Fighting For Something Is Better Politics Than Caving On Everything

By Big Tent Democrat, Section Other Politics
Posted on Tue Nov 09, 2010 at 12:25:01 PM EST
Tags: (all tags)

Share This: Digg!

This post by Matt Yglesias is really funny to me:

Looks like Republicans aren’t going to back down on their threat to filibuster a defense appropriations bill unless it’s stripped of Don’t Ask Don’t Tell repeal legislation, and it looks like Democrats are going to cave. [. . .] Filibustering defense appropriations bills is politically risky. And to do it in order to support a hugely unpopular position on a related issue is a giant risk. [. . .] But not only are [the GOP] getting away with the filibuster, they’re turning their obstruction into a political winner by forcing the progressive community into circular firing squad mode.

(Emphasis supplied.) This is amazing. It is a political winner, AS IT ALWAYS IS, because it fires up the GOP base AND let's the populace know that the GOP actually stands for something and will fight for what it believes.

This reminds me of the silly theories forwarded by Beltway Bloggers that George Bush was unpopular because he would not compromise. That is just plain stupid. George Bush was unpopular because his policies sucked. Not because he rammed them through. The stupidity in the Democratic Beltway is a constant. The embrace of the Post Partisan Unity Schtick by the Beltway Dems is why progressivism in the Democratic Party cannot triumph. We need new blood in the Beltway Dem Party.

Speaking for me only

< Tuesday Morning Open Thread | Tuesday Night Open Thread >

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.

Fighting For Something Is Better Politics Than Caving On Everything | 56 comments (56 topical)

Readers Must Login or Create an Account to Comment

Man, next to populist, progressive (5.00 / 1) (#3)
by tigercourse on Tue Nov 09, 2010 at 12:52:16 PM EST

has become my least favorite term.

"What kind of progress have you achieved?"

"Well, we got a mild healthcare reform bill passed, noting Republicans wouldn't have supported a couple decades ago. Of course, that will all be destroyed over the next few months..."

"What else?"

"Well, we pulled out of Iraq, mostly?"

"And?"

"We continued losing in Afghanistan."

"And?!"

"There was this thing about the economy... we'll get around to that pretty soon let me tell you"

...

I'm going to start calling myself a "No worsive"

Here's one (5.00 / 1) (#21)
by Big Tent Democrat on Tue Nov 09, 2010 at 02:48:00 PM EST

Repealing DADT is progressive.

Is that too effing hard for you to understand?


What? They didn't repeal DADT. (5.00 / 2) (#27)
by tigercourse on Tue Nov 09, 2010 at 03:25:25 PM EST

: LOL (none / 0) (#51)
by NYShooter on Tue Nov 09, 2010 at 07:19:12 PM EST

and I'm sure BTD's comment was purely<snark>

Bush was VERY popular because (5.00 / 2) (#4)
by inclusiveheart on Tue Nov 09, 2010 at 01:02:53 PM EST

he was so uncompromising and defiant as I remember.

It was only when people started to see how devastating his policies were that he began to lose popularity.

Katrina what the event that broke the spell. After that people started to look critically at his actions rather than just accepting that his strength and bravado were good indicators of the quality of his governance. He had an excellent run for quite a while.

Obama could have had that and more if he had opted for taking a strong position as a leader.

Obama is not a leader. (5.00 / 2) (#8)
by oldpro on Tue Nov 09, 2010 at 01:18:03 PM EST

He's a talker who can't hold a candle to Bill Clinton's clarity on any issue. He reads well, though.


: I dunno... (5.00 / 2) (#12)
by inclusiveheart on Tue Nov 09, 2010 at 01:24:54 PM EST

He could have read better speeches. Seriously.
Remember that Clinton did not come in on a wave of hopeful political re-awakening. Clinton needed the skills that he had just to survive. Obama just needed better strategy and more clarity about real objectives and goals. People would have followed him anywhere for a time there. But he didn't take them anywhere. If anything, he spent his time telling people why staying put, not moving or taking only teeny, tiny baby steps was the only way to operate.
People are not only attracted to strength, they are also quite often taken by movement - it is the instinctive side of our being that drives us to move forward - and equally instinctive, I think, is the impatience with those who drag us down or impede our progress.
So much of how politics plays out is just about human nature. So many in the Democratic Elite really understand the basics of human nature in this era.

He was Old West Cowboy (5.00 / 1) (#13)
by Militarytracy on Tue Nov 09, 2010 at 01:25:27 PM EST

He was righteous law and order birthed right out of New Haven.


: Americans always make the mistake (none / 0) (#16)
by inclusiveheart on Tue Nov 09, 2010 at 01:39:42 PM EST

of not understanding that at the end of the day pretty much all politicians are poseurs. It is worse now, too, in this era of celebrity worship.

not only that (5.00 / 3) (#23)
by Capt Howdy on Tue Nov 09, 2010 at 03:06:53 PM EST

he was appointed by the SC with no mandate whatsoever and came to town acting like he had won a 50 state landslide.

unlike the pathetic democrats the republicans have always understood that acting like you are in charge is all that is necessary.

democrats cant do this because it offends the delicate sensibilities of the marshmallow democrats


: contrast that (none / 0) (#24)
by Capt Howdy on Tue Nov 09, 2010 at 03:08:18 PM EST

and its success or failure to Obamas mewling post partisan BS

So, I guess this is how it all works: (5.00 / 4) (#5)
by Anne on Tue Nov 09, 2010 at 01:06:18 PM EST

Dems put DADT repeal into a defense bill because they believe Republicans would never sacrifice the security of the country by not passing it. The GOP calls that bluff, threatening to filibuster the bill if DADT repeal isn't stripped out, knowing that if the Dems call their bluff, they can just make noise about how the Dems are willing to put the security of the country and our brave men and women at risk for their uber-liberal amendment repealing DADT. The Dems, not wanting to be once again declared "soft on national security and weak on defense" will, of course, fold like a cheap lawn chair, and figure it will be easier to placate the gay community and rights advocates - again - than be considered anti-military.

Heaven forfend that the Dems would go on offense, take the GOP by the throat and say, "Sure - go ahead and let the bill die because your anti-gay agenda is more important than making sure the military has what it needs to keep operating."

Dems could not strategize their way out of a paper bag, and true to form, now that it looks like the Dems will cave, Obama is letting it be known that he doesn't think DADT repeal should come out of the bill - not that he has threatened to veto it if it does, of course, because that would mean actually having to walk the walk he's been talking about.

Jesus, these people make me tired.

To have a strategy and the tactics (5.00 / 6) (#9)
by oldpro on Tue Nov 09, 2010 at 01:20:52 PM EST

to implement it, you have to know who you are and what you think...and why.

Democrats have lost that. Seriously.


Easy solution (5.00 / 3) (#22)
by gyrfalcon on Tue Nov 09, 2010 at 03:04:19 PM EST

Let's just have a nice upperdown vote on DADT repeal and then we'll know who's who about what. I think that would be worth knowing, don't you?


Oh, perish the thought of having to (5.00 / 1) (#28)
by Anne on Tue Nov 09, 2010 at 03:31:00 PM EST

find the courage to go on the record!

If I thought they would pass repeal behind cover of a voice vote, I would suggest that, but it would probably get bungled and end up being defeated.

I swear, the Congress seems more and more like Ringling Brothers every day; maybe we should send them some clown noses and fright wigs to wear on the days they're not leaving manure all over the place to be cleaned up.


: Didn't anyone (none / 0) (#52)
by NYShooter on Tue Nov 09, 2010 at 07:23:40 PM EST

in the Democrat's caucus bring up, "but what if they call our bluff?"
Every time I say to myself, "they can't get any stupider....."

I'm repeatedly told... (5.00 / 1) (#38)
by kdog on Tue Nov 09, 2010 at 04:57:04 PM EST

that's not how sausage gets made.

You gotta sneak and hide legislation amongst unrelated legislation for reasons I'll never understand.


Sheesh. (5.00 / 3) (#6)
by shoephone on Tue Nov 09, 2010 at 01:13:56 PM EST

Another edition proving that liberal blogger boyz simply do not get it, and never will. Americans respond favorably to active, even aggressive, emotional arguments that can be delivered in ten words or less. Americans respond negatively to nose-in-the-air intellectual posturing that takes more than a soundbite to explain. It's just the way it is. The right understands this and operates accordingly, the left does not.

The right understands that Might (5.00 / 1) (#11)
by Militarytracy on Tue Nov 09, 2010 at 01:22:27 PM EST

rules Bright :)


And also proving once again that Dems (5.00 / 4) (#15)
by Anne on Tue Nov 09, 2010 at 01:35:21 PM EST

are more worried about their own power than they are about doing the right thing for the people they represent; seems more and more that if you aren't a straight, white male over 40, your interests are negotiable and expendable in service to political power.

Yeah, I'm sure that's what the founding fathers had in mind, huh?

I keep remembering Obama's declaration that we couldn't' have single-payer because it wasn't uniquely American enough; with DADT, we have another example of a "uniquely American" policy, one that is repressive in its denial of full rights for citizens who wish to serve their country.

Lately, this concept of "uniquely American" describes, more and more, policies and standards that limit and repress; not something I think the "greatest democracy in the world" should be aspiring to, but then again, we've been in the business of "do as I say, not as I do" for some time now.


As for the (5.00 / 2) (#19)
by Zorba on Tue Nov 09, 2010 at 02:41:47 PM EST

"uniquely American" bit, which also goes along with the whole "we're the best country anywhere and whatever we do is the greatest!" meme, it never ceases to amaze me how ignorant so many Americans are about what goes on in the rest of the world, and how some countries actually do, in fact, do many things better than we do. In my travels in western Europe, I've always been impressed with how sophisticated the people I've run into are, how knowledgeable about, not only their own country, but ours (in many cases, more knowledgeable about the United States than many citizens here that I speak to). Granted, I've only run into a limited sampling, in a few countries (France, Sweden, the Netherlands, Germany, Austria, Spain), so it's hardly representative. I do wonder, though, if a foreign traveler here, striking up a conversation with an American he or she might meet in a restaurant, museum, coffee house, etc, would find as many Americans as savvy about world politics as they seem to be. (It also helps that so many Europeans are bi- or multi-lingual and speak English; my French and Spanish are barely passable- I can get along in them, but not to have complicated conversations.)


"Only in America!" (5.00 / 2) (#25)
by gyrfalcon on Tue Nov 09, 2010 at 03:08:37 PM EST

Drives me right around the bend.

I got into a terrible argument once with a friend's father who was very proud of his Rotary Club membership and activities and proudly informed me that only in America did such a thing exist.

Imagine, some of these people think folks in other countries don't band together in business clubs to do charitable work.

Then there was the noxious often repeated idea that "only in America" could somebody like Bill Clinton, from a lower middle class family become the head of state, despite literally hundreds of examples in countries all over the world.


"Only in America"? (5.00 / 0) (#37)
by the capstan on Tue Nov 09, 2010 at 04:54:48 PM EST

"Rotary International is an organization of service clubs known as Rotary Clubs located all over the world." A TN. chapter of Rotary International sponsored an early school program for special needs kids in the 60's.

Someone's pa was a tad ignorant.


: You bet (none / 0) (#54)
by gyrfalcon on Wed Nov 10, 2010 at 01:16:29 AM EST

But he was totally wedded to this idea of "only in America." Needless to say, this otherwise very kind and nice old man was a lifelong Republican.
Everything he was really proud of had to be "only in America." He would have really been crushed if he had ever realized how many of those things aren't even remotely unique to America.

I know what you mean, gyrfalcon (none / 0) (#32)
by Zorba on Tue Nov 09, 2010 at 04:17:56 PM EST

They need to open their minds a bit, and take a look around. One thing that you might point out to anyone like your friend's father is the number of countries (some of whom we would consider "Second World" or even "Third World" countries) who have, or have had, female heads of government and/or heads of state.


Unpopular with who? (5.00 / 1) (#18)
by huzzlewhat on Tue Nov 09, 2010 at 02:22:34 PM EST

I think Bush was unpopular with inside-the-Beltway Dems (both in government and commentators) because he locked them out and wouldn't compromise -- that's where it impacted them and their jobs and their day-to-day lives. He was unpopular with people outside the beltway because his policies sucked. The Beltway Blinders are at work here; they're assuming that everyone else's reasons for hating Bush were the same as theirs.

Even SecDef Gates is for it! (5.00 / 1) (#20)
by PatHat on Tue Nov 09, 2010 at 02:45:41 PM EST

And the Dems can't even use THAT for cover? WTF is going on??

: That's because (none / 0) (#53)
by NYShooter on Tue Nov 09, 2010 at 07:31:49 PM EST

When the Dems say, "we want to extend Constitutional rights to ALL our citizens,"
The R's know the swing voters only hear, "the queers are taking over everything."

Proactive vs. Reactive (5.00 / 1) (#26)
by Dadler on Tue Nov 09, 2010 at 03:22:42 PM EST

Ironically, when it comes to current American policitcs, the Dems are the reactive wing of the corporate party, while the Repubs are the proactive wing of the corporate party. Same result, slightly different road into the fat wallets of the masters of the universe. And the Dem reluctance to go to the wall to repeal DADT, well, just more of the same in different forms.

That said, if any Dem had any sense, they'd realize the way to beat Republicans is to talk PAST them, str8 to the people, with clear and reasoned and passionate policies and future vision for the nation.

And humor never hurts. Ever.

Time for a new party. The Art Party. I like the sound of it.

If you start talking to the people though (5.00 / 2) (#29)
by Militarytracy on Tue Nov 09, 2010 at 04:10:05 PM EST

and allowing what they think to matter, who is going to give you the big bucks?


If you start talking to the people though (none / 0) (#30)
by Militarytracy on Tue Nov 09, 2010 at 04:10:15 PM EST

: If they were good at it... (none / 0) (#39)
by Dadler on Tue Nov 09, 2010 at 05:02:18 PM EST

...money wouldn't matter. If every nobody on the planet can go viral on YouTube, I still think a political party (new or old) with brass tits/balls, and heavy doses of progressive American creativity and humor, can overcome Mark Twain's lament that a lie can make its way halfway around the world while the truth is still putting on its shoes. Right now, however, I must admit, the people's truth is having a hard time even FINDING its shoes.

No truer words (5.00 / 1) (#55)
by Bornagaindem on Wed Nov 10, 2010 at 08:03:19 AM EST

Obama and the dems would not have lost the midterm election so badly or even at all if they had stood up for ANY conviction. But of course they have to have one and obama has only one cause - his own.

Even the lousy healthcare bill made them look weak because they waffled and constantly tried to find common ground and gave in at every stage. That is why the american people can't see any good in the bill because even the authors of the bill can only whine that is has some good things in it. Had we had a leader as president he/she could have hammered home every day american business is weighed down and not competitive because we have an outrageously expensive and outmoded healthcare system and we are going to fix that. And the problem is the insurance companies feeding off of your misery and adding no value. Even now the dems let slide by the nonsense that the repugs are touting that the bill cuts medicare without screaming bloody murder that it is the medicare advantage system they are cutting - a program that was a boondoogle to the big insurance and the perfect example of wasteful spending.

Amen (none / 0) (#1)
by Ga6thDem on Tue Nov 09, 2010 at 12:30:36 PM EST

to this:

George Bush was unpopular because he would not compromise. That is just plain stupid. George Bush was unpopular because his policies sucked.

Hmm (none / 0) (#2)
by lilburro on Tue Nov 09, 2010 at 12:36:53 PM EST

I would say that a majority of people may support the repeal of DADT but they don't necessarily care that it happens right now or would be willing to buy into arguments that it can't happen right now. Also I find it odd that self-proclaimed liberals support repealing DADT less than they did in 2004. What's up with that?? Are they saying that because they think it would hurt Obama?

McConnell is not going up against the "progressive community." He is going up against fellow Senators and the White House. And the Secretary of Defense! So how this gets pinned on the progressive community at large is beyond my understanding.

IMO the Dems have not and will not (5.00 / 3) (#7)
by MO Blue on Tue Nov 09, 2010 at 01:17:35 PM EST

take a firm stand on DADT. Someone might say mean things about them.

What they would prefer is if the community would just continue to vote, donate money and work for electing Dems just because they say they are "fierce advocates" for LGBT objectives.

This strategy worked so well to date they have little incentive to actually push the issue beyond words.

During the campaign season for the 2012 elections the Dems will once again be fierce advocates for the community. Of course the advocacy may have to be put on hold for latter in the campaign if for any reason Obama needs McClurkin to do a concert for him.


You do realize that the House passed the DADT (2.00 / 1) (#33)
by Farmboy on Tue Nov 09, 2010 at 04:20:48 PM EST

repeal, right? And you realize that the president supports the repeal, right? And you also realize that in both previous attempts to bring the bill to the Senate floor every Dem in the Senate voted Yea, right?

So when you say with complete knowledge and authority that "Dems have not and will not take a firm stand on DADT," which Dems is it to which you are referring?


I realize that the president has said (5.00 / 3) (#36)
by MO Blue on Tue Nov 09, 2010 at 04:53:24 PM EST

that he is a fierce advocate. I also realize that no action was taken when the Dems had a 60 seat majority in the Senate. I also realize that the Dems chose to conduct a study that by design would not be completed until after the Nov. elections. Everyone was aware that the Dems position could be weaker then and the fact that the Dem study was not completed was used as an excuse not to finalize the legislation. Top Dems in the Senate are negotiating stripping DADT repeal from the defense appropriations bill because the Republicans have threatened to filibuster it. The fact that the Dems will cave is what this entire post is all about.

Obama has had every opportunity to stop people from being dismissed under this policy until the issue was resolved by Congress and he has chosen not to do so. Obama has had numerous opportunities to chose not to appeal court decisions that ruled that DADT was unconstitutional and he has chosen to fight the rulings. In fact, Obama refuses to state that he even thinks that DADT is unconstitutional

Talk is cheap and actions talk. No way has this been a priority for Obama or the Dems.


You're moving the goalposts a bit here (2.00 / 1) (#44)
by Farmboy on Tue Nov 09, 2010 at 05:28:58 PM EST

You didn't say this hasn't been a priority for the Dems in your previous post. And it probably hasn't been, 'cause if it had been a priority for at least some Dems, they might have done something about it like, oh, pass DADT repeal in the House and try twice in the Senate.

No, you stated that no Dems will stand to repeal DADT. That's no Dems, as in none. Zip. Zilch. Nada.


You're erecting new/fake goalposts (5.00 / 3) (#45)
by Yman on Tue Nov 09, 2010 at 05:52:28 PM EST

you stated that no Dems will stand to repeal DADT. That's no Dems, as in none. Zip. Zilch. Nada.

Read it again. MO blue never said "no Dems will stand up to repeal DADT". He/she said "IMO the Dems have not and will not take a firm stand on DADT."

As in, the Dems (as a group) being willing to leave a DADT amendment in the defense appropriations bill and stand up to a GOP filibuster. Or Obama being willing to do more than talk about being a "fierce advocate" and issue an EO putting an immediate halt to all gay discharges.

See the difference?

Maybe MO Blue had something else in mind, but he certainly didn't "move any goalposts" by making the ridiculous claim that "no Dems will stand to repeal DADT".


Didn't have something else in mind (none / 0) (#47)
by MO Blue on Tue Nov 09, 2010 at 06:03:41 PM EST

I was discussing the Dems as a group. IMO it will be like everything else because even if some Dems are willing to vote for repeal of DADT, the Dems won't even threaten to filibuster a bill without it.


: Unfortunately, I agree (5.00 / 1) (#50)
by Yman on Tue Nov 09, 2010 at 06:36:38 PM EST

The window for passing repeal has closed, despite the fact that there is overwhelming public support for repealing the ban.
Turns out a "fierce advocate" means "fierce surveyor".

They are ready to cave in one more time on (5.00 / 1) (#46)
by MO Blue on Tue Nov 09, 2010 at 05:55:18 PM EST

this issue by stripping the repeal of DADT out of the legislation. If that is standing firm or even standing up for the issue, then your idea of what is standing up on an issue is a whole lot different than mine.


The Senate Ds voted in lock step for (5.00 / 1) (#40)
by BTAL on Tue Nov 09, 2010 at 05:13:46 PM EST

the 2011 Defense Appropriations bill with the DADT amendment? The vote was 56-43 on Sep. 21st.

When did the Dems drop to only 56 Senators? The only exception I can think of is Reid voting No so that he could reintroduce.


A FIRM stand (5.00 / 1) (#41)
by Yman on Tue Nov 09, 2010 at 05:14:54 PM EST

As in, not backing down when Republicans filibuster a defense appropriations bill to which a repeal of DADT is attached. Or, saaaaay ..... using their authority as C-in-C to end gay discharges with an executive order until they get a vote on a repeal.

Those Dems.


God I know (none / 0) (#10)
by Militarytracy on Tue Nov 09, 2010 at 01:21:11 PM EST

If nothing else Bush got senseless macho pts for ramming horrible policies through. The stuff was so unbelieveably terrible, but still some people were impressed everytime they rammed something through because they did it like hellbent professionals......until the horrible runneth over and you couldn't afford to be impressed anymore. Had BushCo been less fervent though and only attempted to push that crap through, he would have been a whole lot less liked a whole lot sooner!

New blood? (none / 0) (#14)
by magster on Tue Nov 09, 2010 at 01:32:36 PM EST

Congressman Llorens?

Obama/Dems should lead on this (none / 0) (#17)
by vicndabx on Tue Nov 09, 2010 at 01:53:22 PM EST

just like what was done on the supposed "Ground Zero Mosque."

Particularly since public opinion is not against it. Those that are fighting have no argument if the military is ready to move on.

Just read Bob Herbert (none / 0) (#31)
by oculus on Tue Nov 09, 2010 at 04:16:25 PM EST

in today's NYT and sd.to myself, how come he gets it and makes so much sense but ....

Has andgardenm for whose (none / 0) (#34)
by oculus on Tue Nov 09, 2010 at 04:37:44 PM EST

opinion I have the utmost respect, definitively stated whether the President may vitiate DADT solely by executive order?

PS. Academic psychologist sd. He did not support Obama in the primaries as the former knew Obama's "type," i.e., let's see how we can work together to a common resolution.

Just found this on (5.00 / 0) (#35)
by shoephone on Tue Nov 09, 2010 at 04:47:19 PM EST

Center for American Progress site. Have no idea if it is 100% accurate, but they list this as the first of five options for overturning DADT:

Signing an Executive Order banning further military separations based on DADT and sending a legislative proposal on DADT repeal to Congress

: I believe that (none / 0) (#42)
by Zorba on Tue Nov 09, 2010 at 05:15:41 PM EST

Obama could have indeed issued an executive stop-loss order, as Commander in Chief, to ban further discharges of gays from the military. Of course, unless either the legislature repeals DADT or the Supreme Court finds it unconstitutional, the next President could always issue a different order.

: An EO stopping discharges only could make (none / 0) (#43)
by BTAL on Tue Nov 09, 2010 at 05:18:02 PM EST

some folk's lives truly a living hell. Indefinite limbo status in some places a non-friendly/hostile environment.

so, so true (none / 0) (#48)
by desmoinesdem on Tue Nov 09, 2010 at 06:10:40 PM EST

George Bush was unpopular because his policies sucked. Not because he rammed them through.

If his policies had worked out well for middle-class Americans, he would have realigned politics toward the GOP for a generation. Unbelievable missed opportunity for Republicans after 9/11.

: Yeah (none / 0) (#49)
by Ga6thDem on Tue Nov 09, 2010 at 06:27:22 PM EST

but that's what you get when you nominate someone with a boulder on their shoulder who's only agenda is imagined slights against his family.

Ask any Democrat and you;ll get (none / 0) (#56)
by BobTinKY on Wed Nov 10, 2010 at 09:45:30 AM EST

one of 1800 different reasons why they vote Dem. Gay rights, criminal justice, end the wars, more government social programs, support social security, health care, education, and on and on.

Ask a Republican and there is only one reason for existence, we need to help rich people get richer. DADT, abortion, wars etc, thoese are just tactics to divide the enemy & advance their one and only agenda. The rich must have more.

That is why the GOP is so steadfast and uncompromising. They all know what they want and what they have been put in office to obtain.