I have explained to you eight million times why you're wrong about this. When are you going to stop defying my authority by having an opinion that differs from mine? Get your own blog, Benen.

This is why Alan Grayson has such a rabid following.

I'm tired of hearing Dems say: "This isn't about being Democrat or Republican, it's about America"

The truth is that Democratic ideas are good for working Americans (see: the 90's), and Republican ideas brought us the worst decade since the Depression (see the 00's).

But unfortunately you won't hear Dem leaders point to the real policy differences and results, or about fighting for progressive ideals.

It's a nice thought, but I can't escape the sinking feeling we're all pulling for the wrong team when it comes to "courage of their convictions". Apparently we can choose the party with policies that aren't batshit insane or we can choose the party that doesn't run like scared little kids at the first sign of adversity, but asking for both is just too much to expect.

The way you describe it, the Democrats sound like a party of Eeyores. The image fits in my mind strangely...

Slightly OT, here's an interesting tidbit - The NPA has pulled out of the Tea Party Convention.

http://thecaucus.blogs.nytimes.com/2010/01/25/tea-party-convention-loses-another-sponsor/

They're the second major (and legitimizing) sponsor to withdraw in a month. NPA cites extravagant ticket prices as a major dissatisfier. It actually looks fairly bad for the event. When you're a major conservative advocacy group and RedState characterizes your fundraiser as "scammy", you've overreached.

CNN Poll: For First Time, More Say Dem Control Is Bad For Country. http://theplumline.whorunsgov.com/house-dems/cnn-poll-for-first-time-more-say-dem-control-is-bad-for-country/#comments

Steve Benen wrote: "Dems have burdened by this bad habit for a long time. They somehow manage to win a policy fight; Republicans trash the policy; and Dems get defensive and act sheepishly about their success."

From the point of view of progressive House Democrats, the Senate bill isn't "winning a policy fight" -- it is losing a policy fight to the insurance corporations and their bought-and-paid-for agents in the Senate, like Max Baucus, who systematically gutted all the genuinely progressive components of the bill (single payer off the table, public option off the table, Medicare expansion off the table, etc) and turned it into a Republican-Lite corporate welfare bill.

Democratic partisans should stop worrying about what the Tea-Bagging Ditto-Heads think, and start worrying about what grassroots progressive Democrats think.

A helpful start would be to stop screaming "Fools! Cowards! Traitors!" at progressive Dems who don't like the Senate bill, and stop the insultingly phony blather that it's the equivalent of Social Security and Medicare rolled into one, and acknowledge that it is nothing more than the best deal that the Senate Dems are willing to drive with their insurance industry campaign contributors, and acknowledge that progressives have legitimate reasons to oppose it.

Sometimes it seems like partisan Democrat pundits wish that grassroots Dems were more like Rush Limbaugh's Ditto-Heads, and would do and say whatever they are told to do and say by the party propaganda machine.

Well, too bad, because Ditto-Heads R NOT US.

Ronald Reagan framed the issue in his very first speech as president -- "Government isn't the solution to our problems; government IS the problem."

That is the Roseta Stone, the memory chip that has been planted in every voter's head for the past easy 40 years, the light that blinks red in front of every voter's eyes whenever liberals start talking about solving problems.

Liberals must be equally bold in reframing the debate their way. And it means re-embraching "Big Government" proudly. As it stands now, Republicans need only shout "government takeover" and they win every argument by default.

Progressives can't run away from the very IDEA of government and be ashamed or hesitant of their support -- not if they want to change the political culture from one that sees America as a land where we resolve our problems collectively, where we are a single community with a shared sense of destiny instead of one where survival of the fittest rules, where it's every man for himself and devil take the hindmost, where I am not my brother's keeper and shame on you for even asking.

Maybe it's that they fear winning a policy fight will lead to a decrease in funding from big-time campaign donors.

"When people are insecure, they'd rather have somebody who is strong and wrong than someone who's weak and right."

Maybe it's that they fear winning a policy fight will lead to a decrease in funding from big-time campaign donors.

Hmmm, yeah I suppose that's possible. But don't tell Max Baucus, Ben Nelson, Mary Landrieu, Joe Lieberman, Evan Bayh...wouldn't want to offend them by suggesting such a thing.

Sec,
We all fully admit this is far the best plan. However, without a golden pony to accompany any other plan, this is it. Take it or watch many suffer.

far FROM the best...
Damn, I always do that.

Good advice from Kos:
(Canaries in the Coal Mine)
http://www.dailykos.com/storyonly/2010/1/18/826443/-Canaries-in-the-coal-mine

"THAT's why the base is sitting things out. They don't need blogs or MSNBC to tell them that Democrats can't govern. They already knew that Republicans don't want to govern, but the Democrats were supposed to be different. And they are, they want to govern, but they can't. And the voters that worked their asses off to give Democrats the White House and super majorities in Congress are now realizing that it was all for nothing. That all that talk about hope and change was cynical bullshit designed to motivate them. It worked once, but that crowd is learning the art of political cynicism, and it ain't pretty."

I haven't written Obama off yet, and I will vote for him in '12 no matter what. But I'd really prefer not to be holding my nose when I make that vote.

secularanimist has it exactly right. There are times when Dems are nauseatingly unwilling to go to bad for good policy. The Senate bill is not a good example of that.

The worst part of the Senate bill is that the weaknesses aren't even defensible on ANY policy grounds. For example, a more progressive stimulus package could be opposed -- wrongly, but arguably coherently -- on the basis that (a) it included an insufficient number of tax cuts and (b) it raised the deficit too much. While I disagree with those arguments, I can entertain them as semi-intelligent.

OTOH, Blue Dog opponents of the more progressive HCR suggestions were unable to offer up ANY arguments in opposition that were rooted in anything resembling a policy argument. We were faced with self-described "deficit hawks" opposing proposals that scored better with the CBO. We had Blue Dogs ostensibly arguing for HCR but opposed to a budget-neutral public option, opposed to a budget-neutral Medicare buy-in, and opposed to national insurance exchanges.

That was the time for liberals to defend good policy. But when the Blue Dogs were systematically dismantling the bill, no major pundits called them on it. But now we are supposed to bless their Frankenstein creation? I don't think so.

Benen is on fire! Great point. Health care reform needs leaders, not a bunch of wussies.

The Hill reports today that insurance companies — who have fought hard against health reforms like the creation of a new public health insurance plan — spent $38 million in 2009 to influence the direction of the health care debate.

GO BIG INSURANCE! GO REPUBLICRATS!

And now with the recent SCROTUS ruling that corporations (like big pharma and big insurance) can simply outright purchase politicians, elections, and bills, passing the insurance giveaway from the senate will NEVER see a "fix" that isn't pre-approved by big insurance and big pharma.

Go Steve Benen's Corporatocracy!

Ted @4:22 - that sounds like good advice. I hope somebody with some clout reads it. Not Harry Reid the Serial Compromiser- it's too late for him.

Good news on the House and healthcare! MORE progressives have stated point-blank that they will keep their word and NOT vote for any bill lacking a public option!

No doubt ya'll are also supporters of Bernanke's reappointment too. No Wall Streeter Left Behind! Go corporations, go wall street, go "democrat" senate, go big insurance companies!

I wish the democrats would realize that a few simple soundbites would do them a world of good.

Healthcare is bigger then Insurance Company Profits.

To govern, we have to remind folks how much government does right.

Government has not taken over all aspects of your life, yes you drive on federally financed highways, and yes you listen to the radio over federally regulated airwaves. Etc.

Democrats want to become progressively better.

The Republicans believe in governmental regression.

And so on.

Ya gotta get dem soundbites folks....the wingnuts have theirs.

While I have long agreed with Benen on the merits on the HCR debate, I understand SecAnimist's point as a matter of policy. As a pragmatic matter of realpolitik, however, I think the time for that debate is long past. We only have two viable parties, and one is more progressive than the other. That one is about to drive over a cliff. We can argue later once the car is on solid ground who should have been following what road map or driving the car, but for now we simply have to avoid all of us going down in a flaming crash.

I'm not asking progressives to be dittoheads, but there has to be a happy medium between blind following like the brainwashed inhabitants of Beckistan and the absolute independence that gave rise to the aphorism "I belong to no organized political party; I'm a Democrat." Offensive as dittoheadedness may be, it gives the right a massive advantage in elections, and in tests of legislative will.

My fear is that I think much of the present problem really was set on course in the immediate post-Carter years, then reinforced by the Dukakis campaign, when wingnuts used "liberal" as an epithat and 99% of those left-of-center rather than aggressively fighting back, sheepishly slunk off and licked their wounds. I agree with Benen, in that I see Democrats starting to do the same thing, just a year after it was ok to believe in liberalism again. Even if the victory is symbolic, even if it is imperfect policy, after spending an entire year on it, there has to be a "win" for government activism in addressing big problems.

To those who say "its a bad bill, kill it and start over," I have trouble seeing the reality in that. The Dem numbers are shrinking and will shrink further, the collective Dem spine is weakening, not strengthening. With the numbers and spine remaining, it is much more likely to get them to take one last step than to run the entire marathon over again. There is just no realistic scenario where the next bill to come down the chute is better than what we have; indeed, I'd bet serious cash that the next bill can only be worse. And it will be much worse as the Dem losses in November increase. And I assure you that holding the nation's attention for a year on an issue and coming up with nothing is how we will take the biggest losses.

We can have internal recriminations later when the crisis is past, but for now everyone has to share the goal of showing we can overcome the Republican tactics, or liberalism will be a synonym for weak and ineffective for the next dozen years, just like it was from Reagan to Clinton.

zeitgeist, you ARE asking progressives to be ditto heads. You and benen want progressives to shut up and keep voting DLC and corporatocracy and simply accept repeated ass reaming of everything progressive that comes along.

No. I will NOT go along to get along, I will NOT be a ditto head just because someone (ostensibly) has a "D" by their name and says (with corporate puppet strings attached) that "this is a good bill" or "this is a good policy". Bullcrap. How about throwing Blue Dogs under the bus for a change. Seriously. FOR A CHANGE, toss Blue Dogs into the toilet and give 'em a swirly. Give the Blue Dogs the wedgie this time.

If ya'll aren't man enough to do it, let me at 'em and I will beat the ever-lovin-shit out of any and all Blue Dog sellouts I come across, be they male or female. C'mon, set me loose.

The healthcare reform bill is one-half composed of Republican ideas. The negative reaction to it in the country has been doggedly drummed-up for nearly a year by those same Republicans, who simply don't want the Democrats to score the political win. It is indeed the old Bill Kristol playbook. That they have libertarian teaparties on their noisy right helps them, see the recent Massa. mini-quake. But the teaparty also threatens the Republican establishment, at least as Limbaugh now rides the herd. (In another era, the moderate Republicans would pass the reform. Though they might not pay for it -- look at Medicare part D.) Meanwhile, the Democrats can't sell the mandate without the public option to their progressive left. I predicted this strong reaction last August: Because the reform is making you pay money to the useless and offensive private insurance companies. That even slides over, into a teaparty. So I think if healthcare reform is passed and people start to discuss its trade-offs in detail, the Democrats should immediately start banging the drum to elect more Democrats to vote for a public option to eliminate the insurance companies, if you individually want to, and save 6 cents to 10 cents out of every dollar. Because basically the insurance companies really are useless.

Am I the only one who suspects that when election day rolls around, Praedor Atrebates is so hung over and bloodied from boxing cars in the bar parking lot that he doesn't even vote?

If Atttention Deficit Disorder was a condition whereby the sufferer grew proportionately more aggressive as attention paid him declined, I'd say it was that.

I'm not a medical professional. But I did stay at a Holiday Inn last night.

yeah, Praedor, and once you're old enough to drive, you can go to places like Nebraska and Arkansas and run a Paul Wellstone clone in a primary against the Blue Dogs and let me know how that goes.

i think we both know the answer.

so once you're done ranting and decide to deal with reality rather than trying to kick its ass, maybe you can explain how you're going to be part of the solution. because other than throwing Blue Dogs in the toilet (only to see their reddish states replace them with new Blue Dogs), I don't really see much of a constructive plan in that post.

I don't like the Senate bill at all, but I understand that a modified version needs to pass to establish a baseline. That said, I'm not in a big hurry to pass it before the SOTU or any other artificial deadline.

I want Nancy Pelosi to make Harry Reid sweat until he actually delivers something of value to the American people. If he can't deliver 50+ votes for some meaningful amendments to their PoS bill, then he's as big of a PoS as I thought he was.

My fervent prayer is that Oscar Goodman primaries his bony ass so we can get a real speaker in the Senate.

What party leadership saw in this idiot I'll never know.

Haven't decided yet if I will stay home or vote CONTRA Democrap in 2010. If they actually did force the corporate bill down our throats, well, then I'll vote against 'em. If they try and fail to pass it then I'll stay home. If they don't try to force it down our throats, then I may vote for a Democrap.

Again, no one here can point to a single part of the bill that actually contains costs, prevent adverse selection, or stops medical bankruptcy. Point to a single line that prevents premiums, deductibles, and co-pays from skyrocketing. C'mon geniuses, point out the lines. Point out where in the bill the insurance companies are forever placed as the be-all, end-all of healthcare control in this country.

bdop4: No Child Left Behind and the AMT have been around for a long long time. Neither has been "fixed" from baseline. Why do you think that the baseline of the senate insurance company giveaway bill will EVER be modified to be humanly acceptable? There is no evidence that anything would change EVER.

Hell, explain how the SCOTUS ruling the other day allowing unlimited corporate spending on campaigns means that insurance and pharma wont openly and outright prevent any fixes to the bill whatsoever.

"I will NOT be a dittohead..." Praedor Atrebates @ 4:58 PM.

Could'a fooled me!
Come up with a way to get to where you want to go with the politicians we have at present and maybe, just maybe, you wouldn't HAVE to USE caps all the time.
Have a nice day!

Cool idea Steve doubling down on stupid.

How do you know the bill is any good - no one has read the whole thing and negotiations on the final details continue behind closed doors.

And quite frankly all I have heard from my Democratic congressman (and every other progressive politician) is how great the health care bill is going to be once we find out what is in it. MSNBC, TODAY, CNN, ABC, CBS all have told me it is great. Fox news can say anything they want about what is in the bill because no one knows what is in the stupid bill.

So your idea is "shout it louder and bolder?" Sounds like what people do to convince the masses of propaganda and lies.

Am I the only one who suspects that when election day rolls around, Praedor Atrebates is so hung over and bloodied from boxing cars in the bar parking lot that he doesn't even vote?

Keep telling yourself that. As more and more Democrats stay home because the party continues its corporatist slide, you can console yourself that none of those Democrats were really going to vote anyway.

How do you know the bill is any good - no one has read the whole thing and negotiations on the final details continue behind closed doors.

Hey, stupid, the Senate Bill has already passed. If you haven't read it, go knock yourself out. And, no, negotiations do not continue behind closed doors. There was this little thing called an election in Massachusetts. Go look it up.

"No one in their right mind could possibly think this was a mistake. Only a sick psychotic fuck like Simon Johnson could utter blasphemous filth like, 'Perhaps the best analysis regarding the impact of fiscal policy on recessions was done by the IMF. In their retrospective study of financial crises across countries, they found that nations with “aggressive fiscal stimulus” policies tended to get out of recessions 2 quarters earlier than those without aggressive policies. This is a striking conclusion - should we (or anyone) really increase our deficit further and build up more debt (domestic and foreign) in order to avoid 2 extra quarters of contraction?' Crazy goddamn lunatics like Simon Johnson ought to be institutionalized and pumped full of Haldol until their tongues are flicking around like the loony snakes they are. And fuck the IMF too. And MIT, too. Fuck them too. Sick fucks. I bet they wear hats like Napoleon, they're so insane."

That's what I'd say. And then of course repeat the same innumerate bullshit over and over and over like it's more convincing that way.

Secular,

What would your solution be? I don't mean to be flippant in asking. Praedor, same question. I have not been to this blog in a while, but I remember posts from you back when it was Drum's. You seem much frothier now, and I can't say as I blame you. I have never been as pissed as I am now. But I fail to see how that helps. I consider myself an uber-liberal. I also consider myself a distinct minority in a country with a populace that has more than half its head stuck up where the sun don't shine. I can want all I want for it to be different, but I cannot see how to get there.

In this I agree with zeitgeist and others. I truly do not believe that we will have another opportunity for a long, long time. And I do not believe for a second that Americans are ready to start replacing these lame blue dogs with anything but more of same, or just flat out retards (aka, republicans).

squarenone: you can console yourself that none of those Democrats were really going to vote anyway.

Oh, I'm concerned about the understandable demoralization of non-insane, good-faith Democrats. I'm just pretty certain this head case rarely if ever makes it to the polls. But, hey, if Praedor is company you're proud to keep, go for it.

Praedor, same question. I have not been to this blog in a while, but I remember posts from you back when it was Drum's. You seem much frothier now

Old Praedor Atrebates: Bright, informed, analytical, self-possessed, good writer.

New Praedor Atrebates: Dense, ignorant, irrational, constantly having screaming fits, nearly illiterate.

Barring some massive head trauma, I think we can assume they're not the same guy.

Praedor Atrebates vs. Praedor Aggravates.

For crying out loud, Republicans, who got us in this mess, wanted an insane five-year spending freeze that would have dug us into a deeper hole."

Now help us pass our three-year spending freeze!

This is so true; in contrast, Republicans spin everything they do as the greatest thing anyone has ever conceived, even if it's all been a complete F-ing disaster--and everyone seems to accept their version of reality!

Very nice site!