I missed this little gem from one of Digby's attacks on single payer; approvingly, she quotes Jonathon Chait:
See, that's your problem right there. Remember, oh, back when the blogosphere was all fresh and new, when all the "serious" people were for Iraq?*
Well, fast forward to 2009:
All the "serious" people are for the "public option" bait and switch. And only hippies on C list blogs that everybody hates and nobody reads are for the policy that's proven to, well, actually work. The best policy, in fact, according to Nancy Pelosi: Single payer.
So, that's the problem with "progressives." Now they're serious. The only problem is that in Versailles
to be serious you've got to be totally fucked. Those are the entirely bipartisan rulez!
Irony really is dead, isn't it?
NOTE * Atrios noticed this, and called "serious" out for the tell that is was -- and is. December 10, 2004:
[T]he whole conservatarian "serious people believe..." construction is one of their most annoying little rhetorical tricks)
(See many other examples. I used "serious people" since the hits on "serious" were too numerous and Google doesn't sort by date back as far as 2004.
- lambert's blog
- Login or register to post comments
- 1+[encrypted]+#b94+
Printer-friendly version
Front page
Comments
Can't you see the advantages?
With power comes unaccountability (e.g., to people who need real change). "We" win!
Calling my shot
Some ask why no A lister was laying the groundwork for single payer last year, but even to a dirty, albeit "younger", fucking hippie lie me, I noticed a problem with progressives' lack of positive principle back in 2004. Odd that way back then I put progressive in quotes even though I, at the time considered myself part of that FAILed experiment.
Only tyrants rig elections.
You did
And you were right. Well called.
"First they ignore you, then they ridicule you, then they fight you, then you win." -- Mahatma Gandhi
Being right isn't the important thing
What's important is for us DFHs
to avoid the trap the Pibbers fell into, whatever it was.
My theory is that it was lack of well thought out and reasoned principles that resulted in needing an adversary to find meaning. Electoral politics, the "politically possible", became a substitute for liberal principles. Granted, during this decade there was an adversary that needed to be fought. But once Bush was gone, the adversary became Hillary Clinton then Palin. Even now we see quite a bit of focus on Bush/McCain/Palin to avoid the compromises and selling out of principles happening in front of our face.
With "electoral politics" as a guiding principle, is it any wonder that election manipulation and misogyny became standard operating procedure? And now the anti-"serious people" are talking about "political possibility", which is the epitome of the electoral politics mindset.
Only tyrants rig elections.
This is super, gq
I'd love to see a post from you saying this, here.
---------------
We can't afford not to have single-payer!
I'd like to see that too, gq
Is it "War is the force that gives us meaning"?
"First they ignore you, then they ridicule you, then they fight you, then you win." -- Mahatma Gandhi
David Corn and others who existed before PB 1.0
That's what surprised me the most: all these supposed champions of liberalism (e.g. The Nation) dropping every principle they "believed" in (e.g., women and girls are humans, deserving of equal rights; universal health care) for nothing. It's almost as if they never believed in any of it to begin with because they were downright giddy in their fuckery last year. They have been politically engaged long before Bush entered the White House, but it seems that they believed Obama was one of them (the "creative class") so if he became POTUS they themselves would have access to power. I guess they didn't have with Bill Clinton.
David Corn has got to be one of the worst. I remember his disturbing rants against Hillary Clinton last year and his Palin obsession this year. Jesus Christ. It's like he was waiting to unleash his bigotry. Best part: he still comes off as he's morally superior to the rest of the unwashed masses.
I know that I predicted lefties would go totally wobbly if Obama
did things which they didn't agree with. Too difficult to criticize him. I argued that Hillary would get more done that needed doing bcz the left would hold her accountable and they would not do that to Obama.
I was not alone in saying this, nor was I particulary prescient. It's just that such worshipful adoration of a pol is dangerous.
Maybe it won't be as bad as it's looking...there's always Hope. As long as there is life, there's hope... Right?
Hope and Change???
During the primaries, Hillary asked to be held accountable.
Her specificity in outlining policies while campaigning provided the benchmarks for accountability.
Did you see this video? http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=j6nMegZRe...
So smart, so cute. We wuz robbed.
And I just read that Bill tried twice, in 1998 and 1999, to extend Medicare down to 55-year-olds: http://www.nytimes.com/1999/01/10/us/cli....