Would a Serious Primary Challenge Force Obama to Move Left? Or Should We Just Dump Him?

A primary challenge that would “save” Obama is what Michael Lerner, editor of Tikkun Magazine, suggests today in the Washington Post (via Memeorandum).

People who used to say, “Give President Obama more time” when the president was criticized for capitulating to the right, or who argued that Obama must have a plan to turn things around, are now largely depressed and angry. To many liberals and progressives, the president’s unwillingness to veto any measure that includes continued tax relief for billionaires is the last straw, building on a record of spinelessness that includes his escalation of the war in Afghanistan, abandonment of a public option for health-care reform, refusal to prosecute those who tortured in Iraq or lied us into that war, and unwillingness to tax carbon emissions.

With his base deeply disillusioned, many progressives are starting to believe that Obama has little chance of winning reelection unless he enthusiastically embraces a populist agenda and worldview – soon.

Lerner argues that liberals can “save” Obama by primarying him. Frankly, I’d prefer to dump Obama and replace him with someone who actually has some core values–preferably someone with liberal core values. But this idea of giving up on Obama seems to have gone viral lately, and I think it’s a good sign. Lerner offers a very liberal platform for the proposed primary challenge, including pulling all troops out of Afghanistan, Iraq, and Pakistan, and pushing for a new New Deal here at home.

It sounds great, though unrealistic. Even the most liberal candidates that Lerner suggests wouldn’t support that agenda. Furthermore, some of the candidates he suggests are just plain silly (Rachel Maddow? John Conyers? Susan Sarandon? Alan Grayson?). But the good news is that elite liberals like Lerner are finally talking about alternatives to a continuation of Bush III after 2012. Let’s face it, whether we get Obama or a Republican, we’re still going to get Republican policies.

Could I be wrong though? Is there still a chance to prevent the Republican Party from retaking the White House and the Senate in 2012? Even a curmudgeon like Joseph Cannon seems to think so. Yesterday he discussed primary challengers to Obama, and proposed Oregon Democratic Congressman Peter DeFazio as possible candidate. In his latest post today, Cannon proposes starting a movement for a new New Deal.

A new New Deal. I like it. Where do I sign up?

Another positive sign for those of us who weren’t shocked by Obama’s betrayal of his prog supporters is that Obama himself has finally come out of the closet as a Blue Dog Democrat. As Wonk the Vote pointed out this morning, Obama pretty much outed himself back in March, 2009. From Politico:

“I am a New Democrat,” he told the New Democrat Coalition, according to two sources at the White House session….

Obama made his comment in discussing his budget priorities and broader goals, also calling himself a “pro-growth Democrat” during the course of conversation.

The self-descriptions are striking given Obama’s usual caution in being identified with any wing of his often-fractious party. He largely avoided the Democratic Leadership Council — the centrist group that Bill Clinton once led — and, with an eye on his national political standing, has always shied away from the liberal label, too….

Surrounded by 65 moderate Democrats on Tuesday in the State Dining Room, Obama was happy to portray himself as simpatico with a group of members who are largely socially liberal but fiscally more moderate to conservative.

Then on November 30, Matt Bai outed Obama on the pages of the Obama House Organ. (H/T Wonk the Vote–I missed this important article).

The body of Mr. Obama’s writing and experiences before he became a presidential candidate would suggest that he is instinctively pragmatic, typical of an emerging generation that sees all political dogma — be it ’60s liberalism or ’80s conservatism — as anachronistic. Privately, Mr. Obama has described himself, at times, as essentially a Blue Dog Democrat, referring to the shrinking caucus of fiscally conservative members of the party.

At this point, how can even the most Koolaid addled Obama supporter deny the truth? Obama is a Republican. If there is any chance at all to get a real Democrat into the White House, I say we join with Joseph Cannon and anyone else who will help out. Let’s work for real change that we really can believe in: A new New Deal.


Bloggers Under the Bus and Over the Rainbow

Bitter knitter sino peruvian lesbian blogger in between hot flashes

Bitter knitter Sino Peruvian lesbian blogger in between hot flashes

I was going to do a nice staid article about the Fed and regulation but frankly it’s a nice sunny, tropical Sunday down here and it just doesn’t seem kind to overwhelm my brain or yours with Barky Frankisms and tales from the crypt of A(ll)yn Greenspan. I scoured my usual sites for inspiration over coffee and landed on Memeorandum. The source didn’t thrill me but the headline was superb.

There it was on The Other McCain screaming ‘You’d be surprised what some of those Morons write on the Internet.’ Then there was The Public Editor over at the NY Times discussing how the Gray Lady handled the Acorn case versus Fox News. What grabbed me on The Other McCain was this bit which sent me off to Andrew Sullivan’s blog. You know, there is certainly a lotta crap out there under the catchall term of political blog.

Just think about Andrew Sullivan sitting there in Pathum, ThailandI’m not kiddinglecturing Michelle Malkin (!) on conservatism:

By the way, there is nothing conservative about Southern populism.

We talked–after the election–about the direction the Blogosphere might take during 2009. I think we can already see the role of Twitter and the role of live blogging things like the Honduran Revolution or the Iranian protests over the Election. As an ‘institution’, if you will, we forced CNN out of its weekend complacency cocoon to cover real news stories instead of running pablum over and over with a few Youtubes and talking heads thrown in. That is probably the thing that will turn into case studies in Journalism schools around the country. My take is that this is a good thing.

There is also the increased patronage on wonky finance and econ blogs because more than the nation’s PhD students in Financial economics now have an interest in Financial Derivatives and the Federal Reserve Bank. There has been an increasing link between the worlds ‘scholars’ and the blogosphere. As I’ve mentioned before, I’ve been watching the the dissection of the financial crisis and macroeconomics play out in a public forum outside of the peer review process and I find it fascinating. I knew I always had trouble with Lucas, Fama, Cochrane et al when I was studying the efficient markets hypothesis and forced into recreating the results of various ‘seminal’ works but was basically hushed into silence by awed lecturers on the Gods of Finance. It’s been nothing but entertaining for me to see the wonkier macroeconomists point out basic errors in their arguments such as mixing up endogenous and exogenous variables. This is so basic that it would probably cause you to flunk a qualifying exam. I can only imagine that similar things are going on in the wonkier science blogs on issues ranging from climate change to RNA transcription. Again, my take is this is a good thing. It turns every one’s lap top into a lecture hall and specialist meeting. I’m all for this.

However, I front page at The Confluence which specializes in examining everything from the vantage point of politics. This is where I’ve noticed some distinct morphing over the year since the election. The political blogosphere seems to have split into three distinct camps now. Those that just exist to promote whatever firebrand idea of so-called conservatism they burnish who pick up and run on any tidbit that seems to support the ideology; factual or fishy. Those that support the current administration and apologize and rationalize every misstep and pick and run with any tidbit that seems to support their view of the world; factual or fishy. Then there’s a third group that either follow a group of issues or are just trying to figure out how best to get the issues brought into the discussion and action realm on top of all the ideological or partisan screaming. I think I can say as a member of the front page editing team that we really really try to fall into the latter group.

Read the rest of this entry »


A message from PEER

treeAs a public employee, I found myself frequently in the position of watching higher-ups do things that were not ethical, responsible or mindful of the public welfare.  I have less problems with that now that I work for a University as a prof endowed with intellectual freedom.  Other agency employees don’t have that same protection.  I have worked for ‘other’ agencies. There was also very little I could do about it.  One of the groups I support is PEER.  This is a group called Public Employees for Environmental Responsibility.  It was formed, in part, because of the incredible suppression of scientific evidence that has occurred recently to further business interests.

I’d like to bring this latest action memo to your attention as I think you’ll agree, it’s an interesting one.

 

As word of President-elect Obama’s environmental team was being authoritatively leaked around town, one name jumped out at us – Lisa Jackson, until recently head of the New Jersey Department of Environmental Protection, was tapped to head EPA. 

Anguished DEP employees (and a few who had resigned in disgust) urged us to put the word out about Jackson, including her –

  • Failure to tell parents or workers at the Kiddie Kollege day-care center for three months about mercury contamination in the former thermometer factory it was located in (kid you not);
  • Efforts that set water quality standards so low that aquatic life in the state’s rivers and lakes would be poisoned – and that was according to the Bush administration, which also had to intervene to rescue New Jersey’s crippled Superfund program; and
  • Suppression of science, politicized decision-making, and an embrace of secrecy (even invoking “executive privilege” to shield her meeting calendars from public view).

In short, her former staff at DEP would be the last to nominate her for promotion.  The stories from DEP workers are eerily reminiscent of what we have been hearing from dispirited EPA staff during the Bush years.

As one might imagine, our note of dissent on the Jackson pick is being drowned out by a chorus of happy talk.  We will be urging the Senate and anyone else who seriously want to evaluate Ms. Jackson’s record to talk to the parents of the Kiddie Kollege toddlers.

As one might imagine, I have a feeling that in the coming years, more than ever, PEER will be called upon to tell inconvenient truths. 


Politics Make for Strange Bedfellows

I’ve been watching some of the links showing up here at my blog and also at The Confluence.  Something really STRANGE is going on.  The Republicans are abuzz with praises for Pumas.  I’m reading blog after blog on the right saying that PUMAS may very  well save the country.  Check out these links.  It will make you a believer in the old saying that politics make strange bedfellows.

 

From Redstate:  More on Why McCain should Win:  The Puma Factor

From McCain Democrat Clinton Republican:  People Want to know about Puma

From Death by a 1000 papercuts:  Pumas the Democrats the Media Doesn’t Want to Talk About

To be real honest, I’ve had a feeling that folks have been reading many of our sites for some time.  This includes the media.  I also know that some of the things that have been discussed here on The Confluence and on other Puma sites have shown up a few days after the topic was completely dissected by the PUMA community.  Several times we’ve been accused of passing right wing memes when I swear the points were discussed here prior to being tossed around on right wing blogs and even right wing radio shows.

Several stories broken here (including SimoFish’s posting of the Hillary Fundraiser where Hillary says she thinks that putting her name up for a roll call vote would help her supporters gain closure) and on No Quarter. ( Think ACORN  and most of the ACORN threads including the Obama expenditure on “lights, etc” which turned out to be voter-registration related .)  These were first discoverd in the PUMA world.

You may feel discouraged and think that we’re not making a difference, but you really shouldn’t.  This should tell you that our voices are being heard and that our cause has been well-argued.  Now is the time for us to finally decide where to put our final action: OUR VOTE.  As for me, I’ve gone into a voting pack with SM77 who lives in the swing state of Florida.  I will be voting for Cynthia McKinney for her, here in New Orleans, LA.  Louisiana is a red state.  She will be casting my vote for John McCain in Florida.  

Please, PUMAs, stick to your guns and cast your vote in accordance with our principles.  It is up to us to show the DNC that denying one-man one vote to TWO states, stacking primaries so that small states out count large swing sates, and allowing rampant caucus frauds are not behaviors we wish the democratic party to undertake.  Let them know that we don’t appreciate them putting a candidate with no accomplishments and a race-baiting, misogynistic campaign to the front of the line.  Vote your conscious!  Vote like a PUMA!  Even the Republicans know that we can make a difference!


Protest Voting 101

Player Queen:
Both here and hence pursue me lasting strife,
If once I be a widow, ever I be a wife!

Player King:
‘Tis deeply sworn. Sweet, leave me here a while,
My spirits grow dull, and fain I would beguile
The tedious day with sleep.

Player Queen:
Sleep rock thy brain,
And never come mischance between us twain!

Hamlet:
Madam, how like you this play?

Queen:
The lady doth protest too much, methinks.

Hamlet Act 3, scene 2, 222–230

 

Puma is a protest movement.  Our blogs outline our strategies.  Our votes are our tactics.    I’m not exactly sure how much clearer I can make this but it appears that we have to repeat these simple facts over and over.  If we don’t, no one gets us.

The nature of our protest vote is that is exactly that a PROTEST.  This means that our friends who can’t understand why we might vote for a candidate that doesn’t have a chance (McKinney or Nader) or a ticket that we may not agree with on many issues (McCain Palin) don’t understand what a PROTEST vote means. Protests voting means your vote is a protest.  It simply doesn’t have to make sense to any one else.

I started thinking about this today due to a post by Masslib on Alegre’s blog and a response by Or what Vahalla said. 

Or what Valhalla said (4.00 / 2)
 

The premise of a protest vote is that it’s not issues-related.

What I meant to say, put more succintly 🙂

This also hit me in the face when I saw a response to my own posting “The No NO Sisterhood”.  A post by Ben Kilpatrick assumed I voted all women during the democratic run-off in Louisiana just because I was woman who votes for women as a means to discriminate against men.

Just voting for women is the same as just voting for the black guy, or the republican guy, or or or

And it’s about as smart a move as all of those.

My vote was a protest against the treatment of women candidates this year.  I did not vote for all women because as a woman, I was voting for ALL women. I voted for all women as a protest.  I did not like the way Hillary was treated. I do not like the way Sarah Palin is being treated.  I will not stand for Helena Morena being treated similarly either.  Already, it is starting.  A blog for the local New Orleans business newspaper picked up one quote from my two day postings concerning the second congressional race and all my comments about Ms. Moreno.  You can read it here.  The only line the blog picked up from me about Helena was that most folks here were calling her the “little white girl in the race” which I view as confusing folks on her mixed white/Latina heritage and belittling her status as a woman by calling her ‘girl’.

I’m still thinking about what kind of protest vote I will make this year when I step in the booth to vote for President.  I know I will not vote for Obama.  I will not vote for the issues, for once, because I am protesting how he got the nomination, I am protesting how the DNC actively and underhandedly promoted him over a much more qualified and able woman, and how he has been given a HUGE pass by the MSM.  I know many of my PUMA friends will vote for McCain Palin, others will just skip the vote, others will still vote for Hillary, and some will vote for third party candidates.

We do not have to explain the ‘logic’ of our vote over and over and over again. It’s not about the issues (like Roe v. Wade), it’s not about the economy, and it’s certainly not about voting party lines.  It’s a protest vote.  As such, it only has to make sense to us!  

I think we need to take some time and rethink why we view our votes as protests this year.  This is especially true if you’re thinking of drinking that koolaid and falling prey to the logic of voting on issues at this point.  Puma ceases to become a protest movement at that point.  It’s effectiveness at supporting reform within the democratic party has no teeth at the point we stop protesting.

There is no such thing for PUMAs as ladies (or gentlemen) protesting too much at this point.  Afterall, it is our democracy at stake.

(cross-posted at The Confluence)