Network News

X My Profile
View More Activity

The Morning Plum

* Now that the smoke has cleared from the Arkansas war, it's clear that the Lincoln-Halter contest ripped the lid off of simmering tensions between the White House and organized labor -- and that these tensions aren't going away anytime soon.

If anything, unions are likely to step up efforts to exercise their democratic right to back candidates against Dem incumbents who are bad on their issues. While these efforts are clearly hitting some walls, it seems like some sort of unseen line has been crossed, where labor would prefer to mount losing challenges than to do nothing at all.

So the warring and recriminations are likely to continue, with unforeseen political consequences for this fall and beyond. We're gonna try to sort through this a bit more later today.

* Markos says labor and the left won't lift a finger to help Blanche Lincoln: "So say hello to Sen. John Boozman, the next senator from the great state of Arkansas."

* Jane Hamsher, on the anonymous White House official who urinated on unions for flushing $10 million "down the toilet":

Labor is not your bitch, and their money isn't yours to direct. They're supposed to take what, another six years of black eyes from Blanche Lincoln just because you say so? If their $8 million buys derivatives legislation and limits the damage that the Masters of the Universe can do to the world economy in the future, it's not only a bargain, it also means that a bunch of nurses and janitors have done more to rein in the banks than you and your entire pack of servile, visionless Wall Street lackeys has done since you took office.

* Before you conclude that the talk about derivatives is just empty Netroots chest-thumping, listen to Marc Ambinder:

Netroots pressure and labor pressure DID work. It DID force Lincoln to introduce a tougher derivatives bill.

* Jed Lewison is appalled by the self-defeating nature of the White House's insulting of labor, saying it's "weakening the Democratic coalition."

* The AFL-CIO goes public with its pushback against the White House. From union spox Eddie Vale, mocking the official's anonymity:

"My name is Eddie Vale of the AFL-CIO and I'm proud to fight for working families and I don't hide behind anonymous quotes."

* Big headline that Dems will like, from National Review, on Nikki Haley's and Carly Fiorina's wins: "Palin's Party."

* Sarah Palin, in her latest Facebook post, calls on Obama to do less talking about the Gulf spill, or to do more talking about it, or something. And winks at him, too.

* Is energy reform dead?

* Not if Nancy Pelosi has anything to say about it.

* R.I.P., chickens for checkups: Sue Lowden was defeated last night by Tea Partyer Sharron Angle.

* The conventional wisdom is that Angle's win has all but ensured Harry Reid's reelection, but Paul Kane explains why this may not be so.

* And Angle's campaign vows she's no Rand Paul, and won't be giving national TV interviews.

What else is happening?

By Greg Sargent  |  June 9, 2010; 8:55 AM ET
Categories:  2010 elections , Climate change , Financial reform , House Dems , Morning Plum , Senate Dems , Senate Republicans  
Save & Share:  Send E-mail   Facebook   Twitter   Digg   Yahoo Buzz   Del.icio.us   StumbleUpon   Technorati   Google Buzz   Previous: Election night open thread
Next: SEIU officials: Blanche Lincoln should forget about our support in general election

Comments

Slave Sargent:
"No matter what you read about this, the Halter challenge was a show of force by the left. Period."

Yep...and it failed. Period.

I told you that labor unions, (which MEANS Labor Bosses), are usually a very bad bellweather of popular sentiment.

That's because Unions hold elections that would make Robert Mugabe gag.

So, it looks like there will be no repeat of your Moonbat Ned Lamont/Joe Lieberman fiasco in Arkansas.

Sorry 'bout that.

"If anything, unions are likely to step up efforts to exercise their democratic right to back candidates against Dem incumbents who are bad on their issues."

Yes. Faster please!

Posted by: Bilgeman | June 9, 2010 9:04 AM | Report abuse

Greg, It doesn't look like it will do any good given the WH v. AFL spat in the news, but everyone's taking this primary way too personally, and it's affecting the tone on the blog.

Labor's priorities in the race have less to do with being subordinate to the WH than it was about how to best further their agenda. Would $10 million have been better spent in swing House races where some candidates might have been decent on labor's issues? Possibly, and that's really the WH official's point.

My own opinion is that I had no tears to shed for Blanche. She's the most useless member of the Senate caucus and some democratic outlet had to be found after the tension of the last two years. But all this smack talk sounds more like "the left needs to stop getting rolled" kind of complaining. It's not about respect or power--it's about advancing an agenda, however it's best to get it done.

And while I'm here, I've stopped listening to Jane Hamsher ever since her Fox and Friends, kill-the-bill freakout.

Posted by: fbacon2 | June 9, 2010 9:08 AM | Report abuse

@fbacon2 - There's a lot I like in your argument. We are going to have to accomodate a fair amount of discord among ourselves but keeping in view the understanding that the very last thing we want to do is permit that inevitable discord to confuse who the opposition really is.

Posted by: bernielatham | June 9, 2010 9:12 AM | Report abuse

"Netroots pressure and labor pressure DID work. It DID force Lincoln to introduce a tougher derivatives bill."

Greg: I'd feel a whole lot better about that if the derivatives bill weren't a cynical ploy by the DemEst to boost Lincoln's anti-Big Money credibility, all the while knowing it was DOA.

Posted by: wbgonne | June 9, 2010 9:13 AM | Report abuse

"Is energy reform dead? Not if Nancy Pelosi has anything to say about it."

Well, since Pelosi is just about the only one from Dem Leadership that I trust, that makes me feel a bit better.

Posted by: wbgonne | June 9, 2010 9:15 AM | Report abuse

Long post here, sorry, but must run and wanted to try and elucidate something...two parts so it will be accepted.

Morris on GOP women's victories in Tuesday's primaries: "One of the first nights" women "changed American politics" (From the June 9 broadcast of Fox News' Fox & Friends) http://mediamatters.org/mmtv/201006090001

Looks like RNC strategists will keep running with this "RNC loves them womens tons and tons" narrative (regardless of the overwhelmingly greater representation of women in Democratic politics - as shown in the piece I posted yesterday).


I've been thinking about that NRO big headline noted above, "PALIN'S PARTY". The NRO does propaganda. That's its function. So the interesting questions revolve around why they are continuing to create a marketing identification between Palin and the RNC? Further, why are they trying to create the notion that she is the leader of the party ("Palin's party" is possessive - it's her party).

I think the perceived advantages are:
1) outsiderness - thus, along with the creation of a 'tea party' narrative, represents an over-arching attempt to re-brand the Republican party as non-washington, non-establishment, non-elite. Total BS of course, but that's the desired narrative.

2) sexuality - is there any more obvious truism in marketing ideas than 'sex sells'?
If Palin was ugly, would she be there? Absolutely not. England, culturally different in this aspect, could get away with a Thatcher but it wouldn't work in the US. Canada can have average looking women as TV pundits but it's very rare in the US. But with the Protestant cultural heritage in America, the sexuality has to be sublimated under a veneer of saintliness, and in this case, motherhood does that job.

Posted by: bernielatham | June 9, 2010 9:16 AM | Report abuse

3) charisma - as even conservatives have noted, Palin has a unique talent among present Republican politicos to gain a passionate following. That's a positive in its own right, of course, but an overwhelming necessity presently as counter to Obama (his charisma).

4) a "leadership vaccuum" on the right - this relates to the last point but there is other stuff going on here too. First, it was clearly disadvantageous to have the media talking about Limbaugh as the leader of the party. Limbaugh hasn't, for example, challenged Obama to a debate for a very long time now because he had to move behind the curtain again, where he's most effective and less evident (you aren't going to get 'moderates' with him up front and you are going to get sane people organizing against him. And he's not charismatic, as his louge-lizard attire and performance at the conservative shindig a year and a half ago demonstrated).

5) femininity - there's clearly a strategy here, as I've said before and as the Morris quote up top demonstrates, to gain a greater portion of the female vote (and to soften the Republican image after Bush/Cheney/warmongering) in the same manner as the "compassionate conservatism" slogan).

I think those are the key aspects of what's going on and why. The danger for putting Palin up front is, of course, Palin herself. They (the folks running this absolutely cynical marketing charade) have managed this danger by pulling her out of the Alaska governnorship where she would have been an un-leader/election loser and where her many opportunities to screw up big time would have been realized on multiple occassions, by having her communications out written by others and given broad distribution, and by having her isolated from anything but the most subservient and propaganda-aligned media appearances. That is, no real challenges where she would surely screw up and badly.

Posted by: bernielatham | June 9, 2010 9:16 AM | Report abuse

"It's not about respect or power--it's about advancing an agenda, however it's best to get it done."

fbacon: I think that assumes that there is a single agenda shared by the Est Dems and the Left. The problem is that appears not to be the case. Which is the really the problem. The Left is angry because ITS AGENDA isn't being enacted, not b/c Rahm Emmanuel says nasty things about them.

Posted by: wbgonne | June 9, 2010 9:19 AM | Report abuse

I'm no fan of Hamsher, but what a dumba** thing for the White House to say. They may have had a legitimate point to try and get across, but using that kind of rhetoric when everyone's still terribly disappointed is just rubbing salt in the wound and causing more alienation. Stupid, stupid, stupid.

Posted by: schrodingerscat | June 9, 2010 9:21 AM | Report abuse

"The conventional wisdom is that Angle's win has all but ensured Harry Reid's reelection, but Paul Kane explains why this may not be so. And Angle's campaign vows she's no Rand Paul, and won't be giving national TV interviews."

Harry should slam dunk her before she even gets out of the starting gate. (Sorry for the mixed sports metaphors.). Chickens for checkups. Prohibition for Vegas. Whatever.

Posted by: wbgonne | June 9, 2010 9:26 AM | Report abuse

"Which is the really the problem. The Left is angry because ITS AGENDA isn't being enacted, not b/c Rahm Emmanuel says nasty things about them."

Are we assuming Rahm is the anonymous quote? That's what I'm thinking. If so, I take it much less seriously. That guy spouts off on anything and everything. If Rahm says it, it's not necessarily the White House's official position.

Posted by: SDJeff | June 9, 2010 9:26 AM | Report abuse

Schrod - "Stupid, stupid, stupid."

Yes, it was. The argument that fbacon and I seem to be making applies to the WH as much as it does to any element of the progressive side.

Posted by: bernielatham | June 9, 2010 9:28 AM | Report abuse

@wbgonne: When someone can define the details or planks of the left's agenda,which may be impossible considering how disparate the left is, I'll have a lot more sympathy for members of the coalition who feel their own agenda isn't being met. In the meantime, I prefer to focus on the big agenda: do we want a government that is taking active steps to restore fairness in the economy, provide health care to every American, and is serious about the business of running the country? Or do we want a Republican government that is hostile to everything we care about?

To that end, the only litmus test I have is whether someone's actions are helping or hurting. Again, I take no pleasure or disappointment in Blanche's win. I saw the whole thing as a sideshow in a state where Rush Limbaugh has more credibility with the public than President Obama. If a useless Senator like Lincoln was the victim of a primary challenge over there, then I'm not going to sweat it.

Posted by: fbacon2 | June 9, 2010 9:36 AM | Report abuse

Re: AFL-CIO v. The White House

Nothing gives a clearer indication about how strong a body blow labor has delivered this cycle than by the White House annonymously whining that they haven't.

Labor took down Specter...so how much money did the DSCC "flush down the toilet" on that one? It may be too late to reverse course on the derivatives reform, which is a bargin at $10 million. And what happens when Lincoln gets creamed in November...

Posted by: TheBBQChickenMadness | June 9, 2010 9:44 AM | Report abuse

I'm already seeing anti Sharon Angle internet ads. Looks like Reid is out of the gate early.

Posted by: mikefromArlington | June 9, 2010 9:49 AM | Report abuse

The explanation for Lincoln's victory last night is pretty simple in my eyes. That third candidate in the original primary (don't recall his name, nor does it matter enough to warrant looking it up) ran well to the right of Lincoln, and the CW was that his voters were unlikely to return to the polls to vote in the runoff. This was a foolish assumption, especially since they were darn near certain to vote for Lincoln if they did, as why would voters who picked the farthest Right candidate in the original primary switch to the farthest Left candidate in the runoff. It appears to me that they did just that, thus causing Lincoln's victory.

I had a hunch this would happen- I just sat on that hunch in an effort to keep from jinxing it, as I supported Halter. So, I'm disappointed, but not surprised in the least.

Too bad we'll be looking at Senator Boozeman in the 112th congress. Too bad indeed.

Posted by: holyhandgrenaid | June 9, 2010 9:50 AM | Report abuse

Labor is gonna have to go back to the eternal waiting room with the gays for the rest of this term.

Posted by: Papagnello | June 9, 2010 9:53 AM | Report abuse

Another thought regarding both the WH and Lincoln's initial responses. Shouldn't they have said something along the lines of:

"We have witnessed Democracy in action tonight and going forward we'd like to sit down with Bill Halter, the Unions and some of the small donors and listen to their ideas and concerns in order to bring the Party together. Bill ran a great campaign and now is the time to address the needs of all our constituents."

Since Blanche appears to have a real fight on her hands a more conciliatory statement would have been in order. Just my 2 cents.

Posted by: lmsinca | June 9, 2010 9:54 AM | Report abuse

I'm just very surprised that the Obama Administration would choose to engage in such vindictive public political trashing. There is little doubt, in my (oh-so-humble) opinion, that this is Rahm Emanuel's little hissy fit. But it is very, very unseemly for this kind of stuff to be coming out of the White House.


Even Karl Rove and the bushies didn't engage in this kind of public political sniping, with the opposition party, let alone with their own party. Any kind of trash-talking was diverted through other channels so it wasn't coming directly from the Oval Office.

This is very amateurish and petty, and it doesn't look good for it to be coming directly from the White House.

Posted by: TomBlue | June 9, 2010 9:57 AM | Report abuse

"Since Blanche appears to have a real fight on her hands a more conciliatory statement would have been in order."

"This is very amateurish and petty, and it doesn't look good for it to be coming directly from the White House."

Couldn't agree more with the above posts. Just completely tone-deaf of the WH.

Posted by: schrodingerscat | June 9, 2010 10:02 AM | Report abuse

"And Angle's campaign vows she's no Rand Paul, and won't be giving national TV interviews."

They left off, "except on Fox"...

Posted by: soapm | June 9, 2010 10:02 AM | Report abuse

"Or do we want a Republican government that is hostile to everything we care about?"

I understand the point you and Bernie are making. But vote for us or else the GOP wins is not much of a rallying cry. the DemEst risks losing the Left because it is committed to the GOP-lite Clinton-era triangulation. The DemEst is out-of-step with the country generally and the Left moreso. Reagan Conservatism is dead, only the DemEst doesn't realize it. That is where the discordance comes from. My point is: the DemEst is acting at its peril and creating the conditions for a party schism, just like the GOP is experiencing now. It is dumb and especially so since it is all unnecessary: when the DemEst actively supports a candidate like Blanche Lincoln it is precipitating a party crash. I hope the "grownups" in the Democratic Party realize they are playing with fire. There ate only so many people who will get motivated to vote and provide support to Dems when the party motto is: we're not as bad as the GOP. And that number dwindles each time it happens. Thin ice.

Posted by: wbgonne | June 9, 2010 10:05 AM | Report abuse

Looking for the more stately response? Not gonna happen with these faux progressives in the WH. They're angry that everyone's angry at them and they're angry the media is casting their response to the Gulf negatively. So they come out of the victory brandishing a gun yelling back at us. This is an administration quickly losing control of its parts.

Posted by: Papagnello | June 9, 2010 10:06 AM | Report abuse

I think when the smoke clears, we'll find that Obama and the Union leaders are enjoying a good bottle of scotch in the oval office applauding the good job they've done giving the appearance of a wedge between the democrats and the unions. They went too far in MA but got it just about right in AR.

It really is hard to believe anything you see in politics, next the Republican's will appear anti-corporate America which we all know is a lie. That one will be a tough sell.

Posted by: soapm | June 9, 2010 10:07 AM | Report abuse

"And Angle's campaign vows she's no Rand Paul, and won't be giving national TV interviews."

Looks like they also need to tell her husband to zip it:

http://tpmdc.talkingpointsmemo.com/2010/06/reid-opponent-embraces-patriot-group-that-warns-of-giant-concentration-camps.php?ref=fpa

Posted by: schrodingerscat | June 9, 2010 10:07 AM | Report abuse

Not to mention that even on a purely crass political level the DemEst makes no sense. They reject the public option that was overwhelmingly popular not only with the Left but with the entire country. They support Lincoln against Halter even Halter had a far better chance of keeping the AR seat. Same in PA. There is really nothing positive to be said for what the DemEst is doing. So tell me: why are they doing it?

Posted by: wbgonne | June 9, 2010 10:07 AM | Report abuse

Some good news I guess or at least a distraction. Here's a statement from Brad Woodhouse last night:

"As the Republican Party nominates Tea Party candidates, or sees its establishment candidates lurch to the right to fend off Tea Party challenges, it will be saddled with the Tea Party's positions, views and rhetoric, all of which are increasingly falling flat with the American people. The Republican Party will have to sell a platform to general election voters this fall based on their nominees' out-of-the-mainstream positions like eliminating Medicare and Social Security, taking away federal aid to family farmers, opposing anti-discrimination laws, abolishing the Department of Education and DE-regulating Wall Street."

Posted by: lmsinca | June 9, 2010 10:10 AM | Report abuse

And I agree with Imsinca and schrodingerscat: What about some grace in victory?

Posted by: wbgonne | June 9, 2010 10:11 AM | Report abuse

Is Harry Reid going to be running against A Right Angle, or an Obtuse Angle?

Posted by: Liam-still | June 9, 2010 10:12 AM | Report abuse

lms, your point about Lincoln's non-conciliatory speech and attitude following her win last night is spot on. She better enjoy it now, because she won't win the general and she won't get much help from anyone who is sick of corporate dems.

I'm really tired of the soft poverty of low expectations among Dems here who want to keep the status quo as a means to fight a GOP agenda (or right wing agenda). That's not going to work, and it's going to allow the discourse as a whole to get pushed to the right.

What is SO STUPID, and TELLING, about those in the WH like Rahm is that they'd rather win one primary to keep "order" and show that they're running things rather than have someone like Halter who would further their agenda and get some truly Dem issues on the table in DC.

The Dem Party has evolving to do.

Posted by: BGinCHI | June 9, 2010 10:13 AM | Report abuse

I've been following David Dayens post re America's Future Now conference and things haven's been going too well:

"A couple people I’ve talked to at the America’s Future Now conference were as stunned as I was by White House designated progressive Jared Bernstein walking out Tuesday before the end of his own panel on jobs and the economy, while NYT columnist Bob Herbert was speaking. The optics of this are completely ridiculous. Bernstein gave a speech basically telling the assembled not to “lose sight” of the advances made in the Obama Administration, while recognizing the mass joblessness and the need for more action. “If you think any of us in the WH are satisfied with where we are, please let me disabuse you of that notion,” he said, going on to call for passage of aid to state Medicaid budget shortfalls and the COBRA subsidy, two pieces taken out of the jobs bill to please Blue Dogs. Bernstein even said that the Administration has not pivoted to deficit reduction (contrary to their actions?). In other words, he gave a speech, alternately pandering to the crowd and playing defense. He wanted to prove that he was listening to the concerns of progressives."

"And then, he left. While Bob Herbert was speaking and calling the lack of urgency on jobs “offensive.” As if to highlight the lack of urgency, Bernstein strolled out of the room. He made his speech, and that was all that needed to be done to satisfy the masses, I guess."

Posted by: lmsinca | June 9, 2010 10:14 AM | Report abuse

"They reject the public option that was overwhelmingly popular not only with the Left but with the entire country. They support Lincoln against Halter even Halter had a far better chance of keeping the AR seat. Same in PA."

That is extremely misleading. The dem establishment was very much in favor of the public option. In fact, the dem establishment almost unanimously supported it, including all of leadership. A-h0le Lieberman refused to be the 60th vote so they were forced to drop it.

And there's really no evidence that Halter or Sestak has a better chance in the general than Lincoln or Specter. Pre-primary polls have little bearing on the mood of the electorate in November.

However, I agree that the dem establishment is generally clueless and self defeating.

Posted by: SDJeff | June 9, 2010 10:17 AM | Report abuse

The Orly Bird Brain Lost The Worm.

Posted by: Liam-still | June 9, 2010 10:17 AM | Report abuse

The Clinton/Rahm wing of the Dem party, and now of nameless WH officials, needs a cure, and I think that's Howard Dean.

I'm hoping he starts to build a coalition with labor and sensible groups on the left to run candidates who clearly represent the party's values and not corporations and big money.

Remember when Dean and Rahm went to war over who would run the party? Remember Rahm's strategy for a national Dem victory? How'd that work out? You're seeing it again here with Lincoln. Win the battles but lose the war.

Dean, for all his faults, and he has them, is a much smarter and more principled Dem strategist.

Posted by: BGinCHI | June 9, 2010 10:19 AM | Report abuse

lmscina, Bernstein's snub was featured on Digby yesterday as well (beside the FiredogLake quote you quoted). It reminds me of the stooges the adminstration planted to analyze the health insurance crisis. They are there for one reason and only that one reason: propoganda (as opposed to dialogue).

Posted by: Papagnello | June 9, 2010 10:20 AM | Report abuse

Rahm Emanuel has to go.

He is a terrible chief of staff.

He let the stupid job offers story fester, but he can get out a totally counter productive attack on unions, in a nano second.

Posted by: Liam-still | June 9, 2010 10:21 AM | Report abuse

Here's Digby's comment regarding the WH un-named statement:

"I'm going to be charitable and chalk up these churlish comments from an unnamed official to fatigue rather than stupidity. But in the future the White House would probably do well to remember that as much as they loathe their base that they still need them to get out the vote in November. They should also remember that Blanche Lincoln is not a particularly reliable ally to the administration while labor is essential."

"Also, constantly belittling the democratic process and condescendingly telling their voters to shut up and do as they're told is not likely to garner the defense of the netroots who are the only defenders they have when the right wing and the villagers decide to turn the administration's sleazy-but-legal political practices into a scandal. It gets harder and harder to work ourselves up on their behalf when they say things like this."

"This is just stupid politics and they should be above it. I assume they do want to win some more elections against Republicans, but maybe I'm wrong about that. They certainly seem less inclined to use them for a doormat for petty reasons and they rarely forget their manners to quite the same extent."

Posted by: lmsinca | June 9, 2010 10:21 AM | Report abuse

lms - great post this.

"We have witnessed Democracy in action tonight and going forward we'd like to sit down with Bill Halter, the Unions and some of the small donors and listen to their ideas and concerns in order to bring the Party together. Bill ran a great campaign and now is the time to address the needs of all our constituents."

I'm surprised that dump on unions came from Obama's camp given his consensus approach.

Posted by: amkeew | June 9, 2010 10:23 AM | Report abuse

VERY important piece at McClatchy on how the Bush Admin essentially SHELVED environmental review of deepwater drilling and essential response to a spill... MUST-READ:

*** Feds knew of Gulf spill risks in 2000, document shows ***

The 2000 warning, however, indicates that some federal regulators were well aware of the potential hazards of deepwater oil production in its early years, experts and former MMS officials told McClatchy.

Yet over the past decade, the risks faded into the background as America thirsted for new oil sources, the energy industry mastered new drilling technologies and the number of deepwater wells in the Gulf swelled into the thousands. Then-President George W. Bush ushered in the new era with an executive order on May 18, 2001, that pushed his new administration to speed up the search for oil.

[...]

Dennis Chew, a marine biologist who helped prepare the plan but has since retired after 21 years with the MMS, studied it again this week and said: "Bottom line, this (BP) blowout was preventable." However, he blamed the accident on human error and BP "cutting corners."

[...]

"Ten or 15 years ago, there used to be 200-page (environmental impact statements) on nothing but spills," Chew said. "It got to where people got tired of wading through them."

The 2000s, however, ushered in an era of aggressive, government-backed offshore oil production. In May 2001, Bush, acting on recommendations from the oil industry, signed an executive order that required federal agencies to expedite permits for energy projects and paved the way for greater domestic oil exploration.

The rush to drill in deep water swept aside warnings from MMS scientists and others, experts said.

"It's the fault of both the industry and the government," Steiner said. "If they had taken it seriously, they would have been ramping up production of safer blowout preventers and emergency procedures on board. They would have said, 'There's a 0.01 percent chance of this but that's enough for us, because this would be catastrophic.' "

http://www.mcclatchydc.com/2010/06/08/95535/feds-knew-of-gulf-spill-risks.html

Here we go again... Bush expedited permitting at oil industry's request and bypassed scientists and environmental review... couple that with cost-cutting and cutting corners and VOILA! The WORST ENVIRONMENTAL DISASTER IN HUMAN HISTORY.

Bush has destroyed this country.

Posted by: Ethan2010 | June 9, 2010 10:25 AM | Report abuse

"President Obama, call me."

Grizzly Palin

..................

I just can never get enough of this Alaskan Nut Job.

She quits half way through one term, so that she can tell those who do not quit, how to do their jobs.

Reality Check For Quitter Palin.

Real Grizzly Mamas Never Quit.

Posted by: Liam-still | June 9, 2010 10:25 AM | Report abuse

"The dem establishment was very much in favor of the public option. In fact, the dem establishment almost unanimously supported it, including all of leadership."

SDJeff. Well, we're just going to have to agree to disagree on that one. But since the Lakers won last night, I'll move on.

Posted by: wbgonne | June 9, 2010 10:32 AM | Report abuse

Rahm's gotta go. He IS the bubble. Yeah, run with the idea of Big Labor interfering in the race, and bury the lede that Goldman Sachs and company are funding Blanche. Worked for the short term, bad for the long term.

Posted by: KathleenHusseininMaine | June 9, 2010 10:34 AM | Report abuse

Ethan:

There is one thing especially troubling about the oil permitting process. As I understand it, the law allows only 30 days for the Fed Govt to approve or deny permit applications. However, the requisite analysis and review take far longer than 30 days to complete. As a result, the MMS practice has been to automatically grant permits. Does anyone know anything about this? It sure seems fishy in a Cheneyesque way.

Posted by: wbgonne | June 9, 2010 10:40 AM | Report abuse

Bernie:

"The NRO does propaganda. That's its function."

This is indeed the underlying premise of your analysis. But is it a premise based in fact?

Does Greg Sargent do propaganda? Is that his function? How does one tell the difference between an opinion piece which is, well, merely someone's opinion, and the product of a functionary of a propaganda machine?

For what/whom is NR functioning as a propagandist? Who is directing it? And how do you explain the fact that NRO publishes pieces that that express opposing opinions about the very thing you claim they are propagandizing about?

Posted by: ScottC3 | June 9, 2010 10:41 AM | Report abuse

soapm:
"It really is hard to believe anything you see in politics, next the Republican's will appear anti-corporate America which we all know is a lie. That one will be a tough sell."

Not really. They managed to sell YOU on the idea that the DemocRats are anti-corporate America.

You cattle even believe it when the evidence,(in the form of corporate contributions to the DemocRat party campaign chest is freely available and has been highlighted on many conservative outlets).

The Alleged Hawaiian himself reneged on his campaign promise to abide by public campaign financing so that he could rake in Big Business' "dirty money". You fools said:

"Well, so WHAT?"

Posted by: Bilgeman | June 9, 2010 10:42 AM | Report abuse

Are there recent modern examples of the establishment of either Party bailing on one of their own, scandal notwithstanding?

I'd have been surprised if Obama and Clinton did anything other than what they did re: Lincoln.

Isn't "establishment", at least regarding these two Parties, synonymous with a kind of conservatism?

Posted by: ChuckinDenton | June 9, 2010 10:44 AM | Report abuse

"Are there recent modern examples of the establishment of either Party bailing on one of their own, scandal notwithstanding?"

Chuck: I don't think Lincoln was scandalized; however, she did (ostensibly at least) buck the party leadership on the PO and she is hardly a reliable vote on key Dem issues. The bae hates her and and she's probably going to lose anyway. So what good is she?

Posted by: wbgonne | June 9, 2010 10:48 AM | Report abuse

BGinCHI:

I'm with you re: Dean. If there is a Dem schism he will be the point man, I think.

Posted by: wbgonne | June 9, 2010 10:51 AM | Report abuse

Ah.

Let me also clue you cattle in on why the White House's diss of the Labor Bosses is even more telling than you want to admit to.

Appaently Rahm and the gang can sniff the popular wind,(which means ignoring YOUR sweat-lodge yammering), and therefore they likely believe that Unions, (especially public-sector ones), are going to be a busted flush.

The anger against civil-"servants" making more dough, retiring at 50 or 55 with 100% pay, and having the job security they do while private sector workers are being laid off, suffering pay cuts and watching their 401k's go "poof!" is real and it;s widespread and there is going to be hell to pay for it.

You're seeing it now in New Jersey and soon, (if not already), in California.

This back-door undercutting of the Labor Bosses' boy Halter, and the Monday morning diss of the AFL-CIO is the "O"-dministrations way of trying to step out of the way of the oncoming freight train that's about to hit the Union Bosses right in the kisser.

Posted by: Bilgeman | June 9, 2010 10:52 AM | Report abuse

Gotta agree with Bilge on this one. The adminstration Dems are as corporate as their projected stereotype across the aisle.

Posted by: Papagnello | June 9, 2010 10:53 AM | Report abuse

slaveinDenton:
"Are there recent modern examples of the establishment of either Party bailing on one of their own, scandal notwithstanding? "

Sure.

GWB's "Call it ANYTHING but Amnesty" attempt at Immigration Reform.

Also, his Medicare Prescription drug benefit boondoggle. He sold it as "reaching across the aisle to Ted Kennedy".
The fiscal hawks in the GOP were aghast at the price tag.

Posted by: Bilgeman | June 9, 2010 10:56 AM | Report abuse

Democrats should run a campaign: Protecting Social Security, and Medicare.

Republicans have made it clear, for the past two decades, that they want to do to Social Security, what they did to people's retirement pension funds.


Democrats: KISS

Republicans Want To Take Away Your Social Security, and Medicare, And Turn Them Over To The Wall St. Casino Banks Racketeers.

You have the quotes, from guys like Paul Ryan. Use them against all opponents.

Republicans Want To Throw Old People Out On The Streets, So That The Wall St. Casino Operators Can Rob Us Blind, Once More.

Attack Attack Attack.

Republicans handed you the ammo. Use it; for cripes sake.

Rahm, get out of the way. You are attacking our labor allies, when you should be attacking the real enemies of the old, the poor, and the sick. The Republican Party, and all it's Far Right Candidates.

Step aside Rahm. You are not up to the job.

Posted by: Liam-still | June 9, 2010 10:57 AM | Report abuse

"The anger against civil-"servants" making more dough, retiring at 50 or 55 with 100% pay, and having the job security they do while private sector workers are being laid off, suffering pay cuts and watching their 401k's go "poof!" is real and it;s widespread and there is going to be hell to pay for it."

Uh-huh. The Unions have wrecked the economy, not the Free Market Privateers the GOP let loose to rampage and wring every dime out of us, only to stick us with the bill when things went belly-up. Bilgey: that is so 1980s. I'm surprised at you. The world has changed. The country has changed. St. Ronnie has passed.

Posted by: wbgonne | June 9, 2010 10:58 AM | Report abuse

Bilgy-

I bet W. went out and campaigned for them, however. That is what I was talking about.

Posted by: ChuckinDenton | June 9, 2010 11:02 AM | Report abuse

When the Unions were strong, the nation prospered, and the middle class grew, and grew. After Reagan busted the unions, it has been all down hill for the middle class, While the working poor, have now become the no jobs available poor, and the super wealthy, top one percent, have become entrenched like Russian Oligarchs.

Posted by: Liam-still | June 9, 2010 11:04 AM | Report abuse

From mistermix at Balloon Juice:

"...I think it’s a good point to remember when evaluating primary battles. The best outcome is having your candidate win. The second-best is getting the incumbent to move in your direction. Blanche moved in the right direction this Spring, and a well-financed, credible challenger was the reason. It’s not the win that many of us (including me) wanted, but it’s not even in the Lieberman ballpark."

Cold comfort, but correct.

Posted by: BGinCHI | June 9, 2010 11:11 AM | Report abuse

I don't know why Tena is gone, but a post and thread like this one may be part of the reason. I find it wearying. I've been reading Jonathan Alter on the first year of the Obama presidency, and it makes this lightly informed, free-for-all bashing seem very superficial.

And am I wrong, but is that quote from Jane Hamsher particularly repellent?

Posted by: AllButCertain | June 9, 2010 11:16 AM | Report abuse

Ramesh Ponnuru on the relevance of Plum Liners:

"Progressives inside and outside Congress said they would not accept a health-care bill without a public option—and then they folded. The unions tried to take out Senator Lincoln, and failed. The Left campaigned against Rep. Jane Harman, and failed again. Democrats really shouldn't worry about threats from their left."

http://corner.nationalreview.com/post/?q=NGU4ZDU5YWZhYzAxNmUzYWY0N2I0M2EzN2NjODc5NTU=

Queue howling.

Posted by: ScottC3 | June 9, 2010 11:21 AM | Report abuse

What I find wearying is the disrespect shown to the progressive caucus and it's supporters. If we intend to wean our dependence off the corporate designed legislation we've seen for the past three decades, we need to give it a fight. I will VOTE for Dems over Repubs but I will FIGHT for the middle class over lobbyists. It's just that simple. I'm not afraid to buck the establishment and no one else should be either. We can come together on election day once the results are in but clearly the WH unnamed source doesn't quite get that.

Posted by: lmsinca | June 9, 2010 11:23 AM | Report abuse

ScottC:

BREAKING NEWS: NOBODY ON THE LEFT CARES ABOUT THE NRO!

Posted by: Ethan2010 | June 9, 2010 11:24 AM | Report abuse

ABC, we can support what the Prez and the WH does that is smart and about the bigger picture, and understand that they'll do some things for political expediency, but we don't have to like it or accept it. We should push back against Lincoln and for the kind of crony support she got from the establishment wing of the party. This doesn't mean we have given up on Obama and his agenda in the slightest.

Hamsher has been PLENTY wrong lately and I don't follow her, but I appreciate the pushback on the "flushing your members' money down the toilet" quote. THAT is not a "game changer" is it?

At least in what I've been writing here I hope you don't think that it's "bashing." I'm trying to make arguments for better Dems.

Posted by: BGinCHI | June 9, 2010 11:25 AM | Report abuse

Scott, stupid comment from you and the NRO.

You don't know what you're talking about, so save us Ramesh's genius posts.

Posted by: BGinCHI | June 9, 2010 11:27 AM | Report abuse

Allbutcertain,

Yes!!!

And I agree with you that the posts and comments on this blog are becoming wearying since Tena "left."

Posted by: Beeliever | June 9, 2010 11:28 AM | Report abuse

Ethan:

"BREAKING NEWS: NOBODY ON THE LEFT CARES ABOUT THE NRO!"

Bernie seems to.

Posted by: ScottC3 | June 9, 2010 11:32 AM | Report abuse

@BG - No, Scott and Ponnuru's comments are fair. We point out when some conservative or group makes a stand and then decides to go with a weaker consensus.

Posted by: bernielatham | June 9, 2010 11:35 AM | Report abuse

Jane Hamsher is not the point. We know that she is a nut job, who did not hesitate to partner up with Grover Norquist. So, she is in no position to whine about who the White House has sided with. She sided with Grover Norquist, for cripes sake!!!!!


The important point is;

On election night, after the winner has been declared, the winning side always tries to bind up the wounds, and unite they party, for the coming election campaign.

The attack on the Unions, by the White House was one of the most counter productive, and stupid political moves that I have seen in recent years.

Instead of praising the losing side, for their hard fought campaign, and offering to meet with them, and take their concerns into consideration, the White House decided to piss out the window, on them.

Stupid Stupid Stupid.

Time to bring in a new chief of staff, and also bring in some one who knows how to stay on top of public relations.

Posted by: Liam-still | June 9, 2010 11:39 AM | Report abuse

@Ethan - Actually, I care about the NRO. I don't trust it, I don't like it, I think it's a curse on the face of god's green earth but I do attend to it daily.

Posted by: bernielatham | June 9, 2010 11:39 AM | Report abuse

Rand Paul is going to win.

Angle is going to win.

You are just so WRONG about this it is hilarious...

Posted by: sailingaway1 | June 9, 2010 11:40 AM | Report abuse

If some of you miss Tena so much just go to TPM, she posts there periodically, but I don't notice the quality of their comments getting any better. And, Tena supported Lincoln, which struck me as terribly anti-progressive -- no matter what the purported larger picture is, Lincoln is unreliable, and the WH not only relied on her out of incumbency norms (which is BS, they need someone to take to take the corporate line) but also then told us progressives to shove it. Screw them right back.

Posted by: Papagnello | June 9, 2010 11:40 AM | Report abuse

@bm: GWB's "Call it ANYTHING but Amnesty" attempt at Immigration Reform.

Also, his Medicare Prescription drug benefit boondoggle. He sold it as "reaching across the aisle to Ted Kennedy".
The fiscal hawks in the GOP were aghast at the price tag.

People would have been more aghast if Bush had allowed the true cost estimate of the drug plan to become public. He even lies to his own party, not just the American public.

Well those GOP "fiscal hawks" didn't bail on Bush in 2004 even though he drove the debt and deficit to record levels through unfunded tax cuts and unfunded wars of choice. Can you be a fiscal hawk and routinely vote for things that aren't paid for and increase the deficit and debt? I guess deficit outrage only happens when there is a Dem president.

Although immigration reform failed, the drug benefit did pass with majority republican support.

Posted by: srw3 | June 9, 2010 11:41 AM | Report abuse

Well gee, I thought this blog was for the purpose of expressing opinions and questioning CW. Why is debate regarding Dem strategy and progressive activism becoming passe? You're right though beeliever, Tena didn't like being questioned either.

Have a good day all, I have work to make up for from being out most of the day yesterday.

Posted by: lmsinca | June 9, 2010 11:42 AM | Report abuse

lms--You are always well and widely informed and committed to your principles and willing to work to support them. I have nothing but respect for that. And BG, your positions are well thought out and carefully taken. I'm always glad to see your comments. And Bernie is aces.

It's the various, juvenile, hissy fits over the pique of the moment that I find so tiresome. It makes me wonder how many people have a real sense of the difficulty and complexity of governance.

I could add that Rahm may be one of the juveniles, but he is also tireless and effective at pushing the president's most important initiatives.

Posted by: AllButCertain | June 9, 2010 11:45 AM | Report abuse

slaveinDenton:
"I bet W. went out and campaigned for them, however. That is what I was talking about."

No, actually, you're correct and I have it backwards. W's big brainfarts, on Immigration and Medicare Prescriptions, was a case of the establishment getting divorced from the base.

A lot of this blowback manifested upon the hapless stooge RINO McLame. The GOP establishment gave him the nod, and the base stayed home or like me voted third-party.

Now a case of the establishment turning on their own, there's Lieberman is Connecticut, (if you consider DNC Chair Howard Scream and the Netroots to be "the Establishmnent"...and hey, in '06, maybe the moonbats WERE the Big Swingin' Richards in the DemocRat Party)...and the odious Arlen Specter.

Of course, the GOP establishment cut him loose well AFTER the base had had a belly-full of him. Noting the jaw-dropping capacity of Pennsylvania voters to abide by the abuse their elected officeholders of both parties heap upon them, (Murtha's re-elections in his district full of "racists and clingers", anyone?), it is difficult to conceptualize just how bad Specter had to be to get told to hit the bricks from the PA GOP.

Posted by: Bilgeman | June 9, 2010 11:46 AM | Report abuse

Imsinca,

You were questioning opinions when you told Tena that you were avoiding this site because of her?

Posted by: Beeliever | June 9, 2010 11:48 AM | Report abuse

@bernie, fair enough. But I think ScottC posts things to provoke a certain reaction from "the left." And while you may "care" about what they say and monitor the site, you don't seem to be contributing to the "howling" that ScottC seems to think NRO quotations will generate.

It just seems to me to be more of the same MO from our right wing "friends" here, that being: make a provocative statement with the sole purpose of aggravating "the left." It's not even just same-ol' politics, it's politics with a mind-games twist. Pretty amateurish if you ask me.

Posted by: Ethan2010 | June 9, 2010 11:49 AM | Report abuse

"Tireless at pushing Prez's most important initiatives"

For example?

Posted by: Papagnello | June 9, 2010 11:51 AM | Report abuse

Rand Paul is going to win.

Angle is going to win.

You are just so WRONG about this it is hilarious...

+++++++++++++

If Kentucky and Nevada elect these rightwingnuts, they deserve what they get. Paul and Angle can dodge the national press, but it just looks like they can't defend the positions they have taken in the past or aren't willing to admit that their previous positions were wrong.

I can't wait for the commercials of Angle promoting massages and saunas for prisoners, decrying the dangers of fluoridation, and advocating restricting or outlawing alcohol sales.

Posted by: srw3 | June 9, 2010 11:56 AM | Report abuse

As I recall, Tena was the one who was always pulling her hair and threatened to leave for good nearly each time somebody toed a more progressive line than her.

Posted by: Papagnello | June 9, 2010 11:57 AM | Report abuse

@Papagnello. Healthcare for one. He opposed it before he was for it, but once he knew Obama was going for a big plan, he was a major part of making it happen.

Posted by: AllButCertain | June 9, 2010 11:58 AM | Report abuse

stooge-b-gonne:
"The Unions have wrecked the economy, not the Free Market Privateers the GOP let loose to rampage and wring every dime out of us, only to stick us with the bill when things went belly-up."

Silly little moonbat, wake the eff up from your narcotic dreams. D'you think the yoonyuns had no part whatsoever in this?

Have you ever BEEN in a yoonyun?

I was, rank and file for twenty years, and two organizing campaigns under my belt.

The biggest corporate fundamental osculator on the entire ship is the union "representative" who shows up at the dock.

If you think that this grody flunkie is there to represent the crew, you need to put down the bong.
He's there to keep us savages queiscent enough to get the bucket to the next port...so that the man days' contributions get made into the various yoonyun funds, see?

"Bilgey: that is so 1980s. I'm surprised at you. The world has changed. The country has changed. St. Ronnie has passed."

Well, hold onto your Tokemaster with both hands, my little fuzzy-headed friend, because I suspect that Reagan is about to get resurrected, bigger and badder than ever.

And what he did by kicking PATCO air controllers' yoonyun in the dangly bits is gonna look like a "love tap" compared to what might be in store for public-sector labor rackets.

Why do you think Andy Stern has retired and become a "non-person"?

One wonders if he's not having some extensive plastic surgery prior to jetting off to live undar an assumed name in some nation without a US extradition treaty, (and where the OTHER goombahs in the AFL-CIO are unlikely to look for him. Stern brought a LOT of attention to the Labor Bosses, and those boys react to scrutiny like Hobbits to the Eye of Sauron).

Posted by: Bilgeman | June 9, 2010 11:58 AM | Report abuse

beeliever, my only disagreements with Tena had to do with her trying to shut down dissent, and yes there were times I avoided the site because of her heavy handed belittlement of progressive causes. However, she's the one who decided to leave, not me.

Again, have a good day all. I really am out to work.

Posted by: lmsinca | June 9, 2010 12:00 PM | Report abuse

ABC -- the way I see it, Rahm was the one who wanted to go small after Brown-MA. Health Care, if we're going to talk about who pushes the President's agenda, was all Pelosi. Rahm, however, did push a policy where we're beholden to private insurers, and that wasn't part of Obama's campaign message.

Posted by: Papagnello | June 9, 2010 12:03 PM | Report abuse

Liam-slave-still:
"When the Unions were strong, the nation prospered, and the middle class grew, and grew."

Schmucktard, when unions were strong, (the 1950's and 1960's), Europe and Japan were essentially still smoldering holes in the ground, and the Chinese were off on their "Cultural Revolution" and "Great Leap Forward" monstrosities.

It wasn't that our economy was 10 feet tall, but that everyone else's had been cropped by 3 feet at least by World War 2.

"After Reagan busted the unions, it has been all down hill for the middle class, While the working poor, have now become the no jobs available poor, and the super wealthy, top one percent, have become entrenched like Russian Oligarchs."

Get your facts straight. Reagan busted ONE,(1), union, the Professional Air Traffic Controllers Organization, when they conducted an illegal walkout.

The PATCO rank and filers were told to get back in the control towers or lose their jobs.

You also likely would like to forget that Reagan was himself a former union president, (Screen Actors' Guild), tmk, the ONLY former union president to occupy the Oval Office, (and it says a lot that that guy was a Republican, doesn't it?).

The fact of the matter, though is that the Labor bosses had lost touch with their own members by 1970, LONG before PATCO.

The Teamsters endorsed Carter in election '80, but their rank and file voted for Ronald Reagan something like 6 to 8 out of every 10.

As to your "economic justice" screed. People with two un-doped brain cells to rub together realize that we now have much more competition for our economic well-being. This isn;t anybody;s "fault", but rather just a fact of life.
And this means that we cannot sit on our butts and expect to live the good life anymore simply because we were smart enough and lucky enough not to get our industrial plant devastated during WW2.

Posted by: Bilgeman | June 9, 2010 12:12 PM | Report abuse

Papagnello,

Since Tena is not here to defend herself: I never saw Tena threaten to leave because of other Democrat's opinions.

Posted by: Beeliever | June 9, 2010 12:15 PM | Report abuse

I've always seen Tena as a very bright and sassy woman with a deep commitment to liberal causes but a resistance to the occasional progressive lockstep. I think it's a real loss to the site if she's gone. (I told Greg awhile ago that he should send be sending her roses on Fridays like Mr. Tena does, but he must not have listened.)

Posted by: AllButCertain | June 9, 2010 12:20 PM | Report abuse

Bernie, I can certainly understand reading NRO for oppositional research purposes (so to speak), but that doesn't mean the weight of their "reasoning" has merits.

The quote Scott offers from Ponnarru is sophomoric. See my post above from mistermix. Yes, I would have rather Halter WIN the primary, but it's not at ALL a waste to have a good primary opponent that forces the centrist/corporate pol to pay attention to constituents at the local and national level.

And one more thing. Senators represent state constituents, but they disproportionately represent those citizens in the Senate. Small states get a much bigger voice in the Senate than anywhere else, and so it's proper to be concerned about races in other states. That WY gets the same number of votes as CA there means that you can't just ignore those races as parochial.

Again, the NRO will just paint anything that happens to the Dems as a failure without any complexity. They aren't good at difficult and complex.

Posted by: BGinCHI | June 9, 2010 12:21 PM | Report abuse

Well, just cause you never saw it doesn't make it so. She had issues, as smart and fun as she was, and she knew it.

Posted by: Papagnello | June 9, 2010 12:21 PM | Report abuse

@BM: I suspect that Reagan is about to get resurrected, bigger and badder than ever

Reagan couldn't even get out a republican primary given his record of raising taxes, supporting immigration reform, and cutting and running from Lebanon. And lets not forget trading arms for hostages (there's a patriot for you) and violating the Boland amendment.

"it says a lot that that guy [Reagan]was a Republican, doesn't it?"

It just shows that he got filthy rich acting and started identifying with and advocating for the oligarchs.

"Get your facts straight. Reagan busted ONE,(1), union, the Professional Air Traffic Controllers Organization, when they conducted an illegal walkout."

Get your facts straight. Without a functioning and labor friendly NLRB, labor has very little recourse for unfair labor practices beyond striking which is not always a good option. That is how Reagan and GWB kept labor down, by not enforcing the law.

"we now have much more competition for our economic well-being. This isn;t anybody;s "fault", but rather just a fact of life."

In fact, it is the fault of tax and other policies that make it easy to ship jobs overseas and hide profits in shell corporations in the Cayman islands. There is more competition, but that doesn't have to mean that working class people see no real wage increases for a decade while the top 5% see their incomes skyrocket.

Posted by: srw3 | June 9, 2010 12:27 PM | Report abuse

@BM: Oh I forgot, Reagan also exploded the deficit like GWB did. A true conservative!

Posted by: srw3 | June 9, 2010 12:35 PM | Report abuse

Ethan (to Bernie):

"But I think ScottC posts things to provoke a certain reaction from "the left." "

I post various things for various reasons. And yes, sometimes I do so to tweak you guys, knowing what an insular world most of you inhabit. So what? What was the high-minded purpose of your own post the other day suggesting that a murder in CT was evidence that "conservatives" had lost their minds?

"And while you may "care" about what they say and monitor the site, you don't seem to be contributing to the "howling" that ScottC seems to think NRO quotations will generate."

But you do. Heh.

Posted by: ScottC3 | June 9, 2010 12:37 PM | Report abuse

God, I love watching Jane Hamsher's head explode. But while I generally tend to align with organized labor on *most* issues, I also feel more sympathetic about their losses when they pick their battles more intelligently.

As for flushing $10 million down the toilet, I'd just note that if nothing else, all these months of relentless attacks on Lincoln from the left should make it a lot harder for Boozman to paint her as a cartoon Librul. It's probably not out of the question that this whole episode might actually have left her better positioned for the general election than she was at the outset. Remember this is Arkansas we're talking about.

Anyway congrats to Lincoln for winning a tough race and winning it without getting sucked into a pandering contest with Halter that would certainly have hobbled her for the rest of the campaign. She's got another tough race ahead of her of course but I'd say chances of Democrats holding onto this seat just got a tad better.

Posted by: CalD | June 9, 2010 12:44 PM | Report abuse

CalD, excellent point, and yet another reason to offer robust primaries.

Posted by: BGinCHI | June 9, 2010 12:49 PM | Report abuse

"yes, sometimes I do so to tweak you guys, knowing what an insular world most of you inhabit. So what?"

You're just a troll.

So instead of responding to your BS, why don't you, ScottC, instead respond to MY questions about the real-world events that led to the worst environmental catastrophe in human history?

What do you think about the argument right before the explosion on the drilling platform where BP forced the drilling team to use a dangerous procedure? Or the fact that employees who complained about BP's lack of interest in safety were being fired?

http://www.cnn.com/2010/US/06/08/oil.rig.warning.signs/index.html

What do you think about the fact that the Bush Administration expedited oil drilling permitting "at the oil industry's request" and bypassed scientists and environmental review?

http://www.mcclatchydc.com/2010/06/08/95535/feds-knew-of-gulf-spill-risks.html

Posted by: Ethan2010 | June 9, 2010 12:51 PM | Report abuse

slave rw3:
"Get your facts straight. Without a functioning and labor friendly NLRB, labor has very little recourse for unfair labor practices beyond striking which is not always a good option. That is how Reagan and GWB kept labor down, by not enforcing the law."

Ha-ha-ha! You REALLY have never been part of a union election!

"...not enforcing the law"...Moonbat, if ANYONE actually "enforced the law" on the yoonyuns, we'd have to stack those goombahs and petty crooks in the cell blocks like cordwood!

"It just shows that he got filthy rich acting and started identifying with and advocating for the oligarchs."

Are you sure you're talking about Reagan? You could say the exact same thing about Bill Clinton and Algore, y'know.

Funny how being so ostentiously a "Champion of the Little Guy" can make you so filthy rich, huh?

". Without a functioning and labor friendly NLRB, labor has very little recourse for unfair labor practices beyond striking which is not always a good option. "

Ahhh, what we have here is a case of "Bureaucrat Envy".

Y'see, your labor racketeering friends want an NLRB as friendly to THEIR scam as the MMS was apparently friendly to the Awl/Url/Oy-yull companies'.

"In fact, it is the fault of tax and other policies that make it easy to ship jobs overseas and hide profits in shell corporations in the Cayman islands. There is more competition, but that doesn't have to mean that working class people see no real wage increases for a decade while the top 5% see their incomes skyrocket."

The tax and other policies is really nothing more than the wax on the paint job.

The bottom line is the bottom line. And that is that labor costs are lower overseas.
Raw materials extraction and processing is cheaper, and shipping the finished product to the US market is cheaper too.

And as long as Americans don;t really GAS where their gew-gaws or Chevys were made, that;s what's gonna make the most money, so that's what's gonna happen.

Like I said, it's a fact of life.

Posted by: Bilgeman | June 9, 2010 12:55 PM | Report abuse

Ethan:

"You're just a troll."

Hooooooooooooooowl! Heh.

"So instead of responding to your BS, why don't you, ScottC, instead respond to MY [BS]?

Presuming what you meant to say has more coherence than what you actually said, I don't because 1) I don't know enough (read: anything) about oil rig safety and 2) I'm not that interested in aiding libs in their never ending quest to distract from Obama's failures by talking about Bush.

Posted by: ScottC3 | June 9, 2010 1:30 PM | Report abuse

"Hooooooooooooooowl! Heh."

Haha. Aw what the hell, I'll join you in that one HOWWWWWWLLLL! hehe.

"I'm not that interested in aiding libs in their never ending quest to distract from Obama's failures by talking about Bush."

Uh huh.

So, NOTHING BEFORE JANUARY 21st, 2009 MATTERS!!!

Way to deal with reality there Scottyboy.

Read the articles and then comment if you actually have an opinion on real-world events. Or don't and continue to portray yourself as a substance-free politico. I think you're better than that.

Now, another try, please let me know what you think after reading the articles. You can do it Scott, I know you can.

Posted by: Ethan2010 | June 9, 2010 1:37 PM | Report abuse

note to Sarah concerning what she can do- call me.

Posted by: hoser3 | June 9, 2010 2:23 PM | Report abuse

Ethan:

"Way to deal with reality there Scottyboy."

Reality? The reality is that Obama is president and the Dems run congress, and they have a mess on their hands in many different ways. Trying to distract attention from their troubles by blaming Bush is tiresome and boring. No interest in that.

"Read the articles..."

I did when you first posted them.

"...and then comment if you actually have an opinion on real-world events. Or don't and continue to portray yourself as a substance-free politico."

Dear me. What a (false) dilemma! What should I do? Let's see....I choose neither.

Posted by: ScottC3 | June 9, 2010 2:35 PM | Report abuse

"Have you ever BEEN in a yoonyun?"

Why, yes I have my BilgeyBuddy. UAW and another one in some chemical plant I worked in. And your question is?

Why do I get the feeling that "Tena," who isn't even here, is being used as a proxy for Conservative Democrats? Why don't we leave her out of it? If you want to defend Republicrats be my guest. But don't expect me -- or organized labor -- to join you.

Posted by: wbgonne | June 9, 2010 2:44 PM | Report abuse

"The reality is that Obama is president"

So Bush, he never existed? He was never President?

His 8-year administration had NO influence on the country?

Everything that's happened since Obama took over is a direct result of Obama policy?

Yes?

Posted by: Ethan2010 | June 9, 2010 2:45 PM | Report abuse

Ethan:

"So Bush, he never existed? He was never President?"

Yes, that is exactly what I was trying to say. Your interpretative powers are uncanny.

Posted by: ScottC3 | June 9, 2010 3:32 PM | Report abuse

Just saying what you want to hear...

Since, apparently, the facts don't count in your view.

Posted by: Ethan2010 | June 9, 2010 3:39 PM | Report abuse

My view of what? I've explcitly declined to express a view on the subjects you wish to command me to discuss, so it is not at all clear on what exactly you are basing this declaration.

Posted by: ScottC3 | June 9, 2010 3:47 PM | Report abuse

Ethan:

BTW, on this:

"Just saying what you want to hear... "

You are mistaken. What I want to hear from you is "I was blind, but now I can see. Obama is indeed an empty, divisive, lying (albeit charismatic) neophyte, and I will forever regret having voted him into office. I will dedicate the rest of my life to fighting against the authoritarian leftist agenda which Obama represents and of which I used to be such a strong supporter. Oh, and also, the Yankees rule."

That's what I want to hear.

Posted by: ScottC3 | June 9, 2010 3:56 PM | Report abuse

Fine, don't weigh in on the most important topic in the country. Nobody's forcing you, I just want to hear your opinion on issues that matter to me (oil drilling) just like you want to hear my views on issues that matter to you (NRO's bizarre commentary).

But, I'll help you out a little:

Yankees rule.

3rd generation fan.

Posted by: Ethan2010 | June 9, 2010 4:27 PM | Report abuse

Why don't you two Yankees fans stop arguing and come around the bright side: GO RED SOX!

Posted by: wbgonne | June 9, 2010 4:55 PM | Report abuse

Ethan:

"Fine, don't weigh in on the most important topic in the nation."

You seriously think that finding a way to blame Bush for the BP spill is
the most important topic in the nation? Of all the important issues
confronting the nation right now...how to stop the oil spill, the economy,
security, to name just a few...I'm not sure I could elevate one above all
the others. But regardless, I can say with certainty that finding a way to
blame Bush for the oil spill is not among them.

"Yankees rule."

Excellent. Baby steps. We can't expect too much at once.

WBG:

"GO RED SOX!"

Fun fact of the day: The worst team in baseball, the Orioles, have won only
seven games in the AL East and 5 of those 7 wins came against the bums from
Beantown.

Heh.

Posted by: ScottC3 | June 9, 2010 7:11 PM | Report abuse

Many Democrats and Independents in 2008 turned out to vote like never before because they thought they were bringing back the liberal idealism of FDR. The change they were voting for was to reverse The Reagan Destruction, to have We The People take up where FDR and Johnson left off. Instead they got Nelson Rockefeller Republicanism from The Democratic Party Establishment and Obama.

The Democratic Party Establishment and Obama did not learn The Message Of Massachusetts, they did not learn The Message Of Pennsylvania, and they will evidently not learn that same message that exists in this challenge to Lincoln: Stop dealing away to the corporations what people desperately want and need (see the public option and cheaper drugs as examples), kick the corporations out the door, and again meet the needs of the people with strong, universal government services (including a government-financed healthcare option like Medicare) financed in part by significantly raising taxes on Wall Street billionaires and large corporations (who escape taxes with fake home addresses), and with truly strong regulations on large corporations - or witness significant staying-home and/or protest voting.

Posted by: Keefanda | June 10, 2010 3:29 AM | Report abuse

The comments to this entry are closed.

 
 
RSS Feed
Subscribe to The Post

© 2010 The Washington Post Company