Obama’s Relentless Abandonment of Progressive Nominees - EmptyWheel

[WillyT]

Obama’s Relentless Abandonment of Progressive Nominees
By: bmaz Saturday August 7, 2010 8:37 pm

<snip>

Barack Obama was never a hard liberal nor progressive, whatever the supposed difference between the two really is. Those blinded by hope and change who thought otherwise were imprinting their own desires and beliefs on what was a relatively blank slate, which was probably easy enough to do in the despair resultant from the eight years of George Bush. By the same token, however, Mr. Obama cultivated and encouraged such beliefs; this he worked hard at, and it was critical to him being elected president.

Now if you listened to, and read Obama, and paid attention, you knew he was a centrist who worked by increment, compromise and seeking consensus as opposed to a liberal beacon that would take the country in a new and markedly different direction. Again, that said, the liberals and progressives who served as the ground force, heart and soul of Obama’s candidacy and election had every right to believe he would would at least include them at his table and utilize their talents in his Administration and appointments. There was an implicit deal made in this regard, and Obama purchased on it to his wild success. Now he has defaulted.

I first wrote significantly on the betrayal of the Obama White House toward liberal nominees in relation to the nomination of Dawn Johnsen to the critical post of head of the Department of Justice’s Office of Legal Counsel. The scorn for, and abandonment of, the Johnsen nomination still stands out because of the fact it is clearly established that there were 60 votes cloture on a Senate floor vote for Johnsen’s nomination. It wasn’t that Johnsen could not be confirmed, she absolutely could have been and would have been; it was that Obama did not want her and would not call for a vote.

Johnsen was not only the best person for a critical job, she was a symbol to a critical part of Obama’s and the Democratic constituency. It is far more than Dawn Johnsen however it is a pattern of abuse and scorn the Obama White House relentlessly exhibits to a major portion of the base. Currently the focus of progressives is on the potential nomination of Elizabeth Warren as head of the newly enacted Consumer Financial Protection Bureau. Despite some public platitudes, it is quite clear the Obama Administration does not want a competent crusader for citizens like Warren and, apparently, is working through the cut out of Chris Dodd to see Warren doesn’t get the nod.

Maybe the pressure will get to the Obama White House and Warren will get the post she deserves and would be perfect for; but don’t count on it because Obama, Geithner, Summers, Rahm and the boys on the Obama bus just do not want her. And they didn’t want Christine Romer either, so they let the misogynistic, consistently wrong about everything he touches, Larry Summers push her out. It is becoming a broken record with this White House.

Most distressing to me, because I practice law in the 9th Circuit, is the complete abandonment of two critical liberal judicial nominees, Goodwin Liu and Edward Chen; you may not be aware of because their nominations were tanked in the quiet of the night before those oh so hard working and diligent souls in the United States Senate jetted out of town for a 37 day vacation. Because Senate Rule XXXI specifies that all nominations not voted on and not held over by unanimous consent are extinguished and returned to the White House, the Liu and Chen nominations are toast.

Some of the still starry eyed Obama true believers who care about Liu and Chen (and both are incredibly excellent and worthy nominees) probably still think Obama will renominate them (and there is mention of that by, of course, an anonymous “White House official”). But even if he did, why in the world would anybody believe it to be anything other than a ruse to get their support leading up to the fall election? Obama renominated Dawn Johnsen and then hung her out to dry twisting in the wind until she finally ended the charade. It was a charade to sucker progressives, and there is no reason to believe he will not do it again. There is a track record with this White House, and it is not a good one; in fact, it is downright pathetic.

If you do not know about Goodwin Liu, you should. Liu is quite arguably the brightest and most accomplished young legal liberal star in the universe. He is the future of any liberal hope on the Supreme Court; like Antonin Scalia or John Roberts on the right, Liu is the future legal heavyweight for the liberal future. At only 39 years of age, Liu’s resume and record of accomplishment, service and involvement in the law makes Elena Kagan look like a malnourished piker. He is worth fighting for tooth and nail (and so is Ed Chen for that matter). Except Barack Obama did not lift a finger; didn’t ever expend any of his precious political capital in furtherance of the nomination and didn’t even utter a peep of protest as Harry Reid and the Senate let him die in the night as they were fleeing town. But that is the hallmark of the Obama Presidency in relation to liberals and/or progressives; they just don’t give a damn and won’t lift a finger (but they will expect the votes whenever elections come around).

The Obama White House also put up no fight for Peter Diamond, a worthy and critical nominee to the Federal Reserve Board. It is a pattern and practice with the Obama White House. If you are an only marginally qualified centrist Obama toady like Elena Kagan, they will fight like dogs for you; but if you are a strong progressive voice you are toast.

Maybe progressives ought to be considering someone like Elizabeth Warren for a much higher office than head of CFPB; or they can continue to be treated as “f**cking ret*rds” by the current denizens of the White House.

<snip>

Link: http://emptywheel.firedoglake.com/2010/08/07/obamas-relentless-abandonment-of-progressive-nominees/

:mad:

:kick:

[Name removed]

1. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[WillyT]

2. Please Point Out The Inaccuracies In The Piece

Thanks in advance.

[Bluebear]

152. :crickets:

[TheWraith]

156. Well I'm not the person you're responding to, but I'd be happy to help.

Just for starters:

It claims that Obama didn't want Dawn Johnson nominated for the Office of Legal Counsel, even though HE WAS THE ONE WHO NOMINATED HER. Twice. The Senate wouldn't confirm.

It claims that Obama doesn't want Elizabeth Warren for the head of the CFPB, based entirely on unsubstantiated internet rumors.

It claims that Obama "abandoned" two 9th Circuit nominees, Goodwin Liu and Edward Chen, when in fact the Senate refused to confirm before the recess, and despite the fact that Obama is going to renominate them--a point the article actually mentions, then dismisses as a feint to get liberal support for the midterms, as if most liberals would even know who the hell these guys were.

And the rest of the article is just blind invective hurled against the "traitors" in the Obama administration without a shred of reason or evidence, calling people "toadies," misogynists, and claiming that any time the Senate didn't reach cloture, it was really a conspiracy by the Obama administration to backstab liberals for their own completely inexplicable nefarious reasons.

Speaking as someone who's actually met Marcy Wheeler, eaten dinner with her, and had her as a Facebook friend, I have to say she's totally lost her shit on this one, and she should be ashamed of herself.

[WillyT]

160. Well Howdy Doody, And Bra-Fucking-Vo... And If You Had Bothered...

you would have read that Marci, did not write this piece...

Obama’s Relentless Abandonment of Progressive Nominees
By: bmaz Saturday August 7, 2010 8:37 pm

So please... spare me your Faux disappointment in Marci Wheeler, and her obvious insanity.

No wonder we're losing...

:wtf:

Link: OP

:shrug:

[polmaven]

225. No comments

about the actual answer to your request for the article's inaccuracies to be pointed out?

[nashville_brook]

164. omg! you're facebook friends with marci wheeler??!!

[Winterblues]

222. Well for one it was Obama that appointed Dawn Johnson

He was not able to get her appointment ratified but he did indeed appoint her as he has Susan Warren..

[Name removed]

5. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[EFerrari]

3. Somehow I managed to miss the whole Dawn Johnsen thing.

:(

[WillyT]

4. Here Ya Go...

Link: http://firedoglake.com/search/?cx=012863467380897931540%3Abacmcr9sohw&cof=FORID%3A11&ie=UTF-8&q=dawn+johnsen&sa=Search&siteurl=emptywheel.firedoglake.com%2F2010%2F08%2F07%2Fobamas-relentless-abandonment-of-progressive-nominees%2F#2133

:shrug:

:hi:

[EFerrari]

16. Thanks! You know, there's something in that story I don't understand.

Do enough people in the base even know who this lady is? They would have to, in order for the "bait" explanation to work?

The Liu nomination tanking I did catch. That was so disappointing.

[JDPriestly]

178. That lady -- Do you mean Dawn Johnsen, yes we know who she is

[AnArmyVeteran]

151. Rachel talked about Dawn in many of her programs.

[EFerrari]

155. Maybe that's why I missed it.

I don't watch her regularly except for the snip posted here.

[MineralMan]

6. I see you've started early on this Sunday with the daily

Obama-bashing.

Unrecommended for boring me.

[EFerrari]

7. Also not an argument. n/t

[MineralMan]

10. I was not making an argument. I was making a statement.

But, thanks for noticing.

[EFerrari]

121. Thanks, there wasn't enough gratuitous, contentless snark on this thread!

[Ignis]

157. "Water is wet" is a statement. You're arguing that this piece is "Obama bashing."

Arguments require support, even if that support is simply your opinion.

[WillyT]

8. Hey Thanks For The Kick !!!

:yourock:

[MineralMan]

9. You're more than welcome. I appreciate all the time you spent

cutting and pasting from FDL on this Sunday morning.

[WillyT]

11. My Pleasure MM... My Pleasure

:hi:

[bkozumplik]

128. same goes for you

Dont answer the points in the piece, whine about them. Thanks for showing up and using up space.

Because you know what MineralMan?

*You dont have a real reply. Whining is all you have to say about this*

Answer the points in the piece.

[sabrina 1]

174. Rec'd especially for the information on Dawn

Johnson. I remember her nomination and did not know what happened.

What a shame.

I hope she runs for office, like the Senate eg. Obama seems to prefer right-leaning DLCers or Republicans for his cabinet and for advice.

We should be focusing on Congress and the Senate as it is clear that the current make-up of those two bodies, doesn't stand up to this WH on the major issues, like health care. We need more people with a backbone enough to do that.

[Vincardog]

12. It looks like WillyT has been paying attention more than the Corporate Owned Media or the Mobil

Obama Support Group.

[another saigon]

13. ain't that the truth

it is depressing to see how fearless they are in their conservative (I can not even refer to them as centrists) version of Democrats.

:(

[treestar]

14. You're going to pick at every single nominee for every office

and demand that they all be from the far left of the party? What about the middle of the party and even the right of the party? why don't their opinions count?

[WillyT]

17. Are You Being Serious ???

:shrug:

[treestar]

20. Why is it that only the far left counts?

I'm sick of this shit. Whining and whining because you don't get to rule the entire party. No respect for those who disagree with you. Looking for shit to be victimized about. And when you get called on it, show your blindness with "are you serious?" You can't even comprehend someone else's opinion being different from yours?

[WillyT]

24. Please List The Progressive, Left, And Far-Left Nominees That Have Been Appointed And Confirmed

Thank you in advance.

[laughingliberal]

56. Yes, I'd be interested in that as well. President Obama, on Fox news, said he beat back 'all...

sorts of proposals from the left. I'd say that was inaacurate. AFAICS, he's beat back all proposals from the left.

[Raineyb]

124. Hmm. Crickets. What a surprise. Not! n/t

[EFerrari]

26. LOL.

[flyarm]

70. tag team,You're it! eom

:hi:

[DireStrike]

221. I'm really hoping you'll reply

You "called us" on it. And we replied with the facts that you seem to have missed. Please either show us to be wrong or apologize and let us know we've changed your mind.

[EFerrari]

18. That sounds like a great idea!

lol

[WillyT]

19. LOL... Yeah... Maybe Someday, We'll Actually Get One !!!

:evilgrin:

:hi:

[another saigon]

22. because that would mean we only have ONE party in America?

:shrug:

[rhett o rick]

159. Yes the right of the party (read Republican) speaks out once again against the left. nm

[valerief]

168. Only the Far Left DOES count. Only the Far Left works for citizens. The human kind. nt

[KakistocracyHater]

184. yep, the 'other right' is nasty, the far left is what we need now

it DID fix the 30s Depression, the "Far Left" has fixed MOST of America's problems, so why choose to fail? What do they get for going down the wrong path, wtf is motivating them?

[JDPriestly]

180. Because the far left of the party is the part that gets out the vote

in strongly Democratic areas of the country.

We live in those strongly Democratic areas and we walk the precincts and man the tables and hand out information and talk to voters -- ordinary working class voters who reliably vote Democratic -- if they bother to vote.

We also speak persuasively to swing voters. Obama may get money from Wall Street, but I assure you that money is not going to get him votes in my neighborhood.

It's the smile on my very liberal, very progressive face and my ability to talk the same language as my ordinary that gets the votes for Democrats -- my smile, my face, my talk, my language and those of millions of other people -- progressives and liberals like me who don't just vote but who also work to get people elected. And I'm not very enthusiastic about getting out there for Obama at this time.

Jerry Brown I care about but even Barbara Boxer, liberal as she is, only seems to want my money. And, sorry Senator Boxer, but Congress hasn't done anything to get money to the people in my social class, and we just don't have money to donate to our senators' campaigns. You and the rest of Congress should have considered that back when Bush came to you asking to bail out the banks. You should have thought about the working people who vote for you when you voted to ease imports from other countries and allow outsourcing. Those were our jobs you allowed to be exported. Now, make do with what you get because that is what most Americans are having to do.

I think Democrats will do fine this Fall, but they will have to do it with next to no help from me.

[dotymed]

186. Are you kidding???

This is the perfect argument for a third party.
That is our problem. "why don't the (yeck) conservative and middle of the party count?"
OMFG........:wtf:

[olegramps]

192. ABSOLUTELY: Right On.

This correction was to remove MSN's spell check correction of Obama to IBM. Maybe they are closer to being right than I first thought and I shouldn't have changed it.

It is time to form a political party from the base of organized labor. A Labor Party that is dedicated to protection of workers and the sworn enemy of the established Plutocracy that is intent on destruction of the Middle Class.

Am I disappointed with Obama? You better believe it. As Hilary said he gives pretty speeches. How ironic is it that as her approval rating is sky-rocketing, Obama's is plunging not only among enemies of the working class and their faithful boot-licking nincompoops, but among those who worked to diligently to get him elected. Just who does he think will be there to pass out those fliers door-to-door. He just as well better take all the corp money that he can get because those millions of five and ten dollar donations from hopeful souls that bought his bullshit about Change are quickly drying up.

[DireStrike]

199. Um, how about ANY FRIGGIN NOMINEES

Dawn Johnsen was one of the few, very very few, that leftists were actually excited about.

"What about the center and the right" Did you really just make that statement? Almost every single appointment and nominee has been from the center and right of the party. It has been such a constant stream of disappointments, starting right after Obama won the election and started naming his transition team, that people stopped even hoping we would get any appointments.

[jaxx]

15. Did he/she get paid to write that?

It was a real whine, worth at least 2 cents.

[EFerrari]

21. EmptyWheel has some of the best written, thoughtful critique on the net.

You could at least use your Sunday snark.

[MineralMan]

28. I suppose that could be true if you dislike President Obama a lot.

I don't find it that interesting. Different strokes...

[EFerrari]

29. No, that would be true regardless of your position if you like good writing

and good thinking and not spew. Different strokes, indeed.

[WillyT]

32. Hey MM... Do You Know How Marcy Wheeler Relates (In Political History) To Scooter Libby ???

:shrug:

[nashville_brook]

59. liking the president doesn't mean you have to lie to pretend everything is peachy

you CAN do that, but that makes you no better than the people who lied and kept their blinders on during the Bush administration. we're better than that, and our interest is to make ACTUAL improvements in the world -- not just rack up rhetorical points.

[MineralMan]

117. Actually, I'm very disappointed that more progressive appointees

have not made it through the confirmation process. There are so many still stuck in that process. President Obama is faced with a real dilemma, in that progressive appointments are almost impossible to get confirmed.

That's the reality of the whole thing. Knowing that any progressive appointed will be blocked in the Senate tends to put a damper on the selection process. Even the less progressive appointees are having much difficulty in the confirmation process.

Don't mistake my support for President Obama for complacency about the obstructive state of the GOP Senate caucus.

The rhetoric is on the side of those who decry the lack of progressive appointees, even though they know that such appointees don't stand a chance of confirmation.

The answer to all of this is to elect a larger majority of Democrats to the Senate, so this shit doesn't happen. But, too many who believe that President Obama would not appoint progressives even then are fomenting a minor boycott at the polls. Just enough of a boycott to prevent a larger Senate majority from being elected.

There's your rhetoric, and the result of it. Thank you for listening.

[EFerrari]

119. Oh, brother.

Your claim that no progressive can be appointed is baseless.

Your claim that that progressives are "fomenting" a boycott is also baseless.

Do you ever post anything here that doesn't bash Democrats?

[MineralMan]

120. I would ask you the same question, exactly.

Do you ever post anything here that doesn't bash Democrats?

[EFerrari]

122. Of course you would. n/t

[flyarm]

140. x 10 , Oh Brother!! eom

[nashville_brook]

125. too bad there will be losses instead of gains in the senate -- that could have been avoided

but the leadership chose instead to capitulate to the GOP and play softball with HCR, war funding, and financial reform.

Obama was elected on the premise that he'd bring change -- that his administration fight for *us* instead of bankers, oil co's and insurance co's -- and our losses in November will be the result of the a lackluster record on this account.

so, while yes it would be great to have more 60+ dems...maybe even 80+ dems in the Senate (dream on!)...to say that's what we need in the senate in order to get anything done is a slap in the face to most voters. that's called moving the goal posts, and it's something that even children recognize as bad faith. psych!

[WillyT]

129. Yep... And By Neglecting/Depressing The Activist Part Of The Base...

you guarantee more losses than would be otherwise.

:shrug:

[sendero]

150. George Bush.

.. get every right wing hack he wanted in every position. But it is "impossible to confirm"? BULLSHIT.

[JDPriestly]

181. Obama and Harry Reid don't push enough of the really good, very progressive

ideas to an up or down vote.
The Republicans forced votes on everything they wanted. Harry Reid and Obama are afraid to stand tall.

And Obama's economic team is a disaster. If he doesn't appoint Elizabeth Warren and quickly, there will be a challenge candidate in 2012 and Obama will be out.

[jaxx]

30. That wasn't snark, that was truth.

When a writer says he knew what the President was politically and then goes on to say but but but he thought he would change. The writer is pissing and moaning....and he didn't listen.

[EFerrari]

34. No, he didn't say that at all. He said that the liberals who worked to get Obama election

had a right to expect to be included. That's a different matter. You didn't "listen".

[jaxx]

41. I listened and there have been no surprises.

This is what the author wrote:

Now if you listened to, and read Obama, and paid attention, you knew he was a centrist who worked by increment, compromise and seeking consensus as opposed to a liberal beacon that would take the country in a new and markedly different direction. Again, that said, the liberals and progressives who served as the ground force, heart and soul of Obama’s candidacy and election had every right to believe he would would at least include them at his table and utilize their talents in his Administration and appointments. There was an implicit deal made in this regard, and Obama purchased on it to his wild success. Now he has defaulted.<

If you paid attention, you knew.

Then come the disclaimers and the P&M:

had every right to believe he would would at least include them at his table and utilize their talents in his Administration and appointments

There was an implicit deal made in this regard

Just what was that implicit deal? Where is the copy of the deal? I didn't make a deal with the President, I just voted for him, knowing what he stood for and that was good enough for me. I didn't expect to run the country for him, or to make his nominations, or to demand he get right on my personal agenda.....or else.

I'm a Democrat, I worked for his election, I am included. And so are you.

[EFerrari]

47. If you paid attention, you knew what?

There is always an implicit deal with politicians who ask for and who take your support. That's how it works.

[jaxx]

51. I knew where he stands on the issues.

LOL on the implicit deal. I think you have that word mixed up with explicit.

[EFerrari]

63. Where he stands on the issues has nothing to do with this OP.

And no, I don't. :hi:

[jaxx]

84. Was that implicitly implied?

Issues do matter, they produce nominees. Nominees who will promote those issues. But it's ok if you want to separate the two...easier to divorce reality that way.

[EFerrari]

88. The OP is not debating the issues.

You're trying to get around to that in order to support your "but you didn't listen" straw man.

And telling people they are divorced from reality is not an argument, either. Geeze. There's plenty of meat in the OP. You don't have to rely on these sides.

ETA: So, why do you think that nomination was tanked?

[jaxx]

107. The author brought up listening.

Many nominations have been 'tanked'. I'd blame the Nopers.

edited to correct a typo

[EFerrari]

109. Now, we're getting somewhere. Do you have a link for that

that I can go read? Thanks.

[jaxx]

110. You betcha

http://www.americanprogress.org/issues/2010/07/judicial_confirmations.html

[EFerrari]

118. The question that I have is

what are they comparing? The total comfirmation rate of those presidencies to the confirmation rate to date for Obama? They don't say.

Also, the author claims that filibusters and holds are stopping nominations but, he doesn't offer any evidence at all.

Plus, he doesn't account for people whose nomination never reached the floor.

I agree that the Nopers are obstructing. That is their strategy. But when you get into the weeds, how did they obstruct Johnsen or Liu or Chen?

[jaxx]

133. Last reply before the subthread is killed.

http://pr.thinkprogress.org/2010/08/pr20100806/index.html

http://www.confirmgoodwin.com/2010/08/sf-chron-calls-on-gop-to-end-filibuster.html

Dawn Johnson...she was doomed by the nopers from the go, she went against geedubya. http://www.mainjustice.com/2010/04/09/dawn-johnsen-withdraws/

[laughingliberal]

60. Yes. My confusion & disappointment is, likely, I didn't know consensus & compromise = capitulation..

to the failed policies of Reagan and Bush.

[jaxx]

86. Circle the wagons.

;-)

[laughingliberal]

138. Sorry, my wagons have all been repossessed. nt

[Cherchez la Femme]

169. But we have all this room under the bus!

:(

[saracat]

136. I voted for him and I don't feel "included". I will not benefit in anyway from the HCR

but will continue having to pay for crap insurance I can't afford. As a woman I am guaranteed that My medical services aren't as important as a males , and I must expect to pay more for the insurance covering them.As a person concerned with Civil Rights for all, I see my GLBT friends have DADT pushed off the table for political expedience and a WH announcing the President still does not feel that Gay Marriage is a good thing despite the overturn of Prop 8. As I approach retirement age I am told this prez supports raising the age level of Social Security to reduce me to further levels of poverty. Exactly what seat at the table did I and many such like me get? Where are we included? Where are the voices that represent us?

You claim parity with the moderate Dems? When did anyone in THIS admin single them out as "F***king retards" as did this WH's Chief of Staff the Left? Why should the DLC/ Moderates be given ALL the respect and the Left be given none?

[tomp]

143. fine, so let let him try to get himself reelected without us.

let him try to hold ground or gain new ground in congress without us.

don't come to us with your desperation for votes based on obama's or this congress's performance.

obama is playing avery dangerous game if he thinks he will always be able to rely on the left. we know you will come at us with the threat of palin or some other republican asshole in order to justify voting for people who do not represent us. and when a republican asshole instead of a democratic one gets elected you will come to us with some centrist nominee and say we have to save you from the republicans. i've been watching this game my whole life and i'm not playing anymore. i don't think i'm alone.

[Q3JR4]

187. ...

Q3JR4.

[Nay]

189. You aren't alone. nt

[uberblonde]

172. When he called himself a progressive...

And used that to get us to work for him, yes, I'd call that a deal.

[JDPriestly]

182. Obama was not my first choice. But I worked for him out of a sense

that any Democrat would be better than Bush.

Now on the issues that are really dear to my heart and my values -- human rights and Social Security and jobs and a rational trade and outsourcing policy, he has failed me. I am not a happy camper. I am a real, old-fashioned, life-long Democrat. I proudly wore my Adlai Stevenson button to school. That is how long I have been a Democrat.

It isn't that Obama is not liberal or progressive enough, it's that as far as I am concerned, he isn't even a Democrat.

[RaleighNCDUer]

183. Our work to put him in office SHOULD give us a seat at the table.

But we have been denied that seat, quite literally, when nobody who advocated for single-payer healthcare was allowed to join the HCR group. With every proposition, the administration has chosen to start discussions with the right from the center - there in no possible outcome from that than a final result that is center right.

Obama did not campaign as a center right candidate.

So, what gives?

[mod mom]

147. +1

[Bluebear]

153. What a surprise.

[madfloridian]

23. More about Marcy Wheeler, who is being treated with contempt here.

Her blog Empty Wheel is considered highly respectful, her former blog Next Hurrah was as well.

To get to the point where someone like her is treated with such contempt here is just plain scary to me.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Marcy_Wheeler

To say there will be no criticism....well you can finish that quote in your head.

[another saigon]

55. it is scary to me too!

how freakin sad to disparage Marcy and Jane Hamsher, Greenwald, et al. because they shine the light on the truth.

:(

[girl gone mad]

146. While right wing extremists are coddled and catered to.

The White House couldn't bend over any faster for Breitbart, Beck and FOX news.

[LostinVA]

81. +1

[EFerrari]

89. Marcy has a first class mind. No empty snark changes that. nt

[mmonk]

162. I have one of her videos on my blog. No contempt from me.

[Spazito]

25. Another hit piece from FDL aka Nader central...

why am I not surprised.

:puke:

[EFerrari]

27. And still not even one single rebuttal of the actual argument.

Geeze, DU can do better than this.

[Spazito]

33. She doesn't put forth an argument, she is, however, spewing her opinion...

which she is entitled to do but for anyone to read that as an actual factual argument is ridiculous. If she does actually put forward a cogent, factual argument instead of this crap it will be quite refreshing.

[EFerrari]

35. Oh, geeze. Has the word "argument" become a free floating signifier around here?

If the argument is so bad, why don't you take it apart? It should be easy for you.

[Spazito]

40. LOL, again, if there had been an actual factual argument put forth...

I would understand your post. However, it is opinion being misunderstood by some, as being a factual argument. The two are not the same and it is quite sad to see that confusion appearing on DU.

[EFerrari]

43. I'll take that as a "no".

It cracks me up that so far, I'm the only one on this thread that has actually raised a question about the argument in the OP. lol

[Spazito]

54. I will repeat myself one more time...

There was no argument put forth to debate, there is, however, Marcie's opinion, containing gross speculation as to what will or won't happen and why it will or won't happen and being put forth as just another hit piece on the Obama administration.

Your understanding of what constitutes a valid argument and mine differs greatly so I will agree to disagree and leave it at that.

[madfloridian]

36. She presents a case, and presents an opinion. Are opinions out now?

There is to be no criticism?

[EFerrari]

39. Spazito is conflating argumentation with fact.

An argument is the development of a reasoned and supported opinion. This is depressing.

[Spazito]

42. Reasoned and supported, that is what is VERY much missing in this hit piece...

ergo, again, there is NO argument being put forth as much as some would like to pretend there is. It is, indeed, depressing.

[EFerrari]

48. You have not shown that. n/t

[Spazito]

52. Actually no one has shown where it is reasoned and supported...

it is merely, again, Marcie's opinion about she thinks happened and will happen or won't happen. It is gross speculation put forward to create another hit piece against the Obama administration.

You believe such speculation equates to an argument, I do not. We will have to agree to disagree.

[EFerrari]

64. Bashing is not a counter argument but you know that. nt

[girl gone mad]

148. She certainly built an article premised on data, events and reason.

You, however, are simply spouting personal bias.

[Dr.Phool]

66. I think her arguments are based on facts and evidence.

More of an observation.

I knew where we were heading, before the election when he started making all the "Chicago School" boys, and their discredited policies as his economic advisors.

Then he started filling his cabinet with DLC, Clinton re-treads, and Republicans.

[EFerrari]

85. I probably missed some of that because economics isn't a strong suit.

But there were other indications along the way. I didn't know there would be a shut out of the left. That's more extreme than I imagined.

[Dr.Phool]

94. Likewise, here.

You'd think they would at throw us a bone.

Well, maybe we got ONE at the Labor Dept.

[EFerrari]

100. In the larger scheme of things, that's a pretty small one.

I don't know who Rahm and David think will re-elect this White House. They've pissed off progressives, teachers, Latinos, gay folk, maybe some in the black community with the Sherrod debacle. WTF is left?

[glitch]

141. They're counting on moderate Republicans, former Republicans and Independents.

They don't realize how many of those people are also anti-corporatist. IMO. That's the problem with fucking retreads, their game is 20 years old.

[bvar22]

166. Don't forget organized LABOR among those pissed on by this White House.

The White House betrayal of LABOR in the Arkansas Primary was especially painful.
Then the ridiculing of LABOR by the White House after the election was insult to injury....beyond arrogant.




Who cares about The Left?
What are they going to do,
Vote for a Republican?
Hahahahahahahahahaha!

[Spazito]

46. Absolutely not, I stated in an other post that she is perfectly entitled...

to her opinion. I think her opinion is simply another hit piece from FDL which, imo, has become Nader central.

[EFerrari]

65. Since there is no indication at all that you have even read the thing

the relevance of what you think is unclear.

[flyarm]

78. and what exactly are you spewing? oh yeah, YOUR OPINION!

the only one that counts right?

Hey, are you on DIGG or the secret DIGG group?

[LostinVA]

83. "spewing" -- niiiice

[madfloridian]

31. That's not a true statement. FDL has many excellent bloggers.

Marcy Wheeler is one of them.

Now the only thing that matters at DU is falling in line.

[Spazito]

37. LOL, yes, if one leans toward the Nader camp, one could think the...

bloggers there are 'excellent'. Ms. Hamsher certainly put the 'site' on the map when she involved herself, and the site, with the likes of Norquist and Schlafly.

[JackDragna]

61. So, in other words..

..you cannot contradict any of the points made in the article about how the process by which the White House fills government offices shows their disdain for progressives. Instead, you choose to get into a war about semantics with other posters in the thread.

[Dr.Phool]

71. So far you've Naderized us. And Norquisted us.

And just think of that David Boies palin' around with that Ted Olsen.


3...2...1... Oh my God! We Support President Palin.

[WillyT]

73. As Long As He Doesn't Try To Boehner Us...

:evilgrin:

:hi:

[flyarm]

87. + 1 million, I could not tolerate getting Boehner'ed this morning , I am just on my first cup of

coffee..I need more if I were to be Boehner'ed.

[Dr.Phool]

96. Nah, you'll need vodka for that.

Break out the bloody mary's and screwdrivers!

[EFerrari]

104. LOL. nt

[flyarm]

113. to drink or disinfectant? lol..eom

[WillyT]

102. The Boehner Was On MTP This Morning... And He Was Orange And Angry !!!

:scared:

:rofl:

:hi:

[flyarm]

115. I had to roll over and go back to sleep..

I must have drank all the bloody mary vodka last night!

To be Boehner'ed that early this morning, was just not going to happen!

LOL

[flyarm]

74. tag team 2, now you are it! eom

:hi: :hi:

[madrchsod]

38. progressives need not apply.

to bad there is`t a valid alternative to the democratic corporate party.

[WillyT]

44. Well... They've Got All Those Disaffected Republicans Joining Now...

Got to make them feel at home, dontcha know.

:wtf:

:evilfrown:

:hi:

[EFerrari]

50. Out for smokes. Would you please take a look at my #15 question?

Because I'd actually like to talk about the OP. LOL

[WillyT]

58. I'm Assuming You Meant Post #16...

Do enough people in the base even know who this lady is? They would have to, in order for the "bait" explanation to work?

Depends on how you define "the base" these days I suppose. But the online activist base was definitely paying attention to this one.

Link: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/searchS/?q=Dawn+Johnsen

Link: http://openleft.com/search.do type in "dawn johnsen"

Link: http://thinkprogress.org/search/search.php?q=dawn+johnsen&x=14&y=5

Just to name a few more...

:shrug:

:hi:

[EFerrari]

62. Okay. That's what I was wondering.

I guess the problem I have with this is that I don't believe Rahm pays enough attention to that constituency to go to all that trouble. So, while using the nomination to hook them might be part of what's going on here, to my mind there has to be another piece, too.

Like? Maybe not pushing a liberal nomination gets Obama some kind of points with the opposition? Or?

[WillyT]

68. Well... Remember... Qbama Wanted To "Look Forward"...

when it came to things like Torture, Crimes of the Bush Administration, Wiretapping, et.al...

And the fear was, that having Dawn Johnsen as head the OLC, she might just go off the reservation and ACTUALLY DO SOMETHING about the criminal activity of the last administrations.

And us pragmatic woodchucks can't have THAT... now can we?

:shrug:

[EFerrari]

76. Well, that makes sense. But then, we're back to why she was nominated

in the first place. Maybe partly to appease the left with the nomination but, I can't help thinking there is more. Unless letting her get knocked out also appeased the right in some way. Or, pulls attention away from something they really did want. I dunno.

The larger point about the absence of liberal nominees still stands, of course.

[WillyT]

90. I Can't Explain It Myself... But Elizabeth Warren Is The New Canary In This Coal Mine

The progressives/left want her, so...

We'll see.

:shrug:

[EFerrari]

93. Sometimes it looks like this admin has avoidant personality disorder.

But that's not really the whole picture, either. What they're doing in other areas is obviously concerted. BP, education, insurance bail out, Latin America.

:shrug:

[WillyT]

99. Sort Of The Opposite Of Transparency, No ???

But see, we don't know how the REAL world works...

Or some such paternalistic bullshit.

:shrug:

[EFerrari]

101. If a politician tosses out an abstract noun

don't buy it!

lol

:rofl:

You know, in the real world, people either keep their promises and abide by social contracts or they are isolated. That's how the real world works. :hi:

[Nay]

226. Agreed. If Warren gets dumped (as I suspect she will), the canary

has just keeled over dead. Not that I didn't think the canary was dead already....

[Dr.Phool]

77. If I were Bill Ayers, I'd ask for my donations back.

[EFerrari]

80. Bill Ayers is a brilliant man. He probably kissed off that money

before it left his wallet. lol

[flyarm]

98. wallet? hell he left the truck out front running..keys in the ignition, totally loaded..

I think the words on the side of the truck said... BRINKS..

[rusty fender]

45. Excellent analysis! K & R

Thank you, Willy T!:yourock:

[WillyT]

49. You Are Quite Welcome !!!

And welcome to DU, rusty fender!!!

:toast::bounce::toast:

Glad ta have ya aboard!

:hi:

[stray cat]

53. How many people have been betrayed (ie they didn't get hired for a job for which they applied)

[laughingliberal]

57. I'm not sure a nominee 'applied' for a job. nt

[Forkboy]

67. Hilarious thread.

:rofl:

[WillyT]

69. LOL... Thanks...

Just tryin ta keep it lively!

:evilgrin:

:hi:

[Octafish]

72. 'Liberal' and 'Progressive' are anathema to the Establishment.

Liberal and Progressive people mean Liberal and Progressive programs.

And that may cost the Have-Mores some money in taxes.

[WillyT]

79. And That Is Precisely The Reason You Will See Democratic Support For Extending The Bush Tax Cuts

Many/Most/All of them will have to pay more in taxes if those cuts are allowed to expire.

Can't have that.

:shrug:

[Dr.Phool]

103. If they extend them one fucking week, they can stick it as far as I'm concerned.

We have a revenue problem. Caused mainly by those cuts.

It's well past time that we do the right thing instead of the politically expedient thing. If they extend those cuts, as far as I'm concerned, they've lost their legitimacy to govern.

[WillyT]

105. I Could Not Agree More !!!

Spot on!!!

:hi:

[DireStrike]

202. Agreed.

They've crossed just about every line in the sand I can think of, but if they take that step, they go over the cliff edge.

[flyarm]

91. or accountability! And that would just not do...gotta keep the conservs happy don'tcha know!

and the criminals, of course.

[Richard Steele]

75. K&R

[Catherina]

82. Rec'd. n/t

[flyarm]

92. a resounding K&R thanks for posting! Emptywheel is not the only place saying the same thing!

Liberals and progressives are angry all over the net! And rightly so, the pattern is seen very clearly by anyone who cares to see!

Thanks for posting and the discussion!

[WillyT]

95. You Are Quite Welcome !!!

:bounce:

:hi:

[EFerrari]

97. Not only on the net. Thom, Laura, Amy, Andy & Ann at GayUSA.

Rachel & Keith.

It makes me wonder how much influence public opinion really has any more on our politics. Aka, most of the time, I can't help concluding, they don't need us for anything except to turn in our taxes. I know that's a thought crime but that is how it seems.

[flyarm]

106. Night before last I went out with a group of Dem Activists, 20 to be exact..

I will say this, the anger isn't just on DU or the Net. These were all people who put up big bucks to Obama and were very very active nationwide for Obama..he can count those people out next time, count on that!!

In fact the concensus was, they think he doesn't want to run or win again! That was the 100% concensus. And I would guess this group gave over $500,000.( and I could easily say, much more, but I will be conservative in that amount) bucks to his campaign.

And this bullshit : "for us or against us" shit..is going to blow up in their faces big time. I would say it already has. The blow back is going to be huge!

I didn't think this would come so quickly, but the anger is close to catastrophic. These folks were all heavy hitters in the money dept and the feet on the ground folks, and getting feet on the ground folks.

Not looking good.

And I will say to the Tag Teams, you may think you are doing the dem party and this president a favor,what you are effecting, is just the opposite results! I just wonder if that is your objective anyway.

[EFerrari]

108. Oh, dear.

:(

And no, the people that have been insulting activists and other Democrats are not doing Obama any favors. But since the motto seems to be "you can be replaced", it does no good to point that out.

On the other hand, you can look at them as a pretty accurate reflection of the "leadership's" position and tactics. Which is unfortunate.

[flyarm]

111. Anyone who thinks Liberals and Progressives aren't seeing Through it all ..is a damn fool!

some of these posters here may think this is a game, but to the heavy hitters who carried the Pres..it is no damn game! The anger is real!

In fact, I felt vindicated in how I feel, as did everyone at this dinner! And I almost didn't go, because I didn't think I could sit through the dinner and keep my mouth shut, I didn't have to, In fact I would go so far as to say, I was probably the least angry, because I never expected anything different from the get go!

[WillyT]

116. Yet WE Will Be Blamed For Any Negative Repercussions...

ie. lost seats in Congress, primary challenge to Obama, Obama losing in 2012...

Yeah... it will be all our fault. As night follows day...

Could not POSSIBLY be that the actions of this administration caused some of their supporters to become beyond disillusioned.

Nope... that cannot be it.

:shrug:

[EFerrari]

123. And it will happen just like this:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=389&topic_id=8902247&mesg_id=8903134

Divide and conquer.

[WillyT]

126. Yep... Just Saw That...

They're gonna think what they're gonna think...

:shrug:

[flyarm]

127. The heck we will, that tune is not playing well out in the REAL world.

will the conserv a dems try that..hell yes..but It will not work in the real world, just as "for us or against us " shit is blowing up in their faces!

Don't let anyone intimidate you telling you that is what will happen..shut them down immediately!
This admin and their conserv- a -dems made their own freaking bed..

They have created their own damn bed of fleas!

[WillyT]

130. I Know That... You Know That... Many Here Know That...

yet I can here the wailing and gnashing of teeth from October and November, here in August.

:shrug:

[flyarm]

132. Piss-ants wail and dis informational types will gnash..ignore them they are a very small minority!

161 thousand members here..350 million Americans..do the math.

Get out in your neighborhood , talk to your neighbors , find out what they are really thinking!
Not a bunch of anonymous people on a message board!

Go to a dem club and then go out with the folks for drinks or dinner.find out what they are really thinking..it is not pretty! Go out with activists for the dem party..it is downright ugly!

[saracat]

137. Indeed it is. And those that suppress diverse opinions are the ones who are causing the implosion.

They are actively driving worthy Dems away in droves. The "limousine Dems" who contributed to the last election will not be the ones walking door to door, manning tables and GOTV. And if the activists are gone, there is no one left to do it. OFA have proved to piss off more voters than it recruits.
Democratic activists have to have something to believe in and they no longer believe. Sad but true. If the WH and Congress acts rapidly, that could change but time is running out.

[flyarm]

139. you have that 100% right!! eom

[glitch]

142. I hope they will continue to fight for true progressives. :( nt

[PufPuf23]

154. The one statement I do believe now, is that Obama does not care about a 2nd term.

I was and still am to a degree an Obama supporter.

The only election in my nearly 60 years that I have cried about was Obama.

I crossed a line recently where I stated I doubted POTUS Obama's integrity (and by one step removed his closest appointments and relations).

Am I left? Heck yeah but a moderate liberal.

Ideology is not common sense. Common sense is common sense. Judge by actions not words.

The Democratic Party establishment in Congress and the Whitehouse did not in action support the appointments of those labeled now "far left". The Obama Administrations has maintained or expanded the status quo through public relations.

I truly want my faith and hope restored and to be wrong.

[bvar22]

167. Obama won't need a 2nd Term.

After his "historic" reform of Social Security,
his job will be complete.
The New Deal will have been erased.



The DLC New Team
Progressives Need NOT Apply

(Screen Capped from the DLC Website)

[Dr.Phool]

112. Kick and Rec.

[Name removed]

114. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Kurovski]

131. K&R/ (nt)

[ThomWV]

134. K&R, nt.

[LWolf]

135. This has been entertaining.

:popcorn:

Informative, too.

[RainDog]

144. Obama should do what Bush did for his base - recess appointments

if the red states are interfering with the govt enacting the will of the voters who elected (in TWO election cycles, btw) Democratic and thus left-leaning political representatives, Obama should honor the will of the voter and put people in position who reflect the will of the people.

Obama should smack down the obstructionists in this way.

He should also do a wholesale housecleaning of Bush appointees in various agencies - Bush put faith-based idiots in positions of power and they need to be sent home to pray for rain.

I don't see why Democrats PRETEND that politics are not about enacting the will of the voter when the voter is to the left of the DLC.

This is simply another example of how TONE DEAF the Democratic party is - these same actions depress voter turnout.

Do the Democrats want to win? If so, why pretend that elections are about pleasing your political enemies? They aren't. They never were. They never will be.

[robdogbucky]

145. Anyone aware of the underlying story that has folks so anti-FDL?

I was just trying to recall, because it has been so often repeated here that Jane Hamsher of FDL allied with the evil one, Grover Norqist of drown the government fame for something.

Anyone aware of the underlying issue, which I don't recall getting 1/100th the attention of the smears loud and often any time Hamsher or FDL are mentioned here on DU?

It is really an eye-opener and maybe explains a lot of the dynamic of whom is supporting whom and why on this board. I found it fascinating on so many levels, not just that FDL is a real effective blog with real investigative journalists working on stories every day and having done so for many years in my observation. Marcy Wheeler especially.

Anyway, the underlying story is that they demand Emmanuel's resignation because of the shenanigans that took place at Fannie and Freddie when, wait for it, Emmanuel was in charge over there during and since the Clinton years. Wow.


Jane Hamsher, Grover Norquist Call for Rahm Emanuel’s Resignation

"...The OFHEO report concluded that board had “failed in its duty to follow up on matters brought to its attention.” The SEC filed a complaint (PDF) saying that Freddie Mac had “misreported profits by billions of dollars in order to deceive investors between the years of 2000 and 2002,” per ABC News.

In Congress, Rahm Emanuel worked to pass a bailout of Fannie and Freddie, cosponsoring the Housing and Economic Recovery Act of 2008, which also dissolved OFHEO. It moved their regulatory authority to the Federal Housing Finance Agency (FHFA), which took Fannie and Freddie under conservatorship in September 2008. The same act abolished the Federal Housing Finance Board (FHFB) and replaced it with the FHFA.

After Mr. Emanuel was named Chief of Staff, the White House denied a Chicago Tribune Freedom of Information Act request for information on his Freddie Mac activities: “The Obama administration rejected a Tribune request under the Freedom of Information Act to review Freddie Mac board minutes and correspondence during Emanuel’s time as a director. The documents, obtained by Falcon for his investigation, were “commercial information” exempt from disclosure, according to a lawyer for the Federal Housing Finance Agency.” However, at the time of the request Freddie Mac was no longer a “commercial” enterprise, having been taken over by the government in September of 2008.

According to ABC News, the Justice Department is in possession of these records, yet no indictments have been forthcoming: “Freddie Mac records have been subpoenaed by the Justice Department as part of its investigation of the suspect accounting procedures” they reported in November 2008..."

http://firedoglake.com/2009/12/23/jane-hamsher-grover-norquist-call-for-rahm-emmanuel%E2%80%99s-resignation/



That was really informative for me as I was not aware of any of those details, nor why the obvious dubious alliance with Grover Norquist ever took place. I am beginning to understand.




Just my dos centavos


robdogbucky

[girl gone mad]

149. Hamsher and Norquist united to support a cause..

that is in the best interest of working, tax paying citizens.

Apparently, bipartisanship is only tolerated around here when it's done in the name of screwing over the little guy (see all of the attempts at bipartisanship on the health bill, FinReg, war funding, etc.)

Bipartisanship in the name of holding our government officials accountable is tantamount to treason.

[Hannah Bell]

185. "bipartisanship is only tolerated when it's done in the name of screwing over the little guy"

+100

[Ignis]

158. Thanks for posting that.

Informative stuff. :thumbsup:

[jgraz]

165. The underlying story is that FDL posted some hard-hitting, well-researched critiques of Obama

Whining ensued shortly thereafter.

[mmonk]

161. Hammer hits nail on the head.

[Jenny_92808]

163. Don't fall for the seeds of deception that ....

the right wing brings here to cause doubt. VOTE DEMOCRATIC THIS NOVEMBER!

[asdjrocky]

170. Really?

That's all you got?

[Axle_techie]

177. Yeah, because if you don't party up

you are a republican
:sarcasm:

When is there going to be a legitimate progressive party that actually has progressive politicians?

[EFerrari]

200. Empty Wheel is not the right wing and neither is WillyT. n/t

[amborin]

171. k and r

[slipslidingaway]

173. knr nt

[earcandle]

175. Seems Obama and his ilk are one big roller coaster ride, yeah?

[Poboy]

176. Disaster.

[defendandprotect]

179. K&R -- and back tomorrow to actually read it all --

but mission of DLC and New Dems is to move the party to the right --

That's what Rahm Emmanuel is there for -- and seemingly what Obama is doing???

Is there any other explanation?

[Q3JR4]

188. The way I see it voters this election cycle are going to

have three choices:

1. Vote for anyone else.
2. Vote for the dlc candidate with various degrees of enthusiasm.
3. Vote for the dlc candidate with no enthusiasm.

The difference between 2 and 3? If you actively support your candidate you man the phone banks, act as boots on the ground to convince people to vote for your gal and then get them to the polls on election day, actively solicit donations for your gal of choice, and/or donate your own money to the cause. Or you can stay at home sinking slowly into depression as the election draws closer, and on the big day you can hold your nose and vote for the dlc candidate.

The ultimate result of the "vote for my choice or the right wins?"

The right wins.

Q3JR4.
_{You can't have an election and expect to draw out support for your cause if you do not have anyone who is willing to take an active roll in your campaign. SOMEONE needs to convince the middle of the roaders to vote for you or you need to hurry up and clone yourself a bunch of times and hope that your clones don't turn against you.}

[4dsc]

191. Option 4- Stay at home

liberal and progressives should have another option which really drives the DLC and other mad(the right loves though) and that is sitting at home watching the election results. Then watching the talking head wonder where did the liberal vote go??

[NewJeffCT]

195. Just the opposite will happen, though

Those in power would take it as a validation of the moderate/triangulation strategy of the DLC and become even more conservative in their governance.

[democrank]

190. Don`t expect President Obama to suddenly shift to Progressives

since he`s a center-right Democrat ever-willing to seek the support of all his "friends across the aisle."

[Poboy]

193. Your vote: +1

[quiet.american]

194. Or maybe progressives should understand the world does not revolve around them.

But it seems as impossible for "progressives" to understand this, as it does for teabaggers to understand the same. Two sides of the same coin as far as I'm concerned.

In the "progressives" worldview, unless every single item of legislation, every candidate, every appointee is 100% "progressive-approved" - then progressives have been "betrayed" and the best use of their time is posting tripe like this in an effort to get their fellow "progressives" to sit out the mid-term elections. If they can accomplish tamping down turnout for Democratic candidates, and ensure that the Republican Tea Party wins, somehow that will be proof of just how progressive "progressives" are -- they will have been successful in putting in reactionaries who will make the Bush years look like the Kennedy years.

I see the link in the OP is from Fire Dog Lake, why am I not surprised. I consider the OP to be sheer childishness.

[NewJeffCT]

196. Most of us aren't demanding 100% purity

It's that progressives are often not even being given a seat at the table.

You would think that those that advocate for universal health care would have at least have been invited to get a seat at the table, after all, the far right groups representing the health insurance & pharmaceutical industry had seats at the table. Even if you have no intention of implementing a medicare for all type health care plan, just having people there who advocate for it would help balance the negotiations.

Or, using recess appointments to deal with the unprecedented blockage of judicial nominees (just over 40% approval vs 80% for Clinton and near 90% for Bush, whose nominees were far more radical than Obama or Clinton)

Or, as emptywheel stated, sticking up for liberal nominees like Liu, Chen and Johnson.

[quiet.american]

197. It's just this type of response that I'm talking about.

Single-payer advocates demanded a seat at the table while constantly beating the "betrayal" drums against Obama, posting bitter piece after bitter piece about him, posting misleading information, acting out -- what would they bring to the table if invited? Yet, they still were invited to the table during the Senate Finance Committee stage of the bill, and Obama also appointed a single-payer advocate -Dr. Donald Berwick to head up Medicare & Medicaid -- but we don't see eager OPs with 100+ recs trumpeting that.

Early on, Obama explained why he rejected using single-payer. My problem with self-identified progressives today is that what the movement wants is always put forth as practically flaw-free, but there seems to be no willingness at all to look at the real-world reasons as to why it might not work. Any discussion put forth in that direction is labeled a betrayal, centrism, DLC-subversion, etc.

The House also rejected the single-payer bill put forth by John Conyers, et al., but Bernie Sanders and Ron Wyden found a way to create a state-by-state path to single-payer that made it into the final HCR bill, yet we never hear a single reference to that from single-payer advocates, which is a real victory for single-payer.

Recess apppointments are only good until the end of the next full session of Congress. Would it really serve the justice system to blanket appoint a block of judges who may or may not be confirmed in the end, who may have to step down from the bench, and then have the entire nomination/confirmation process started over again. No doubt there are some who argue yes in the name of functioning government, and it may have finally come to that. In the meantime, why not consider that may be one of the reasons Obama has not recess-appointed those judges; in the name of practicality -- not because he's selling out progressives.

As for Liu, Chen and Johnsen, it's the original OP's contention that he didn't "stick up for" those candidates, but given the source, I would wager there's more to the story than that.

[NewJeffCT]

203. Most people didn't beat the "betrayal" drums

until after single payer advocates were not invited. And, yes I understand why Obama rejected single payer and I know he couldn't wave a magic wand & implement a single-payer system, but why not just include them to add negotiating weight?

And, yes, I know recess appointments are only good for a limited time. However, once people are recess-appointed, it is rare for them to later be rejected.

[quiet.american]

204. You certainly couldn't tell that from the pages here at DU.

It may have been rare for recess-appointed judges to not be confirmed in the past, but in these Republican Tea Party batpoop-crazy times, I don't think "the way it was" can be counted on any more.

[newspeak]

210. Yes, those spoiled progressives

since Reagan this country keeps taking more steps back instead of forward. Deregulation, corporate self policing, diminishing social programs and a failure of government to enforce the rule of law. But, it's those spoiled progressives that's asking for too much. I voted for Clinton to stop the NAFTA-GATT treaty from being passed and to continue the investigation of BCCI, Iran-Contra. Little did I know that we were going to look forward, forget holding those accountable, some we'd see in Little Boot's administration. And then there was the welfare deform bill, the telecommunications bill, the rescinding of the fairness doctrine.

I knew Obama wasn't FDR--I just didn't expect him to cater to the right as much as he does. I didn't expect him to keep some of Little Boot's good old boys in and didn't expect him to totally sell out to wall street by some of his appointments. And, here we go again--"we must look forward." It's kind of hard looking forward when the previous administration's actions have aided in our dilemma today.

But, we progressives are spoiled, we want our pony--after watching this country spiral down since Reagan-watching decent jobs go bye-bye, and corporations, lobbyists influence DC, have carte blanche over main street, seeing real regulatory agencies being compromised, demanding real justice-we are spoiled.

There's a game going on in Washington, and main street is the one getting played.

[quiet.american]

212. Look, you can pony-up (pun intended) all the so-called anti-progressive talking points you want.

The bottom line in my point of view is that many here have invested so heavily in being "disappointed" in the President, that there is no way anything can break through that - including facts - to dislodge by even a centimenter, the steadfast resolve to be disappointed, coupled with the steadfast resolve to ignore, deride, or bury anything that might point to the opposite of that perspective.

(I may have had one or two conversations within the daily barrage of junk that gets posted here, where the poster and I ended up actually having a semblance of a conversation inside of the usual back-and-forth. And for those moments, I'm grateful.)

[EFerrari]

206. When progressives show up to the game, they are "acting out".

When Obama accidentally gets "practical" at the expense of the Democratic wing of the Democratic Party every time, he's just being "practical".

When a story comes from FDL, it's not the whole story.

Solly Mack has an excellent OP on propaganda around here somewhere. Here it is:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=389x8906624

[quiet.american]

209. Never said when progressives show up, they're acting out.

But the relentlessly bitter nonsense I see championed around here - a lot of it based on jumping to conclusions from a starting point of having been "betrayed" -- is just ridiculous.

[EFerrari]

201. Also not an argument but simply bashing.

[quiet.american]

205. You make my point.

Everyone is free to post their opinion - unless it doesn't agree with the general anti-Obama zeitgeist. Then, it's called "bashing."

[EFerrari]

207. No. Bashing is bashing. n/t

[quiet.american]

208. I see what someone's favorite word is. nt

[EFerrari]

215. Here is an illustration.

1. Progressives are narcissistic:

"Or maybe progressives should understand the world does not revolve around them."

2. Progressives are like teabaggers:

"But it seems as impossible for "progressives" to understand this, as it does for teabaggers to understand the same. Two sides of the same coin as far as I'm concerned."

3. Progressives are absolutists who will cost us the election:

"In the "progressives" worldview, unless every single item of legislation, every candidate, every appointee is 100% "progressive-approved" - then progressives have been "betrayed" and the best use of their time is posting tripe like this in an effort to get their fellow "progressives" to sit out the mid-term elections. If they can accomplish tamping down turnout for Democratic candidates, and ensure that the Republican Tea Party wins, somehow that will be proof of just how progressive "progressives" are -- they will have been successful in putting in reactionaries who will make the Bush years look like the Kennedy years."

4. Firedoglake is not reliable and this Op is childish:

"I see the link in the OP is from Fire Dog Lake, why am I not surprised. I consider the OP to be sheer childishness."

* * *

Bashing.

[quiet.american]

218. Like I said, I understand that is your "word of the day." nt

[Steely_Dan]

211. I Find Your Post Troubling...

It was not that long ago that we "progressives" were considered merely Democrats.

No, I don't think we feel that the "world revolves around us." The world revolves around people that are hungry. It revolves around the homeless and those without work trying to live day-by-day." The center of the world includes these people and others that seek justice and fairness from a party that once held these tenets as the centerpiece of their platform. What you consider extreme, we consider the very basics of being human.

Yes, we may come off as uncompromising. But for us, it is not a matter of who is right, it is a matter of what is right.

I will try and be patient with my "new" Democratic friends and hope that they do the right thing by the people of this country.

I do not expect 100% of the progressive agenda to be accomplished. That would be foolish and your assertion that we would accept nothing less is disingenuous at best. You know exactly what we are saying. You understand all too well what we expect. It is not "all progressive or nothing at all." Rather, it is our desire to see our country move in a direction that counters "man's inhumanity to man." Whether that be in unjust wars, a fair and comprehensive health care system that puts people first, protection of our privacy, support of unions (that re-establish the disappearing middle class), etc. etc.

Is it really "extreme" of us to "expect" that these issues be addressed in good faith? Are we really people who think the world revolves around us? As a Democrat, are you satisfied that we are moving in a direction that upholds the fair and just treatment of the people? If you are satisfied, than you have (IMHO) set the bar too low.

-PLA

[quiet.american]

213. What I find troubling about those calling themselves progressive on this board.

Ideology trumps all.

It's nice to say you care about people, but for the most part, what I've found is that "progressives" on this board who champion these kinds of OPs 1) do not champion the Obama administration policies that help people IF they are not accomplished exactly the way "progressives" feel they should be; 2) take any approach that is not "progressive" enough for them as a betrayal of them by the Obama administration; 3) rarely attempt to gain a larger perspective around whatever the latest betrayal is supposed to be - in other words, it is impossible to be a constructive progressive - if you're constructive, then you must be a "new" Democrat - whatever that is.

[Steely_Dan]

214. I Respectfully Disagree...

at least with some of what you say.

Where we will disagree is your implication that "progressives" will not compromise. That is simply not true. I hate to call myself "progressive" only because I was once simply a Democrat. Now, I'm considered extreme. How did that happen? I fully understand that politics require compromise and I thought I made that clear in my post.

-PLA

[quiet.american]

217. And I respectfully agree to disagree. nt

[newspeak]

219. "new democrat" whatever that is?

Obama publicly stated he was a "new Democrat," why don't you ask him what he meant. Unfortunately, I'm an old democrat, meaning a pro-labor, pro-environment, pro-regulation, pro-choice,pro-civil rights type of democrat. Now when Obama said he was a "new democrat," what I thought was pro-corporate, DLC democrat. Now, I came to that conclusion after observing some of his appointments, especially those who play a significant role in the economy.

[quiet.american]

220. He also said he is a progressive, but you ignore that in favor of New Democrat.

Obama has signed a lot of progressively-centered legislation, and the WH has sponsored high and low many progressive initiatives, but that's ignored because you don't like the fact that his administration pulled us back from an economic brink using anything other than progressives? Or, let's say that that's not the case - you don't like that some of his appointments in economic roles were not progressives - so that's that?

[newspeak]

224. I hope you're not going to use the HCR bill as progressive

since it's very foundation is from the Heritage Foundation. So, what small progressive legislation has he enacted? And, I'd say the economy would have been the biggest most important concern. Paulsen, Summers, Geithner, that's the best he could do? There are other, more progressive economists who saw "the writing on the wall", before Obama was even elected. But, these are the best to save our economy--those who must save Wall Street, those who must direct their attention (AIG, Golden Sachs) to Wall Street, instead of main street. You want to save the economy, then trickle on economics won't work--now "trickle up economy" may work.

Like what has been said before, this is a jobless recovery, that does not help the majority of the american people. He made a choice on which way he was going to attempt to solve the economic condition--I personally do not like his choices to solve a dire threat to the people of this country.

[bertman]

198. GREAT POST!! REC. nt

[L0oniX]

216. K & R

[Name removed]

223. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.