Vice President Biden noted yesterday that he hoped that the Tea Party might finally get Democratic and liberal votes out of their “lethargy.” The comment struck a nerve with me since various Democratic leaders have expressed surprise and mild criticism over the lack of enthusiasm by Democratic voters. What is striking is the fact that Biden and others continue to consider their own failure to give voters a reason to become active after years of broken campaign promises and outright betrayals of core values. The best that they can come up with (yet again) is that the other people are worse than we are.
It is unclear why Biden thinks, for example, civil libertarians should be energized after the Obama Administration embraced and expanded Bush-era policies in the war on terror. President Obama has shielded Bush officials from any investigation, let alone prosecution, for torture and has fought to block any cases that would hold companies or agencies responsible for violations of human rights or privacy.
It is unclear why Biden thinks environmentalists should be energized after the Administration opened up pristine areas of the East Coast for oil exploration and, even after the BP disaster, downplayed the spill damage to lift the moratorium.
It is unclear why Biden thinks that peace advocates should be energized after the Administration continued both wars and the gushing of both American blood and treasure.
It is unclear why Biden thinks gay and lesbian activists should be energized after the Obama Administration fought in court to preserve Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell and then appealed to limit the major victory enjoining DADT.
For over a decade, the Democratic Party has based its demands for political support not on its own performance but on the “lesser of two evils” argument. They simply cannot understand why voters would be less than enthusiastic in fighting for them to retain power. Indeed, from the very start of this Administration, the clear message to liberals has been “you have no where else to go.” What the Administration and congressional democrats did not consider is that liberals, civil libertarians, and environmentalists could decide to simply go no where and stay at home.
Biden was speaking(at a fundraiser in Chevy Chase, Md. when he noted that “[m[aybe the best thing to happen to us lately is the Tea Party wins. Maybe it’ll shake some of our constituency out of their lethargy.” Biden seems to welcome that there is finally a compelling reason for voters to take to the streets: even worse people are running for office.
How about another option? The Democratic leaders could actually fight on principle over things like torture and give voters a positive reason to care about their future. If you want voters to care, you can start by giving them something to care about — other than the job security of Democratic officeholders. If the Obama Administration did not actually jettison these issues for political convenience, it might not have been more popular, but it would have been more respected and it would have garnered far more enthusiasm from Democratic and liberal voters. Instead, the Democratic leadership has repeatedly conveyed that they are concerned only about retaining their offices and power at any cost — hardly a motivating message for votes.
So here is my suggestion for a new campaign motto: “Fighting Lethargy With Leadership.”
Source: The Hill
Tony C
Looks like I’m always one post behind. Sorry.
You certainly have the option of not voting. It’s not against the law yet. Not voting also has consequences and you seem willing to accept them. Go for it – just don’t complain later.
And remember the “Just say no” Republicans Mr. Obama had as the “loyal opposition”.
Tony C
With the possible exception of our firstborn child, nothing is perfect. The meaning of “The perfect is the enemy of the good” is losing a good option while striving a perfect option. But you know that.
Maybe you also know all that has gone on in the political halls and backrooms which informs your opinion. I wish I knew more, but there it is. Always a day late and a dollar short.
I’m still willing to be convinced that not voting for any Democrat now will keep us from a Republican veto-proof congress or an even more flawed president (if that’s possible) later.
Seems to me that we may have some conservatives pretending to be progressives on this site. You can hardly tell the difference by reading the complaints about Mr. Obama. I’ve discovered that on other sites. Clever, these righties. And often effective.
Just sayin’
@Buckeye: Bullshit. My head explodes when somebody promises to do something very specific and then works behind the scenes to make sure that exact thing NEVER happens. THAT is what happened with the public option, Obama said, on TV and on tape, “Any health care bill I sign will have to have a public option.”
He worked behind the scenes (confirmed by several sources) with Rahm to make sure it wouldn’t be included, because they were worried about the effect on campaign funding for Democratic House members.
Restore civil rights? The exact opposite, he has embraced and extended the Bush Cheney legacy of unbridled presidential power. Hold bankers accountable? Laughably opposite. Transparency in government? No, more opaqueness and back room deals.
THAT is what makes my head explode, and THAT is why we must stop giving money to these criminals, and stop voting for them.
The argument that “The perfect is the enemy of the good” is ludicrous. If they are “enemies” then logically we should choose sides: Which would you rather WIN, “good” or “perfect”?
But FAR MORE IMPORTANTLY, this argument contains an implicit strawman: A public option is not “perfect,” in fact a single-payer system funded by taxation on the rich is much closer to perfect than a public option. So I am not comparing some unachievable perfection to some filthy compromise that nevertheless can do some people good. I am comparing something eminently achievable (since it has already been done by Medicare) to a corrupt bargain full of holes and giveaways.
I say the same about Biden’s argument, “Don’t compare us to the Almighty, compare us to the alternative.” What crap. I am not comparing them to the Almighty in the first place, I am comparing them to what they promised and what I know they COULD have done, and refused to do, for their own craven and corrupt political interests.
These arguments all amount to “Just be happy with whatever we give you, and shut up.”
As far as Feingold’s current “fights”, let me repeat: When he can actually make a difference Feingold abandons his principles for Party. What he does when his actions can be ignored or dismissed means NOTHING. It is a staged show, perhaps an egotistical romp, perhaps a principled statement, but it is NOT a principled man standing his ground, because that means defending something at the risk of (figurative) injury or death, and that is not something I have seen Feingold actually do.
It is not that the perfect is the enemy of the good, it is that “very good” is the enemy of “close enough,” and conversely that means “close enough” is the enemy of the “very good.” And there we have the current situation, in which we vote for Thief A or Thief B, and try to figure out which is going to steal less from us.
I would not ask Feingold to be perfect, but even an imperfect man can stand his ground. Soldiers do it when they are in physical danger, and if you think they are “perfect” men they are not. But they have sworn to protect their fellows with their lives, and they follow through.
Feingold didn’t have the guts to do it even when he was perfectly safe, in one of the safest chambers in the country. For politics.
Elaine M to Tony C
Nobody’s perfect!
————————————————–
Why shouldn’t our representatives be perfect? We voters certainly are!
This is why our heads explode when every single thing we want done is not done on time and with great efficiency (and with the help of the loyal opposition).
By 6PM on January 20, 2001, everything should have been initiated. Investigations on Bush and Cheney should have begun. Guantanamo prisoners flown to NYC and trials started. Troops should have started leaving Iraq. A National Health Care Bill should have been sent to congress.
The fact that we were losing more than half a million jobs a month shouldn’t have interfered. Obama could have worked on that in his spare time – if only he’d been perfect, also.
Of course we have no way of knowing how many of those things actually were initiated by 6 PM – or by midnight, at least – they did have to attend a couple of balls. Guess we’ll have to wait for the book.
Kay,
I didn’t write that. If you go back to the comment that I made at 2:05 pm, you’ll see that that quote is taken from an article written by John Nichols titled “Russ Feingold, the Senate’s True Maverick.” I provided the link to the entire article–which you will find at The Nation’s website.
Dear Elaine
You write “Feingold noisily challenged constitutional abuses during the Clinton and Obama years, and as chair of the Senate Judiciary Committee’s Constitution subcommittee, he is pressing the Obama administration to get serious about civil liberties.” OK let’s hear more about that.
“Based on this blog I predict that incumbents will be routed. No one here has said that they support anything except campaign finance reform or that they are anti Republican. No one has posted saying that they admire this or that Democrat because of their position on such and such.” (kay sieverding)
Every once in a while I decide to try and read one of your posts, and the one concerning Feingold being your senator appeared to be relatively free of your legal problem complaints … so I read. The quote above is taken from that post. It is beyond ridiculous. I never learn …
Tony C.
Nobody’s perfect!
😉
I do think that Feingold is better than most of our politicians serving in Washington. He voted against the Iraq War Resolution in 2002–when it was not that popular a position to take. You may perceive that vote as political posturing too.
*****
From The Nation
Russ Feingold, the Senate’s True Maverick
John Nichols
September 23, 2010
http://www.thenation.com/article/154989/russ-feingold-senates-true-maverick?page=full,0,0,1
Excerpt:
Everything about Feingold’s Senate career has been a fight against a future where Crest Democrats do battle with Colgate Republicans. More than his sometime ally John McCain, the man from Wisconsin is the Senate’s true maverick. And unlike McCain, whose “independence” always had about it an air of self-absorption and attentiveness to the media, Feingold has never been a maverick for the sake of being a maverick. His eighteen years in the Senate have been defined by a steadiness of commitment that pays little regard to presidents or parties.
Feingold opposed Bill Clinton’s North American Free Trade Agreement and normalization of trade with China; he opposed George W. Bush’s Central American Free Trade Agreement; now he is challenging attempts by the Obama administration to advance trade policies that do too much for multinational corporations and too little for workers and farmers here and abroad. Feingold was the leading Senate critic of Clinton’s failure to abide by the War Powers Act; he opposed Bush’s rush to war in Iraq and was the first senator to call for a timeline to bring the troops home; now he complains that the Obama administration is not moving fast enough to wind that war down. Feingold noisily challenged constitutional abuses during the Clinton and Obama years, and as chair of the Senate Judiciary Committee’s Constitution subcommittee, he is pressing the Obama administration to get serious about civil liberties. Feingold opposed Clinton’s proposal to loosen bank rules, arguing that doing so could threaten financial stability; he opposed Bush’s bank bailout; and he was the sole Democrat to object that the reforms Obama backed did not go far enough because they did not do away with “too big to fail” banks and did not adequately protect consumers or taxpayers.
Much has been made this election season of Democrats distancing themselves from Obama; but Feingold and the president parted company years ago. The Illinoisan said during his 2004 Senate campaign that he saw Feingold as a role model. But once in the Senate, Obama kept clear of Feingold’s effort to censure Bush over abuses of privacy rights and the Wisconsinite’s lonely defense of arms control treaties. Feingold cast his Wisconsin primary vote in 2008 for Obama over Hillary Clinton, and he backed Obama’s economic stimulus and healthcare reform. But he opposed Timothy Geithner as treasury secretary, objected to Obama’s plan to surge more troops into Afghanistan and has complained loudly about the administration’s uneven response to soaring unemployment.
What I think will happen is that everyone will be forced to buy insurance but a lot of the insurance will be worthless. I think state attorney regulators take bribes. Look at Colorado. There is a statement under penalty of perjury that Hall & Evans billed Underwriters at Lloyds London for insuring a state employee, a lawyer prosecutor P. Elizabeth Wittemyer, at the same time that the state insurance commission says that Lloyds is not authorized to sell insurance in Colorado. Under the Democrats, Colorado Intergovernmental Risk Sharing Agency doesn’t file, and has never filed, the claims handling reports required by CRS 24-10-10.5. The last time I looked a TIG Insurance was listed in Colorado as being active in Colorado and selling health insurance but when I called they said they were not active and were located in a residence in Texas. What was to stop them from running my credit card?
So what makes anyone think that any health insurance that can be purchased at an affordable price to most people will not be a total waste of money?
@Elaine: No. Did Feingold vote for health care reform without a public option, after vociferously advocating for it for a year, and after pointedly accusing Obama and Emanuel to surreptitiously have it killed (after Obama promised on tape he would not sign a bill without a public option)?
Yes, he did all of that. And then he praised the President for doing “the hardest thing he has seen a President do.” Despite the pass given to the pharmaceuticals and the behind-doors acquiescence to their profit-driven insistence that importation must be prohibited.
Feingold is a good guy, but he could have single-handedly have preserved the public option in the health care bill by voting to filibuster it. Period.
The current Senate, on both sides, plays the edge and hands out strategic NO votes to senators when NO won’t make any difference. For all I know, Feingold’s NO vote on the Patriot Act was just more liberal posturing because it made no real difference, the White House got what it wanted. When Feingold had REAL power to save the public option, he refused to exercise it. Why? Because like Obama his principles are just a facade.
The only FAIR way to judge a politician is by how they act when they have REAL power to decide an issue, not what they do when their vote will make no difference in the outcome. Who cares what they do then, or what calculus drives them to vote the way they do, when it will make no difference?
Feingold’s vote on the Patriot bill was probably principled, but I don’t care. Having principles when it makes no difference, and abandoning principles when it DOES make a difference, is not exactly what I am looking for in a Senator.
Kay,
I did provide you with a reason why I respect Russ Feingold.
Speaking for myself: I’m not a blind loyalist. That’s your opinion. I happen to believe–at this point in time–that the Democratic party represents me and other middle class people like me better than the Republicans who are insistent on extending the Bush tax cuts for millionaires. Many Republicans talk about privatizing Social Security. Most Republicans have little sympathy for folks who have exhausted their employment benefits. I could go on. I’m not blind–nor am I ignorant of what goes on in politics.
BTW, there is nothing that could tempt me to vote for the Republican who is running for a seat in the House to represent my district. He’s a birther.
Well I am from Wisconsin and Feingold in my senator. He has done nothing for me and my problems with DOJ extortion and incarceration without a criminal charge. His advertisements are truly forgettable too. He claims support because in addition to his digs in Washington he lives alone in a house in Middleton suitable for a family.
Based on this blog I predict that incumbents will be routed. No one here has said that they support anything except campaign finance reform or that they are anti Republican. No one has posted saying that they admire this or that Democrat because of their position on such and such. Now that the Democrats have taken a position against the rights supposedly won in the Civil War, I just don’t see a reason for blind loyalty. The Democrats need to take a position that they support instead of positioning themselves against the Republicans of the past.
Tony C.
“No money, no vote for Democrats.”
I say no support for Blue Dog Democrats–but what about money for Democrats and Independents who are progressives–people like Bernie Sanders of Vermont, Russ Feingold, and Dennis Kucinich? Shouldn’t liberals/progressives be working hard to support Feingold in his campaign for re-election? Feingold–the only Senator who had the courage to vote against the Patriot Act?
Carlyle,
If anybody is “out of touch,” it’s Senator Kerry from my state of Massachusetts. As comedian Lewis Black said of him–and I paraphrase: How could the Democrats nominate a presidential candidate in 2004 who couldn’t beat Bush?
@Slarti: As opposed to your solution, which is to let them be as corrupt as they wanna be, because you will NEVER withhold your vote. The Republicans became more socially conservative because of the threat of the TEA party. Do you deny that? They did not want to lose elections, so John McCain reversed field on every moderate position he has ever held, and is VOTING that way too.
I refuse to just accept that politicians are going to lie their ass off without any consequences. The consequence is suppposed to be that liars and thieves are replaced by better candidates, but if you remove the threat of replacement, what are we left with?
The simple thing you fail to understand is that I am WILLING to move Congress to the right (especially with a Democrat in the White House) to try and get actual liberals into Congress. You aren’t willing to do anything that might hurt for even one second, you are a tribalist and you offer no plausible way of EVER getting a real liberal into office (meaning one that consistently VOTES for the liberal agenda and doesn’t just talk it).
Your prescription is “live with it,” well, I am tired of voting to put war criminals into office, and I won’t do that anymore. If that turns the country over to some religious nut job that will govern by adhering to a ludicrous set of beliefs, GOOD. That will lead to a great depression and a voter rebellion. What we have now is unacceptable, and if letting it self-destruct in a whirlwind of stunning ignorance about EVERYTHING is the only way to get rid of it, so be it. I will no longer prop up a system I find repellent. If we have to get worse to get better, I say make it MUCH worse and lets get MUCH better.
No money, no vote for Democrats. Make them suffer and they will change. Let them change to the right, and STILL no money, no vote. They will figure it out sooner or later.
Accidentally scrambled the link in my previous post.
Here it is again.
http://www.rawstory.com/rs/2010/09/kerry-blames-out-touch-voters-democrats-troubles/
Kerry is singing the same song as Biden, can not see that Democratic leaning voters are being turned off by the behaviour of their elected Democratic party representatives.
represeehttp://www.rawstory.com/rs/2010/09/kerry-blames-out-touch-voters-democrats-troubles/
CM,
Yes. I saw that. Every time one of the cats meow this morning, it sounds like they’re saying “Franz!” Although that could be something I ate.
Obama has 6 weeks to make a strong statement about human rights and due process. If he doesn’t then our first black president has made a statement that the liberals don’t value human rights and due process and aren’t committed to common law rights.
Are you familiar with the book Slave Nation? It explains that slavery was made illegal in the UK thru Habeas Corpus. The U.S. agreed to preserve slavery to get the union. To do so, the underpinnings of our laws were written to deny universal access to courts so as to keep the slaves from getting to court to get Habeas Corpus. Same way they kept me in jail. I applied for habeas corpus sighting Jones v. Cunningham.I asked them to point to the law. They dismissed it on the basis that I should have to be in jail to apply. Which is not what the law says the law says it applies when you might be called to testify. Then they put me in jail and simply ignored my habeas petition. That oppressive technique can continue because now they don’t have enough judges and our Democratic Congress simply refused to approve the judges nominated. Why is that?
In 20 years what they will probably do is require that aging baby boomers go to state run nursing homes where we will be killed so they don’t go over budget. If we apply for habeas corpus they will say that they won’t hear us because we aren’t lawyers or they will wait to rule until after we are dead. See Sieverding v. DOJ, DDC, 2010, an administrative reason is enough to create prisoner tracking records without liability no criminal charge is required.