Republicans are tyrants, but the Democrats are enablers.

So a group of moderates (read conservatives) made a deal on judges and the Radical Repugnicans are already talking about breaking it, here and here. How stupid can the Democrats be? Did Reid really expect the Frist to hold to the deal? The Democrats just won’t learn. You can’t make deals with a group of people (Republicans) who do not understand the meaning of the word “trust.”

The problem with the Democrats, in my view, is that they are simply too committed to maintaining their place in the current system and will salvage any scrap of perceived progress to keep from losing that place. The ruthless Repugnicans are too adept at this game for the Democrats to fathom. So the R’s threaten the Dems in the Senate with something they have absolutely no authority to do, and they likely couldn’t actually pull off anyway, so that they can eviscerate the role of the opposition, knowing that the Dems are predisposed to compromising to avoid losing big.

So the Dems promise not to filibuster except only in extreme cases in order to be allowed to filibuster at all. They will also allow several extremely unacceptable nominees to go through. So what exactly have the Dem preserved? If Owens and Brown are not “extreme cases,” then which nominees would be? When exactly can the Dems filibuster now? And by giving up the previously filibustered nominees, the Dems all but conceded that political expediency trumps principle. “Well, these nominees are only worth filibustering if we aren’t threatened with losing our rights as the minority party and the opposition.”

That’s horse manure.

Any moron would see that the Repugs will break their part of the deal the first chance they get. And they will go all over TV and radio saying it was the Dems who broke the deal! It’s so F-ING OBVIOUS.

Nice job, folks, you pissed away any sort of useful opposition to the extreme right wing so that you go to sleep at night thinking you preserved your place in the system.

The Democrats are not the solution; they are part of the problem.

Hypocrisy in Full Bloom

Don't you just love spring? Flowers are blooming, grass is growing, and hypocrisy is shining through in the warm May sun.

A friend sent this hilarious op-ed from the Palm Beach Post.

I responded thusly:

Those damn liberals – they just have NO CLASS (here). All they want to do is practice the politics of personal destruction (here and here). It doesn’t matter how much of a lying, corrupt hypocrite I am (here). When a liberal attacks my personal life, it’s a character assassination that weakens the security of the country (here and here), hurts our troops (here), and aids the terrorists (and here).

Baseball Blog

I started a baseball-only blog called Nationals Pastime. The main focus of the blog will be to keep up with the Washington Nationals, but I'll also put some more general baseball items up as well.

Check it out!

Progressives Should State Their Core Theme First

As the Social Security debate unfolds, I’ve grown a little frustrated with my fellow progressives. This new front in the battle to save the heart of the New Deal opened when Bush proposed turning this successful and not-so-much-in-trouble-as-we’ve-been-told universal social insurance program into a large, elderly-focused welfare program. After he laid out “reform” ideas last week, many of the interested parties have delved into discussing things like progressive indexing, or income classes, or investment options. Congresspeople have been on TV, pundits have written articles in newspapers, and activists have blogged and blogged about the endless details.

Progressives are opposed to the President’s plans and for good reason – the very core of the New Deal and modern liberalism is threatened with annihilation if Bush and the GOP get their way. Yet, when progressives go on TV or write articles in newspapers or on web sites, I’ve noticed that most of them don’t start the argument with this fundamental core belief. They jump right into technical reasons why Bush’s plan is misleading, or wrong, or just won’t work. They get wonky.

Now I’m not saying that this is a total waste of time and energy – there is a time and a place to make technical and reasoned arguments for defending the current Social Security system and opposing the changes proposed by Bush, his corporate masters, and some in the GOP. I do not think, though, that these arguments motivate the general public to support our views as well as they could. Why do I think this?

I believe the Democrats have failed to win the support of a majority of the voters in the last two presidential elections and the last six congressional election cycles because they did not begin their arguments with a clear, underlying set of values to frame the context of their message, and why their way was the only real alternative to the GOP’ swath of destruction. And they risk losing support on Social Security for the same reason.

Bush has cleverly turned the discussion from incurring trillions in debt by starting up private accounts to increasing the benefits for the poor (with no mention of the debt that would be incurred). That is, the argument shifts from an unpopular (as in it didn’t poll well) idea to a popular one. Of course, his plan doesn’t do a damned thing for the poor, and it screws almost everyone else, but that doesn’t matter. What he says gets repeated endlessly by the MSM, so it becomes the reality. And the new message backs Democrats into a corner – either they go along with this scheme or they risk being labeled as hypocrites by the GOP and the press for abandoning the poor.

Again, this past week Democrats fanned out to defend SS with highly complex, technical arguments. Unfortunately, they were utterly incoherent. Nancy Pelosi got nailed on ABC’s This Week because she was not sufficiently prepared – not only did she not lay out a clear, underlying theme for what all progressives stand for regarding SS, but she wasn’t even prepared to handle the technical issues either! Personally, I think Pelosi would be great presenting only the general theme and context of the debate and letting others handle the discussion of the technical details. She’s a decent spokesperson when she sticks to her strengths – assuming she understands that the Democrats do have a core theme.

Democrats cannot expect to win public opinion over with these woeful performances. And it is quite clear that only a handful of Democrats have the capacity to handle the discussions of the complex details once the general theme and context have been established in the first place.

So let’s quit flailing and get on the same page. A clear, concise message must preface all progressive discussion of the Social Security debate. In fact, this message may very well work for almost social and domestic policy discussions.

The Heart of the Matter

Every progressive should start the discussion this way; every Democrat should utter these words; everyone who cares about the future of the country should understand this truth:

George Bush and the Republicans’ ultimate goal is this – they want to destroy the New Deal and return this country to the dark days of the robber barons that preceded the Great Depression. George Bush’s “plan” for Social Security has only one goal – the destruction of Social Security. Every word he and the GOP says and every “idea” he and the GOP lays out comes from their core belief that Social Security cannot be allowed to continue and the New Deal must be wiped out.

This is the theme that must be reinforced over and over and over, by every progressive and Democrat in every public venue. Whenever L’il Russ tosses up one of his sandbag quotes on MTP, have five examples of why the GOP wants to destroy SS and dismantle the New Deal. Trust me, just Google it and the examples will come.

One progressive made a good start of it today. Matt Yglesias, who writes is own blog and contributes on other liberal blogs, slapped a similar argument as the one above on John Fund of the Wall Street Journal Editorial page – a bastion of right-wing corporate cronyism. Read Matt’s discussion here.

Even if the general public doesn’t necessarily think the GOP is as evil as we claim, at least they will understand that Democrats will fight like hell to save Social Security. And the polling data still indicates that the general public likes SS and wants it to be strong. And they don’t trust the GOP on it. When we’ve convinced the public that we know how to protect SS, the GOP will be stopped dead on it, and will carry the baggage of having tried to destroy a very popular American institution. Every progressive candidate should then repeat this fact in 2006 and 2008.

Leave the Table

Good piece by E.J. Dionne in the Washington Post - finally a liberal pundit gets it!

Bush has refused to put his own tax cuts on the table as part of a Social Security fix. Repealing Bush's tax cuts for those earning more than $350,000 a year could cover all or most of the 75-year Social Security shortfall. Keeping part of the estate tax in place could cover a quarter to half of the shortfall. Some of the hole could be filled in by a modest surtax on dividends or capital gains.

But Bush is resolute about protecting the interests of the truly rich by making sure that any taxes on wealth are ruled out of the game from the beginning. The Social Security cuts he is proposing for the wealthy are a pittance compared with the benefits they get from his tax cuts. The president is keeping his eye on what really matters to him.

.........

Walking away from a rigged game is hard for some people, especially when those running it and the respected opinion-makers who support them insist that this time the game will truly be on the level. But, especially when the danger involves gambling away the future of Social Security, the truly responsible thing is to leave the table.