I just had Christmas dinner with my right wing family members and Jane has some new fans. Generally, political talk is not allowed at family gatherings, at least not the ones I am at, though the rest of them could cheer each others’ opinions on all day. This Christmas, not only could we talk politics, we were on the same page. My dad is the farthest right and most vocal of the group. He’s also the one who has given me every book Glenn Beck has ever written.
I asked my dad if he had heard that Jane Hamsher and Grover Norquist had sent a joint letter to Holder asking for an investigation of Rahm Emanuel. He hadn’t been plugged in, but was intrigued, so I told him more about it. He’s now one of Jane’s biggest fans. My dad won’t sign her petition because he’s afraid he’ll get emails from lefties, but he wants me to keep him apprised of what FDL’s doing on the issues we have common ground on and he made a donation through ActBlue.
He was really angry about the health care bill, which I expected. What I didn’t see coming was that he hates this bill without a public option more than he hated the idea of a foothold for socialized medicine. He thinks that we ended up with the worst of all options because it was done by special corporate interests and special senatorial interests and nobody cared about regular people. He has great insurance as management for a defense contractor, but he doesn’t like to see other people screwed or monopolies given more power or banksters rewarded and left to go back to everything they were up to before. He was very impressed by Jane going after a fellow Democrat and to hear that a big block of the progressive community puts principle over party. He’s looking at bailing on the Republicans because he thinks they are corrupt, too. AND THIS IS A GUY WHO STILL LIKES CHENEY!!!!!
He said that he has had a similar experience with a friend from work who is left wing. They argued as much as we used to about politics before, but in the last year or so, they are on the same page a lot.
There’s a shitstorm a comin’ my friends. If it buries Rahm as it goes by, my dad and I both agree it couldn’t happen to a more deserving guy.
By the way, he’s also impressed that progressives aren’t falling for Harry Reid’s "those darned other senators made me do it." He thinks that Obama should be more worried about looking like a weak unprincipled loser who would do something harmful just to say he did something, anything, than looking like a loser because he didn’t get a bill passed. And he’s okay with allowing people to buy into Medicare, too, as long as it’s optional. But he’s against the House plans for public options because he thinks it will just add to the expensive and evil federal bureaucracy where people land to be paid off for political favors and lazy people go to be paid to do very little after joining evil unions (I told you he’s a wingnut). When I told him progressives preferred administering any new option through Medicare, too, because we’re for coverage, not wasteful spending, he was a little surprised, but pleased.
So I say that whatever happens to this current monstrosity of a health care bill, we should start pushing all those so-called progressives to ram through a Medicare buy-in for all uninsured of any age in lieu of the high risk pools that we all know won’t do anything anyway.
And thanks, Jane, for being an example even my dad can accept of why those darned liberals are not even part of the problem, but are part of the solution. It was a great Christmas present for both me and my dad.



258 Comments







I enjoyed your Christmas story. I too exist in a swarm of conservatives here in SC, including my extended family. You have inpired me to ask them what they think of Health Care Reform. Happy Holidays!
Great diary, Paula. Thanks.
Kinda surprising to find a Cheney supporter more rational than some folks @ Kos, non?
It amazes me how insular some of them are about consorting with enemies when our own did things like the Stupak amendment. Like I say to all the Democrats I write to, I prefer Republicans if I am going to get screwed either way. At least they don’t lie to me in addition to screwing me over. The enemies within are much scarier to me, especially when liberals are going to get blamed for what the corporate dems do.
recommended — thanks for sharing your story with us
Great diary.
What’s amazing to me is how people evidently forget that we use alliances in to achieve a greater good. Like USSR was our ally in WW2.
I’m SO glad that we didn’t say, “Lie down with dogs, get up with fleas” and decide we could do without their army.
I love this story. Thanks for putting up this diary Paula, and happy holidays to dad!
It was a nice story, but I hope that you’ll be disappointing Paula’s dad by
turning down any offer to co-host on Beck’s show.
My dad wouldn’t want her cohosting Beck’s show any more than she’d want to do it. He wants his government back, just like we do. He’s not stupid. We both agree that although we’d like to see a third party because the two we have are so corrupt, we can’t see making one of our common cause because there would not be enough we could agree on to make a platform or a cohesive party. That doesn’t mean we can’t both be doing all we can to get rid of the corruption in the system, though. He’s willing to push as hard as I am on campaign finance reform, for example, so why not take the extra help? The added bonus is that the party of no guys only listen to their base at this point because they are afraid of primaries. So no matter how much I might want one of them to counter a Lieberman on something like campaign finance, they won’t budge. If my dad and his right wing friends push them, though, they’ll listen because that’s their base that they have to keep happy. It’s not just extra bodies for the fight, it’s bodies that can do things that we can’t.
I’m sorry Paula. I was attempting a mild jest, (or thought that I was).
Apology accepted and I apologize for misreading you.
PaulaT,
As I agree with most of your Dad’s views, I must be a wingnut. Just a few quick points:
1. Thanks for the article, it’s nice to see there’s often more common ground than you’d think.
2. You comment above that a 3rd political party isn’t practical from a broad platform perspective. I would respond by asking you to look at the Pirate Party in Sweden. A very NARROW party platform that has made incredible inroads in the EU, against all odds, in a very short period of time. Looking at the death of the GOP circa 2007 and the Democratic implosion occurring as I type, I wonder if a more narrow and factionalized political infrastructure is the evolutionary destiny of our country. I suspect that to be the case on the right, I couldn’t tell you about your side of the aisle.
3. You argue that Healthcare is more about compassion rather than political maneuvering. While you correctly identify some of the wingnut’s arguments against the Senate Bill, the dominant issues right now are the deficit and compassion (supra)…so let me ask you a question. Assume the final bill is not deficit neutral: So when my grandchild starts working in 20 years, he will be paying the debt and the interest on that debt for the medical costs of someone who has long since passed away, on top of that his tax dollar will have to pay for all the ongoing federal expenditures as well as the cost of his own healthcare….it’s an unsustainable downward spiral that can only be counterbalanced by the confluence of two events: 1 an unprecedented economic boom that reduces the deficit; 2. a truly deficit neutral Healthcare plan, not some backloaded bill with unfunded assumptions calculated by a compliant CBO. Will you not be compromising the Healthcare of future generations with such a reckless plan? Where is the compassion for people’s healthcare who are not yet born whose healthcare will be compromised 20 years from now because of the irresponsible spending of today. If everyone chipped in and everyone paid taxes and everyone had skin in the game…no matter how little, the story might be different, and a sensible universal Healthcare plan might be unanimously passed. However, as things stand, I don’t see the compassion of compromising the healthcare of future generations of Americans by taking tax dollars of tomorrow to pay for medical care we can’t afford as a nation today. I submit to you that the current plan takes money from people not yet born to pay for the healthcare of today. I also submit to you that the moral imperative is for each generation to pay it’s own health costs.
I don’t have any problem with paying as we go. I think it’s the smart thing to do. Compassion means you get it done, not that you refuse to pay for it. I think we need to raise taxes on the wealthy and put the military industrial complex on a strict diet.
I would like to see our government evolve into more of a coalition government. I don’t think the two parties work very well for us now. There aren’t many who are just conservative or liberal. There are social conservatives and fiscal conservatives, for example, and they aren’t always the same people nor do they belong to the same party. Thanks to Rahm, we apparently have a bunch of people who are both fiscal and social conservatives in the Democratic party, even. So then you have people upset at having voted in Democratic majorities that produce legislation that is counter to the Democratic party platform. I think it would work better to have coalitions of different interest groups. At least you would know more of what to expect from your coalition instead of not even realizing your party was actually a coalition rather than a relatively uniform group.
If you ever run for office, I will vote for you. Please consider it. You reflect my views so closely it is almost eerie (in the sense that in any given grouping I almost never find anyone who isn’t doctrinaire.)
I especially like your comments on effective
gov’t. My original idea for a 3rd party was to name it the Pragmatic Party. A party that is concerned with what works. Discussions with Let’sgetitdone made me aware that the word Pragmatic is equated in liberal (and conservative) circles with mere political expediency. I don’t think of it that way, but appearances DO matter, especially at the beginning. So I have been thinking about a narrowly focused party that could collect problem solvers from across the political spectrum to converge and concentrate on matters of universal health care. Healthcare is like the hub of a wheel with spokes that radiate out to touch and illuminate so many other core issues: campaign finance, Wall Street, media concentration, a bought Congress, a sick nation (literally.)
“Hello, I’m with the National Health Party. I don’t want you or members of your family to die or go bankrupt due to crushing medical costs.” I like that theme and it’s one that is not going away.”
A dear friend of mine told me that I should run for office. I laughed. I’d end up on C-SPAN telling men and women older than me to go into their offices and take a time out until they were ready to stop behaving like prima donnas and start getting things done. And they’d probably poison my lunch because I’d be telling the entire country what was going on in all the closed door meetings. I’ve often said in the past that the people who are the best at actually governing will never end up governing because they don’t have what it takes to make it to high level politics. I don’t lie, even to kids, and I don’t play games. I couldn’t even get elected dog catcher!
OK Mom!
Actually I have thought it would be hilarious to run a campaign in which you always told the truth.
I work with a lot of foster kids (teaching anger management, primarily) who get really worked up about the system and the people in it lying to them and assuming they know what’s best for them without even getting to know anything about them. You should see some of the reactions I get when I say things like, “Yeah, that would really suck and I’d be furious, too. I don’t think it was the right thing to do, but I can see how they might have thought it was better for you to lie to you than to make you even more upset when they’re having to take you out of your home. They maybe even hoped it would turn out to be the truth.” Then I tell them that I personally am perfect so I do know what’s best for everyone whether I know them or not, but I can totally see where it would piss people off if other less perfect people did that. Then we work together on identifying and solving their problems.
We all tend to see problems from the point of view of our own problem-solving skills. To my way of thinking, these folks would be benefit from learning how engineers or logisticians do their jobs – OK, we want these new rules on insurance, how do we make them work? The answer, of course, is regulations and regulators. Neither of these things is addressed in the Senate bill. In fact, they pulled the House’s regulation framework out of it.
I doubt I could get elected, either. Reality isn’t something politicians want to deal with when it will cost them campaign money or votes.
That is so friggin’ true. Hey, I’d vote for you and Paula. Especially if you ran on National Health Party ticket. . .
Dear PaulaT,
Thank You for your thought inducing diary. I have learned a lot reading this blog. as an old school conservative, I cannot relate to the current day image of what a Conservative is, for instance I ponder the possibility of how much of an improvement it would be to the National Intelligence Quotient if Glen Beck were to go back to drinking, and take Hannity with him, nothing personal and no offense intended to any fox-tv sponsors. It is refreshing to see that no one really knows what a conservative is, I assure you, I am not out to destroy any liberals, my heart is loyal and faithful first and foremost to all of my fellow U.S. Citizens, one of my personal litmus tests of what old school conservative is about. As far as diversity is concerned, do the first 10 Amendments cover everything? I love this blogging thing, it is what Free Speech is all about. p.s. gov. reagan was crooked as hell, and i never voted for the bum.
Maybe you should stop short of insulting people’s parents.
It wasn’t Paula’s dad that I was joking about and I didn’t say anything to insult anyone.
well,maybe it was a bit insulting towards Beck.
I’ll tell him you wished him happy holidays. Are you sure you want to go public with yet another right wing friend, though? You’ll have no liberal cred left!
Dear Jane,
I can relate to PaulaTs righteous diary. Who was it that said >it only takes 20 years for a liberal to become a conservative without changing a single idea? :) i am a newbie to the blogging phenom, we can use george carlins 7 secret words and everything, i like it. Thank you Dear Lady Jane, for being a uniting Angel in these troubled times, people Love the TRUTH, and we Love those who stand for TRUTH over butt kissing. I am also fascinated with the aspect that shines some light on the fact that women played a most vital role in the founding of these United States, even though women are left out of the history books, as an old school conservative (love women, support Womens Constitutional rights to make their own reproductive choices, am spiritual, NOT religious, know that we must tackle climate change through new energetic technological processes, and all that) I Love what you do, and What you are about, who knows, we just might be able to save the crazy fucking human species, at least we can say we tried.
I got a hearty laugh out of that line!
Lefties who attack Jane for her efforts at coalition building are so misdirected. This is a once in a lifetime opportunity that can not be wasted. People must understand that we are in a crisis and patriots of the left and the right are going to need each other to survive the battle. Go back and read the history of the American Revolution. No way did all the Revolutionaries agree on the best form of government. But they were clear who the enemy was. Clarifying the common enemy is exactly what Jane is doing.
I’d love to get the message out that progressives aren’t for big government, we’re for effective government. I think most of us would end up with a much smaller government if we got to take what we have and do whatever we wanted with it. It would have more of a role in health care, but that would be more than offset by cuts in defense, for example. But what government does get involved in should be done right. It’s not that we love government per se, for example, it’s that we don’t see the point in paying the profit margins of private companies when Medicare provides the same services less expensively. The conservatives have been fed the line that we are out to grow government in order to cement political victories because all those federal employees as well as all the lazy people taken care of will then vote to maintain the system and those who put it in place. Hang out on FDL, though, and you never see any diaries about power through bureaucracy. It’s about compassion for the people, not political maneuvering.
I hope others used their holiday encounters with righties so effectively. There really is a common enemy, and HCR (sic) is just the latest example. I don’t know why this is so difficult for some to see, and why such alliances are verboten in mainstream circles, but the Liebermans and Aetnas of the world must be laughing all the way to the bank.
Thanks, PT – excellent post. People don’t always perceive when political tectonics are on the move. Nothing less will do.
Perhaps because the Left has been propagandized into believing that all wingnuts are racist fools clinging to guns and bibles while chanting “rush, Rush, RUSH!”?
I take it you haven’t seen the diaries and commenters arguing that no matter how badly the Bill bites you should accept it because failure would be bad for the Party?
I’m glad you had a good Christmas, PaulaT. I’d like to ask, have your father’s views changed? You didn’t see it coming that he’d be angry about a Bill written for special interests at the expense of the people, but didn’t he feel that same way five years ago? He “doesn’t like to see other people screwed or monopolies given more power.” Are these views new or has he always felt that way? He objects to bankers being bailed out and left to carry on as usual: did he recently learn that from a Progressive friend or has it always been part of his wingnut philosophy?
I don’t know your father, of course, but I wouldn’t be surprised to find that he hasn’t changed a bit; that this far right Glenn Beck fan has always been against special interest influence, powerful monopolies, and bailing out corporate failures.
He hasn’t really changed and neither have I, which is why I think an alliance is a good thing. It doesn’t require changing who you are. We are naturally allied on certain points. We have both changed to some degree. He was an entitlement reform guy not long ago. Now, he’s not so sure. He thinks things need to be reformed because so many of our programs are unsustainable, but the ability to pull money out of behinds for bankers makes him more suspicious not only of why the push but of how it will actually work out. I wasn’t for entitlement reform before, but I am also more suspicious of anything the government wants to do about budgets. As another commenter said, it seems that the way they reduce their current deficits is not to actually solve problems, but to push them down the road with accounting tricks. But in order to pass the accounting trick push, they have to give money away to special interests, apparently, so you not only have no solution, you actually have more deficit.
A big change in both of us is the level of trust we have in any member of our government. He always thought Obama was a con artist, of course, and neither of us was waving flags and shouting in glee at what a perfect system of governance we had. You kind of know the power hungry bastards are doing a lot for themselves and their friends but you think they’re also genuinely trying to get a few things done for the people here and there. Now there is a sense that they are not working for us at all. When I talked to him about the theory that it has devolved into two parties competing for corporate money, it made sense to him immediately. We are just afterthoughts. If they could just get rid of that pesky democracy crap, they wouldn’t even have to think of us at all except at tax time.
So… These recently-discovered areas of agreement and common ground have actually existed all along?
You’re both right, at least on these issues. There’s every reason to think that this government is just leaving this problem for future generations to solve. I have no problem with deficit spending in principle, in fact, this is the sort of financial situation where it probably ought to be used. What bothers me is that they’re not spending that the money they’re borrowing on things that will ultimately strengthen the economy. They’re spending it to keep their rich friends happy and employed.
Terrific diary.
We pay 16% of our GDP for healthcare, while the rest of the industrialized world gets on average better care for about 10% of their (smaller) GDPs. So we are overpaying by at least 6% of our $15 trillion GDP, i.e., we are over paying by almost a trillion dollars per year — $900 billion to be more precise.
For perspective note that this overpayment amount is half again as big as our entire military budget. Note also that this overpayment problem is growning faster than the GDP.
The White House blocked constructive action on this trillion-dollar-per-year problem by killing the drug re-importation (Dorgan) amendment and the public option. But the problem isn’t going to wait for future generations.
On the subject of budgets, it’s perfectly OK with lots of folks if someone else overspends on something, just don’t expect us to spend to fix it. That’s something that’s at work here – that trillion dollars or so isn’t being spent by Congress (mostly), so it’s someone else’s problem. If they have to spend money, they’ll catch flak for it.
A large fraction of Americans would gladly pay twice as much for health coverage if that column on their pay stub is labeled “healthcare premium” rather than “healthcare tax.”
I’m celebrating Christmas with my right wing family, and their overall response to Obama’s attempt at Health Care Reform has been almost exactly the same as that of the diarist. They are currently uninsured, and have said they will go to jail before they’ll pay a fine for refusing to transact with one of the two rip-off insurance companies that are willing to sell policies in the wilds of south-central Montana.
After laborious explanation on my part, it’s also worthy of note that they are now far less opposed to the idea of government competing with private corporations in the Health Insurance market, than with being forced to pay a larger fraction of their income to a private insurance company than their average federal income tax rate, for a lousy policy that can be manipulated to get around virtually every “regulation” in the Senate Bill simply by raising premiums. For example, is that loss ratio crimping your profits? Simply raise premiums by 20% so that the 85% you’re paying out is taken out of a much larger stream of premium revenues. Can’t deny based on a pre-existing condition? Just raise prices until the offending party can’t afford the policy anymore. Get the picture? And I’m sure it will get worse if it’s passed, and the Bill is incrementally “deformed” to make it even more favorable to the corporate interests that were responsible for putting it together and either using bribes or extortion to help insure it’s passage.
That’s one of the bright sides. My dad is an entitlement reforming, Reagonomics worshipping, government is the enemy guy that I never would have thought would let me mention Medicare buy-in without washing my mouth out with soap. But he is now seeing government as less evil and corporations as more harmful. He blames it on their monopoly power because he’s a free market guy and I don’t see how there can be free markets in health care given what’s at stake and the knowledge needed to make choices, but we both agree that the current bill is a disaster and that insurance companies are a big part of the problem, not the solution. He can see where competition can only come from the government at this point because it is so difficult to set up the reserves and the networks and everything else it takes to start up an insurance company to compete. At the same time, we agree that regulation, while in theory would help, does not provide a good enough curb on their monopolistic and predatory behavior. We’ve all been smacked upside the head with what happens to regulations over time by our friends on Wall St. Madoff and the SEC came up as well as the repeal of Glass-Steagall.
When even the right wing can see that the government might be able to do a better job than a private corporation, maybe we have a chance to get some things fixed. IT makes it all the more frustrating that those chances are being blown.
OMG! We had almost the same thing happen. My husband’s right wing inlaws totally don’t believe in this bill, as do I. My bro in law and I agreed the most. And we’re the ones that argue the most. My sis in law is totally convinced that the Obama Admin. will destroy America. She totally has NO CLUE about politics, she’s just popular with her ‘church girl’ friends.
.
I have to say that thought is not completely foreign to me (the Xmas Eve coup re the Fed, etc.), and I used to think I was so far left, you couldn’t see me. But the very categorization (left vs. right) is something of a handicap these days. There must be a better way to describe what’s going on.
My bro in law and I are worried about how 8-10% more of income is gonna hurt us. We can’t pay our bills hardly, already and we both have insurance through our workplace. Are we gonna be taxed again if a mandate is passed?
One thing we can count on is our Operation Mockingbird press will up the partisanship to prevent such a powerful left/right grassroots coalition from forming.
Glenn Beck will say crazier things, and Anderson Cooper and Rachael Maddow will spend too much time mocking the crazy things Beck says.
Some liberals will watch all this and wonder how any progressive could find common cause with a conservative, who must be by definition as crazy as the cynically Hegelian Beck and his handlers.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation_Mockingbird
I don’t think they can stop us. They have already been doing their best and as you can see by this article, we are now winning.
We’re not the only ones:
http://www.jewishworldreview.com/1209/tracinski122309.php3
I’ve already sent the link around to family members and pointed out that we feel that they are probably accurate about our leadership only wanting to consolidate power, but we really stand on principle and want to provide safety nets for our fellow men and women.
heh, a bit more than half of my immediate family is conservative. The parents surprised me when dad said he voted for Perot along with one brother. They were pissed at the Bushie-led recession that ‘stole’ their market share. I just imagine what dad would be saying were he alive today (prolly much like your dad).
There is a great thievery afoot that is perpetrated by the combined incumbency of both parties on the Beltway. Paying into Act Blue will put progressives into power and will impact the future so more power to your dad for figuring that out!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
No, of course not. What HAS changed is the optics. Previously we were all muddled into the “for gov’t” solution and the right were all muddled into the “for free markets” solution and what has happened is that events have forced us all to fall OUT of solution. And here we all stand and it’s much easier to SEE the puppeteers.
This is the only good, nay great, thing to come out of the health care morass.
But people of all political stripes are looking around, bewildered and asking “where do we go? No one represents us. Politically, we have no home.”
Hence, The National Health Party.
Good diary, PaulaT.
I confess that when I read the title my first thought was that “Enemy Territory” referred to DKos.
I can accept the myopic greed of the wingnuts — you can work around that stuff with laws and regulations.
What scares me is the attitude that if you aren’t a straight, white, Christian, middle-class-or-above person you aren’t a real American and therefore do not deserve the full protection of the law.
How far can we go with this odd new alliance before we run into the limitations of dealing with that mindset? I ask this as an honest question with no preconceptions about the answer.
We go with it as long as the issue that brought the sides together is unresolved. When other issues arise that have no common ground then you fight like cats n’ dogs if you must. This is standard operating procedure in multi-party, coalition govts in Europe and other parts of the world. It feels alien to us because we have been conditioned to separate out into 2 mutually exclusive warring camps.
A good thing about coalition building is that you actually spend time working for a common purpose and that tends to make you realize that the other side does’nt have horns and may actually have some aspects you can admire.
As you descend down the political tower from Washington to state gov’t to local politics and finally the dinner table, I don’t think it is coincidence that when it comes to actually problem solving, that distinctions like party affiliation tend to dissolve.
And conditioned to believe that your side is 100% right about everything, ergo anyone who opposes anything you say “must be by definition as crazy as the cynically Hegelian Beck and his handlers.”
This attitude rather impedes communication…
I’m not sure if your comment is an attack on what I said or a reinforcement. Since I’m unclear I will reserve comment.
I was agreeing with you about the “conditioning” and expanding on the thought.
Carry on, Brother or Sister. You want a musket or man the cannonade?
Saving all your preconceptions for the wingnut stereotype that’s been pounded into your skull?
Where do you get that stuff? Christmas dinner last night was five couples and three kids. Of the five, one couple was gay and two were racially mixed (as were two of the three kids). Most are not really into religion, none are “greedy,” and all are economically struggling.
How far do you think intelligent Conservatives can go with this odd new alliance before we run into the limitations of dealing with your mindset?
I know *everyone* will want to bring home a bailout apologist who calls their family racists for Christmas dinner to explain how Obama ran on “bipartisanship.”
The definition of “bipartisan” seems to be “everyone is allowed to come together to agree with the President, but if agreeing with each other doesn’t include him, it’s a ‘dangerous odd new alliance.’”
Correct me but wasn’t that pretty much the definition of bi-partisan used by the previous administration?
Didn’t like it then; don’t like it now…
Jane, I’m sorry, but I didn’t understand your point?
Jane, any chance you will be invited on The Daily Show or Colbert? That would really increase your exposure, especially among the younger crowd. And a big part of getting Obama elected was the energy and participation of youthful voters, who probably feel as much disappointment as we at FDL in what has happened in less than a year’s time.
One of the most flat out astonishing things on this site of late has been the 180 degree — make that the fucking 4360 degree turn on the perils of conservative thought and influence in this country. Orwell would shake his head in wonder.
No, I don’t believe in treating people as parts of monolithic blocks. But sorry, I’ve actually lived in this country for the past 47 years, and as much as you want to link hands and sing the Toby Keith Songbook now, (I know I’ll get slammed for that bit of stereotyping! Bring it on!) to insist that there AREN’T vast numbers of folks who hold the views Michelle Elliot described just because your particular dinner table doesn’t look like that is ridiculous.
She has very valid questions and concerns, given the fact that, just as you accuse her of being, these folks are manipulated and misled by a corporatist media that doesn’t have their interests at heart.
She’s reading and posting at Firedoglake, for God’s sake, so she clearly gets information from sources outside the MSM — do you really think she’s a clueless mind-controlled puppet? Can’t she just be a person who’s trying to make sense of all this?
Seems to me that’s what Michelle was doing, and I objected.
If you can point to where I said any such thing I’ll certainly apologize. Of course, if you can’t, then I guess an apology is owed in the other direction, hmmm?
Unlike me, who obviously would never go near a site like this…[/sarcasm]
No, I think she’s parroting a stereotype that inaccurately treats people as parts of a monolithic block thereby impeding communication and cooperation to the detriment of both sides.
You took a relatively brief comment and refused to give Michelle, who visits here and made a civilized, rational comment, the barest sliver of a benefit of the doubt. To me, THAT impeded communication and cooperation.
It sounded to me like she was really looking for an answer to her questions. You could have engaged her, instead you chose to chastise her.
You define the following as “civilized, rational comments”?
“myopic greed of the wingnuts”
“if you aren’t a straight, white, Christian, middle-class-or-above person you aren’t a real American”
“limitations of dealing with that mindset”
How much doubt is there to give her the benefit of?
I did: I told her that her preconceived stereotypes were not all inclusive and that her inaccurate perceptions were a barrier.
How far? As far as we can keep our priorities straight and define the enemy. Nobody said it was always going to be easy. What needs to be stressed is that this is coalition is going to be better.
Not if it includes people who view half their fellows as belligerent, racist, neanderthal oppressors…
those are the better half.
Sorry, dude, but those particular shoes fit way too many conservatives way too many times to be lectured about it. I’m sorry you feel tarred with a broad brush, but if you’re going to identify yourself with a particular group, join the club and learn how minorities feel. Oh, the burden of history!
I have no problem with a meeting of the minds, with finding common cause and with all fighting on the same side, but this amnesiac ‘Why are they so MAD at us???’ bullshit has got to go. NOW you want people to be PC with you?
Let’s just all accept reality, cop to the relative shortcomings that come with our affiliations and try to understand each other from there, okay?
Okay, it’s a deal!
Well, that wasn’t really my sentiment you pasted in. You might be a nice fella and all, but I prefer to read the fine print in advance before I sign on.
My best to you, however.
Hey Grumps, you pushed the wrong button!
Opps: you’re right. My 121 should have been in response to your 113, not mercury’s 111.
Sorry about the confusion: my bad.
What exactly are your positions if I can ask? What makes you a conservative?
Hey, when it comes to storming the castle I don’t care who I’m standing shoulder to shoulder with. We can sort out the rest of it later. Besides, I think the REAL Neanderthals were probably pretty cool.
We all have wounds to heal. I’ve been spit at, pushed, threatened,et al by rightwingers in the past 8 years of protesting the illegal wars Cheney/Bush created.
Acknowledge, make amends and get on with it. I’m sorry I used to give a Fuck You salute every time I drove past conservative protests calling for more war=no more 9/11′s.
” Now is the time for We the People to come to the aid of our country.”
I share your concern and your questions.
Many of us have Republican parents. We love them even if they don’t meet up to your high standards.
The current strife was highlighted on the Women’s Show on WMNF this morning. We might see an uptick in visits from the Tampa area.
Seems like this is starting to go viral. I hope so.
Michelle implied nothing of the sort. Are you sure you responded to the right comment?
I think shared interests with others, whoever they may be, and acting to promote those interests is achievable and natural even.
A precondition from the left is to say openly that we are tolerant in our beliefs. But will not abide people’s rights to be infringed upon by government or anyone else. Leave it at that.
Conservatives don’t look for “common ground” with us. They want to destroy us. This is why the american progressive movement never gains steam. We always want to compromise. The “We Are the World” routine is not going to get us anywhere.
Here is a libertarian web site. How many of their front-page articles offend you?
Obviously I said something that offended you. Can you be more specific?
Not at all.
I don’t know how I could. You made a concrete empirically checkable claim:
It looks to me like you are dead wrong, but I’ve invited you to identify the articles that you think fulfill you claim.
“A concrete empirically checkable claim?” Did you just get into grad school or something? Very impressive. To answer your question, I didn’t say EVERY article was written in defense of Jane/Grover. Notice I wrote “it seems like.” I was generalizing to establish a larger point.
I gave you a list of the last ten articles posted at this site about which you say, “It seems like every article on this website now has become a defense of Jane’s pact/alliance whatever you wanna call it with Grover Norquist.”
So I’m simply asking which of those ten do you consider to be “a defense of Jane’s pact/alliance whatever you wanna call it with Grover Norquist.”
Admittedly you did not claim that all of them were. And admittedly you claimed only that this was your subjective impression. But if you can’t identify a significant fraction that are such articles, then I’d suggest that the problem lies in your perception.
Yeah, that’s why I’m here. I’m not really listening to and talking to Liberals (God forbid!). What I’m really doing is… uh… well… something sneaky and underhanded to destroy you!
Umm, I take it you’re a conservative?
Yes, but not a Republican, and I have been consistently saying throughout this thread that there has been common ground between us for years. It’s just been obscured by ideological stereotyping, like Conservatives “want to destroy us.”
So, just out of curiousity, why are you a conservative?
Well obviously you’re not welcome here at this progressive site. I’ll save a chair for you at my next family dinner, though, provided you haven’t destroyed me and everything I hold dear before then, okay?
My wife does a fabulous pumpkin pie: how many should we bring?
Another thing left and right should be able to agree on is that you can never have too much pumpkin pie. Bring as many as you can carry!
Dessssspicable!
Thoughtlessness isn’t a purely conservative condition, that’s for sure.
WAY too broad a brush. There ARE thinking conservatives who perceive who the common enemy is. I know because I have argued with them. There are those who fit your description, but many others are coming around. Let’s not lose them right at this truly teachable moment.
I find common ground on the need for community health clinics that create community jobs. But I’ve learned not to take that one too deep. It derails at whether to provide health care to illegals for the common good.
I’ve found common ground on the concept of abortion[yes,abortion] as none of the government’s damned business. and reproductive healthcare for both genders to slow STD’s. It derails at doctors who perform these vital services.
I’m learning to talk in shorter sentences then listen quietly. Uh,quieter. It’s a learning curve!!
This talk of Jane being played by Grover is amusing. Gives ol’ Grover WAY to much credit in these new times.
I want to place my focus on doing the achieveable now, and not so much on all that should ultimately take place to better our health system, important as that is.
As things stand at this very moment we need to identify the biggest threat coming at us from the actions of a dysfunctional and corrupt Senate that is promoting the interests of private companies at our expense. That is priority number one. But to accomplish anything we first need to believe that this is in fact true, that we are in jeopardy from the actions of this Senate.
My main concern is to rid ourselves of the mandate, for me that is crucial and takes precedence. This mandate is directly harmful to our wealth but also cedes an enormous amount of our sovereignty and dignity to government and in reality to private companies. It is tantamount to willingly becoming vassals of the state and an intolerable subjugation of our rights.
To think we would even allow the government to demand that of us shows how far we as a people have been beaten into submission.
You should work that mandate part into a diary.
Too much good stuff in the comments these days. Needs its own post.
Well I’ll be happy to do that.
I echo Jane on the recommendation to write a diary.
That makes two, I’ll get on it. Thanks.
Hey, I’d like to sign on up for “Post” encouragement.. I just reviewed your comments and you’re so on fire you already have a good post. #47,#79,#107,#123,169.
Thanks for workin’ it!!!!
Thanks I just wrote a post but I am waiting for it show up.
Actually, I think that’s all the more reason to make an alliance. It’s harder for people to maintain that gays should not have rights, for example, when they work closely with them on common cause. You have to step out of your church preaching to you that they are sinners mode and into your we are people with a lot in common mode. Governments use propaganda to demonize far away enemies during war time for a reason. It’s really hard for most people to shoot people they see as more like them. How many conservatives have changed their mind on gay rights because a loved one came out? When you know them as a lovely person, it’s hard to hang on to the sinner that must be stopped or the world will come crashing down propaganda.
Remember,it was Rahm who said progressives were “fucking stupid” for trying to exert any influence in this debate and not just falling in line –at least back then.
In about 10 months, Rahm, you tell me who’s the “fucking stupid” one.
Thanks Paula. Another Christmas Miracle. We can all hope!
Oh yeah. This is a good diary. Chritmas (and Thanksgiving) get togethers can be fun. He’s given you all of Beck’s books? One year I bought Rush Limbaugh Is Big Fat Idiot for my father in law and one of the other relatives (on her side). They wouldn’t even let me give it to the other guy because they were afraid he’d be so pissed off. So what? What would he do? Leave? More pie for me. That’s what I say.
Or, more beer and more farts! Happy Holidays with the fam-uh-leeee!!
Paula, I had a similar experience last week and mentioned it in the comments of post on progressives are dead.
I pointed out, it was just the opposite.
Thanks for your diary.
“the idea of a foothold for socialized medicine. ”
LOL. Hate to point out to peeps, but fully 45% of NHE expenditures have been publicly funded for the past dozen years or so, a proportion that cannot but inexorably grow with the greying of the population (I myself am 13 months out from Medicare eligibility — a first-wave baby boomer).
Foothold? Both feet are already solidly there.
SHUT UP YOU DAMN PINKO COMMIE!!!! Damn people pointing out that the America Barack Obama is about to flush down the toilet any minute now is not the America we thought it was!
recommended — thanks for sharing your story with us
I had my own last Summer…but it didn’t go as well as your experience…. We got into a very heated exchange with “him” (brother-inlaw) who is a devoted Glenn Beck/Darth worshiper!!!
I don’t diss Glenn to my dad. That would be going too far. I thank him for the books and we talk in more general terms about politics instead of “Did you hear what that idiot Glenn Beck was spouting the other day?” I did watch a full episode of Beck’s show to try to understand my dad better and to see if they were just doing a “worst of” to paint him badly on the shows that I watch where I see Beck clips. It turned out to be the one where he was imagining himself in a bunker in the future. I had promised myself I’d watch all the way through and I did, but man was that hard to do! Nope, may never be able to directly discuss Glenn Beck at Christmas dinner!
You should reply in kind by giving him some of Glenn Greenwald’s books.
Excellent post, Paula.
Find common ground and fight for change or be a celebrity cult follower. Simple choice. I choose fighting for change. Lost any penchant I might have had for hero worship a long time ago.
this is one more bit of really good news. I also applaud Jane for this holding to the principles of looking out for ordinary people and reaching out to those who have equal concerns. It is really the “intellectual” liberal elites who are defending this monstrosity. A lot of it does come down to class.. .
A data point that confirms what I have been saying. Folks at the grassroots are feeling a populist anger that will not be manipulated by establishment astroturfed “Tea Parties”. And by embracing these astroturfed Tea Parties (served up by Dick Armey), the GOP will not do as well in November as conventional wisdom (call that the Village) expects. Nor will Democrats who run with establishment themes.
There is a political realignment between populists and the establishment that will determine the results of November’s election. The only question is the extent to which the establishment can co-opt it and the extent to which progressive populists can shift the Congress in a more progressive direction.
I predict that there will be some unexpected results in this election that will show the trend over the next decade.
Only if we have alternatives. What are our alternatives?
When the voters are ready, the alternatives will appear.
…not to put too much of a Zen point.
Unpredictable means unpredictable.
I did’nt know there were Zen philosophers in N.C.! >chuckle<
I think the voters are getting ready fast. We need a home for them to go to.
I predict that people running in primaries with a strong message of not taking lobbyist money (and proving it by running on small donations only, which is very easy when you’re primarying someone since the incumbent gets the big money) and listening to the constituents instead of the people who’ve been in Washington so long that they don’t even see a problem with what all of us immediately identify as bribery and conflict of interest will do well. Maybe not win them all, but do well enough to win some and scare others.
Thank you for this wonderful diary. I hope you continue to have an excellent holiday with your family.
Leonard Cohen
I think we ought to seize the opportunity that lies before us. At this point there is little question that a broad range of people see clearly the major flaws in the Senate bill and also the complete dysfunction and corruption of the Senate that produced it.
The immediate task before us I think is to commit to adopting measures that will directly undermine the most egregious aspects of this bill before it becomes law. And should they become law to defy such egregiously flawed provisions in the bill. Highest on the list is the provision that mandates the buying of insurance from private companies. Under no circumstances must this provision be enacted nor obeyed.
It is this mandate that entails the enormous forced transfer of public wealth to private entities and it is included in the Senate bill for that purpose only. We should state emphatically that we will simply not be made to that by the government, period. We are sovereign people not serfs. And we must make that clear to the government.
We should sign petitions from this site declaring that under no circumstances will we agree to the enactment nor in any case abide by this mandate. That is our line in the sand from which we will not back down.
The awful consequence of abiding by such flagrant forced enriching of private entities with our wealth is tyrannical and only a weak and submissive people would ever think of tolerating those demands. The very idea that the government has contemplated and feels emboldened enough to make this demand on the people is proof that it has ceased to be of any value. We should begin the task of dismantling this government as it has shown itself to be the enemy of our interests.
But the task of dismantling this government although pressing can wait for now, the immediate task is to rid ourselves of this mandate.
I was once a Libertarian, but I came to realize that reduced to its bottom line its just a philosophy of total selfishness that completely disbelieves that humans exist in groups. Its irrational and runs counter to our evolutionary history. In fact we are quite the opposite being tribal if anything. Libertarians would have us believe we exist as completely separate entities from our fellows and the world/universe and we owe both nothing. These fools aren’t our immediate enemies, its the Corporatists that are the real enemies of freedom. They are authoritarians that believe only BIG Corps. run largely top down as dictatorships are our real destiny. Both parties Corp. wings rule now. Their project is almost complete now a bastard marriage between the Fortune 500 and DC.
These “fools” as you call them DO vote and DO seem to sense that Giant Corporate Financialism is the enemy. Let’s not be too picky. Let’s enlist them in the epic battle. We can all squabble happily over details after the war is won.
I once pointed out to a Libertarian that having a Libertarian PARTY was about as non-sensical as having an Anarchist STATE.
He tried to convince me that one had to unite to defeat the forces of “collectivism” and compel those that disagreed to follow the rules they established to prevent unions and other such bodies. He had no qualms about corporations, monopolies, price-fixing, or even businesses receiving government contracts. It turned out that he was really more of a “capitalists can do anything in a laissez-faire” economy sort. The guy had lived that life…ripping off fellow businessmen that he owed money to, not paying the child-support a court had ruled that he had to, and putting in ads that were deceptive to attract customers. He had a list of BBB complaints and legal suits that would fill up a ledger, didn’t pay his employees SSI and Medicare, and kept a separate set of books.
Paula
I don’t suppose you have ever pointed out to your dad that as management at a defense contractor, pretty much every dime he sees is government welfare? And that his insurance benefits are really provided by taxpayers? I occasionally point this out to my friends at NASA and Lockheed just to watch them Blow.
He knows it and he’s okay if you’re doing work for it. He has bought into the welfare queen rhetoric in the past, but even then he is not opposed to helping out those who are genuinely disabled or going through temporary hard times. He is not opposed to unemployment benefits, for example, but would rather see a WPA type program to put them to work so the taxpayer gets something for it and individual dignity is preserved instead of extinguished. I agree on that and told him that most unemployed want to work not get handouts and most progressives prefer work programs and unemployment as a stop gap, not a parking spot in times like this where there’s no realistic expectation that the bulk of the unemployed will just need temporary help while they send out resumes. He’s actually the most giving person I know. In a way, that handicaps him when it comes to public compassion, though. When you are willing to be so charitable privately without being compelled, it’s easier to see that as a solution. I’ve been talking to him about how you make sure people are still taken care of when there are people like the guys on Wall St as well as people like him.
I just sent a copy of this to my husband.
This season brought my neocon twin brother and me into sync…..after years of trying to change each other’s thinking, we reached a real understanding…..Republicans suck; Democrats suck; McCain would have been a disaster; Obama is a weak-willy con man. We laughed that we’d both been so deluded … wished each other good luck and a tolerable new year.
Thanks for sharing that. Seems all this stuff going on during the holidays is going to prove quite beneficial in the long run. Family members and coworkers usually at odds politically finding common ground without a lot of effort.
Shrub started uniting the left. Obama appears to be fine tuning it, and not in a way he may have envisioned.
I find it so interesting. My brother and I spent 14 years yelling politics at each other. We went to dinner a couple of weeks ago, just the two of us, and ended up realizing that we are actually on the same track…..we miss the sense of thinking that politicians were interested in doing something right for the populace. We agreed that we should work to throw all the bums out and somehow try to disable the corporate takeovers of America (though we also think it is already a lost cause.) He pays about $16,000.00 per year for health care for his family and I pay over $8,000.00 for myself. We are both hoping Medicare will still be around for us in the coming year. The “reform” being pushed doesn’t seem to offer much for anyone.
Fabulous . . . !
Great! Did you define the enemy?
The media is a BIG part of the problem. Check this out,
http://www.corporations.org/media/media-ownership.gif
I am glad that left and right enjoyed Christmas politics together. But be mindful of where you are heading.
Politics is messy stuff. Democrats are a diverse bunch and it is my belief that more energy should be invested in getting more of the kind of Democrats we like into power rather than blaming an administation for a result we don’t like. If we really try to kill this bill, we will lose alot of good stuff American families need now. Jane is pretending to know more than she does. And people here if annointed her their leader. If we continue on this path, we will be unable to beat back a Repub resurgence. Norquist knows this. He has been at this game a long time. If he can harness left wing enthusiasm against a Democratic president, look how much easier it gets to corral an already pumped right wing to 2010 and 2012. Obama is the most progressive president we can get elected right now. Let’s get him a more progressive Senate! And Rahm is just playing enforcer as he should be.
I’m tired of this “sports team” type of thinking; Repugs vs Democrat. It’s not working to the benefit of our country and our world relationships. There are no distinct teams.
You begin your argument being a c…well, a word the Lurking Mod won’t let me use, and end it with this “We” talk.
You cannot simultaneously insult and gather together the same group of people.
I think people may be starting to get this; have you noticed the precipitous drop in the use of the term “teabagger”?
Like what? And whatever it is, although they need it “now” they won’t get it until 2014, right?
So, the good of the Party outweighs the good of the People?
You just don’t get it. It’s not about ‘the party’ — it’s about what it takes to make things happen. Jane is being out-manuevered here and she probably knows it now. I think she signed on with Norquist out of anger towards Rahm. I agree that Rahm is more right than alot of us here but to paint Obama as his puppet is crap. Just how was Obama going to corral Nelson? Lieberman?
And for you to even ask what’s good in the bill, you haven’t read it and are focusing on somebody else’s talking points!
Emma Goldman said “Voting is the opiate of the masses!”
Can you spell R-E-C-O-N-C-I-L-I-A-T-I-O-N?
Do you understand how that works? or do you just think all the dem senators are conspiring against you and fdl?
I have no problem believing that most if not all the Dem Senators are going along with the rape of the American people. And yes I do know a thing or 2 about the mechanics of reconciliation. Through it we could do MUCH better than this dark joke of a health care bill.
Maybe you and Jane can produce a film for Oliver Stone about the ‘vast democratic conspiracy’ underway in the Senate.
You’re resorting to cuteness.
Obama says that he is going to take a hands-on approach to the reconciliation negotiations. My bet is that he’ll do everything he can to preserve the Senate bill as is. In particular, he’ll work very hard to block the House bill’s public option and tax on the wealthy. And he’ll blame it all on Ben and Joe.
Wig, I’m talking about reconciliation as the fast track process for passing a bill in the Senate with only 51 votes. Not to reconcile the 2 bills in conference committee.
Oops! My bad. I’m confusing the two terms. Thanks.
You caught me on Upton and I got you on Reconciliation. We’re even!
With your pesent mindset, you will be singing your tune forever and will not progressed an inch all the while. There comes a time when people become aware of unpleasnat and disturbing truths. One such truth is when we see that we are being fooled and being taken advantage of.
That is the realization most people on this blog have come to see as pertains to Obama and government and it its ties to private interests. Here most people don’t like and will not tolerate being taken for fools by anyone. So we look around and try to think of things that benefit and suit our needs and well being. We owe allegiance to no one that acts to frustrate our interest, as is natural. We have come to see that we need and can rely on our own devices. It’s just a matter of joining forces and acting collectively.
Let’s assume the worse and say we were to fail to sway legislation as it stands now and in the process ended up with a Republican presidency in 2012; that result would not be of our doing. Our focus is to protect our rights against the combined effort of government in collusion with monied interests and to garner all others help that are similarly affected into that effort. What happens after that is not of our doing.
Wow, well said!!!
Right. You’re just looking out for your own interests. And if your actions lead to another Reagan presidency it won’t be ‘of your doing’. That is so irresponsible it makes me ill. Take off the rosey glasses and deal with the real world.
Look let’s not talk past each other, my point is not contoversial. What I am saying is that to preclude from acting on dangers that are immediately before you is irrational. But this includes everyone that is confronting that danger.
I am saying that the Senate bill represents just such a danger not only because of the portions that deal with health related issues, which are plenty. But also because of the more pernicious erosion of our rights to act as independent agents within our own country with our wealth. There are limits to what the government can require of us, especially when it is acting on behalf of gain for private entities.
If in that effort we include similarly disgruntled conservative folks then that is natural and we should welcome that. Our mutual aim is to claim our rights to be free of coercive measures from the government. To claim those rights for us and others is not controversial.
The other very harmful result of the Senate bill is that by fiat of law it would allow private insurance companies the sole domain of providing health insurance to the exclusion of any other option, against the wishes of the people.
To argue for these positions is a necessity. If you forego that fight you will have given up your rights in this country. If you are willing to do that for the sake of the very people that are foisting those deprivation of rights from you go ahead. But I sure as hell am not tagging along.
Thanks for a good post,Paula. There’s a lot of issues we can work on together within the framework of our constitution.
It seems like every article on this website now has become a defense of Jane’s pact/alliance whatever you wanna call it with Grover Norquist. This is counter-productive. Personally, I think she made a mistake. I don’t think that you can stand shoulder to shoulder w/ someone like Norquist. He’s just using Jane to undermine Obama for his own reasons. It is also apparent that anyone else who questions this move immediately comes under fire on here. This website is becoming an echo chamber.
Here are the articles showing on my browser. How many have to do with Jane and her “strange bedfellow”?
Thank you. That’s what I saw too – so much so I suspected diasagreement was being moderated out!
And to SuzyQ: So “the worst” happens and Repubs take over again. I ask you,
what’s the big fu***** difference? Arguably the Dems may be worse because they act like Stealth fighters who can fly undercover and enact all kinds of asshole legislation that the R’s could’nt get away with. Abortion? I give you Stupak and Nelson? Massive corporate control over Health care? I give you the present bill. Stop falling neatly into the proscribed patterns. The times demand bold strokes and innovative thought and new alliances. We must sail from these shores. They are no longer safe.
OT: What is the best evidence we have a White House deal with AHIP to block any public option?
Excuse me but doesn’t bipartisan mean getting sommething both parties agree to. Impossible when one party disagrees with everything as a strategy to weaken a popular president. And Jane, you are now helping them out. I always knew Obama was a pragmatic progressive. He plays within the system. Can’t we try to improve things without destroying the gains we’ve made? Jane, you are just repeating the mistakes of earlier failed liberals — you have become an idealogue no better that the uninformed teabaggers. You are wasting your obvious abilities to rally the troops because you are angry at Obama and Emanuel’s necessary compromises. If Rachel Maddow gives you air time and support on this, that will be my signal to tune out Rachel. I don’t think she will.
We agree that the continued, unlimited bailout of the banks is wrong — something that almost the entire country agrees with. You’re in a serious, serious minority trying to tar anyone who doesn’t belong to your teeny weeny little coalition of bailout apologists.
Jane — you are more stupid than I could have imagined! I disagree with you tack hence I am a ‘bailout apologist’? Nobody likes bailout but you would prefer to see us stand on principles and let us go through a depression. You will fail on this one I predict. I just hope you don’t take progressive causes down with it.
(just in case no one else responded upthread)
the continued bailout to which Jane was referring was the freddie fannie end-o-the-year gift from Tim Geithner the other day. pay attention.
Jon Taplin has a good post up today, in case anyone’s interested.
“Rethinking Obama“
Nice diary, Paula. This is a good story which demonstrates the many shared concerns between those on the right and the left.
Well, at our Christmas dinner, I had a conversation with a CFO for a Health Foundation who stated, with strong feelings that it’s a start and that mandates are necessary because it won’t work otherwise. He considers himself liberal. He simply doesn’t understand that this is the road to indentured Americans, and ironically, a black president at the helm.
Was’nt it Mark Twain who said something like “It’s very hard to convince a man of a proposition if his livelihood depends on NOT believing that proposition.”?
Upton Sinclair
I’m embarassed . .
That your friend is a CFO or black or liberal doesn’t make a whit of difference, use yout head.
You are being demanded by the government to buy something you may or may not want to to buy from a company that is loathsome and will profit from your purchase. Try to grasp that point. You have no choice in the matter. If you don’t see that for what it plainly is then you don’t deserve to take part in a democracy. You have no notion of what is required to live in a place where you have rights to act freely with what is yours and dispose of it in how you choose.
I am leaving aside the many obvious things that come to mind. One is that your friend has a vested interest by virtue of his position or maybe he is just a dupe, who knows I would need to meet the guy.
The other point is that mandates are needed to assure that insurance companies continue to make profits, that’s its purpose. Insurance comapnies have hundreds of millions of people they insure now, and they profit from them all, each one. The vast majority are relatively healthy by the mere fact that the majority of people walking around and insured are not deathly ill. So to ask insurers to insure more sick people from whom they will also profit is not asking them too much. And in many cases at our taxpayer expense.
To make the claim that they need more relatively healthy people to be able to meet the needs of the sick people they will be required to insure, which after all is the very reason they exist in the first place, is absurdity itself.
If you need proof of all this then you may want to notice the profits insurance companies now make, eventhough there are sick people in the system now. Are you really so gullible as to believe that they need to make more profit by insuring sick people only if they get 400 billion dollars to accomplish this feat?
I think in a free society we run the risk that people have little appetite to fight for their rights. Independent thinking for them seems a chore. But that is certainly no impediment for the rest to see what is at stake.
Your capacity for missing the point here is truly breathtaking.
Sorry to above commenter. But now to GDC707, Which point is that?
I keep wondering why not a single person in DC has asked why it is that insurance companies need a mandate when they insure thousands of people under group plans where they are not allowed to refuse those with preexisting conditions and they make plenty of money off them. I hate when people just buy an argument without looking into whether it really is supported. There might be a reason for it, but I don’t see it and I don’t see where anybody else has asked to see it.
The very notion that you should force someone to enter into an arrangement should ring alarm bells in any rational persons head. To willingly comply with demands to be hearded into the hands of a proven predatory company for the declared sake of their profit goes against the very idea of rational thinking. Talk of sacrificial lambs.
To be so gullible as to not see the obvious contrived rationale that insurance companies could not cover the sick unless further subsidized and bribed to so, in spite of their doing so right now and at a profit, is just bizzare. This whole charade just gives sad credence to the fact that people will submit to anything.
Okay. May I politely suggest that an essential step in trying to understand each other is not putting words in my mouth?
Now you’re talking. I agree wholeheartedly, and I hope a lot of the ‘progressives’ give that a little thought as well.
This whole ‘storming the barricades together’ idea is fantastic, but I’m trying to understand how it doesn’t get hobbled by the myriad of issues that stand between conservative/progressive ideologies beyond being forced to pay for shitty health insurance.
I get the ad hoc coalition idea as a concept; I know Uncle Fred who hates paying taxes may be a hell of a guy. But without addressing the conflicting philosophical roots of each movement how do you mount a serious, sustained push against corporate dominance and its effect on the political system?
As a conservative, how do you feel about publicly financed elections, about repealing corporate personhood, about antitrust regulations, about Constitutional definitions of privacy, about breaking up the big banks and reinstating something like Glass-Steagall?
If conservatives truly could get behind these kinds of things, then maybe labels really don’t matter and viva Reagan. But as far as I’ve experienced, this isn’t the case, and I don’t know how a lot of the things I would like us to achieve can be achieved without addressing these core differences.
Look, Teddy Roosevelt was a Republican conservative and I know he would lead the charge on all those things stated above. Sure, there will always be that rock-headed 28% that you can never reach. But that leaves many others who are reachable and those are the ones who are starting to see that the Giant Corporate Financialists are the ones in the castle crapping on the people. They can be the critical difference in accomplishing those objectives you mentioned, highlighted in blue.
Exactly!
You misunderstand what is being proposed here, with joining forces with whomever has joint interest at stake. It’s the joint interests on which they all can advocate for that binds the diaparate groups. This joint effort is natural and more likely to achieve the goal we mutually all share.
Is there some difficulty in grasping that idea?
I agree. Conservatives and Progressives joining hands and singing “We Are the World” isn’t going to accomplish anything. If you look at the history of our country, any time a progressive piece of legislation has been passed it was because we had a strong president and the other side was forced to accept it. The Emancipation Proclamation, Glass-Stegall, Social Security, Civil Rights Act, Medicare, etc. All of these things were passed because there was a strong-willed leader who rammed it down Congress’ throat. There was no polite discussion. It simply got done. I agree that the idealogical diffrences may be too vast.
NO!!! All those things got done because of extreme exigent circumstances, analogous to what we have now. . The Emancipation Proclamation (which was not legislation) was issued in the middle of a Civil War. Glass-Steagall and SS came during a Great Depression. These last 2 (GS and SS) came about because the times produced huge majorities in Congress which made it easy for the Prez. Those huge Democratic majorities happened (after years of Republican Congresses) because the Times, like now, forced a lot of conservatives to rethink their positions and vote for the Democrats. This is very important to understand.
Nobody is advocating holding hands and singing “kumbayah.” What we are saying is “define the enemy, load the cannons, and fire.” We are the world? Hardly. I call it allying with the Russians to defeat Hitler.
You’re saying that the health care crisis in this country is not an extreme circumstance? Or the financial crisis? Tell that to someone who lost his job.
Which point is that?
Apparent miscommunication here.
I am saying this is exactly the type of crisis that can ignite the paradgm shift we need.
Thank you for asking. Your very legitimate questions cover a lot of ground and don’t always have simple answers, but I’ll try.
How do you feel about publicly financed elections?
We’d need to talk details about contributions from individuals, but I’m behind getting corporate money out of politics, which I believe is your main intent(?).
repealing corporate personhood
Fine with me.
antitrust regulations
It was decided long ago that the Feds have a legitimate role in preventing monopolies detrimental to the public interest. Haven’t you heard Conservatives state that part of the issue with health care costs is the insurances companies’ antitrust exemptions that reduce competition?
Constitutional definitions of privacy
You’ll have to be more specific, especially since I imagine you’re referring more to SCOTUS interpretations.
breaking up the big banks
Once again, I need more details, but I can tell you that as a matter of general principle Conservatives oppose the concentration of power in a small number of hands.
reinstating something like Glass-Steagall
You mean the Act that was repealed by overwhelming bi-partisan majorities in both the House and Senate, then signed by a Dem President? I’m pretty sure we can work out an agreeable compromise on that.
And where have you seen serious Conservatives opposing campaign finance reform, supporting unreasonably indemnifying corporations, supporting monopolies, arguing for a completely unregulated financial sector, etc?
You said ‘serious’ Conservatives.
There’s the rub. Because all those things have been hallmarks of what I’ve understood, and not as a result of progressive propaganda, of present day conservatism. I know it became fashionable for conservatives to claim now that Bush, for example, wasn’t a true conservative. That this mystical, yeti-like ‘serious’ conservatism is eminently rational and fair. (And how you deal with Social conservatism is a whole other ball of wax.)
What’s been happening in the real world has belied all those claims and if these lofty ‘serious’ conservatives care, they’d better swoop down from the Justice League satellite and reclaim their shit by signing onto some of those policies and fighting for us poor Earthlings. But I don’t see that happening, all I hear is “I don’t want to pay more taxes”.
Thanks to where I used to work, I have met and discussed politics with quite a few conservatives. I’m not talking about conservative politicians, just the sorts of people who vote for them. I used to wonder why they were so badly served by their politicians.
Now that I see progressive politicians in action, I don’t wonder so much anymore. The endless acquiescence to the security state, the bank bailout, the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq, and their impending fold on the health care bill just demonstrate that there’s something else wrong here, besides political philosophy.
Neither side has a monopoly when it comes to thriving on the ignorance of its constituency. We are talking about politicians, after all.
Yes, to distinguish us from the “rock-headed 28% that you can never reach” that GDC707 spoke of, and who are apparently the ones you’ve been listening to.
You mentioned how Bush is now described as not a true Conservative (kinda like Obama is now described as not a true Liberal?), but did you really honest-to-god not hear Conservatives screaming for years about deficits, TARP, bailouts, etc? “Shamnesty” Bush a conservative? That’s a laugh…
“As a conservative, how do you feel about publicly financed elections, about repealing corporate personhood, about antitrust regulations, about Constitutional definitions of privacy, about breaking up the big banks and reinstating something like Glass-Steagall?”
Don’t know about Grumpy, but my dad doesn’t want publicly financed but wants to get rid of bundling and keep to small donations only. He’d love a Constitutional amendment clarifying that corporations don’t have the rights of people so the Supremes can’t keep giving them all the rights when they were set up to avoid the liabilities. Definitely corps should have to stop lobbying, throwing fundraisers, etc. Antitrust regulations are indispensable because he’s a free market guy and monopolies screw up all that’s good about market based solutions. He wants the big banks broken up (even if Sanders the socialist gets credit for doing it) and he wants Glass-Steagall back like yesterday. He is convinced that because they have not regulated and have bailed out, the banks are not only back to what they were doing before, but are most likely taking even bigger risks than before with our money and that shouldn’t be allowed.
Sorry, I’ve been paying attention for the past several decades. And maybe Glenn Beck, Fox News, Blackwater, The Family, The Family Research Council, Jerry Falwell, Pat Robertson, Richard Mellon Scaife, Lou Dobbs, The Club For Growth and on and on and on don’t have the slightest thing to do with you, but anyone who calls themselves a Conservative in this day and age at least has to acknowledge that all that is now bound up in your ideology. And if it pisses you off that much now, then where were you when all this was happening with your name attached to it?
It might suck for you, but it’s just reality.
It creeps me out when someone claims to be a conservative, but I’ve seen several otherwise reasonable people do so, e.g., John Dean, Bruce Fein, Andrew Sullivan, etc.
Well said.
Whereas I was born yesterday?
Well, you did say you were a conservative.
Sorry, couldn’t resist. ;)
Maybe they were in the same place as progressives who haven’t been happy about the term liberal being affiliated with what corporate dems in our government have been up to. How much sway do any of us have on how the media paints things or who they give a microphone to?
They may not be happy, but sorry, tough. The airwaves have been and to a large degree still are saturated with anti-liberal sentiment — it’s only in the past couple of years that there’s been a Keith Olbermann or a Rachel Maddow for any notion of ‘balance’.
And yet, the INSTANT that unflattering portraits of conservatives appear — these disgusting racist teabaggers who a lot of folks here seem to want to claim, incredibly, DON’T EXIST AT ALL when I saw thousands of these freaks and their handiwork on viral video shot by average everyday Americans — the instant they get pricked it’s time to scream bloody murder. (anybody remember the acronym WATB? No?)
Well, tough. I’ve got problems with the media too, but it ain’t the media that photoshopped Obama’s face on a witchdoctor and put a bone in his nose for my black kids to see. It was a conservative. When the shoe fits, I’m going to call it out.
I’m sure you’re dad’s a wonderful man, and I don’t mean to say this to demean him or you. I just don’t want us to have to rewrite or ignore history to forge new alliances, because we do that at all our peril. Better to actually work on erasing differences rather than simply pretending they never existed.
Who?
Believe me, I’ve been on several threads here in the past week where I’ve been told the whole whacko townhall teabagger phenomenon I couldn’t escape this past August was a wholly media-created phenomenon, that the people waving signs with Obama dressed as a terrorist or witchdoctor or with gigantic red lips weren’t racist, just decent Americans determined to battle the evil corporations. I shit you not.
I mean, I know good and well not all the people at the protests are necessarily racist or neanderthals or whatever.
But there were a LOT of those motherfuckers.
Ha! (sigh) No doubt. I’m sure there were.
Merc, how long have we been working on that? About 50,000 years? The national crisis is now. I don’t think we have the luxury of making sure all our allies are pure.
I wasn’t necessarily thinking of solving all that this instant or of instituting ridiculous purity tests. People are people and there’s always going to be lots of contention. My point is, I don’t know how we really take the next few steps down the road if both legs ultimately want to be marching in VERY different directions.
And I’d just like to know that my well-intentioned alliance wasn’t going to give an unscrupulous political operator who doesn’t have my interests at heart a shiv to stick in my back when the fight is over.
Is there anything wrong with thinking a couple steps ahead?
Not at all and I’m glad you’re doing it.
The key word you used is “ultimately” marching in very different directions. The 1st order of business is to neuter and defang the Giant Corporate Financialists who are leading this country to a New Feudalism. I think proposals and resultant legislation could be crafted that would be amenable to both Progs and rational Conservos (who are increasingly becoming Independents-a good sign.) For an idea of what those bills might look like maybe we should ask Grumpy. He seems like the type, or nearly so, that I am talking about. Hopefully, in the process we might find that working with these people would not be so heretical and they might find the same about us. Along the way we would make sure to have on a few suspicious consiglieres like yourself to make sure we don’t fall into any traps. And a few chess players to keep peering a few steps down the road.
I was hoping to burn them at the stake, but will settle for neuter and defang. See? I can compromise!
The current paradigm is that you need the corporate money to run the campaign to get the votes to win the election. To break that we need to weaken the connection between money and votes.
We need to stop selling our votes to the slickest ad campaign (or just voting the straight Party Ticket).
We need to use the Internet and phone banks to give exposure to underfunded candidates.
We need to penalize politicians who vote to pay off their corporate supporters.
We need to boycott companies that contribute to both sides (that’s not political support, that’s vote buying).
We need to undo all the gerrymandering that has taken place, perhaps eliminating Congressional Districts entirely (as Heinlein said, where a man lives is the least important thing about him).
We need a more informed voting public, which means calling “bullshit!” whenever you see it, even from your own side.
We need campaign finance reform that’s not intended to ensure incumbency.
We need Ethics Committees that actually investigate and serious penalties for violations.
We need an end to pork.
Are these points agreeable to both the Left and the Right?
Have you checked out ActBlue? It’s a way for underfunded candidates to get some funding without being beholden to corporate interests. CA has decided to set up a commission with representation from all parties in the State to draw district lines after the next census to try to get rid of the gerrymandering. Sounds like a good idea. We’ll see how it works in practice. I’ll vow to never vote for anyone or anything based on an ad. Another CA innovation has been to require more transparency as to who is behind the ads. If you start a group called Americans for Everything Awesome to run political ads, the ads have to state who the major donors to that group are. I’ll phone bank my fingers off for noncorporate candidates and not lift a finger for corporate candidates no matter how much lesser of evils they are. I’ve already told those who sold us out on health care that I won’t vote for them no matter what. I’m in an area where you can’t excuse it as voting your constituency. Ethics violations on both sides should be vigorously prosecuted with serious penalties. We need to call all bribery and conflict of interest what it is, whether pork, having family members funnel money through bogus jobs, voting on issues you stand to gain a lot from financially because of stock or stock options or future career plans, etc. and make them illegal, with serious penalties. I think you can tell where I stand on calling bullshit even if I find it in my own backyard. I am definitely in favor of campaign finance with no advantages to incumbents.
Move to strike, ‘End to Pork’ – Pork is not defined.
The rest I like.
My arthritis is kicking up: would you mind taking that one?
Pork – $50,000 for artist designed water fountains.
Not Pork – Theater programs for kids.
You see the problem, I think. People can argue forever about what pork is, I think focusing on what we CAN agree on is the best course. We can still fight like hell where we disagree. Looking forward to it!
I agree. However, the point of true communal agreement doesn’t come without a major natural disaster, in my experience. I’m not talking Katrina . I’m talking several day long power outages and trees down. Ice too scarey to drive on except for the dedicated few who venture out to help. And being mostly white, we all expect help will come. [There's a weak spot in my argument]. However, when you can get through to the market,you remember to buy lots of bananas for the old people who’s feet will cramp if they don’t have them. The hell with their politics! That basic level of functioning kicks in every time we’ve experienced a bad storm. The US vs THEM just evaporates. Which tells me it’s possible in any crisis. Like what we’ve got now. We’re just not quite there yet as a nation. More of us have to slide off the employed list. There’s no reaching out without hardship. Or I haven’t seen it. Not the real deal, where you haul bananas around because you know how bad their muscle cramps will hurt and you don’t wish that on your neighbor.
You’d still like my dad. He was disgusted by the witch doctor poster, too, even though he hates Obama. I wouldn’t say he’s color blind. He was raised by full blown racists in an area where he never met a non-white person to learn otherwise. Since then, he served in the military and moved to a huge city and has adjusted, but some of his upbringing still comes through. It’s not by choice, he’s got no patience for white supremacists or for teabaggers with insulting posters, just a matter of not always being aware of how being steeped in stereotypes in your formative years can still affect you in ways you don’t notice from the inside.
I’m sure I would like your dad. People are only human and it takes a lot to rise above the way you’ve been educated and conditioned, that’s the way it is with anyone, regardless of race. The minute real communication happens, all that begins to fall away and people realize they’re supposed to help, love and protect one another.
My anger is actually directed much more at those who profit from and exploit this stuff — it’s so explosive and unreasoning that it’s easy to tap into and hard to control. So much of American history has been poisoned with it that it pains me to see people dismiss it so cavalierly, when it’s one of the corporatists’ most potent weapons.
I disagree with a lot of what Obama’s doing; I don’t know if he’s just an ineffective DLC type who’s going along to get along or if he’s an active evil corporatist Bilderberger bent on One World government and with the Number of the Beast tattooed on his head.
I don’t think he’s ‘worse than Bush’ — yet — and I could never ‘hate’ him, like many here do. I think his mere presence in office has on its own completely changed a psychological dynamic for children of color forever. I know many here would scoff at that notion, but it’s true. He may be a craven sellout — but never again will some other black kid who might NOT be a sellout be able to believe he or she could never be elected to public office, and I’m sorry, but that’s worth something to me. I also think that anyone stepping into the shitstorm that he’s stepped into might have to make some very unsavory compromises just to keep his head above water in the Washington cesspool.
But he came in with a considerable populist wind at his back, and it feels like he’s decided to tack a whole other direction, and I’m pretty pissed with him right now. I didn’t expect him to be other than Clinton 2, Electric Boogaloo — but he really had a moment there that could have been seized, and I fear it’s been squandered. I just don’t know who else could possibly break what seems to be the corporate deadlock on our system, other than a mobilized citizenry itself.
So finding common cause is GREAT. I hope it can happen and work and grow. What I don’t want is for our tactics to create circumstances that keep moving us two steps forward and six steps back, so I’m a bit cautious when it comes to alliances.
I completely agree that it is a huge benefit to our nation and to the world that Obama was elected. It has even been a good thing, in my mind, that it has brought out the racist nutjobs. I see the harm being done to all kinds of people who have been feeling for generations that they are not really a part of our system. The American dream is still different based on what color your skin, type of genitals, sexual preference, bank account, parents’ bank account and position. It frustrates me no end to hear people for years dismissing concerns in that regard because we fought for and got civil rights laws passed so of course it’s not a problem in modern America. But if you are paying attention, it is. The fact that so many people feel free to say the things they say to and around me and assume that because I am white I’ll be okay with it, says a lot. We have moved past the point where it was acceptable to the majority to say them in front of anyone, and that is progress not to be taken lightly. But we haven’t reached the point where it is so out there that you won’t say it in some circles or even that you would assume that you would be disagreed with and disapproved of in those certain circles.
If this were 2005, we’d probably be thrilled with Obama and incrementalism would be fine. But it’s not. We have woken up from our half sleep to find that we’re in a huge crisis on many fronts. We need an FDR and we need him FAST. No time for incrementalism. The joy of some coverage can’t cover up the horror of more power and money to an already influential corporate cabal when our economy is hanging by a thread as a result of corporate cabals overly influencing the government. Normally, a decent pilot who won’t crash the plane is all we ask. But right now, we’re about to hit the Hudson and we need a Sully, dammit! I don’t think Obama’s evil, but he’s not stepping up to be the right guy and he’s not even being honest with us.
Let’s say it’s true that he’s not a trojan horse, just a guy who wants to go along to get along who genuinely believes that if you don’t deal with AHIP and PhRMA, you’ll get nothing and nothing is worse than the deal you can make with them. Okay, but don’t lie to me about what you campaigned on, what you got or what it’s going to mean to us. Just say, hey, with this many senators and this kind of influence, I don’t see any other way to get anything done. If you want more, there’s an election coming up and you can make it a referendum on health care or corporate influence or anything else you want, and I’ll revisit this then if there’s any chance of making it better.
I also think that he needs to pay attention to what he said to get elected. Don’t let the bubble people tell you that doing the opposite of what handily won you an election is the thing to do in order to be reelected. It infuriates me that he obviously knows what we want because he was able to run on it, but he still doesn’t do it. He’s not a stupid man. How well does he take being lied to? It’s not rocket science to figure out that you’re getting bad advice if they’re telling you to do some of the stuff he’s been doing.
Certainly racism still exists: check out a La Reconquista website, for example ;^)
It doesn’t seem to be a big enough problem to have prevented people of color from being DA’s, Judges, Mayors, Governors, Congressmen, Senators, Justices, Secretaries of State, or the President.
p.s. Thank you for another great diary that generated a terrifically informative debate!
We have gone past the point where society as a whole believes that people of color can’t do what white people can do, but not past the point where a big chunk of our society still has a problem with it. And racism isn’t confined to whites vs. people of color. That’s why I think it’s good for things to bring to the public eye where we still have issues. You never solve the problem if people can get away with pretending there isn’t one. We can’t afford to keep telling the people that are hurt by it that they’re crazy to even think it might exist. I’m really glad my country could elect Obama despite his race and I’ll be really glad to see them decide whether to keep him or throw him out based on his performance and not his race. I’m really glad that kids who have felt they could never reach that far because it would never be allowed by the majority have been shown that they were wrong. Work on your merits and enough of a majority are willing to take you on those merits that the witch doctor poster people, while you’re not crazy to tell us they are still among us, don’t have enough power to stop you.
Bingo! They are still among us but no longer have the power.
Very well said. The early conditioning to social stereotypes ,re-enforced by community acceptance, pretty much guarantees a mindset throughout life. Whether you spend your life struggling with those issues or embrace them.
My in-laws were very nice people who could shock the hell out of their Social Democratic daughter in-law. I sometimes returned the shock. My sister-in-law loved money and furs, she married to obtain them. But, she told a great joke and loved to laugh.
I use the past tense because the grandparents have passed on and the sister-in-law has become changed her frivolous thought patterns. Our paths are merging more now. I have no hope for socialized medicine and her retirement funds tanked.
So how is this going to play out in reconciliation?
This will be the fault of Lincoln, Landrieu, and Nelson, not our great leader.
So to answer my own question, now that I understand the distinction between “conference” and “reconciliation,” if we go the reconciliation route the ConservaDems become irrelevant. OTOH, if we go the standard conference route, Obama can shoot down each feature from the House bill by saying the ConservaDems work go for it.
Quote: “By the way, he’s also impressed that progressives aren’t falling for Harry Reid’s ‘those darned other senators made me do it.’”
Oh I can just imagine. I’ll bet you could get Mitch McConnell, John Boehner and Eric Cantor to sign on to that sentiment as well.
How to put this, PaulaT? How about: “I don’t give a fuck what your rightwing dad is impressed by.”
We are having a great give and take discussion here and you show up with outright rudeness. Please go back to DKos or wherever you slithered over from.
That’s really odd that you would be reading and commenting on a post that is specifically about what my right wing dad thinks if you don’t give a fuck about what he thinks. Do you generally spend this much time on things you don’t give a fuck about? Do people generally curl up in a ball and apologize to you when you throw around curse words? Do you have a habit of walking up to interrupt people having a conversation and telling them they should stop talking about things you don’t care about or do you just reserve that bizarre behavior for the internet? I also find it odd that you would try to make a point against a diary about where right and left may agree by pointing out that other righties might also agree. Doesn’t that illustrate rather than negate my point? Actually, I think that if I asked my dad, he’d agree with me that the problem with Mitch, John and Eric is that they are as concerned about where the lobbying money goes rather than what happens to the American people as people like Nelson and Lieberman and Obama seem to both of us to be. It was a nice touch to add evidence as to why alliances with the right may be no less bizarre than the alliances we already have with people on the left. It sounds like you are a Democrat I don’t agree much with. You may now tell me, after spending your time reading what I write, that you don’t give a fuck what I think if you wish.
What a cool turn of events with your dad. Harbinger of things to come!
Maybe — but are they starting to ‘see’ it, is there truly across the board anti-corporate sentiment building, or does it all still come down to ‘I don’t want to pay more taxes and I don’t want to pay for that lazy bum’s health care’?
1st things 1st. The core of our most pressing problems as a country is this vice-like corporate hegemony. If together we can crack THAT nut, we will have gone a long way toward establishing the kind of communication that will help us reach concensus on other issues, like healthcare.
I see that one of the undead has arrived. She must live on the east coast somewhere, but it’ not dark there yet – and I thought they couldn’t arise from their coffins until after dark. Lynn Dee, when can we expect the rest of your undead brethren to show up?
Give your father a hearty handshake from a guy who generally thinks all right wingers are whack jobs and tell him I’m glad he agrees with us on at least this issue.
Seriously, it’s going to take an epic left-right alliance to undo the bullshit that has been done and is being done if either of us want anything we really want down the road.
We must press on!
Year End Wrap-Up Book Salon up at the Mothership. Hosted by Bev.
I pretty much am your father, just a whole lot younger I think (35).
I often read and sometimes like this site because it is more about passion than partisanship. What I don’t get is how misinformed people from the left are often about us on the right.
We don’t support corporatism blindly, we mistrust government, because big government tends to bring corporatism, and effective lobbying of favour with it. We like the individual, and protecting their rights. Some of us like Cheney, hell, some of us still love Rumsfeld.
Regarding healthcare, we are not on the side of big insurance companies, we generally tend to buy high deductible HSA’s because we only want insurance against catastrophe, and not an all you can eat buffet. We started shopping at Whole Foods when you started boycotting. We want sales across state lines becasue we believe in the ability of individuals to make rational choices, and we don’t like the state wide lobbying that has led to the varying health insurance minimum mandates.
We would love to see everyone have health insurance, we just don’t think we should be forced to subsidize everyone. Some of us even live in countries with 100 year old national health insurance systems, and see that a purely public system is a catastrophe, and only if there are hyundai and mercedes systems, does any innovation take place. Some of us are married to people from the former Eastern Bloc, and know how ruinuous government can be.
We see a lot of things differently, but many of our aims are the same. Many of you should drop the vitriol, and really try and fathom how someone could actually think the way we do….because we aren’t all reThugs or whatever you want to call us.
And I am still trying to find out what the largest company in america is that does ZERO in terms of lobbying….because I would like to think that is the largest any corporation should be…..
Because our views do merge in many areas there ought be a clarification of where they meld, for what reason they meld and where the differneces lie.
A united front against the perils that mutually confront us now I think is the right approach. I would venture to say though that there is relatively little vitriol emanating from the left against anyone and by and large we are live and let live on most issues. It is when our rights nad well being are threatened that we move into another gear.
I believe that we should present a common front at this time. It looks as if petitioning government is to no avail and ways to influence events outside of government may be our only way out.
Perhaps we could work together to achieve something we both want: a government that represents the people rather than the bribers. If we can achieve a representative government then the mechanism is already in place for dealing with our differences.
ROFLMAO!
I just saw a bumper sticker in the middle of Lefty leaning Los Angeles. “NO INCUMBENTS NOT ONE”
Gotta go everbody. Great Discussion and thanks Paula for a fun and provocative post.
Um, I actually didn’t hear conservatives screaming for ‘years’ about deficits, TARP and bailouts — but it sure got loud once the Black dude got into office. No offense, but that’s what I experienced.
And if you’re laughing at the notion of Bush being a conservative, well, I know Bruce Fein, Andrew Sullivan et al agree with you, but many, many others outside of that 28% that’s getting bandied around would be surprised by that one.
So I take it you consider “Conservative Republican” an oxymoron, then? If so, what is it that actually constitutes an actual Conservative? I’d still be interested in hearing.
Wow Jane Hamsher is popular with teabaggers… Who would have thunk? [/sarcasm]
I’m very happy about this dialogue, thanks to everyone.
Under the radar, Obama pushes for Patriot Act renewal
http://joshfulton.blogspot.com/2009/12/under-radar-obama-pushes-for-patriot.html
Welcome to The Lake!
We ask that you limit links to your own site to once a day. Thanks.
Thank you, everyone, for a great discussion. You never could have convinced me this would generate this much commentary and that so much of it would be so constructive and so little of it vitriolic. It’s heartening in light of how big the problems are to see how many people are really serious about trying to solve them.
Just wanted to remind everyone the TARP failed to pass the House the first time because the house reps wouldn’t vote for it. They stood up for us a fuck of a lot more on that than Pelosi and the dems did.
“In what has become a familiar routine, Democratic and Republican leaders blamed each other for the failure. Ultimately, 60 percent of the chamber’s Democrats supported the bill, but only 33 percent of Republicans did.”
http://articles.baltimoresun.com/2008-09-30/news/0809300005_1_white-house
What I didn’t see coming was that he hates this bill without a public option more than he hated the idea of a foothold for socialized medicine
This doesn’t surprise me at all bc it is what I hear over and over from very right-ish, Beckwatcher here in So IN/Western KY and on non-political social boards for one of my hobbies.
A very funny thing is that some Fox-ers make comments like – they don’t think we should be trying to do SO MUCH, SO FAST, but if we “just” did a public option, they think that would be good.
It’s where Obama and the Dems, well – I can’t say they screwed up bc I think they followed a lobbyist funding gameplan that has worked for them, missed the boat. If they had focused on the public option as the central piece in all this and sent Dems back on recess to counter tea baggers with, “I want you to be able to buy into the same insurance I have IF you want to, THEY want to keep our insurance for the elite” they could have had some rallying around the one point that gets positive feedback on many fronts.
Sorry I didn’t respond to comments earlier — my internet connection went down for hours and I also took the time to read to the end of the thread.
Wow! Those are some amazing responses to what I wrote. Amazing as in “weird”, that is.
First, though you don’t know my name, I’ve posted here fairly often in the past, though mostly over two years ago, under the name “xebecs”. I also used that name over on Daily Kos. I decided recently that I don’t want to hide behind an alias any more, so now I’m using my real name.
Second, I consider myself a staunch progressive, and yes, I get my news and views online, especially from places like FDL. In fact, I am very close to one of the FDL contributors, though I don’t think I should name the individual. I’ve also met a number of FDL people (contribs and readers) at conferences over the years. In short, I am not a stranger — you just didn’t know my name.
Third, I never said all conservatives were as I described. “If the shoe fits” is the relevant expression — some conservatives ARE like that, and I am wondering how far we can get working with non-traditional allies without running into problems because of differences of opinion on those key issues. Specifically, can we work with people who deny the American-ness, or even the basic humanity, of many of those who make up the progressive movement? Even if it’s a minority, we WILL run into those people if we start trying to reach outside of our progressive safety bubble.
So, Grumpy@43 and (yes) Jane@51: I didn’t say what you think I said. I wasn’t referring to your families or friends. Some conservatives are good people and some progressives are vile, and it’s generally impossible to know which are which until you spend time with them.
I’m going back into my hole now. This is an awfully long comment for someone like me who normally is more of a lurker, and the spotlight glare is giving me a rash.
Actually, you did. When you make an unqualified generalization like that it does refer to all members of the group, unless I’m mis-remembering my high school English classes.
You’re not being asked to work with
asshatspeople like that: you’re being asked to work with people like me. Check out my 175 and 229 posts and tell me where we can’t get along.As Mercury would say, “Well, tough.” If I have to put up with the loonies on your side then you can damn well put up with the ones on mine, but I’m hopeful that extremists from both sides will call us traitors to the cause and flee in disgust.
Try aloe or vitamin E oil (the natural cures are often better than the chemical junk), but don’t go back into a hole. Anyone who (A) gets their “news and views online” instead of from the MSM, and (B) realizes that “Some conservatives are good people and some progressives are vile” is the type of person we need more of.
Our loonies spell better than your loonies!
Grumpy: Thank you for your charitable approach. I still don’t see where in my original comment @30 it says anything about everyone being like that — at most, one might infer I meant that all “wingnuts” were like that, and “wingnut” itself is already a pejorative term that applies to only a subset of conservatives.
My real question — and perhaps I should have said it like this — is “Just how many of the people we are beginning to reach out to — the people filled with populist rage — are in fact unreachable because their rage is motivated largely by homophobic, xenophobic, racist, sexist beliefs?”
I really don’t know the answer to that question. Do you? I’d really like to think it’s a small, small number.
I think it’s a mistake to see all of them as unreachable, but if any truly are, they will not be part of any coalition that is tolerant so we wouldn’t have to deal with them trying to dictate reprehensible policy to us. I think a lot of it is fear. When you are afraid, you look for someone to blame so that you can wrap your brain around it better. It is actually most important to reach out to those who blame it on minority groups because in today’s society, you don’t say as much of that stuff unless you are in the company of those who are likely to think like you do and reaffirm your racist or homophobic explanation. They never say it to people who will talk to them about corporatism and even try to redirect that anger more appropriately. Once you reach out and try to explain, if it’s hopeless, you both go your separate ways. Do you really think unreachable racists would join in a common cause like this?
As for those who are reachable but still have different views, that’s okay. Let’s say you and I have different views on what should be done about a public option. We both fight to keep the insurance companies from being the ones to decide the question. Once they are out of the picture, we discuss it and then vote our consciences on the issue. May the majority view win. The point of a democracy is majority rule, after all, so it’s not like winning all the time is essential to preserving your democracy.
I’m afraid I don’t know. Like you, I hope the number is small. Like PaulaT, I doubt that they’ll want any part of us anyway.
They will call us names, of course, and we will have to muster the courage to survive that horror. I think it’s worth it, though, if we can bring together (how shall I say this?) the non-radical Progressives and the enlightened Conservatives and thereby marginalize the extremists on both sides.
What we (the coalition) all agree on is that our representative democracy isn’t working because it is not representative: our public servants aren’t serving the public, but rather their corporate masters. If we can’t change that then nothing else matters anyway, and if we can, then the mechanism is already in place for resolving our differences.
I see it differently. Whether either of us is an extremist or not, if there are issues that we agree on then we should work for them together. Applying a ‘too icky’/'sorta ok’ test on people to determine if they’re acceptable just reinforces the game the corporates are playing on us. I don’t accept that. It’s time for both sides to act like adults. I’m comfortable working with wackjob mouthbreathing loons to get good work done. Are you?
I think the point is that wackjob mouthbreathing loons won’t agree with us on what constitutes “good work” in the broad sense and be interested in joining the coalition. However the more reasonable on both sides might be interested in alliances on an issue-by-issue basis, in which case yes, I’ll work with anyone who agrees with me on that particular issue. I’m not sure that will be a two-way street, however.
For example, on the specific issue of restricting corporate funding in campaign finance, if we have a plan that appeals across the political spectrum then fine: I’ll work with club-wielding new Black Panthers and with club-wielding KKK goons on that issue. Will they be willing to work with me, knowing that we disagree in other areas? We wont know until we ask, right?
The whole concept is about reaching out to everyone with whom there is common ground and working together on those areas of agreement. Some will be unreachable because they aren’t interested in cooperating even in areas of agreement. With some it will be:
Me: “Term limits area good idea.”
NBP: “Yeah!”
KKK: “Yeah!”
Me: “So, we’ll work together to get them?”
NBP: “I won’t work with [Edited by Moderator].”
KKK: “I won’t work with [Edited by Moderator].”
Me: “Hasta la bye-bye.”
With others it will be:
Me: “Term limits area good idea.”
NBP: “Yeah!”
KKK: “Yeah!”
Me: “So, we’ll work together to get them?”
NBP: “Okay, but just on this one issue. Don’t expect my support in dismantling Affirmative Action!”
KKK: “Well, all right: but later we’re going to fight like hell over welfare.”
Me: “It’s a deal.”
I’m afraid that sounds a bit muddled; have I managed to clarify anything?
Yes, that’s the reality. I hear you. I’m trying to head off the tendencies we have of allowing ‘liberal’/'conservative’ labels to effect how we view and interact with each other. That may not be realistic, but what the hell…Trying to keep a lid on things for the duration is going to be interesting.
Tried to edit my response @243 but it got weird…
Grumpy: I see nothing in your comments @175 or 229 to disagree with. Why don’t you tell us some more about your views?
Hey, hey, hey, PaulaT,
!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! How ya feelin’,baby? You done kicked some ass. My deepest admiration.
I’m comment 245 on The Seminal Post.
Happy New Year. You did good. And you were workin’ it !!! Awesome, well done.
Thanks, but I just got the subject started. The great discussion has relied on a whole heck of a lot more people than me. I hope we’ll keep having great discussions among people from all over the political field on FDL.
It’s true, you just got the subject started. With a wonderful piece of writing that drew so far, 250 responses. As a continuing conversation for….how long?….
Hey, you rock !!!!
[ Bows down...].
Well I have spent time arguing with conservatives on local newspaper sites, economic sites and even humanevents.com, but I have never been slammed more than trying to discuss health care reform at KOS. some people told me I should come over here , so here I am. Well what they really told me was I shouldn’t be at KOS because I am an FDLer. I guess that is some sort of insult. The people that seem to be writing all the “Jane is a teabagger” diaries didn’t like my diary on smear campaigns and again suggested I might be more comfortable over here. This is my first comment on this site , so I don’t know if I am an FDLer or not. Anyway here I am and next time I see a teabagger I will give them a hug and thank them for their support on the environment, the EFCA and in getting more progressive Democrats in congress.
welcome — looking forward to reading what you have to say.
Sure, you’re an FDLer. We have lots of people who don’t agree with Jane here, too. We just don’t assume that people who make common cause with conservatives have cooties or will inevitably be assimilated into the Republiborg collective. When we find out it was all an elaborate plot to get us out of our basements so the teabaggers could steal our cheetos, I guess we’ll admit the KOSers knew better all along. But until then, we’re just doing what we think needs to be done and welcoming anyone who wants to join our cause. Welcome!
Well what they really told me was I shouldn’t be at KOS because I am an FDLer. I guess that is some sort of insult.
*
Kos is a strange site. There was one blogger who loved him some Obama and posted beautiful White House photo essays relentlessly. He got ‘kicked’ off too. I just ignore the bullies and read the good diaries. There’s a good reason to suspect that some of the diarists there aren’t independent a’tall but are paid trolls of special interests. Don’t let them push you around!