In 2012, I will work for Democrats in my district as I have the last 35 years. Sitting out isn't an option, we all agree. But supporting Obama is essentially supporting the advancement of the right wing agenda, something I have never "intentionally" done and never will.
Contrary to the spin, turn out was low in 2010 because after electing Obama he failed to demonstrate to Democrats that he was working for Democrats. In the year since then, he has strengthened his commitment to right wing policy. The apex of his treachery was walking into negotiations over raising the debt ceiling offering up cuts to social security, medicaid/medicare. What he was really surrendering was the Democratic brand. Whether that is publicly acknowledged or not doesn't matter, as Democratic voters are already wondering what it is that we "do" stand for minus protecting the safety net.
The lack of enthusiasm that caused Democratic apathy in 2010 will be amplified if the message from the party is "support him or it'll get worse". Frightening up votes is a tactic that works better with republican voters. I don't believe they will be buying.
The Democratic party must demonstrate that voting for Democrats will mean opposition and a serious contrast to Republican/Tea Party policies. Obama is conveying the opposite message. If we don't offer a clear contrast, voter enthusiasm will sink for the entire party. All the way down the ticket. Just as in 2010. Frankly, I believe that the party has adopted the same operating priorities as wall street, which is "worry about the next quarters margin and the future be damned".
Four more years of Obama and the two parties will become indistinguishable. Democrats in the house and senate will be compelled to support Obama's right of center "corpromises" and the democratic party will have nothing left to offer people. We need to work now to elect progressives who will work for us. Obama isn't electable anyway. With a primary challenger, at least we would have a chance. A primary challenge and a commitment to people would enthuse the base again. And who knows about the President? Threatening a primary challenge might compel him to remember who got him to the white house.
Wednesday, August 3, 2011
Sunday, September 5, 2010
Social Security and Social Networking
There is something seriously wrong when there is no effective organized opposition to the political isolation of social progressives. We are peacefully surrendering. All efforts are neutered by the corporate media and endless flow of money to corporate favoring candidates. We are reduced to an opinion on a facebook page while even our democratic president's administration ridicules the left.
Facebook could be an effective means of organizing for social progressives. But it can't be without the battle and goal defined.
Social security would be a natural and meaningful start to such a movement. Although this would be the most effective issue for the democrats, they are not pursuing it and this is in itself reason for alarm. One possibility is that they hav...e already surrendered to the idea of sacrificing it. Evidence of this possibility is that the SOTU law making unlimited/unaccountable corporate contributions has them chasing the dollars instead of the principles. Many Dems running have already acquiesced to extending Bush's tax cuts for the ultra rich. I see this as a gesture of solidarity to the corporate donors.
As an independent movement, protecting social security as the prime focus could draw thousands of people who already are apprehensive about the future of what is to many their only future financial means of support. Like or agree with it or not, Obama and the democrats are more the victims of a bad economy than the pseudo issues they are being publicly criticized for. Financial fear is a motivational tool.
I spent 6 hours labor day weekend walking door to door for a candidate in the rural midwest. Across the board, the concern that came up over and over among 50+ (key) voters was the future of their social security. No issue goes more to the core of liberal principles and historic successes than social security. The households targeted were "leaning republican, independent, and leaning democratic" voters. There was no difference in these three groups when it came to social security. It came to the surface in conversation with them without it being suggested. They brought it up. It seems to me that a movement on facebook could impact things if the focus stuck strictly to social security. All the demographics are in place here. It would only be necessary to get a few clear messages echoed with no other ideological implications.
Liberalism and social justice has been marginalized by it's identity with the democratic party alone. For social progressives, this identity is like PETA tattooing "kick me" on rescued animals. We have a corporate serving party that is entrusted with protecting and defending the principles. An independent movement to protect social security could overcome the immediate opposition from half the nation when it comes to advancing a social agenda. A social security movement that demanded protecting it from both parties could enjoy support across the spectrum and force candidates on both sides to commit to it's protection. There are other social progressive issues that this common ground is waiting for (education, healthcare) but social security is immediate and could establish a springboard.
Facebook could be an effective means of organizing for social progressives. But it can't be without the battle and goal defined.
Social security would be a natural and meaningful start to such a movement. Although this would be the most effective issue for the democrats, they are not pursuing it and this is in itself reason for alarm. One possibility is that they hav...e already surrendered to the idea of sacrificing it. Evidence of this possibility is that the SOTU law making unlimited/unaccountable corporate contributions has them chasing the dollars instead of the principles. Many Dems running have already acquiesced to extending Bush's tax cuts for the ultra rich. I see this as a gesture of solidarity to the corporate donors.
As an independent movement, protecting social security as the prime focus could draw thousands of people who already are apprehensive about the future of what is to many their only future financial means of support. Like or agree with it or not, Obama and the democrats are more the victims of a bad economy than the pseudo issues they are being publicly criticized for. Financial fear is a motivational tool.
I spent 6 hours labor day weekend walking door to door for a candidate in the rural midwest. Across the board, the concern that came up over and over among 50+ (key) voters was the future of their social security. No issue goes more to the core of liberal principles and historic successes than social security. The households targeted were "leaning republican, independent, and leaning democratic" voters. There was no difference in these three groups when it came to social security. It came to the surface in conversation with them without it being suggested. They brought it up. It seems to me that a movement on facebook could impact things if the focus stuck strictly to social security. All the demographics are in place here. It would only be necessary to get a few clear messages echoed with no other ideological implications.
Liberalism and social justice has been marginalized by it's identity with the democratic party alone. For social progressives, this identity is like PETA tattooing "kick me" on rescued animals. We have a corporate serving party that is entrusted with protecting and defending the principles. An independent movement to protect social security could overcome the immediate opposition from half the nation when it comes to advancing a social agenda. A social security movement that demanded protecting it from both parties could enjoy support across the spectrum and force candidates on both sides to commit to it's protection. There are other social progressive issues that this common ground is waiting for (education, healthcare) but social security is immediate and could establish a springboard.
Monday, August 2, 2010
How Obama and the Democrats can regain the nation
Two things can turn a disappointed Democratic base into turning out for a victory.
1- Obama needs to appoint Elizabeth Warren as the head of the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau. He needs to do it in the spirit of protecting consumers and make no apologies for her ability to make Wall Street squirm. Frankly, there isn't a Democrat in America who wouldn't appreciate a little Wall Street squirm fest. Independents too.
After the unending mantra from the right about bailing Wall Street out, the oversight would go a long way in spoiling the criticism. If there is one rule that holds true in every election it is that the party on the defense loses. As head of the Democratic party in an already threatening mid-term election, he owes it to his party as well as the people he serves. If he doesn't, the critics from both sides will chase Democrats right out of congress.
2- The Democratic majority in congress needs to let the tax breaks for the rich expire as scheduled and structure the new tax law now making it immediately public. No tax increases for the other 90% and no apologies to the rich who bilked our economy with the excesses during Bush's term. It's time to stop increasing our debt with fat cats free ride. Everyone is suffering and it is high time that people got the nod in a financial decision made by this congress.
Obama can put the Republicans on the defensive by appointing a watchdog who barks and bites and it would demonstrate that people's protection outweighs the lobbying. After the beating we took from Wall Street, anyone less than Warren would be an insult. The Republican's opposition to accountability will provide the ammunition to put them on the defensive when it counts. The Democrats can enter the election with a decision on the tax breaks that clearly defines them as the people's party. If they do these two overdue and obvious things, they can turn the election. If they don't, all the bullshit in the world about loyalty isn't going to save their sorry asses from the drop dead turn out they should know will be coming.
1- Obama needs to appoint Elizabeth Warren as the head of the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau. He needs to do it in the spirit of protecting consumers and make no apologies for her ability to make Wall Street squirm. Frankly, there isn't a Democrat in America who wouldn't appreciate a little Wall Street squirm fest. Independents too.
After the unending mantra from the right about bailing Wall Street out, the oversight would go a long way in spoiling the criticism. If there is one rule that holds true in every election it is that the party on the defense loses. As head of the Democratic party in an already threatening mid-term election, he owes it to his party as well as the people he serves. If he doesn't, the critics from both sides will chase Democrats right out of congress.
2- The Democratic majority in congress needs to let the tax breaks for the rich expire as scheduled and structure the new tax law now making it immediately public. No tax increases for the other 90% and no apologies to the rich who bilked our economy with the excesses during Bush's term. It's time to stop increasing our debt with fat cats free ride. Everyone is suffering and it is high time that people got the nod in a financial decision made by this congress.
Obama can put the Republicans on the defensive by appointing a watchdog who barks and bites and it would demonstrate that people's protection outweighs the lobbying. After the beating we took from Wall Street, anyone less than Warren would be an insult. The Republican's opposition to accountability will provide the ammunition to put them on the defensive when it counts. The Democrats can enter the election with a decision on the tax breaks that clearly defines them as the people's party. If they do these two overdue and obvious things, they can turn the election. If they don't, all the bullshit in the world about loyalty isn't going to save their sorry asses from the drop dead turn out they should know will be coming.
Friday, July 9, 2010
Why Obama Lost the Left
If you ask a democrat today why the liberals have abandoned their support of Obama, the most likely answer you'll get, or at least the most common thing I hear, is that they don't really know. I hear things like, "We all knew Obama was a centrist when he was running", or "He said he was going to work across the isle". I did hear the "centrist" line before Obama was elected, what I didn't expect was that he was in the center of the right. I also approve of the idea that he might work with both parties, but his attempts have been rejected by the republicans whose only concern is getting control back. Even without their cooperation, Obama has given them what they want at the expense the left who were his boots on the ground in the election. In fact, I am hard pressed to find anything that Obama has united the left and right on outside of opposition to himself.
In Obama's defense, the criticisms from the left and right have nothing in common. In fact, I find myself regularly defending Obama against the rabid right because they are so absurdly wrong that no one who looked past the typos on the tea party banners could possibly believe them. "Socialist"?? Capitalist on steroids would be more accurate. He bailed capitalism out of a failed mess. If he were a socialist, he would have nationalized the banks and left peoples mortgages to be renegotiated with the government. So while the right wing has gone completely overboard with unwarranted criticisms that the corporate media has played like they were fact, the complaints from the left get no play at all. The offense however is that they get no consideration at all from Obama.
Here are my top two issues with Obama-
#1- While in KC in August of 2008 (see photo I took at his appearance) Obama was handed the question, "Will you hold the previous administration accountable for their crimes"? Obama's reassuring answer was, "We will not have two forms of justice in America". That was a bold face lie that IMO is a large part of why the left won't trust anything he says and will base nothing on "hope" until it manifests itself in reality. When (DOJ) Eric Holder refused to allow the public to see the photo evidence of the brutal torture Bush illegally doled out in our name, the issue died. So did my trust in Obama. Of this Obama spun "We are looking forward not back". What he really meant was "we are looking the other way" both to Bush's crimes and the potential not prosecuting these crimes leaves for a return to state sanctioned torture under a future president.
#2- During the election Obama ridiculed the idea of a forced insurance mandate. (see video below) But when the election was over and Obama had won, he not only approved of the mandate, he refused to use his pulpit to support a public option. He sold us all into servitude to the same industry that spent millions to defeat meaningful reform. This dealt a blow not only to Obama, but to the basic idea that the democrats are the party who defend us from corporate abuse. By signing a corporate only insurance mandate into law, Obama made the democrats look like cowardly corporate servants who served the nation up on a platter.
So Obama lost the support of this liberal and deservedly so. In the immediate he is a liar. In the long term he has damaged the democratic principles that separate dems for repubs.
In Obama's defense, the criticisms from the left and right have nothing in common. In fact, I find myself regularly defending Obama against the rabid right because they are so absurdly wrong that no one who looked past the typos on the tea party banners could possibly believe them. "Socialist"?? Capitalist on steroids would be more accurate. He bailed capitalism out of a failed mess. If he were a socialist, he would have nationalized the banks and left peoples mortgages to be renegotiated with the government. So while the right wing has gone completely overboard with unwarranted criticisms that the corporate media has played like they were fact, the complaints from the left get no play at all. The offense however is that they get no consideration at all from Obama.
Here are my top two issues with Obama-
#1- While in KC in August of 2008 (see photo I took at his appearance) Obama was handed the question, "Will you hold the previous administration accountable for their crimes"? Obama's reassuring answer was, "We will not have two forms of justice in America". That was a bold face lie that IMO is a large part of why the left won't trust anything he says and will base nothing on "hope" until it manifests itself in reality. When (DOJ) Eric Holder refused to allow the public to see the photo evidence of the brutal torture Bush illegally doled out in our name, the issue died. So did my trust in Obama. Of this Obama spun "We are looking forward not back". What he really meant was "we are looking the other way" both to Bush's crimes and the potential not prosecuting these crimes leaves for a return to state sanctioned torture under a future president.
#2- During the election Obama ridiculed the idea of a forced insurance mandate. (see video below) But when the election was over and Obama had won, he not only approved of the mandate, he refused to use his pulpit to support a public option. He sold us all into servitude to the same industry that spent millions to defeat meaningful reform. This dealt a blow not only to Obama, but to the basic idea that the democrats are the party who defend us from corporate abuse. By signing a corporate only insurance mandate into law, Obama made the democrats look like cowardly corporate servants who served the nation up on a platter.
So Obama lost the support of this liberal and deservedly so. In the immediate he is a liar. In the long term he has damaged the democratic principles that separate dems for repubs.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)