I know, I’m the pest who keeps complaining that, for all their heroic posturing, our progressive leaders have been pathetic in refusing to brandish any kind of retaliatory stick while begging the Democratic Party to not turn the healthcare bill into nothing more than the bloody stump of reform. And urging those outraged at those pathetic leaders to start figuring out how to hit the Democratic Party where it hurts.
Then along comes Jane Hamsher. For the record, I had criticized her in my intro to the Full Court Press as one of those progressive leaders who had caved in and was supporting the bill even without the "robust" public option she had once demanded. But then she turned around and came out 4-square for killing the Senate bill. And then, a few days ago, she joined with notorious scoundrel Grover Norquist to demand an investigation of Rahm Emmanuel for malfeasance regarding his relationship with Freddie Mac.
Well, I gotta say the lady’s got guts.
Her move follows one or both of two tracks. It could be seen as an innocent exercise in good government. Or it could be a counterpunch to the way Rahm and the White House have viciously sidelined progressives around, well, everything. Both are valid.
But working with Norquist! the Dems cry while clutching at their smelling salts. Okay, let’s look at the Democrats’ record. The Stupak amendment passed mostly with Republican votes. And then when the House Democrats passed its Stupak-laden bill, they made Stupak their own. They passed a Republican measure.
So the Obamacrats cry "teabagger!" Jane Hamsher is getting her money from Jack Abramoff! Next thing you know, she’ll be leading teabagger rallies. The charges are nonsense, but the underlying politic is worth some thought.
Make no mistake, the teabagger movement is a fascist-led, corporate-funded reactionary movement. But its success is in part a monument to progressive failure. While progressives had dreams of Obama-plums dancing in their heads, they ignored their working class base, which was outraged that Wall Street was getting bailed out while they were losing their homes. They distrust the Fed. They fear a distant government that might do things like, oh, mandating people to buy insurance they can’t afford. The teabaggers were able to merge this righteous anger with backward racist and sexist currents in the American people. Because progressives were asleep at the wheel!
As I think we are aware, the Democratic coalition is breaking down, between the American people and the Obama state, between radical progressives and the Obamacrats. None of this should be taken to mean that a Republican regime would be preferable this Democratic regime. It’s just that, as Patrick Henry said:
"They tell us, sir, that we are weak; unable to cope with so formidable an adversary. But when shall we be stronger? Will it be the next week, or the next year? Will it be when we are totally disarmed … Shall we gather strength by irresolution and inaction? Shall we acquire the means of effectual resistance by lying supinely on our backs and hugging the delusive phantom of hope, until our enemies shall have bound us hand and foot? … Gentlemen may cry, Peace, Peace– but there is no peace. The war is actually begun!"
I can’t know exactly what Hamsher is thinking, but her move could be — or could be used by progressives — to recapture part of our base. This is dangerous business, there are poisonous snakes out there. But I gotta say the lady’s got guts. Many of us may question her tactics, but we can’t leave her hanging out to dry, to be pecked by the Obamacrat crows. (First they came for …) Her fight is organically linked with the fight to defeat the healthcare bloody stump.
What would it mean to support Jane Hamsher and advance our cause? I really hate flame wars. The vulgar taunts and schoolyard bullying destroy the environment if we somehow win them. But they are destroying Kos. It had become a place where we could organize around the healthcare fight. As TheMomCat pointed out yesterday on the truly excellent Class Coalition thread, "I think it was in one of Meteor Blades diaries and it showed support for killing the bill was nearly 2 to one in favor." Kos hisself was supporting killing it. No more.
I still like comparing Kos to a shopping mall: crowded, vulgar and cheap. After all, sometimes you’ve gotta get some cheap threads. Now the Obamacrat thugs have turned it into a cesspool.
I took a look at a diary supporting Jane that had 1,400 comments. I started analyzing a sample using Word search/replace, and saw 20 people had 356 of those comments, 6 had 275 of the 356. A relatively small group of thugs is setting the tone for everyone. Is this a place to fight? I really don’t know. If we do it as individuals, I fear that we’ll come out battered and bummed, it should be a group effort.
geomoo noted, on the Class Coalition thread:
I don’t challenge pure nonsense. I don’t go into most of them, and when I do go, I make at most 6 or so comments. None of those comments–none–are defensive. During this Hamsher nonsense, for example, I have only argued one thing–Rahm is an enemy of progressive policy.
That’s a good approach, if we want to take it. I’m curious as to what people think.
A Second Front
We can also go way beyond saying, "You go Jane!" and holding her coat. It would entail following her example. She went after the malfeasance of Rahm Emmanuel, and whether or not he’s criminally guilty, the Obama/Wall Street connection is brought into sharp focus with a real bite.
So why can’t we excoriate the derelictions of Bernanke?
Blister the befoulments of Summers?
Castigate the malefactions of Geithner?
This is deadly business. The healthcare hacks go misty over the 45,000 who die from lack of insurance. But that bloody shirt stuff cuts two ways. How many will die from malnutrition, homelessness, foreign war, on and on? Yes, I’ll probably end up voting for Obama over Palin or Huckabee, but that has no bearing on the fight we must have now. Obama may still have an aura of sanctity, but his lieutenants are highly vulnerable.
For that, though, we would need ammunition, and it would be a stretch for us all to become researchers in short order. But hey, I happen to know where there’s an ammo factory open to all. It’s called Culture of Life News ( http://emsnews.wordpress.com/ ), run by Elaine Supkis, a most interesting character. She grew up in ruling class/CIA circles, and knows them inside and out. Her approach is uncompromisingly international. She can come off as a little batty, repetitive, conspiratorial, alarmist. But she knows her stuff. She digs into the financial news and puts it all together. No one is better at exposing the economic collapse we are enduring, or the schemes of the rich and powerful. She understands the lies that prop up the system and create an illusion of recovery. She knows the credit vehicles and the markets and the looting schemes. She has an excellent take on the irreversible deterioration of the American Empire. I can’t vouch for everything she says, timelines for future events are always tricky things. But I consider her analysis fundamentally solid.
SHE KNOWS THE DIRT ON THE OBAMA WHITE HOUSE, that’s for sure, an impressive arsenal
Unfortunately, her focus on economics leaves her ambivalent about government spending. I think she is politically isolated. She echoes Ned Beatty’s Network speech:
"There are no nations. There are no peoples. There are no Russians. There are no Arabs. There are no third worlds. There is no West. There is only one holistic system of systems, one vast and immane, interwoven, interacting, multivariate, multinational dominion of dollars. Petro-dollars, electro-dollars, multi-dollars, Reich marks, rins, rubles, pounds, and shekels. It is the international system of currency which determines the totality of life on this planet. That is the natural order of things today."
And as in Network, nobody want to hear the bad news.
But I gotta admit, this lady’s also got guts.
So to conclude
As I’ve noted elsewhere, I think the big coming fight, a fight which as the Class Coalition diary notes will generate an organizable constituency, is the fight for jobs. Going after Obama’s Wall Street hit squad should be an integral part of the run-up to the jobs fight.
So I’m trying to put some things together. You may differ over Hamsher, Norquist, Kos or Supkis. I don’t want to quibble over details. I’m trying to put together a methodological framework for us to get traction in what promises to be a frightening and exciting time.



106 Comments







I may and I do, differ. I’m a Democrat and I refuse to align with the likes of Norquist, teabaggers, redstaters, et al. If Jane wants to go that route it’s her right but imho it’s not guts, it’s nuts.
To drag out the Big Disaster theory again; Our Ship-of-State has huge holes in her hull and we’re all riding it down together. You can team up while there’s still a chance to repair some of those gaping holes, or you can try to fix them all yourself with only like- minded people while swearing at the other passengers. Either way, it’s still a shipwreck.
I’m with Jane Hamsher. On the condition that Grover’s never left alone around the life rafts..
You are sleepwalking. Wake Up!
recommended — thank you for posting this diary
Yup, and they’re going to wind up driving off most of the actual lefties/anti-corporatists, leaving only the persons determined to carry water for Rahm and Obama.
I can’t see someone like Brooke in Seattle, for instance, staying very much longer at DKos if the reflexive O-pologists permanently get the upper hand
I used to use my comments as a statement to the world. Still sometimes do.
But I find myself more and more trying to just have a serious conversation with the person I’m replying to, and worrying less and less about the grandstands. Sometimes it can be very moving.
I visited Kos last night, on a thread the Obamacrats* dominated. All they were doing was bouncing off each other, an amazing amount of words to say nothing. The question is whether one can go to Kos not to engage in trench warfare, but to find individuals to talk with one-on-one.
*I like the term Obamacrats. Doesn’t have the “bot” bit, which people can find offensive, and is more precisely descriptive (Obama Democrats).
I’ve noticed that the comments bashing Jane are only hate. No mention of policy or any real opposition. They type of thing one could say if it were a job.
No blog can continue with the repetition of a group like that. Kos used to attract people who researched and cared about policy. Just don’t see it any more. About as interesting as an infocommercial.
You can feel authenticity. Courage is not a quality that can be faked.Few have it today. That is the reason I support Jane with a lot of emotion and energy.
I have tried to engage a few of these people, and have just ended up losing my temper. They are thugs. You could not have put it better. There is no way to speak to them, they simply hurl moronic insults. I, for one, realize that I have met my match and have had enough. It is like debating Glen Beck. I believe it is time for Kos to step in and start banning some of this behavior, but I suppose it could backfire on him. Sad to see a great site fall to such childish behavior. I’m tempted to wonder if there is some unseen hand behind it all.
It’s tough. Remember, lose your temper and they’ve won.
One trick is to find someone who says something halfway sensible, and engage that one person. Here’s the (or one of) hard part. Try to say something that someone else hasn’t said. Here’s why it’s hard. It’s not because you’re not smart enough, it’s because the place has turned into such a cesspool that you might be thinking, what’s the use?
It’s like that public speaking trick of just looking at one person. I wouldn’t use the trick of imagining that your audience is naked, because they probably are.
They are organized as hell! I’m glad Jeffroby did the calculations to see just how much the Obama worship is driven by a few people.
I sometimes think DKos is dominated by idealistic, naive college students with too much time on their hands, but then I wonder if they are “professionals” paid to spend their days lauding the Great One. Whatever it is, they are strangling the site, and I wonder why they aren’t banned.
In my sample:
ClemYeobright had 58
Timeaus 56
Political Junkie 58
Looks like the 3 agreed on a set number to me.
And just picking one of those posters, looking at their comments for ONE DAY, over 70 comments total.
WTF?
I’d suggest a bit of care over trusting the second blog referenced here – Culture of Life – given that blogger’s global warming denial amongst other things.
I understand. She has a great concern for the deficit, and a deep commitment to human lives over Wall Street profits. Sometimes those conflict.
She shines light in corners that have gone far too long unlit, and has interesting insights. She’ll give you a good crash course in present-day economics in understandable terms, something progressives are weak on.
Of course, I always do my own analysis before jumping off any cliffs.
Thanks for bringing this up. I spent some time on her blog today. Not wildly impressed.
I am wildly impressed with Sibel Edmonds blog. Boilingfrogs.com. Now there’s a strong woman.
Wildly impressing isn’t the point. She has better days and worse days. She can be repetitive. She lives on a mountain in upstate New York, and cold weather can get her out of sorts. But she has stuff that is generally off the progressive radar. She covers trade relations among China, Japan, Europe and the U.S. in a penetrating way. Currency manipulations. Derivatives and gatherings of the elite.
I never said she was easy.
Yes, I agree with some of her thoughts and understand why you find her interesting. I also find her interesting. I do not diss everything she has to say, I read a lot of her pieces today looking for Strong Voices. My new quest.
I have no opinion on her assumptions other than to say, ” Maybe it needs a little more thought, a little less oomph.”. Refine,refine,refine….First lesson of Suzuki Violin Theory.
Hey, I’m open to all thoughts in these strange days we all live in. The darkest pit we could fall into right now is the one where we’re so opinionated and aggressive that we can’t see the fucking pit was set up for us to fall into. Being a Western citizen, I was raised on stories ; Buffalo screamed as they were herded over the cliffs… Before that moment it was probably the group high of outrunning the predator[ humans], like I’ve seen horses do when they outrace and threaten to kick ass on the dogs chasing them.
I guess it comes down to, ” Who are your influences”. I choose Jane Hamsher,Marcy Wheeler and the FDL crew.
This is probably babble. But never Bauble.
Thank you, Jeffroby, for writing this great, thought provoking post. It takes a huge amount of courage.
What you say, it’s all I ask. Take what’s useful. Thank you.
Sorry – comparing concern for global warming to membership in “death cults” is beyond my borders.
I understand.
What about her thoughts on derivatives, Chinese and Japanese economic policies, Freddie Mac, etc? It’s for those that I read and recommend her.
Politics makes strange bedfellows, we are told, and none are stranger than Grover and Jane in the sack. I don’t know that she’s lost anything, but her cause, investigating Rahm is hopeless. He’s not going to get investigated, indicted or even fired. Was it worth it? Sometimes a losing battle must be fought, but I have reservations about this one. Nonetheless, an effort must be made to join with the right to fight common enemies.
The right believes in individuality, the I’ve got mine and if you can’t get yours, tough. There is, in the individuality at all costs, a contempt for the group. No safety nets, no social security, no nothing that keeps the aquisitive from getting theirs. It’s something to discuss with them, but before we can discuss anything we need a network that includes everyone. Perhaps then we can sort ourselves out. The network comes first. When we are connected, we can explore what comes next.
A fight can have multiple purposes. One is to win the stated goal. The other is to use the stated goal for agitational/propagandistic purposes. Both are valid.
Networks grow one node at a time, and you are speaking theoretically, not specifically. How does what you are saying translate into the real world?
This is a node right here. Some libertarians are here now. There are many new usernames I haven’t seen before.
Someone has to build the connections/relationships. Are you saying that it is not going to be you? You aren’t going to participate in the cause to wrest control of our government from the warmongers and the exploiters, until someone else builds the infrastructure first?
You need to speak in real terms, not abstractions.
It’s also too soon to start trying to determine if Janes effort with Grover is worth it. That was only one tactic of a strategy that is still taking shape. One important thing to think about is that the old strategy wasn’t working. That is what kossaks are fighting about. They aren’t adjusting to a changing landscape and new information about the battle.
Jane’s effort, I think, depends on what WE can do with it. If it remains a narrow tactic limited to getting Rahm investigated, it is nothing more than a shot across the bow. Justice Department says it won’t? Then what?
If all we do is say, “You go, Jane!” and hold her coat, then they’ll eventually take her down.
But we can turn it into a broader effort to also expose Bernanke, Summers and Geithner. Legalities aside, this crew has been criminal in turning the treasury over to Wall Street and then killing us on healthcare because of the holy godalmighty deficit. Then it’s an opening wedge in a broader scandal. We can make calling for their demise a central issue in the 2010 congressional primaries, for instance. We can make it the reason for primarying Obama in 2012.
We can tag the entire Obamacrat regime with that crew.
Thumbs Up.
My idea is to put town checkbooks online. I haven’t run into anyone against the idea. That information might be interesting enough to attract lots of citizens. Possibilities of such a site are endless. We can compare pupil costs, police coverage and also use wikipedia style pages to accumulate information on any topic of interest. Once localities are on line, connecting them is easy. We need lots of money for servers and someone with technical ability (not me-I don’t have any) (although site construction can be open sourced)to create the site which gets replicated for every community interested. We need to do this if we are ever to retake back the country from the bankers et al who hijacked it.
The goal is some form of electronic democracy, but that gets way ahead of ourselves and illustrates a basic problem. Most of us like hierarchy and the irresponsibility of following orders. Then there are those who believe the mass is too stupid to be trusted with control over important things. Finally, and this comes mostly from the right, there are those who think empowering the mass means destroying individuality, especially their freedom to mess things up generally.
Talk of third parties is IMHO a waste of time. If we create an all inclusive network, a viable third party becomes possible. It won’t work the other way round.
The kossaks are responding like the old lefties responded to the new lefties back in the 60s. Internecine warfare that left the movement damaged, without a center. Once the war ended, the factions went their separate ways to preach to their individual choirs and, voila! We got 30 years of neocon, neoliberal bullshit to the point where not too many people realize the United States of America actually existed prior to January, 1981.
Great Diary!!!
I want to outline a problem that I see here, but by no means is specific to you but it’s an example. We all do this to some extent:
We need to drop our preconceived notions about what other people think. This is prejudice. The “right” doesn’t think as a block any more than the left does. We can’t do this if we pigeon hole them all. We have to break off the good ones, or at least find a way to work together to achieve our common goals. Entrenchment works against us.
For what it’s worth regarding letting go of our preconceptions: the guy that runs “Little Green Footballs” is a leading voice against the climate change deniers and is bucking the stories about climategate leaked emails.
He also divorced himself from Ms. Pamela “Atlas Shrugs” Rand Geller. I’m not going to link him.
Wow. Now I have to do two things.
First, I have to admit I was surprised to hear you say that.
Second, I have to drop my preconceived notions about what you think, shekissesfrogs.
Thank you.
Sorry, but stereotyping has uses even when it’s called profiling. I don’t say everyone on the right thinks like that, but enough do to make it an issue.
How has kissing frogs worked for you? Are you sure they are all frogs?
right is right .. period ..and wrong is wrong … rahm needs to be investigated .. held to account .. whatever aids or furthers that is kosher ..
jane is an individual and has a right to do damn well what she pleases .. i support that right .. and separately from that .. i support jane .. and the thing she is attempting to get done ..
the criticism towards jane concerning the merging of interest with Norquist .. on this single issue pointed at a necessary goal is STUPID ..
enough …
Thanks, Jeff, I found this well-argued from beginning to end. I’m looking forward to many more contributions from you. Thanks also for the link to the very interesting Supkis site.
I’ll try to live up to this! Thank you.
I’m not thrilled about the alliance with Norquist either, but no one is listening to the people who are suffering in this economy. We have to do *something*. I don’t want to spend the rest of my life struggling. It makes me too depressed, angry & full of anxiety. I’m tired of always paying for the mistakes of the rich. It’s time for them to pay for their own mistakes, just like everyone else. It really hurt to see what the Democrats did with the healthcare bill. I’m feeling very betrayed, & I don’t forget about these things easily. So I hope that the anti-corporatist movement goes somewhere. Things need to change. We can’t continue to live like this.
The Dems rode to power in 06 & 08 on a wave of popular discontent.
They immediately embraced their traditional Wall St. benefactors (anyone disappointed with Obama wasn’t paying attention), allowing the right to seize the banner of populism.
Now it looks to me like uprising of populist energy is stronger on the left, fed by an intramural scrape over health care that’s getting everyone in the progressive community worked up.
Thank you, Jane (et al)!
I haven’t looked at the Supkis site, but I will recommend Yves Smith’s Naked Capitalism for excellent economics coverage. She occasionally posts at FDL. The scale of criminality in the financial world is extraordinary and ties so tightly to the problems of governance the world is experiencing. Anything we can do to expose this will help.
We tend to be lazy on economics (including me). Any good sources are needed. Thank you.
A note for Jane in Her defense.
At least She is trying to be effective, when so many others find time to bitch and complain while actually doing little.
If we had a few million Jane’s this Country would be a hell of a lot better off.
It’s important to realize that on health care, the failure of the progressive movement to organize the population was basically a failure to endorse Medicare for All. Instead they were very early in endorsing a pre-compromised, technical solution that no one could understand. And surprise, surprise, they got nothing. Jane Hamsher was part of that failure as were many others like Kos, Chris Bowers, Health Care for America Now, and the like. Let’s not forget that.
I haven’t forgotten that. I have noted it myself in my original Full Court Press proposal:
http://www.antemedius.com/content/full-court-press-435-democratic-congressional-primaries
What particularly impresses me about her was her willingness to change course and make a move she knew would draw fire down on her.
I am more persuaded that we never had any say in HCR. Obama put the fix in early and the senate bill is exactly what he was shooting for. If public opinion ever had traction we would have had a strong PO. Obama played us all and the cuckhold progressive senators caved often and pathetically. We could have screamed Medicare for all and single payer at the top of our lungs from the first and we would have not made any serious inroads into the plan Obama was fashioning. He listens only to himself.
That’s not really true. People like Jane Hamsher have a voice in the media and a role to play. They could have got behind national health care when it mattered and they didn’t. Even now Hamsher is only upset at the relatively insignificant differences between the Senate bill and the House bill.
However, where you may really be on to something is in realizing that we have to get the wider public organized to really succeed. That is the problem with advocating pre-compromised, technical positions that no one understands: it makes actually organizing people impossible, so naturally they go to the other side, the teabagger side. It’s the only side presenting a coherent story.
Preposterous.
Question: How much policy heft did so-called “national health care” aficionados bring? Money? Institutional support? Presidential backing? Congressional backing? Ground-game?
And another: Who decided to launch HC in 2009? Congress? No. The Citizenry? No. The companies? No.
The President did that. His calendar. His clock.
Question: when did we start deciding policy on the basis of money, Presidential backing, and Congressional backing? Somehow I thought being progressive was about more than doing whatever rich people and the government tell us to.
As for institutional support, this is an institution. Maybe not a great big one, but still an institution.
And ground-game is where Medicare for All brings all other comers down for the count. Unlike the pre-compromised, technical solutions that “progressive” organizations pushed during this cycle, Medicare for All actually makes sense to people and is capable of building a movement.
The proposals pushed this time did not and were not.
What you are talking about is a policy objective that the President took off the table immediately after he signaled that HC was a go.
About what he actually campaigned on versus what he dismissed out of hand from day one.
Telegraph the play here: Obama nixes Single-Payer and offers strong support for the PO. You would have the Left simply leave the field, instead of working to hold him to an on-the-record policy objective.
The lack of practicality entombed in the SP vision ignores that HC was a ticking clock, started by the President, hamstringing any effort to fix the system to that which he signaled he would support. His failure to back it with action is his alone to bear.
You would have the Left leave in a huff because we could not have anything close to SP. So explain the play.
Does it really matter whether Obama made this a supposed policy objective or not? The proposal you’re talking about would have covered less than 5% of the population even if it had survived.
This is not about leaving the field or giving up. How is demanding a policy that would actually work, that actually makes sense to people, and could actually sustain a movement “giving up”? The reality is the other way around: giving up is what Hamsher and company did.
Explain your play, then. And btw, the PO we started with was a helluva lot more robust than what we ended up with before it’s demise.
And while you do, calculate the following: The President launches HC and says he wants a bill by x date. If you believe that he can and will get it, and that he has no intention of letting SP or MedicareForAll become part of the plank, what do you do? I am actually asking – what do you do?
You are talking about building a movement that takes how long to bear fruit? How many years? And while you are building, the President and his Congress are… force a policy on the nation. Do you work from within his stated campaign promises, and the stated intent of the House caucus, or do you ignore all that and forge ahead with SP and let the bill pass untouched by Leftist intent?
As I asked, within a limited time frame, what do you do? What are the mechanics of either stopping his HC bill, or building an SP effort in time to eclipse the bill?
Finally, if you are depending on the House Progressives to get their backs up and force this somehow, tell me how that has worked out so far.
You disengage from the immediate struggle. The broad strokes are settled.
But the immediate struggle has resulted in certain battle lines being drawn. With that clarified, you broaden the front. That’s what Jane’s move against Rahm does. Remaining fixated on healthcare leaves us tactically locked in place while they are already getting ready for the next battle.
My opinion is that our fight of choice is over jobs. Do we create jobs by giving tax cuts and gutting workplace regulation? (the healthcare model) Or do we go for WPA-style direct government job creation?
How will this be different? We go in knowing in advance what we are up against. With tactics like going after Rahm, we can try to put them on the defensive.
I should have broadened my question.
Strategically, when the HC battle was opened, how do you position yourself? Having taken SP off the table before any real public deliberations had begun, you evaluate your status and move out.
Having given rise to the effort in the first place (the least wise choice the administration could have taken in 2009 IMO), how do Progressives proceed? Do you adopt the “SP or bust” stance and effectively step back from the battle? Do you look at what the campaign and more recent indications of the President’s and the Congress’ positions are and hold them to it? Do you automatically adopt a position that includes the BlueDog’s hold on policy? Do you incorporate the certainty that the Republicans will only settle for an utter defeat, or the worst possible bill? Do you get the Congress by the throat and threaten electoral consequences for a failed or insufficient effort?
Combine with this: Having embarked on the HC initiative, is it reasonable to assume that the President is now tied to a ‘get a bill, any bill’ strategy?
And while it had to play out to really know, is it reasonable to hope that Congressman and Senators would stop a bad bill, when their President’s prestige and 100% of his political capital hang in the balance?
you are missing the boat. the pre-compromise, including by fdl, occurred prior to the nov 2008 elections. please read this thread and note the date:
http://firedoglake.com/2008/08/13/health-care-or-off-shore-drilling-you-decide/
btw, hcan was a con from the start. i don’t think i realized that was probably the case until after the 2008 elections (and i said so at the time, in these threads). but now that i’ve recently listened to the presentations given at tba 2008, i can see that i was wrong — it was a con, aimed at the dem base, and needing first to con major progressive bloggers, from the start.
i’m sorry we got punked by dem party insiders, but that’s what happened and pretending otherwise doesn’t change history.
We do certainly have to balance health care with other issues.
What worries me, however, is that we’re not learning the lesson of why there was failure and why a mass movement never materialized. And those who don’t learn the lessons of history are doomed to repeat it.
This is for khin, selise and newtonuse, among others. I am not for disengaging because I’m more multi-issue than anyone. I believe this fight is essentially over. With the Mandate locked in, all I can say is Kill Bill. With Nelson or Stupak locked in, all I can say is Kill Bill, cut the head off, burn the body, cast the ashes to the winds. All the yapping about improving it in conference committee or calling for reconciliation just keeps us on their treadmill.
There are various points where different moves could have been made, and who knows where crushing that butterfly would have led.
Rather, I believe the fight over jobs creation will be central in the next round. Do we create jobs by giving tax cuts and gutting workplace regulation? Or do we go for WPA-style direct government job creation? I think the jobs fight will have SOME similar dynamics to the healthcare fight. I’ve written the following at DocuDharma:
http://www.docudharma.com/diary/18047/wont-get-fooled-again
Skip the personal stuff if you want, go to the “It’s time to disengage” section.
I’d appreciate you applying your great intelligence (and I say this without any sarcasm, I find your conversation quite interesting) to how we approach the coming jobs fight. My point in the current Hamsher diary is that going after Rahm is a good opening shot, but there is much more to say.
thanks for the link to your diary at docudharma. i am limited for time today, but will try to reply here tomorrow (or if comments are closed here, at your diary at docudharma – may try to cross post this comment there also).
i only have 2 brain cells to rub together on a good day, but i fwiw, i do have a couple of BIG ideas (well, i think they are big) i’ve been working on re your Q “how we approach the coming jobs fight” — although i’m not done yet with hrc and especially lessons to be learned (especially by me). i was mentioned in a front page post a couple of weeks ago at OL re hcr and wider conflicts and so have taken advantage of their “right to respond” policy to have the opportunity to have a front page post in response. that comes first (it may be my only chance to attempt to post in a semi-coherent way what i think re social movements, the concept of solidarity even when there are disagreements about tactics, neoliberal vs progressive thinking and policy, betrayal by elites and how i think this all played out re hrc and what i think that means for future directions).
re the jobs fight. if you don’t want to wait until i have time to write about my two ideas, here is some background reading (both are absolute must reads imo):
1. from the Rockridge Institute, The Logic of the Health Care Debate. it’s about the progressive, conservative, and neoliberal modes of thought (especially neoliberal and the dangers of going that route) and is equally applicable to the coming debate re a jobs bill as it was to the healthcare debate.
2. L. Randall Wray’s book, Understanding Modern Money: The Key to Full Employment and Price Stability.
There was no trade-off. You are not building a movement over the long term and sacrificing muscle in the short term. You gain muscle in the short term too, because criticizing Congress and the President from the left helps shift the terms of the debate in your direction. By forcing them to acknowledge single payer as having a constituency, you push the center of gravity of the debate more leftward than you could ever possibly do by merely advocating 5% solutions.
I recall Senator Baucus expressing his displeasure with SP advocates during a public hearing by having them ejected. When and if the White House, or other Senators, or Members of Congress object of their own accord, or can be forced or persuaded to object, we have something. But that didn’t happen.
I am puzzled about what effect you think criticism would have had. TeamObama has been taking on water from about 3 weeks into the HC initiative, and the result has been a steady march backwards in the quality of the resulting legislation. Various tropes have been floated (the Medicare buy-in for one) and it appears that they were floated in the first place to give fleeting hope to the Left, but predictably dashed like so many bowling pins as the obstructionists made their moves…
I finally wonder if anyone saw this coming. Did anyone, short of TeamObama, predict the course of events as they unfolded? Was anyone expecting that Lieberman and Nelson and Landreau and Lincoln would hold so much sway over the bill, that they would dare plunder it, that Stupak would become Stupak/Nelson, that Stupak could possibly pass the House at all?
the PO was not started by “we.” it was an insider elite dem position from the start (perhaps initially in a vain attempt to appease the insurance and big pharma industries, or perhaps to set up the bait and switch — in any event that is certainly what it became) and took 10s of millions of dollars to sell it to the dem base as an alternative to single payer (which it is not. in fact, as a matter of pure policy, imo it sucks).
the correct play was imo (then and now) not to pre-compromise from the single payer policy preferred by the dem base, by the public at large and imo the best policy to actually provide universal healthcare and control costs.
You said it.
I am suggesting that Obama did not have to go in 2009. Given the other economic issues at the fore, I would have forgiven his placing it in the pending file for a year.
So when I said “(the least wise choice the administration could have taken in 2009 IMO)” I meant taking HC on this year.
As for the pre-compromise, the when is less important IMO (unless you want to excoriate folks for voting for Obama and also mistaking his stance) than the fact that he chose the time and place, and apparently did so in order to lock up the result on behalf of BigMed. I would not dispute now, that that may have been the plan all along.
of course i don’t. voting for obama, mistaking his stance, are 1) imo complete reasonable based on his campaign, and 2) completely separate issues — because they happened after the pre-compromise.
Absolutely no argument. The “bait and switch” does seem the proper conclusion.
i think, at the very least, we have to use it as our working hypothesis. and that is why i am trying to understand the who/what/when/how of it. because i want to know who and what organizations not to trust in the future (which basically means very heightened skepticism. there may come a time when they are being truthful / acting in good faith and i wouldn’t want to miss that because i reflexively took the opposite to their position)
Regretfully, that realization will probably be in hindsight. After the duplicity and manipulation we have witnessed lately, I am not inclined to conclude good faith on anyone’s part until the clock is at zero.
There is no faith left in this house.
hindsight is better than no sight. live and learn.
About the timing of Health Care Reform. TARP give aways with no accountability. Now Freddie and Fannie give aways with no accountability. Two illegal wars. Now our leaders are saying we just don’t have the money to do anything about health care. After they kept funding the above?
The plan that hill, bill, gbush, rove and now rahm is to destroy faith in every institution this country holds dear. Pitting family members against each other. The lunatic church leaders are in the news calling for murder of political enemies so that we don’t trust the church. (ok with me but not for others) govt. leaders blatantly ignoring law and constitution.
This is bill’s third way. No culture…nothing to bind society together.
We could have better govt . because of it..but it won’t be easy.Jane is leading the way.
the modern movement for universal healthcare started in the late ’80s. typical human rights movements take decades, but i don’t know of any successful short cuts. that’s why the failure by the progressive blogosphere to use this past year most effectively to contribute to that movement was such a big deal. this was year more people than ever were paying attention to health care reform policy and it was an opportune time to help educate about the facts: 1) that we are already, as a nation, spending enough money on health care to provide every resident with comprehensive first dollar (that means no deductible, co-pay or co-insurance) health care and 2) why we’re not getting it.
fortunately thousands of other people did not pre-compromise and significant, actually amazing imo considering the circumstances, progress was made. my greatest fear now is that a bill will be passed that undermines the single payer state movements.
if you are interested at all in the strategy of social movements i highly recommend the book, doing democracy. i’ve previously typed up a semi-long excerpt from it in a prior thread (link to book details is there too):
http://fdlaction.firedoglake.com/2009/11/30/why-continue-to-fight-for-a-public-option/#comment-64618
Again, my 46
We did not decide the time and place. And we (or I) did not immediately conclude that the battle was over before it started.
If that is your point – lack of prescience – mea culpa.
no mea culpa needed or wanted. i only am pressing the points so that we all can learn from each other and from history (i learn too, even if you end up agreeing with me, by having my ideas challenged and having these discussions).
re your question:
my guess today:
a two pronged approach. start by pressing for single payer and use that time to explain, educate and support grass roots actions by amplifying their reach (just by noting them when they happen would have helped — for example, the 13 people who were arrested in the 2 SFC hearings were specifically protesting absence of single payer advocates / policy experts in the hearings and that did get some response re future hearings).
second prong, although started a bit later, could then run concurrently, would be to evaluate the bills from congress, using sp as the gold standard. i think the idea of attempting a progressive block was brilliant and i fully support it — except i think the criteria must be supported by significant policy analysis that has buy in, including from hard core sp advocates (this could probably have been accomplished by including the criteria that no bill would make it harder for states to enact their own sp reform). otherwise we’re left with criteria that are probably not meaningful enough to motivate progressives in congress or their supporters to go all out for them (this, i think, is the case today).
then, if compromise is necessary, everyone knows what’s being compromised and why. and the progressive block is the backstop. don’t know if anything different would have been accomplished in this legislative cycle, but we would have been better educated, better prepared, probably undivided, and would have helped advance the social movement (instead of being an impediment — i think no posts in support of sp, for about a year (?), was a huge mistake)
my 2 cents today. but i’m still thinking things through and may change my mind tomorrow.
I agree. One prong, grassroots. Second one, legislative.
While I have no argument with when the start of the movement happened, I do have an argument with how it could have been deployed in short order after the President announced that the HC initiative would come off in 2009. Whether SP was DOA on or near August 2008 is quite beside my point – how do you change that reality quickly and effectively?
Again – what is the mechanism for reinserting SP into the conversation? What is the response to Baucus chucking SP advocates out of a public hearing? How do you (we, they, whoever) raise a stink? A stink that changes the conversation?
I am not suggesting, in hindsight, that the BlueDogs were manageable. They were, it appears, quite useful to the President’s goals. I did not always believe that to be the case.
what khin said about timing.
the thing i think is not yet widely enough known, is about how much was done by sp activists from the start of the obama administration. actually from before inauguration. during the interm period, obama, via daschle, had “house parties” to “discuss” healthcare reform. word went out via sp networks to attend the house parties and advocate for sp. it was because of the response to this early initiative (at the house parties and in the march report of the house party “discussion”) that sp advocates knew that this administration had their own agenda and had no interest whatsoever in what the people had to say.
there were many, many other actions taken up by sp advocates. remember the peer reviewed papers for example on bankruptcy due to healthcare costs? 45,000 deaths per year? — those were done by the founders of pnhp. or the mad as hell docs who traveled in their bus across country and one of them even successfully “snuck” into the president’s big meeting with docs about healthcare reform. (bt once posted on them by mistake thinking they were po advocates, and i that gave me the chance to post their statement on the po policy (they thought it sucked — but used nicer words).
anyway, all the progressive blogosphere had to do was take note, in a supportive fashion, of what others were doing and policy analysis that had already been done. that would have been a tremendous help. but i know understand, from sara robsinson, that the administration threatened progressive media outlets (i presume that includes blogs) not to do anything in support of sp or lose support and funding.
Short of having Obama on record saying that SP was what he favored but thought impractical from a legislative standpoint (Oh, wait…), and managing to extract from him a statement saying that going anything but the whole way was bad public policy (missed it by that much), he entered the HC initiative with a deck stacked against SP.
And this assumes that he was intent on doing the peoples business and not industry’s business… a conclusion pretty much destroyed by his conduct since the day he announced.
The play has been explained to you dozens of times in the last few months. It was for a number of progressives in both Houses to be recalcitrant and not to accept the marching orders of the President. through their recalcitrance they could have gotten the leadership to use either reconciliation or the “nuclear option.” In either case, an entirely different and much better hcr bill would have been possible. The error was in cooperating with Obama. the way around it is to be stubborn about what progressives want and force them to adjust to the conflicts in the system. khin was absolutely right.
Explain exactly how you get these recalcitrant critters and Senator to do this.
I mean it – explain how this is done.
Edit: Name the recalcitrant ones. Are they not the same ones who folded?
One of the funny things is how people get thrust forward by history despite their modest intentions.
“Tell me great hero, but please make it brief, is there a hole for me to get sick in?” Nice post, and if you read fdl you will see that every bit of the current anti-Obama dialectic is covered. You are nearly to the surface. You will breath fresh air when you realize that a vote for Obama or any weakly moderate Democrat is a vote for the system. You’ll probably need to find that hole, but once you vomit the establishment tripe up it is clear sailng. The Democratic Party must learn to fear liberals before we will ever get a seat at the table.
It’s not clear whether you can change it quickly. Most likely you can’t. However, you still get more bang for your buck advocating single payer than you do advocating 5% solutions. Even if you can’t change the reality of single payer rejection quickly, you still maximize the shift of the debate leftward by advocating single payer. This is partly because only Medicare for All is capable of building a mass movement. Five percent solutions cannot build mass movements, and hence cannot wield power. And power is what politicians listen to.
It is not clear to me that what we started with (and by we, I mean the nation) was a 5% solution. If you initially believed that Obama was in this HC initiative to enhance and cement the positions of insurance amd pharma companies, and that the PO was purely a tactic to keep the Left from losing their minds, hat’s off to you.
If you believed, as I did, that there was a real Hacker-style PO to work with as a starting point, you take it. The President, whether in August of ’08 or in January or February or March of ’09, stripping out any real chance to get SP, was a benchmark. He would have his bill, I believed, because there was to great a chance of a massive loss of prestige and political capital to consider. That is really a considerable focus, since, as I have stressed, HC DID NOT have to come off in ’09. He would force the issue and get what he could, or he would force the issue and nail down a set of standards for the benefit of industry.
Either way, the clock was his. I was aghast when he launched HC this year. I was concerned that it would fail, not because of mendacious Democrats, but because Democrats have no idea how to fight a transformative battle, and the Republicans wrote that book. I considered it unthinkable that he would literally screw the Left, and extremely unlikely that he would cede the issue to industry, since he would pay with his job.
Two for the price of one.
Edit: from a Progressive point of view, you almost have to adopt the view that the President has to do HC right. There are electoral consequences, but I suppose Rahm has planned ahead for those.
i had and have serious doubts as to it’s workability, but would have supported it as a final compromise. not as a starting point because anything less was even less likely to be workable, and imo a failed po is worse than none (i still think this) because it teaches the public that gov is not capable of running public health insurance and that means not just no original hacker-style po, it means no sp and it may very well mean the complete privatization of medicare.
re privatization of medicare. that reminds me to ask, if you are willing, to check out my comment re the filibuster. i think we’re being conned again.
http://seminal.firedoglake.com/diary/21250#comment-115508
it’s very late and i expect you are already gone for the night. if so, hopefully you’ll see this in the morning.
i’m out now.. must try to get some sleep, but will check back on this thread tomorrow. in case drzen or anyone else leaves me a reply. nite.
That’s the stinging truth.
Jeezus, this is total fucking nonsense. You’ll look back in a year or two and feel really stupid about it. It’s no point discussing with you why it’s nonsense, it seems. Enjoy your Kool Aid.
DrZen, do you have any prior comments i missed to clue me into what you’re referring too? please take pity on this stupid commenter and give me a hint or a link to explain why what we’re discussing is nonsense.
selise, based on prior comments, most likely he is referring to five percent solutions.
I’m signing off for tonight. Bye!
I am a fan of Thomas Kuhn…and I really believe we are on the precipice of a paradigm shift. When shifts in thinking are “big” and “valid” they are not historically met with “consensus” and in fact often, have very rough beginnings. Nader was the first to say it…over and over. I knew what he was saying was true…and I think today looking back at his campaign in 2000, it seems obvious to me now the point he was trying to make is true. WE the people are not running the current representative body. The corporations run them. His thinking was unpopular and I was very angry at him at the time, because I felt he didn’t help the situation landing us with Bush. However, today, I see that the corporatist interests were going to be served come hell or high water. (and how true is that today?) Today, I think that Gore would have kept the temp down on the pot, but I don’t think he could stop the fire.
We have to come to some kind of radical acceptance about what we face. WE all know it on some level, but many are still afraid to “face” it, but we cannot change what we don’t accept. Right now, we the people have no representation, we are not “at the table”. Jane gets it…and just as I sometimes found Nader fascinating, I also sometimes found him annoying. It was a truth I didn’t want to see and I problem I felt powerless to solve.
I try to live my life without attacking. I try to find the common ground…and if I do attack, I try to come back at it, less emotionally. I know that in the end, the only real solutions will require unity. But at first, there will be, and must be, dissension.
Can you cite a specific example of where Jane “gets it” or what this means exactly? Thanks.
The “it” I refer to is that we the people are not being represented. Our election funding is set up to support corporations, not people. We cannot win against corporate money. I believe that Jane sees this corruption on both sides of the table and that she has turned her focus on the problem of corruption regardless of the party affiliation. This is what Nader was trying to say, and it really pissed me off when he said it. But I see his truth today. We are hamstrung…and we need to find a solution that radically accepts this truth. Corporations have more power over our representatives that “we the people do”. That’s the “it” am referring to.
To me, this starts to get at one of the absolutely necessary longer-term strategic goals for preserving a democracy (constitutional democracy, democratic republic… whatever. Y’all may quibble away if you must ;-))
Corporations must be reined in and their false personhood stripped away. I think we’ve learned that anything that equates their rights with inalienable rights of human beings can and will be used as a corrupting influence.
We need to define the corporate scope of existence using draconian, iron-clad corporate charters- allow them to be profit-based associations only insofar as they operate within narrow constraints. Any excursions outside these bounds should have immediate and severe consequences for their executives and governing boards (no corporate veils!)
A set of starting points:
1) No involvement in the political process. (No campaign money, tightly constrained speech rights, no lobbying, no funding of industry umbrella groups, think tanks, etc.)
2) Complete operating transparency. (Accounting, employment practices, environmental and safety compliance, etc.)
3) No globalization. US-based corporations must be wholly accountable to US authority. (True of US-based subsidiaries of foreign companies as well.)
4) No corporate welfare from any tier of US governments. (No sweetheart deals for relocations, tax deferments, development subsidies…)
5) Rigorous and speedy enforcement of antitrust and anti-monopoly laws. (Too big to fail really is too big to exist.)
If this sounds harsh, I’m only getting started. (Don’t ask me about immigration reform and illegal employers…) Given current circumstances, I see this as a desperately needed response to an out of control system.
A tall order- probably requires a generation of effort, constitutional amendment, overturn of existing case law supporting corporate personhood, etc. Maybe I should choose smaller windmills to tilt at…
We think Hamsher is a know nothing and a teabagger for good reasons. Firstly, because she picks up on very visceral heart beat inducing topics and runs with them without actually thinking them through. A few examples of this is the Caroline Kennedy/Gillibrand fiasco, Freddie mac and Fannie Mae, and the mandates which the vast majority of serious economists believe is one of the best ways to control costs.
Plus she goes on Fox News and teams up with the teabaggers at Americans for Tax Reform.
Would that be the royal “we”?
Hi All,
Newbie poster here.
FWIW, I’m impressed by the focused alliance strategy that is being worked on. Frankly, establishment and exercise of power seems like the only clue-by-four the democratic party establishment will listen to when it comes to progressives.
A couple of blogs I’d like to point out that I haven’t seen mentioned yet, for possible alliance building- (these are mostly economics based.)
Barry Ritholtz- http://www.ritholtz.com/blog/
Tyler Durden at zerohedge- (I’m pretty sure Zerohedge has been linked at FDL in the past, but will add it anyways) – http://www.zerohedge.com/
Calculated Risk is required reading, and Bill McBride, the proprietor, appears fairly liberal (who says you can’t build alliances among the left as well? ;-))- http://www.calculatedriskblog.com/
Karl Denninger at market ticker- http://market-ticker.denninger.net/
Jesse at Cafe Americain- http://jessescrossroadscafe.blogspot.com/
Like anyone else, their views are mixed bags- areas where there is room for constructive engagement, and areas where they are loons. However, a lot of them have good ‘cred’ among economic conservatives, and tend to be just as upset about the hijacking of our government by banksters etc. as progressives are. They have long track records of critiqueing FED/Treasury corruption and bubble-driven US economic policies. Unfortunately, their blog forums (with exception of Calculated Risk) tend to be dominated by whackjobs. Perhaps room for outreach?
Thanks- I’ve learned a lot from FDL, and look forward to contributing a bit (here and there) as time permits.
Welcome to the Lake semiguy,
Elliott
Welcome, semiguy, and thanks for the recommended reading. We’re big fans of CalculatedRisk here and have also had material at least in the comments from folks who are quoting Zerohedge and Denninger on occasion. Agree with your point about coalition building.
I don’t think it requires much reflection to conclude that teaming up with Grover Norquist is a ridiculously foolish action in the short term and long term. Why confuse your progressive team members with a player like Norquist who wants to destroy civilized government, eliminate most if not all taxes, and set up a plutocracy or feudal system in America?
It’s easy to rally the right-wingers. Legitimize their greed and bigotry by giving them some short-term reward like a tax reduction for the richest, and pass laws restricting behavior of people they hate. Those are fairly easy to do quickly.
It’s harder to rally left-wingers. What do they want? Usually it’s some general public good. How do you immediately deliver something for the public good? It’s hard. Increased spending on public services is difficult when there are no funds. And how do you increase spending on public good when you first must increase spending on corporate good, just to stablize the country?
What’s need is a G-Street or something (Public Good Lobbyists) to rival or surpass K-Street (Corporate Lobbyists). Where’s that money going to come from? Who can possibly outspend the K-Street teams? When 10% of Americans own 75% of the income and wealth, how can average citizens for the Public Good outspend them?
In fact, it took you no reflection at all.
People who support Jane aren’t confused at all, and you are not part of my progressive team. The rest of your screed is a litany on how bad the right-wingers are.
You get money by getting out of Iraq and Afghanistan. Problem solved.
Wow, I didn’t even know I was confused.
Work2fish-
Please. ‘Must increase funding on corporate good just to stabilize the country.’??? In what universe does this make any sense?
In rough order of $:
1) You get money by clawing back $14 trillion or so in corporate welfare to Investment Banks, etc. doled out in the last 18 months. (See Nomi Prins.)
Use about 10% of the $14 trillion to implement Willem Buiter’s good bank idea- http://blogs.ft.com/maverecon/2009/01/the-good-bank-solution/
Banks are fungible as long as they serve the social utility value of providing sanely underwritten lending. The current banks can all burn with little impact on the real economy as long as the ‘good banks’ are established and running. $1 trillion in seed capital used by ‘good banks’ at sane 12:1 leverage provides plenty of real capital for a functional US economy.
2) You get money by getting out of Iraq and Afghanistan (sorry for repeat, jeffroby.)
3) You get money by repealing Bush-era tax cuts for the wealthiest Americans.
4) You get money by defunding MIC corporate welfare.
5) You get money by eliminating policies that allow corporations to evade taxation by offshoring their financial activities.
6) You get money in the long term by growing the productive US economy- the most critical part is to eliminate policies that allow (and reward!!!) companies to offshore their production.
7) You get money by scaling back on military bases in 150+ countries where the only real interest is enforcing empire.
8) You get money by aggressive and active enforcement of tax evasion by fatcats.
9) Oh yeah- you get money by real and comprehensive health care reform…
I’m sure there are plenty of options that I’ve missed.
You’ve nailed it. It’s just that sometimes my fingers get tired. :>)
Oops- sorry for the formatting mess in #94. Not sure what happened, but I’ll re-post:
Thanks! Why play Whack-a-mole with trolls when you can carpet bomb? ;-)
Frankly, I really like the idea that was implemented years ago by the Talk Origins folks (http://www.talkorigins.org/) during the great Usenet creation/evolution wars. (I won’t use the word ‘debates’, since there is no factual basis for any ‘debate’ on the issue.)
Talk Origins created an exhaustive FAQ and archive (http://www.talkorigins.org/origins/faqs-qa.html; http://www.talkorigins.org/origins/faqs.html) addressing all recurring troll talking points. Replying to new trolls became as simple as referencing archive chapter #XYZ following their initial posts.
No point in wasting effort on people who don’t participate in a discussion in good faith. On the other hand, lurkers following along are welcome to follow up and hopefully find useful information in the archives.
Thanks!
Why play Whack-a-mole with trolls when you can carpet bomb? ;-)
Frankly, I really like the idea that was implemented years ago by the Talk Origins folks (http://www.talkorigins.org/) during the great Usenet creation/evolution wars. (I won’t use the word ‘debates’, since there is no factual basis for any ‘debate’ on the issue.)
Talk Origins created an exhaustive FAQ and archive (http://www.talkorigins.org/origins/faqs-qa.html; http://www.talkorigins.org/origins/faqs.html) addressing all recurring troll talking points. Replying to new trolls became as simple as referencing archive chapter #XYZ following their initial posts. No point in wasting effort on people who don’t participate in a discussion in good faith. On the other hand, lurkers following along are welcome to follow up and hopefully find useful information in the archives.
If “teaming up” means accepting or even tolerating Norquist’s agenda, then I would certainly agree. However, it’s not clear to me that is what is happening. We really need to get some perspective. They cosigned a letter.
I have no idea about the specific suggestions of corruption against Rahm Emanuel, but certainly there are legitimate political grievances against the big banks and the politicians who allowed them to profit off of the public dole. Those grievances are shared by much of the public that calls itself “conservative.” That is why your comment below is unreasonable:
We do need to distinguish between political elites and the Republican base. I don’t think that any kind of long-term collaboration with people like Norquist is a good idea. But we do need to address the legitimate anger that much of the public has at the bailout, lack of real health care reform, and so on.
Couldn’t agree more.
My first exposure to this was in the leadup to the original ‘TARP’ in the fall of 2008. I was following a lot of investment and trading sites/blogs throughout the year (contributors in these forums unfortunately tend to be conservative/reactionary, which can be frustrating.) Leading up to the fall stock market crash, everyone was busy speculating about how the overleveraged debt in the financial system could be addressed. (Remember SIVs? Super-SIVs? ‘Bad banks?’ etc.?)
There was complete unanimity among these folks that the assorted approaches prior to TARP were:
a) Fundamentally flawed. Who in their right mind would want to be stuck with all the bad debt?
b) Probably fraudulent. See a) above- for any of these schemes to work, a sucker would have to be found.)
c) Inadequate given the scale of the problem.
Much hilarity ensued, until Hank Paulson pulled off his coup.
The sheer fury among the investors/traders in response to Paulson (and the acquiescence of congress) was unbelievable. These folks were incredibly active in engaging their representatives and trying anything they reasonably could to stop Paulson. (So were a lot of others people, of course. Public opinion was running something like 95% against TARP at the time.) By and large, they viewed TARP in terms of b) above- Wall Street had found its suckers, and they were the US taxpayers. A little different framing than the progressive view that the Bush Administration was ‘looting the treasury’ as its last act, but not really wrong.
So, here were people who had, for the most part, been quite supportive of other aspects of the BushCo agenda suddenly very publicly and actively engaged against the administration. To this day, the majority of them still get the story right (‘TARP’ does not equal ‘stimulus’- Bush/Paulson/Bernanke own it, not Obama.) They remain furious.
What’s my point? On this particular topic, this predominantly conservative group was highly reality-based, and very active in opposing bad policy imposed by a reactionary administration. Engagement by progressives could have built cred and possible longer term tactical alliances.
Did engagement happen? Not much, as far as I can tell. Why not? Probably because there were little if any existing lines of communication or recognized broader common interests. True for TARP then. Echoes in the HCR situation now…
You’re absolutely right on! We have to get smarter. That’s part of why I recommend Supkis. It’s a place where we can learn their language. The current course is disastrous for both the working class and small business and industry. Gotta be ways we can do something with that.
Different people can have different focuses. If you are more educated about a particular issue, then it’s appropriate to devote time working on that issue, even if legislative action isn’t immediately forthcoming. I am not going to stop working on health care, and neither did the people who formed Health Care for America Now back before this battle even started. Building movements requires long periods of time and effort. You work on what you’re comfortable working on; I’ll work on what I am.
There’s also the saying that “those who don’t learn from history are doomed to repeat it.” We need to understand just how the left failed on health care reform and how to avoid it in the future.
No problem. See:
http://www.docudharma.com/diary/18047/wont-get-fooled-again
where I try to address what happened. Many are into the healthcare fight because it’s the fight du jour. You have a specialty in healthcare, don’t waste it.
Well, to some degree I get the point. This hc bill was exactly was Nader would have predicted. (if I understood him correctly). At the time, I argued that dems are better than republicans…but Nader kept saying “there is not that much of a difference”. I didn’t believe it. I thought that the right dem could tame the shrew. But unfortunately, I think we put the “right” dem into office and he can’t tame the shrew. He just can’t get the american people what they need. Corporate interests are getting their needs met royally. I can blame Obama…or I can blame the system. I think Jane blames the system and wants to stop corruption. I think that calling out dem corruption is very brave. Not very popular…and boy! people hated Nader for suggesting that dems were as bad as republicans.
Well Obama’s treatment of the finance sector…his handling of the sub prime loans, his handling of torture, his handling of the war, his handling of fisa, his handling of healthcare…all lead me to believe that he is not able to do what he set out to do. Not because he’s a jerk, or a bad guy…but because there is so much corruption and graft that he can’t get the job done.
One way to fight it is to call out not only the republicans but the dems who’s corruption is hurting us.
thanks khin and newt. hopefully more later… also, if you are willing, please see my reply to jeffroby @104. no time to even read the rest of the thread now, but wanted to reply in some way to say thanks for the conversation. hope we can pick it up again here or on some other thread.
Before I go on I will add that Daily Kos’s Armstrong and Zuniga are the last resort for discussion of stock fraud because they ARE stock fraudsters.Zuniga banned all discussion of Armstrong’s role in using the scammy ragingbull.con website to pump worthless penny stocks and profit from it.He also banned all so-called ‘conspiracy theory’ posts re 9/11 and even compared his repression of free speech to a purge a la Stalin.
The Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac pump and dump scams are even worse and more involved than Jane Hamsher states and as corrupt as Rahm Emanuel is he is only part of the story.My theory is that most of the money invested by Americans in shares of Fannie Mae,Freddie Mac and probably all shares named by the corrupt ex SEC Chairman Christopher ‘Naked Shorts’ Cox on the sec.gov website in 2008(including Goldman Sachs!),were NOT ‘naked shorted’ at all.(see sec.gov link below)
Naked Shorting or naked short selling was a term first made up or erroneously popularized by James Dale Davidson who founded Steve Forbes’ and Grover Norquist’s et.al.’s National Taxpayers Union and who still runs penny stock scams out of the NTU office a few blocks from the main Securities Exchange Commission office in Alexandria,Virginia.He is an untouchable and protected for some reason by both Republicans and Democrats.(Grover Norquist is by the way directly connected with Steve Forbes and James Dale Davidson because he was part of the NTU before founding his own supposed tax payers interest group to high jack concerned middle class tax payers for his and his pals’ own interests.)
James Dale Davidson founded Agora Inc (penny stock) Holding(and dumping) ‘company’ of Baltimore for his penny stock money laundering ops and used LOM or Lines Overseas Management of Bermuda to pump and dump Genemax with its supposed cancer vacine and probably Endovasc,etc., then craeted NAANSS or National Association Against Naked Short Selling in 2002 and claimed they were ‘naked shorted’.
So how strange years later that the collapse of Rahm Emanuel’s Freddie Mac and Barney Frank’s boyfriend Herb Moses’ Fannie Mae would be officially ascribed to naked short selling’ a term made up to distract from illegal pumps ands dumps of penny stocks.Only thing is that Freddie Mac and Fannie Mae like a Lanny Davis connected ponzi scam called Novastar Financial all paid dividends and the criminals like ex SEC Chair Chris Cox who claimed-lied that they were victims of ‘naked short sellling’ can’t answer the question of why if counterfeit shares were being dumped then why did no one complain of not receiving their dividends !
Rahm Emanuel and BARNEY FRANK SHOULD BE CALLED TO DEFEND OR REFUTE THE LIE THAT FANNIE MAE AND FREDDDIE MAC SHARES WERE ‘NAKED SHORTED’ OR COUNTERFEITED.Our own government is the enemy and even Senators Carl Levin,Arlen ‘Magic Bullet’ Spector Chuck Grassley,Bob Bennett,Orin HATCH and Jon Testor have promoted this fraudulent rumor so they are covering up for Emanual and Frank and the biggest heist of American investors’ money into offshore accounts in world history.LOM of Bermuda and Leumi Bank of Israel and many more anonymous accounts inclusding in Switzerland and Caymans held Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac when they were methodically dumped – then the SEC and Chris ‘Naked Shorts’ COX PLACED THE LIE ON THEIR WEBSITE(WHERE IT REMAINS)THAT FREDDIE MAC FANNIE MAE BANK AMERICA LEHMAN GOLDMAN SACHS,ETC,ETC., WERE ALL VICTIMS OF ‘NAKED SHORT SELLING’ ! Case closed.
The SEC ands its ’special council’ STEVEN G JOHNSTON BY THE WAY WON’T PROVIDE ME WITH ANY PROOF THAT THEY AREN’T LIEING AND TELLS ME I’D HAVE TO GET THE SEC’S AND CHRIS COX ‘PROOF’ OF ‘NAKED SHORT SELLING’ BY APPLYING UNDER THE FREEDOM OF INFORMATION ACT OR FOIA.Ionly wish there were real investigative reporters and someone would take them up on their offer.I know they would only give me the run around as they have for years.
http://www.sec.gov/news/press/2008/2008-143.htm
SEC Enhances Investor Protections Against Naked Short Selling
FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE
2008-143
Washington, D.C., July 15, 2008 – The Securities and Exchange Commission today issued an emergency order to enhance investor protections against “naked” short selling in the securities of Fannie Mae, Freddie Mac, and primary dealers at commercial and investment banks….
The securities identified in the Commission’s order:
Company Ticker Symbol(s)
BNP Paribas Securities Corp. BNPQF or BNPQY
Bank of America Corporation BAC
Barclays PLC BCS
Citigroup Inc. C
Credit Suisse Group CS
Daiwa Securities Group Inc. DSECY
Deutsche Bank Group AG DB
Allianz SE AZ
Goldman, Sachs Group Inc GS
Royal Bank ADS RBS
HSBC Holdings PLC ADS HBC and HSI
J. P. Morgan Chase & Co. JPM
Lehman Brothers Holdings Inc. LEH
Merrill Lynch & Co., Inc. MER
Mizuho Financial Group, Inc. MFG
Morgan Stanley MS
UBS AG UBS
Freddie Mac FRE
Fannie Mae FNM
http://www.sec.gov/news/press/2008/2008-143.htm
Yeah,sure.:
“The SEC’s mission to protect investors, maintain orderly markets, and promote capital formation is more important now than it has ever been,” said SEC Chairman Christopher Cox. “Today’s Commission action aims to stop unlawful manipulation through ‘naked’ short selling that threatens the stability of financial institutions. We will continue our vigorous commitment to investors by working within the SEC and in close cooperation with our regulatory counterparts to promote the continued health and vibrancy of our markets.”