[Same post as above, but edited to remove the weird quotes that borked the page.]
As one of the people who has been disappointed by Obama and exhibiting the enthusiasm gap you discussed on Leslie Marshall’s radio show, I think I would feel a lot better about Obama’s pusillanimous approach to the Republican obstructionism if I didn’t strongly suspect that Rahm Emanuel was behind a lot of the anti-progressivism this administration has exhibited.
I recognize that there are political realities. And I recognize that sometimes compromise needs to happen, even on core issues. But the ideas should be given a chance, not shot down before they’re even put on the table. Let us recall that Emanuel was against the Dean strategy that worked so well. http://www.huffingtonpost.com/cenk-uygur/howard-dean-vs-rahm-emanu_b_303915.html
That’s the issue for me, Mark. This isn’t about pragmatism – I get pragmatism and I accept pragmatism. This is not about pragmatism.
This is about the antithesis of �Yes We Can.� This is �It’s Too Hard So Let�s Not Try And While We’re At It, Let’s Insult The Idealists Would Otherwise Be Willing To Work For These Ideas And Have A Documented History of Changing The Winds Toward Progressive Ideals.�
But “Senior administration officials” have taken those ideas off the table before we ever started. And before Obama ever gets to declare himself a moderate by appealing to, say, just reforming the healthcare industry in incremental not revolutionary ways instead of making it Medicare for everyone and single payer reimbursement, he takes single-payer off the table so now his incrementalist approach now gets to be called “liberal” and “progressive,” rather than it being the pragmatic, middle-of-the-road approach. And thus progressives lose both ways: truly progressive goals don’t ever get a chance and our ludicrously pragmatic leader gets called a progressive when his plans are not.
That’s the genesis of the enthusiasm gap. Good luck to Obama appealing to the moderates in walking the neighborhoods for the Democrats this November. I hope he thinks that taking single-payer off the table was a useful negotiation he had with himself. Because heaven’s knows those moderates certainly walk a lot for politicians in midterm elections.
BCH
Burt Humburg August 29, 2010 3:20 pm
As one of the people who has been disappointed by Obama and exhibiting the enthusiasm gap you discussed on Leslie Marshall�s radio show, I think I would feel a lot better about Obama�s pusillanimous approach to the Republican obstructionism if I didn�t strongly suspect that Rahm Emanuel was behind a lot of the anti-progressivism this administration has exhibited.
I recognize that there are political realities. And I recognize that sometimes compromise needs to happen, even on core issues. But the ideas should be given a chance, not shot down before they�re even put on the table. Let us recall that Emanuel was against the Dean strategy that worked so well. http://www.huffingtonpost.com/cenk-uygur/howard-dean-vs-rahm-emanu_b_303915.html
That�s the issue for me, Mark. This isn�t about pragmatism – I get pragmatism and I accept pragmatism. This is not about pragmatism.
This is about the antithesis of �Yes We Can.� This is �It�s Too Hard So Let�s Not Try And While We’re At It, Let’s Insult The Idealists Would Otherwise Be Willing To Work For These Ideas And Have A Documented History of Changing The Winds Toward Progressive Ideals.�
But “Senior administration officials” have taken those ideas off the table before we ever started. And before Obama ever gets to declare himself a moderate by appealing to, say, just reforming the healthcare industry in incremental not revolutionary ways instead of making it Medicare for everyone and single payer reimbursement, he takes single-payer off the table so now his incrementalist approach now gets to be called “liberal” and “progressive,” rather than it being the pragmatic, middle-of-the-road approach. And thus progressives lose both ways: truly progressive goals don’t ever get a chance and our ludicrously pragmatic leader gets called a progressive when his plans are not.
That�s the genesis of the enthusiasm gap. Good luck to Obama appealing to the moderates in walking the neighborhoods for the Democrats this November. I hope he thinks that taking single-payer off the table was a useful negotiation he had with himself. Because heaven’s knows those moderates certainly walk a lot for politicians in midterm elections.
[Same post as above, but edited to remove the weird quotes that borked the page.]
As one of the people who has been disappointed by Obama and exhibiting the enthusiasm gap you dis... More >>
Burt Humburg August 29, 2010 3:23 pm
[Same post as above, but edited to remove the weird quotes that borked the page.]
As one of the people who has been disappointed by Obama and exhibiting the enthusiasm gap you discussed on Leslie Marshall’s radio show, I think I would feel a lot better about Obama’s pusillanimous approach to the Republican obstructionism if I didn’t strongly suspect that Rahm Emanuel was behind a lot of the anti-progressivism this administration has exhibited.
White House trashing unions http://www.politico.com/blogs/bensmith/0610/AFL_to_White_House_Labor_isnt_an_arm_of_the_Democratic_Party.html
White House never seriously considered single payer, not even putting it on the table as cannon fodder during negotiations, apparently http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=106969104
White House dragging. its. feet. on repeal of DADT. (Don’t get me started.)
Idealistic White House staff clash with Emanuel http://www.commondreams.org/headline/2010/06/20-5
I recognize that there are political realities. And I recognize that sometimes compromise needs to happen, even on core issues. But the ideas should be given a chance, not shot down before they’re even put on the table. Let us recall that Emanuel was against the Dean strategy that worked so well. http://www.huffingtonpost.com/cenk-uygur/howard-dean-vs-rahm-emanu_b_303915.html
That’s the issue for me, Mark. This isn’t about pragmatism – I get pragmatism and I accept pragmatism. This is not about pragmatism.
This is about the antithesis of �Yes We Can.� This is �It’s Too Hard So Let�s Not Try And While We’re At It, Let’s Insult The Idealists Would Otherwise Be Willing To Work For These Ideas And Have A Documented History of Changing The Winds Toward Progressive Ideals.�
But “Senior administration officials” have taken those ideas off the table before we ever started. And before Obama ever gets to declare himself a moderate by appealing to, say, just reforming the healthcare industry in incremental not revolutionary ways instead of making it Medicare for everyone and single payer reimbursement, he takes single-payer off the table so now his incrementalist approach now gets to be called “liberal” and “progressive,” rather than it being the pragmatic, middle-of-the-road approach. And thus progressives lose both ways: truly progressive goals don’t ever get a chance and our ludicrously pragmatic leader gets called a progressive when his plans are not.
That’s the genesis of the enthusiasm gap. Good luck to Obama appealing to the moderates in walking the neighborhoods for the Democrats this November. I hope he thinks that taking single-payer off the table was a useful negotiation he had with himself. Because heaven’s knows those moderates certainly walk a lot for politicians in midterm elections.
BCH
Burt Humburg August 29, 2010 3:20 pm
As one of the people who has been disappointed by Obama and exhibiting the enthusiasm gap you discussed on Leslie Marshall�s radio show, I think I would feel a lot better about Obama�s pusillanimous approach to the Republican obstructionism if I didn�t strongly suspect that Rahm Emanuel was behind a lot of the anti-progressivism this administration has exhibited.
White House trashing unions http://www.politico.com/blogs/bensmith/0610/AFL_to_White_House_Labor_isnt_an_arm_of_the_Democratic_Party.html
White House never seriously considered single payer, not even putting it on the table as cannon fodder during negotiations, apparently http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=106969104
White House dragging. it�s. feet. on repeal of DADT. (Don�t get me started.)
Idealistic White House staff clash with Emanuel http://www.commondreams.org/headline/2010/06/20-5
I recognize that there are political realities. And I recognize that sometimes compromise needs to happen, even on core issues. But the ideas should be given a chance, not shot down before they�re even put on the table. Let us recall that Emanuel was against the Dean strategy that worked so well. http://www.huffingtonpost.com/cenk-uygur/howard-dean-vs-rahm-emanu_b_303915.html
That�s the issue for me, Mark. This isn�t about pragmatism – I get pragmatism and I accept pragmatism. This is not about pragmatism.
This is about the antithesis of �Yes We Can.� This is �It�s Too Hard So Let�s Not Try And While We’re At It, Let’s Insult The Idealists Would Otherwise Be Willing To Work For These Ideas And Have A Documented History of Changing The Winds Toward Progressive Ideals.�
But “Senior administration officials” have taken those ideas off the table before we ever started. And before Obama ever gets to declare himself a moderate by appealing to, say, just reforming the healthcare industry in incremental not revolutionary ways instead of making it Medicare for everyone and single payer reimbursement, he takes single-payer off the table so now his incrementalist approach now gets to be called “liberal” and “progressive,” rather than it being the pragmatic, middle-of-the-road approach. And thus progressives lose both ways: truly progressive goals don’t ever get a chance and our ludicrously pragmatic leader gets called a progressive when his plans are not.
That�s the genesis of the enthusiasm gap. Good luck to Obama appealing to the moderates in walking the neighborhoods for the Democrats this November. I hope he thinks that taking single-payer off the table was a useful negotiation he had with himself. Because heaven’s knows those moderates certainly walk a lot for politicians in midterm elections.
BCH