home

"Forgetting" Unions Is Not A Winning Strategy

Steve Benen neatly encapsules the blinders of the Village Dems and bloggers regarding the the political toxicity of the excise tax contained in the Senate health bill:

[I]s there anything Dems can do to get the winds to blow back in the other direction? [. . . we talked earlier about David Plouffe's advice to the party, with suggestions that struck me as sound: "pass a meaningful health insurance reform package without delay"

In these two posts, Benen never mentions the political problem that is caused by the excise tax. Not once. Others have a better grasp of the problem:

My friend Leo Maley, a longtime labor and political organizer, (currently a Community Organizer with the Massachusetts Nurses Association, and chair of the Amherst Democratic Town Committee), writes at Blue Mass Group that a post at the AFL-CIO blog is a "must read for all Democratic Party activists and engaged union members." And he is absolutely right.

Despite a heroic, last minute effort from labor, Coakley "lost the union vote by 3 percent" according to a Hart poll. How come? Jeff Crosby offers some sound explanations in his post: Hey, Democrats, Remember Us?[.]

From the post from the AFL-CIO blog:

[. . .] “Jeff, you guys at the Union Hall aren’t listening to us! You’re talking out of both sides of your mouth. We’re fighting the benefits tax, and now you’re telling us to vote for someone who will tax our benefits! The guys here are voting for Scotty Brown.”

That was just one of the calls and e-mails that I received during the week before the Senate vote in Massachusetts. An AFSCME delegate to our labor council calculated the impact of the Obama tax on union plans and e-mailed us all to “Vote Brown!” For a year and a half, we campaigned against the tax on our health care benefits. We trudged through neighboring New Hampshire with fliers explaining that Sen. John McCain wanted to fund health care expansion by a benefits tax.

[But] [i]n the last week of the Coakley campaign, the papers were full of the story: “Obama Supports “Cadillac Tax.” Sen. John Kerry cited an MIT economist who said the tax would increase wages for grateful working stiffs. I can usually figure out which chalkboard equation the classical economists are fondling: Absent merely life itself, they present a circular logic that proves itself. But the MIT argument escaped me.

[. . .] Many working-class people who voted for Brown were voting for the blue-collar underdog against the Washington elite. Obama’s support for the benefits tax exploded among union members just as our campaign against the tax was breaking through. The Boston Globe covered the union agreement on the tax—and on the same page carried a long article explaining that the excise tax would affect millions and was exactly the kind of “middle-class” tax that Obama had promised not to implement. This was the first time the health care campaign touched every union member personally, despite our previous efforts. And with so little time to explain it, it looked like the unions had left others to foot the bill; the improvements for all workers were lost in the final three-day push.

[. . .] The “Kumbaya” of the Democrats wins them nothing. Months of touchy-feely from Democratic Sen. Max Baucus compromised away most of the health care reform features we wanted. Yet Democrats received further attacks from Republicans for their “partisanship”—and not a single Republican vote. [. . .] It’s as though Obama advisers crafted a systematic plan to unravel the president’s coalition. They succeeded.

Despite this, the Village Dem and bloggers do not see it. It is incredible. I wrote about it the other day:

John Judis argues that the biggest problem with the Senate health bill is the perception that it harms middle class voters at the expense of corporation and the wealthy:

Where Obama invited a voter backlash was by letting the burden of reducing health care costs appear to fall on senior citizens and those middle-class workers who had acquired good health insurance through decades of union battles with management, and not on the insurance and drug companies. Obama ceded too much to the policy wonks who were devising intricate schemes to show they could cut the deficit. He took his eye of off the political imperative of keeping middle America in his corner.

The excise tax was a political poison pill. Ironically, there is a chance to fix that now. Dems should jump at the chance.

Instead of arguing for jumping at that chance, Village Dems and bloggers, the champions of the excise tax in the first place, pretend the issue does not even exist. The surest way to electoral debacle in November will be to follow the path prescribed by them.

Speaking for me only

< Obama's Constrained Bully Pulpit | Monday Morning Open Thread >
  • The Online Magazine with Liberal coverage of crime-related political and injustice news

  • Contribute To TalkLeft


  • Display: Sort:
    The very name "Cadillac tax" (5.00 / 5) (#1)
    by observed on Sun Jan 24, 2010 at 05:07:30 PM EST
    for benefits that the working class gets is Reaganesque. Even Reagan wouldn't have been stupid enough to insult union workers that way---he took it out on the shiftless, lazy welfare recipients.

    Hmm..."Cadillac Driving Welfare Queens"? (5.00 / 1) (#2)
    by Dan the Man on Sun Jan 24, 2010 at 05:30:05 PM EST
    I actually remember that line from Reagan or his supporters.  And you're right.  The Obama Administration is using the attacks on unions that Reagan used against "Welfare Queens".  Reagan was never that stupid.

    Parent
    Union Buster (5.00 / 3) (#6)
    by pluege on Sun Jan 24, 2010 at 07:25:12 PM EST
    one of reagan's key initiatives was busting unions. Anyone remember the Air Traffic Controllers? That was just the tip of the ice berg.

    Parent
    Sure, but he got lots of union (none / 0) (#8)
    by observed on Sun Jan 24, 2010 at 07:44:29 PM EST
    votes anyway.

    Parent
    Agreed (none / 0) (#10)
    by pluege on Sun Jan 24, 2010 at 08:05:32 PM EST
    Makes me lose respect for union people. Still the stupidest thing I've ever seen is union/blue collar workers voting for reagan.

    Parent
    Democrats began their abandonment of Labor (5.00 / 1) (#48)
    by esmense on Mon Jan 25, 2010 at 10:47:46 AM EST
    in 1972. In a strategy amazingly similar to the strategy Obama employed in 2008 against Clinton, McGovern, in an appeal to affluent moderate Republicans and middle class young people ran in the primary as a "reformer" (against Humphrey) denouncing BOTH "big labor" and "big business." Many McGovern supporters and strategists at that time and still today,like the elite Democrats who supported Obama,dream of a Democratic party that does not have to be responsive to the economic concerns of the working class.

    McGovern supporters, like Obama supporters in 2008, dismissed Labor's anger at his attacks against Labor as the whining of racists. But, organized Labor supported Humphrey -- the VP in the administration that had passed landmark civil rights legislation and a man who personally was actually more noted for his support of Civil Rights than McGovern. (Organized Labor at that time and ever since supported and has continued to support the Democratic party on issues of race.) The element in the party that defected to George Wallace in '72 was more accurately defined by region than class -- it eventually become the core of both the Republican Southern strategy and the Reagan Democrats.

    As a result of McGovern's tactic, and an (I think accurate) conviction that the new coalition supporting McGovern wasn't sympathetic to Labor, many union members stayed home in the general election that year, or, defected to Nixon in protest -- thus handing the Democrats one of the biggest political debacles of all time.

    Nonetheless, although McGovern lost badly, the influence of his supporters, and others (Neo-Liberals, etc.) who shared their elite disregard for Labor (and disdain for the working class who to them remain a stereotype -- ignorant, bitter  racists who don't understand their own interests or the new economy).

    The most significant result outside the South, where labor has traditionally always been weak, working class political participation has traditionally been low, and unorganized working class voters see are encouraged to support their employer's political interest, hasn't been working class defection to the other side as much as working class disenchantment with poliltics leading to lower participation rates outside the South and an increase in "independents" and swing voters.

    An interesting thing to note -- in the first half of the last century Southern political participation rates (in terms of voting) lagged far behind that of voters in the North. After the passage of the voting rights act political participation for both African American and white Southerners increased dramatically. At the same time, primarily because of defections from an increasingly disillusioned and economically distressed working class, Northern participation rates began to fall.

    Considering how little organized Labor has received for its loyalty to the Democrats over the last 38 years, and how poorly the Democrats have served all working people, perhaps the real wonder is that they get any working class votes at all.

    The people I've lost respect for are the Democratic elites who keep expecting working people, women and minorities to put them in office on the basis of "the lesser of two evils."

    Perhaps a lot more people are waking up to the fact that doing so only encourages the lesser of two evils to be very, very evil indeed.

    Parent

    I meant to say that the influence McGovern's (none / 0) (#55)
    by esmense on Mon Jan 25, 2010 at 11:03:43 AM EST
    anti-union supportrs continues in the party today.

    Parent
    The fact that (none / 0) (#19)
    by JamesTX on Mon Jan 25, 2010 at 08:54:02 AM EST
    union members are tending to defect to the right in contemporary politics demonstrates the effectiveness of unions! They no longer see themselves as being among the disadvantaged. They feel more kinship with the elites! Maybe if I could get in one I would be voting Republican in a few years.

    Parent
    I'm from Macomb County (5.00 / 3) (#20)
    by jbindc on Mon Jan 25, 2010 at 09:03:26 AM EST
    The epicenter and heart of the "Reagan Democrats" (where almost 70% voted fro JFK in 1960, but by 1980 almost 70% voted for Reagan).  This could be like 1980 all over again - where the unions (and other working-class people) don't see the Democrats working for them, but where they may agree with the Republicans on other things like national security and some social issues.  This could be a multi-year disaster in the making.

    Parent
    TPM is Tea-bag free (5.00 / 2) (#27)
    by kidneystones on Mon Jan 25, 2010 at 09:18:12 AM EST
    For the first time in months. Marshall seems to be getting the message. You don't walk around with a majority in both houses and the WH chip on your shoulder and then lose MA to Brown.

    I don't think it's too late for Dems, but it's going to take a bit of courage for Dems to point out that they've spent the entire year supporting a guy who just keeps making promises Dems can't keep.

    Nobody is buying Republican obstructionism is the problem. Josh has taken down the tea-bag blaming posts and got real serious all of a sudden.

    Welcome change. Dems do the same and stop blaming the minority and things just might turn around sooner than some think.

    Cause the alternative still has Republican 2008 written all over it. Voters haven't given up on Dems.

    Yet.

    Parent

    Cool, very cool (5.00 / 2) (#32)
    by Militarytracy on Mon Jan 25, 2010 at 09:32:52 AM EST
    I have not read there in a long while.  I even try to avoid clicking links there because I only have so much time I want to spend chewing cud :)

    Parent
    It is hard for Union people (5.00 / 1) (#36)
    by Militarytracy on Mon Jan 25, 2010 at 09:47:45 AM EST
    to also simply watch the economy being run into the ground to save Wall Street.  Wall Street does little for Unions, consumers do much for Unions...when people can afford to buy durable goods and take Vegas vacations those are Union jobs!  Wall Street's money stream is gone though because they are all too corrupt, so what are we actually saving here?  Nobody with a pound of sense is going to invest unless there is evidence that the market and the traders have cleaned themselves up and must stay clean.  That kind of evidence is going to take time....years in fact.  The last time they did this to people it took 20 years of proving they weren't thieves and conartists before people invested regularly with them again.  This will be no different.  Particularly because the administration did not begin regulating right away.  The markets are still positioned to implode even after we have drained the Fed dry, and when the Fed quits juicing them Kaboom.  What will happen then to the investor confidence?  All could have been avoided though, and the recovery of confidence more quickly arrived at if this administration had only enforced regulations, took over the insolvent banks, and placed integrity back into the markets as the first thing done.  I think we are back to another 20 year recovery again, and that's after they have all hit bottom and realize that there is no other way that they can even hope to have a job or a market.

    Parent
    Looking on the bright side, NYT Style (5.00 / 1) (#49)
    by oculus on Mon Jan 25, 2010 at 10:55:07 AM EST
    section Sunday sd. Wall St. upper crust is again buying luxury goods w/impunity, which gladdens the hearts and balances of retailes who sell such goods.  Although, as we learned in India, creatin of some of those luxury goods is not union shop.

    Parent
    And Obama thinks he is the first (none / 0) (#24)
    by Militarytracy on Mon Jan 25, 2010 at 09:13:34 AM EST
    to dream up this working with everyone and being everyone's friend in politics baloney.  Nope, that would be Jimmy Carter.  And Democrats felt betrayed as the nation floundered and voted for Reagan.  Someone needs to tell that kid that his idea is not a new one or a great one.

    Parent
    Really! (none / 0) (#53)
    by cal1942 on Mon Jan 25, 2010 at 11:01:06 AM EST
    I believe that one of the biggest problems today is that Democratic leadership Democratic Party "intellectuals" has is understanding human nature.

    Your comment is an example of that disconnect.

    It's only normal for people who earn average incomes and especially those earning average incomes from physical labor to resent having their tax dollars sent to people who appear to them to be lazy.

    That sentiment is very powerful, especially among  people raised with a strong work ethic.

    Right or wrong that's the deeply ingrained sentiment and stating a lack of respect for union "people" (or do you really mean those 'others')is one of the reasons today's Democrats don't get the support they should get from working people.

    Parent

    It was astonishing (5.00 / 1) (#31)
    by Salo on Mon Jan 25, 2010 at 09:29:52 AM EST
    To see posters on DKos back this stinker. All sorts of rhetoric was being used that seemed especially perverse and politically naive. Beyond the Reaganesque element of "Cadillacs" I noticed that many posters were saying that these plans were "subsidized" by the tax payer at the expense of the non union worker. It was odd.

    Parent
    Harold Ford (5.00 / 2) (#15)
    by mmc9431 on Mon Jan 25, 2010 at 06:28:23 AM EST
    I never get the linking right. Karold Ford has an op ed in NYT today advising Democrats on how to win. I find it amazing that the only guy that lost is now telling the party what they need to do to win. His concept is right out of the Republican play book:

    Scrap health care reform. The American public doesn't want it and can't afford it now.

    Smaller government (I guess that means definitely no P.O. or lowering Medicare age).

    Lower crporate taxes! (But at the same time eliminate the deficit).

    And of course keep the drums beating on defeating the terrorists.

    After reading his op ed it's no wonder that I've lost my enthusiasm towards the party. I didn't like the Reagan concept of government when he was president. Why would I support it in the Democratic party now?

    People talk (5.00 / 3) (#16)
    by Donna Z on Mon Jan 25, 2010 at 07:16:19 AM EST
    I talked to my daughter in Boston; she talked to her teaching roommates; my guess is that they talked to the people where they work.

    My daughter asked, "Mom, if Obama has lost the teachers, what's next?"

    Her friends didn't vote for Scott Brown. They had never voted for a republican, so they stayed home specifically because of the excise tax. The folks of MA have mandated insurance, and from my talks with my friends, all of them were hoping for a public option to give them a choice beyond what they currently are forced to buy.

    Watching as known grabbers of insurance lobby money won every battle in the Senate, didn't help either.

    If Dems are trying to sell HCR as a starter house, then the starter house is a starter dog house for Dems. How did they get so dumb?

    I'm not particularly politically savvy. . . (5.00 / 1) (#17)
    by RickTaylor on Mon Jan 25, 2010 at 08:21:54 AM EST
    and I didn't even think of unions when I first heard about the excise tax, but even so, I thought it was an awful idea. Taxing the health care benefits of the better off to fund health care for the poor so obviously feeds the Republican meme that Democrats want to take your money and give it to lazy people. As many have argued, the best plans are those like social security that benefit everyone, because they're more secure against that sort of demagoging; you don't see people attacking lazy social security recipients the way they do welfare. Unfortunately in our conservative era where we're penny wise and pound foolish, it's almost impossible to pass anything without means testing. This is the case even though as a society, it's cheaper to dispense with that layer of bureaucracy.

    Back to the point, I was leaning towards the "pass the bill" side, but when I learned of the excise tax, my immediate reaction was, oh they have to take that out. It seemed so awful politically, I just assumed it would be taken out in the house. Now it appears it was even more politically toxic than I realized, perhaps contributing to the loss in Massachusetts.

    It's odd, from what I've heard the administration was determined not to repeat the mistakes of the Clinton administration, and to be careful to buy off the various interests that might end up killing health care reform (insurance companies, drug companies, etc). So given that, it seems an incredible blunder to have overlooked one of the oldest powerful interest groups that have been crucial in Democratic politics. It does however fit with an impression I've had of Obama: in looking to the future and reaching out to conservatives and moderates, he's can be dismissive of the traditional old left and the old ways of doing things.

    It's the typical Obama strategy (5.00 / 2) (#23)
    by TeresaInSnow2 on Mon Jan 25, 2010 at 09:13:01 AM EST
    When constituencies have "no place else to go," then you don't just ignore them, you screw them.  He's done this with many of the Democrats voters:  women, GLBT, unions, etc.

    Obama thinks he's invincible with these groups.

    Parent

    Who are "we"? (none / 0) (#22)
    by lambert on Mon Jan 25, 2010 at 09:09:39 AM EST
    Not Democrats!

    (And not Republicans, either. The legacy party system needs to die, and both Ds and Rs with it.)

    Parent

    snore (none / 0) (#58)
    by TeresaInPa on Mon Jan 25, 2010 at 11:15:34 AM EST
    not gonna happen and the rhetoric is boring.

    Parent
    Oooh, I'm sorry (none / 0) (#60)
    by lambert on Mon Jan 25, 2010 at 11:50:19 AM EST
    I exist to keep legacy party advocates not bored. How can I make it up to you?

    Parent
    Breaking in a huge way (5.00 / 2) (#18)
    by Militarytracy on Mon Jan 25, 2010 at 08:54:01 AM EST
    with party identity.  There is no way to win this one as a Democrat.  If we screw the unions, want to screw the unions, consider it okay to screw the unions while we pay out trillions in corporate welfare....who are we anymore?  The people on the Hill either don't seem to realize that they are doing exactly what the Republican party did to itself, or they don't care because they think they will get away with it by being slightly better than Republicans in some way and they will retain power.  Too bad this is all only about getting the power now and has nothing to do with governing the nation with health and prosperity for all human beings in mind.

    "Is there anything Dems can do?" (5.00 / 1) (#26)
    by Anne on Mon Jan 25, 2010 at 09:14:36 AM EST
    must be one of the most disingenuous questions I've heard in a while, and am sorry to see that Steve is asking it.  

    We all know  - Steve knows, for heaven's sake - that there are a number of things Dems could do and should have done - and could still do; there has been no shortage of people expressing their suggestions, many of them directly to offices of Democratic members of Congress.  They know.  The problem, of course, is that we aren't saying what they want to hear, so they are pretending to hear nothing.

    Really great strategy.

    And I don't get a sense that it's one that's going to change enough to make a difference.  Obama giving speeches to show what a populist he is will not cut it.  

    Oh, well.


    Fair call (5.00 / 1) (#35)
    by kidneystones on Mon Jan 25, 2010 at 09:43:26 AM EST
    I enjoy JamesTX's posts very much. But you hit the nail on the head. Nothing comes for free.

    Just came back from a little tour of 'He's the victim' land. Leaders in Obamaland don't actually, you know, 'lead'.

    They accept and collect adulation.

    Feel like clapping? Cause the Obama hardcore is convinced the problem is he's being poorly served.

    By the voters and rank and file Dems. Nobody told him he was actually going to have to earn his grades. And considering his shocking academic record, I hope nobody is holding their breath.

    I wonder what happens when Josh and Duncan finally figure out the guy they think is so smart is the same guy who was playing with his cell-phone while they we're sitting in the front of the class concentrating.

    Think they'll have the nuts to call him out, or just wait until the next three years blows over.

    Don't want to be called a racist; willing to pay any price to keep that little sobriquet from landing anywhere near.

    the excise tax (5.00 / 1) (#43)
    by CST on Mon Jan 25, 2010 at 10:24:36 AM EST
    killed it in MA.  Since we already have near-universal coverage, whatever upside there is to the bill in the senate became irrelevant.  The one thing people knew they would get from the bill was that it was taxing on their health benefits.

    On a seperate note, yea Jeff Crosby!  Great article, never thought I'd see him quoted here.

    The excise tax was like a tonic Semtex detonating (none / 0) (#54)
    by Salo on Mon Jan 25, 2010 at 11:03:27 AM EST
    Right under the Senate.   I fail to see how this was accidentally placed there.

    Parent
    That was Crosby's thought (5.00 / 1) (#61)
    by lambert on Mon Jan 25, 2010 at 11:53:25 AM EST
    Here in the post BTD cited to:
    It's as though Obama advisers crafted a systematic plan to unravel the president's coalition. They succeeded.

    Tin foil time, but at some point...

    Parent
    It is sad to watch the Dems self-destruct (5.00 / 2) (#52)
    by MO Blue on Mon Jan 25, 2010 at 10:56:18 AM EST
    Eroding support for the party with the excise tax,  cutting the Medicare budget and give aways to the industries is I'm afraid just the beginning. Obama's education plan which bares a striking resemblance to Republican plans based on charter schools and his current plan for a bipartisan commission to address Social Security will IMO further eliminate voters from supporting the "New Democratic Party."

    Going from the possibility of becoming the dominant political party for decades to come, to the real possibility of becoming the minority party in 2010 is quite a feat to accomplish in a year.      

    Pathetic (5.00 / 1) (#59)
    by mmc9431 on Mon Jan 25, 2010 at 11:37:09 AM EST
    I hope the lesson learned is that we stop allowing candidates to be "blank canvases". After the disaster of the Bush administration, the country needed strong, concise leadership, not vague generalities.

    It's time we demand to know where the candidate stands on Democratic issues. (I'm still in shock that the Democrats were responsible for introducing a bill that trashed two of it's strongest advocates, unions and women).

    Maybe the tent has gotten too big. We've become a party that doesn't believe in anything.

    Parent

    "Blank canvassers" (none / 0) (#62)
    by lambert on Mon Jan 25, 2010 at 11:54:05 AM EST
    Perfect description of the OFB...

    Parent
    It's amazing to see the malevolent incompetence (none / 0) (#56)
    by Salo on Mon Jan 25, 2010 at 11:06:08 AM EST
    The WH is becoming a sickening Cartoon parody of Carter.  

    Parent
    Even if I agree with you (none / 0) (#3)
    by Politalkix on Sun Jan 24, 2010 at 06:20:49 PM EST
    about the excise tax, it will not be correct to blame the "excise tax" entirely for a lack of enthusiasm for a candidate like Coakley among union workers. There are many Reagan Democrats with Union membership, they like guns and pick up trucks and national security candidates. (Yes, even among working class women you have security moms).

    I actually don't believe that Coakley (5.00 / 1) (#11)
    by andgarden on Sun Jan 24, 2010 at 08:11:03 PM EST
    lost the union vote, but this poll is good enough to convince me that it was close.

    Republicans can typically win when they run even with union members (typically that means they're winning white union members). And that's pretty earth shattering if it happened in Massachusetts.

    Parent

    I'll tell you a little secret (5.00 / 1) (#21)
    by kidneystones on Mon Jan 25, 2010 at 09:05:55 AM EST
    Dems haven't been much fun to be around. That's a big part of Brown's appeal.

    Too much preening for a group of folks who think the other team is a bunch of wankers.

    Here's a question open to anyone: How many Americans need to lose their jobs for Obama to award himself an 'F' 50 million?

    When doing your calculations, please bear in mind that 10% unemployed gets him a B plus.

    The answer to this question is part of the reason Dems lost in MA.

    No hard feelings, Andgarden. I still like your posts.


    Parent

    Well, there's anecdotes like these (5.00 / 2) (#25)
    by jbindc on Mon Jan 25, 2010 at 09:14:05 AM EST
    Union workers paid to support Coakley who voted for Brown

    SEIU members for Brown

    The AFL-CIO did a poll and said union households went for Brown, 49-46.

    So, it seems to me that that unions are a little peeved at the Dems right now....

    Parent

    I belong (5.00 / 1) (#29)
    by kidneystones on Mon Jan 25, 2010 at 09:27:00 AM EST
    to a union. I had a different post written and deleted it. I've said it before: the problem is the top of the ticket. So have you. The only way I think things get better for Dems is to step up and admit they got duped just like the voters. The Obama agenda is corporate give away, pork, bush-lite fp, and crap.

    My guess is just admitting they've wasted the last year wins back some cred. Voters don't want to vote for the Republican, yet. But I'm sure they're sick of the whining, the finger-pointing and the boasting.

    Run against Obama and his sick, twisted agenda on union members and dems stand a fair chance of winning.

    I decided to indulge in a little over-the-top behavior myself. All done now.

    Parent

    I'm coming to the conclusion that (5.00 / 5) (#39)
    by Anne on Mon Jan 25, 2010 at 09:54:28 AM EST
    the only way to deal with this is to treat Obama as if he is a Republican, and stop trying to pretend that he is a Democrat - and then the arguments write themselves and it becomes clearer where the disconnect is; I see this as the grassroots strategy, because I don't see the DNC or the party poo-bahs throwing Obama over the side.  They are going to stick with their guy in the grand tradition of political insanity: doing the same thing over and over and expecting a different result.

    I would imagine that these are the same people who will be the most shocked and surprised at the November bloodbath that happens in spite of Obama going to the people and giving all those wonderful speeches.

    Party leadership and campaign advisors cannot make Obama into something he's not, and going back to pretty speeches isn't going to get anything done, even if it bumps his numbers up a bit.

    Parent

    Anne (5.00 / 1) (#40)
    by jbindc on Mon Jan 25, 2010 at 09:56:46 AM EST
    If they threw him over the side, it would just validate what the Republicans (and some indies and half the Democratic Party) said about him over the last 2 years.  They can't do that.

    Parent
    That's what I'm saying - they can't and (5.00 / 1) (#57)
    by Anne on Mon Jan 25, 2010 at 11:08:01 AM EST
    they won't abandon Obama; they will continue to protect the brand of the New Democrat, and their own investment in it, even as opposition to it grows and its effects result in significant electoral losses in 2010 - and maybe even into 2012.

    What I fear is that the re-emergence of Campaign Barack will crank up the media love machine, put the sparkles back in the eyes of the dispirited member of the OFB, and some little rise in poll numbers will stem the tide of actual work required to get things done, and be seen as a message that Obama's doing things just perfectly - no problems - keep ignoring those pesky liberals.

    Parent

    He's a transformational Republican, (5.00 / 2) (#42)
    by observed on Mon Jan 25, 2010 at 10:15:45 AM EST
    so it's ok.

    Parent
    OMG, that works (none / 0) (#41)
    by Militarytracy on Mon Jan 25, 2010 at 10:04:39 AM EST
    freakishly like a charm.

    Parent
    Don't forget Mass. voted twice for Reagan (none / 0) (#45)
    by gyrfalcon on Mon Jan 25, 2010 at 10:34:10 AM EST
    So it's not as earth-shattering as all that.

    Parent
    Reagan (none / 0) (#46)
    by jbindc on Mon Jan 25, 2010 at 10:35:09 AM EST
    Won 49 states.

    Parent
    And? (none / 0) (#65)
    by gyrfalcon on Mon Jan 25, 2010 at 12:52:30 PM EST
    Therefore what?

    Parent
    It's not like (none / 0) (#66)
    by jbindc on Mon Jan 25, 2010 at 01:02:52 PM EST
    Reagan had an upset in blue Massachusetts.  He won every state in 1984, and 44 states in 1980.  It was not the same thing as Scott Brown winning.

    Parent
    Every state (5.00 / 1) (#67)
    by jbindc on Mon Jan 25, 2010 at 01:03:07 PM EST
    but Minnesota

    Parent
    and the District of Columbia (none / 0) (#68)
    by DFLer on Mon Jan 25, 2010 at 06:46:44 PM EST
    As long as you agree with me . . . (none / 0) (#4)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Sun Jan 24, 2010 at 06:21:51 PM EST
    (Still chuckling.) (5.00 / 2) (#51)
    by oculus on Mon Jan 25, 2010 at 10:56:01 AM EST
    Spot on BTD (none / 0) (#5)
    by Andy08 on Sun Jan 24, 2010 at 06:53:22 PM EST
    You zoom in the corner stone of the 2010 elections. If HCR is passed, how the WH and Congress deals with the excise tax will greatly influence which way the midterm elections go. My 0.02.

     

    The excise tax is a bad idea. (5.00 / 2) (#13)
    by richj25 on Sun Jan 24, 2010 at 09:39:44 PM EST
    There are only two options for keeping it. Either
    make the union people pay it which will make them
    angry or give the unions a special deal which will
    make everyone else angry. Better just to get rid of
    it completely and find another way to raise the
    money.

    Parent
    NO KISS = a screwing. (none / 0) (#7)
    by seabos84 on Sun Jan 24, 2010 at 07:40:21 PM EST
    despite the fact that more Americans know more about Surviving Idol Colts Vikings this week than they know about any HCRap details,

    people KNOW that THE reasons this legislation is so complicated are:

    1. the big guys are gonna steal,
    2. we the peee-ons are gonna get ripped off and screwed.

    The legislation is complicated, the reasons the public isn't listening ain't complicated.

    Keep It Simple Stupid, make something work, or, people ain't gonna give you the time of day.

    rmm.

    Parent

    amen to KISS (5.00 / 1) (#69)
    by DFLer on Mon Jan 25, 2010 at 06:52:08 PM EST
    like the lady said at the "progressives" mtg here in town, re their 4 page mission statement. "People cleaning toilets for a living don't have time for this sh$$t"

    Parent
    WEll (none / 0) (#9)
    by Ga6thDem on Sun Jan 24, 2010 at 07:58:53 PM EST
    BTD you have to realize that the Obama administration and the Village Dems operate under the belief that "they have no where else to go."

    Weren't the Unions talking about (none / 0) (#12)
    by nycstray on Sun Jan 24, 2010 at 08:54:07 PM EST
    supporting a Green candidate in the south recently if the Dem didn't come around?

    If we could get some solid Green candidates and the Union went in that direction along with supporting real Dems, the party could be pulled back to the left.

    And yes, I'm a Dreamer . . .  

    Parent

    Maybe (none / 0) (#14)
    by Ga6thDem on Mon Jan 25, 2010 at 05:02:27 AM EST
    but I'm not aware of it.

    Parent
    It grieves me that this (none / 0) (#28)
    by JamesTX on Mon Jan 25, 2010 at 09:24:05 AM EST
    happened on one level, but there is always a silver lining. Having become familiar with Coakley's prosecution of the Amiraults, I can't help but get some satisfaction from the fact that she got hers. I am a Democrat above all, and it would really bother me that a person who would do this to people should sit in Kennedy's chair. It tarnishes his legacy. It goes against Democratic ideals. The editor has commented in that vein, and has noted Coakley would have had opportunities to author criminal justice legislation. There is a special place in hell for those who participated in those imaginary abuse prosecutions that became stylish during the backlash all over the country. It will continue to be one of our most shameful legacies since the witch trials. This sort of karma rationalization takes the edge off the hurt, so to speak, although it has nothing to do with why she lost. Sometimes justice just happens to happen. It is fitting that unions did her in. Maybe we do take care of our own, even when we don't aim to.

    Tarnishing the "Kennedy chair"? (5.00 / 1) (#30)
    by itscookin on Mon Jan 25, 2010 at 09:29:51 AM EST
    That attitude is what won Scott Brown the election.

    Parent
    I'm willing to conclude (5.00 / 1) (#33)
    by Salo on Mon Jan 25, 2010 at 09:34:24 AM EST
    That the excise tax did it. If she lost the union vote on a special election she had no chance.

    Parent
    Bingo (none / 0) (#37)
    by Wile ECoyote on Mon Jan 25, 2010 at 09:51:12 AM EST
    If it is Kennedy's chair, give it to the family, let them sit it in the corner and pile newspapers and coats on it, and buy a new one with unspent money from the stimulus.  

    Parent
    Come on! (5.00 / 1) (#38)
    by jbindc on Mon Jan 25, 2010 at 09:51:55 AM EST
    While I liked Ted Kennedy, please let's not paint him as angel who never did anything bad or horrible.  At least her big blunder was work-related (and oh, by the way, she didn't actually prosecute the original case).  Kennedy's was Chappaquidick, where a young woman died - so by your logic, did he "get his"?

    Parent
    The facts of (none / 0) (#71)
    by JamesTX on Fri Jan 29, 2010 at 09:12:05 PM EST
    Chappaquidick have been conditioned and spun over the years to fit the conservative view of Kennedy as a disgusting symbol of the left, who they naturally see as being a morally inferior and unremarkable criminal. As in most cases, when all the facts of Chappaquiddick are known and taken into account, and when the person interpreting those facts can dispense with biased assumptions and preconceived opinions that Kennedy was culpable to the point of murder, his behavior that night actually was not extraordinarily irresponsible or for that matter unusual. It is hard to say what anyone would have done under the circumstances. Once the conditions of the situation are accurately portrayed, it is clear that (a) he could not be sure she was in the car, and (b) if she was, she was already dead. Also, he had many people around him who were actually leading the show, just like any other person in his position would have. Kennedy's Chappaquidick accident was just that -- a tragic accident during which he may, under the stress of the situation, acted somewhat irresponsibly. That is much different -- much different -- than a sustained intentional effort to use prosecutorial discretion to destroy an innocent family by following the twisted and ludicrous logic of a form of popular hatred based in psychologically displaced aggression that had such a strong grip on popular attitudes at the time. A professional in jurisprudence should recognize the viciousness and injustice of such popular memes, the twisted and sick psychology they are based in (displaced group hatred striking out in response to real or imagined injustices perpetrated by people or classes of people who they cannot safely attack), and should not promote such causes and become part of them for personal and political gain.

    Parent
    Interesting (none / 0) (#44)
    by RickTaylor on Mon Jan 25, 2010 at 10:28:23 AM EST
    Interesting, I had no idea Coakley was connected to that. In that light it's a travesty she was the Democratic candidate, and not so surprising she lost.

    Parent
    If it were "Kennedy's Chair" (none / 0) (#50)
    by TeresaInSnow2 on Mon Jan 25, 2010 at 10:55:16 AM EST
    we'd live in a monarchy.

    Parent
    The possessive form (none / 0) (#70)
    by JamesTX on Fri Jan 29, 2010 at 08:44:33 PM EST
    is obviously figurative language, not literal. Kennedy is a long-standing symbolic hero for the left, the political philosophy I claim to identify with. I do see his chair as somewhat sacred. I realize those on the other side do not. They are still living in 1969 (about the time george w was getting busted for cocaine), and simply view Kennedy as an illegitimate artifact of liberal thinking, who "killed a woman", and who somehow slipped through the cracks of the "revolution". Kennedy's chair is a symbol of a place where good thinking survived the neo-conservative assault, and it is no wonder they hated him so much.

    Parent
    Interesting post at Open Left (none / 0) (#34)
    by sallywally on Mon Jan 25, 2010 at 09:42:34 AM EST
    about how Obama really is channeling Reagan without grasping what Reagsn was really doing. Quite d##ning. Reagan as the father figure. Obama can't see outside the Reagan box.  

    I don't sknow how to post links or I'd post it here.


    Making links (none / 0) (#47)
    by gyrfalcon on Mon Jan 25, 2010 at 10:42:37 AM EST
    Highlight a word or phrase in your comment, then click the little box with a sideways 8 in it on top of the comment box.  A link box will pop up.  Clear that box, then paste in the URL.

    Click "preview" on your comment and you can see whether you did it right before posting it.

    Go ahead and experiment a couple times to try it out.

    Parent

    on a related note (none / 0) (#63)
    by CST on Mon Jan 25, 2010 at 12:01:49 PM EST
    the union leadership in MA tried to express this point very clearly to John Kerry in the run-up to the election and his office was very non-responsive/dismissive.

    He did not seem concerned about losing the union vote in MA at all.  And he was a pretty big supporter of the excise tax.

    I would love to see Kerry lose a primary.  But he's not on the ballot for a while.

    Unfortunately, too many in the (none / 0) (#64)
    by MO Blue on Mon Jan 25, 2010 at 12:16:33 PM EST
    "New Democratic Party" are just as tone deaf as Kerry. There is such a thing as being too pole driven but currently many Dems seem to think it is good strategy to draft legislation that is completely opposite of what people want.

    Parent