Sat, 06/13/2009 - 1:13am — vastleft
Don't believe what she said. How's that for a novel soution!
Given Representative Lynn Woolsey's claims about the White House playing extreme hardball with freshman progressives over the Afghanistan supplemental, it is important to note that her claims are, in all likelihood, exaggerated. The White House is applying pressure, but it probably isn't in the cartoonish form of "vote with us on this or you are dead to us forever." It is extremely rare for such a threat to ever be made in D.C. politics. Further, it is unlikely that consensus seeking President Obama or freshman Democrat defending Rahm Emanuel would make such a threat. Pretty much across the board, threats like those just don't fit the profile of the technocratic and cautious figures that compose much of the Democratic leadership. Karl rove might make such a threat, but even he probably wouldn't do it very often.
»
- vastleft's blog
- Login or register to post comments
Front page
Comments
I saw that
and thought it was disgusting.
I don't see the chain of reasoning, here
Any reason to believe that Bowers is disbelieving the female, as opposed to the person?
"First they ignore you, then they ridicule you, then they fight you, then you win." -- Mahatma Gandhi
Chris is...
out of thin air, and in direct contravention of the evidence of how Obama and Emanuel operate, dismissing the claims of the lower-status individual.
Whether her gender is a part of why her completely plausible — and politically risky — challenge to the administration's approach is being rejected a priori, I can't say. All I know is that two people entered the room, and only one comes out believed.
I don't think Chris is habitually sexist in the least, but I do find it disturbing that his dismissal of Woolsey's claims seems to be coming from somewhere other than the merits.
"All I know..."
== Post hoc ergo propter hoc.
I'd like to see more of Bower's track record on this. I also notice that "she" (underlined, woman) in the post has mutated it "lower status" (class) in the comment. Not the same categories at all, surely.
A short quick hit post doesn't merit a lot of time spent, but I'm seeing a sweeping claim without a lot of evidence to back it up, and mutating rationales are always a red flag to me.
"First they ignore you, then they ridicule you, then they fight you, then you win." -- Mahatma Gandhi
well,
I do think that given the party's strong dependence on women, that even-handedness might even be considered a virtue.
Generally speaking, it is poor form to assume that 'she's' prone to exaggerate in her depiction of an interaction you weren't privy to.
I accept the criticism that
the post leads the gender answer. In retrospect, I should have included a disclaimer that I have no reason to think Chris is a sexist. (I'll put a link to this comment in the post in a moment).
Still, a Democratic Rep who happens to be a female is being willy-nilly disbelieved in a disagreement with her powerful superior (the big cheese in her party and country, though not Constitutionally her boss), and who happens to be male. This is despite the fact that her claim is made at a substantial political cost and is completely congruent with his behind-the-scenes hardball history, a history notorious for gender trashing and other status weapons.
For want of a logical explanation for why she should be automagically disbelieved, prevailing patterns of status behavior become -- I think -- a legitimate consideration. But I shouldn't give the impression that Chris is something that I don't think he is.
Perhaps his colleagues, who think nothing of labeling C-list bloggers "deranged hate stalkers" and "hysterics" might consider fine-tuning one's criticism a useful habit. If it can be done at Crazy Corrente, who knows, maybe the A-list can give it a spin.
Thanks
In fact, there are three "low status" markers: Female, frosh, and progressive. And see my response to Bowers' post here.
Reading tea leaves, it looks to me like the post you cite is the result of pushback from insiders on an earlier post from Bowers: "Please play hardball with blue dogs, too", since only insiders would make the argument that "this isn't how it's done in DC," and shoot the messenger (Woolsey) instead of responding to Bower's suggestion on how the progressive caucus could get llistened to more often (clue stick: Don't negotiate with yourselves). Now, still in telepathic mode, I don't think Bowers fielded the insider pushback cleanly at all (which is hard to do with insiders anyhow, because their arguments are so shitty). The overall direction of Bower's argument I support -- more power to the progressive caucus, though of course I take it further and argue that the FKDP
should break up entirely into the finance wing, and the wing that actually believes in the idea of representative government.
NOTE Bowers isn't Sirota. And Bowers is still there, plugging away, while Sirota lost interest and went away. That tells you something, right?
"First they ignore you, then they ridicule you, then they fight you, then you win." -- Mahatma Gandhi
And I'm glad you addressed this, VL.
or freshman Democrat defending Rahm Emanuel would make such a threat.
Duh? Has Bowers forgotten who Rahm is? From your link:
People would do well to heed Emanuel's message, lest they get a fist in the mouth or a dead fish in the mail. What's emerging from Chicago is a clear preference for toughness and people [like?] that are forceful and smart enough to ram home Obama's priorities.
I mean, it is Booman, and he has little credibility on what the Obama Admin, might or might not do, but still this is the behavior Obama supporters were expecting, why is it implausible?
And just because Rahm may have defended frosh Dems(when exactly, BTW? He provided no evidence, and it's news to me), that doesn't preclude his ability to play enforcer when his boss requires it.
He who will not reason is a bigot; he who cannot is a fool; and he who dares not is a slave.
- Sir William Drummond
BooMan might be well-connected
After all, he got the transcript to the famously non-existent "whitey/why'd he" video.
Perhaps
LOL!
But I meant credibility, as in correctly predicting anything that Obama might do as president, or calling out Obama when he's dropped the ball.
He who will not reason is a bigot; he who cannot is a fool; and he who dares not is a slave.
- Sir William Drummond
FWIW,
his brother is a senior fellow at a DC think tank.
Sorry, OT but wandered over there and started reading.
So I go to openleft to read the piece and the comments and notice another post about the measure of Obama. You can watch the Escher pull and push to focus Obama's reasons for acting as he does. Is he cornered by the blue dogs, seeking to be loved or being pragmatic vs is he a wall street/corporatist groupie ?
But reading through the comments I have to ask for some reality about Clinton as president. Was Clinton as horrible and weak as they think? I don't want to be an apologist for Clinton (or anyone) but I do need to have a real picture of him so that I can form a real picture of Obama.
There's the rightwing talking points about the bj and there's the corporatist sellout stuff. The comments pretty much reduce the man to a craven narcissist. I know that's an oversimplification but when I read this stuff, I scurry to my own defense of him. Where is the truth?
Below is the comment that set me off. Notice especially the phrase in bold. There's that ugly elitism we saw in the primaries.
Apologies in advance for elbowing in here.
If anyone responds, thanks in advance.
"Clinton is a guy who likes blow jobs, who doesn't want intimacy from a woman, and who cheats on his wife and lies to her about it. What else could we expect. Unfortunately ush I had a refrain called integrity in his campaign with Bill. He was right.
Obama is a poker player, not a hearts' player. FDR's time was different. Hoover was a pacifist. Get health care in place and you have the voters for generations. Can't they see that? Evidently Clinton couldn't. But Clinton never had any money and so he was in awe of finance people."
"If we have to have a dictator, who better than Obama"
- progressive blog commentator
Clinton was worse than Reagan
At least his ideas weren't as good.
Its almost as if 1993 never happened for progressives (US of Amnesia, baby!). You know, the assault weapons ban, raising on the top marginal rate taxes, trying to integrate the military, and trying to get everyone health insurance. None of that stuff was remotely popular at the time, certainly not compared to now, but Bill Clinton spent his political capital on it. Such gastly corporatist behavior.
He loses the House and Senate because his own party essentially sold him out. He single handedly shut down government to prevent some really draconian GOP initiatves. Again, such horrible behavior. Obama has 60 seats in the Senate and an overwhelming majority in the House and hasn't attempted anything as big as Clinton. And yet people have great faith in Obama?
"Reality based" isn't what it used to be.
Thanks, gq
That's how I've looked at it but I have to stop and question myself now and again because I don't want to reorganize reality to defend a personality or tribe.
During the primaries, I came to see how the left twists and spews just like the right and I had been guilty of spinning everything to defend D's.
I can only deduce that much of the left had to rewrite Clinton history to contrast and elevate Obama. There was not much record and even Obama's words were often NOT very liberal (note your reference in headline). So Obama had to be defined as the un-Clinton. And thus Clinton had to become an awful human being.
"If we have to have a dictator, who better than Obama"
- progressive blog commentator
Anti-Clintonism on the left predates the primary
Perhaps it's because they feared an eventual Hillary run for president. Perhaps its because the Clinton's weren't viewed as kewl-kid Whole Foods types, but more as the Wal Mart type.
I won't endorse either because they really could disagree with Clinton. Even if that's the case, there is almost no discussion about the political realities that faced Clinton that neither Bush nor Obama has faced since (sabotage from their own party). Clinton tried liberalism, didn't get much support and had to deal with GOP majorities in both chambers of congress. The fact that much of the GOP's plans were curtailed by Bill Clinton--and Bill Clinton alone--is always ignored when talking about his conservative administration.
If Clinton didn't try some pretty sweeping liberal changes in his first two years, I'd be able to stomach the "he lost the House because he wasn't sufficiently liberal". But from my view, that's an inaccurate view of history, or at least a distorted view of reality. And given what has transpired during the primaries and continues to transpire even today, I don't put much value in progger's "reality".
Where do you think the left will go with Obama?
How will they end up describing him? How will they explain his actions?
As you note, Clinton shot out of the gate with liberal changes then got shut down. A lot of his effort was then about minimizing republican muscle.
But the progressives don't view history this way.
So Obama has majorities and a country open to change but doesn't even try to implement liberal ideas. He's not even compromising with R's, he's acting like an R. How will this be spun? Or will they turn on him?
p.s. One last question about Clinton complaints - what do you think about NAFTA and deregulation?
"If we have to have a dictator, who better than Obama"
- progressive blog commentator
Reagan was 'better': the GOP LOVED him,
instead of impeaching him the way they did Clinton.
Reagan sold missiles to the Ayatollah.
But Bill Clinton got his rocks off in the Oval Office.
Sign of the apocalypse: applaud treason, prosecute irreverence.
*Full disclosure: Monica Lewinsky was free, white, over the age of consent, single, able to say no, and probably hoping to make beaucoup bucks off a tell-all book someday.
We can admit that we’re killers … but we’re not going to kill today. That’s all it takes! ~ Captain James T. Kirk, Stardate 3193.0
1 John 4:18
I don't want them to "turn on" Obama
I would like it if they actually defended and fought for a liberal agenda.
"Turning on" Obama implies more vicious attacking and smears and I DO NOT CONDONE anymore of that towards anyone in either party. It's lazy, hateful and a distraction from real issues. It's "political activism" giving cover to hypocrisy and hatred.
But perhaps they will choose the dishonest path when they decide to confront Obama. They have no qualms about playing dishonestly now. It will be much easier to claim that Obama betrayed them then to admit that they were complicit.
It's hard to predict anything after what we've witnessed and are witnessing.
We shall see.
"If we have to have a dictator, who better than Obama"
- progressive blog commentator
Woolsey probably doesn't drink PBR
Cause that's the bees knees according to PBR Bowers.
Given what we heard and saw about primary challenging Dems who didn't support Obama last year its funny that folks don't think its plausible that Obama is playing hardball with liberals. I also know from first hand personal experience that the Obama juggernaut was bullying city level politicians during the election.
Seems like Bowers needs to cut down on the PBRs to me, regardless of his intentions. His remembrance of the Obama camps behavior is pretty poor. But again, proggers have defined a new reality in their community.