamsher not for her style, but her substance — or the lack thereof.
Yeah, some will accuse Matt of circular firing squad tactics. Hamsher's not the bad guy here we should be worrying about in the end, the Republicans are. But we don't have the luxury of political purity, either. If the choice is ideological correctness while Republicans control the political reality, or working with the political reality to affect change towards ideology I'm going with Option B.
And no, as I've said time and time again when the Dems are spineless lumps of putty I call them on it, Obama on down. But this binary worldview of "either we get 100% from Obama or he's worthless, let the Republicans run the country until we get 100% of what we want" is asinine and absurd. Many it seems have lost sight of who the real problem is.
Good for Matt saying what damn well needed to be said a year ago...oh, and Matt was saying it then too.
And for the record, so was I.
Posts
