Corrente

If you have "no place to go," come here!

Wrong

lambert's picture
Submitted by lambert on Fri, 01/15/2010 - 12:43pm

Digby writes:

I think a lot depends upon this election in Massachusetts, frankly. If Martha Coakley loses, it will be very bad for progressives.

Typo:

I think a lot depends upon this election in Massachusetts, frankly. If Martha Coakley loses, it will be very bad for "progressives".

The health care debacle couldn't show more clearly that the success or failure of progressivism -- if, after the access bloggers trashed the brand so badly, there is such an "-ism" -- has nothing to do with either legacy party. As always, the opportunity cost of investing time, money, or attention with the legacy parties is the chance to start something new. "The way out is the door."

NOTE Digby also makes the most novel argument I've heard yet: Vote for Coakley because the Dems will panic if she loses. [pounds head on desk]

0
No votes yet

Comments

gqmartinez's picture
Submitted by gqmartinez on

Their true hand was revealed during the primary. They were willing to condone misogyny and propagate lies and falsehoods (RFK smear, Somali garb). Oh yeah, they "justified" the rigging of an election. Getting duped is one thing--and many were legitimately duped--but willing behavior like those mentioned above should never be downplayed.

Besides, I don't need to "rebrand" liberalism. That's playing by Village and Legacy Party rules. Fuck that.

jumpjet's picture
Submitted by jumpjet on

Everyone who believes in American liberalism should be. I might call myself a progressive in the spirit of Theodore Roosevelt, but I've been going by 'liberal' since Ted Kennedy died. He was never afraid to be called a liberal, and I don't see why we should be.

madamab's picture
Submitted by madamab on

but we want them to be scared of US, not of the wingnuts.

:-)

Hookfan's picture
Submitted by Hookfan on

it's the issues they pretend to support they dress in deer skin that go splat in oncoming traffic. After the pileup, they're just fine. Imagine that. . . how does that happen? Could it be 'cause we keep supporting the idiotic pretend 'cause we pretend it's better (no, really, trust me, really. . .) than the other pretend. Maybe it's time to stop pretending the shadows on the wall are the reality, and just walk away from the cave.

chicago dyke's picture
Submitted by chicago dyke on

it's all they know how to do. coakley wins? HCR bill passes, that's what this is come down to. the "signature" legislation of the administration can't be allowed to fail. but if she loses, and the bill doesn't pass? DFHs get blamed. a "win win" situation for the entrenched political elite.

yall my be interested to hear this report from a coakley event last night. talking to a friend on the phone this morning, here's what went down. a large gathering of activists were told why to vote for coakley, above all other reasons: "to save the HCR bill." my friend, a longtime activist, said that one could perceive the loss of enthusiasm in the room. why? because MA already has a mandated plan, and for all it's many faults, the federal HCR bill will make the situation in MA worse, not better, not to mention costing MA residents more while delivering less.

my friend decided to vote for the third party candidate, and not do any GOTV, as a result. "if she wants to hang the albatross of the senate bill around her own neck, fine. but i'm not going to join in" my friend said.

lambert's picture
Submitted by lambert on

Versailles seems to be confusing its own interests with those of the peasants. I'm shocked.

BDBlue's picture
Submitted by BDBlue on

about why Coakley changed her tune on the abortion rights issue in the healthcare bill. I've always wondered if she did that in response to pressure from DC. I always fully expected her to end up voting for the thing - just too difficult to be a newbie Senator and single handedly sink it - but her change during the campaign on a position that helped energize her base (women). What's more she changed her position almost immediately, as she was going to need national Dems' support for the general election. So it seemed odd or, more accurately, suspicious. So I've always wondered if she had to do it because of national Dems fear about the press storylines if she won running against at least part of the bill.

Valhalla's picture
Submitted by Valhalla on

shouldn't Coakley have seen that coming, before stating absolutely that she wouldn't vote for the health insurance bill with Stupak in it? Given that Coakley had a gigantic lead throughout the primary, I doubt the Dem leadership waited around to start the pressure.

vastleft's picture
Submitted by vastleft on

CD, does this sound about right to you, as to why the Dems always kick the hippies?

Because no one has defended the "liberal" brand.

Whatever Dems do -- no matter how conservative -- is considered to be the outer reaches of liberalism. If anything goes wrong, they retrench from yesterday's demarcation of the lefty fringe, heading ever rightward. That, in turn, leads to more fail. Rinse, repeat, etc.

madamab's picture
Submitted by madamab on

and I do think we should rebrand ourselves.

However, I think this is not quite right.

I think the Dems kick the hippies because they like it. I think they know exactly what a liberal is, and they don't want to be it. Remember (or maybe you're too young) when Dukakis was a "Card-carrying member of the ACLU!!!!" Instead of saying "So what?", the Dems ran away. In reality, Dukakis WAS too liberal for them. They threw him under the bus.

I see that they have been kicking all the liberals to the curb for quite some time. There has been an influx lately of more left-leaning Congresscritters, due to activism by the regressives (credit where credit is due), but unfortunately, Obama has got almost all of them under his thumb.

There was a reason that Obama was chosen to make sure Hillary was not the nominee, and that the caucus and primary fraud happened to ensure this very outcome. The Dems have been bought and paid for by the oligarchy/patriarchy, and anyone who would upset their apple cart by attempting to govern by the people and for the people is persona non grata.

vastleft's picture
Submitted by vastleft on

I think a preferred way to kick the hippies is to blame too-much-hippieness for everything that goes wrong. If only we'd been less beholden to those dirty hippies is the one-size-fits-all moral of every story... for a party that is full of disgust for those hippies, and which never acts the least bit beholden to them, beyond occasionally mouthing a muted platitude about a woman's right to choose, gay rights, peace, or some other agenda they couldn't possibly find the time or interest to do much of anything about.

jumpjet's picture
Submitted by jumpjet on

that Obama going to campaign for Coakley will just seal her fate. And if that's the case, wouldn't that be a remarkable collapse of his power, in just a year's time?

Not that I expect him to feel it, which is one of the things I hate so much about him. He has no reaction to anyone's suffering, even his own. I could backhand him across the face, making sure to hit with my knuckles, and I wonder if he would even feel i t.

letsgetitdone's picture
Submitted by letsgetitdone on

Jason blew his cool on this one. but yes and he and the other seminal enforcers did a lousy job on the substance and the name-calling. The name-calling was pedestrian, the substance was vapid; strictly the usual guilt-tripping talking points for restive Dems. Jason reported that he's leaving HCAN. I wonder if they're running short of contributions. Hope so. It would be great for single-payer if the leading PO organization collapsed into the pile of warm crap that spawned it. Here's to bankrupting cognitive infiltrators.

Turlock