Chris Bowers asks "Does anyone here think that working to stop GOP from destroying the filibuster in 2005 was still a good idea?"

The first problem with this question is that the GOP did not try to destroy the filibuster - they tried to destroy the judicial filibuster, arguing that it violated the Constitution. They would not have touched the legislative filibuster.

The second problem with this question is Bowers not imagining what a GOP President and GOP Congress would have achieved with the elimination of the filibuster. You thought the actual Bush tax cuts were bad? They would be TWICE as bad without the filibuster. And twice as hard to undo as they would have been passed in regular order, meaning that to undo them would require passage of new legislation.

You can be for eliminating the filibuster on principles of democracy, as Ezra Klein is. But you can not be against the filibuster, as Chris Bowers is, based on advantage to Democrats and progressives.

What goes around comes around.

Speaking for me only

Mr. Obama’s attempts to avoid confrontation have been counterproductive. His opponents remain filled with a passionate intensity, while his supporters, having received no respect, lack all conviction. And in a midterm election, where turnout is crucial, the “enthusiasm gap” between Republicans and Democrats could spell catastrophe for the Obama agenda.

Who could have predicted?

Speaking for me only

Matt Yglesias:

[. . .] I wonder if Republican politicians are benefitting from a psychological anchor phenomenon around the fact that the media has adopted the conceit that there’s something called the “tea party movement” that’s distinct from the conservative base of the Republican Party. Voters seem to see themselves as about equidistant between Democrats and Tea Parties, which means they’re closer to Republicans than to Democrats. But it’s hard for me to think of important policy disputes between, say, John Boehner & Paul Ryan and tea party leaders.

Someone told me at Netroots Nation that in her opinion the group she works for had made a mistake in not diverting some funding away from HCAN and toward single-payer groups precisely in order to create this sort of anchor.

(Emphasis supplied.) That's sort of been my argument since 2007. I hoped that the Progressive Blogosphere could have been that Left Flank anchor, pulling the debate to the progressive side. Unfortunately, much of the progressive blogosphere decided that it was more important to denounce an independent Left Flank (Firebaggers anyone?) and to cheerlead the Democratic Party. This was a big mistake. Long story short, Yglesias' post is quite compelling.

At least according to Ian Welsh, who recently attended this year's version of Netroots Nation:

To put it crudely and unfairly to both sides, it’s the sell-outs without principles against the purists without realism. And many of them do put it that way. The netroots are split, in a very real way. [. . .] It’s not all-out war, not even close, but there is a disdain, bitterness and contempt between the two sides which is very real, and very dangerous.

That would have been fun to watch, but it sounds too simplistic to me. I'm certainly disappointed with both Democrats and the progressive blogosphere, but I do not think anyone is a sellout without principles or a purist without realism. But I place the disappointment on my own shoulders. My expectations were not realistic, indeed they probably were delusional. More . . .

Markos bizarrely calls this post, which disparages progressive pressure on Democrats, "compelling." Coming from Markos, it really makes no sense, given his constant (and mostly correct) haranguing of Democratic pols for the last 7 years. More importantly, the post is not only not compelling, it makes no sense. I wrote about it yesterday:

[Arch social conservative Richard] Viguerie and people like him were in fact shunted aside [when Reagan chose Sandra Day O'Connor for the Supreme Court] because Reagan wanted to nominate the first woman to the Supreme Court. [. . . Steve Benen] says the moral of the story is "that perceptions can change over time." That is silly. Some folks seem incapable of getting out of focusing on the pol, not the issue. Vigeurie was commenting on one event - the nomination of O'Connor. I am sure if he wanted to, Benen could find many instances of Viguerie praising Reagan at the same time (tax cuts anyone?). It is not all of one thing or another. Here's the real moral of the story in my opinion - who did Reagan nominate for the Supreme Court after O'Connor? Antonin Scalia. For those who decry pressure on their hero pols, the lessons of Richard Viguerie's complaints about Reagan's nomination of Sandra Day O'Connor are that they worked. Viguerie got what he wanted the next time.

Richard Viguerie understood what too many do not want to these days - pols are pols and do what they do. Your loyalty should lie with the issues you care about, not the pols.

((My emphasis.) What's really weird about Markos' shout out for that post is he's busy gearing up pressure on Obama to nominate Elizabeth Warren to the new consumer finance agency. If he really thought it was compelling, he'd stop that immediately.

Speaking for me only

National Journal:

30 percent of Americans believe all of Bush's 2001 and 2003 cuts should stay in place. That compared to 31 percent who believed that all of them should be repealed. Twenty-seven percent take the route Obama campaigned on: Tax cuts for the wealthy should be repealed, while the others should stay in place. [. . .] Independents hewed closest to the overall sample. Twenty-seven percent said all the tax cuts should be kept in place. Thirty-two percent said they all should be repealed. Twenty-seven percent said the tax cuts for the wealthy should be repealed, but the middle class cuts should be kept in place.

It's a no brainer politically. No tax cuts for the rich. Dems should try and make this the central issue of the midterms.

Speaking for me only

In hindsight, this seems an easy call - obviously yes. O'Connor was a deciding vote in upholding a woman's right to choose and affirmative action. Steve Benen digs up a story from 1981 where the arch social conservative Richard Viguerie says of the O'Connor nomination:

"The White House slapped us in the face," says Richard A. Viguerie, the conservative direct-mail expert. "The White House is saying you don't have a constituency we're concerned about. We don't care about you.

I'd say, at the time, Viguerie and people like him were in fact shunted aside because Reagan wanted to nominate the first woman to the Supreme Court. I don't think Benen is disputing that. I do think Benen is trying to discredit progressive dissatisfaction with President Obama. Indeed, he says the moral of the story is "that perceptions can change over time." That is silly. Some folks seem incapable of getting out of focusing on the pol, not the issue. Vigeurie was commenting on one event - the nomination of O'Connor. I am sure if he wanted to, Benen could find many instances of Viguerie praising Reagan at the same time (tax cuts anyone?). It is not all of one thing or another. Here's the real moral of the story in my opinion - who did Reagan nominate for the Supreme Court after O'Connor? Antonin Scalia. For those who decry pressure on their hero pols, the lessons of Richard Viguerie's complaints about Reagan's nomination of Sandra Day O'Connor are that they worked. Viguerie got what he wanted the next time.

Richard Viguerie understood what too many do not want to these days - pols are pols and do what they do. Your loyalty should lie with the issues you care about, not the pols.

Speaking for me only

Not a shocking headline obviously. But I like the Dem political plan on the issue as reported by the NYTimes:

Negotiations are expected to start in the Senate, where it is hardest for Democrats to advance legislation because of Republican filibusters. But some Democrats say a fallback plan would be to have their larger majority in the House approve a continuation of the lower rates just for the middle class right before the election, almost daring Republicans to oppose them.

In that case, Democrats say, Republicans who opposed the bill would be blocking a tax cut for more than 95 percent of Americans to defend tax cuts for a relatively few wealthy households. [. . .] In the weekly Republican radio address on Saturday, Representative Mike Pence of Indiana promised an all-out push to extend the tax cuts [to the wealthy.] “House Republicans will oppose this tax increase with everything we’ve got,” he said.

(Emphasis supplied.) The Dems seem to have the politics AND the policy right on this one. We'll see.

Speaking for me only

Here is a chuckle to start your morning:

The panelists gave voice to lingering disappointment over Halter's failed bid. Adam Green, a co-founder of the Progressive Change Campaign Committee, had particularly harsh words for Bill Clinton, whose full-throated endorsement of Lincoln is credited with helping her win. "It's tough to see someone you've believed in betray you in a big way," Green said of the former president. "We need to pick our heroes. . . . I think it would be sad if we went through this entire conference without calling out Bill Clinton for what he did."

(Emphasis supplied.) Heh. Harsh words for Bill Clinton from a blogger? Now that's never happened. I wonder if Bill Clinton felt like he was being treated as a "hero" when he was called a racist during the 2008 primaries. Oh by the way, President Obama endorsed Lincoln too.

Of course the real problem is having politician "heroes" in the first place. Pols are pols and do what they do.

Speaking for me only

Politico:

With a first meeting called for Thursday, House and Senate Democrats are beginning active discussions on when — and for how long — to extend Bush-era middle-class tax cuts due to expire at the end of this year. [. . .] Senate Finance Committee Chairman Max Baucus (D-Mont.) is more bullish on a permanent extension after adjustments are made in the higher rates. “With today’s budget picture, it’s no longer clear that we can afford large tax cuts for the most well-to-do,” he said, opening a Finance Committee hearing on the subject Wednesday. But in wrap-up comments later, Baucus made clear that he will push for a permanent extension of those provisions that affect middle- and working-class families.

[. . .] The House-Senate differences among Democrats appear driven, too, by tactical considerations regarding a second revenue battle left over from the George W. Bush years: the estate tax. [. . .] Baucus would like to use the middle-class tax-cut extensions as a vehicle to resolve this fight, and by promising to make those individual tax cuts permanent, Baucus gains some potential leverage with moderates in his party.

It does not matter if Baucus is embarrassed or gains leverage over "moderates in his party." Progressive Dems have the upper hand here - the Bush tax cuts expire if nothing happens. This is huge leverage, I like the noises Bernie Sanders is making:

It is heartening that the disgraceful treatment Shirley Sherrod received from the Obama Administration has been universally panned. But I hope the fact that the problem of Dem cowering transcends the injustice done to Sherrod gets wider exposure. The vast majority of working Americans have suffered from this horribly damaging reflex from the Obama Administration and the Dems. At balloon juice, mistermix writes:

For those of us who admired the temperament of the Obama campaign and hoped the combination of intelligence, patience and confidence exhibited during his 2008 win would become part of their style of governing, this stupid, panicky and insecure response indicates that the right wing noise machine has some of the Obama crew rattled.

But this problem is not new, is not limited to the Obama Administration among Dems, and has had a much more deleterious effect on the country than the isolated issue of Ms. Sherrod. From the inadequate stimulus of 2009, to the deficit "concerns" (see the catfood commission) of today (among many other issues), the flinching and cowering of the Obama Administration and the Dems has damaged the country and, ironically, the political fortunes of the Dems. The reflexive hippie punching, the constant refrain of not letting the perfect be the enemy of the good, the ever present concern of being labeled a gasp, liberal, has led to great suffering in the nation. Simply put, the Dems have not been up to the job. L'Affaire Sherrod has put a face to the cost of this attitude. I hope that the transcendence of this problem is recognized and addressed.

Speaking for me only

I am so tuned out from the Establishment Media that I just found out about L'Affaire Sherrod (I first thought it was about Sherrod Brown). Digby writes:

When our new overlord Andrew Breitbart says jump, the White House says, "how high?" Kevin Drum:

[. . .] BigGovernment.com "broke" a story yesterday about a speech given a few months ago by Shirley Sherrod, USDA Georgia Director of Rural Development, at an NAACP Freedom Fund dinner. In it, Sherrod tells a story from 24 years ago about not helping a white farmer as much as she could have because she was "struggling with the fact that so many black people had lost their farm land." The point of this story, told in a public venue, was that she quickly realized that she had done wrong. "That's when it was revealed to me that it's about poor versus those who have. It's not so much about white...it is about white and black but it's not, you know...it opened my eyes."

The Secretary of Agriculture explained why he did Breitbart's bidding: