What Does a Progressive Do Now? Throw Your Vote in Their Face!

The health care debate has been very instructive for those of us who consider ourselves to be "progressives." I give myself this designation, although I am a fairly average middle age, middle class father of two and faithful husband. None the less, I am now obviously way more progressive than our president, or much of the Senate and House of Representatives. Sad day.

Now, there are some progressive senators - Bernie Sanders, and Russ Feingold at the top of the list - and I was right with their stated positions on the health care bill. And like me, and millions of other Americans, they got their asses handed to them. The truth is, in the health care debate, like so many before, Bernie and Russ didn't fight as hard as Joe Lieberman and Ben Nelson. Nancy Pelosi and every liberals' new hero Alan Grayson did not fight as hard as Rep. Stupak. They just didn't. They caved, and we got screwed. Which leads me to my new realization:

The progressive Democrats are our biggest problem.

Look, I love Bernie and Russ, but they get rolled like drunken sailors every time! Jesus, look at the refusals to filibuster in the Bush days. Look at the aftermath of 2006, when the Dems funded the Iraq war with NO RESTRICTIONS or TIMELINES. I'm still buttsore over that one. Oh, and giving telecoms carte blanch to spy on us, thrashing Move On, it makes the head hurt.

Then, we get 2008, and a huge victory. The SUPPOSED anti-establishment candidate (Obama) wins, as well as HUGE majorities in the House and Senate. You would think that progressives could get something done, right? Wrong! Republicans have understood what it takes to win legislatively since the Clinton administration. The strategies haven't changed, just some of the players. The left, however, has never recovered from the demonization of Jimmy Carter, and the only Dems who have caught on to a winning strategy are the ones who are right wing (like Lieberman, Nelson and Stupak). The winning strategy: serve corporate interests at all costs, and fuck the left.

People will say that "compromise" got something instead of nothing. In the case of fully funding Iraq, we got a minimum wage increase. In the case of a health insurance and big pharma bonanza, we insured some more people who didn't have health care before. But I call bullshit on both of these capitulations by the left. Our minimum wage increase was from a pittance to a slightly larger pittance, nowhere near living wages. In the case of health care, the newly insured are only insured by a federal mandate, not by a program that gives affordable insurance to all Americans, which was in our grasp. No, the health care cave-in was the final nail in the coffin of American politics. There is no longer a left or right in Congress, just two wholly owned subsidiaries of corporate America that differ only on social issues, kind of.

Why do liberal politicians fail to fight for our interests effectively? Because failure has no consequence. Giving in to corporate interests gets you paid. Your campaign coffers fill to the brim with oil, defense industry and big pharma cash, and you can afford to get reelected. When Wellpoint or Exxon is writing you checks for thousands at a time, you can afford to let lots of working stiffs like me get pissed and not send you $25.

And, who else am I going to vote for? Currently, I vote for a corporate shill who is a spineless, two-faced whore, or I vote for a Medieval era (also corporate shill) who thinks that the earth is 6000 years old, flat, and that gay people will bring about the Apocalypse. This is a no-win scenario for a progressive voter. Progressives literally have nobody to vote for. And yes, Feingold and Sanders voters, this means you too, unfortunately. They didn't fight when it made a difference, and have left you with no options. No options except two that I can think of: don't vote, or vote a third party.

Thom Hartmann, very smart liberal talker, will insist that you need to infiltrate the Democratic Party at your local level. This is conventional wisdom, and will take years, and cost thousands of lives. Cenk Uygur of the Young Turks suggests that we need to attack through the media. However, the "media" is largely owned by the same type of corporations that own Congress and the White House. I like the idea of an alternative media blitz against corporatist Dems, and I would trust no one more than Cenk to lead it, but it will ultimately result in marginal results as long as corporate media legitimizes the sellouts currently in office. No, liberals need to withhold the only leverage they have NOW - their votes.

And this will be disastrous in the short term. It will increase Republican seats at precisely the time that their ideas are proving to be dead to most of the American public. Poll after poll shows a fairly progressive public right now. And, staying home will probably make Democrats lunge further to the right, in an effort to get those remaining votes. But after an election cycle or two, this may either open up room on the left in those Democratic primaries (there ya go, Thom), or shock some Dems to fight for the left as they see how the polls are going. But we have to keep those votes at home until we see some fight, not just Obama-like speeches. (Fool me once, shame on you, fool me twice, won't get fooled again - insert W's giggle here.)

I like the other option - a third party. Either choose one (like the Greens) or invent one. A Progressive Party would be a clear shot across the bow of the Democrats. They will scream about 2000, and what Nadar did to Gore. Republicans will delight, remembering what Perot did to Bush 1. But it allows liberals to leverage their votes without just opting out of the process. The chances are slim to none of actual electoral victory. But, who would'a thought in late 2007 that American would elect a black man named Barack Hussein Obama as president? Oh, how sweet would it be to have a few Green party members of Congress, caucusing with Dems and reminding them every time of the cost of shitting on "the base." Dare to dream.

Isn't this throwing our votes away? No! It is the ultimate poll response. If all we get is pro-corporate policies from the Dems, then giving unworthy representatives our vote is throwing it away.

Won't this ultimately benefit the Republicans? Probably, in the short term. But Republicans will read the tea leaves too. And anyway, the long-term demographic outlook for Republicans is tragic. This is why corporations have been outspending on Democrats for years now. They know Republicans are on their way to becoming a permanent minority. Leveraging our votes now is the only way to dam the rivers of corporate cash that are determining the flow of Democratic politics.

As voters, we must learn from the fighters, like Lieberman. We must say "no!" No to compromise that gives corporations everything they want. No to representatives that don't fight at least as hard as Ben Nelson. We must say it and mean it - no to pussies who can't give us what we want, what we sent them to Congress for in the first place. We are the majority, we should get what we want, or we should clean house.

So, let's clean house.

There is about 10 months to show us some fight, or forget about our vote. We will send it elsewhere. We will even do what a percentage of NY mayoral voters did: write in Mr. Burns from The Simpsons. Shit, write in Spongebob, or Meatwad. Coordinate through the netroots to write in your favorite Squidbilly. Or a third party candidate with an only slightly higher chance of winning.

You will not be throwing your vote away. You will be throwing it in the face of people who have been taking you for granted, and taking cash from your enemies. Let Democratic representatives know that if they don't start fighting NOW, we will throw it in their face.

Lieberman and Nelson Learn from Republicans - and So Should the Liberal Dems

This last week of health care disaster has seen liberal radio and blogville screaming for the scrotum of Joe Lieberman. And, they should. The Senator from Connecticut is a scumbag of the first order, and his hatred for liberals is worn on his sleeve. And, apparently he is Barack Obama's best friend, since he was allowed to basically write the current incarnation of the Senate health care bill.

Lieberman, who middle-fingered his own state's Democratic party, who supported John McCain, who said that Obama was the same as a terrorist, who kept his chairmanships in spite of this, who caucuses with the Democrats even though he fucks them every chance he gets, gets to call the shots on health care reform. Or, gets to kill health care reform with no political consequences. The current bill is a 100% gift to the health care industrial complex, and the most corrupt government action since, well, the bank bailouts (oh Jesus, Obama...). And all because Joe says he will filibuster the Democratic bill (you know, the guys he caucuses with, who have the power to take away his chairmanships and give him a basement office with one, bare 20 watt bulb if they had a single set of balls between the 58 0f them).

The media calls Joe courageous, tough and independent minded. But most people know better by now. The President, the defacto leader of his party, who could have stepped in and kicked a little ass, has instead given Lieberman his blessing. Now, I think this is because Obama agrees with what Lieberman is doing. But you can't deny that it is Insurance Lobby Joe who is perceived as the strong player in this drama. Joe refuses to budge. He draws a line in the sand, and gets at least 80% of what he wants.

And of all the Democrats, Ben Nelson from Nebraska has been paying attention.

After Lieberman guts reform like a fish, to where a majority of Americans will be unhappy with if not against its passage, Nelson steps up and demands abortion restrictions. The same type of restrictions from the house bill that the Senate said "no way" to just a few weeks ago. Apparently, killing reform in a 400+ billion dollar give-away to insurance companies was not enough. Nelson figured we should throw every woman in America under the bus too. And he did. With pressure from Dem leadership, Nelson is being taken seriously. He will probably get most of what he wants. He says he "can't vote for the bill" without his restrictions on women's rights in it. Which means in truth, he is threatening a filibuster. He is threatening his own party's legislation if he doesn't get what he and only a few others want. I am guessing this is being portrayed on cable news as a principled stand.

But what it is, is hardball. Nelson is paying attention. He sees Lieberman slapping Harry Reid and the Democratic leadership around left and right. He sees Obama rushing to make deals with anyone who thumbs their nose at Progressives. It's not hard to miss, and he gets it. Now Senator Nelson is being a total conservative asshole who is threatening to fuck up the whole works. And he will probably get most, if not everything he wants.

Why, oh why can't the Progressive Democrats learn this lesson. Why didn't Chuck Shumer threaten to filibuster unless his drug re importation amendment was left in? Why didn't Nancy Pelosi stare down that fuckhead Stupak who put the abortion restriction into the House bill? What, she can't make a "principled stand" for women's rights? This is not your dad's House and Senate - the game is different now. It is played before the klieg lights of cable opinion shows, and the occasional news reporting. It is only relevant to what have become largely entertainment networks as a political brand of reality TV. You have to be an asshole or a freak show to get some attention.

Joe Lieberman is the sleaziest dog in the off-leash park of American politics right now. And he schools the Democrats regularly. That is pathetic. And a Stupak or Nelson aren't even in his league yet, and can still bend the Democratic leadership over the meat counter for a reaming.

Can you imagine, though, if Harry Reid showed up last month with a bunch of movers to Lieberman's office. He tells Lieberman that he is no longer chairman of the homeland security committee, Al Frankin is instead. That basement room with the 20 watt bulb is actually being used to store some of Frankin's shit, so there is a shed out back of the Senate building that he can use until something frees up. And then take his stapler. Oh my God, Fox news would explode, and CNN would decry the pettiness, etc. And then some reality TV hopeful would float in a balloon through a White House function, or something like that. Media would forget, and it would just be the leader of the Senate kicking balls for the good of the nation. And, he would be a MSNBC and HuffPost hero.

Instead, Reid is tanking in the polls in his own state. Not because he is seen as too liberal, but because he is seen as weak. When you get your ass handed to you by the most unpopular politician in America, this does not buoy your image, it makes you look like Lieberman's bitch. Nobody wants to vote for a bitch.

And, do you think this is the end? Hell no, it's just the beginning! Others will catch on. Go against the liberals and the Democratic leadership and get whatever you want! Shit, until it doesn't work, why not? Cenk Unger of the Young Turks decried this Democratic weakness in the face of Lieberman as precedent setting. And Ben Nelson's move has proved him right. If Nelson gets his way on abortion, it is only a matter of time, maybe minutes, before Nelson of Florida, or the conservative democratic bitch from Louisiana, or the one from Arkansas break out their lists.

And they would be stupid not to. Until Democrats fight from the left, instead of caving from the left, these bills will continue to be a disaster. Why not get what you want, please your donors, and bring home the bacon for your state. Especially since there are no consequences. The rest of the Dems won't fight you, or even call your bluff.

And anyway, what is the harm of calling Lieberman's, let alone Nelson's bluff. Worst case is they do join Republicans, and the bill goes through reconciliation. And that is unlikely with Nelson.

I mean really, Ben Nelson is going to join a Republican filibuster in order to restrict women's rights, and win as a Democrat? If the national party made it clear that health care reform was a priority, and that he will be cut off? That an attractive, quietly pro-choice and moderate district attorney or prosecutor from Lincoln was being extravagantly funded and groomed to run against him in his next primary, that his chairmanships were gone, that his office was now in the basement, and "get your ass back in ranks soldier!,"? Well, he'd heel like the dog he is.

But only if we have Democratic leaders who can deliver a wide-arching pimp slap from time to time. Or at least some liberals who can throw the same kind of deal-killing tantrums as Lieberman and Nelson, but for truly progressive causes. Until then, we will wring our hands, and cry that 60 senators is not enough, because we can't learn what Joe and Ben have:

Throw a fit, threaten legislative destruction, be called brave and principled, and get what you want.

Obama is not Weak, He's Conservative, and This is a Gut Punch

I have bristled with rage as I have listened to the news of the health care bill in the Senate. Fucking assholes! They are doing major damage to us, as sure as shootin' with Dick Cheney. Lieberman and his new butt buddy Senator Nelson (the one from Nebraska) have played a Bushian game on the Senate, and they (the Senate Dems) caved like bitches.

And yes, the liberals in the Senate are weak. They are weak because they care about Americans and are letting those who don't hold us hostage. A senator like Bernie Sanders knows how fucked-up this bill is, how it is among the most corrupt enterprises ever foisted on the American people. He also knows it will give health care to about 30 million people who don't have it. This hedges his opposition, he wants so badly to help those people get what they need.

This makes me think of the movie "Speed." When Kianu Reeves' character decides the best way to deal with a hostage delima is to shoot the hostage (just a flesh wound). We need a real liberal who can aim well enough for a flesh wound. We need real liberals to call the bluff, to shoot uninsured Americans in the leg if necessary and learn what Leiberman and Nelson have learned - don't compromise.

But I'm getting off track. My post title is about Obama. Liberal columnists, radio hosts and bloggers have been all over the map this week. The most oft-repeated complaint is the wish that the President would "get tough" with these senators, and join in the fight for the public option. I think that this is horrible analysis. He has gotten tough - too tough.

When you hear criticism of Obama's weakness, you usually hear about his failure to fight for the public option. But make no mistake, Obama has weighed in on the public option at least two times, with great impact. Once with Harry Reid, and once with the Senate Dems. Both times he made it clear - kill the public option.

Shit, Max Baucus and Kent Conrad tried for months to kill the public option, but it was stubborn - the American people wanted it badly. Obama met with the Senate two weeks ago and killed it in half an hour. You think that's not tough? Before that, when Reid asked for help getting the option, Obama made it clear that he was "on his own."

Obama put a serious smack-down on the public option. He was certainly more deft about fucking the American people than Bush was, but no less effective. He still may do this without too much blood on his hands. He also effectively killed Chuck Schumer's Drug Reimportation amendment. All those senators looked butt-sore after that fell down. Obama basically orchestrated a filibuster against a measure that would have greatly lowered drug prices for Americans. He filibustered his own party! He is a Machiavellian badass!

But he sure as hell is not a liberal. Nor is he in favor of the much vaunted "change" (TM Obamacorp). With Wall Street, wars, and in general sucking the chrome off of corporate trailer hitches of the Medical Industrial Complex, he is not much different from Bush/Cheney. And this is what hurts so much.

I was adamant about Obama's election in the primary. I so wanted him to beat Hillary because I did NOT want a right-of-center, DLC corporate shill candidate to win. I really did get sucked in by the "change" mantra. Now we must come to grips with the fact that Obama used the netroots to unseat Hillary as the new master of the Democratic corporate gravy-train. He used us, not to fight the power, but to solidify power for a narrow, non-liberal cadre of Dems who are now loyal to him. And everyone else better get in line or else he won't even throw a bone, like forcing 30 million Americans to buy private insurance from the same companies who shovel campaign money into Democratic coffers.

And this is what would make Tom Delay blush. And why I am so profoundly disappointed. With no anti-trust reinstatement, with no cost controls, and NO PUBLIC OPTION, Democrats will force Americans to buy a product they may not want from companies who give money to Democrats. This is so corrupt it makes a decaying corpse look good by comparison. Obama is using his political muscle for this, not for change. We now know who he is.

And it sucks. It sucks to have a president who will give billions to asshole bankers so they can have more bonuses while there is 10% unemployment. It sucks to know that our president will escalate a war in Afghanistan even though there is no credible partner in the country to work with. It sucks to know that our president cares more about the CEOs of Primera, Wellpoint and Big Pharma than he does about hundreds of millions of people like me.

It sucks to know that I voted for him.

Why the Senate Health Care Deal is Bullshit

The United States Senate buried the public option this week. Barack Emanuel made it clear in a 30 minute meeting with Democratic Senators that Insurance Companies and HMOs would not be happy unless Americans were thoroughly fucked on this deal, so Harry Reid put 10 of them in a room with strict instructions to thoroughly fuck us.

"But wait," you say..."Obama did his best." Yes he did. Did his best to kill the public option and not have the blood on his hands. But this is about the Senate, at least until the end of this rant. The "liberals" in the meeting came out smiling because Medicare got extended. This sounds great, but it isn't. It was opposite of how Medicare should have been expanded. But let's look at what they did:

• Medicare will someday start when Americans pass 55 years of age, instead of the current 65. It can be argued that any expansion of Medicare is a good step in reform.
• A "non-profit" option will be triggered at some point if insurance companies don't behave by keeping costs under control.
• Subsidies for Americans who can't afford health insurance.
• That ridiculous abortion shit was scratched.
• Some other stuff that I was too lazy to look up.
• More Americans WILL be covered, especially because the mandate for coverage will still be there.

The Medicare expansion is a cherry on the top, and will allow Dems to declare victory. But it is all bullshit. Without serious revisions by the House this is a preemptive bailout for health insurance companies. Billions more of our tax dollars will flow into the corporate coffers without actually lowering costs, or improving the health coverage product. We are tired of the fight, and as progressives, not used to standing our ground when friends turn on us. Even Howard Dean (my choice for Chief of Staff) was feigning satisfaction with this deal. He's just happy the blue dogs didn't blow the whole 2010 election up by nuking any reform. And, everyone gets paid...except us.

Why is this deal so bad? Well...

The Medicare expansion is ass-backwards. By extending Medicare to those over 55, taxpayers take the burden of the most potentially health-impaired population off the backs of the insurance companies. The coverage mandates will drive tens of millions of younger, healthier customers to take their places. The +55 age group is also the highest wage earning group in the workforce - the most able to afford their own insurance. They are the last group we should cover.

To do this right, we should have started from age zero through nine. This is the group that suffers from the least coverage right now, thus doing the most good. This also takes the burden off of working families and makes kids healthier. Healthier kids are higher achieving kids in schools. The benefits to America are huge on the low end, and make 100 percent more sense if you care about what's good for America, instead of what's good for Primera.

Finally, if your politics are truly oriented towards health reform, this is the gateway to Medicare for all. When those kids get close to turning ten, millions of families will collectively turn to their representatives and say "you're gonna' take away my kid's health insurance? How quick can you pack up your office?"

The "non-profit" option is a sham. Do we really trust the same companies that have been providing us with an overpriced product that under-serves us to sell insurance that would be priced at public rate? No way. And waiting for triggers? Please! And do we really think they will change practices on preexisting conditions? Not without disastrous cost consequences. Either the final version will have small loopholes that allow complete disregard of all new regulations, or the Health Care Industrial Complex will just ignore them. You don't think so?

Look at the Wall Street crowd. They were given billions to fix over 700,000 mortgages. They have taken the cash and just sat on it. Paid themselves millions in bonuses because they are showing record profits. They say "oh, yeah. That mortgage thing, we'll get right on that..." Then they smirk as they wire our money to the Bahamas. Or hows about AIG executives that had to be rescued to the tune of almost 200 billion when they nearly took down the entire global economy? They paid themselves over 160 million in bonuses, and when we got pissed said they would give 46 mil back. But it turns out they didn't. This week they said they were thinking about giving just 19 million back. And, fuck us if we don't like it.

And our federal government, the entity that handed the bankers all of that public cash, says "yes sir, may I have another." And by that they mean another campaign contribution. Health care companies donate many millions too, and this deal shows how solidly the fix is in.

Mandates and subsidies are insane without a true public option. Are senators really going to mandate that tens of millions of Americans purchase a shitty, overpriced product from the evil health hooligans that are in turn feeding millions into senate campaign funds? C'mon, this is like something out of a bad 80's movie about the future gone horribly wrong. It is such a blatantly corrupt idea that it wrenches my guts to think that my government would do this.

Look, I get the need to spread the risk among a larger and healthier pool of insured people. It makes complete sense IF you are doing it responsibly. Responsibly means controlling the costs, and having those who are elected be accountable for these kinds of mandates in a democracy. Government has to play a large role in this kind of mandate, or we the people are so much meat for the corporate lions.

Finally, I hope I've seen the last of that abortion shit that was plugged in by Blue Dog Dems. But I am not holding my breath. That crap started in the House, and this still has to go through conference.

And finally finally, I am tired of being told by Obama sycophants to just be patient. And I swear to Jupiter, if one more pundit, blogger or caller to a talk show tells me that Obama is playing chess while we are playing checkers, I will desire to shove chess pieces up their ass! I supported Obama, but I am not blind, nor am I as stupid as he seems to think I am. It seems to me that the American people are playing Go Fish, hoping for a good card while Obama and the Senate are running a three-card monte hustle on the American working class.

Max Baucus and Kent Conrad tried for months to kill the public option, and they couldn't - even with the teabagger heat being poured on them. Obama only needed 30 minutes. There is no question that he killed the public option. No question that he killed the last vestige of real reform. Why? $$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$...

CAMPAIGN FINANCE REFORM! NEW #1 ISSUE.

How's About a Military Spending Poll?

President Obama seems dead-set on a surge in Afghanistan. This is a disaster for the obvious reasons. One, it will result in more unnecessarily dead people; two, we can't afford it; three, the Afghan government is hopelessly corrupt and not a viable partner; and four, it will not work.

Sending troops in spite of this represents the kind of political weakness that has brought you the bankers bonanza from Geithner and Summers, and the constant attempt to quietly kill the public option from the White House. It is a cave-in to the right and to the Pentagon. It is a boon to generals who have political and or career ambitions. It serves a myriad of special interests, but not the American people in general.

However, Congress does seem to listen to polling pressure from the public, hence the survival of some form of public option (so far). The polling on Afghanistan is mixed: Americans want to defeat Al Queda and/or the Taliban, but don't want to stay a long time in Afghanistan. But the questions missing are along the lines of "does being in Afghanistan keep us safe?" I have heard a lot of people say no.

Even if the answer is to some degree "yes," the next question needs to be "how much do you want to pay for a degree of safety?" Is it worth several billion dollars a month, indefinitely, to keep some terrorists out of Afghanistan? Is it worth an extra million dollars per soldier per year for a troop increase?

I would answer "hell no" if given the option.

In fact, I would like to see military spending in general polled heavily in this time of economic crisis. These are the questions I would like to see polled extensively with the American people:

• Should America cut its military spending to help fix the deficit?
• Should America be spending as much on its military as its top 20 allies combined?
• If we could cut military spending by 50%, and still have the most modern and most powerful military in the world, should we do it?
• If we could pay off our debt to China by cutting military spending, should we?
• Should we leave Iraq and Afghanistan, currently costing 10 billion per month, so that our kids won't have to pay any more of the debt for these conflicts?

Poll these heavily now that a "war tax" is being bandied about in Congress. I think you would find that Americans would be at least open to a real debate about military spending. The idea that we spend more than the G8 countries combined on our military is appalling. Regardless of how patriotic Americans feel, they should be amenable to a conversation about saving real money. Apart from Social Security, or Medicare, the military budget is the place to get those savings.