The Chicago Way

Chicago Politics

---

Un-fucking-believable:

Mel Reynolds, an ex-con convicted of bank fraud and having sex with a 16-year-old girl when he was in his 40s, wants to replace the embattled Jesse Jackson Jr. in Congress.

Standing in front of signs that read “Redemption” Reynolds held a news conference on Wednesday saying he would run in a special election after Jackson resigned in disgrace last week in the midst of a federal investigation.

It was Reynolds who Jackson replaced 17 years ago —in a special election — after Reynolds himself resigned in disgrace after his conviction.

“It’s what you do after the mistakes,” Reynolds said, adding that his crimes were “almost 18, 20 years ago,” and shouldn’t be a life sentence. “I want to serve.”

---

The worst part is he very well could win. In fact, if he wins the primary, it’s a sure thing he’ll win the special election.

---

---

Prejudice, Sterotypes and Bigotry

---

Warner Todd Huston at Breitbart:

L.A. Times Hears Racist Dog Whistles from Romney Voters

Sandy Banks of the L.A. Times has figured out why anyone would vote against Barack Obama. Why, they are all racists, of course. Oh, you don’t use “the N word,” she tells us, but we know what you Romney voters really think.

Banks dropped all pretense of logic or fairness in her Sunday piece, claiming that the nation’s “kumbaya era” is over merely because a white man dared run against Barack Obama for the office of President of the United States.

Like all these hate-filled screeds that cast any non-Obama voter as a racist, Banks doesn’t bother trying to actually explain how a nation that elected a black man as President could suddenly revert to pre-civil rights oppression. She just states it straight as if it is obvious fact.

This has been the single most disgusting attack against Romney voters and, if Obama loses his bid for reelection, be prepared to see every last left-winger on TV and in the commentariat claim that the only reason Obama lost is because the country is filled with hood-wearing, Jim Crow-loving racists.

---

You don’t have to be an Obama follower to think like that:

In the last couple of days, I have read the consternation of the left as they see the evangelicals and other right wing followers get behind their Mormon. It’s as if the left has forgotten all of the studies by Bob Altemeyer and lessons learned from John Dean about the nature of the authoritarian follower. But it’s even weirder than that because although the right has made it a badge of honor to decouple cause from effect, ignore evidence and discourage reasoned thinking in its followers so that the world looks to them like a violent, chaotic place, I never thought I would see the same sort of behavior rising in the left.

---

I was raised in fundamentalist church in a red zone of California. My mom was (and is) a feminist but not a liberal. So I first hit adulthood with a right-wing tilt to my politics. The first time I voted in a presidential election I cast my ballot for Ronnie Raygun. But during my twenties I moved steadily to the left until by the time I was thirty I was a borderline socialist.

I stayed that way for a long time. I was proud to be a liberal and a yellow-dog Democrat. 2008 cured me of that yellow-dog thingie but I still consider myself a liberal Democrat-in-exile.

Two More Days

---

Salena Zito:

Main Street In Revolt

The homemade sign for Mitt Romney in the yard of a well-manicured but modest home in Leadville, Colo., forlornly signals the fracture of another onetime supporter of Barack Obama.

If Romney wins the presidency on Tuesday, the national media, the Washington establishment and the bulk of academia will have missed something huge that happened in “flyover” America under their watch.

It is a story that few have told.

It reminds one of the famous quip by New Yorker film critic Pauline Kael following Richard Nixon’s landslide 1972 victory: “I live in a rather special world. I only know one person who voted for Nixon.”

Two years after suffering a historic shellacking in the 2010 midterm election, Democrats astonishingly have ignored Main Street Americans’ unhappiness.

That 2010 ejection from the U.S. House, and from state legislatures and governors’ offices across the country, didn’t happen inside the Washington Beltway world.

It didn’t reflect the Democrats’ or the media’s conventional wisdom or voter-turnout models. So it just wasn’t part of their reality.

In Democrats’ minds, it was never a question of “How did we lose Main Street?” Instead, it was the fault of the “tea party” or of crazy right-wing Republicans.

Yet in interview after interview — in Colorado, along Nebraska’s plains, in small Iowa towns or Wisconsin shops, outside closed Ohio steel plants and elsewhere — many Democrats have told me they are furious with the president. Not in a frothing-at-the-mouth or racist way, as many elites suggest. They just have legitimate concerns affecting their lives.

[...]

Never once have Main Street Americans heard Washington elites ponder, “What did we Democrats do to lose the confidence of so many voters?”

---

On Tuesday we get to send a message to Obama and the Democrats:

“CAN YOU HEAR US NOW?“

---

When Dinosaurs Ruled The Land

---

The Joe Moneybags Gazette:

The Party that Obama Un-Built

The focus of this week’s Democratic convention was President Obama. Lost in the adulation was the diminished state to which he has brought his broader party. Today’s Democrats are a shadow of 2008—struggling for re-election, isolated to a handful of states, lacking reform ideas, bereft of a future political bench. It has been a stunning slide.

[...]

In 2006, Nancy Pelosi muzzled her liberal inclinations to recruit and elect her “Majority Makers”—a crop of moderate and conservative Democrats who won Republican districts and delivered control of the House for the first time in 14 years.

Democrats in 2006 also claimed the Senate, with savvy victories in states like Montana and Virginia. The party thumped Republicans in gubernatorial races, winning in the South (Arkansas), the Mountain West (Colorado), and in Ohio (for the first time since 1991). A vibrant candidate Obama further boosted Democratic ranks in 2008.

By 2009, President Obama presided over what could fairly be called a big-tent coalition. The Blue Dog caucus had swelled to 51 members, representing plenty of conservative America. Democrats held the majority of governorships. Mr. Obama had won historic victories in Virginia and North Carolina. The prediction of liberal demographers John Judis and Ruy Teixeira’s 2004 book, “The Emerging Democratic Majority”—lasting progressive dominance via a coalition of minorities, women, suburbanites and professionals—attracted greater attention among political analysts.

It took Mr. Obama two years to destroy this potential, with an agenda that forced his party to field vote after debilitating vote—stimulus, ObamaCare, spending, climate change. The public backlash, combined with the president’s mismanagement of the economy, has reversed Democrats’ electoral gains and left a party smaller than at any time since the mid-1990s.

---

I have to disagree somewhat – the problem with the Democratic party goes deeper than Obama. He is just an acute manifestation of a chronic disease. That’s why the party needs electoral chemotherapy.

It all started back in the 60′s when the New Deal coalition began to fracture and establishment liberals took control of the party. Even though the Democrats had a solid grip on Congress they began to suffer a series of blow-outs in the Electoral College.

From 1972 until 1988 the Republicans won the White House four out of five times – each time by a landslide. The lone exception was 1976 when Jimmy Carter won, but that was due to the backlash over Watergate.

The Democrats focused on identity politics – putting together a coalition of special interest groups like unions, minorities, feminists, environmentalists and the anti-war movement. This was effective in winning Congressional districts in part because the legacy of the New Deal left them in control of redistricting for another couple of decades. They also kept control of the Senate because seniority rules and the advantages of incumbency allowed Democratic dinosaurs to remain in office even as their states began turning red.

Then came Bill Clinton – a different kind of Democrat. He ran as a moderate and managed to pull off a plurality victory in the popular vote, thus winning a majority in the Electoral College. Establishment Democrats and the DFH wing hated him because he wasn’t a doctrinaire liberal. But the voters liked him, especially after they got a good look at Newt Gingrich.

I never realized until 2008 how much the far left despised Bill Clinton because I live in a red zone where liberals are an endangered species. Even the Democrats here are conservative. Back then there was no blogosphere where people could gather and discuss politics. We had to do that stuff face-to-face and I was always one of the most liberal voices around.

I thought Bill Clinton was a great preezy. Nobody around these parts ever called him a “DINOcrat” or a traitor to the party. What’s not to like about peace and prosperity?

Things caught up with the Democrats in 1994 when their institutional advantages of seniority and incumbency left them too ossified to adapt to changing times. Then the Republicans overreached and Bill Clinton out-maneuvered them, winning a second term in 1996. But the Democratic establishment still blamed him for the loss of Congress.

Al Gore lost in 2000 because the left thought he was too much like Bill Clinton. John Kerry lost in 2004 because the voters thought he was too much like McGovern, Mondale and Dukakis. If it hadn’t been for 9-11 Bush probably would have lost anyway. The voters were so disgusted with Bush and “movement conservatism” that by 2006 they voted the Republicans out of office, handing the Democrats an unexpected and unearned victory.

In doing so they returned to power two old dinosaurs – Nancy Pelosi and Harry Reid. Their goal was to restore the old order, and that included blocking Hillary Clinton from the nomination. It was a power struggle and the Clintons lost. Barack Obama was installed as the nominee and he went on to win the White House.

And that brings us to where the article cited above begins.

---

Don’t be fooled

---

I was reading a golden oldie post at Uppity’s place and I was reminded that we never did solve the mystery of how Barack Obama ended up in the White House.

Prior to 2002 Obama was just another ambitious wannabe. Using a successful legal challenge he got himself elected to the Illinois state senate by knocking his opponents off the ballot. If he had powerful friends he wouldn’t have needed to do that. Nor would he have just sat there in Springfield for several years voting “present.” In 2000 he tried to take on Bobby Rush for a seat in Congress and got his ass handed to him. That doesn’t sound like a guy with major political connections.

Then around 2002 things began to change for Obama. The same guy who lost a run for a House seat in 2000 mounted a successful run for the Senate in 2004. But he still needed some luck – If Blair Hull and Jack Ryan didn’t have some juicy dirty laundry Obama would have lost.

Now it really starts to get interesting. Obama gives the keynote speech at the 2004 Democratic convention. I think it’s fair to say that a lot of people were impressed. But Kerry still lost the election.

So now Barack Obama is a U.S. Senator. A very junior senator in a town where Ivy League diplomas are a dime a dozen and speechifying is a job requirement. A junior senator from the minority party. Obama dives into the Village cesspool and disappears.

Slightly over two years later Obama emerges and launches his campaign for the White House. Money and endorsements roll in. The media (who usually hate Democrats) are his biggest fans.

Obama was a newcomer in 2006-2008. He hadn’t been around long enough to develop the political muscle to rig the RBC vote and all the shenanigans with the caucuses and delegates and the nomination vote. He didn’t have the power or skills to shove Hillary Clinton aside against the wishes of the voters. He needed powerful friends to do that for him.

That’s “friends” plural. No one person has that much power. We know who some of them were – Ted Kennedy, Nancy Pelosi, Harry Reid, Howard Dean and Donna Brazile. Kennedy is gone but the rest are still around.

So don’t be fooled. Defeating Obama will not get rid of the corruption in the Democratic party.

But it’s a good place to start.

---

The Cult of Prodigy

---

Roxane Gay at Salon:

There is a cult of bright young things, a cultural obsession with genius, a need to find beacons of greatness in an ordinary world. In a December 2002 article in The Atlantic Monthly, Marjorie Garber writes, “At this point in history genius has become a commodity, an ambition, and even a lifestyle.” She also notes that, “Deep within us lies a certain strain of longing for genius, a genius worship, that might be described as messianic: the hope that a genius will come along to save us from our technological, philosophical, spiritual, or aesthetic impasse.” When young people display remarkable intelligence or creativity, we are instantly enamored. We want or need geniuses to show us the power and potential of the human mind and we’re so eager to find new people to bestow this title upon that the term and the concept have become quite diluted.

[...]

Jonah Lehrer is part of a system that allows magazines, year after to year to publish men, and white men in particular, significantly more than women or people of color. He is part of a system where the 2012 National Magazine Awards have no women nominees in several key categories. He is part of a system where white editors belabor the delusion that there simply are few women or writers of color who are good enough for their magazines because said editors are too narrow in what they want, what they read, what they think, or just too lazy to work beyond their Rolodex of writers who look and think just like them. He is part of a system that requires an organization like VIDA to do an annual count that reveals a disheartening, ongoing and pervasive practice of a certain kind of writer predominantly gaining entrance to the upper echelons of publishing. He is part of a system that exhausts itself denying these problems exist or that these problems matter.

[...]

Lehrer may or may not be a genius, but we wanted him to be one. We wanted him to do right by the narrative he is a part of and to be a bold part of the system that helped make him. For a while, Lehrer did his best, with his sharp haircut and designer glasses and confident talk about how we think and create and imagine. We probably also lost sight of the difference between a spokesperson and what is actually spoken. As Garber also notes in her Atlantic Monthly article on genius, “If we remind ourselves that what is really at stake is creativity and invention; if we can learn to separate the power of ideas from that of personality; then perhaps we will be less dazzled by the light of celebrity and less distracted by attempts to lionize the genius as a high-culture hero — as essence rather than force.” The cult of personality, of bright young things, is dangerous. It blinds us. We keep getting further and further away from ideas, from great writing that is nurtured and thoughtful because we’re more interested in the men behind the ideas.

---

It’s ironic that Ms. Gay published this article at Salon, which has a big stable of “bright young thing” writers on staff. She is correct, but the problem is much bigger than she realizes. It isn’t just the writing field that is obsessed with boy geniuses, it’s our whole culture.

True genius is both rare and erratic. Genius carries no guarantee of mental or emotional stability. “Genius” and “wisdom” are not synonymous. Wisdom is intelligence enhanced by education and tempered with experience.

We have raised a couple generations of young people who all think they are the best and brightest. They want and expect instant gratification, including all the perks and rewards of success. All too frequently they get the rewards even though they didn’t earn them.

There was a time when young people were expected to start at the bottom and work their way up. Now they expect to start at the top, pushing aside those who are older and more experienced.

Intelligence is a talent, and talent is a good thing. But it needs to be developed and combined with character and discipline. In the academic world there are shortcuts (some ethical, some not) that can be taken and intelligence can substitute for effort. Students can use the notes of other students and they can party all semester then cram for tests at the end. They don’t need to learn anything, just remember it long enough to pass the course.

The real world is different. Intelligence is often less important to success than hard work. The process of “working their way up” weeds out the slackers and those with character and personality defects.

No one epitomizes this cult of prodigy more than Barack Obama. He is also the poster child for what is so wrong about this obsession with “bright young things.”

By any reasonable measure Barack Obama was not ready for prime time in 2008. At best he was a rising star. He should have been nurtured, mentored, tested and watched. Had that traditional process taken place his character defects would have become evident before he was given the reins of power.

This morning someone asked “Where are all the Democrat’s rising stars?” That is one of the myriad problems with the current Democratic party – they have no “farm” system, no process for grooming the leaders of the future.

A political party, like a business or any organization, should look beyond today and plan for tomorrow. This means both identifying and preparing talented young people for bigger and better things.

Caveat – this IS NOT about picking winners. The process needs to be competitive in order to weed out those who are unfit or unworthy. As the Bible says, “Many are called but few are chosen.“

The process needs to be without pity. Rising stars need to be given opportunities and increasingly more responsibility, but they must sink or swim on their own. They cannot be coddled or carried. Today’s rising stars become tomorrow’s tested leaders.

Hillary Clinton was once a rising star in the Democratic party. She teamed up with Bill and together they built his career. She was a “power behind the throne” as the First Lady of Arkansas and then the United States. Then came her time and she moved into the Senate as Bill moved into private life. She won two elections and was in her second term when she ran for president. She had literally spent her life preparing for that job.

But she was shoved aside to make room for an alleged prodigy.

Imagine if the voters had been allowed to choose the nominee. Hillary would now be president. Barack Obama would either be vice president or would still be in the Senate. I have no doubt that Hillary would be a shoo-in for reelection, even if the economy was still struggling.

That would mean that Barack Obama could not run for president until at least 2016 when he would still only be 55 years old. That would be eight additional years in the spotlight, eight more years for him to either sink or swim.

We would have had the full benefit of Hillary’s talent and experience, then when her time was almost up we would have voted to choose a successor. By then party should have made sure we had more than one option to choose from. But it would be OUR choice, not theirs.

That’s because when the party picks the winners they usually pick losers.

---

Bilateral Symmetric Nutball Theory

---

WE’RE ALL GONNA DIE!!!!

Just kidding. Well, we really are all gonna die someday, just not anytime soon.

I’m just getting really tired of dire predictions and Chicken Little assessments of the future. Riverdaughter thinks Alabama is just like Nazi Germany, Joe Cannon thinks we need to kill all the Tea Partiers, and the Sky Haters think Milquetoast Mitt is the Mormon Mussolini.

Not a day goes by that someone on the left doesn’t write a hyperbolic post warning us of the imminent end of civilization. The general consensus seems to be that if the Republicans win the election they will repeal the 19th Amendment, reinstitute slavery and make global warming mandatory.

Yes, the GOP has a bunch of deranged pinheads and ignorant cheesedicks in it. But science has proven that for every nutball on the right there is an equal and opposite nutball on the left. This is what is known as the Bilateral Symmetric Nutball Theory.

The vast majority of both parties are good, decent people who want what is best for the country. Take the economy – everybody is in favor of prosperity. Both sides recognize that our current economic situation sucks. What they differ on is the causes and solutions.

Some people need to get a grip. If the Republicans win we’re not all gonna die.

Just some of us.

---

What’s in a name?

---

Political tags-such as royalist, communist, democrat, populist, fascist, liberal, conservative, and so forth-are never basic criteria. The human race divides politically into those who want people to be controlled and those who have no such desire. The former are idealists acting from highest motives for the greatest good of the greatest number. The latter are surly curmudgeons, suspicious and lacking in altruism. But they are more comfortable neighbors than the other sort. – Lazarus Long

---

The events of 2008 caused me to rethink my association with the Democratic party and become a true independent. Being independent caused me to start seeing things differently. One thing I noticed is that “conservative” vs. “liberal” usually seems to mean “Republican” vs. “Democrat.” If “they” are for it, “we” are against it, and vice-versa.

Here is how Wikipedia defines Conservatism:

Conservatism (Latin: conservare, “to retain”) is a political and social philosophy that promotes retaining traditional institutions and supports, at most, minimal and gradual change in society. A person who follows the philosophies of conservatism is referred to as a traditionalist or conservative.

---

Well that doesn’t seem so bad. The practice of law tends to be conservative because it relies on precedent and encourages minimal change. But if you asked a person on the left to define conservatism they would give you a very different answer. They would tell you it is a philosophy of greed, racism and authoritarianism.

Liberalism (from the Latin liberalis) is a political ideology or worldview founded on ideas of liberty and equality. Liberals espouse a wide array of views depending on their understanding of these principles, but generally liberals support ideas such as constitutionalism, liberal democracy, free and fair elections, human rights and the free exercise of religion.

---

That sounds like a pretty nice ideology, but I’m pretty sure that conservatives are into liberty, equality and that other stuff. Is “liberal democracy” different from regular democracy? Is “liberalism” different from “progressivism?” (For the purposes of this post I am treating “liberal” and “progressive” as synonymous.)

Lately there have been many issues that don’t seem to fit their assigned labels. Should liberals be demanding justice for Trayvon Martin or supporting George Zimmerman’s civil rights? Which is “liberal” and which is “conservative,” anti-Mormon bigotry or nominating a Mormon?

Can you define your own ideology in a way that doesn’t include listing a bunch of policy positions? Is your ideology consistent with every policy you support or oppose? Do you care more about theory or results?

Bill Clinton is a case in point. His administration was a time of peace and prosperity, but according to liberal theory he did everything wrong. So he is vilified by many liberals who spend a lot of time explaining how the peace and prosperity were illusory.

To be fair, many conservatives keep insisting we can balance budgets by cutting taxes.

I tend to be pragmatic. If it works, keep doing it. If it ain’t broke, don’t fix it. If it don’t work, try something else.

Right now the Democratic party doesn’t have a coherent ideology. They are a coalition of identity groups, and their “ideology” consists of a bunch of policy positions that cater to those groups.

I’m not saying these policies are bad, but they aren’t always consistent with each other and are sometimes mutually exclusive. The Democrats claim to support lower-class workers and unions, but they also support immigration. Immigrants compete for the jobs of lower class workers and union members. But most immigrants vote Democratic after they become citizens.

This begs the question. If Hispanics were voting 80% Republican would the Democrats still support immigration?

What about school vouchers? Teacher unions hate them. Not coincidentally, the Democratic party opposes them. But what should the liberal position be?

Affirmative Action is another one. In a truly colorblind society race would get no consideration in hiring, promotions and school admissions. The people that are negatively affected by AA policies are not the wealthy white elites who benefited from racism and segregation, they are the lower and lower-middle class whites.

Once you start differentiating between what is good for the country and what is good for the Democratic party, things get complicated.

---

It’s RBC Day

---

Today is the day we mourn the death of democracy in the Democratic party. On this day in 2008 the DNC Rules and Bylaws Committee effectively stole the nomination from Hillary Clinton and gave it to Barack Obama.

In August 2006, the Democratic National Committee adopted a rule that only Iowa, New Hampshire, Nevada, and South Carolina would be allowed to hold primaries or caucuses before Super Tuesday (February 5, 2008). Subsequently, the duly elected representatives of the people of Michigan and Florida set their primary elections in January. So then the DNC ruled that Florida’s 185 pledged delegates and 26 superdelegates as well as Michigan’s 128 pledged delegates and 29 superdelegates would not count in the nominating contest.

At Obama’s suggestion, he and Edwards, Biden and Richardson removed their names from the Michigan ballot, then urged their supporters to vote “uncommitted.” They did this to curry favor with the voters of Iowa and New Hampshire. Hillary Clinton kept her name as did Chris Dodd. All the candidates remained on the Florida ballot but agreed not to campaign in either state.

Both states held their official primaries in January 2008. Hillary won handily in both contests, getting 54.61% of the votes in Michigan and 49.77% in Florida. Barack Obama got 32.93% in Florida and no votes in Michigan. “Uncommitted” received 39.61% of the Michigan votes.

Hillary proposed that the election results stand and that both states’ delegations be seated accordingly at the DNC convention. The Obama campaign opposed that proposal because it would have cut his narrow lead in pledged delegates by more than 50%. Clinton supporters argued for re-votes in both states, but Obama supporters quietly blocked the idea.

Due to wins in traditionally red states and small caucus states as well as complex rules for the proportional awarding of delegates (where winning over 50% of the vote could result in substantially less than 50% of the delegates) Obama had taken the lead in pledged delegates. Hillary had won all the big states (except Illinois) and all of the “purple” or “swing” states that were critical to winning in November.

Despite claims by the media and the Obama campaign (but I repeat myself) that he was the inevitable winner, Hillary continued to win big victories in Ohio, Texas and Pennsylvania as well as several smaller states. By the end of May Obama’s lead in pledged delegates was less than the number of pledged delegates at stake in Florida and Michigan.

The Rules and Bylaws committee met on May 31, 2008 at the Marriott in Washington DC. According to the rules the RBC committee meeting was supposed to be open to the public. At a backroom meeting during the lunch break the committee made the following decision:

Half votes would be restored to the delegates from both states. Florida’s delegates would be awarded according to the election results. Obama would be awarded all of the uncommitted delegates in Michigan plus four of Hillary’s delegates.

Why is this important?

When the primaries ended a few days later on June 3rd, Obama had an official lead of 62 pledged delegates and Hillary was ahead in actual votes. If the delegates had been awarded at full voting strength according to the official results, it would have been a net gain for Hillary of over 100 pledged delegates.

Although neither candidate would have had enough pledged delegates to clinch the nomination, but for the RBC decision Hillary would have finished in the lead for total votes AND pledged delegates!

Either way it was ultimately the superdelegates – members of the Democratic party establishment – that selected Barack Obama as the nominee. They did this in defiance of democratic principles and the will of the voters.

That is something we will never forgive, and never forget.

---

“My momma taught me to play by the rules and respect those rules. My mother taught me, and I’m sure your mother taught you, that when you decide to change the rules, middle of the game, end of the game, that is referred to as cheating.”

---

I wonder what Eleanor Smeal thinks now?

---

Flashback:

This Is What A Feminist Looks Like

It’s not every day Ms. puts a man on its cover.

In choosing the cover for this special Inaugural issue, Ms. wanted to capture both the national and feminist mood of high expectations and hope as the 44th President of the United States takes the oath of office.

Expectations have only grown since the election, with President-Elect Obama now enjoying over 80% of the public’s support. Most people wish him well, and indeed hope he does “save” us from economic disasters, unending war and occupation, global warming, the decline in our international reputation, and relentless attacks on women’s rights, civil rights, human rights, science, privacy…the list goes on.

When the chair of the Feminist Majority Foundation board, Peg Yorkin, and I met Barack Obama, he immediately offered “I am a feminist.” And better yet, he ran on the strongest platform for women’s rights of any major party in American history. Feminist Karen Kornbluh, the platform’s principle author, ensured women’s rights, opportunities, advancement, and issues were addressed throughout the historic document.

Never has it been easy fighting for equality and social justice. The politics of Washington, our nation, and our world are tough. We have spent far too many years fighting to hold the ground we had already gained. Now is the time to move forward. We are in one of those rare transformational times in history.

---

and there was this:

---

---

That was then, this is now:

More on the Plan B debacle

Because I’m still just so fucking furious.

Egalia has an excellent round-up of the reactions, very much worth reviewing: Round-Up: Obama Betrays Women & Science Over Plan B Birth Control.

[...]

Meanwhile, the handful of Obama apologists still left in the tubes are making their faint squeaking noises. I’m not going to link to any of it, because, bullshit. In addition to the chess people (“Obama will overturn this as soon as he’s re-elected!”) and the Wingnut Appeasement Squad (“The Republicans forced this move on Obama!”) and the President Who? team (“Goddamn that Sebelius!”), there are the usual attempts to blame “us” rather than Obama — “us” being feminists and liberals. One clown says this is “our fault” for not turning out in sufficient numbers to vote Democrat in the 2010 mid-terms. Another clown says this is “our fault” for not making a strong public case for the joys of teenage sex. Then there’s the clown who says this is “our fault” for not adequately lobbying for Plan B, which is fucking hilarious considering the history.

Even worse are the Obama apologists—Democrats, presumably—who are nodding along with the President’s “wisdom.” Good move, they say; makes sense. The Overton Window is now somewhere in the Andromeda Galaxy.

---

One minor quibble with Egalia and Violet – I’m not sure that it’s fair to call anything Obama does a “betrayal,” especially at this point. To betray implies a violation of trust, and anyone who is still trusting Obama is too stupid to be walking around without a keeper.

I never trusted him and expected the worst. He has exceeded my expectations.

---

---

It’s time for some fresh blood

Retire? Hell no! I plan to serve another 10 years.

---

Old guard fades from Dem ranks

Slowly but surely, the old guard of the House Democratic Caucus is fading.
Rep. Barney Frank (D-Mass.), with his announcement Monday that he will not seek reelection in 2012, joins a growing list of senior Democrats who have retired or lost races in the last two years.

The departures rob the party of decades in accumulated legislative experience, but they also provide openings for younger House Democrats who have seen their path to leadership positions and top committee slots blocked by a cadre of Democratic elders in their 70s and 80s.

Democrats determine their committee chairmen largely by seniority, and the top three members of their leadership team, Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi (Calif.), Whip Steny Hoyer (Md.) and Assistant Leader James Clyburn (S.C.), are all over 70.

In the 2010 elections, committee chairmen John Spratt (S.C.) and Ike Skelton (Mo.) lost reelection bids. Appropriations chief David Obey (Wis.) retired in the face of a tough campaign. The three had collectively served more than a century in Congress.

Since the start of the year, four House Democrats who have served more than 20 years have announced their retirements: Reps. Dale Kildee (Mich.), John Olver (Mass.), Jerry Costello (Ill.) and Frank.

Top Democrats downplay the extent to which the retirements of the last two years represent a changing of the guard for the party.

---

How old is your congressional representative? How old are your senators? My congressman (Dennis Cardoza) is retiring because he has been redistricted out of a job. My senators are 78 (Feinstein) and 71 (Boxer). Boxer just got reelected and Feinstein is running again next year. They both took office nineteen years ago. Robert Byrd was in office for his ninth senate term when he died at the age of 92.

I’m not really in favor of term limits, but maybe we should consider age limits. What have we got to lose. It’s not like the current leadership has been doing a bang-up job.

---

Spoonville

---

I decided to drop by Hullabaloo to see what our old friend David Atkins (aka “Spoony”) thought of the Obamacrats decision to abandon the white working class:

The New Realignment

[...]

Less educated whites have been a stumbling block for Democrats for decades. Democrats held them together under the New Deal coalition pretty much until the Civil Rights movement, after which the conservative movement successfully transposed a “cultural” elite trying to enforce race and gender equality over the financial elite that this group had resented previously.

Democrats had been trying to “win back” these voters for decades with compromises designed to assuage their anti-welfare, anti-equality sensibilities. But with current demographic trends, that’s increasingly unnecessary–even if it were possible. Ideally, the Democratic missions of securing the safety net, increasing the minimum wage and safekeeping middle-class jobs should appeal to less educated whites. But it won’t. A more strident progressive message would do a good deal to bring these voters back and convince them that Democrats best serve their interests, but it’s still mostly a lost cause. The right-wing propaganda machine has been very effective in creating a tribal mentality with these voters that will be nearly impossible to break.

For those most concerned with social issues, this development will represent a step forward: Dems will feel increasingly emboldened to openly support women’s rights, gay rights and the like without feeling the need to seek cover. Yes, minority groups tend to be more socially conservative on these issues, but they’re also not the defining issues on which minority groups are voting. Few Latinos will vote for a party of anti-Latino racists just because that party happens to agree more with them on the subject of abortion–not even if that party is led by the likes of Marc Rubio.

[...]

But all in all, it’s conservatives who should be most worried. They have doubled down on appealing to less affluent whties with a calumnious message of lies and pure hate, targeted to a disappearing demographic. And they’re counting on a magic hail mary pass to win back Latino voters with Latino figureheads after they have wrung every last drop they can out of white resentment. That’s not a sound strategy, and it won’t work for them over the long haul, no matter how much money they have to spend on it.

---

Ironic money quote:

“. . . a tribal mentality with these voters that will be nearly impossible to break.”

---

Whose tribe? OUR TRIBE!

Seriously, Spoony demonstrates every tribal stereotype the left uses against the right except jingoism, NASCAR and incest. He should type his screeds in sneer font.

Why would anyone want to stay with a party that holds them in such contempt?

---

Ask not what your party can do for you

---

House Dem: Liberal groups need to back off for party to win in 2012

Liberal groups need to stay out of Democratic primaries if the party is going to retake the House majority, according to a conservative Massachusetts Democrat.

Rep. Stephen Lynch was one of several Democrats who faced an aggressive primary challenge from the left in 2010. His challenger Mac D’Alessandro, a former top official with the Service Employees International Union (SEIU), received almost $300,000 from labor groups for his campaign.

[...]

Clearing primaries for members and discouraging liberal groups from spending against incumbents should be a priority for the Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee, he said. “It would definitely help, I think. You need to talk to those groups.”

FTW comment goes to somebody named “John Puma”:

Great, another “we can only win by NOT distinguishing ourselves from the GOP” idiot.

If you think Lynch is a lone-nut think again. They may not admit it publicly but his pro-incumbent beliefs are widely shared on both sides of the aisle in Washington.

Look at what happened last year on the GOP side – Tea Partiers aggressively challenged incumbents in the Republican primaries, winning many of the contests. Most of those challengers went on to win in the Republican tsunami last November.

But the Village Idiots focused on a few races (like Delaware and Nevada) to argue that the Tea Party cost the Republicans several seats and possibly the Senate majority.

Speaking of idiots, let’s check in with Booman:

I think it is safe to say that progressives did not cause the loss of a single seat in Congress through the use of primary challenges to incumbents or moderate candidates. But that isn’t stopping some people from whining.

What? That actually makes sense. Has Booman finally seen the light?

It’s possible to screw things up by adopting unrealistic purity tests. We all saw that happen with the Tea Party. But it didn’t happen on our side. We lost almost every single competitive contest in the country, regardless of funding, the quality of the candidate, the campaign strategy, or the quality of the opponent. We lost because our base didn’t turn out and their base did. It’s that simple. Under the circumstances, nothing in the known universe could have saved Blanche Lincoln, or countless other backstabbers. But voting progressive wouldn’t have saved them either. In the last election cycle, the only thing that could have mitigated disaster would have been something that created real fear or real excitement in our base. Individual candidates had no control over that. As for excitement, our opinion leaders were too busy nit-picking to do anything but crush what little excitement that might have existed.

Sometimes, it’s just not your cycle.

Okay, there’s the Booman we all know.

“Our” base didn’t turn out because they were disgusted with the 2% less evil DINOcrats. And now Obama is signaling he plans to take a hard right turn for the next two years.

---

---