Shooting Who In the Foot?

By Big Tent Democrat, Section Other Politics
Posted on Mon Jan 18, 2010 at 12:35:36 PM EST
Tags: (all tags)

Share This: Digg!

maha has a post titled "Shooting Ourselves In the Foot." I'm less interested in the specifics of her post, which are a critique of FDL, but instead of her title. To me, it exemplifies a problem that Dem bloggers are not grasping - a lot of folks are not thinking of the Democratic Party as "ourselves." Haranguing them for feeling that way is not a political remedy for that problem. I touched on this issue in a post last Friday:

[L]et's accept the premise that internal carping has damaged Democratic electoral chances. So what do you do about that? Do you try and shout down the Left Flank of the Democratic Party in an off year election cycle? Is that really the thing to do? Of course not. What you do is ~~pander~~ address the concerns of this important disaffected sector.

To my way of thinking, maha's type of reaction is the actual "Shooting Ourselves In The Foot."

Speaking for me only

< The Obama Tide Does Not Lift The Dem Boat | Guantanamo Detainee Deaths: Suicides or Homicides? >

Legal

Nothing on this site should be construed as legal advice. TalkLeft does not give legal advice.

TalkLeft is not responsible for and often disagrees with material posted in the comments section. Read at your own risk.

Shooting Who In the Foot? | 37 comments (37 topical)

Readers Must Login or Create an Account to Comment

Yes, maha's reaction is the actual (5.00 / 5) (#3)
by Militarytracy on Mon Jan 18, 2010 at 01:24:17 PM EST

shot in the foot of what is left of Dem solidarity. And all of these B.S.ing bloggers out to beat the petulant child Democrat won't even address why they are really getting their arses handed to them. You guys lost the indy vote. My husband is an indy. If there isn't anyone he wants he doesn't go vote. It's pretty fricken clear how that goes down. And you can call them up and try to guilt them or throw a screaming fit and they don't care. It is very simple, you give them something worth showing up to vote for and here they come. You screw them though and you can throw all the fits you want to, they just walk off.

Yeah (5.00 / 2) (#5)
by Ga6thDem on Mon Jan 18, 2010 at 01:38:08 PM EST

I've been making that point for quite a while: there are a lot of people who want something to vote FOR. And it's not just the Dems that are bad at this. The GOP seems be using the same motto "we suck less than the other guy".


Saw an intriguing stat on MA indies (5.00 / 1) (#24)
by Cream City on Mon Jan 18, 2010 at 05:07:44 PM EST

that could have considerable impact in tomorrow's election in MA, a state that requires voters register for a party or as indies.

It's that 25 years ago, more than half of voters registered in MA as Dems. Now, it's less than half of that -- owing to the great increase in indies.


But it cuts both ways (none / 0) (#7)
by Manuel on Mon Jan 18, 2010 at 01:45:14 PM EST

I don't see Maha's post as haanguing. And her post doesn't sound like she is throwing a fit. As my mom used to say. It doesn't matter who started it. Maha is arguing for rational discourse. If there is a mistake in her post, it is in the following.

I sincerely think that most Americans make sensible, and even progressive, decisions about issues if they understand them.

I see no evidence for this claim among Americans at large or Democrats or Progressives. Most people want to rant and rave and wallow in their outrage.


So "carping" has damaged (none / 0) (#8)
by Militarytracy on Mon Jan 18, 2010 at 01:48:29 PM EST

the internal Democratic party?


Sometimes (5.00 / 0) (#14)
by christinep on Mon Jan 18, 2010 at 02:14:44 PM EST

It depends upon who the observer is, obviously. I also think that the "who started it" line (as alluded to by Manuel) doesn't work. For whatever reason--maybe because, in the last 80ish years, we really have been the largest party with the most supporters and the most ideas beyond status quo and, thus, the most to argue about--Democrats have long been known for internal struggles. Nothing wrong with that--struggling makes you strong. But, our party used to be openly joked about because the tendency for everyone to go their own way--e.g., Will Rogers famous statement "I'm not a member of any organized party; I'm a Democrat." My family always laughed warmly about that--heck, our symbol is a jackass. (And, I say that fondly.) It is when the struggle takes on the characteristics of religious schism that the problems arise--the "holier than thou" attitudes on both sides (this was big in the late 60s thru mid-70s with us Dems in a very non-forgiving way--I was an anti-LBJ pro-McGovern etc.) Meanwhile, contrast Reagan's constant reminder to his party about practicing "11th commandment" and "not speaking ill" of a fellow Republican. Clearly, the discipline thing can be carried too far. OTOH, without some compromise within the party, it tends to lose, and the wilderness journey may be cleansing, but--in politics--it usually doesn't lead to anything but further loss UNTIL the party disputants figure someway to work through it together. It really isn't a question of who is right or wrong...its about joining alliances to get as close to what you believe in societally as possible.


: I love your last line (none / 0) (#16)
by Militarytracy on Mon Jan 18, 2010 at 02:23:24 PM EST

Absolutely agree!

I don't care about the Democratic party (none / 0) (#10)
by Manuel on Mon Jan 18, 2010 at 01:59:12 PM EST

The party is just a tool and I would ditch it if there were a reasonable alternative. I care that carping including questioning of motives, name calling, and personal animosities are damaging the chances of seeing progress on my issues.


Firedoglake has brought (5.00 / 4) (#11)
by Militarytracy on Mon Jan 18, 2010 at 02:06:53 PM EST

actual concerns and actual problems with the deals being made that needed to be aired. Why were deals made before we even began? Obama lied about transparency there too, it was all secret. Did Obama really think he could buy off the cooperation of the billionaires. It did no good and actually weakened the legislation so badly that even the nation's desire to have that legislation reach fruition has been badly damaged. There have been no GIANT liars on the playing field either like some would desire for us to imagine. I never wanted to take part in anything that resembled the group denial and ignorance of Redstate. That is what maha thinking will purchase you in the end. No thanks


Did you watch the ad? (5.00 / 1) (#20)
by Manuel on Mon Jan 18, 2010 at 02:42:32 PM EST

I have no doubt that FDL has brought valid concerns about the deals. However, the ad is not what I would expect from a progressive group. I agree with Holland.

I don't have a problem with going after Obama and the Dems with a certain amount of ferocity, but it's saddening when ostensibly liberal people try to score political points -- or earn a little street-cred -- by muddying some already murky waters in order to appeal to people's emotions rather than their intellect.

It is intellectually dishonest to claim that Obama's plan is substantially the same as McCain's.

That ad reminds me of the moveon.org flap. Just because you have good intentions doesn't mean you won't make mistakes.


Which parts are substantially different? (5.00 / 3) (#25)
by cawaltz on Mon Jan 18, 2010 at 05:17:55 PM EST

since we're all about "rational" discourse and all then explain how Obama went from being against a mandate to being for it AND to taxing plans (as McCain had suggested) on health care. From where I'm sitting the choices are vanilla and French vanilla. No substantail difference whatsoever.


Sorry, I won't take the bait (5.00 / 1) (#28)
by Manuel on Mon Jan 18, 2010 at 05:50:00 PM EST

The FDL ad is almost as bad as Obama's Harry and Louise ads. Yes, maybe it is cosmic karma but that doesn't make it any prettier.

In answer to your question.

McCain would have eliminated the entire employer deduction for health benefits, deregulated the private insurance industry so companies could simply move their offices to the states with the easiest regulations, and then given every American family a $5,000 tax credit.

Also, there were no subsidies.

You may say those are minor differences, I consider them substantial.


Potato-potatoe (5.00 / 2) (#33)
by cawaltz on Mon Jan 18, 2010 at 07:20:45 PM EST

Instead Obama is putting a 40% tax that will pretty much decimate any DECENT coverage through employees and incentivize offering junk insurance(which basically puts the onus on the individual anyways which was what Mccain was attempting to do with his plan). The loopholes on regulation for the insurance industry are large enough to drive a mack truck through. The subsidies are swell considering he's MANDATING that people actually have coverage(something Mcain's plan didn't require).

Like I said vanilla and french vanilla.


How many more people would McCain have covered (5.00 / 1) (#36)
by Manuel on Mon Jan 18, 2010 at 07:32:58 PM EST

Look, I am not pleased with Obama's plan but if single payer is a car, Obama's plan is a bicycle (or perhaps a pair of sneakers). McCain's plan is going barefoot.

The FDL ad isn't a good faith ad.


: We don't know what incentivizing (5.00 / 1) (#37)
by cawaltz on Mon Jan 18, 2010 at 09:08:44 PM EST

the purchase of health care without mandating would have done at this point. Or even if it would have happened considering the continuing erosion of jobs and the economy.
The simple fact of the matter is that Obama's health plan is not the same as what he ran on(bicycle or not)and more similar to his opposition(to the point where he took parts of his opponents plan that he criticized on the campaign trail). It should be no surprise that people like Jane should be upset. I additionally find it ironic that Jane should be accused of being disingenuious, dishonest and unwilling to have candid dialogue when the truth is that it very much appears that was EXACTLY how Obama ran his campaign during the general election(mind you I am unsurprised because how he ran in the general was an about face from how he ran during the primaries which I felt was more right leaning).

Am I supposed to believe (5.00 / 2) (#12)
by ruffian on Mon Jan 18, 2010 at 02:09:34 PM EST

this guy is on my side?

"I do think there's a chance that Congressional elites mistook their mandate," Mr. Bayh said. "I don't think the American people last year voted for higher taxes, higher deficits and a more intrusive government. But there's a perception that that is what they are getting."

'Shooting myself in the foot' implies one body. Bayh is reading right from McConnell's cue cards here. BTD is exacty right - I don't view Evan Bayh as 'myself' at all.

And if Bayh wants to keep that D (5.00 / 1) (#13)
by Militarytracy on Mon Jan 18, 2010 at 02:12:18 PM EST

after his name he'd better start listening to us, because we are done listening to his dumba$$ until he has something brilliant to say :)


Cats like Bayh own the "D"... (none / 0) (#15)
by kdog on Mon Jan 18, 2010 at 02:22:52 PM EST

after their name, not you lot. It's a party and you lot ain't invited:)

Speaking for me, I wouldn't party with them even if I was invited...I have standards:)


: Move along indy (5.00 / 1) (#17)
by Militarytracy on Mon Jan 18, 2010 at 02:25:45 PM EST

no loitering trying to eyeball a schism lovefest here ya voyeur.

Bayh probably doesn't care what you (none / 0) (#18)
by oculus on Mon Jan 18, 2010 at 02:31:39 PM EST

or I think. He cares what people voting in Indiana think.


Hope he feels that way (5.00 / 1) (#34)
by cawaltz on Mon Jan 18, 2010 at 07:23:15 PM EST

when he's up for re election and needs funds to run a campaign.

He should also pass that wisdom along to the DNC, DSCC and all the others that come begging when they need funding regardless of whether or not a states specific representation is up for bid.


Excatly right, and as it should be (none / 0) (#19)
by ruffian on Mon Jan 18, 2010 at 02:41:02 PM EST

And why we should be just as free to criticize him as we would a Republican representing his interests.

Maybe the circular firing squad would have been better analogy for maha than shooting ourselves in the foot.


He needs to reliably "D" somehow (none / 0) (#26)
by Militarytracy on Mon Jan 18, 2010 at 05:36:09 PM EST

if he thinks he's going to need any kind of monetary or volunteer support for elections.


: There is a "be" that goes in there (none / 0) (#27)
by Militarytracy on Mon Jan 18, 2010 at 05:36:41 PM EST

Does Maha honestly believe (5.00 / 1) (#23)
by mexboy on Mon Jan 18, 2010 at 04:06:48 PM EST

this is the Democratic party I signed up for?

Why would I support a party that spies on it's citizens? (FISA) for starters... It's a long list.

If the present administration wants my support they need to return to the issues important to the Democratic party and the people who got Obama elected, otherwise we'll throw them out of office.

The guilting and complaining is a clear sign they are feeling the heat and that is a sweet melody to my ears.

If I wanted to be a Republican I would have became a republican.

The Dems (5.00 / 4) (#31)
by Zorba on Mon Jan 18, 2010 at 06:37:50 PM EST

have perfected the art of the circular firing squad. I, for one, am tired of being tagged as the "left of the left" by Rahm and others in the administration. If they cannot listen to those of us in the old, Democratic wing of the Democratic Party (and I'm talking the actual progressive, Gene McCarthy, George McGovern, Paul Wellstone, etc, wing), then they will lose us, and we will eventually go third party. They cannot always count on us to vote in lockstep with the Democrats. I'm getting tired of being marginalized and taken for granted, and I bet I'm not the only one.

: It's (5.00 / 1) (#38)
by Ga6thDem on Mon Jan 18, 2010 at 09:16:14 PM EST

not even just that wing. I'm probably left of center and I have no reason to vote for him either or the party at this point.
I'm waiting to see who our gubernatorial candidates are before deciding whether or not to vote in the fall.

: Nope n/t (none / 0) (#35)
by cawaltz on Mon Jan 18, 2010 at 07:25:10 PM EST

But if what the ruling party ... (none / 0) (#1)
by Robot Porter on Mon Jan 18, 2010 at 12:59:35 PM EST

is doing doesn't appear to be working even the most aggressive rhetorical pandering will only have a limited effect.

But if you mean pandering through action. Then you're right.

Dems probably can't cure this diseased economy by November. But if they at least look like they're treating the symptoms, then the mid-terms might not be a total disaster.

its not to late (5.00 / 1) (#2)
by Capt Howdy on Mon Jan 18, 2010 at 01:22:05 PM EST

to go to reconciliation and pass a health care bill that will be good and effect people now.
no?
I am starting to think if they dont do that they dont deserve to maintain power.


Joe agrees (5.00 / 3) (#4)
by Capt Howdy on Mon Jan 18, 2010 at 01:25:34 PM EST

Joe Biden, seeming to lay the groundwork for the case for moving health care legislation forward without 60 votes in the Senate, described the supermajority rule as a perversion of the Constitution.
"As long as I have served ... I've never seen, as my uncle once said, the Constitution stood on its head as they've done. This is the first time every single solitary decisions has required 60 senators," he said at a Florida fundraiser, according to the pool report. "No democracy has survived needing a super majority."

He may just be laying ... (5.00 / 1) (#6)
by Robot Porter on Mon Jan 18, 2010 at 01:38:42 PM EST

ground work for something they have to do, depending on the results of Tuesday's election.

But if they do this, I hope you're right that it also means they will improve the bill.

Though I remain skeptical.


thats probably wise (none / 0) (#9)
by Capt Howdy on Mon Jan 18, 2010 at 01:57:32 PM EST

but if they have to do it why the F not do it right.


Why not do ... (5.00 / 1) (#21)
by Robot Porter on Mon Jan 18, 2010 at 03:06:18 PM EST

it right?

Because they're Democrats. Expects at snatching defeat from the jaws of victory.


*sigh* (5.00 / 1) (#22)
by Capt Howdy on Mon Jan 18, 2010 at 03:15:10 PM EST

: Tonight Fineman & (5.00 / 1) (#30)
by BackFromOhio on Mon Jan 18, 2010 at 06:33:03 PM EST

Todd claim that what they're hearing is that pressure will be on the "liberal" Dem house members to cave to getting the Senate version of health care passed and passed soon if Dems lose MA race. If what's being reported is true, shows that Dems still don't get it -- i.e., why majorities are turning off to Dem candidates.

you may want to delete this (none / 0) (#39)
by ZtoA on Mon Jan 18, 2010 at 11:30:58 PM EST

--saying a pol is a pol in such a jaded way is a very world weary cynical point of view and may be appropriate to your worldly station. But it is not an inspiring blog sort of thing. Whatever you are going tru, personally, is - important for you - but, seriously, dude, if this is an advocacy site then ADVOCATE !! Otherwise this is not an advocacy site and is just a very cool and connected and hip and relevant and...and...whatever is the cool and good word of the moment. Groovy. (and not that cool either.... sorry, time marches on)