Bob Shrum to Democrats: Stop the Catfood Commission or Lose Congress - Jane Hamsher/FDL

[WillyT]

Bob Shrum to Democrats: Stop the Catfood Commission or Lose Congress
By: Jane Hamsher Friday September 3, 2010 10:30 am

<snip>

I certainly have not seen eye-to-eye with Bob Shrum on political strategies over the years. So when we’re both beating the same drum with the same urgency at the same time, it’s somewhat unusual.

But we both agree that President Obama and the Catfood Commission threaten the electoral chances of every Democrat running for office this November.

Shrum has a piece in The Week http://theweek.com/bullpen/column/206740/saving-social-security----and-democratic-seats in which he echoes Ed Kilgore http://www.thedemocraticstrategist.org/strategist/2010/09/the_conservative_politics_of_c.php and others Democratic strategists in pointing out that the Democrats don’t have an issue to run on this November. Like them, he says that saving Social Security could be the issue that saves their seats as well.

But Shrum is willing to utter the uncomfortable truth that Kilgore ignores: it is deeply, deeply cynical and unconvincing for the Democrats to be out there castigating the GOP for wanting to do the very thing that the White House is privately telling journalists they themselves plan to do by way of the Catfood Commission after the election.

If anyone needs proof of how hollow and pathetic that campaign sounds, watch this completely non-compelling appearance by DCCC Chairman Chris Van Hollen on MSNBC.

Cenk Uygur keeps pressing Van Hollen for a commitment to vote against cuts to Social Security if the Catfood Commission recommends doing so. Van Hollen slides around, aggressively attacking the GOP, but also keeping his rhetorical fingers crossed behind his back:

UYGUR: But Congressman, I know exactly where the Republicans stand, but I wasn‘t clear on where you—I didn‘t get that pledge out of you. That‘s what I noticed. I‘ll be honest with you.

VAN HOLLEN: Well, you know what?

UYGUR: So we‘ll see what happens when they actually bring the bill.

VAN HOLLEN: No, wait. No, you‘re asking for a pledge on something that goes way beyond. The vote is not going to just be on Social Security. If there is a vote at all, it‘s going to be on a big, big package. And—

UYGUR: The problem is you guys, you spent the $2.5 trillion. There‘s no reason to touch Social Security at all. It has a surplus. It has a surplus.

VAN HOLLEN: And I agree with you. And I agree with you on that.

That‘s right.

UYGUR: OK. Well, I hope that is—

VAN HOLLEN: But there‘s a debt commission that‘s looking at a much broader area. I hope you wouldn‘t say what you were going to do –

UYGUR: I hope that is shown in the votes. I hope your agreement is shown in the votes.

VAN HOLLEN: I hope you wouldn‘t‘ say what you‘re going to do on something you haven‘t even seen yet.

UYGUR: OK. All right. Let‘s see what happens. I thought we elected a Democratic president.

“I hope you wouldn‘t say what you‘re going to do on something you haven‘t even seen yet?” Not “over my dead body” or “when hell freezes over?” That’s the barn-burning conviction to defend Social Security that’s going to save the Democratic Party in November?

I don’t think so.

At the heart of the problem — the Catfood Commission. Says Shrum:

So why not campaign all out, in O’Neill’s plainspoken way, against a GOP that is disloyal to the most successful—and most popular—social program in American history?

Because Democrats have been disarmed by the President’s deficit reduction commission, which plainly intends to propose Social Security cuts.

<snip>

Much More (w/Video): http://fdlaction.firedoglake.com/2010/09/03/bob-shrum-to-democrats-stop-the-catfood-commission-or-lose-congress/

Yep...

:kick:

[Name removed]

1. Deleted message

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

[eShirl]

k&r

[LoZoccolo]

2. Jane Hamsher: automatic unrec

Didn't read it didn't read it.

[WillyT]

3. But Hey... Thanks For The Kick !!!

:hi:

[eShirl]

5. lol @ that pic

[WillyT]

14. I'm Not Sayin Anything, I'm Just Sayin...

:evilgrin:

:hi:

[Me.]

13. I'll Replace That R

[janx]

4. Same here.

One of these days I'm going to have to post a thread about evaluating sources.

[Fumesucker]

6. Automatic rec for whining about Jane Hamsher..

:hi:

[Junkdrawer]

8. +1

[depakid]

46. +2

[WillyT]

47. LOL !!!

:yourock:

:rofl:

:hi:

[Hassin Bin Sober]

78. Net recommendation: +21 votes (Your vote: +1)

[L0oniX]

87. +3

[montanacowboy]

7. That's too bad

you might learn something

[Forkboy]

29. That's deep thinking on par with Bush.

Be proud.

[slipslidingaway]

33. Bingo! n/t

[Forkboy]

42. Willful stupidity is a Bush trait, perfected over the his 8 years.

Seems some on our side (and in this case I use the term "our side" lightly) took the lesson to heart.

[LoZoccolo]

49. Do you read every Republican screed you come across?

Neither do I.

[Forkboy]

50. Is that your rebuttal? If so, I cede the rest of my time to the opposition.

[eridani]

72. Republicans want to make defending Social Security a big campaign issue?

On what planet? Do the unicorns bite?

[LoZoccolo]

77. Where did I say they did? n/t

[eridani]

90. Then you agree that any blog putting defending Social Security right up front

--can't possibly be Republican.

[LoZoccolo]

91. No matter what else they say? n/t

[eridani]

92. Unless they advocate conservative policies, yes n/t

[QC]

66. That's how most people respond to your threads. n/t

[liberalhistorian]

71. Never mind.

Not worth it.

[democracy1st]

75. did u ever read why she teamed up with Grover ?

[girl gone mad]

86. She teamed up with Norquist to call on Rahm Emanuel to resign..

based on his borderline criminality.

A righteous cause.

Unfortunately, Obama prefers to follow Norquist's bad advice about drowning the government in the bathtub rather than his good advice about dumping Rahm.

[neverforget]

88. Such an open mind

[sabrina 1]

94. And here's a rec from me to replace it.

Hamsher was proven right after all. We are about to be betrayed. At least when Republicans were in control, I was angry, furious and speechless at the things they were doing, but I didn't feel betrayed because I didn't expect anything of them.

Betrayal is a worse feeling than I felt back then. And I thought I could never feel worse than that. Another lesson learned, but one I could have done without.

I wish Hamsher had been wrong. I was hoping she was. But she was not. They are going to slash SS by by-passing the legislative process and Obama will go down in history as the Democrat who betrayed the American workers, and the Democratic Party's legacy. So far from what FDR would have done.

[tnlefty]

9. Rec.d...

and thanks.

[WillyT]

11. Anytime...

:hi:

[tritsofme]

10. Well if anybody knows about losing...it is Bob Shrum. nt

[Major Hogwash]

12. What's the catfood commission, and why are they calling it that?

That makes no sense to me.

[Gabi Hayes]

15. are we having a larf?

http://www.google.com/search?q=catfood+commission&sourceid=ie7&rls=com.microsoft:en-US&ie=utf8&oe=utf8

[Mimosa]

24. ^ Great comic from Tom Tomorrow ^

From OP:

"But Shrum is willing to utter the uncomfortable truth that Kilgore ignores: it is deeply, deeply cynical and unconvincing for the Democrats to be out there castigating the GOP for wanting to do the very thing that the White House is privately telling journalists they themselves plan to do by way of the Catfood Commission after the election."

This commission cannot do anything but hurt Obama.

[Gabi Hayes]

30. I just don't get what's happening. it's really like through the looking glass, aint it?

and, speaking of mimosa, I don't have the ingredients, but I did just buy some midori, so I think it's time for something along those lines

have the pugs/dems ever been closer than they seem today?

just axe arne duncan

[Mimosa]

64. Gabi, Midori is so classic cocktail.

*hug*

[Major Hogwash]

89. That's weird as hell, getting the answer from Gabi Hayes!!

I had no idea anyone using that name posted here, and I'm a huge Roy Rogers fan.

Incredible, I didn't know what the hell everyone was talking about and here I thought I was knowledgeable about the political issues going on around me.
I watch Ed Schultz all the time.
I watch Rachel Maddow (*rowr*) all the time.
I watch Keith Olbermann all the time.
And yet, I didn't know that's what the catfood commission referred to.

Damn.
Ya almost need a decoder ring to keep up on all of the liberal-styled issues anymore because of all of the coded messages.

[WillyT]

16. Um... You Forgot The Sarcasm Thingy...

:shrug:

[mikehiggins]

21. Once again, the poor among retirees were once described as having

to eat cat food to prevent starvation.

As it happens, in many cases, that was the truth. So any group that wants to push us back to those days deserves any bad reputation it gathers.

Screwing with Soc Sec will be the death of the Democratic Party, just like Eisenhower said half a century ago. Most American seniors don't give a crap who Rahm Emmanuel is. If the White House screws up this program THAT will be its heritage, not health reform or getting out of Iraq or anything else.

This will be the White House that screwed millions of VOTING seniors.

[janx]

25. "were once described"

Mike, I've tried looking this up but can't find anything about the history of the term. Described when and by whom? Where did this term come from?

[sandnsea]

36. From the 1970s

Food stamps weren't as widely used then, I would bet most seniors didn't even know they could qualify. There weren't many food banks, certainly not one in every town like we have now. As inflation drove prices of food higher, newspapers began reporting stories about seniors eating tins of cat food to survive. I remember the stories. I would think you'd have to do a newspaper archive search to find some to link to. The ironic thing is that there is so much more assistance available today, Obama has put more money into the programs that are available, and yet this is the time people choose to go batshit over the impoverished elderly.

[pscot]

38. Do you really believe

that because someone is poor enough to qualify for food assistance, it's there fore OK to cut their social security allotment? That's an incredibly cynical calculation.

[sandnsea]

39. Nobody is cutting social security

Which is why it's crazy to be calling anything a cat food commission because it's a slap in the face to the seniors who really did have to eat cat food and all that they suffered so that seniors today wouldn't have to.

[WillyT]

41. Bookmarking...

You have heard of Alan Simson...

Something about a milk cow...

:wtf:

Wall... meet writing on the...

:shrug:

[sandnsea]

43. Good. I wish every cat food cuckoo would do the same

At most, there will be modest changes to benefits 30 years down the road. Changes that would include an increased age for professionals or more money to retire at 72. That'll be the extent of it. And neither of those will cut anybody's benefit today, which is what I responded to. Nobody is going to be eating cat food next year because of the deficit commission. There has never been so much help available as there is right now.

[WillyT]

44. At Post #39 You Say... "Nobody is cutting social security..."

And now you say... "At most, there will be modest changes to benefits 30 years down the road. Changes that would include an increased age for professionals or more money to retire at 72. That'll be the extent of it. And neither of those will cut anybody's benefit today, which is what I responded to."

So... you're saying that anybody receiving benefits CURRENTLY will not get any cuts, but those who are ABOUT TO GET benefits will get cuts, or... those getting benefits in 30 years will get cut, or...

Wha...

And... how is raising the retirement age NOT a cut in benefits?

Could you please explain the apparent contradictions???

Thanks in advance.

:hi:

[sandnsea]

48. I responded to "cut their social security allotment"

Nobody is going to cut that and no seniors are going to be eating cat food next year as a result of anything Congress does in regards to social security.

No, I do not consider the OPTION to take social security at a later age a cut. That's already part of social security except the OPTION kicks in at age 70. I also do not consider guaranteeing manual laborers full social security at 62 a cut, to make sure they don't get damaged by the OPTIONS for more benefits if you retire later.

There are lots of things that can be done to make social security solvent, and it's not right now, that won't hurt anybody.

[Forkboy]

56. LOL

[janx]

60. This is helpful but not specific.

Who coined the term?

[sandnsea]

61. Coined Cat Food Commission?

Don't know and don't care. AFAIK, it started at Firedoglake. I was just responding to the reason "cat food" is used.

[janx]

83. Got it; thanks. n/t

[sabrina 1]

95. You didn't really say that did you?

So, Democrats shouldn't 'go batshit over the impoverished elderly'? Really?

And you are a supporter of this president? You appear to prove, assuming he would agree with you, what many people are beginning to think about this party they supported for so long and about this president.

Nice work losing votes for democrats. Because if anyone believes you represent Democrats in any way that is what will happen. I will choose to believe that you are not speaking for democrats, although I'm afraid you very well might be.

Tell me oh compassionate democrat. What SHOULD those 'impoverished elderly' people do? While we wait 'til your favorite politician is out of political danger? Should they eat catfood? Do you know anyone who is in that position since you claim to know how 'much help there is out there'?

I think you do not. There is very little help available for an 'impoverished elderly' person. You are a piece of work ....

[ihavenobias]

17. # 7, the truth hurts. n/t

[WillyT]

18. Yep... Some People Don't Want To Take Their Medicine...

:evilgrin:

:bounce::hi::bounce:

[jannyk]

19. k&r

[ChimpersMcSmirkers]

20. Unrecced for combining Schrum and Hamsher into a cocktail of fail.

Shrum:
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A9895-2004Sep9.html

Hamsher:
http://www.dailykos.com/story/2010/5/10/162749/959

:hi:

[WillyT]

22. Thanks For The Kick !!!

:hi:

[Gabi Hayes]

23. really....btw, did you see that tom tomorrow? has that been OPed here?

if so, I missed it

[WillyT]

28. Just OPed It...

:evilgrin:

:hi:

[indepat]

26. Surely the President knows for certain that he was not elected to gut social security. Might

countless millions of lifelong Democrats, including yours truly, never vote Democratic again if this ultimate betrayal is carried out with a Democrat in the White House and Democrats in control of both Houses of Congress, all the while Warren B. is reportedly sending Uncle Sam a smaller percentage of his total income than does his secretary? :shrug:

[WillyT]

31. You'd Think So...

Democrats will leave in droves if this does happen.

:shrug:

[Gabi Hayes]

32. the silver lining in all this, is.....doesn't matter WHO wins:

cause Buschco fucked things so badly in so many different arenas that, no matter WHAT anybody does, we're screwed

it isn't all their fault, I guess, but they've been quite the catalysts, speeding up the entropic process to the point past recovery

but what do I know?

time for some of this.....



I actually just bought some of this, to go with this:

[sendero]

63. Pretty much it...

... all government, Dems or Reps, can do now is slow down the collapse. The rotting corpse of an economy is all we have left now, and all we can do is keep pumping in the embalming fluid and try to keep it from stinking up the joint too much.

[indepat]

85. Stark eloquence befitting the stark reality staring us in the face

:)

[Robeson]

27. k&r.

[fascisthunter]

34. kick and recced (nt)

[slipslidingaway]

35. knr - what are they saying behind closed doors about Medicare. n/t

[Poboy]

37. recommend.

[amborin]

40. knr

[mmonk]

45. K&R

For WillyT and Jane.

[scarletwoman]

51. K&R - I'm so grateful to everyone who's staying on this issue.

Yay, Jane! Yay, WillyT!

:applause:
sw

[WillyT]

53. Back Atcha SW !!!

:loveya:

:hi:

[Blue_In_AK]

54. Ditto, kiddo.

[Forkboy]

55. I'm too shallow to read it. This is no Will Marshall, that's for sure!

Too many words, too many thoughts. I'll just buy into things that already reinforce my already insipid viewpoints.

[WillyT]

58. ...

:rofl:

:evilgrin:

:hi:

[eridani]

73. Still, he's of that genrally useless "consultant" class.

I was surprised to hear anything reasonably insightful from someone like that.

[Enrique]

79. don't forget Cenk!

Jane and Cenk, my two favorite non-sensible people out there. :thumbsup:

[Nikki Stone1]

52. K & R.

.

[Name removed]

57. Deleted message

Sub-thread removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[RainDog]

59. he's calling it correctly

people are fucking pissed.

[Warren DeMontague]

62. Bob Shrum, the king of excellent advice.

:boring:

[WillyT]

65. Well... "Even A Broken Clock... "

And... he's right about a couple of things.

1) The Democrats really don't have anything "meaty" to run on. Most probably won't even mention the words "Health Care" in their speeches and ads. Most voters probably think Lilly Ledbetter was a 1920's burlesque star. And running on "it could have been worse" has GOT to be the worst campaign slogan/strategy ever...

2) I know full well what the Republicans would like to do with Social Security, but I cannot say the same for my Democratic lawmakers. I expect the Republicans to try and screw us over on "entitlements" and I expect the Democrats to stop them. If the Democrats not only can't stop them, but actually join them for ANY REASON, commission or no commission, that will be IT for me and the Democratic Party. And brother, I can tell you that I will not be alone.

:shrug:

[Warren DeMontague]

67. I think the panic on social security is overblown.

Honestly, I don't think it's any more likely than that inevitable war on Iran we kept being told Bush was about to start.

[WillyT]

68. I Truly Hope You Are Correct, But...

I'm gonna keep making noise just in case.

And... If I'm wrong, you'll get to tell me that you told me so.

Win win...

:hi:

[Warren DeMontague]

69. I'm with you, there.

:thumbsup:

[StreetKnowledge]

70. Social Security is not Bankrupt.

The numbers have been crunched already - at the current income and outflow rates, the system is solvent until 2037, and even after that can pay out 78% benefits. And a great many baby boomers will be dead by 2037, and the demographic bump that came with the baby boom will be fixed fairly easily and harmlessly. There is no crisis, except what these idiots make.

Obama really ought to start thinking like the progressive we elected him to be, and not let some millionaire asshole chop benefits for somebody less wealthy than him. As for Van Hollen, he kept on hemming and hawing as Cenk (MSNBC really needs to put the The Young Turks on the network on a regular basis - that guy does not give up on anything) pressed on that. How about the Democrats do themselves a favor and shut down SS cuts right now, and let Obama's ignorant deficit commission deal with the consequences of it?

[Kahuna]

74. Yeah boy. Old Shrummy. There's a guy who know how to win elections...

NOT! :eyes:

[WillyT]

76. See Post #65

:shrug:

[karynnj]

96. He nearly supported Kerry in winning a race the clintons thought unwinable

I know that there are many that cite that they did not "respond quickly enough" to the SBVT lies. But the truth is that they did give the media 36 pages of facts showing lies in the book the day it came out. In any earlier time, the best defense was always getting the truth out. Here, Kerry's well documented record supported him 100%. Within a week, they showed the links to Bush fund raisers. What changed was the broadcast media. They treated the Navy record as equivalent to unsupported allegations. In hindsight, isn't it weird that they did not ask the SBVT for any proof - as they provided none. Not to mention, after tens of lies were proven to be lies, shouldn't they have considered the sources discredited?

The comparison has always been to Clinton's war room, but their goal was simply to have a response out in the same news cycle. That response often did not completely deal with the issue - and in some cases, needed to be corrected ... over and over. In a way, it was the opposite of what happened in 2004. Clinton benefited by the media playing it as he said/she said in an environment where the media clearly liked Clinton. In Kerry's case, the facts of his service should never have been in dispute.

[Bluenorthwest]

80. This thread is so entertaining!

The only counter arguments foisted are 'I hate Jane' and they hate Jane because she signed a petition along with Grover Nordquist, and yet Grover was invited by the President to testify at the commission hearings! The hypocrisy is so deep and the cynicsim and denial so wide that all I can do is laugh.
I learned who Jane is from those who hate her so here on DU. Without them, I'd never have read her stuff at all. They do a great service in that regard!

[WillyT]

81. LOL !!! - Insidious, Isn't It ???

:thumbsup::thumbsup:

:evilgrin:

:hi:

[Bluenorthwest]

82. It is just absurd.

Their 'logic' has holes you could drive a truck through.

[Skittles]

93. I would love to be able to laugh at it

but really, the idiocy of some DUers is downright sickening

[Faryn Balyncd]

84. K&R - This is the truth, and it is URGENT.- The base is demoralized because they DON'T TRUST the ...

....leadership to stand for fundamental values,

Is there any other way for the Democratic Party leadership to legitimately restore faith, and the restore the social contract with the American people?




:kick: