Surprise, surprise. The big-business-worshipping Blue Dogs, they who got slaughtered in the midterms last week, are (along with Big Media allies like the ever-reliable Lawrence O’Donnell) trying to push the myth that they lost big, not because they pressured Obama to go with a stimulus package that every economist worthy of the name said was too small to truly heal the economy quickly, but because of (get this) Nancy Pelosi.
CNN’s Candy Crowley recited Blue Dog doofus Jason Altmire’s “that San Francisco gay-lover Pelosi lost middle America!” spiel to the DCCC’s Chris Van Hollen this morning, no doubt expecting him to cower before the Blue Dogs as DC pols are wont to do. But this time at least, Van Hollen is willing to tell the Blue Dogs to get real — that this election was a referendum on the economy first and foremost, and that the Republicans once again are forced to take at least partial ownership of the failure if the economy (which as he points out was initially wrecked by the policies of a Republican president and Congress) if it doesn’t improve in another two years.
Van Hollen knows full well, I imagine, that the Blue Dogs did it to themselves. Way back in January, he knew from his own and Celinda Lake’s polling that the anti-choice and pro-business concessions that conservative Democrats like the Blue Dogs forced into the health care bill are a big part of what took Martha Coakley from a nineteen-point lead to a loss against Scott Brown in January. As even Joe Klein, who is no friend to progressives, is able to see, at every turn the Blue Dogs could have saved themselves, but they flatly, stupidly refused to do so. Even as late as July, they could have saved themselves if they hadn’t voted to gut the only legislation that could have saved them, the unemployment benefits extension. But their hatred for the average American, and their love for deep-pocketed anti-worker interests, won out to their detriment.



50 Comments

Blue Dog stupidity would be funny, if only it weren’t so pathetic. But how about Nancy Pelosi and Chris Van Hollen? Why didn’t they hold out for a bigger stimulus bill? Why didn’t they go for Medicare for All? Why didn’t they tell the President that it was their skin in 2010 and not his, and that he better start supporting legislation that would fly with their constituencies or they weren’t going to support him in 2012? And why didn’t they tell the gutless wonder majority leader of the Senate, that they wouldn’t pass any money bills unless and until he got rid of the filibuster and equalized the influence of the two Houses of Congress?
Not that I want to see Pelosi replaced since any other realistic candidate for the job is even worse, but I do think Nancy, who most rate as a very strong Speaker could have been stronger still, and that had she been she wouldn’t be looking at the Minority Leader status today.
“Why didn’t they hold out for a bigger stimulus bill? Why didn’t they go for Medicare for All?”
My guess is Party hierarchy. Obama may have told them that he wouldn’t support anything more than what his industry shills had agreed to and had written into the legislation. Using the threat that the Party apparatus wouldn’t support them financially in the midterms is always a powerful persuader.
Obama did threaten made threats against anyone cnosidering voting against HCR (which I believe those threats were carried out in the primaries) and probably other legislation as well.
I wrote to Van Hollen months ago that he’s a weasel who needs to STFU.
Now he’s just making an ass of himself. Keep talking, you loser you.
Part of me wonders if charges against Rangel and Waters were part of this effort to intimidate real agents of change.
Whatever Obama said to Kucinich in Air Force One seems to have done the trick. Kucinich turned tail mighty quickly after that.
Pelosi went for what she could get and she worked for and got passed in the House better stuff than anything the Senate or WH fought for or got passed.
Don’t put Pelosi in the same class as Van Hollen. Van Hollen is a weasel.
Folks there is a Blue Dog leading the Democratic party,Barack Obama that’s who has been responsible for all the feeble reforms put forth that didn’t do squat.
I voted for Jason Altmire last Tuesday. He certainly was a more promising candidate than Keith “Da Spook” Rothfus. But a lesser evil remains an evil.
Both legacy parties are morally and culturally bankrupt. Time will tell if an authentic opposition movement and party (or parties) emerge. I doubt that most Democrats and Republicans would want to join an opposition party. And this says a lot about them as individuals and as politicians.
Pelosi at least did MORE than any other Dem…
Yeah, maybe not enough, but still MORE!
I don’t have a lot of use for Van Hollen but it looks like he, at least has learned the right lesson here. Hey!
O’DonnellMoron! The blue dogs lost more than half of their caucus while the Progressives kept 95 percent of theirs. Now granted I’m no “political expert” like you are nor am I even a mathematician but I think I’ll go with the philosophy of the caucus that DIDN’T LOSE!O’Donnell is just like Tweety in having the belief that only people who have worked within government, people like them, are equipped to understand the way it works or qualified to analyze where it goes wrong or right. Poor people like we and Glenn Greenwald are shouldn’t bother our ignorant heads with something that we are obviously incapable of understanding. They’ll patiently explain it to us but will brook no disagreement with their point of view by such as we. Arrogant jerk.
All of me is convinced of that.
Regardless of what Van Hollen might have known months ago from his own polling, he was still trying to put positive spin on crap rather than help Pelosi get as much as possible. Democrats could have gained political advantage by producing better policy.
He can try walking it back now, but he was part of the problem. And he still is, imo. Changing his bs now, after the deals are done, makes him a weasel looking to flip the script. He won’t be getting my support.
Butt Pullosi Punched first with her own Bush exoneration from Multiply Deserved ARTICLES OF IMPEACHMENT!
I had not seen the Greenwald-O’Donnell exchange until now. If you look up “smug, son-of-a-bitch” in the dictionary, I’m pretty sure you’ll find O’Donnell’s picture. He can cite his inside-the-bubble polling dogma until hell freezes over, but it’s not going to change the fact that people swung radically in this election because the Democratic party brass handled the economy (to put it nicely) incompetently. Ramping up a truly progressive agenda (stimulus and WS reform, specifically) right after the 2006 election, with pedal to the metal in January, 09 would have made a helluva difference last Tuesday, and there just isn’t any damn doubt about it.
Hey Lawrence: This crap ain’t brain surgery, so don’t pretend like it is. The only people you’re fooling are yourself and your inside-the-bubble fellow-travelers.
In that exchange with Greenwald he sounded like the worst of the shoutover Rethugs. “I’m a socialist!” He wouldn’t know a socialist if one put a foot up his ass.
Arrogant is being kind, Margaret. I’m surprised at you. *g*
Oh Peg you do state it so well ☺ ☺
How is the job thing going Peg?
OT: KO breaks his silence with a tweet.
http://twitter.com/KeithOlbermann/status/1369101628870657
Sorry. I felt I got my dig in above when I called the jerk a moron. But really is there anything we can call O’Donnell that isn’t kinder than what he deserves?
Still jobless. maybe I should be a
punditdouche like LoDo.Altmire and Shuler can come back around for leadership roles when they pull in fifty million dollars for their party, as Speaker Pelosi did this cycle alone. Instead of being a net suck of fundage for the DCCC, as they both have been.
Really — hand, bite, feeds you much?
Thank you, Captain Hindsight.
Yes, it’s true. And she’ll likely be history-booked for that as much as being the first female Speaker. If the world ever gets around to war crimes charges, that is. Otherwise, s/he who writes the history etc.
O’Donnell trying to debate with Greenwald is like a four year old trying to tell Einstein that relativity doesn’t work. Wrong on substance, wrong on framing and not remotely able to rise to Greenwald’s level. O’Donnell knows this, that’s why he resorted to shouting bullshit at him.
Now I’m confused. Is he a jerk or a moron? heh
My only beef with Nancy is the whole War C rimes and Impeachment of both the President and Vice President when she took the chairmanship. I really feel if the Dems pursued BushCo like the Pukes did Clinton the Election would have been completely different I mean there are Documented WAR CRIMES and now actual admissions of war crimes involved!!
“I’m a socialist. And bring me another bottle of the Bollinger ’62 and some of the Beluga caviar. As I was saying…”
You bet, Larry.
What gets me is how is a guy who parrots reich wing
talking pointsbullshit about Social Security a Socialist? I don’t think that means what he thinks it means…Mine too. I think she was far too lenient with them but then Congress’ complicity would have been discovered otherwise. All in all, she was a better Speaker than Wanking Hoyer would have been.
Book Salon up with Joan C. Williams’s Reshaping the Work-Family Debate: Why Men and Class Matter hosted by June Carbone
Thanks for this link!
Keith,
I wrote to MSNBC president Phil Griffin (phil.griffin@nbcuni.com) as soon as I heard the other day to tell him what I think of his decision.
I don’t always agree with you (e.g. I thought you were often ridiculously unfair to Clinton when you supported Obama for the nomination in 2008), but I respect your integrity and efforts to benefit your viewers. In this case, Griffin and his ego are clearly the liabilities for MSNBC. I won’t be watching MSNBC again unless/until you are allowed to continue bringing us the news.
The domino effect would have reached well into the House and Senate and the leadership in both parties weren’t gonna have any of that.
The thing is, while they lost their elections, it wouldn’t surprise me if these loser dogs have plenty of “opportunities” to pursue thanks to their service to corporate America, and the rest of the wealthy elite whose favors they performed. Maybe it is too cynical, but I always thought that these guys voted to represent their post-government careers more than they voted to represent their constituents.
Phoenix woman,
As pointed out by others, this election debacle is actually a potential opportunity for progressive Dems. Progressives need to pool their resources and build up political organizations in New Democrat and Blue Dog districts that we lost. This is so that we can find and support progressive Dems to run in the primaries in 2012.
Granted, there will not be progressive Dems available for a run in every one of those Congressional Districts that we lost. So we should find the most progressive candidate and get behind him/her. This may mean supporting moderates in some of those primaries. And I mean moderates as defined OUTSIDE of the Beltway. Remember, by Beltway standards, the Blue Dogs are moderates. Yeah, I know. What a fucking joke that is!
If progressives don’t start plannning now for the 2012 primaries, don’t be surprised to see the nightmare return: BLUE DOGS THE SEQUEL!
There are many here who knew at the time she made it that Pelosi’s call on impeachment would have fatal consequences.
They’re not mutually exclusive.
I wonder what they threatened her with, that she backed down on it.
I hear ya!
ExACTly.
Blue Dogs are stupid – good riddance.
The DC spin is the problem. Everybody knows why Obama was voted in – to undo thirty years of failed Reaganomics as brought to fruition by Bush. Blue Dogs were voted out because they straddled an impossible fence – trying to look Democratic and act Republican. Truman knew that voters will vote Republican if presented a choice between a real Republican and a Democrat that acts like a Republican. Of course the Blue Dogs will blame somebody else – they’re Republicans, that’s what Republicans ALWAYS do.
DING DING DING! We have a winner!
Didn’t Obama comment that “it’s time for him [Rangel] to go,’ while the ethics investigation was under way?
Looks like the Constitutional Law professor forgot about the presumption of innocence, huh.
Must be more eleventy dimensional chess.
Altmire was employed by UPMC (University of Pittsburgh Medical Center) in a very high, well paid position. Is there any question why he voted against health care? Sadly, the opposite choice, Rothfus, was a micron worse so he lost.
Almire has supported the 3% of his district who has lots of money and influence and ignored the rest.
By the way, he’s an ass.
“Everybody knows why Obama was voted in – to undo thirty years of failed Reaganomics as brought to fruition by Bush.”
Nope. Obama is a Chicago School neoliberal believer in free trade/free markets, privatizing government, tax cuts, trickle down, and eliminating the safety net. He’s a supply sider all the way just like Reagan, the president whom he has admitted he admires the most. He’s Reagan on steroids.
My apologies if your comment was intended to be snark.
Although, come to think of it, you’re probably referring to why people mistakenly voted for him. They thought he would undo Reagonomics even though he had no intention of doing so. Of course, he wasn’t exactly honest.
Anyway, my mistake. I misread what you wrote. Sorry.
I know there are many, who can’t vote for Democratic Minority Leader, who are hoping, praying that Nancy will be Minority Leader.
Besides, if you listen to Obama and Nancy, the Democrats lost because people liked them so much. And, the GOP won because people didn’t like them at all.
My Republican friends tell me the Dems lost because the repugs hated Pelosi because she flew everywhere in an imaginary private jet
They pretty much seem to buy every lie coming from the craw of Faux.
It’s inconceivable!
I think he would have run as a Republican, if he’d thought the party would let him win the nomination… but as we all know, it would not.
These must be the same Republicans who are all so security-crazed, too.
Yes, herein lies our quandary: defending the “progressive” dems against the onslaughts of the Blue Dogs and, secretively, DLC, places us in the no-win situation of defending the ineffectual performance of the the rest of the party. It is the progressives in congress that need a spine, the rest of them are simply playing good cop bad cop. And unfortunately, a good many of the progressives are filling their pockets with ill-gotten gains from corporations as well. The real obstacle to a progressive voice in our politics is all of the progressive Democrats who can’t cut their ties to the Party. They enable the appeasement strategy.