Centrist Dem Rebels Yet to Air Specific Gripes on Obama's Budget
We told you this morning about a group of centrist Democratic senators who have begun closed-door meetings to discuss how to pool their influence during the coming debate over President Obama's budget -- and perhaps slow the roll of its more ground-breaking spending programs.
When I asked a key member of that centrist group, Sen. Mary Landrieu (LA), which particular elements of the budget are sparking her concerns, she told me that senators "did not get into specifics" at their first meeting.
"We are hearing legitimate concerns that there is not enough focus right now on the intermediate and long-term fiscal concerns for the country," Landrieu said. Although "the mess the Bush administration has left is going to take years" to clean up, she added, 5-7 years is a reasonable period of time to "be able to start seeing the end of the red ink."
As Obama observed earlier today, however, he inherited a $1.3 trillion deficit from his predecessor, making total erasure of the deficit an incredibly heavy lift. The administration has vowed to cut the deficit in half by the end of Obama's first term, but that outcome relies on a series of revenue-raising moves that may not pass muster with Congress.
What does this mean for Landrieu's group of centrists?
The group will meet formally every two weeks, she said, and "hopefully we'll have an influence on how the budget is shaped." And one suspects that these centrists will have Budget Chairman Kent Conrad (D-ND) on speed dial, given his front-and-center role in the drafting of the official congressional budget.
Which brings up another question: Did Conrad attend the first meeting of budget-skeptical Dems? He joined their ranks during the stimulus debate, so it's not inconceivable that he would sit in with the group once more.
Late Update: Sen. Claire McCaskill (MO), another member of the centrist group, confirmed that its members have yet to settle on specific elements of the budget that they find objectionable. Asked if Conrad had attended the first meeting, she demurred: "It's a pretty fluid deal right now."
Sen. Ben Nelson (NE), a lead centrist negotiator on the stimulus who appears poised to play the same role on the budget, was a bit more forthcoming. "The amount of the budget is eye-popping," he said, describing Obama's top-line number of $3.55 trillion (a 9.3% spending increase over the previous year) as more of a concern than individual programs.
When I asked Nelson if he could support permitting the Bush tax cuts for upper-income earners to expire on schedule in 2010, as Obama has proposed, Nelson said he could potentially support the $250,000 cap. Indeed, he joined every other Democrat in a test vote on last year's budget that asked senators whether they would support extending all the Bush tax cuts, for both individuals and investors.
Josh
Elana
Matt
Eric
March 4, 2009 3:07 PM | Reply | Permalink
Especially when your own state, Louisiana, practically operates as a ward of the federal government. Ditto for Alaska.
March 4, 2009 3:44 PM | Reply | Permalink
These people are Democrats. What will it take to make them realize that if they screw up the Obama agenda, they screw their party -- and themselves -- out of power? Aren't they aware that 1994 happened, in large part because Dems on the Hill couldn't get their act together and show they could govern with a Democrat in the White House?
March 4, 2009 3:19 PM | Reply | Permalink
You are so right with your post Moose 49 and the people who post to say as long as these democrats have a (D) beside their name there is no issue and everything is ok are nuts. There are party issues and platforms on the national level and then they are local issues but fucking w/ Obama and the state of the country is not OK!
March 4, 2009 3:47 PM | Reply | Permalink
Well, it's just not that simple. It's not just that they have a (D) by their name that makes them acceptable. It's that they vote with the caucus the vast majority of the time. Yes, they grandstand too much, and they tend to water things down a bit...but when they chips are down, they vote our way.
The larger problem with your viewpoint is that it leads to minority status. I'm a Missourian, and frankly we can't elect anybody around here much more liberal than Claire McCaskill. Well, we're going to give it a shot with Robin Carnahan in 2010...but she's got a political dynasty on her side. Anyway, point is if we tried to primary out Claire from the left, we'd end up with Jim Talent every time. So sure, it annoys me that Claire gets in these middle caucuses and cuts stuff that doesn't help anything...but if that's the price of having a majority caucus and chairs on all the committees, not to mention key votes from the moderates when we really have to have them...OK, sold.
March 4, 2009 5:15 PM | Reply | Permalink
I understand what you're saying and I'm sympathetic -- up to a point. But here's my problem:
1) I think a lot of these folks are stuck in a pre-11/4/2008 mindset, if you will. The electorate is a lot more liberal and less conservative than the conventional wisdom.
2) Ultimately, most incumbents will be reelected or defeated based on how the economy's doing and how people's lives are going. If we spend enough to revive the economy and if we make the wide-ranging reforms needed to improve people's lives and bring them needed security, as with universal health care, then McCaskill and others like her should sail to reelection. However, if the so-called centrists succeed in reducing spending in areas that benefit working families, and if they torpedo health care reform (as in '94), then they'll probably lose -- and deservedly so.
3) I really don't think that voting for the Obama budget is going to be a make-or-break issue even in conservative areas. Budget votes don't often have the :30 visceral impact that other votes can.
March 4, 2009 6:06 PM | Reply | Permalink
2) Ultimately, most incumbents will be reelected or defeated based on how the economy's doing and how people's lives are going. If we spend enough to revive the economy and if we make the wide-ranging reforms needed to improve people's lives and bring them needed security, as with universal health care, then McCaskill and others like her should sail to reelection. However, if the so-called centrists succeed in reducing spending in areas that benefit working families, and if they torpedo health care reform (as in '94), then they'll probably lose -- and deservedly so.
Quoted for great truth.
And that's what the defenders of the so-called "centrists" and "moderates" don't get. It isn't about liberal vs. "centrist" vs. "conservative." It's about what works. The "moderates" are advocating, and voting for, what doesn't work. It's exactly what the DLC did during its existence (not sure what is going to become of it now). Keynes was right, and so waas FDR. Democrats kowtowing to Republican economic and regulatory positions absolutely helped get us into this gawdawful mess, and now they're resisting all reasonable attempts to get out.
March 6, 2009 1:20 AM | Reply | Permalink
If any of these "centrists" are griping about the expiration of tax cuts for the over $250K earners, they'd better take a trip beyond the beltway, out among the great unwashed, and get a dose of reality.
We don't care if the wealthy have to start paying the same amount in taxes that they did under Clinton! And they don't need these senators to defend them. They're can do quite well on their own.
But, if that's the blue dogs' base, they'd better prepare to get some serious opposition in their next race.
March 4, 2009 3:29 PM | Reply | Permalink
This is always the problem with this discussion. In theory, cutting spending could be a reasonable thing to do but no one wants to specify anything significant that they would actually cut. Its why that buffoon McCain has such a hard-on for earmarks. Nevermind that earmarks are an infinitesimal part of the budget and that most are for perfectly defensible programs and that eliminating them would not change the overall rate of spending anyway. It makes it seem like he is serious about cutting spending without ever having to commit to cutting the costs of anything significant enough that it might actually make a difference for the required tax rate. Pathetic.
March 4, 2009 3:41 PM | Reply | Permalink
Co-sign all day long! I am *so* over the annual earmark whine.
March 4, 2009 4:22 PM | Reply | Permalink
Elana,
Could you please ask Sen. Landrieu why she is the top Democratic earmarker, and yet here she is whining about the size of Obama's budget? What a hypocrite. These blue dogs make my blood boil sometimes.
http://www.dailykos.com/storyonly/2009/3/3/15314/55076/614/704169
March 4, 2009 3:44 PM | Reply | Permalink
They hypocrisy of Senator Landrieu is amazing. She was a TOP EARMARKER, TOP 3 earmarker but is whining about fiscal policy? This is why noone takes these people seriously.
March 4, 2009 3:55 PM | Reply | Permalink
Co-sign big time. Landrieu might have a shred of credibility of she gave up all her earmarks before behaving like a concern troll.
Although we should note that 6 of the top ten earmarkers in the senate are Repubs, and I'm sure they all complain even more about "wasteful spending".
God, I'm just so sick of all the bleating about "pork" and "wasteful spending" without any real discussion or explanation of the so-called "pork". Easier just to dismiss it with snarky comments.
March 4, 2009 4:05 PM | Reply | Permalink
I am just astonished by this. They have NO economic theory guiding them. Just a perverse interest in "fiscal discipline". They have no idea what would happen if the budget were cut. I'm just frustrated these guys are democrats. I just hope this is just a power play for attention, and not some attempt to water down the budget. If it's just a power play, then Obama should call them into the Oval and set them straight. If it's not, and they are dead serious on their goals, then they should be primaried. It's that simple.
March 4, 2009 3:44 PM | Reply | Permalink
It's even worse than that. Where was this interest in "fiscal discipline" when Bush was delivering boatloads of money to Blackwater?
March 4, 2009 3:46 PM | Reply | Permalink
Exactly. Or, even worse, where were they when W was squandering Clinton's surplus on tax cuts because we were in a mild recession and th' akanamuh ergently needed stim-a-lus. Back then, it was all "oh, a new president deserves policy deference and the benefit of the doubt."
Yeah, as I recall that's exactly what the conservative Democrats said when Reagan was cutting taxes on rich people. But, hey, at least they were consistent. They supported Clinton's initial budget and tax bills to the hilt.
Oh, wait, no they didn't. Apparently, only Republicans cutting taxes on rich people are entitled to deference.
March 4, 2009 3:52 PM | Reply | Permalink
Where was this interest in "fiscal discipline" when Bush was delivering boatloads of money to Blackwater?
Or to Iraq, in cash, on pallets, shrink-wrapped, in smallish denominations. $9 billion, I think it was.
Fucking hypocrites.
March 6, 2009 1:01 AM | Reply | Permalink
The only good news I could think of is that with Franken, we only need six of them to pass the budget. Just get McCaskill, Klobuchar, Shaheen, Casey, Lieberman, Nelson. Obama won all of their states with the exception of McCaskill's, who is a close friend of the Pres. Lieberman knows how much he owes Obama and I'm betting will fall in line. Casey, Shaheen and Klobuchar, all had Obama win their states by double digits. Bill Nelson from FL might be the hardest sell, but should eventually do it.
March 4, 2009 3:52 PM | Reply | Permalink
If they're smart, they'll sign on to Congressman Stark's single-payer health care bill, which believe it or not, actually SAVES money. While we're at it, maybe the Blue Dogs can save more money by helping the Defense Department to procure anything more complicated than a paper bag without seventy gazillion change orders.
March 4, 2009 3:50 PM | Reply | Permalink
You misunderstand, Grasshopper. "Saving money" is only important when bank, insurance industry, "defense" industry, and similar industry captains will not be harmed. When these executives do stand to lose, it's no longer saving money, it's...., um, it's.... well, it's something else. I'll get back to you on exactly what it is. Maybe "killing jobs" or something like that. I'll get back to you.
March 6, 2009 1:26 AM | Reply | Permalink
Please, leave the group of centrist Democratic senators phrasing to the MSM. At least somewhere in the story, let's have a list.
March 4, 2009 4:14 PM | Reply | Permalink
I think the McCaskill quote refusing to confirm membership says it all. The story doesn't contain a list because no one knows who's on it.
March 4, 2009 5:24 PM | Reply | Permalink
And please, let's ditch the hilariously stupid moniker of "centrist" for these people.
March 6, 2009 12:58 AM | Reply | Permalink
This "centrist" script is becoming a standard.
A group of congresspersons, casting themselves as "centrists" attend "closed-door meetings to discuss how to pool their influence during the coming debate over ______________."
That is, after they have issued a press release announcing their closed door meetings; and a full blown press conference upon their emergence whereupon they make such pronouncements as we "did not get into specifics" but "We are hearing legitimate concerns that there is not enough focus right now on___________________".
The act is always good for a bit of media attention, with which to help burnish their "independent", "centrist", and/or "New Democrat", marketing identity into their constituents' collective consciousness.
March 4, 2009 4:15 PM | Reply | Permalink
I agree with this completely...it's a press game. But your tone sounds pretty negative, whereas I think this is necessary and proper. We need these people in our caucus. They come from swing states, and can't get elected as dyed-in-the-wool liberals. And yet we still need their votes. So they need some way to prove how "centrist" they are while still voting with the President. Their only outlet is grandstanding to the press and making some minor changes that they can trumpet later.
It wouldn't surprise me at all to find that Obama put certain unnecessary and unpopular-sounding things in just for these folks to cut. But make no mistake; when it's all said and done the votes will be there.
March 4, 2009 5:32 PM | Reply | Permalink
The GOP and Dem centrists (aka "GOP Lite") always push this nonsense that tax cuts for the rich can be offset with spending cuts.
We've seen where the spending gets cut: cuts in investigations, personnel, and enforcement by the SEC, the FDA, the EPA, etc. Thanks for the salmonella, Dubya!
March 4, 2009 4:16 PM | Reply | Permalink
Blue Dogs have always been a problem, imo. They aren't true Democrats. When people are in debt, we have to start paying off the debt.....in this case debt left by GOPers in the past 35 years. Tax cuts are tantamount to ignoring the situation. We have to pay off things that have been ignored as well as neglected for decades...like health care, education, the electric grid...ect. ect. ect.!!
March 4, 2009 4:16 PM | Reply | Permalink
Centrist Democrat or Republican it does not make a difference. I think the takeaway is what Pres. Obama said after pushing through the stimulus package. At that time, he said something to the effect that had he known that the other side was going to try to negotiate changes in the package he would not have started from the middle but rather would have given them a couple of shiny objects upon which to fixate. I think the Administration learned a lesson and swung for the fences with the Budget including adding a couple of items that might draw attention so that the core of what they were seeking would go through unscathed. It would seriously surprise me if the Administration believed, after the last go round, that they would get everything they asked for so they built in some protection for what they deem necessary.
March 4, 2009 4:20 PM | Reply | Permalink
You missed the joke. Obama got what he wanted out of the stimulus. The cuts and changes were very minor. The beauty was that then he pretended he didn't and acted like the compromise was a big chore. You watch, the same thing will happen this time around. Furthermore, he'll keep his approval ratings in the stratosphere while the Republicans keep tanking. I tell you, these guys are real pros.
March 4, 2009 5:36 PM | Reply | Permalink
Until this group actually says anything specific, I think all the hyperventilation is misplaced. There are a lot of people who think of the federal government as Santa Claus. It's not. There are a lot of legitimate things the government needs to spend money on, but it's not unlimited.
If this group is able to curb the excesses of those who throw billions around like it's nothing, I'm behind them.
March 4, 2009 4:42 PM | Reply | Permalink
You must be purged from the party. You are not on board . . . Uh, what are they planning to try and cut out anyway? Oh, that's irrelevant.
March 4, 2009 4:57 PM | Reply | Permalink
Feeling particularly snarky today? ;-)
March 4, 2009 5:02 PM | Reply | Permalink
Oh, its this incessant whining about blue dogs and that they shouldn't be in the dem party. Without blue dogs the dems wouldn't have any power, would be in the minority and we would be hailing president mcbush. Why people don't see that just escapes me. Blue dogs are a moderating force of the dem party, like the same type of pols were a moderating force in the republican party, they were called rinos, which are almost extinct. I don't want the dems to become like the republicans again. You have to play in the middle or you don't get to play at all.
March 4, 2009 5:10 PM | Reply | Permalink
I'm guessing you don't find the argument that we've been living in a rightwing funhouse whose levels of investment in the common good are the disgrace of the civilized world, and that maybe proof of unified, effective social democratic goverment by large D-Democrats will reverse that destructive spiral then?
The Republicans achieved remarkable political success by expressing certainty in the rightness of their program and by crushing all dissent within their party. The Democrats have repeatedly failed in passing their political agenda due to internal division and grandstanding by its conservative members. "Moderate" Republicans have had no policy role in their party, and contributed nothing to their party's success since the 1972 election.
Let me ask what part of this country's recent political history supports your arguments? Because I draw the opposite conclusion from my observance of the last thirty years.
March 4, 2009 5:52 PM | Reply | Permalink
Actually, I agree with the bulk of your post. This is the point though. The american public witnessed all your observations as well over the last 30 years and that is why there are only 3 rinos left in the senate. True the republican moderates had little influence, but the agenda has always been tax cuts and cut spending, other than defense. What influence could they have over that?
The democratic party is infinitely more complex for the simple reason that it's purpose is basically to run an efficient government for the benefit of all people. That's not the republican game plan by any means. In order to accomplish that goal, you can't have all this bs about message discipline and toeing the line and that type of thing, because it's not possible based on the dem party's ultimate goal and mish mash of different agendas to reach that goal.
It's easy for republicans when times are good. Now times suck and people want government to help and the republicans have a huge problem because their message and agenda doesn't fit the environment.
In any event, alot of the population still is leary of "taxing and spending", rightly or wrongly. I am not particularly interested in throwing the baby out with the bath water for the sake of purity. I just want stuff to get freaking done and if it takes some compromise to get to the ultimate goal, so be it.
March 4, 2009 6:11 PM | Reply | Permalink
Yeah, just what the country needed a force to "moderate" all efforts to contain the extreme right. They "moderated" us into Iraq and a Depression.
March 4, 2009 6:19 PM | Reply | Permalink
Get no argument from me on either point. And half the freaking dems voted for the war and didn't even read the gd NIE that said that the war was based on lies. Also, alot of dems supported many of the other king policies.
However, I think the point is dems want to govern and republicans want to destroy and that's the conflict. Governing is a hell of alot harder than destroying. I actually don't have a problem with fiscal responsiblity in the future obviously, not now in this crisis. That would be suicide. In the future government should be responsible, pay its bills and tax the well off. They wouldn't be so well off, but for the rest of us. I don't believe in just throwing more money at problems and presto the problem is solved. It's more complicated than that. Is that being a blue dog? Probably. Am I a republican, no.
March 4, 2009 6:47 PM | Reply | Permalink
I'm waiting for your specifics as well. The only place I see billions in savings is defense. And, of course, given the Beltway consensus in favor of American empire, defense will never be cut until we collapse like the Soviet Union.
March 4, 2009 5:08 PM | Reply | Permalink
I pray to God that the new group formed to challenge Democrats who don't represent their consituents zeroes in on the two-faced Claire McCaskill. What a fool she is and what an embarrasment and pain in the ass she must be to Obama. She loves the limelight which is what her support for Obama was all about to begin with. Now that the campaign glow is gone she gets to stay in the limelight by whoring herself to Republican interests and then claiming she is a centrist or moderate when all she is really doing is supporting the interests and people Obama was sent to Washington to get rid of. She is so devoid of intellectual capacity she probably doesn't even understand how every time she engages in this crap she is undermining not only Obama, but Democratic Party goals overall. Oy!
March 4, 2009 4:59 PM | Reply | Permalink
Geez, man, why don't you tell us how you really feel?
Anyway, being a Democratic Senator in a swing state that voted for McCain is walking a fine line. And she still votes with Obama when it matters. So give her a break.
March 4, 2009 5:56 PM | Reply | Permalink
Sorry, but that swing state dodge is no good.
She's a two-faced politician who ingratiates herself with the powerful to the maximum extent and does their bidding and then, when it suits her ego goes tromping around claiming to be a bureaucrat. She is a former Prosector who refused, I repeat: refused to go on the record against torture during her election campaign. She has betrayed the Democratic position over and over and over. She barely won, not because MO is a swing state but because she ran as Republican lite in a year that was anti-Republican (06). Had she run as a real Democrat she would have kicked Talent's ass. As it was, sniveling and apologizing the whole way she barely beat him.
She undermined Obama on the stimulus and works against his budget not because she has legitimate concerns regarding her constituency but because she is barely a Democrat! McCain won Missouri primarily because of Obama's foolish decision to listen to McCaskill's advice and focus his personal campaigning in the state to rural areas that weren't going to vote for him in a hundred years. He lost by only 5000 votes in Missouri which could easily have been had with a little more oomph in St. Louis and Kansas City.
McCaskill needs to be thrown out at the first possible opporunity. Plus, she twitters like a 13 year old girl and is an embarassment every time she puffs up her ego by appearing on tv. One term and out! We need a real Democrat in that Senate seat.
March 4, 2009 6:10 PM | Reply | Permalink
The problem with constant outrage is that it often ignores reality. In politics, this is especially damaging.
Missouri is bluish in KC/STL and ruby-red everywhere else. A hard-core liberal likely won't get elected statewide.
Also, McCaskill did NOT shape Obama's campaign strategy in Missouri. If you want to complain about that, you'll need to talk to Plouffe and Grisolano.
Obama spent a TON of time in rural areas of swing states through the Rust Belt and Midwest. Major examples include Missouri, Ohio, Indiana and Pennsylvania. The idea was to try and hold down McCain's margins in those areas. Seems to me the plan worked rather well.
One term and out? You need to put down the bong. If McCaskill doesn't win re-election, it surely won't be because she lost a *primary*.
March 5, 2009 8:44 AM | Reply | Permalink
The only thing that contradicts your argument is history. Mel Carnahan was a liberal and he won for Governor and Senator. Harriett Woods was a liberal and she was elected statewide as Lt. Gov. and lost close elections for the Senate. McCaskill is a disaster and a two faced, unreliable Democrat in Name Only.
March 5, 2009 12:47 PM | Reply | Permalink
Harriet Woods was like Pat Quinn in IL. Sure, she could be LTGOV. But she wasn't going any higher than that unless the rules of succession kicked in.
Mel Carnahan is an exception that proves the rule about liberals in Missouri. He was a scion of a politically prominent family, so he already had entree into MO politics. Robin Carnahan has benefited - and will continue to benefit - from that dynamic.
That doesn't mean that Missourians (especially those not on either end of I-70) are all that fond of liberal candidates.
March 6, 2009 9:13 AM | Reply | Permalink
Except for the history of support for liberals all over the state such as for Harry Truman, Tom Eagleton, Stuart Syminton, Bill Hungate, Clarence Cannon, Richard Bolling,Bob Young and many others you might have a point there. Harriett Woods only lost the US Senate seat because of tactical blunders.
March 6, 2009 10:47 AM | Reply | Permalink
Don't know much about many of the other people you have listed here, but on the first three, I know enough from pure memory to say you are conflating "liberal" with "Democrat".
Harry Truman? "Liberal"? This was a guy who came up solely because of Boss Pendergast's machine, who once tried to join the KKK, and who still had racist attitudes displayed in his writings throughout his life. Truman was a Democrat, yes, but much closer to being a "Dixiecrat" than a liberal.
Stuart Symington? "Liberal"? This guy was as pro-war as they come. The very first company he ran was Emerson Electric (I know it well, having grown up just across the river). They made a fortune off making gun turrets for WW2. He was the first SECAF. And, finally, he spent four terms as a Senator from Missouri arguing for a larger, stronger military.
Tom Eagleton? "Liberal"? Do you know the label that got stuck to George McGovern in '72? McGovern got tagged as the candidate of "amnesty, abortion and acid." You know who printed that label? Bob Novak (sadly, we share an alma mater). You know who dropped that dime to the Prince of Darkness? That's right - Tom Eagleton. And you know what else? When Novak was accused of manufacturing the quote, Eagleton refused to go on the record as the source at the time. And, to top it all off, Eagleton then *accepted* the VP nomination in '72 - of course, McGovern had no idea Eagleton was the source of that damaging quote, or of Eagleton's other "issues".
I will grant you that Eagleton was certainly anti-war, and took other notable liberal positions as well, particularly on stem-cell research. But Eagleton was definitely to the right of McGovern, and ergo, not much of a liberal's liberal.
March 6, 2009 5:34 PM | Reply | Permalink
You have a great deal of learning to do.
Truman a liberal? You bet your ass he was. Racist attitudes? Like every white man of his age? Yes. Who desegregated the Armed Forces of the Unites States and the civil service with the stroke of his pen? And whose racist attitudes were such that the Dixiecrats led by Strom Thurmond broke from the Democratic Party in 1948?
Have you ever even read Truman's 1948 acceptance speech?
The same is true for the other true blue liberals mentioned and of which you clearly don't know a whole lot. Your historical perspective is not very deep. You are pasrticularly ignorant about Tom Eagleton. You have a lot to learn.
March 6, 2009 5:57 PM | Reply | Permalink
Short reply: Bwahahaha.
Long reply: Bwahahahahahahahaha!
Longer reply: Yes, I've read Truman's 1948 acceptance speech. Have *you* read any of his poison-pen missives from his full term in office? How about any of his post-Presidential writings? Ever been to his library? Read his papers there? Read contemporary news accounts of him?
Y'see, I've done all those things. Which tells me that you're the one playing in the shallow end of the pool.
BTW, I must note...you don't even attempt a response on Eagleton or Symington. So, even if I give you credit for Truman being a "liberal" (which I don't), you're still 1-for-3. That average will get you into Cooperstown - but loses this "argument" easily.
As I said earlier, I don't know much about the other people you list. However, Truman, Symington and Eagleton were required study growing up.
Friendly tip: Try fewer insults, and more facts. Those work much better.
March 6, 2009 8:39 PM | Reply | Permalink
I can learn from you, buddy! :)
March 6, 2009 9:26 PM | Reply | Permalink
I knew Eagleton personally. Also Hungate, Young and others. You dont' have the faintest idea what you're talking about pal. Not the faintest.
You read a few things in a book, adopt a Newsweek opinion about what it means and you think you know something. I got news for ya: you don't know shit. Sorry for the coarse language but it is very tiresome to hear the simplistic, uninformed and canned garbage you are spouting. Life is lot mor complicated than you are capable of grasping. I know directly of what I speak on this subject. You don't know a single things about these folks. I have read every single word written about and by Harry Truman thank you very much. Most likely I read them before you had any idea who he was. I have forgotten more about HST than you will ever know. As for Symington, your shallow and poorly informed statements declare your ignorance. Your foolish statements positioning cold warriors as not being liberal demonstrates just how little you know about the past in American politics. Now, before you go acting like you know a single shred of anything about these guys you go and get yourself some books that take a sober and mature look at these fellows and their careers and then you can come back and ask if I'll discuss it with you. Until then, kindly STFU!
March 6, 2009 11:06 PM | Reply | Permalink
Excellent screed. But...there's...like...NO FACTS in there. Like, NONE. AT ALL. Just more insults. Which is the last resort for someone who can't discuss the meat of the issue at heart.
I stated that Symington's war positions were sufficient to discount him as a "liberal". I went into his employment history, his appointed government service, and his pro-war stance in the Senate.
I stated that Eagleton's behavior during the '72 election (sabotaging McGovern - TWICE) was a permanent black mark, while also acknowledging that of the three politicans you named, he came closest to being a true liberal.
I stated that Truman was a borderline Dixiecrat who harbored lifelong prejudices against Jews and Blacks. Said positions simply are not "liberal" in any commonly accepted sense of the word.
If any of these assertions are wrong, prove it.
But hey, let's save you the trouble. Of course, you can't disprove a single thing I said - which is why you attempt an ad hominem dismissal as a sophomoric claim of victory.
Such crude and ineffective debating "skillz", though, are to be expected from someone who holds that Arlen Specter is a guaranteed loser in a 2010 general election against *any* Democrat.
PS: You really ought to read your own writing sometime before you accuse SOMEONE ELSE of having a naive, black-and-white view of the world. That was the funniest thing I've seen in a while.
March 7, 2009 2:43 AM | Reply | Permalink
See the thing is, I don't suffer fools gladly. You may have some knowledge or understanding of something but it isn't on this topic. On this topic you're an uninformed fool. Responding to your elementary level understanding is too tedious. Go learn about this and then we can talk junior.
March 7, 2009 12:34 PM | Reply | Permalink
TPM fell for a press release. Apparently, these goons have been shilling this story now for a few days, with no takers, until TPM.
This is all cooked up by bank lobbyists. And these legs. are their tools.
And now TPM is a tool of the tools.
Way to go.
March 4, 2009 5:11 PM | Reply | Permalink
My plan for fiscal responsibility involves asking all black Louisianans to move to Texas and cutting the rest of the state adrift fiscally.
We could sell it back to France, but I doubt they would buy it.
March 4, 2009 5:22 PM | Reply | Permalink
Compromise with them on the budget if we must but we better get ready for a war on healthcare. The centrists will turn any bill into a trojan horse for the Republican Party blocking anything but a bill that is too weak to provide care but just strong enough to undermine both employer paid plans and Medicare. If you see them signing up for the bill, better be sure you read every footnote.
March 4, 2009 6:35 PM | Reply | Permalink
Ah, obama set up his budget proposal to compromise anyway and throw them some bones. You are absolutely right on healthcare. Where is the kennedy team? Baucus and grassley are the last ones that should be leading the charge. Their plan is welfare for insurance and pharma and the people are screwed. That's the last thing we need.
March 4, 2009 6:49 PM | Reply | Permalink
Now this I co-sign 100%. Beware centrists bearing gifts on health care reform.
I believe in the give-and-take of the political process. I believe it is how it was designed to work. But on the issue of health care, at this time in our country's history, anything to the right of Obama's campaign proposal is a disaster in waiting. Let's keep the heat on about this.
March 6, 2009 8:52 PM | Reply | Permalink
Co-sign as well!
March 6, 2009 9:17 PM | Reply | Permalink
If centrist Democrats significantly undercut the chief items in Obama's agenda, they will be the ones to pay the political price. In 1994, when Clinton was seen as a political failure largely due to the failure of health care reform, the Democrats who were swept away in the elections were the moderates and not the liberals. The same thing is likely to happen in 2010 if Obama is perceived as failing to deliver on his agenda. Precisely because they come from swing states, the centrists actually have the biggest stake in Obama being perceived as successful.
March 4, 2009 9:07 PM | Reply | Permalink
Good for her!
"We are hearing legitimate concerns that there is not enough focus right now on the intermediate and long-term fiscal concerns for the country," Landrieu said.
I agree. We should however not complain about stimulative spending in the first budget unless it becomes clear that the first stimulus package has done its job too well (not likely). But definitely don't ignore the medium and long term.
I am not at all happy with reports saying that even after a few years we should expect deficits of $500B/yr out to 2019 or so. Unless we can borrow the money at under 1% annual interest...
March 5, 2009 3:48 AM | Reply | Permalink
As for earmarks in the current budget bill, Mary Landrieu checks in at #3 overall, and the most porktacular Democrat with $332 million requested by her.
http://firedoglake.com/2009/03/04/oink-oink-moderate-budget-hypocrites-sure-love-their-pork/
Why has no one called her out on that?
March 5, 2009 7:10 AM | Reply | Permalink
Why are people complaining about pork out of one side of their collective mouth, and calling for stimulus spending out of the other?
When it token pork slaughter mere circus work?
March 5, 2009 4:26 PM | Reply | Permalink
token pork slaughter, mere circus work
Excellent, precise coinage! :-) That is the system we have, isn't it? It's all part of the final kielbasa, you have to sit through the circus before they serve refreshments, and those who pay the most attention to the sleight of hand will get them and the others may not.
March 5, 2009 4:48 PM | Reply | Permalink
I get my sleight of hand mixed up with my typos too often, but thanks!
it should have been is
As a fine distinction we have token pork being slaughtered, vs. pork being subjected to token slaughter. It seems to read okay both ways but says something slightly different each way.
mere-circus vs. circus-work doesn't seem as interesting.
Yeah, I'd forgotten about the sausage analogy!~
March 5, 2009 9:00 PM | Reply | Permalink