home

Who Will Intelligently Critique The Dems?

By Big Tent Democrat, Section Other Politics
Posted on Sun Apr 25, 2010 at 11:58:17 AM EST
Tags: (all tags)
Share This: Digg! StumbleUpon del.icio.us reddit reddit
Can anyone deny that the most trenchant and effective criticism of President Obama today comes not from the right but from the left? - Marc Ambinder

This one has been making the rounds from some fairly ironic quarters (see, e.g., here.) And Ambinder's line "Ezra Klein and Jonathan Cohn's keepin'-them-honest perspectives on health care[,]" come on.

Anyway, I'm sort of switching to election mode about now, which means looking hard at the alternative, as I imagine will a lot of folks. So there may be a paucity of "trenchant and effective criticism" of Dems until after November. We'll see.

Speaking for me only

< Sunday Morning Open Thread: Boycott Arizona! | Welcome To Politics >

  • The Online Magazine with Liberal coverage of crime-related political and injustice news

  • Contribute To TalkLeft


    • Display: Sort:
    Who Will Intelligently Critique The Dems? | 32 comments (32 topical)

    Readers Must Login or Create an Account to Comment

    Oh Good (5.00 / 2) (#2)
    by hookfan on Sun Apr 25, 2010 at 12:07:38 PM EST
    You're going Green. =). Or did I misunderstand and thought you meant a real alternative to the two corporatist parties?

    The interesting thing (5.00 / 2) (#10)
    by jbindc on Sun Apr 25, 2010 at 02:20:27 PM EST
    Is that there is a very real possibility that the Dems could lose the Senate Majority Leader's seat, the Vice President's former seat, and the President's former seat all in the same year.

    Surely you made a mistake when you wrote: (3.66 / 3) (#3)
    by szielinski on Sun Apr 25, 2010 at 12:18:02 PM EST
    Anyway, I'm sort of switching to election mode about now, which means looking hard at the alternative, as I imagine will a lot of folks. So there may be a paucity of "trenchant and effective criticism" of Dems until after November. We'll see.

    The passage makes much more sense if one substitutes "an extravagant amount" for "a paucity". After all, it's only when they hit the campaign trail that the Democrats listen to their constituents and popular interests. So, now is the time to put the screws to them.

    They better listen quickly (5.00 / 2) (#4)
    by jbindc on Sun Apr 25, 2010 at 12:23:07 PM EST
    According to the NYT And MSNBC (sorry, no link):

    "Representative David R. Obey has won 21 straight races, easily prevailing through wars and economic crises that have spanned presidencies from Nixon's to Obama's. Yet the discontent with Washington surging through politics is now threatening not only his seat but also Democratic control of Congress.

    Mr. Obey is one of nearly a dozen well-established House Democrats who are bracing for something they rarely face: serious competition. Their predicament is the latest sign of distress for their party and underlines why Republicans are confident of making big gains in November and perhaps even winning back the House.

    The fight for the midterm elections is not confined to traditional battlegrounds, where Republicans and Democrats often swap seats every few cycles. In the Senate, Democrats are struggling to hold on to, among others, seats once held by President Obama and Vice President Joseph R. Biden Jr. Democrats are preparing to lose as many as 30 House seats -- including a wave of first-term members -- and Republicans have expanded their sights to places where political challenges seldom develop."

    Parent

    Btw, a link to Obey's opposition (5.00 / 2) (#8)
    by Cream City on Sun Apr 25, 2010 at 01:47:58 PM EST
    website.  The opponent is under 40, born after Obey first went to Congress.  Obey is over 70 now, and increasingly curmudgeonly toward his constituents, as seen in encounters widely seen on Youtube.  More important in his state is that, as the NYT notes, Obey is said to not be seen much in his district -- nor even campaign signs.

    I was just reminded this week, on Earth Day, of the sad end of a distinguished public service career for its founder, Gaylord Nelson.  It was a shameful end, as Wisconsin ran him out for not being home enough -- and put in his place a horrible GOP'er, then replaced by Feingold.  And thus the rationale behind Feingold's legendary visit to every one of the 72 counties in the state, every year.  But even that may not help him, Obey, and others in this horrible economic climate -- as although the country is gaining jobs, Wisconsin still is losing them.

    The inaction of Congress and the White House on jobs, the inanity of the "jobless recovery," could be a killer here.  It will be interesting to see the reaction tomorrow to a visit by Biden and Geithner.  I expect that they will be booed.

    Parent

    "as many as 30" I think that's way too (5.00 / 1) (#13)
    by tigercourse on Sun Apr 25, 2010 at 03:35:10 PM EST
    optimistic. I've been going through the races as listed on the wikipedia page. There are about 45 Democrats in the House who represent districts with a Republican partisan advantage. Most of them will lose those seats. And there are Democratic leaning districts where polls show the Republcian having the advantage. My examination of the races lead me to conclude that somewhere between 45 on the low end and 55 on the high end would be lost. We have only 1 certain win (a Louisiana seat) and countless losses coming.

    We are set to lose 7 or 8 Senate seats and our Governors are about to get creamed (though we likely will get California back).

    Parent

    Don't count con California. (none / 0) (#14)
    by mexboy on Sun Apr 25, 2010 at 03:41:12 PM EST
    Meg Whitman will most likely win.

    Parent
    The latest poll had Brown with (5.00 / 1) (#15)
    by tigercourse on Sun Apr 25, 2010 at 03:48:14 PM EST
    a 6 point lead on her. He's a statewide elected official, it's a Democratic state and Arnold is unpopular. I think Brown will manage to win this one. But Ohio, Pennsylvania, Michigan, etc. are all basically lost to us.


    Parent
    We'll see... (none / 0) (#20)
    by mexboy on Sun Apr 25, 2010 at 06:22:20 PM EST
    The economy is bad and she comes from a very successful business background with Ebay. She also has a billion dollar fortune to tap into.

    I just finished watching an infomercial "town hall meeting" for her. She is an impressive rival and cannot be discounted.

    Parent

    Let me ask (4.00 / 2) (#5)
    by christinep on Sun Apr 25, 2010 at 12:33:08 PM EST
    While I doubt that Democrats will lose the House when the process moves from shadow-boxing to "here's the face & sound of the opposition," perhaps it would be useful for some to start examining what a couple of years with Republicans would mean this time? On a daily level, what do you think it would look like, jbindc? (Getting a clear picture of the alternative is important. E.g., which Republican leaders would we expect to do anything that might improve or better the lot of most here?)

    Parent
    I think (5.00 / 1) (#6)
    by jbindc on Sun Apr 25, 2010 at 01:02:15 PM EST
    Obama would secretly be ok with it and on a daily basis, not much would get done, since it is highly unlikely that the Senate will flip.  Since nothing will get done, the WH can use that and say "See, we're the ones that are trying to do stuff but the big, bad Republicans are stopping us!". Perfect for the set up to the 2012 election.

    That being said, I think there's a very real chance the Dems could lose the House.  We have a long way to go, of course, but if the economy is still as bad as it is now, the Dems are in for a rough ride.  The mood of the country is very anti-incumbent, an since the Dems are the incumbent majority....well, you do the math.

    Parent

    Best to ask Obey's state (5.00 / 2) (#7)
    by Cream City on Sun Apr 25, 2010 at 01:37:52 PM EST
    which, of course, is the birthplace of the Republican Party.  It always has been especially strong upstate, his area.  

    In his district and some others, it looks like the Obeys (count out Kagen, too, and even Feingold is could be facing his first tough competition with the opponent announcing Monday) were the aberrations.  The voters are heading home to the GOP, understandably -- emotionally, not politically or logically -- in their shell-shock in one of the economically hardest-hit states, but always a conservative state outside of its few largest cities.

    Parent

    It's time to stop the race to the bottom, (5.00 / 13) (#9)
    by Anne on Sun Apr 25, 2010 at 02:05:38 PM EST
    which is where we find ourselves when our metric is, "the other guys are worse."  

    There will always be someone worse, but when do we start raising the bar for ourselves, and stop settling for someone or some party that is marginally better then the other?

    As long as we are content to let mediocrity rule the day, I don't think it matters a whole lot who's in charge.  Four years after taking back Congress and almost a year and a half since we took back the WH, how much better are things?  And how much longer do we have to wait and how much larger must the majority be before we see the kinds of changes in policy we were urged to vote for Democrats to get?

    I, personally, am not buying the "better than a sharp stick in the eye" metric; either they do better, are better, work like lives depend on it, or they don't deserve my vote.

    Parent

    Indeed, (5.00 / 3) (#12)
    by Zorba on Sun Apr 25, 2010 at 03:21:03 PM EST
    and thank you, Anne.  I'm sure I'm not the only one who is sick and tired of voting for the "least bad" candidate.  I am always reminded of an old George Carlin riff on American voters and American politicians:

    Well, where do people think these politicians come from? They don't fall out of the sky. They don't pass through a membrane from another reality. They come from American parents and American families, American homes, American schools, American churches, American businesses and American universities, and they are elected by American citizens. This is the best we can do folks. This is what we have to offer. It's what our system produces: Garbage in, garbage out. If you have selfish, ignorant citizens, you're going to get selfish, ignorant leaders. Term limits ain't going to do any good; you're just going to end up with a brand new bunch of selfish, ignorant Americans. So, maybe, maybe, maybe, it's not the politicians who suck. Maybe something else sucks around here... like, the public.

    If only more people felt as you (and I, and many others here) do, maybe we could get past the "Garbage in, garbage out" metric.  How do we truly educate the American voter?  Better voters mean better elected officials.

    Parent

    And what goes unsaid... (5.00 / 2) (#16)
    by oldpro on Sun Apr 25, 2010 at 04:19:58 PM EST
    better people need to run for office, get experience in the political process and enable other good people.

    Short version:  more women need to get with the program.

    Parent

    Given the cesspool (5.00 / 4) (#17)
    by Spamlet on Sun Apr 25, 2010 at 04:29:07 PM EST
    that is our brave "free" media, too often the only people willing to run for office are narcissists and sociopaths who are either incapable of embarrassment or willing to endure nonstop tabloid assault in exchange for political power. And maybe I missed something, but it's hard for me to see how the media climate around women's candidacies, Democratic or Republican, has done anything but deteriorate over the past couple of years, much less encourage more women to run.

    Parent
    Spamlet, this is unfortunately (5.00 / 1) (#18)
    by Zorba on Sun Apr 25, 2010 at 04:44:13 PM EST
    only too true.  "Narcissists and sociopaths."  With perhaps a dollop of the absolutely nuts "true believers."  And the cynical greed-heads who figure they've got it financially made for life if they get into politics for awhile and then work for K Street.  As for women candidates, I'm not encouraged by such women candidates as Sarah Palin and Michele Bachmann.  The media does not help any of this.  They tend to play to the lowest common denominator.  

    Parent
    Particularly discouraging is the fact that (5.00 / 3) (#21)
    by tigercourse on Sun Apr 25, 2010 at 06:57:26 PM EST
    no women other then Bachmann or Palin (neither of whom has a shot at the Presidency though) has even stepped forward in a public way. Pelosi will be out of the Speakership soon. There are only a handful of female Governors and the numbers are likely to decrease.  Women in political power in the United States are at this point moving backwards rather then forwards.

    Parent
    Sigh...well, I'm talking local politics (5.00 / 2) (#22)
    by oldpro on Sun Apr 25, 2010 at 07:17:58 PM EST
    building a farm team, moving on to state politics, then maybe national...or not...

    Our recruitment and training is pathetic...and you can't get to the top of the mountain without lots of experience...as Palin proves.

    Parent

    The "least bad" concept (5.00 / 1) (#19)
    by christinep on Sun Apr 25, 2010 at 05:54:59 PM EST
    My earlier comment about who would be the actual Republicans that would lead stands, with this note: I agree fully with the frustration of those who have about had it with "settling" and feeling trapped in situations with the two major parties. We all know the feeling of that kind of "least bad" choice over the years...a dilemma that produces either anger or lethargy in many voters. That's legitimate. Of course. But, again--and, in the spirit of moving eventually to a resolution--is it possible to chart this out or list out what happens in the way of votes with one candidate vs another, etc.? My other comments over the months would clearly indicate that I will "settle" as an old-fashioned Democratic liberal before a number of the commenters here. My belief is that both positions have legitimacy; but, the real question will soon become something beyond what constitutes settling. It will become: What one or two or three votes will it take for various commenters to say: I will vote for this party, that party, none of the above, or sit at home--and, do that knowing the consequences. BTW, I never buy the someone-secretly-wants-to-do-something argument because, to me, assuming secrets is a losing proposition.

    Parent
    The US Congress comprises 535 members, (5.00 / 2) (#26)
    by Anne on Mon Apr 26, 2010 at 09:35:39 AM EST
    and it is impossible to predict with any accuracy how swapping this Republican for that Democrat will change things, and I actually think trying to make those predictions is about as productive as discussing how many angels can dance on the head of a pin: it's academically interesting, but pretty much a waste of time.

    I guess the problem I am having with your comment - and one I often have with your comments, in general - is that I am less interested in coming to terms with my emotions -frustration and anger and disappointment and disgust - or in having those feelings and opinions validated , than I am in getting those who represent us to be the kinds of legislators and leaders we expect and deserve.  That I am right to feel the way I do is meaningless if what it is I am upset or angry about doesn't change.  I'm not interested in accepting and coming to terms with mediocrity.

    How many opportunities have the Democrats had since 2006 to distinguish themselves as true champions of the Democratic platform?  And how many times have they disappointed?  How many times have they tried to placate us with "this was the best we could do?"  How many times did they take important issues off the table?  How much of this is the result of continuing to reward these underperformers with votes?

    Would a Congress that adds Republican seats be harder for Obama to work with?  Not that I can see.  No, they are not likely to accept or support much that comes from Democrats, but that's not going to temper Obama's obsession with pleasing them, and those whom Obama has charged with "getting things done" are no less likely to produce legislation that is nearly indistinguishable from what a Republican president would be pushing.

    So, I am o.v.e.r. being guilted into voting for people because the world might end if I don't.  I'm o.v.e.r. being told that "this time" the Dems are going to save the world if only I will vote for them.  And I'm o.v.e.r. being lectured to by people who want to Dr. Phil me into coming to terms with my emotions and accepting the bland, weak, ineffective crap that comes out of both the WH and the Congress.


    Parent

    Right on (none / 0) (#27)
    by MO Blue on Mon Apr 26, 2010 at 09:44:07 AM EST
    {standing up and cheering loudly}

    I guess the problem I am having with your comment - and one I often have with your comments, in general - is that I am less interested in coming to terms with my emotions -frustration and anger and disappointment and disgust - or in having those feelings and opinions validated , than I am in getting those who represent us to be the kinds of legislators and leaders we expect and deserve.  That I am right to feel the way I do is meaningless if what it is I am upset or angry about doesn't change.  I'm not interested in accepting and coming to terms with mediocrity.
    ...
    So, I am o.v.e.r. being guilted into voting for people because the world might end if I don't.  I'm o.v.e.r. being told that "this time" the Dems are going to save the world if only I will vote for them.  And I'm o.v.e.r. being lectured to by people who want to Dr. Phil me into coming to terms with my emotions and accepting the bland, weak, ineffective crap that comes out of both the WH and the Congress.

    Yep Republican legislation with or without a Democratic majority.

    Parent

    Yeah, what a (none / 0) (#28)
    by NYShooter on Mon Apr 26, 2010 at 09:48:17 AM EST
    Gordian's knot we've created.

    My dear old dad, a surgeon who switched to psychiatry upon emigrating to America, used to lament upon observing our elections, "The qualities necessary for a candidate for President to get elected are the exact qualities you would never want in a President once he gets elected." (He was referring to Nixon at the time.)


    Parent

    Sorry, you feel that way, Anne (none / 0) (#30)
    by christinep on Mon Apr 26, 2010 at 12:35:10 PM EST
    Actually, I like (for the most part) reading your comments because they refelect passion, directness, and a rhythm in the style of a good speech.  But, no, I'm not trying to "guilt" you into anything; I'm explaining my equally valid political approach and passion. That's all. You have made some good points about being "o.v.e.r." different types of manipulations and positioning. I would hope that you can understand, tho, that I come by my positions with integrity--and certainly not via the pseudo-shrink Dr. Phil--and that, if this is a place for dialog, then I claim equal right to state such positions. We have different styles of writing and asserting positions. That makes it interesting. Truce?

    Parent
    We're not fighting, just chafing. (none / 0) (#31)
    by Anne on Mon Apr 26, 2010 at 01:05:13 PM EST
    For the most part, everyone's opinions are valid, unless someone is arguing that the earth is flat, but acknowledging the validity of everyone's opinions doesn't actually accomplish anything other than ensure that perhaps people will play nice.

    We've been pretty much at the "please sir, may I have another" stage for some years now, and I'm hard-pressed to know why we have to be so obsequious and subserviant to people who are supposed to be working for us.

    I'm not advocating that we all go off the deep end, but there is value in non-violent and focused anger, and so often your comments seem to rhetorically walk on eggshells out of some fear that perhaps we will engender more retaliation from our leaders than resolution.

    I don't question your integrity at all, but I think we are at the point where we cannot afford to be satisfied with barely-discernible incremental movement - if, in fact, there has been any at all; we're just not getting anywhere, and in some cases, what movement there has been has been the backward kind.  We're allowing these politicians to rhetorically pat us on the head so we will stop bothering them - I don't understand why anyone would be willing to settle for being treated like a child, fobbed off with more promises they have no intention of keeping.

    In real compromise, both/all sides get something they want, but for all the compromising we've done - like voting for Dems we didn't really like, but were "better than the other guy" - we have gotten little but more conservative policies and legislation - where in there is the part we wanted?  And if we're not getting what we want, what difference does it really make if those Dems who can't deliver go down to defeat?

    The compromise position for me is no longer that "it could be worse;" that choice - to hold one's nose and vote (D) - just ensures that things will keep devolving and are unlikely to ever get better.

    Parent

    Thanks, Anne, for your thoughtful reply (none / 0) (#32)
    by christinep on Mon Apr 26, 2010 at 01:46:09 PM EST
    I'm not just being courteous. You state your feelings (e.g., about not wanting to be treated certain ways by those who are to serve the public.), and you state them well & forcefully. Your take on my writing style is somewhat accurate in that I will usually avoid emotive words to push through a common ground position. That style grows from a government career (starting with working for federal judges, moving to federal attorney positions, to management, and to the then-burgeoning conciliation motif), from my personality, and from a view of personal lessons of family & self in the political sphere. More than explanatory statement, my view of this half-glass is decidedly optimistic. Example: The "financial reform" efforts to date, imo, should be stronger but are satisfactory for me. (I wouldn't have minded a demagogic push for broader reform in this area, but this is better than expected.) In playing out the political drama, I think that knowing our own measure helps a lot. You express drive and demands. Good. People like me need that boundary, outline. Then, there are those like me who relate to the negotiation, the eventual issue resolution. That could be why whenever you write about the essence of a political process and urge people to wake up, I do open my eyes first and then issue my type of challenge (with an assumption that you will not drop out of the political process): OK, what are the consequences (my emphasis on actual votes--past & predicted)...are you willing to watch that for several years...and, if there are specific steps, how do you implement the day-to-day changes that you want. So much, it seems, depends on our own expectations. That is why background summaries to that effect matter...since differing expectations will be merged in any workable, durable resolution.

    Parent
    You educate them one person at a time (5.00 / 3) (#24)
    by cawaltz on Sun Apr 25, 2010 at 08:49:37 PM EST
    The adage that "democracy is hard work" doesn't just apply to fleglings like in Iraq but to places like our own home.

    I spent today discussing why Barack Obama and the likely GOP nominee won't be getting my vote. Still cultivating the idea you don't have to settle for bad or worse is alot of work.

    Parent

    Choices (3.00 / 3) (#1)
    by Repack Rider on Sun Apr 25, 2010 at 12:07:09 PM EST
    When I hear rightwingers gripe about Obama, I have to ask whether they remember the clown show the GOP chose to oppose him.  I'm unhappy with plenty about Obama, and I'm definitely to the left of him, but in 2008 we were only choosing between two candidates, and the alternative was too horrible to contemplate.

    Mr. Obama has a much better chance of learning and growing on the job than McCain did, and he started with another hundred IQ points.

    Oh you must mean the horrible (4.40 / 5) (#23)
    by cawaltz on Sun Apr 25, 2010 at 08:38:27 PM EST
    ideas like an "excise tax" that Obama appears to have grown into.

    I'm constantly amazed at the ability of people to turn themselves into pretzels on behalf of a guy who's done little to nothing for them.

     

    Parent

    I know... (none / 0) (#25)
    by DancingOpossum on Mon Apr 26, 2010 at 08:56:53 AM EST
    ...with McCain we might have further eroded abortion rights, gutted social security and medicare, expanded both wars, enhanced Bush's unitary executive theory, bailed out the criminal enterprises known as the health insurance cartel and Wall Street, demoralized the teachers' unions, and passed "drill baby drill" and "die, stupid whales" environmental policies.

    Oh, the horror. It's just too awful to contemplate.

    Vote third party, it's the only way out of this mess.

    Okay I don't have the time (none / 0) (#29)
    by Socraticsilence on Mon Apr 26, 2010 at 12:06:29 PM EST
    to address all of your alarmism, but the whales thing- you do realize that lifting the Moratorium at the IWC would likely reduce the number of whales killed right?

    Parent
    Alarmisms (none / 0) (#33)
    by DancingOpossum on Mon Apr 26, 2010 at 02:17:20 PM EST
    Oh?

    The Shark Research Institute, for one, profoundly disagrees. http://www.sharks.org/pdfs/SRI-Special%20Report-Whaling-Campaign.pdf

    So do Greenpeace, Humane Society International, and the Endangered Species Coalition.

    And yes, shame on me for being "alarmist" about (to pick just one) Obama's stated right to assassinate U.S. citizens. Truly, one should adopt a balanced and "let's look at all sides of the issue" approach to the president's statement that he can murder people at will.

    Everything on that list isn't in my alarmist fantasy-land, btw, it all comes straight from Obama--except the ravaging of women's rights, which he still pretends he didn't do. Oops, sorry--there's been a breaking news update. He did say there would be no "litmus test" on abortion rights for his SCOTUS candidate. Thanks, Dems!

    Who Will Intelligently Critique The Dems? | 32 comments (32 topical)

    Readers Must Login or Create an Account to Comment