comments_imageCOMMENTS: 98

Progressives to Gather at Tides Momentum Conference with Frustration with Obama on Their Minds

We are in a political crisis moment. The Tides Foundation is bringing together the country's most significant progressives to address our complex political realities.
September 4, 2009  |  
 
 
 
LIKE THIS ARTICLE ?
Join our mailing list:

Sign up to stay up to date on the latest headlines via email.

 
 
Advertisement
 

Our country and our still new president are facing a political crisis moment. Stacked against us are fundamental issues – health care, climate change, war, and a still-floundering economy. How each and all of these issues are resolved (or not) may well determine the success of Obama's presidency.

With health reform and the so-called “public option” reportedly on life support (although some activists strongly disagree with that prognosis), and the increasingly unpopular Afghanistan war on the verge of yet another escalation, many progressives and Democrats are frustrated, angry, or simply scratching their heads in disbelief. The Obama they thought they elected is not meeting their expectations.

Although Obama still has relatively high numbers among Democrats, they appear to be dropping with some speed. A Zogby interactive poll showed a dip of 13% in Obama's approval ratings in the last month. Republicans' and Independents' assessments remain stable.

Obama has lost even more support among 18-29-year-olds, who may have been more invested in Obama's message of change and have less patience with recent disappointments: Obama's approval ratings among young voters has dropped by 18 points.

It is in this fraught emotional and political climate that the Tides Foundation is holding its 4th Momentum conference at the W Hotel in San Francisco, from Labor Day through September 9th. The roster of speakers – which includes Donna Edwards, Roger Hickey, and Anna Burger -- and the topics they will address guarantee that the charged political moment in which we find ourselves will dominate the agenda.

Although the conference isn’t specifically designed to address the current political maelstrom (as Drummond Pike, the CEO of Tides, and the brains behind the conference says, "There’s not a theme per se for Momentum. We try to assemble the most innovative folks we can find working on policy, strategies, and tools that advance progressive outcomes") the political realities of the moment can hardly be avoided.

On the agenda is a “health care briefing”, which includes Roger Hickey, co-director of the Campaign for America’s Future and the lead spokesperson for the progressive wing of Democrats rallying for a “public option.” An appearance by Crystal Hayling, President and CEO Blue Shield of California Foundation, and California health activist Anthony Wright, should make for interesting debate. Anna Burger, the powerful number two leader of the country’s largest Union, the Social Service Employees Union (SEIU), is scheduled to speak at the Work Plenary. SEIU has invested tens of millions of dollars in organizing around health care reform, and is in the heat of the battle – a battle, as Ezra Klein of the Washington Post reports, has the White House decidedly split between the policy advocates who insist that we need a robust health care plan to work towards covering all Americans, and White House political operatives pushing to scale back the plan to make it more “politically viable.”

At all levels, the battle for health care reform is as contentious as any in recent memory. The country has endured well-publicized town hall battles, often provoked by right-wing astroturf groups. We've seen the disturbing spectacle of right-wingers bringing guns – and fevered, threatening rhetoric -- to presidential events. Absurd fantasies like “death panels for Grandmas have dominated nightly news coverage of the debate over health reform.

Some would argue that progressives have made major strategic errors in the health care fight. In his critique of the politics of health reform, Tides Founder Pike questions the tactics employed by progressives in the struggle for a viable health care system.

Progressives needed to move the discussion in our direction by strong advocacy for deep change and reform. Take health care: progressives have made a mistake on health care by cooperating with the Administration’s idea of a ‘bi-partisan’ approach to reform. In so doing, they gave up on a single payer system at the very beginning. The argument was that the “public option” was the only politically viable outcome. Of course, now that the insurance companies and rightwing noise machine have weighed in, the “public option” is about to fall off the table as well, leaving us with….well, the private markets. Not exactly a progressive outcome. What one cannot help but wonder is what would have happened if progressives had insisted on a single payer bill – at least for debate purposes. Then the compromise might well have been the public option.


Don Hazen is the executive editor of AlterNet.
Email
Print
Share
Post on reddit
Post on stumbleupon
Post on facebook
Post on digg
Post on twitter
Post on delicious
LIKED THIS ARTICLE? JOIN OUR EMAIL LIST
Stay up to date with the latest AlterNet headlines via email
See more stories tagged with: obama, health reform, donna edwards, tides foundation


Comments are closed-

Binary Solution
Posted by: RevolutionNet on Sep 4, 2009 12:28 AM   
Current rating: 3    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Make it clear to Barack Obama that his political survival depends upon his immediate, vigorous, consistent and permanent movement to the Left.

FREE AMERICA

REVOLUTIONARY (DIRECT) DEMOCRACY

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» Thinking Outside the Box Posted by: Ray Duray

Comments are closed-

Progressives Need an Issues Platform ...
Posted by: mmckinl on Sep 4, 2009 12:55 AM   
Current rating: 4    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Without at least some agreement on what the goals should be for progressives to fight for the movement will always be splintered and ineffectual ...

Experts in each policy area should come together to discuss the issues of their specialty and delineate at least minimum policy goals ...

With goals in hand, organizing can be focused towards public action and government accountability ...

As far as Obama it is time for progressives to cast aside their liberal guilt and get down to the facts of Obama's performance ...

If you need a great Black point of view to assuage your guilt try Bruce Dixon at the Black Agenda Report. He has written brilliant pieces on Obama's performance so far from the perspective of the left ...

The biggest weakness I see in the Progressive movement is the lack of expertise and analysis of the financial markets. Specifically the on-going looting of our treasury by Wall Street Banks. The salary and bonus issues are minuscule compared to the billions being siphoned off from the public coffers each and every day. This looting has not stopped and is now in excess of $23 trillion in gifts and guarantees ...

It's hard to enact a progressive agenda when your country is bankrupt ...

Have fun ...

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: Very Green of you. Posted by: oregoncharles
» Kudos to mmckinl... Posted by: zigy

Comments are closed-

Obama Needs To Dispense With The Senatorial Crap
Posted by: NoPCZone on Sep 4, 2009 1:08 AM   
Current rating: 4    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
The man needs to forget he was ever a Senator and be the executive we elected him to be. I really do not ever again care to hear Democrats talking about how nice, decent, honest and all the Rethugnicans are.

Mr Obama, if you wish to be a one term wonder keep treading down the road you are on. The Bush US Attorneys are still in place, you appointed a corporate friendly Catholic (that makes 6 on the court from the church that thinks a rubber is a sin) to the Supreme Court, you flushed EFCA down the toilet, expanded Bush's fiasco in Afghanistan, handed out another round of tax cuts to the fat cats, signed a bill allowing gun crazies to carry in National Parks and are piddling away any chance of healthcare reform.

I could have gotten this from John McSame or any number of Rethugnicans.

It's time to grow a pair or watch your Presidency twist in the wind. 2012 could easily be 1994 all over again and you could see the 60 Seats in the Senate go bye-bye. The corporate whores on the Hill smell political cowardice in the water like sharks sense blood and the Progressives are ready to walk away.

Please also tell the Democratic Party and it's components to not knock on my door, send me a letter or e-mail me asking for my time, effort, money or vote until we get comprehensive, universal healthcare for all. No substitutes. No handouts to the Insurance lobby. And I want an unrestricted public option so I can tell Blue Cross to kiss my a**.

Out here in reality land if you do not produce you get fired-plain and simple. In Washington you guys eff up, say you'll take the responsibility and just keep on as before.

Well screw that.

Produce or get voted out. Deliver or become irrelevant. I'm through with listening to excuses as to why a Democratic President with the largest recorded popular vote tally ever with a huge majority in the House and 60 seats in the Senate can't get things done without sucking up and selling out to the Rethugnicans.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: That's 2010, next year, not 2012 Posted by: oregoncharles
» I ain't voting for him again. Posted by: CRaPWHiSPeReR

Comments are closed-

Dems are screwed till we get the O-holes out
Posted by: Perry Logan on Sep 4, 2009 3:10 AM   
Current rating: 3    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
I hope the people at the meeting will take some time to purge themselves of the bad apples who infest the progressive movement.

The primaries made it very clear that today's progressives are not so cool.

In fact, we have a lot of bad apples in the progressive community. These are the foul-mouthed Philistines who called their fellow Democrats racists, called Hillary and her female supporters the C word, and trotted out hoary old right-wing smears about the Clintons. They can be found in abundance at Huffington Post, Democratic Underground, Buzzflash, DailyKos, and elsewhere in the lefty blogosphere.

They have been called Obamoids, Obots, Obacrats, O-holes, and many other things. Most of them have perceived that Obama is The Worst Democrat Ever™, but they're still in the party.

This means the same idiots who though Barack Obama would be cool are going to vote again. We are so very very screwed!

Before you work with another progressive, find out if he/she spent the primary fighting dirty for Barack Obama. You mustn't join any "progressive" movement that has O-holes in it. The Democratic Party and the progressive movement are screwed until we get the bad Democrats--the erstwhile Obama boosters--out.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]


Comments are closed-

Progressives were already frustrated with Obama long before the election and yet
Posted by: maxpayne on Sep 4, 2009 4:18 AM   
Current rating: 4    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
most of them reluctantly held their noses and voted for him last year. But now, looking at this year's gubernatorial races in VA and NJ, it's safe to conclude that Obama's dropping support is spilling into the local and state races. I've already repeatedly warned that liberals, moderates, and independents have been leaving the Obama building with more to follow but it seems that some assholes on this site don't get it. This article proves you naysayers wrong. What we have here is like a farmer detecting smoke coming from under his fields one day only to result in lava enveloping his entire farmland and much of the town one week later. Good to see some people getting it sooner than when it's too late. The rest of you who wanna be a bunch of blind ones will need to learn the hard way.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]


Comments are closed-

upstartgreen
Posted by: upstartgreen on Sep 4, 2009 6:01 AM   
Current rating: 4    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Why does alternet only do articles on these faux progressives. These are just old fashioned democratic party liberals. Why not some articles on 3rd party activists.I didn't see you post anything about the green Party"s Annual National Meeting this year.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» Perot in '92. Posted by: Karlh
» Ever heard of a Google search? Posted by: maxpayne
» RE: In Oregon, about 10. Posted by: oregoncharles
» RE: We Support Those Posted by: oregoncharles
» RE: upstartgreen: Write One Posted by: oregoncharles

Comments are closed-

How about this...
Posted by: ETSpoon on Sep 4, 2009 6:04 AM   
Current rating: 4    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Pool your money and buy a cable television network or radio network.

Works for FauxNews and Rupert Murdoch

Works for the Washington Times and Sun Myung Moon.

Should work for progressive and liberal causes.

Writes Robert Parry:
I began approaching liberal foundations and wealthy progressives – explaining the emerging media crisis and stressing why it was imperative for them to begin investing in a counter-media infrastructure to restore some balance to the American media world.

What I discovered was a deep-seated bias against investing in media*. There seemed to be a consensus that media was a waste of money and that resources instead should go directly to worthy causes, like feeding the poor or buying up endangered wetlands. One bumper-sticker favorite was “think globally, act locally.”

The Left also displayed what I considered magic thinking, seizing on gimmicks that were seen as substitutes for the hard work of building a messaging system that could communicate regularly and reliably with the American people.*

At liberal conferences, there would be hearty applause when someone would use the word “organize.” But there was little recognition that the Right’s success in organizing its “base” among conservative Christians was greased by the oily appeals of right-wing TV pastors, like Jerry Falwell and Pat Robertson, and later by talk radio and Fox News.

When liberals and progressives did grudgingly focus on media, they mostly wanted to spend money on meetings to talk about it.* Rather than build media, there was a view that media was an issue that activists could organize around.

ConsortiemNews.com
*All emphasis added by me

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: How about this... Posted by: Beck
» RE: How about this... Posted by: upstartgreen
» Big whoop... Posted by: ETSpoon
» RE: Big whoop... Posted by: pawheel

Comments are closed-

"complex political realities."
Posted by: Beck on Sep 4, 2009 6:12 AM   
Current rating: 2    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Thank heaven that was inserted. Usually we seem to read that everything is simple if only the opposition would instantly follow a different party's wish list.

As I pointed out before, if you had any moderate or large problem in your personal life, you wouldn't look ahead to six months from now and expect it erased and not only resolved, but completely reversed. If you had a bad diagnosis, an announcement from your spouse, a bad letter from your bank, a phone call from the cops at 3 am saying your teenager was there again, if again your nasty renters next door had a carload of dubious-looking guests pull up, you'd know that it could very well take a while to straighten that out. And compared to our nation's problems, those are small potatoes. Why we know and face that an anorexic teenager or one with ADD will take great amounts of care and attention and grief and labor with many moments of what looks like failure but can't stand the idea that 7 months ain't long enough to fix far bigger things shows our limitations.

By the way, all polls go up and down. Any president who begins with high polls, as most do, see them go down when reality happens. Reality always happens. Polls go down.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]


Comments are closed-

What progressives need...
Posted by: leafsong1 on Sep 4, 2009 6:33 AM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
...is to either purge the Democratic party or leave it. They have no common ground with the people running the party now.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: What progressives need... Posted by: maxpayne

Comments are closed-

Is Obama a Democrat??
Posted by: picket on Sep 4, 2009 7:23 AM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
If he is than I am not anymore. Americans need a viable third party, a REAL PROGRESSIVE Party. THIRD PARTY Leaders should join forces and write a platform. When THIRD PARTY LEADERS at major election times go their own way there is "000000" chance of ANY CHANGE or Victory. Progressive Democrats like Kucinich have no chance of being the Democratic candidate. If they left and joined a viable Third Party the game changes.

Will there be any such discussion at this MEETING???

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: www.gp.org Posted by: oregoncharles
» RE: Is Obama a Democrat?? Posted by: wonkywriter
» RE: Is Obama a Democrat?? Posted by: picket
» RE: One Name: Posted by: oregoncharles
» Thank you. Posted by: CRaPWHiSPeReR

Comments are closed-

Neoliberal Despots
Posted by: weightman on Sep 4, 2009 7:56 AM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
The Lords and Ladies of Progressive Conscience will gather at a fine Castle of Capitalism to discuss what manner of new refinement they must adorn themselves in to garner more attention at Court. Tea and crumpets will be served as new cassocks of charity, robes of reform and leggings of liberalism will be displayed for all to see and review. Modesty will not be tolerated. Bold new colors and rich new weaves of textiles must be employed to elicit favor from The Sovereign.
And what of the shuffling homeless, forbidden, now, even to squat?
And what of the bulimic beggars, forced to puke what sustenance falls from the parapets of Progressivism, lest The Sovereign be denied?
And what of the stricken and sickly, their lips sewn shut by The Sovereign's Clergy?
And what of the meandering migrants, decaying in detention for being unfortunate enough to bear a pallor deemed unseemly by the Sovereign's Soldiers?
If they are unwilling or unable to take up arms to advance The Sovereign's Empire, let them eat cake.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]


Comments are closed-

Bring In Robert Reich
Posted by: drricklippin on Sep 4, 2009 8:06 AM   
Current rating: 2    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Don- Thanks- This is great news!

Invite Robert Reich if he is not yet on the agenda

He speaks often with gravitas and compassion for the common man and the disenfranchised.

Dr. Rick Lippin
Southampton,Pa

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]


Comments are closed-

ideas
Posted by: horton on Sep 4, 2009 8:27 AM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
"we need ideas, organizing around thoz ideas, and actions implementing thoz ideas"

when, where, and how?

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]


Comments are closed-

Take action now.
Posted by: Shama on Sep 4, 2009 8:38 AM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
I simply see no "change you can believe in".
The Obama Administration continues torture, Guantanamo, employment of Blackwater, waffles on health care, gag order still in place, on & on & on. We need to take immediate action by changing our voter registrations to independent where we can, and unsubscribe to Organizing for America and all other democratic websites that ask for money. Let them know that they have lost their base.
Shaman

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: Turn Green... Posted by: oregoncharles

Comments are closed-

Take action now, update
Posted by: Shama on Sep 4, 2009 8:42 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Please excuse the error with regard to gag order, I meant "don't ask don't tell".
Shaman

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]


Comments are closed-

IT'S GOVERNMENT NOT FAST FOOD
Posted by: VZEQICVA on Sep 4, 2009 9:33 AM   
Current rating: 4    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
When I was a little kid my father used to take out the screens and put in the storm sash for the winter. It was an old house. Something had always warped and had to be planed. So he used the wood planer and the curly strips landed on the floor. My mother pointed this out to him. He said," just stick a broom up my ass and I'll sweep too". My father was a decent, patient man but this put him over the edge. So maybe Obmam needs a broom. ANNA

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]


Comments are closed-

He's Toast!
Posted by: bh on Sep 4, 2009 9:43 AM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Obama became another Corporate puppet about three minutes after the inauguration. He preformed the best Con job on our party that's ever been achieved. He's a one termer for sure. I'm going Green or Nader or Independent or I don't know what the hell to do. Can anyone help me not care anymore? Walk away from all the political craziness and laugh at the sorry state of this Country.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» Don't walk away Posted by: weightman

Comments are closed-

'Progressives???"....'Ideas?"...Bad ones, I'd say.
Posted by: Prinzowhales on Sep 4, 2009 9:46 AM   
Current rating: 4    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
This is primarily an issue of self-esteem. People who leap to claim a mantel whether it be one of "Change"..."Progress"..."Ideas," are trying to differentiate themselves from the common herd by exhibiting some patina of superiority in views and habits. Political correctness is one of the bizarre reification-like patterns of behviour that these sad creatures exhibit--and attempt to inflict upon an incorrect, ideologically messy world that they were not 'educated' to live upon.

Establishment 'progressives'--and, if you were fool enough to vote for Obama, Kerry or Gore... don your belled cap and shoes, because that is what you are...don't have ideas, they have slogans and a collection of nostrums that have been handed down from their fathers fathers to them. They don't appreciate the connectedness of all aspects of life and economy and the need to make broad and sweeping changes with respect for living men and women--instead of kicking them to the curb as the Communists and Capitalists like to do.

If you want real change and progress then why on earth would you trust a party and candidates who are married and connected to the Establishment at the hip, head and heart?
BECAUSE!...You don't really want change. You are a born centrist liberal and are litterally aching not to be bottom dog in the New World Order's ABu Ghraib pyramid...because your precious self-esteem would be devastated. Mussolini, I believe, once said, "A fascist is just a scared liberal."...and mainstream American 'progressives' are just a goosestep away from that.

Obama and friends--if you haven't figured it out yet--are fascists.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]


Comments are closed-

What's a "progressive" anyway?
Posted by: chlamor on Sep 4, 2009 9:50 AM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
"Progressive" is merely a term that was salvaged from the scrapheap of history,sorry but that's too great a metaphor not to steal, by the alleged "left" in this country because the Limbaughs,Kristols,et al had so demonized the word "liberal". That's basically it,plain and simple. The problem is,that in spite of the fact they were led by one of the biggest imperialists and warmongers, the original Progressives,were a bunch of Bolsheviks, compared to the hegemonic capitalists who wrap themselves in the "progressive" mantle today.

While some of us here know that modern-day liberalism was founded to be a capitalist-friendly "third way" between socialism, and conservatism, most people do not. If they did and truly understood this history, they would not waste all of their time and effort into trying to make "liberals", and The Democratic Party in particular, into the socialists they might want them to be.

All too often "progressive" has come to mean someone who will offer unconditional support to The Democratic Party no matter what. It's all bullshit.

A progressive is someone who believes in the system.

A "progressive" is someone who cannot admit to the systemic failure of the society. Through this stubborn blindness, they reveal their own fundamental loyalty to the social system as a whole. The solution to the "anti-democratic" turn in American politics is not to question its foundations but to proscribe "more democracy" or "real democracy", without evaluating for a minute whether the ""turn" is really an aberration. In economics, a "progressive" is one who blames an excess of greed, a deficiency of regulation, or the corruption of the state rather than the normal operation of capitalism. In this way, "progressives" are identical to Libertarians who, in the face of insurmountable evidence, continue to insist that it is "too little" and not too much "free enterprise" which is the problem. They also both share with Nazis, their predisposition to conspiracies. It is secret societies, international bankers, "Jews", who pull the strings and undermine the New Jerusalem. We need a capitalism based on good intentions says the one, based on a strengthening of the "individual" claims the next, and one purged of racial corruption declares the last. Fixing capitalism is the highest and in fact the only slogan of all of the above, and this in the most trivial and unhistorical way possible. Those are the last and the only words of this brand of "radical" criticism which is actually a radical support for the society as it exists... if only that society could be "allowed" to achieve its "true" nature.

Progressives are not Leftists/Socialists but are softer Capitalists.

1- Certainly progressives are on the left of the right-wingers and they seem to care about the poor.

2- Leftists, last time I checked, are people who believe in socialism, at least.

3- Progressives, as far as I can tell, don't believe in socialism.

4- While people believe Progressives are the top-left-radicals in America, this is not true, not even close. And because the media portray them this way, we are given the impression that the weak and slow change they advocate is extreme and almost intolerable.

So not only are Progressives NOT Leftists, I also submit this to you : by calling them leftists, which is a very charged term in America, we are limiting the terms of the debates, we are giving a helping hand to the right-wingers.

No, Progressives are not Leftists, they are softer Capitalists.

Ultimately progressives serve a vital function in preserving the status quo.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: It's a convenient handle... Posted by: oregoncharles
» RE: What's a "progressive" anyway? Posted by: JenniferBedingfield

Comments are closed-

Soliciting Information
Posted by: Southern Gal on Sep 4, 2009 10:08 AM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Has anyone read the article by Jed Graham entitled "The Right Health Care Fix Could Help Save Social Security". I saw it on Nouriel Roubini's US EcoMonitor. Graham's discussion included taxing employer provided health insurance benefits. On the face of it this sounds like something that I could not support. However, the article does make some interesting points. It would help to have some knowledgable progressive people to dissect this and other ideas that are being put out there for us. I'm for single payer, always have been, and if not single payer a public option with teeth. I just want to know the validity of this particular approach and what other progressives have said about it. I appreciate any comments people will share.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]


Comments are closed-

NOW he says we should have stuck by single payer!
Posted by: oregoncharles on Sep 4, 2009 10:21 AM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Duhhh - you think so?

(Excuse me a moment while I delete the expletives. There. Sigh.)

This is what happens when progressives tie themselves too tightly to the Democratic Party. How many times do we have to learn that the Democrats are NOT PROGRESSIVES - even if there are a few progressives among them?

Some of us also failed to carry out "due diligence" - like looking at the guy's record. And the party's record.

Some of us tried to warn you, but that's water over the dam now.

This article is frustrating, in a way: we have a Progressive Bilderberg, and no list of who will be there. Maybe it's in the link. But there's no analysis here, just a promo.

I'm getting the idea Alternet is based in SF; how about a real report on the conference when it's done? The kind you'd do if you were a fly on the wall at Bilderberg?

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]


Comments are closed-

My concern is that this conference is irrelevant to the crisis in governement we face
Posted by: Paul_C on Sep 4, 2009 10:26 AM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Change and the crises that lead to change are not linear. They both happen in spurts - all at once in world-changing events that happen on a very short timescale.

This conference appears designed to fail in that respect, in that it takes a long term academic view of change. That is called administrative management of the status quo.

The only person making sense is Donna Edwards calling for a platform, organizing and pushback against failed ideas and policies.

I would consider this conference a success if it produces a third party candidate to begin organizing and running NOW to beat the 2 party hegemony.

Anything short of that is nothing more than continued masturbation by the left.

peace,
Paul

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]


Comments are closed-

The first thing 'progressives' need to do...
Posted by: Prinzowhales on Sep 4, 2009 10:45 AM   
Current rating: 4    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
...is admit to themselves that Obama and friends are lying sacks of bovine dropping. Smiley-faced fascists with 'Rothschild's Choice' Barrack Obama calling for a Civilian Defense Force with the same strength and funding as the military...can you spell "Brownshirts?"

These people do not want change...their company union thugs and morons from the SEIU, UAW and the like have sold the general membership south by Fearless Leader and his international banker, CFR, Trilateralist, NWO team.

Hillary's health care 'reform' package was so insane no one wanted it--it was designed to provoke precisely that reaction. Obama is putting on a circus of maimed animals clumsily failing to perform tricks. No one wants his plan except the Establishment and its dupes. Like Hillary, Fearless Leader has offered us a plan that is a win-win situation for the Medical Industrial Complex and a lose-lose situation for the people who will have to endure it.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]


Comments are closed-

The Left comprehends the word "Progress" like
Posted by: Purple Girl on Sep 4, 2009 11:05 AM   
Current rating: 3    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
the Evangelicals understand Christianity.
I have become as sick of the Far left of my party as Republican must be getting with their Evangelicals. Of course we are both sick of the damn Corp whores in both parties (Neo cons and DLC'ers).
In fact I'm not sure that they are both not under the influence of the same psychotropic drugs, only with different 'Saviors' playing the lead party in their fantasies. The 'End of Dayers' are as anxious waiting for Christ to save them as Left wingers are for Obama to save them- perform miracles and create an 'eden' existence. Just as instantanously BTW.
the Far Left fails to acknowledge that 'progress' is inherently a process. Similar to the Religious Right who can't accept the fact that Christianity is inherently about Charity.
"Reform" is as irrelevant and disgarded by Lefties as 'empathy' is by Evangelicals.
Obama never said he was going to immediately withdrawl from Afghanistan. He never said he supported Gay marriage (only unions). He never said he'd end using coal, or oil or nuclear power.
Just like Christ never weilded a weapon, enlisted the aid of soldiers or built Armies.
Sarah Palin and Ralph Nadar Lost because rational thinking americans knew they were both out of touch with reality. Sarah wouldn't be able to deliver on the 'Rapture' and Nadar couldn't deliver on Waldons Pond.
Between the delusional Far left and the Corp Whore Conservadems, the Dem party is in as much of a fucked up state as the Republcian party with their Relgious fanatics and Neo Cons.
These Two fringe groups have been going at it for decades- and look where it's got US- at best,Nowhere. More accurately, utter disaster!
Heres what I say, Fuck 'em all! If you don't even understand the fundementals of the 'flag' you stand Under, why the hell would we listen to you?

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» Purple Girl...... Posted by: progressive-life

Comments are closed-

Change is a process that is rapidly speeding up
Posted by: alturn on Sep 4, 2009 12:34 PM   
Current rating: 4    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
People throughout the political spectrum know that things are broken. Through their myriad of prisms they seek to express what they sense but do not have the framework yet to fully articulate.

People heard Obama and hoped that he could implement the needed new vision and lead America to the new time. Yet Obama's challenge is, just like America's, that he could vaguely describe where we need to go but was not ready to let go of the old, comfortable ways for the harsh brutally honest journey into a vastly different reality. A reality where all people, around the world, have the right to exist and have their basic needs met. A reality where the world's resources must be shared by all, not hoarded by a few. A reality where the needs of others are as important as your own. A reality where America stands as an equal, not a tyrant, among other nations.

We struggle because the old, outworn ways are rapidly losing energy while the new reality gains in urgency and power. Yet because it is so different, paralysis grips us and we hardly dare to talk about what we must do and become for us to survive.

Because of fear of the needed great change, we slip further into an economic chasm that old tools cannot lift us out. So the pot of discontent gradually moves from a simmer to a boil as one by one Americans become unemployed, sick or disenfranchised. The right is of the past, the left only hints of the future as it gives only partial solutions. Soon conditions will become harsh enough that people - right, left and in between - will see that above there is merit in leaving behind this selfish time and becoming what is best in us - humane. To each other, the planet and all else.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]


Comments are closed-

Judging a book by its contents instead of just by its book cover alone.
Posted by: JenniferBedingfield on Sep 4, 2009 12:57 PM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
The first thing that must happen is changing from voting based on party affiliation to voting with open hearts and minds on the issues as the real means of identifying with the candidate. Otherwise, we will continue to receive mediocre misrepresentation no matter which party is in power. This is what I mean when I say judging a book by its contents instead of just by its bookcover alone.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]


Comments are closed-

Poor, cheap writing from Don Hazen
Posted by: SteveA on Sep 4, 2009 7:20 PM   
Current rating: 1    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Any third-year English major could have slapped this selectively written article together. A biased collection of Hard Left talking points is not going to help anyone advance an agenda. Where's the analysis of how to get "single payer" though a Congress worried about getting re-elected by a center-Right electorate that couldn't even swallow John Kerry? Do you think putting someone more positive than Nancy Pelosi and Charlie Rangel out front might help?

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]


Comments are closed-

We don't need a third party, we need 5 or 6
Posted by: truthteller on Sep 4, 2009 10:54 PM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
What is really needed is to open up the corrupted and totally owned "two-party"system. We need to go to a system that would allow other parties an equal chance of running successful candidates. Here are some things that really need to happen:

* Boards of Election need to be made totally non-partisan. Qualifying rules for any party need to be the same for all parties. Rules that require unreasonable numbers of signatures for parties other than Democrats and Republicans need to be outlawed.

* Decennial redistricting for ALL population based electoral districts (not just Congressional) needs to be done with commissions like Iowa has - they draw rational districts with regular boundaries based solely on population distribution, not party affiliation. Gerrymandering has got to end.

* We need to adopt a full-blown run-off election system. Proposals for Instant Runoff Voting (IRV) fail to take into account that in the several countries where it has been adopted (New Zealand, Australia, and Ireland I believe), entrenched two party systems have resulted. My reading of the U. S. Constitution leads me to believe that this could be done merely by statute. This is the single most critical step to opening up the electoral process to any party that can muster enough reasonable support to get on the ballot. Voters must feel that they are not "throwing their vote away" in voting for a party other than the "Dems" or the "Reps". The top two winners in any initial election, providing nobody gets a majority of the vote, will face each other in the final election, and I don't care if they end up being the Natural Law Party and the Libertarians. The process has to be reformed and made fair for ALL.

* The date for general elections has got to be changed from the first Tuesday after the first Monday in November to a weekend day, preferably the entire weekend, preferably in October (to allow time for run-offs, recounts, and challenges), and it should be declared a federal holiday so that all may be allowed to participate. Too many occupations make it hard for people to be off during daylight hours on a weekday. Having major elections over a weekend greatly increases the possibility that just about everyone can vote on one of those days.

* Finally, the biggest sticking point of all. The Electoral College must be retired to the ash heap of history, and we must directly elect the President and Vice-President. We also need a new rational system of Presidential primaries, something that is fair to both large and small states. Probably a series of 4 super-primaries of 13 states each, chosen by size and held in inverse order of population every 4 to 6 weeks from late January to early June of Presidential election years. This has a couple of advantages. First, both Iowa and New Hampshire will be in the first round, which should end the silly one-upsmanship competition between them that has pushed the start of the primary season back to where people still have New Year's hangovers while going to vote. Second, this will include the other 11 smallest states in population, and will give the primaries geographic and ethnic balance. Most likely the nominees will not be chosen until or near the end of the process, and just about everyone will feel that they played a role in selecting the final nominees.

I also think we should visit changing a Presidency to one six-year term, but this is more than enough to start with.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» Bravo! Posted by: CRaPWHiSPeReR
Alternet Comments:

Comments are closed-

Binary Solution
Posted by: RevolutionNet on Sep 4, 2009 12:28 AM   
Current rating: 3    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Make it clear to Barack Obama that his political survival depends upon his immediate, vigorous, consistent and permanent movement to the Left.

FREE AMERICA

REVOLUTIONARY (DIRECT) DEMOCRACY

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» Thinking Outside the Box Posted by: Ray Duray

Comments are closed-

Progressives Need an Issues Platform ...
Posted by: mmckinl on Sep 4, 2009 12:55 AM   
Current rating: 4    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Without at least some agreement on what the goals should be for progressives to fight for the movement will always be splintered and ineffectual ...

Experts in each policy area should come together to discuss the issues of their specialty and delineate at least minimum policy goals ...

With goals in hand, organizing can be focused towards public action and government accountability ...

As far as Obama it is time for progressives to cast aside their liberal guilt and get down to the facts of Obama's performance ...

If you need a great Black point of view to assuage your guilt try Bruce Dixon at the Black Agenda Report. He has written brilliant pieces on Obama's performance so far from the perspective of the left ...

The biggest weakness I see in the Progressive movement is the lack of expertise and analysis of the financial markets. Specifically the on-going looting of our treasury by Wall Street Banks. The salary and bonus issues are minuscule compared to the billions being siphoned off from the public coffers each and every day. This looting has not stopped and is now in excess of $23 trillion in gifts and guarantees ...

It's hard to enact a progressive agenda when your country is bankrupt ...

Have fun ...

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: Very Green of you. Posted by: oregoncharles
» Kudos to mmckinl... Posted by: zigy

Comments are closed-

Obama Needs To Dispense With The Senatorial Crap
Posted by: NoPCZone on Sep 4, 2009 1:08 AM   
Current rating: 4    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
The man needs to forget he was ever a Senator and be the executive we elected him to be. I really do not ever again care to hear Democrats talking about how nice, decent, honest and all the Rethugnicans are.

Mr Obama, if you wish to be a one term wonder keep treading down the road you are on. The Bush US Attorneys are still in place, you appointed a corporate friendly Catholic (that makes 6 on the court from the church that thinks a rubber is a sin) to the Supreme Court, you flushed EFCA down the toilet, expanded Bush's fiasco in Afghanistan, handed out another round of tax cuts to the fat cats, signed a bill allowing gun crazies to carry in National Parks and are piddling away any chance of healthcare reform.

I could have gotten this from John McSame or any number of Rethugnicans.

It's time to grow a pair or watch your Presidency twist in the wind. 2012 could easily be 1994 all over again and you could see the 60 Seats in the Senate go bye-bye. The corporate whores on the Hill smell political cowardice in the water like sharks sense blood and the Progressives are ready to walk away.

Please also tell the Democratic Party and it's components to not knock on my door, send me a letter or e-mail me asking for my time, effort, money or vote until we get comprehensive, universal healthcare for all. No substitutes. No handouts to the Insurance lobby. And I want an unrestricted public option so I can tell Blue Cross to kiss my a**.

Out here in reality land if you do not produce you get fired-plain and simple. In Washington you guys eff up, say you'll take the responsibility and just keep on as before.

Well screw that.

Produce or get voted out. Deliver or become irrelevant. I'm through with listening to excuses as to why a Democratic President with the largest recorded popular vote tally ever with a huge majority in the House and 60 seats in the Senate can't get things done without sucking up and selling out to the Rethugnicans.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: That's 2010, next year, not 2012 Posted by: oregoncharles
» I ain't voting for him again. Posted by: CRaPWHiSPeReR

Comments are closed-

Dems are screwed till we get the O-holes out
Posted by: Perry Logan on Sep 4, 2009 3:10 AM   
Current rating: 3    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
I hope the people at the meeting will take some time to purge themselves of the bad apples who infest the progressive movement.

The primaries made it very clear that today's progressives are not so cool.

In fact, we have a lot of bad apples in the progressive community. These are the foul-mouthed Philistines who called their fellow Democrats racists, called Hillary and her female supporters the C word, and trotted out hoary old right-wing smears about the Clintons. They can be found in abundance at Huffington Post, Democratic Underground, Buzzflash, DailyKos, and elsewhere in the lefty blogosphere.

They have been called Obamoids, Obots, Obacrats, O-holes, and many other things. Most of them have perceived that Obama is The Worst Democrat Ever™, but they're still in the party.

This means the same idiots who though Barack Obama would be cool are going to vote again. We are so very very screwed!

Before you work with another progressive, find out if he/she spent the primary fighting dirty for Barack Obama. You mustn't join any "progressive" movement that has O-holes in it. The Democratic Party and the progressive movement are screwed until we get the bad Democrats--the erstwhile Obama boosters--out.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]


Comments are closed-

Progressives were already frustrated with Obama long before the election and yet
Posted by: maxpayne on Sep 4, 2009 4:18 AM   
Current rating: 4    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
most of them reluctantly held their noses and voted for him last year. But now, looking at this year's gubernatorial races in VA and NJ, it's safe to conclude that Obama's dropping support is spilling into the local and state races. I've already repeatedly warned that liberals, moderates, and independents have been leaving the Obama building with more to follow but it seems that some assholes on this site don't get it. This article proves you naysayers wrong. What we have here is like a farmer detecting smoke coming from under his fields one day only to result in lava enveloping his entire farmland and much of the town one week later. Good to see some people getting it sooner than when it's too late. The rest of you who wanna be a bunch of blind ones will need to learn the hard way.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]


Comments are closed-

upstartgreen
Posted by: upstartgreen on Sep 4, 2009 6:01 AM   
Current rating: 4    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Why does alternet only do articles on these faux progressives. These are just old fashioned democratic party liberals. Why not some articles on 3rd party activists.I didn't see you post anything about the green Party"s Annual National Meeting this year.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» Perot in '92. Posted by: Karlh
» Ever heard of a Google search? Posted by: maxpayne
» RE: In Oregon, about 10. Posted by: oregoncharles
» RE: We Support Those Posted by: oregoncharles
» RE: upstartgreen: Write One Posted by: oregoncharles

Comments are closed-

How about this...
Posted by: ETSpoon on Sep 4, 2009 6:04 AM   
Current rating: 4    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Pool your money and buy a cable television network or radio network.

Works for FauxNews and Rupert Murdoch

Works for the Washington Times and Sun Myung Moon.

Should work for progressive and liberal causes.

Writes Robert Parry:
I began approaching liberal foundations and wealthy progressives – explaining the emerging media crisis and stressing why it was imperative for them to begin investing in a counter-media infrastructure to restore some balance to the American media world.

What I discovered was a deep-seated bias against investing in media*. There seemed to be a consensus that media was a waste of money and that resources instead should go directly to worthy causes, like feeding the poor or buying up endangered wetlands. One bumper-sticker favorite was “think globally, act locally.”

The Left also displayed what I considered magic thinking, seizing on gimmicks that were seen as substitutes for the hard work of building a messaging system that could communicate regularly and reliably with the American people.*

At liberal conferences, there would be hearty applause when someone would use the word “organize.” But there was little recognition that the Right’s success in organizing its “base” among conservative Christians was greased by the oily appeals of right-wing TV pastors, like Jerry Falwell and Pat Robertson, and later by talk radio and Fox News.

When liberals and progressives did grudgingly focus on media, they mostly wanted to spend money on meetings to talk about it.* Rather than build media, there was a view that media was an issue that activists could organize around.

ConsortiemNews.com
*All emphasis added by me

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: How about this... Posted by: Beck
» RE: How about this... Posted by: upstartgreen
» Big whoop... Posted by: ETSpoon
» RE: Big whoop... Posted by: pawheel

Comments are closed-

"complex political realities."
Posted by: Beck on Sep 4, 2009 6:12 AM   
Current rating: 2    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Thank heaven that was inserted. Usually we seem to read that everything is simple if only the opposition would instantly follow a different party's wish list.

As I pointed out before, if you had any moderate or large problem in your personal life, you wouldn't look ahead to six months from now and expect it erased and not only resolved, but completely reversed. If you had a bad diagnosis, an announcement from your spouse, a bad letter from your bank, a phone call from the cops at 3 am saying your teenager was there again, if again your nasty renters next door had a carload of dubious-looking guests pull up, you'd know that it could very well take a while to straighten that out. And compared to our nation's problems, those are small potatoes. Why we know and face that an anorexic teenager or one with ADD will take great amounts of care and attention and grief and labor with many moments of what looks like failure but can't stand the idea that 7 months ain't long enough to fix far bigger things shows our limitations.

By the way, all polls go up and down. Any president who begins with high polls, as most do, see them go down when reality happens. Reality always happens. Polls go down.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]


Comments are closed-

What progressives need...
Posted by: leafsong1 on Sep 4, 2009 6:33 AM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
...is to either purge the Democratic party or leave it. They have no common ground with the people running the party now.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: What progressives need... Posted by: maxpayne

Comments are closed-

Is Obama a Democrat??
Posted by: picket on Sep 4, 2009 7:23 AM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
If he is than I am not anymore. Americans need a viable third party, a REAL PROGRESSIVE Party. THIRD PARTY Leaders should join forces and write a platform. When THIRD PARTY LEADERS at major election times go their own way there is "000000" chance of ANY CHANGE or Victory. Progressive Democrats like Kucinich have no chance of being the Democratic candidate. If they left and joined a viable Third Party the game changes.

Will there be any such discussion at this MEETING???

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: www.gp.org Posted by: oregoncharles
» RE: Is Obama a Democrat?? Posted by: wonkywriter
» RE: Is Obama a Democrat?? Posted by: picket
» RE: One Name: Posted by: oregoncharles
» Thank you. Posted by: CRaPWHiSPeReR

Comments are closed-

Neoliberal Despots
Posted by: weightman on Sep 4, 2009 7:56 AM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
The Lords and Ladies of Progressive Conscience will gather at a fine Castle of Capitalism to discuss what manner of new refinement they must adorn themselves in to garner more attention at Court. Tea and crumpets will be served as new cassocks of charity, robes of reform and leggings of liberalism will be displayed for all to see and review. Modesty will not be tolerated. Bold new colors and rich new weaves of textiles must be employed to elicit favor from The Sovereign.
And what of the shuffling homeless, forbidden, now, even to squat?
And what of the bulimic beggars, forced to puke what sustenance falls from the parapets of Progressivism, lest The Sovereign be denied?
And what of the stricken and sickly, their lips sewn shut by The Sovereign's Clergy?
And what of the meandering migrants, decaying in detention for being unfortunate enough to bear a pallor deemed unseemly by the Sovereign's Soldiers?
If they are unwilling or unable to take up arms to advance The Sovereign's Empire, let them eat cake.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]


Comments are closed-

Bring In Robert Reich
Posted by: drricklippin on Sep 4, 2009 8:06 AM   
Current rating: 2    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Don- Thanks- This is great news!

Invite Robert Reich if he is not yet on the agenda

He speaks often with gravitas and compassion for the common man and the disenfranchised.

Dr. Rick Lippin
Southampton,Pa

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]


Comments are closed-

ideas
Posted by: horton on Sep 4, 2009 8:27 AM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
"we need ideas, organizing around thoz ideas, and actions implementing thoz ideas"

when, where, and how?

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]


Comments are closed-

Take action now.
Posted by: Shama on Sep 4, 2009 8:38 AM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
I simply see no "change you can believe in".
The Obama Administration continues torture, Guantanamo, employment of Blackwater, waffles on health care, gag order still in place, on & on & on. We need to take immediate action by changing our voter registrations to independent where we can, and unsubscribe to Organizing for America and all other democratic websites that ask for money. Let them know that they have lost their base.
Shaman

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: Turn Green... Posted by: oregoncharles

Comments are closed-

Take action now, update
Posted by: Shama on Sep 4, 2009 8:42 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Please excuse the error with regard to gag order, I meant "don't ask don't tell".
Shaman

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]


Comments are closed-

IT'S GOVERNMENT NOT FAST FOOD
Posted by: VZEQICVA on Sep 4, 2009 9:33 AM   
Current rating: 4    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
When I was a little kid my father used to take out the screens and put in the storm sash for the winter. It was an old house. Something had always warped and had to be planed. So he used the wood planer and the curly strips landed on the floor. My mother pointed this out to him. He said," just stick a broom up my ass and I'll sweep too". My father was a decent, patient man but this put him over the edge. So maybe Obmam needs a broom. ANNA

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]


Comments are closed-

He's Toast!
Posted by: bh on Sep 4, 2009 9:43 AM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Obama became another Corporate puppet about three minutes after the inauguration. He preformed the best Con job on our party that's ever been achieved. He's a one termer for sure. I'm going Green or Nader or Independent or I don't know what the hell to do. Can anyone help me not care anymore? Walk away from all the political craziness and laugh at the sorry state of this Country.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» Don't walk away Posted by: weightman

Comments are closed-

'Progressives???"....'Ideas?"...Bad ones, I'd say.
Posted by: Prinzowhales on Sep 4, 2009 9:46 AM   
Current rating: 4    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
This is primarily an issue of self-esteem. People who leap to claim a mantel whether it be one of "Change"..."Progress"..."Ideas," are trying to differentiate themselves from the common herd by exhibiting some patina of superiority in views and habits. Political correctness is one of the bizarre reification-like patterns of behviour that these sad creatures exhibit--and attempt to inflict upon an incorrect, ideologically messy world that they were not 'educated' to live upon.

Establishment 'progressives'--and, if you were fool enough to vote for Obama, Kerry or Gore... don your belled cap and shoes, because that is what you are...don't have ideas, they have slogans and a collection of nostrums that have been handed down from their fathers fathers to them. They don't appreciate the connectedness of all aspects of life and economy and the need to make broad and sweeping changes with respect for living men and women--instead of kicking them to the curb as the Communists and Capitalists like to do.

If you want real change and progress then why on earth would you trust a party and candidates who are married and connected to the Establishment at the hip, head and heart?
BECAUSE!...You don't really want change. You are a born centrist liberal and are litterally aching not to be bottom dog in the New World Order's ABu Ghraib pyramid...because your precious self-esteem would be devastated. Mussolini, I believe, once said, "A fascist is just a scared liberal."...and mainstream American 'progressives' are just a goosestep away from that.

Obama and friends--if you haven't figured it out yet--are fascists.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]


Comments are closed-

What's a "progressive" anyway?
Posted by: chlamor on Sep 4, 2009 9:50 AM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
"Progressive" is merely a term that was salvaged from the scrapheap of history,sorry but that's too great a metaphor not to steal, by the alleged "left" in this country because the Limbaughs,Kristols,et al had so demonized the word "liberal". That's basically it,plain and simple. The problem is,that in spite of the fact they were led by one of the biggest imperialists and warmongers, the original Progressives,were a bunch of Bolsheviks, compared to the hegemonic capitalists who wrap themselves in the "progressive" mantle today.

While some of us here know that modern-day liberalism was founded to be a capitalist-friendly "third way" between socialism, and conservatism, most people do not. If they did and truly understood this history, they would not waste all of their time and effort into trying to make "liberals", and The Democratic Party in particular, into the socialists they might want them to be.

All too often "progressive" has come to mean someone who will offer unconditional support to The Democratic Party no matter what. It's all bullshit.

A progressive is someone who believes in the system.

A "progressive" is someone who cannot admit to the systemic failure of the society. Through this stubborn blindness, they reveal their own fundamental loyalty to the social system as a whole. The solution to the "anti-democratic" turn in American politics is not to question its foundations but to proscribe "more democracy" or "real democracy", without evaluating for a minute whether the ""turn" is really an aberration. In economics, a "progressive" is one who blames an excess of greed, a deficiency of regulation, or the corruption of the state rather than the normal operation of capitalism. In this way, "progressives" are identical to Libertarians who, in the face of insurmountable evidence, continue to insist that it is "too little" and not too much "free enterprise" which is the problem. They also both share with Nazis, their predisposition to conspiracies. It is secret societies, international bankers, "Jews", who pull the strings and undermine the New Jerusalem. We need a capitalism based on good intentions says the one, based on a strengthening of the "individual" claims the next, and one purged of racial corruption declares the last. Fixing capitalism is the highest and in fact the only slogan of all of the above, and this in the most trivial and unhistorical way possible. Those are the last and the only words of this brand of "radical" criticism which is actually a radical support for the society as it exists... if only that society could be "allowed" to achieve its "true" nature.

Progressives are not Leftists/Socialists but are softer Capitalists.

1- Certainly progressives are on the left of the right-wingers and they seem to care about the poor.

2- Leftists, last time I checked, are people who believe in socialism, at least.

3- Progressives, as far as I can tell, don't believe in socialism.

4- While people believe Progressives are the top-left-radicals in America, this is not true, not even close. And because the media portray them this way, we are given the impression that the weak and slow change they advocate is extreme and almost intolerable.

So not only are Progressives NOT Leftists, I also submit this to you : by calling them leftists, which is a very charged term in America, we are limiting the terms of the debates, we are giving a helping hand to the right-wingers.

No, Progressives are not Leftists, they are softer Capitalists.

Ultimately progressives serve a vital function in preserving the status quo.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: It's a convenient handle... Posted by: oregoncharles
» RE: What's a "progressive" anyway? Posted by: JenniferBedingfield

Comments are closed-

Soliciting Information
Posted by: Southern Gal on Sep 4, 2009 10:08 AM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Has anyone read the article by Jed Graham entitled "The Right Health Care Fix Could Help Save Social Security". I saw it on Nouriel Roubini's US EcoMonitor. Graham's discussion included taxing employer provided health insurance benefits. On the face of it this sounds like something that I could not support. However, the article does make some interesting points. It would help to have some knowledgable progressive people to dissect this and other ideas that are being put out there for us. I'm for single payer, always have been, and if not single payer a public option with teeth. I just want to know the validity of this particular approach and what other progressives have said about it. I appreciate any comments people will share.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]


Comments are closed-

NOW he says we should have stuck by single payer!
Posted by: oregoncharles on Sep 4, 2009 10:21 AM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Duhhh - you think so?

(Excuse me a moment while I delete the expletives. There. Sigh.)

This is what happens when progressives tie themselves too tightly to the Democratic Party. How many times do we have to learn that the Democrats are NOT PROGRESSIVES - even if there are a few progressives among them?

Some of us also failed to carry out "due diligence" - like looking at the guy's record. And the party's record.

Some of us tried to warn you, but that's water over the dam now.

This article is frustrating, in a way: we have a Progressive Bilderberg, and no list of who will be there. Maybe it's in the link. But there's no analysis here, just a promo.

I'm getting the idea Alternet is based in SF; how about a real report on the conference when it's done? The kind you'd do if you were a fly on the wall at Bilderberg?

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]


Comments are closed-

My concern is that this conference is irrelevant to the crisis in governement we face
Posted by: Paul_C on Sep 4, 2009 10:26 AM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Change and the crises that lead to change are not linear. They both happen in spurts - all at once in world-changing events that happen on a very short timescale.

This conference appears designed to fail in that respect, in that it takes a long term academic view of change. That is called administrative management of the status quo.

The only person making sense is Donna Edwards calling for a platform, organizing and pushback against failed ideas and policies.

I would consider this conference a success if it produces a third party candidate to begin organizing and running NOW to beat the 2 party hegemony.

Anything short of that is nothing more than continued masturbation by the left.

peace,
Paul

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]


Comments are closed-

The first thing 'progressives' need to do...
Posted by: Prinzowhales on Sep 4, 2009 10:45 AM   
Current rating: 4    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
...is admit to themselves that Obama and friends are lying sacks of bovine dropping. Smiley-faced fascists with 'Rothschild's Choice' Barrack Obama calling for a Civilian Defense Force with the same strength and funding as the military...can you spell "Brownshirts?"

These people do not want change...their company union thugs and morons from the SEIU, UAW and the like have sold the general membership south by Fearless Leader and his international banker, CFR, Trilateralist, NWO team.

Hillary's health care 'reform' package was so insane no one wanted it--it was designed to provoke precisely that reaction. Obama is putting on a circus of maimed animals clumsily failing to perform tricks. No one wants his plan except the Establishment and its dupes. Like Hillary, Fearless Leader has offered us a plan that is a win-win situation for the Medical Industrial Complex and a lose-lose situation for the people who will have to endure it.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]


Comments are closed-

The Left comprehends the word "Progress" like
Posted by: Purple Girl on Sep 4, 2009 11:05 AM   
Current rating: 3    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
the Evangelicals understand Christianity.
I have become as sick of the Far left of my party as Republican must be getting with their Evangelicals. Of course we are both sick of the damn Corp whores in both parties (Neo cons and DLC'ers).
In fact I'm not sure that they are both not under the influence of the same psychotropic drugs, only with different 'Saviors' playing the lead party in their fantasies. The 'End of Dayers' are as anxious waiting for Christ to save them as Left wingers are for Obama to save them- perform miracles and create an 'eden' existence. Just as instantanously BTW.
the Far Left fails to acknowledge that 'progress' is inherently a process. Similar to the Religious Right who can't accept the fact that Christianity is inherently about Charity.
"Reform" is as irrelevant and disgarded by Lefties as 'empathy' is by Evangelicals.
Obama never said he was going to immediately withdrawl from Afghanistan. He never said he supported Gay marriage (only unions). He never said he'd end using coal, or oil or nuclear power.
Just like Christ never weilded a weapon, enlisted the aid of soldiers or built Armies.
Sarah Palin and Ralph Nadar Lost because rational thinking americans knew they were both out of touch with reality. Sarah wouldn't be able to deliver on the 'Rapture' and Nadar couldn't deliver on Waldons Pond.
Between the delusional Far left and the Corp Whore Conservadems, the Dem party is in as much of a fucked up state as the Republcian party with their Relgious fanatics and Neo Cons.
These Two fringe groups have been going at it for decades- and look where it's got US- at best,Nowhere. More accurately, utter disaster!
Heres what I say, Fuck 'em all! If you don't even understand the fundementals of the 'flag' you stand Under, why the hell would we listen to you?

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» Purple Girl...... Posted by: progressive-life

Comments are closed-

Change is a process that is rapidly speeding up
Posted by: alturn on Sep 4, 2009 12:34 PM   
Current rating: 4    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
People throughout the political spectrum know that things are broken. Through their myriad of prisms they seek to express what they sense but do not have the framework yet to fully articulate.

People heard Obama and hoped that he could implement the needed new vision and lead America to the new time. Yet Obama's challenge is, just like America's, that he could vaguely describe where we need to go but was not ready to let go of the old, comfortable ways for the harsh brutally honest journey into a vastly different reality. A reality where all people, around the world, have the right to exist and have their basic needs met. A reality where the world's resources must be shared by all, not hoarded by a few. A reality where the needs of others are as important as your own. A reality where America stands as an equal, not a tyrant, among other nations.

We struggle because the old, outworn ways are rapidly losing energy while the new reality gains in urgency and power. Yet because it is so different, paralysis grips us and we hardly dare to talk about what we must do and become for us to survive.

Because of fear of the needed great change, we slip further into an economic chasm that old tools cannot lift us out. So the pot of discontent gradually moves from a simmer to a boil as one by one Americans become unemployed, sick or disenfranchised. The right is of the past, the left only hints of the future as it gives only partial solutions. Soon conditions will become harsh enough that people - right, left and in between - will see that above there is merit in leaving behind this selfish time and becoming what is best in us - humane. To each other, the planet and all else.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]


Comments are closed-

Judging a book by its contents instead of just by its book cover alone.
Posted by: JenniferBedingfield on Sep 4, 2009 12:57 PM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
The first thing that must happen is changing from voting based on party affiliation to voting with open hearts and minds on the issues as the real means of identifying with the candidate. Otherwise, we will continue to receive mediocre misrepresentation no matter which party is in power. This is what I mean when I say judging a book by its contents instead of just by its bookcover alone.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]


Comments are closed-

Poor, cheap writing from Don Hazen
Posted by: SteveA on Sep 4, 2009 7:20 PM   
Current rating: 1    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Any third-year English major could have slapped this selectively written article together. A biased collection of Hard Left talking points is not going to help anyone advance an agenda. Where's the analysis of how to get "single payer" though a Congress worried about getting re-elected by a center-Right electorate that couldn't even swallow John Kerry? Do you think putting someone more positive than Nancy Pelosi and Charlie Rangel out front might help?

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]


Comments are closed-

We don't need a third party, we need 5 or 6
Posted by: truthteller on Sep 4, 2009 10:54 PM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
What is really needed is to open up the corrupted and totally owned "two-party"system. We need to go to a system that would allow other parties an equal chance of running successful candidates. Here are some things that really need to happen:

* Boards of Election need to be made totally non-partisan. Qualifying rules for any party need to be the same for all parties. Rules that require unreasonable numbers of signatures for parties other than Democrats and Republicans need to be outlawed.

* Decennial redistricting for ALL population based electoral districts (not just Congressional) needs to be done with commissions like Iowa has - they draw rational districts with regular boundaries based solely on population distribution, not party affiliation. Gerrymandering has got to end.

* We need to adopt a full-blown run-off election system. Proposals for Instant Runoff Voting (IRV) fail to take into account that in the several countries where it has been adopted (New Zealand, Australia, and Ireland I believe), entrenched two party systems have resulted. My reading of the U. S. Constitution leads me to believe that this could be done merely by statute. This is the single most critical step to opening up the electoral process to any party that can muster enough reasonable support to get on the ballot. Voters must feel that they are not "throwing their vote away" in voting for a party other than the "Dems" or the "Reps". The top two winners in any initial election, providing nobody gets a majority of the vote, will face each other in the final election, and I don't care if they end up being the Natural Law Party and the Libertarians. The process has to be reformed and made fair for ALL.

* The date for general elections has got to be changed from the first Tuesday after the first Monday in November to a weekend day, preferably the entire weekend, preferably in October (to allow time for run-offs, recounts, and challenges), and it should be declared a federal holiday so that all may be allowed to participate. Too many occupations make it hard for people to be off during daylight hours on a weekday. Having major elections over a weekend greatly increases the possibility that just about everyone can vote on one of those days.

* Finally, the biggest sticking point of all. The Electoral College must be retired to the ash heap of history, and we must directly elect the President and Vice-President. We also need a new rational system of Presidential primaries, something that is fair to both large and small states. Probably a series of 4 super-primaries of 13 states each, chosen by size and held in inverse order of population every 4 to 6 weeks from late January to early June of Presidential election years. This has a couple of advantages. First, both Iowa and New Hampshire will be in the first round, which should end the silly one-upsmanship competition between them that has pushed the start of the primary season back to where people still have New Year's hangovers while going to vote. Second, this will include the other 11 smallest states in population, and will give the primaries geographic and ethnic balance. Most likely the nominees will not be chosen until or near the end of the process, and just about everyone will feel that they played a role in selecting the final nominees.

I also think we should visit changing a Presidency to one six-year term, but this is more than enough to start with.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» Bravo! Posted by: CRaPWHiSPeReR
 
Advertisement
From The Blog
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Most Read
Most Emailed
Most Discussed
On REDDIT
On DIGG
 
loading ...
POWERED BY DIGG'S USERS