Compelling: What Are Progressives Fighting For?

Markos bizarrely calls this post, which disparages progressive pressure on Democrats, "compelling." Coming from Markos, it really makes no sense, given his constant (and mostly correct) haranguing of Democratic pols for the last 7 years. More importantly, the post is not only not compelling, it makes no sense. I wrote about it yesterday:

[Arch social conservative Richard] Viguerie and people like him were in fact shunted aside [when Reagan chose Sandra Day O'Connor for the Supreme Court] because Reagan wanted to nominate the first woman to the Supreme Court. [. . . Steve Benen] says the moral of the story is "that perceptions can change over time." That is silly. Some folks seem incapable of getting out of focusing on the pol, not the issue. Vigeurie was commenting on one event - the nomination of O'Connor. I am sure if he wanted to, Benen could find many instances of Viguerie praising Reagan at the same time (tax cuts anyone?). It is not all of one thing or another. Here's the real moral of the story in my opinion - who did Reagan nominate for the Supreme Court after O'Connor? Antonin Scalia. For those who decry pressure on their hero pols, the lessons of Richard Viguerie's complaints about Reagan's nomination of Sandra Day O'Connor are that they worked. Viguerie got what he wanted the next time.

Richard Viguerie understood what too many do not want to these days - pols are pols and do what they do. Your loyalty should lie with the issues you care about, not the pols.

((My emphasis.) What's really weird about Markos' shout out for that post is he's busy gearing up pressure on Obama to nominate Elizabeth Warren to the new consumer finance agency. If he really thought it was compelling, he'd stop that immediately.

Speaking for me only

< Utah Court Grants Polygamy Sect Leader Warren Jeffs a New Trial | There Are Two Kinds Of Progressive Bloggers >
  • The Online Magazine with Liberal coverage of crime-related political and injustice news

  • Contribute To TalkLeft

  • Display: Sort:
    The Tea Partiers (5.00 / 2) (#1)
    by MKS on Tue Jul 27, 2010 at 03:24:49 PM EST
    are making standard-issue conservatives--who are very, very conservative--look reasonable.

    FDR had the Communists and Huey Long as foils.

    We need some honest-to-goodness socialists to take the stage.  Progressives would look moderate by comparison--which they are now, but the appearance is they are not because no one is to the Left of them in the public consciousness.

    Call me a conspiracy theorist (none / 0) (#4)
    by jondee on Tue Jul 27, 2010 at 03:46:06 PM EST
    but, I still say most of the reason for that is that the people with the most power to influence the ideas people are exposed to through the media, don't want folks exposed to socialist agitators, who might get 'em riled up and thinking dangerous thoughts.

    It's not like the Noam Chomskys of the world have been waging some stubborn, silent boycott of the American media all these years. And it's glaringly obvious at this point that whatever the near-opposite political pole is is perceived as, or desired to be perceived as, more congenial to the way people in this country think; regardless of the actual on-the-ground realities.  


    Chomsky (none / 0) (#10)
    by MKS on Tue Jul 27, 2010 at 03:58:38 PM EST
    He was right about Guatemala.  One of the first.

    At to other things, not so right imo.

    But Chomsky is exactly the kind of guy who should get more attention.  Why not have him go to Netroots Nation and really get them started?....

    One school of thought is that the (real) Black Panthers made MLK possible.

    But you are right: money talks and b.s. walks.  Never, ever underestimate the power of money.

     The money folks have totally snookered relgious conservatives to accept that Jesus was for Tax Cuts.  It is in Bible!  It really is!

    Take away the religious conservatives, and the money conservatives lose every election.  The money knows that and thus spends a lot of time herding the religious conservatives and playing off of racial and ethnic fears and hatreds.


    "money doesn't talk, it swears." (nt) (none / 0) (#17)
    by ahazydelirium on Tue Jul 27, 2010 at 04:29:23 PM EST
    I have reminded myself to not get (5.00 / 2) (#2)
    by Militarytracy on Tue Jul 27, 2010 at 03:28:19 PM EST
    too excited about the Liz Warren support out there.  I remembered to only mildly note Meteor Blades giving her a nod.  I have kept my enthusiasm about Kos support of her to a two sentence limit.  Wouldn't want to give the impression that I have enough excess dopamine that I can survive another total screwing over (cuz I don't, and I WILL NOT fake orgasms either).  Whenever I get excited about anything political at this time someone steals my cheese, and my carrots, and just fecking everything.  I'm sitting here, not compelled to do much of anything at this time other than survive the horrors!

    I have a terrible confession (none / 0) (#3)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Tue Jul 27, 2010 at 03:33:30 PM EST
    I really do not care if Warren is picked or not.

    The Fin Reg bill is toothless, including the consumer agency.


    I would like to have her as an 'explainer' (5.00 / 1) (#6)
    by ruffian on Tue Jul 27, 2010 at 03:51:11 PM EST
    with a long-term job and pulpit. I think she does a great job putting things in terms that non-financial specialists can understand. Non-patronizing, yet clear. Head of that agency, with a mission to reach out to consumers, is a perfect spot for her IMO, even if the agency itself cannot do much beyond educating people.

    No objection here (5.00 / 1) (#7)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Tue Jul 27, 2010 at 03:52:20 PM EST
    But I am more interested on who gets picked as the next SCOTUS justice.

    Supreme Court Justices (5.00 / 1) (#21)
    by christinep on Tue Jul 27, 2010 at 05:33:40 PM EST
    Going back to Justice O'Connor: She is an example of someone who helped in some areas, and yet filled the role of the modern conservative in others. When it came to discrimination issues and women, she did have a positive impact on the Court. When it came to the equally significant issues involving "standing" and the individual vis-a-vis the corporate state, etc., she may have laid the foundation for J. Roberts et al. (Also: Don't forget the Bush v. Gore matter.)

    Justice O'Connor is mentioned (5.00 / 2) (#29)
    by BackFromOhio on Tue Jul 27, 2010 at 08:41:03 PM EST
    in Toobin's book on the Court indicating that she voted for the opinion favoring Bush in Bush v. Gore because she did not realize Bush would be so bad as president.  Nothing else anyone can say about her gets me past this act on her part.

    It is a singular act (5.00 / 1) (#31)
    by christinep on Tue Jul 27, 2010 at 10:22:42 PM EST
    that confirms her strong Republican background at the heart of it all.... In many ways, Reagan knew whom he was appointing.

    Hardly singular (5.00 / 2) (#33)
    by sj on Wed Jul 28, 2010 at 11:32:13 AM EST
    But particularly egregious

    Justice O'Connor (none / 0) (#26)
    by KeysDan on Tue Jul 27, 2010 at 07:24:14 PM EST
    did change in the area of human rights. In Bowers v Hardwick, (1986) she joined the majority opinion of the homophobic Byron White, upholding the constitutionality of the Georgia sodomy law (a pretty egregious case), but in Roemer v Evans (1996) she stood with Justice Kennedy in his majority opinion (indelibly marked with a rant  by Scalia purporting to be a dissent), and again, with the majority (2003) opinion of Justice Kennedy in Lawrence V. Texas.  

    Garland, I'm afraid (none / 0) (#11)
    by MKS on Tue Jul 27, 2010 at 04:01:51 PM EST
    Fewer Democratic Senators.....

    So we lose Ginsburg for a moderate/conservative....

    The days of Koh and Karland dancing in liberals' head have long since passed.

    But make a stink and maybe it won't be Garland--maybe someone else...


    Karlan (none / 0) (#12)
    by MKS on Tue Jul 27, 2010 at 04:02:15 PM EST
    Yeah, I am too in the long run (none / 0) (#13)
    by ruffian on Tue Jul 27, 2010 at 04:06:07 PM EST
    As Horshack would say (none / 0) (#14)
    by NYShooter on Tue Jul 27, 2010 at 04:11:33 PM EST
    ooh, ooh, I know, I know.

    but first:

    I'm in Dutchess  County now, ten minutes away from Chelsea Clinton's wedding place. My son's a cop and he says that no one has ever seen anything even approaching the security that this event has brought together. The 400 guests attending hold the most valuable, and rare, tickets ever. One of the guys on the security detail at Stewart Airport said it will be the greatest concentration of wealth, and power, ever assembled in one place.

    Now, Chelsea may have preferred a nice quiet Vermont wedding, just a few friends & family, but the scope of this thing tells me something different.

    There's an agenda, and goal here. Obama loves being among the powerful; Bill and Hillary have reinvented the term for him. After they're through with him....

    Her Honor, Associate Justice of the Supreme Court of the United States, Hillary Rodham Clinton

    IMO of course


    I hadn't even considered that (none / 0) (#15)
    by ruffian on Tue Jul 27, 2010 at 04:15:26 PM EST

    Yep, and there goes any talk (none / 0) (#23)
    by Cream City on Tue Jul 27, 2010 at 06:11:20 PM EST
    of Clinton in 2012.  Or 2016.

    Oh, may we hope that by six years from now, there will be SOME Dem with fire in the belly?

    (Btw, I saw a tv piece earlier this week about that locale, and an interview with the manager of the most posh place, and to very direct questions, all she would say was: no comment . . . in a way that almost shouted that the wedding would be there.  Such fun for you to see! although after our experience of landing at LA airport the day before the Michael Jackson funeral, I hope never to see so much chaos and so much security again for the rest of us, whilst the Big Names got great treatment.)


    Gonna be great (5.00 / 2) (#25)
    by NYShooter on Tue Jul 27, 2010 at 07:12:00 PM EST
    My house is on a high bluff on the West shore of the Hudson River, just South of "DE PLACE."
    If the reception is gonna be where I think it will be, I may be able to see it from my perch.

    From what I'm hearing, Saudi Kings & Princes, Chinese Mucky Mucks, Russian (shh) Entrepreneurs & Statesmen, and so on will be among the guests. Each are coming in private jets, of course, and each will have half a dozen jet decoys....naturally. It's gonna be like a psychedelic, kaleidoscopic, light show, and I've got all my cameras and telescopes ready.

    Now watch it turn out to be in Oregon....LOL


    All those (none / 0) (#27)
    by BTAL on Tue Jul 27, 2010 at 07:26:51 PM EST
    Saudi Kings & Princes, Chinese Mucky Mucks, Russian (shh) Entrepreneurs & Statesmen

    And not included is the leader of the party?



    He's invited (none / 0) (#32)
    by jbindc on Wed Jul 28, 2010 at 09:01:39 AM EST
    If it's in Oregon, I'm crashing it! (none / 0) (#28)
    by shoephone on Tue Jul 27, 2010 at 07:27:02 PM EST
    Oh Ye, of little faith (5.00 / 2) (#8)
    by NYShooter on Tue Jul 27, 2010 at 03:52:59 PM EST
    The toughest fin-reg-bill evah would lay dormant, collecting dust, if an Administrator, ala Chris Cox, was in charge.

    And vice-versa, a weak bill, with a bull-dog in charge might just surprise you.


    Elizabeth Warren is to the Consumer (5.00 / 3) (#9)
    by Anne on Tue Jul 27, 2010 at 03:57:55 PM EST
    Finance Protection Board what Dawn Johnsen was to the Office of Legal Counsel: absolutely the best person for the position, whose priorities are where we, the people, need them to be, and that, I'm afraid spells doom of one kind or another.  Her name will either languish in limbo until, like Johnsen, she withdraws it, or she will decline to accept a position designed to neuter, not empower, the consumer.

    Like Johnsen, I think Warren has too much integrity to be used the way this administration, and the financial industry, would want to use her.


    Could they actually neuter the (none / 0) (#16)
    by Militarytracy on Tue Jul 27, 2010 at 04:23:39 PM EST
    consumers anymore than they already have?  The only choices left to many of us are to simply do without everything we can challenge ourselves to do without.  Not that I can't do that, it does sort of go hand in hand with Buddhism and it can be fun to challenge yourself in giving things up.  It is sort of the opposite of what drives capitalism though, and can only lead to more and more economic contraction.

    Consumers don't feel like they can trust anyone to be held to a standard of providing services for charges.  I'm billed for all sorts of b.s. anymore.  I sign something, and extra charges just simply grow out of it.  If my cell phone becomes anymore of a ripoff than it already is the damned thing is going out the backdoor and into the lake, and I'm told that all the companies are using the same ripoff practices at this time.

    It feels like most corporations intend to blow themselves up.  They actually seem to believe that there is nothing to fear in only providing ripoff services.


    I just wish they would stop "helping" (5.00 / 2) (#20)
    by Joan in VA on Tue Jul 27, 2010 at 05:09:41 PM EST
    us. Bankruptcy w/ no cramdown, credit cards, health ins reform, HAMP, FinReg-all have, or will, cost us little guys money we don't have. The supposed targets of their regulations have been given so many loopholes that they must laugh at the ease of sticking it to us even more than before. Nothing that even EW can do about that.

    I have my doubts as to how (none / 0) (#5)
    by Militarytracy on Tue Jul 27, 2010 at 03:46:34 PM EST
    effective she can be and what she can directly affect. She does like to make a bit of noise though at times, and she is a fine stateswoman.  I will have my G*d D*mned token though, because that is all I will be having and I am leaving this table with something damn it before this game is midterm over :)

    This is more like a last stand at best :)


    It's so funny (3.67 / 3) (#24)
    by Jackson Hunter on Tue Jul 27, 2010 at 06:50:14 PM EST
    that Kos and the rest of the front pagers there are to the Left of most of the biggest cheerleaders there (as someone else mentioned) and they are starting to take some flak from that little Cult of Deadenders.  One of them actually said that Meteor Blades himself was nothing but a hack who wanted to tear down the President, when he was one of the many who knowingly allowed the purge of Clinton supporters to happen.  I hope he felt that was a nice reward for his efforts.

    And it's the naked hypocrisy that just astounds me, the Deadenders want everyone of BWD's salad tossings to go completely unchallenged by anyone else but if one of the "purists" writes a diary that doesn't mention Obama at all they still attack like the little nippy dogs they are.  It's truly astounding.  They even began to question Sherrod's honesty until the Admin had to admit how scared they are of a stupid addict like Beck, and then they backed off.  They are in the process of trying to destroy FDR, when we all should be arguing for him to be put up on Mt. Rushmore for Heaven's sake.

    I'll give credit to Kos, he once admitted (in a off-hand comment, not an actual blog entry) that the only ones who have the right to complain are Clinton supporters. It would be nice to amplify that message in a real diary though, it would go a long way to smooth over some real chasms.  Unfortunately for him (and the liberal blogosphere as a whole) is that DK no longer has credibility with most folks, which is a real shame as it could have been a real tool.

    I've been trying to exist over there, mostly to help the ones who are targeted (Slink, Eve, et al) but one of these times one of those cheerleaders are going to cry racism and I'll unless so much venom that even Meteor will have to vomit first before he bans me.  The false accusations of racism are still running rampant over there, and apparently that's just fine with Kos and his FP'ers.  That chasm is not going to be so easy to heal.


    Disparaging Progressive pressure on Democrats (none / 0) (#19)
    by rhbrandon on Tue Jul 27, 2010 at 04:51:05 PM EST
    I'm pretty much done with participating on DKos at this point.  Too much applauding and overselling accomplishments that are inadequate and probably and ultimately aggravating and the pointing out of such invariably labelled as both Republican and firebagging.

    Still a lot of good posts, especially - for me - the ones re. global climate change, but the incessant applause and the muting of criticism reminds me too much of the roving bands of troll-raters that made 2008 such a pain on that site. Another OFA site, I really don't need.

    I suppose every endeavor has those moments when the star goes red giant then explodes.

    I'm a cry baby firebagging PUMA :) (5.00 / 3) (#22)
    by Militarytracy on Tue Jul 27, 2010 at 05:33:45 PM EST