The Senate just passed the Sanders amendment, Audit the Fed, by a vote of 96-0.
Though a weaker version than the Paul-Grayson bill that passed the House, the amendment calls for a thorough audit of the Federal Reserve from December, 2007 until the bill is signed into law. This period covers many of the Fed’s questionable activities during the bailouts that have so far been shielded from scrutiny.
I believe the success of the measure can be directly traced to the bipartisan coalition that came together to support Audit the Fed. As I told Ben Smith, with FDL, Dean Baker, Jamie Galbraith, Andy Stern and Richard Trumka on one side, and Grover Norquist, John Tate, Freedomworks and Americans For Tax Reform on the other there was no room for anyone to play the Joe Lieberman role. Nobody could pretend to be “principled” in opposition and take refuge in partisan politics — it would be clear that they were just covering up for the banks.
The bottom line: the Fed never loses. Ever. It’s remarkable that this amendment, even in its current form, passed. It still has to get through conference, however. Chris Dodd, Richard Shelby and Barney Frank are the likely conferees.
Tremendous credit goes to Alan Grayson. It was Grayson who decided to take up Ron Paul’s bill and bring Democratic support for it. When Grayson had a tough time getting Dems to cosponsor anything with Michelle Bachman, FDL whipped liberal validators which allowed Grayson to say “don’t worry about Michelle Bachman, Jamie Galbraith says its a good thing.”
At the time, the banks were focused on their bonuses. Under the radar, Grayson quietly got the number of cosponsors up to 330, which forced Barney Frank to deal with it on the Financial Services Committee. There was a last minute attempt to derail it with the Watt Amendment, and FDL again brought last-minute assistance to Grayson in the form of a letter of support signed by Richard Trumka and Andy Stern among others.
In a political environment where the banks can easily pull the strings of a Congress they have largely bought and paid for, I have to say the passage of this amendment surprises even me. Judd Gregg was making noises about unseemly populism, and Kay Hagan, Richard Burr and Claire McCaskill all said they would oppose it. None did in the end.
Thanks to Michael Ostrolenk of the Liberty Coalition and all of those on both sides of the aisle who had the courage to come together to work on this, even though it meant taking arrows in the back from mindless tribalists. It worked. We beat the banks.
Score one for the people.





173 Comments


Support this site!
Subscribe to the newsletter
Advertise on Firedoglake
Send
us your tips
Make us your homepage
About FDL News Desk
Which never happens.
Maybe there is hope for some version of finance reform after all.
I applaud the efforts of those who have fostered the transpartisan coalition that have gotten this initiative this far.
But it’s way too early to celebrate. Had the Vitter amendment passed, I’d be even more tempted to celebrate. But we all know that there will be much Kabuki before the facts behind the curtains are revealed by any audit. The chances that anything remotely impactful to the oligarchy will come of this are still remote at best.
Keep the pressure on, but keep it real.
Like I wrote two weeks ago, “To vote no on Audit-the-Fed is political suicide.”
Very thankful for everyone’s hard work!
Thank you Jane.
Jane – you rock!
Will Obama listen to Summers, Geithner and Bernanke behind closed doors and veto the bill? Would the Dems then lie down and fail to override?
It ain’t over til it’s over. (Sorry, Yogi)
While I understand that there are huge hurdles going forward, I also think it’s both politically naive and unnecessarily knee-jerk cynical not to recognize that what happened was important. It represents a successful model for progressive activism going forward where others have failed.
If you want to find a new model, you have to build on things that worked. This tactic, for all the limitations of the final amendment, worked. I firmly realize that it may get hacked up in conference, but taking the air out of the tires is only going to make that more likely to happen. If there’s momentum going forward, less likely. You choose.
Score one for political kabuki.
The conferees are a cause for concern, IMO.
While I’m happy some version of this passed I’m not going to give Grayson credit for this.
We can’t be sitting here talking about how they neutered the bill and then champion it as some great success.
Grayson did what he always did, talked and pretended. Is he up there talking about how the Sanders version is weak and he’ll fight for his original version? Of course not, he never actually cared, he just wanted the argument.
This does not earn Grayson a pass, far far far from it. I still hope we remove his firedog status. He shouldn’t be allowed to campaign off of us like that.
edit: Nevermind, guess you know that.
I’m sorry Jane I entirely disagree with your reading of this.
This is the exact same model that was used in HCR. A good already compromise idea gets put forward. All the Dems pretend like it’s super awesome, till it actually comes to vote time when it chas to be compromised just enough to take any actuall teeth out of it.
We got screwed exactly as we did on HCR. I won’t contribute if this is the best possible outcome we can hope for on everything. Because it means we’ll just be chasing our tails around in circles for years. It wasn’t a positive outcome, it was a pretend positive outcome.
Somewhere there has to be a line.
Regular audits of the fed is a pretty fucking tall order, given the circumstances. Look at reality, we are governed by criminals.
Hail Eris.
Two words: fuck no.
This was a huge year-long battle. I’ve looked at it carefully and I believe the amendment has value, even if it isn’t what was originally envisioned. More importantly, the coalition model worked. And we can build on that to push for more transparency at the Fed. We know members of both parties were afraid to publicly oppose it. We can push that envelope.
One of the limitations of online activism is that people frequently accept nothing but grand victories, big headlines, as “wins.” They view anything else as ineffectual “incrementalism.”
Lobbyists don’t work that way. They’re always pushing. They will inch the ball down the field consistently, where our side only accepts long bombs. But their side keeps winning. So we need to adjust.
We’re going to keep pushing on this, and use what we learned to fight for more. And we’re not going to throw anyone overboard in a fit of pique who might help with that.
Jane you may want to doublecheck the Dec 2007 date….
Yep, this took months of arm twisting, phone banking, emails, demonstrations just like HCR. Not. It isn’t every single thing you wanted so it ain’t worth shit. OK.
It is a step forward and it does give us a chance to push. Right behind you, Jane
If the legislation were unchanged, what exactly would the audit entail and who would audit the Fed?
CBO most likely. Would include what assets were bought (illegal, btw) from whom, and how much they paid. Who they gave our money to, basically.
This isn’t the health care bill. This is something that the banks actively opposed, and they only gave in because of the threat of the Paul-Grayson amendment hanging over their heads.
Ron Paul supports it as a stepping stone to more. So does Alan Grayson. So do I. This is the first time ever that the Fed has submitted to this kind of transparency. That has value. It’s not enough. But I think your efforts would be better placed asking “what’s next” rather than pissing on what we got.
We can push for more in conference. What would you want to see that is within the realm of possibility? I’m interested in hearing that. Cynical defeatism that makes people check out and feel like it’s all for nothing? Not so much.
Enron’s accountants, Anderson & Anderson, iirc.
Thanks, funny how that works.
Hail Eris.
; )
JANE…it’s a big win…FDL has provided the best coverage anywhere…and i read everything…
But are you sure the language wasn’t changed at the last minute so that the start date for the audit is NOW september 2008 instead of December 1, 2007…
C-Span showed a ‘start date’ of September 2008…it’s in the screenshot in this link…it clearly says:
“…permits GAO to audit financial records of the Federal Reserve since September 2008.”
—
Was The Fed Audit ‘Start Date’ Changed To September 2008? (Excusing The Bear Stearns-JPMorgan Deal From Scrutiny)
It might simply be a mistake by a C-Span intern, but during the debate on the Sanders’ amendment to audit the Fed (which passed 96-0), C-Span showed the following text on the screen the entire time:
“…permits GAO to audit financial records of the Federal Reserve since September 2008.”
It’s clearly visible in the screenshot above.
As originally modified to get White House support the Sanders amendment was set to cover Federal Reserve activities beginning December 1, 2007. If it wasn’t a C-Span error, and the Sanders amendment was modified again this morning prior to the vote, then the entire Bear Stearns – JPMorgan transaction would be excluded from GAO scrutiny. Obviously, this would not be a positive development.
Still working the story…waiting for final word from Bloomberg reporter Craig Torres…will update as soon as we get confirmation either way.
GAO I believe.
Ms Jane – Thank You !
Don’t have the tube on, no access. Did the Vitter Amendment fail? Anyone have the analysis?
Vitter failed. 62-37 iirc.
Typo, I’m sure. /s
Grayson? Grayson? Make a speech, man, now’s your moment!
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ctzIEjjOfd4
Yes, my fault. I lose track of those acronyms…
We’re checking it out. We think it may be a CSPAN typo because we don’t think there was a substitute offered before the vote. But trying to be sure.
Good catch.
Let’s hope it was a typo…call me cynical, but I have my doubts…will post here again when I get final confirmation from Craig Torres at Bloomberg…
Jane, I said clearly that I applaud the efforts of the those who put the coalition together. I remember being impressed with and acknowledging your work on this months ago when I thought getting anywhere near anything that reeked of tea partiers would be counter-productive. I do give you credit here.
And I don’t mean to take the air out of the party balloons–I said let’s keep up the pressure.
But after another week of faux progressivism on the part of Obama and the D’s, in which we get the position-less Kagan handed to us as if she’s God’s greatest gift to mankind, we get a meltdown that is caused by who-wants-to-guess, we get a bipartisan vote against breaking up too-big-too-fail banks, and we get a clearly popular and threatening, expose-the-plutocracy fed audit bill watered down to something no senator felt he had to vote against, while the real bill got defeated by a similar bipartisan protect-the-corporatist-plutocracy vote, I’ll ask that you please pardon my cynicism.
Keep up the fight and let us know how we can help.
Cynical defeatism that makes people check out and feel like it’s all for nothing? Not so much.
Amen, Sister. Your comments in this thread give me hope for the future of this site. I’ve been worried for some time that too many of the comments are so over the top cynical, so No we will not accept a partial loaf, that I really have pulled back from reading and commenting. Thanks.
I know Red State blasted the Republicans who voted “no.”
And cosponsors of the same language that was in the original Sanders amendment voted “no”: Leahy, Boxer, Shaheen, Merkeley and Begich.
They all would’ve folded if they thought they could. I have no doubt.
You’re right to be cynical, I added a snark tag that should have been there. Wouldn’t surprise me a bit if they did what you say, and yes, good catch!
I think the difference here is that, while the Sanders version is weaker than Grayson’s, it’s still a step *forward*. Not as big a step perhaps, but it’s a positive change, evaluated on its own.
The HCR bill was an enormous step *backward*. It’s bad for women’s rights, bad for immigrants, bad for the poor and the states since it expands the already crumbling Medicaid infrastructure, it’s bad for cancer patients and old people because of biologics, it’s bad for the middle class because it taxes them to line Wellpoint’s pockets, on and on and on.
I can’t think of any way that even a partial audit of the Fed is worse than no audit at all. This is slightly less of a victory; HCR was a kick in the teeth.
As powwow points out, this is not a huge weakening. In some respects it is stronger than Paul/Grayson, because it expressly says what is to be the point of the audit, and because it requires disclosure of the transactions in the various programs.
Our team won one. Let’s enjoy it.
Significant achievement. Kudos all around.
Of course I hope for the best outcome. But I can’t help thinking this could not have passed 96-0 unless a sacrificial lamb or two had already been selected, to misdirect the public in order to preserve most of the bankster pack.
Now… who do we reckon the designated fall guy(s) are gonna be?
Thanks for that. I appreciate it.
Most importantly, don’t bring cynicism that rightly attaches to other issues to one where it doesn’t. It gets fucking hard in the face of defeat after defeat to keep trying, to keep figuring out what could possibly work, and then be greeted by “don’t bother, this too will fail.” For no better reason that people want to lash out as far as I can tell.
This is not as good as it could be by a mile, but it’s still a big goddamn deal. And perhaps more critically, the tactic was successful and can be used again. Give some credit to those who are still pulling arrows out of their backs for having had the courage to try, or it just makes it tougher to do the next time.
The PO was something the insurance companies actively opposed. They only supported Obamacare because they had the threat of the PO hanging over thier heads.
Never going to happen. Look at the list of conferees announced. Now name me a single time a bill has gone more to the left in conference. in HCR the bill was dragged more and more to the right. It’s only because conference blew up in thier faces that there was even a chance of getting anything more left into the bill and that didn’t even happen.
I’m glad “I sold out on healthcare” Grayson is supporting it, but that means nothing to me at all. He ruined his credibility with me. Dr. Paul is optimistic, but he hasn’t done what progressives just did, he didn’t go thru this whole insane process of trying to kick scream and drag a bill to be better. Once he goes thru the same process we did on HCR he’ll see.
And you Jane I honestly thought would know better. Please give me the reasons you have any hope at all conference will do any good to this bill.
If I saw a next I’d let you know. I have zero faith in congress to do anything but harm this bill in conference. I have zero faith in the current left establishment to force them to do anything about it.
What’s “next” is dropping the pretense that we can work within this system and to start organizing the left better. A primary challenge for Obama, that’s next.
We should have denounced the firedogs over the HCR debate, but it’s to late for that now. Waiting for a better time has made it so that even if we did do it now it would have zero impact. So Anthony Weiner gets to wear the title and pretend while we encourage meaningless measures like this.
The only “next” is fighting the Dem party establishment and taking the left back. Everything until then is a waste.
And I find it insulting to be told I’m pissing all over what we got when this very website was trashing the compromise before it was trumpeting it as a platform to do more. Not just in the Seminal reader diaries, but from the main front page posters.
“Platform to do more”..I heard that exact same phrase with healthcare, I didn’t buy it then either.
so, my “aggressive strategist” friend . . . where else might we effectively apply some of these tactics ??
The only thing I’d take issue with is that it is a big step, both substantively and tactically.
Other than that, I concur 100% with your sentiments.
How sweet the sound! My compliments to FDL and the Amazin’ Grayson.
- Tom
Jane: If you are calling this a victory then its a victory. Congratulations! I have admired your writing for some time but it was your trans-partisan coalition that made me a true believer and brought me to the Lake. Thanks for FDL and everything you do.
Thanks Jane – son of Erik could have been a bit stronger me thinks. A bit of lip service maybe.
McConnell,
Bennett (UT), Kyl all voted no. Maybe the teas won’t forget this vote. and there’s Bennett’s legacy, a bankster lover …Never. Give. Up.
We weren’t “pissing all over the compromise.” We questioned its political necessity, and said that it excludes things that very much need examination. It does. There’s nothing contradictory in that.
And we also said Sanders mishandled it. He did. He negotiated the deal and then told Grayson and Paul to live with it. That sucked.
But this “all or nothing” zeal is yours, not ours. Never has been. If I read the bill and thought it was worse than nothing, I’d say so. But I read it and I don’t. I think it’s a big step forward.
If you can only see in extreme black and whites that lump this bill in with the health care bill, I doubt that the kind of activism we do here will ever appeal to you. We don’t have either the money or the reach to do what you ask, which as far as I can tell is diversion of resources into a pointless and unwinnable exercise. You’re on your own with that one.
Understood. Thanks for your steadfastness and all that you do.
I agree it’s a big step. From what I’ve read here on FDL, people disagree as to how much smaller it is than Grayson, but an audit is better than no audit at all, which has been the status quo with the Fed since the dawn of time.
So that is absolutely a big deal, and a remarkable bit of progress. As for suggestions on how to make it better, the obvious ones are to remove some of the exclusions so we can audit more, and to make it a regular thing rather than a one-off.
I have a feeling that, once this audit is conducted and the rocks get turned over, and the taxpayers get to see how trillions of THEIR dollars were handed over in giant virtual bags of cash, it will be much, much easier to make the audit a regular occurrence and expand its scope.
I would have much preferred a picture of Paul than of Grayson.
o/t
darling Tiger dood, I am reading on FB of plans to evac Tampa Bay w/ plans to be released in the next few days
http://www.examiner.com/x-17299-Hernando-County-Political-Buzz-Examiner~y2010m5d9-Gulf-Oil-Spill-2010-Plans-to-evacuate-Tampa-Bay-area-expected-to-be-announced
Naysayers are freaking loopy on this one…this was a huge victory for truth, justice and transparency…the dam is cracked…what we gain from this audit will help us get more extensive audits later…
The super-galactic Federal Reserve MOJO has now been defeated…
Still waiting on word from Craig Torres and contacts in the Senate…will update when I hear something final on the audit start date…
Was The Fed Audit ‘Start Date’ Changed To September 2008? (Excusing The Bear Stearns-JPMorgan Deal From Scrutiny)
This isn’t over, yet. It is not certain.
However, this IS progress, substantial progress, even, given the state of our society, major progress.
Thanks to all who worked to bring about this forward movement.
Special thanks to Jane and FDL for daring to stand for truth and justice, for that is what this is, ultimately, about.
It is a fine and honorable beginning.
Things have begun to change, let us keep the momentum …
DW
Fuck. Thanks, precious.
I never said it was a winnable exercise.
But you’re right, this isn’t the kind of activism I support. This is doomed to fail and a waste of resources in my opinion.
Sure you won’t beat Obama, no one will. What it WILL do is show that the left is not entirely what Obama supports. And it will give someone a big hit of name recognition to get a left opposition to the dems or even a 3rd party going.
It’s a long term thing.
Just because the word audit is in there doesn’t make this compromise a victory. There are still enough loop holes for them to hide all of the truly disgusting aspects. So yes, it may be a baby step forward, but one with far more symbolic value than any actual concrete value.
If I wanted superficial value I would be an Obama supporter.
So I suppose it’s time I take my leave from being active in this community. I’ll still come to read but if that’s the confines of what is considered positive activism then it’s not really a community that agrees with me.
Which is a shame because it’s about as active as the left gets in America. I hoped that with continuing proof that the system is inviable at the moment it would move to a more active community with bigger goals.
I agree about this being a step forward, but if they did indeed change the language as you suggest, then it falls to FDL, C4L and others to ensure that the “crack in the dam” becomes a fissure.
Maiden Lane is the smoking gun we need to move forward.
I’ll take this but remain skeptical. We do audits where I work, and while I believe they are necessary – and can highlight shenanigans if completed properly – audits are not always so transparent in displaying, um, whatever you might think it is you want to see. I may not be making sense (sorry if unclear), but audits are often not all that informative.
Still, that said, I’m glad that we’ve come this far. I will wait to see if anything ever actually gets “revealed.” My experience with audits on the microeconomic scale is that they’re often not quite as revelatory as one might wish for.
OT Hey SD,
The ammount of crude that BP claims is leaking is 1/3 of a Olympic Swimming pool per day. So according to them, maybe a few swimming pool’s worth so far.
blog.skytruth.org was on record within just a few days saying wait-a-minute, that’s kind of low … they estimated 1.1 million gals per day
and now they have an additional site online: Gulf Oil Spill Tracker
Yep. If O vetoes we’ll know this for sure. It’s a Kleptocracy in DC and everyone knows it.
“It worked. We beat the banks. Score one for the people.”
Score billions for the executive compensation packages for the banksters.
Keep pushing folks they have noticed that we are out here.
Thanks for that link and hugs to SD for sharing.
I remember that. The link that cbl2 provided links to SkyTruth and gives oilprice.com as a source in 2 pieces.
All we can do is wait. I was talking about helplessness the other day. Truly helpless at this point.
Helpless but not hopeless.
Never. Give. Up.
Under the radar, Grayson quietly got the number of cosponsors up to 330, which forced Barney Frank to deal with it on the Financial Services Committee.
I’m guessing the whole effort managed to piss off a few of the regular party hacks…on both sides. Good! Pulling together a “transpartisan” coalition made the legislation virtually unstoppable. And Jane, I hope all the people that gave you enormous shit for crossing some imaginary bullshit partisan lines will now be big enough to 1) acknowledge how wrong they were and 2) to offer apologies for their ill-advised mouthings.
This is a good toe hold. Now we need to push back into the Greenspan years. Some crap there too, I’m guessing…
Will Obama listen to Summers, Geithner and Bernanke behind closed doors and veto the bill?
Why veto when you can fly under the radar with signing statements?
Sorry about the lag time in responding. How ya doin’ SD?
Well, Fuckin’ Obama is the master of the Grand Symbolic Gesture. *g*
Pissed off.
Jane, I wish I could share in your youthful enthusiasm and exuberance. Too many years in this fucked-up society has given me knee-jerk cynicism, skepticism, distrust, and jadedness. I have learned the hard way to always expect the worst; when it happens there are no surprises.
I admire your work ethic, persistance, and commitment. But don’t be surprised with an executive order, signing statement, veto or some damn dirty deed dreamed up in the bowels of the White House.
Best of luck, anyway.
Good work!
Firedoglake rocks it hard core!
“Lobbyists don’t work that way. They’re always pushing. They will inch the ball down the field consistently, where our side only accepts long bombs. But their side keeps winning. So we need to adjust.” Precisely! I’ve been fighting a local battle for ten yrs. now against the Army Corp , my States DEP and almost every politician and guess what I’m slowly beating them all. We need to take the long view. Were not going to win most battles outright, but if we inch the ball forward every other day, week , month and we don’t get put back to far in the process then we can still win this. The problem isn’t that, it’s we have almost no people on the field working much of anything in our direction. Obama and his crew are Corporatist and neo-libs that think anything they do has to pass muster with the Big Corps. first. Who do we really have? Sanders , Grayson , Kuchinch and a hand full of others? We need a grassroots effort to elect the real thing ( Progressive Dems) and then we’ll be ready to take the field. Until then all we’ll get are these faux bills so watered down all they are really are empty wrappers.
AND THE KILLIN’ GOEZ ON AND ON AND…
Citizen Hamsher and the Firepup Freedom Fighters:
This is why we all keep comin’ back to the FDL Church of the Political Soul…you better feel mighty proud now, Sister Hamsher. You have taken the trust and support of a lotta us folks around here, gone down ta the mat with some pretty despicable and vile folks who would love to destroy you and those you represent. And, maybe more importantly, you have kicked a little courage into the backsides of some would-be progressive politicians…for all a that I am greatful and hope you letcherself get good and plastered dancin’ a jig around burnin’ images of Bernanke, Greenspan and Milton Freidman.
But please tell us the state of play of the new coalitions in the Democratic Party because since the oligarchy has lost control of it’s lunatic right wing foot soldiers in the Republican Party, the banksters are increasingly isolated inside the elected government and the unelected bureaucracy. The Republican Party is being swallowed by its Orcs and is beginnin’ to resemble the organized fascist right in Weimar in 1932…there is a vacuum bein’ created out of where the political “middle” used ta be in both the Democratic and Republican parties. We are seein’ the ground change under our feet now much like what is happenin’ in Great Britain where the remenants of “New” Labor is bein’ eaten by the Liberal Democrats and the next election will reflect open proportional representation. Under these conditions I hope, after you wake up with your hangover tomorrow, you go right back to work on the progressive coalitions particularly in the House of Representatives and try and bring organized labor, the Hispanic caucus, the few “progressives” and women together ricky-tic to push the White House into gettin some degree of separation from the banks as it looks like the banks ain’t gunna have the gazillions ta dump into the election this fall.
Make no mistake about it…the banks are in worse shape than a lotta us thought and now they aren’t gunna have a new infusion of paper from the treasury to buy the next Congress. The moment is here politically Citizen Hamsher and you’re standin’ right in the middle of it.
KEEP THE FAITH AND PASS THE AMMUNITION, IT’S ALL ABOUT THE WARS STUPID!!
Is not this a little like that radical son of David who overturned the tables on the Temple money exchange? Sooner of later common good get tired of tolerating incompetence (corruption)? I hope some of the darkness in those vaults comes to light, or at the very least some power-players start to sweat and aren’t so confident.
I am so encouraged that is bill passed…we shall see!
I don’t know about the state of play on the Democratic side, but I am encouraged by what is happening in the UK.
Looks like they’ll pass IRV voting. I hope to take that up and push for it here, too. I think it addresses a number of our problems, particularly with the ability to run 3rd party candidates.
x2
Woot! Now that will be fun. If we can change the way our votes are counted we can change the world! Or at least break the stranglehold on power that Dems and Reps currently enjoy. I hope Inquistor doesn’t throw in the towel here yet, because this is a battle that we can and must win. You go Jane!
As always, thanks for your hard work and for some outside the box thinking, Jane. Sadly, I remain a deeply concerned cynic (who remembers the rumors of Jack Kennedy’s death being tied to his anti-Federal Reserve). I prefer the view of George Bernard Shaw – “The power of accurate observation is commonly called cynicism by those who have not got it.” (no offense implied to all you non-cynics)
Also, here is a wealth of info on IRV -
http://www.instantrunoff.com/
Just getting caught up on the news of the day ,this is great news!
Just goes to show that activism can bring about change.
And Jane, great job on this !
Citizen Hamsher:
If you work on some form of proportional representation might I suggest that you begin by workin’ inside the growing margins of the Democratic Party with a base of elected folks. There’s a synergy there, especially with the hispanic block and women and the few “safe” or real progressives to work to give those folks some muscle within the existing Democratic Party to change the way our votes get counted to force the Democratic Party leftward to understand that there is no power in the old power centers anymore. As long as the banksters are broke there is room to move politics far enough to have a real nice funeral for the bastards.
In other financial news, it must be shameful to be Mary Schapiro these days, if this is the best you can come up with 5 days after Thursday’s shenanigans.
Schapiro: No ‘Single Cause’ of Stock Dive
Literally, of course, she is correct. But dollars to doughnuts when the smoke clears leverage, and its running buddy naked options contracts will be smiling amidst the rubble.
I searched just moments ago. The main hit was a Ron Paul site. I found this March item interesting (confirms the role of the GAO as auditor):
I have to agree with you. And with Hugh. And please, Inquisitr, stick around and make your ideas known. I, for one, personally value hearing from you on issues.
JANE — With all due respect, and I have much of it for you, this is not a victory. It’s just more kabuki, a gloss-over show. But I realize how hard it is for people like you who have so much time, effort, and emotion working within the Dem party to make the break. It’s like the abusive husband syndrome; always hoping this time he’ll change, unable to admit that somewhere deep down he doesn’t love you, that you have to go off into the world and find a new path, a new mate, or go it alone.
Please correct me if I’m wrong, but I believe one of the many, many, many compromises in this bill is that there is no audit, no revelation, of the Fed money that went to foreign banks (both private foreign banks and foreign central banks). I find this a glaring deficiency, esp. in light of the recent Greek crisis where the Fed just announced it was opening a line of credit for foreign banks. What this appears to me to be is:
a) Goldman Sachs helped the Greeks go bankrupt.
b) This bankruptcy has the potential to destroy the euro and bring down foreign banks that own Greek loans.
c) We are now going to use American dollars, fiat-created by the Fed, to bail out the foreign banks and prop up the euro, which is a competitor to the dollar.
d) Goldman will not only not pay a price for their actions, but will profit from the transfer/loan transactions as an intermediary.
If I’m wrong, or if I haven’t doped out the whole story, anybody here please correct me.
eCAHNomics, you out there? Hugh? Powwow?
Jane, you are wrong on this. This was a sellout, plain and simple. The Vitter Amendment (what the Sanders Amendment was before he gutted it) had the same language that Grayson had. To proclaim this as a victory is disengenous at best. WE GOT PUNKED, just like single payer/public option. This watered down bill was a big victory for the FED. We didn’t beat the banks, the banks beat us. Please see the following discussion from Ron Paul (love him or hate him, he was in the trenches with Alan Grayson from the beginning)
http://www.campaignforliberty.com/article.php?view=842
Auditing the Fed one time may give you some point of reference but the Vitter amendment being defeated was a major blow.
I agree with those that say this was no victory……..it really wasn’t. But I hope it is the start of the battle.The battle, sir, is not to the strong alone; it is to the vigilant, the active, the brave. …
[I]t is now too late to retire from the contest. There is no retreat but in submission and slavery! Our chains are forged! Their clanking may be heard on the plains of Boston! The war is inevitable — and let it come! I repeat it, sir, let it come!” –Patrick Henry
I thought the Watts amendment failed?
Anyway, here is some woody allen.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=X1granQNSqg
Not gonna happen.
Here’s another oil tracker, too.
http://ocg6.marine.usf.edu/~liu/Drifters/latest_roms.htm
So we should all give up because we didn’t get everything we originally asked for? (By the way, I should point out that the Cons love it when we’re reflexively cynical; it means that we’re giving up and they win without a fight. That’s one reason why Republicans love the Green parties.)
No, you should be pissed off because what you did get is only enough to pretend like you got what you wanted when in reality you didn’t get anything close to that. It’s all half loafs and band aids. And it’s disgustingly pathetic when the supposed bastion of the left is willing to call this a victory.
You’re so demoralized, so beaten down, and expect so little that this token waste of paper is enough to make you cheer like you got something real accomplished.
Which brings me to
@77
Can’t do it. I just unsubscribed from the mailing list. This is sad, and if this is the kind of victory FDL is willing to accept I want no part of it.
Admire your stand on principle. Go safely and in health, my friend.
It seems to me that we fight, and only lose. When I look at “victories” I look at real “victories”. Obama got a real victory on HCR; he got what he wanted for the health insurance industry and also what he wanted for consumers: nothing.
I’m old enough to remember real liberal/progressive victories: The Voting Rights Act; the Civil Rights Act; Congress’ vote to end funding for the Vietnam War; the House and Senate Watergate hearings and the House vote to impeach Nixon.
People have to start realizing the difference between a victory and a mere “standoff”. The defeat of the Axis powers in WWII was a victory; the Armistice that put the Korean War on hold back on the old 38th parallel pre-war dividing line between the North and South was a standoff.
This faux audit bill is a standoff: no real victory for us, no real damage to the Fed and Wall Street. The loans to foreign banks are exempt. The actions of Open Markets Committee are off-limits. And, of course, we haven’t come to the real sticking points:
a) Will Obama sign the bill, then negate it with a Signing Statement?
b) Will the final report be delayed in its release? Will it be laundered to tone down the language (and the specifics) of what it finds?
c) How much will be released only to Congressional leaders under cloak of confidentiality and how little will the public ever get to know?
d) If what it finds is too damning, will it be repealed by the next Congress and never released?
Hell, I wouldn’t put it past Obama to declare the report a State Secret vital to national security.
I can’t get excited until I see something actually happen. I have no faith whatsoever that the dems can be saved so I take this ‘victory’ with a big grain of salt. This does remind me of HCR in that, some folks argued that any changes was a step in the right direction and others argued that getting a crap bill passed instead of doing what’s actually good for America was wrong because they won’t go back and ‘fix it later’.
I’m already willing to bet there will be some way or reason we don’t get nearly anything close to what we are being led to believe we will get.
Bet against congress doing right by America and you’ll be right around 100% accurate (for at least the last 10 years).
Replying to Inquisitr @ 84
Replying to BigJess @ 86
Then why fight at all with that attitude? Where is the benefit? When do you envision ever getting worthwhile success when the only acceptable opion is 100% of everything you want? And how is that an effective use of resources given the odds you fight against?
What about the political climate now or for the forseeable future makes you consider this the best route to go? A symbolic victory is a worthless victory. Sure you’ll be able to stand tall and righteous, but you won’t get anything substantive out of that.
Everyone here understands it’s just one step, but it’s an important step and it doesn’t mean that Jane and FDL are going to dust off their hands and call it a day.
The more arrogantly Power behaves, the more clearly the people understand.
Everything you list, BigJess, will be understood, by enough human beings, for precisely what it means.
Any attempt to walk this back will create mounting pressure for genuine consequences for the abuse of Power.
When Power is perceived as no longer legitimate, nothing will save it, no matter how savage it becomes.
DW
not 100%, how about 75 or 50 percent? Give me something I can work on to get HCR improved or how can I help ensure the GAO actually gets to you know audit the FED. I think this is joy is very premature, I want to be wrong but everytime I feel that way, I’m not…
calls and donations have yielded pretty much zero so far into the Dems controll everything congress…
Hopefully, you’re right.
However, I think the best news today is the article on HuffPo saying that the military is now backtracking on its not-really-a-complete-pullout pullout of Iraq. The more soldiers are tied up in Iraq and AfPak the fewer there will be over here to suppress the civil disobedience when the economic bottom really falls out, as I believe it will do in the next 12-18 months.
I firmly believe that what we saw a few months ago in Tehran and in Mynamar we will see here. You will see U.S. troops (1st Combat Brigade, 5th Army Division) firing lethal rounds on civilian demonstrators.
I hope you come up with a remarkable plan when you’re in the winderness. Or find a community that feels likewise that is actually capable of working together for meaningful change. I’ll keep an eye out. Best of luck to you.
I suppose I’ll try and make this the last post.
This is not my argument at all. I’m not saying we shouldn’t fight. I’m saying the methods we’re using are not worth continuing and the kind of “victories” they produce are jokes.
I’m saying we need to change tactics.
What we did with this audit bill was the exact same strategy we tried with HCR. Put pressure on in the beginning, let the fake progs like Grayson talk a great game, and then watch as it all gets neutered behind the scenes.
I remind you, this is just the first round of watering down. It still has to go thru conference with Dodd and Frank. Who among you really thinks Dodd and Frank are going to force this to the left. What give you any sort of hope for that? I asked Jane and she didn’t respond.
What gives you any hope that congress will bring this bill to the left?
So I see the same tactic failing all over again. I saw FDL main page posts decrying the compromises and expecting it to get worse.
And now I see the main page decrying this as some awesome victory.
Are you really so defeated that’s a victory to you? Has Obama beaten all hope and expectation out of you that this is what you consider a win? I don’t.
And if Jane sees this as a model for future victory I want absolutely nothing to do with it. Because this is like saying “well we may not get the already compromise cap n trade..at least we got some form of a regulation on carbon”
Yeah you did, but that compromise of a compromise isn’t going to fix anything, it just gives you the warm and fuzzy feeling of you thinking you did.
That’s what this audit is. It’s not a real win, it doesn’t even really do what it was supposed to. But it makes you think they did something, and it lets congress pretend they did something. That is not a win.
Are you listening to yourself? Do you not remember Obama et al saying that this was just the first step in HCR. That it would be a platform for building in the future. not a single one of us believed it then. Why are you so gullible that now all of a sudden you believe it? Why was calling that a platform to build for healthcare bad but calling this a platform to build on the audit right?
I see no distinction. I didn’t buy it then and I don’t buy it now.
You say that as if we’re getting anything substantive now. We’re not. We’re getting a butchered HCR bill, Elena Kagan for the supreme court, and this pathetic version of the audit bill. That’s not substance.
Yet Jane’s method of attack doesn’t even begin to try and change that. We have to try and change the system before we can make any real changes.
I cannot support continuing this method. I cannot call this a victory. And I think it’s a sad sad sad day when the left of the left can call this a victory. I think it shows just how demoralized and weak the left in America really is.
Plans I have, I just need funds and support.
But I’ve been in the wilderness all my life, nothing new here.
Best of luck to you too Jane. I do hope one day you realize you cannot work for change within the system. Maybe I’ll come back if you do.
Criticizing this amendment because of fantasies about future signing statements that haven’t happened yet just encourages defeatism and disengagement. When your fantasy future actually manifests you can bitch and have an emotionally satisfying moment for yourself of “I knew it all along.” For now it’s pantronizing and dismissive of a lot of hard work that people put in to get this far.
This isn’t the health care bill. It does absolutely no harm, there’s only upside to whatever it achieves. And there is nothing to admire about people who encourage others to give up out of pure negativity. Absolutely nothing.
Jane, I don’t agree with the Sanders amendment and was saddened that the Vitter amendment failed, but at least we got an Audit the Fed bill. As an active member of Campaign For Liberty, me and many of my friends brought this issue on November 22, 2008 during our first End The Fed rally and have continued to bring attention to the issue. I was met with resistance at many of the neocon tea parties this year and last year, but I was able to recruit more members and open minds to the issue. There are open minded neocons and there are neocons, who like in our local 9/12 tea party last September 12, did not want us there and tried to kick us out. Jane, you have no idea how many neocons are so misinformed about the Fed and really have no clue that they are bailing out nations like Greece. It’s sad but at least our liberty movement is growing.
First, in terms of use of resources, I question the wisdom of continuing to try to change the Democratic Party. In my view, that “ain’t gonna’ happen”. But the risks for someone like Jane to walk away from the Dems and work on a third party alternative are grave, and probably irreversible. She risks loss of friends and access, ostracism and marginalization, threats from funders, attacks from the faux-progressive blogosphere, etc. (Hell, she’s already often characterized as some sort of “extremist”.)
Second, I think sometimes symbolic defeats in the short run set the stage for real victories down the road. Why did Obama crush Kucinich into caving on HCR? Obama never needed DK’s vote; it was clear for many weeks that Obama had to come to some concession with the Stupak bloc. The reason Obama had to crush DK was to destroy DK’s future credibility as a rival. With faux-progressives Weiner and Grayson already caving in, DK was the one person who represented a potential credible, principled opponent on Obama’s left flank.
Look at what has happened since then: when possible 2012 primary challengers to Obama are mentioned, one of the most prominent names if Elizabeth Warren. I would support and vote for her in a heartbeat, but think about it: one of, if not the, best hope for a primary challenger is a woman who comes out of Harvard Law, has never held public office, never run or helped run a state, never served on a Congressional committee, has no foreign policy or defense credentials, etc. Make no mistake, I think she is exactly the kind of truly bright, truly honest person who would make a great president. But for her to be a “leading” nominee only speaks to the deficit of more established candidates. DK would have been the runaway choice of most true progressives in 2012. Now, most true progressives wouldn’t cross the street to spit on him.
In my earlier post I raised the analogy of the wife who can’t bring herself to leave her abusive husband. Here’s another domestic analogy: the unfaithful husband. As long as a wife continues to stay with him, he’s just going to philander more and more. Why shouldn’t he? He has nothing to lose. The wife gets no respect, because she doesn’t deserve any. And she gets no freedom, because she’s unwilling to set herself free.
We put up with this on single payer until it got unbearable. We’re not going to do that again. Go work toward your own vision. I hope you succeed. If you do, let us know so we can learn from your example. I respect people who have the courage to put their convictions into action.
When you’ve got a track record to back up the talk, it will be worthy of respect. You ought to be willing to walk your own talk. Goodbye and good luck to you.
Elizabeth Warren isn’t going to run against Obama. That’s a fantasy.
Please read the previous messages, I’m very serious about this. We’re not going to entertain this kind of stuff as long as we did on health care. We learned our lesson. If you’re here to run down everything except a fantasy third party primary challenge to Obama by people who will never do it, this isn’t the place to do that.
Fair warning. We value you as a member of this community. But we’re not going to have the comments section dominated by that.
i haven’t been around much recently, so maybe i missed something. if so, could you give me a link, or if not, could you please explain to me what this means?
People, especially you, put in a lot of hard work to get Ron Paul’s real audit bill passed. What you are now calling a victory is substantially short of that original bill. I don’t want to pick a fight with you, but I’ve noticed that you haven’t addressed the shortcomings I outlined, with respect to the foreign bank bailout, the failure to audit the FOMC, etc.
I’m not advocating disengagement from the process. I’m advocating disengagement from the irredeemably corrupt Democratic Party. But, as I pointed out in my preceeding post, I understand and can sympathize with the risks this would entail for you. Therefore, I understand why it’s a step you are unlikely to take. But that shouldn’t be an argument for others of us not to do so and not to seek new strategies, new alliances, new outlets and mechanisms for our energy, our frustration, and our fears about where this country is going to end up.
Looking forward to 2012, I pose these hypotheticals:
a) If a primary challenger to Obama emerges, would you support such a candidate?
b) If Obama is the Democratic nominee in 2012 (as he most assuredly will be, even if it takes some electronic voting machine manipulation), will you support him, and urge others to do so?
What Inquisitr and I and others like us are saying is that at some point you have to fish or cut bait. You can’t steal second base standing on first. At some point you have to be willing to risk being thrown out by the catcher, or you have to be willing to stand on first and hope the next batter gets a hit. If that batter is Obama, pardon me, but I’m running the minute the pitcher starts his move to the plate.
First, I think it does do harm in that it (very likely in my opinion) gives the public in general, and those among the general public who are most engaged in the political process, the appearance of real action and reform when that is not the case.
It’s like the Immigration Reform Act of 1986. We were told that it was going to solve the illegal immigration problem, and if it didn’t it would be tweaked and fixed. Those of us who looked carefully at the bill, and who were familiar with the boots-on-the-ground realities of our southern border, knew that it was all bullshit. The bill didn’t solve the problem and wasn’t fixed. So now, twenty years later, the problem is several orders of magnitude worse, and we’re being told that a clone of the 1986 bill will solve the problem.
So, I’m about to be banned for disagreeing with your perception that this bill is a victory?
“Dominating” the comments section? Gee, I didn’t know that expressing support for a fellow long-time poster and arguing for a more liberal, authentic audit bill was dominating.
Congratulations, Jane, to you and all those who worked tirelessly to make this happen. It’s a real victory. We should savor it, it might be our only one for some time.
Those who criticize it for being half-a-loaf don’t understand the paradigm it establishes: an auditable Fed, answerable to Congress in entirely new ways. It’s the first step on the right road in exactly the ways the final HCR bill was not.
Good going.
I disagree, also. It certainly isn’t what I’d call “audit the Fed”. It’s more like “audit this particular action of the Fed”. That’s still useful, though. It can provide ammunition for asking for a standing audit of the Fed in the future. It might even provide ammunition for dissolving the Fed and replacing it with a government-run central bank, which would be a positive development in my opinion.
The HC”R” bill was a disaster, thanks to what it puts in place. This not quite-audit is just less than we could hope for, since it doesn’t really establish any principle or process that we’ll need to work against later. I wish it had been more, and I’m not satisfied, but it’s actually one of the few things Congress got at least half-right this session.
Jane –
Last word, or last question:
Do you think the current state of affairs with Congress and Obama is as good as it can get, the best we can hope for, and that we should just accept it and go along with it?
Because if not, I fail to understand what the strategy is for going forward. It just seems to me that all the traditional things we’ve tried have come to naught. (And we’ve been laughed at in the process.) I mean, we tried financial support (Firedogs) and a whip/petition-call-email campaign, and what did we get? DK, Grayson, Grajalva, Woolsley, Weiner, etc., (the entire PINO caucus) all caved on HCR.
You tried transpartisan networking and whipping for the Ron Paul Audit the Fed bill; what we got was a watered down version that Bernanke just admitted he had a big hand in shaping.
I’m all up for you leading some new strategy. I’d just like to know how it differs from the old strategy, and why I should invest in it, and believe that it will work.
Thanks, Jane. We can’t give up.
Actually it does exactly that. This bill further codifies the concept that actions of Fed Open Market Committee (FOMC) and Fed interactions with foreign banks are not proper areas for audit and for public knowledge of what the private bankers are doing with our money.
Furthermore, it codifies the principle that the Fed should only be audited on some of its action undertaken at specific times and only when Congress passes a specific bill to perform such an audit. It codifies the concept that absent a specific bill from Congress, operations of the Fed are to remain opaque and uninspected.
Here’s some more woody allen.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mKczZnfwYC4
Congratulations Jane, and thanks for putting your all your damned hard work and talents toward this. You’ve taken a lot of crap for working with “enemy”.
It’s a hook that will lead to the exposure of criminality, or will reveal the need for even more exposure. All the while, auditing of these holy writs loses the taboo.
The camel’s nose is getting under the tent, in reality it’s the only way in.
On a related topic, here’s a fabulous article by John Talbott, author of the prescient book “The Coming Crash In The Housing Market”, now talking about the Greek bailout. Since it appears that much of the bailout money Europe is providing is actually coming from the US via the Fed and the IMF (of which we are the biggest funder), this article is a must read. It also delves heavily into the precarious state of soverign debt, ratios to GDP, etc., in many other countries across the globe. Fabulous but scary reading.
http://www.salon.com/news/feature/2010/05/11/europe_bailout_who_really_wins/index.html
Who are the real winners in Europe’s bailout?
Jefferson was on point when speaking of private banks and the relationship between banks and corporations depriving people of property and liberty.
This extraction of wealth from America is a scam, by design.
It is a scam when leverage economic servitude to corporations is the end game.
ENERGY, MANDATED HEALTH INSURANCE, FOOOOOOOD, AND THE RAPE GOES ON!!!!!!!!!!
Refusing to do something doesn’t “codify” its opposite. If it does, then that particular idea was codified almost a century ago and we’re already boned.
:-D
“…we’re already boned.”
America has been boned by corporate scum for decades. Jefferson warned all! Corporate Sodomy, by definition?
Servitude is not liberty…………………..
thank you, selise, for asking this – I was wondering about it as well and, if you ask, you’ll probably get an answer.
Yuppers!
We’re going to the same well again. We’re going to work with the same coalition. We’re going to try to get more. If you don’t believe in that, that’s fine. That’s not the issue.
I’m sure there are places that will be more attuned to launching the third party challenge to Obama that you very much want. But this isn’t the place. Every community has its limits. Markos banned the 9/11 Truthers and limits DailyKos to avowed Democrats. We’re more tolerant here of trans-partisan action, but advocating for a third party challenge to Obama as the only possible answer is not something that is going to find support here. I think it’s both counterproductive and unrealistic. If you want to prove that wrong, you definitely should. But this isn’t the place to do that.
; )
Makes me laugh so hard my stomach hurts…
Yeah, thank you selise.
I’m wondering too because if there was a problem, then I would like to know what it was also. By identifying the problem, I’m hopeful I can assess whether or not I was part of the problem as I posted a lot during HCR. If so, by knowing I could change my posting style or choose to post elsewhere.
No, you should stay, OFG. It’s sane here.
I understand the parallels and no I don’t agree with what happened with HCR. But I think you’re mistaking FDL’s role in the broader scheme of things. The democratic party machinery has their own goals, and is good at what it does through long practice. Progressives and our vision don’t really have a voice in the debate wherein decisions get made beyond PR talking points. Those progressive voices that are out there are not unified in vision or purpose with regards to moving forward. Leadership is anything but. So how do activists proceed? I think Jane and FDL have the right idea and furthermore they’ve got successes to point to in order to prove that it works. What you want will never ever get off the ground until the progressive left as a whole wakes up. Your problem isn’t FDL, it’s the rest.
So far all you’re saying is ‘I didn’t get what I want, woe is me.’ What Jane is saying is ‘I didn’t get what I want, but this is an important step.’ One of my first bosses told me to quit complaining to him until I had at least one solution for my complaints. So what’s your solution? How should this be happening?
Can I assume your characterization of a “third party” challenger includes a Dem primary challenger? Because if so, then it seems very much like your bottom line position is unqualified support for Obama. Disagree with him? Yes. Express disappointment? Yes. Withdraw support? No. Again, bottom line, Obama gets contributions, volunteers, verbal and editorial support, and votes. He is to be rewarded for everything he’s done, no matter how much in conflict with the party platform, with his own campaign promises, and no matter how unconsitutional and/or repugnant.
If, however, you are willing to consider backing an appropriate primary challenger, that’s something else.
It’s also something else entirely if you are, at some point, willing to withdraw support of Obama. I notice that Jeff Kaye has a Seminal post up about how the actions at the Black Site prisons at Bagram may be worse than Gitmo. Contravention of treaties, the Constitution, various domestic laws, and the basic precepts of humanity were arguments against Bush. If Kaye’s info proves correct, how does that change support for Obama here on FDL? If he follows through on his power to assassinate Americans without trial or indictment, how will that affect his official support here?
I hope that your strategy of going back to the same well, of begging and pleading and playing nice with Woolsley and Kucinich and Grayson and Weiner pays off. But I can’t see how and why it would, except on issues where there is not huge corporate opposition or personal opposition from Obama. I think it’s been proven quite clearly that Democrats will not defy corporations or Obama. For me, the Sanders bill is proof. The Paul bill had 330 votes/co-sponsors. Clearly the Senate was under pressure to pass it. But Obama was dead set against a real audit of the Fed, so to preserve campaign prospects, Dems had to come up with a faux audit bill willing to pass Bernanke’s (and possibly Geithner’s) veto.
Perhaps I should have explained “codify” in terms of establishing precedent. Opponents of a wider future audit will claim that is “unprecedented” in its scope, an approach “previously rejected as unnecessary and an unwise intrustion on Fed independence from political interference”.
I also think that what we are about to see is a long, drawn-out court battle between the Fed and the GAO over what records and docs and data are to be included in the audit. I can see the Fed refusing to hand over things, then Congress passing the buck to the DOJ to compell production of the material, and the DOJ sitting on its hands under orders from O and Holder. Just because some watered-down faux audit bill passed the Senate (and hasn’t been further gutted in conference, and hasn’t yet been signed by the Great Leader) is no reason to get excited. Like Ross Perot always said, “The devil is in the details”. We can expect plenty of devilishness before we see even a cosmetic, sanitized, uninformative “summary” issued by the GAO. My bet is, despite any deadlines included in the final gill, the actual results won’t come out before the 2012 elections. (Look what’s happened to all the previous investigative reports on the Yoo/Bybee memos, actions at Gitmo, etc.)
There are a whole lot of assumptions here that are simply not true, but they very much characterize the quality of debate offered up by the “throwing Obama out is the only answer and anything else is a sell-out” crowd. The presumption is that anyone who does not leap to this conclusion is acting in bad faith, supporting torture, black ops, etc.
I’m just letting you and everyone else know. This is not the place for that.
So, the ultimate bottom line is, we must support Obama with our votes.
Fine, now that I know that I’ll not bother to criticize him, or those who support him, or the Dems (sellouts, one and all) who makes his policies possible. Whatever Obama wants he will get, and if we’re displeased with that, well, there’s nothing we can, or should, do to actually alter the political realities of him being re-elected President.
Obama is in favor of Goldman Sachs, he’s in favor of corporatism (you, yourself, even described what’s happening to America as fascism), he’s in favor of torture, indefinite detention, assassination, illegal surveillance, state secrets, etc., but in the end we must support him and his party. How does one oppose these actions and still support the man whose policies these are?
I would be all for the argument of supporting Dems who oppose rightwing Obama policies. I’d go for that, big time. But when has it happened? And why do you think it would start happening? And if, by some miracle, it did happen, what’s the likelihood that the offically blessed and annointed replacement candidate wouldn’t be just another Manchurian Trojan Horse like Obama? Seems like being asked to take a lot on blind faith.
I think you’re being unrealistic with regards to FDL’s goals.
So, what are those goals, and what are your plans, strategies, and suggestions for how to accomplish them?
I’m seriously interested, because I keep coming back to Einstein’s definition of insanity: Doing the same thing over and over while expecting a different result. Perhaps I’ve misunderstood, but what Jane seems to be espousing is going back and asking Dem politicians to “pretty please” vote for their constituents and against their greater self-interest in satisfying their corporate/fat cat donors, their party leaders, and their President. So like I said, if that’s the strategy, fine. I won’t try to fight it. Just don’t expect me to contribute or sign petitions or email or call by elected representatives, because that would seem to be a colossal fucking waste of time. Reading about such things can be informative, even entertaining in a perverse sort of way, but takes much less time and effort that participating in the circle-jerk. (Look how well it worked out on HCR and Audit the Fed; we got anal raped on the former and pissed on with the latter. Vic-tor-y.)
OTOH, if FDL is just a place to blow off steam, fine, now I know.
PS. Oh, yeah, I called Boxer’s office and Feinstein’s about the Audit the Fed bill. Then Sanders came along with his compromise and now both of them can crow about voting to faux audit the Fed. Really glad I took those ten minutes of my life to make those calls. Paid off, big time.
Shows what you can do when you value the ends and stand by your beliefs rather than play partisan, kabuki games. Well done Jane Hamsher.
I’m confused. I thought last week that the amendment had been watered down to uselessness and we were all supposed to be cawing for Bernie Sanders’ head. What a relief to find out we won after all.
You are not comprehending here. Have you not caught the hint/fact that the issues count?
That Obama was just denied his position/desired outcome on this Audit The Fed Amendment?
That FDL just produced a TV ad in the DC market against Obama’s position on ofshore drilling?
That FDL adamantly opposed, and exposed, the White House’s position and role in HIR?
That the coalition Jane mentioned in a previous comment wasn’t with the Weiner’s/Kucinichs that got Audit the Fed passed, that it was on a trans-partisan basis?
The amount of posts in one day as regards questioning, if not outright rejecting Obama’s nominee for SCOTUS?
And somehow you can conflate that into support for Obama.
To paraphrase: It’s the issues, stupid.
Since there are going to be the rotating villains, doesn’t it make sense to aim at the actual issue at hand, and assemble the resource and political energy possible to win that issue, regardless of what tribal affiliations one has?
Hi DW. I read that comment you referred me to, and left a response for you at the end of the emptywheel thread.
Sorry folks, but this modified Sanders bill is not the victory that we were waiting for.
It is a watered down Timothy Geithner/Rahm Emanuel/Chris Dodd “compromise” charade that is just what the Administration and banking interests wanted – they’ll allow the TARP and TALF to be audited, but there will be no transparency of monetary policy decisions, the discount window operations, or agreements with and trillions given to foreign central banks.
Why Bernie Sanders caved to these guys (again), I don’t know.
The amendment limits the audit only to emergency lending, the GAO would be barred from looking at the Fed’s foreign central bank swaps, and its purchasing of mortgage debt from Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, which is considered part of open market operations and not “emergency lending”.
And finally, the extremely limited and “sanitized” audit that is being permitted, is restricted to just a one-time audit. Rather than create transparency about the operations of what the corrupt Central Bank Monopoly is doing with our Nation’s money, this bill is just more theater with all the real guts of a true audit stripped out.
The only hope we have is that the U.S. House – Senate conference will be pressured to restore the original Alan Grayson-Ron Paul language in the combined conference bill. But that will only happen with a lot of loud and noisy protest and grassroots pressure.
So that’s what we need to do Jane. Restore the Grayson-Paul full audit, and real transparency into the bill. This current bill is just another charade, that will not expose the Central Bank swindlers at all.
We have work to do!
Looks to me like it’s not just the Rethugs who are fracturing.
I find it very disturbing when the owner of the site makes implied threats against those who post contrary views.
Marketplace of ideas, anyone? Do we still honor that quaint old concept here?
This victory is a small victory. Still a victory, but a small one. Perhaps destined to become smaller yet in conference and then as applied.
Jane, I think you are an amazing person, and have put forth heroic efforts, but I fear you may be developing a very counter-productive case of tunnel-vision.
Maybe you’re just tired and having a bad day. See ya tomorrow.
Great arguments pro and con, but one had to see this as the outcome. 96-0. Who in the senate would want to go home and have to face questions as to why the Fed shouldn’t have been audited considering that Bloomberg still has an active FOIA that two courts have sided with Bloomberg on to release information as to where 2 trillion of our tax dollars have gone. It’s a step in the right direction. I admit a baby step, but at least a foot in the front door.
What sticks in my throat is that the founders never envisioned a central bank. The Constitution calls for a US Treasury. Perhaps we’ve gotten behind the wrong argument. Maybe we should be working on repealing the 14th amendment. Get rid of the Fed as well as the IRS….:)
Who wants to bet Obama will veto it.
First off, we need to be clear about what isn’t going happen. And that is a broad reshaping of american policy and culture to reflect overall progressive goals and worldview in the immediate or even intermediate future.
Be honest with yourself. I think we can agree that what FDR accomplished for liberalism and progressivism was a unique phenomenon and one not likely to be replicated short of a similar societal upheaval in the same manner as the great depression. Now we have experienced the next best thing to this during the last few years, but there hasn’t been similar liberal goals enacted. Where did this go wrong? Probably with the election of a centrist democrat instead of a liberal. But that is neither here nor there since it’s what we’ve got and we have to work with it. Agree so far? What to do next?
1) Primary challenge to Obama – He is still very popular, has vast financial reservers or easy access to them, and at the moment the possible republican presidential opposition is not unified or cohesive at all, and we’re likely to see much the same thing in 2012 as we saw in 2008. Now ask yourself what is likely to happen to a democratic or 3d party challenger? At best the same thing that’s always happened, and that is they’ll fail or the republican will win making this a purely symbolic fight. The conditions simply don’t exist for this to be probable at all.
2) 3d Party challenge to Obama – Currently don’t have the name recognition, finances, structure, etc, to challenge either the democrats or republicans. Conditions might still enable the rise of one but it would necessarily have to involve the schism of the democrats and the republicans. The former won’t happen simply because the power structure controls effectively and the latter won’t because of the very same reason. They’re good at controling the various groups forming the party as a whole. Tea Party you might say, but that movement was neatly coopted from Paul and isn’t independent at all.
3) Accept and work towards change within the system – Self explanatory. There are a lot of voices and interests in control of things, and the left wing and our goals/ideology has been maligned and marginalized by both democrats and republicans for decades. That isn’t going to change overnight. Especially so when few liberals are in the governmental power structure and those liberal organizations outside of it have been so effectively controlled by the democratic party – much the same way as the republicans now control the tea partiers. How do you change this? That is the question you need to answer. I don’t believe any of our goals will be accomplished unless it is within the system as it currently exists.
The real problem I see is there are very few progressive activists actually out there and doing what Jane and FDL is doing (see: Veal Pen). If that were otherwise then I don’t think we would be so bad off.
Ach, I’ve got to go, this isn’t how I wanted to end this but hopefully I got my point across. Have questions or whatnot I’ll be popping back in later.
The thing to focus on is that big zero after the “96-” ! This is a good frame to be in.
Next target, please.
Sure, but the ante just went up. 96-0 is decisive. Boxing Obama into protecting the Fed vs. justice for the people is a Rovian wet dream.
Make my day, Mr. President.
Absolutely, issues count. And the issue here is: Did we get the Senate to pass a genuine, expansive, in-depth, on-going process of Auditing the Fed? The answer is, no. We got a watered-down, limited/restricted/constricted window-dressing bill which some are calling a victory.
Obama was not denied his desired position/outcome of the audit. He got it weakened into nothingness so that he wouldn’t have to choose between signing it and vetoing it.
Yes, FDL exposed the WH role in the HIR/HCR backroom sellouts. Yes, FDL whipped for the public option, eliminating the mandates if there was no PO, etc. FDL got what, 30, 40 or more, members of Congress to sign on or appear on video stating they wouldn’t vote for a bill that didn’t have a “robust” PO? FDL endorsed, supported, and fund-raised for those representatives. And what happened? They all, to a one, turned around and rat-fucked us. They took us out on a date, conned us into paying for dinner and the movie, then anal raped us, threw us out on the side of the road, pissed on us, told us to walk home, and left their phone number in case we ever wanted to go out on a date again.
You ask about “winning an issue”: when have we ever won under Obama. Not a compromise half-fucking but a win?
You cite opposition to Kagan. But Jane has agreed (by not denying) that, bottom line, no what Obama does, we/FDL will/must support him in 2012. And that no matter what the Dems do, the best we can do, or the only tactic that she is willing to embrace, is begging/pleading/asking nicely for them to be good boys and girls. So no matter who Obama nominates to SCOTUS, or what abomination of a decision they are part of, we must support Obama.
Agreed. But I question your contention later in that post that we must work within the existing two-party system. I just don’t see how we can. You tell me: how do we get Dem party officials to renounce a system that works in their best interests as it is? And don’t say public financing of campaigns, because the current system works wonderfully on their behalf and they are never going to willingly walk away from the gold mine. Walk away from it? Hell, it’s their motivation for being there in the first place. It’s the feeding trough and they’re the hogs.
Ever heard of the Whig Party? They were the other big party to the Dems until the Republicans came along and turned them into a footnote of history. Granted, the political scene is much different today than it was then, but look at the Perot candidacy. It put the deficit on the table for the first time and he drew enough support away from Bush to get Slick Willy elected the first time. A primary challenge by Eugene McCarthy led to RFK’s primary challenge and together that led to LBJ declining to run again.
Look closer at this week’s UK election, then compare that to the Stupak bloc? Wouldn’t it be great to have a third party with say, even 5-10 seats in Congress, two or three Senators, enough to tilt votes, extract concessions, generally gum up the works if we didn’t get our way? We don’t have to control, but we do have to influence. And right now, there’s no evidence that I see that we do.
You need to re-read this thread. Srsly. Jane is not saying we must support Obama and yet you reject her for insisting that we support Obama! You are not seeing the words I am seeing. I have no idea where you get those statements.
Furthermore, the LAST thing Jane is saying is that we should do the same thing over and over. Calling Washington on issues that only matter to progressives is a losing proposition. That is the problem. A “progressive” 3rd party will not get the votes in this environment. Working locally may succeed at electing progressive candidates, depending on the local environment. Are you supporting any local candidates? Are you working locally? Are you doing anything? Or are you just bitching at a convenient target (Jane)?
Petitions and calls do matter if there is a critical mass ~ hence the transpartisan model! How do you think this vote got to be 96-0, UNANIMOUS?? That’s a fucking miracle in this environment! EVEN if some of those votes were because this is the “lesser of 2 evils.” It’s because they are hearing from EVERYONE, not just the progressives that Rahm has neutered!!
Has Jane told you to send money to Obama? Has Jane told you to join Obama’s campaign? No.
Jane is finding ways to challenge Obama when he is wrong on issues that count, issues that have appeal beyond party lines, because in this environment, she has put YEARS of work into understanding that NOTHING else will succeed.
Jane may have just proven she has a winning formula, that can produce bigger wins. And now you want to bail because it’s not YOUR perfected vision that you are stuck on. Because it involves not getting exactly what you want? That Jane is not doing what you want her to do? Wow.
Finally, I don’t think Jane is saying there was too much debate on FDL about HIR. She is saying FDL worked with the flawed process of HIR, hoping for the best outcome, for too long. That’s how I read it. Personally, I think all that had to happen to forge a new model of action with a solid foundation. We have no reason to wonder about what is really happening in Washington. We know because of the record that all that produced. That’s all fodder for finding a better way. A better way that is *more* than just words and empty rhetoric.
I get tired of people who come here and say we have to do this, we have to do that, go here, go there, enact THEIR *perfect* solution for THEM or all is lost. Bullshit. These talkers don’t seem to be doing anything except discrediting other people’s honest actions. That’s not fair. And it’s not democratic.
Jane asked the readership what they wanted on issues earlier this year. She asked the readerhsip what they wanted on the marijuana issue. She walks her talk.
Oh, yeah, and what Kelly said about the thread and misreading. Kelly’s absolutely right.
We need to be able to read the words on the page people and not make shit up in our heads.
Thanks, Kelly.
Congrats Sister Jane for all the work on possibly the most important bill after Health Care.
Something un-believable happened. It is nice to know Republicans too came along with Democrats to prevent our money in bank becoming a monopoly money in future.
Now after audit Fed would have taken the first baby step towards complete transparency and realized no harm is done. Can then we have annual audit reports of FED available to my elected representatives in senate and congress when requested by them.
I don’t know how to quote only sections, but I truly feel and empathize wiht your frustration and discouragement.
“We don’t have to control, but we do have to influence. And right now, there’s no evidence that I see that we do.”
This is the key point. I agree that there have been moments of confluence which have lead to non-mainstream races, victories, shake-ups, etc. But I don’t think it’s worth it to hope and pray for that day when the evidence suggests it’s not going to happen any time soon. Evidence being, the lack of a non-mainstream political figure who has the charisma, record and chops to do it.
We do have to influence. Collectively, the progressive left, but so far few members of the progressive left are doing so. That’s the problem. Jane’s approach does work, just think of how much more it would if the left as a whole was unified in not putting up with the BS that the WH and DC give us? Refuse to be the left wing tea party controlled by the democrats? You’re taking out on Jane the anger and frustration you should be leveling at the rest of the left.
One last thought concerning the public financing of campaigns. I think this is the single most important issue affected our politics. Get that right and actual change would be possible. One day.
Your list of possibilities is nowhere nearly complete. Another Ross-Perot-style candidacy would have a tremendous amount of traction right now, for example.
Neither does it consider the possibility (which Big Jess and I favor) of attempting to destroy the Democratic party at the national level so that either it will shape up dramatically in order to avoid that destruction or the destruction will succeed to the degree that it leaves room (which the Democratic party has effectively hogged for decades) for a legitimately progressive replacement to bloom. This kind of hardball by the Tea Party opportunists has thrown the fear of God into the Republican party, and there’s no reason to assume that the same could not be true for national Democrats as well (perhaps especially right now…).
As for Jane’s comments, they’re somewhat open to interpretation. I’ll choose to take them very literally as a warning that while attempting to present various drastic (though of course non-violent) options (such as the one I just described) as the ONLY viable solutions will be discouraged, she has voiced no objection whatsoever to presenting them as reasonable subjects for discussion and potential adoption (because if such discussion is not permitted then FDL is just a little personal playground of hers which is of no interest to me).
First, on the local issue:
Yes, I’m supporting Marcy Winograd over Jane Harman in the primary. Regardless of which one wins, I’ll be voting Rep in the General. Wanna know why? Two reasons:
1) Because I have absolutely no reason to believe that Marcy is any less of a despicable, lying, opportunistic, gutless, sellout slimeball than Harman is. It’s not as if some Dems had held the line on HCR or had held the line on the real Audit the Fed bill. Every single Senate Dem folded on both, and I’d be willing to bet that they will do the same on the conference audit bill.
2) Therefore, the only way to send any kind of message is to vote for the only other party that actually has a chance of getting elected. That’s one less vote for a Dem in each race and one more vote for a GOPer. Double the pain penalty. And double the message.
Previously on the local level I’ve been a community activist and leader as far back as 1980. I’ve been a proponent/leader of local referendums, one local initiative (all five successful) and a leader in three election campaigns (two of which were successful, and the other one lost by…wait for it…one vote. (BTW: When the losing candidate had run out of money, I paid for the recount.)
I’ve also sued my local city twice trying to stop fraudulent bonds sales. (Gee, fraudulent bonds. Where have we heard that before?) I have tried to get the FBI, the DA, and the FBI to investigate local corruption. (When your mayor met his future wife at a function at Bush’s Crawford ranch, it can be a little hard to get a GOP DOJ and a GOP DA to do anything.)
I did succeed in getting the CA State Lands Commission to audit my city’s illegal use of funds derived from city management of state lands. The audit report ran 104 pages, resulted in the firing (forced resignation) of two officials, and the city had to renegotiate deals, start paying back money, etc.
So, yeah, basically, I guess I’ve just been sitting on my hands and waiting for a chance to bitch at Jane.
And yes, Jane is saying that in the end we must support Obama. She made it plain that sentiments about a third-party or a primary challenge to Obama are not welcome here. This can only translate to one thing: in the end, no matter how bad Obama acts, in 2012 we must support him. The difference between FDL and Kos or MoveOn or OFA will be that they pronounce Obama wonderful all the time and we’ll only pronounce him good enough to vote for when that time comes. When you go into the voting booth, you only have one choice: Obama or somebody else, or skipping the top ticket race entirely.
Now maybe, if Obama nuked Iran and nominated John Yoo for the next SCOTUS opening, maybe Jane would change her mind. But it seems that he would have to do something that extreme for her to entertain ideas of him being challenged. And I appreciate her position. We can rant and speculate all we want; we’re only readers, drops of water on a vast ocean, and we don’t have anything invested. But Jane has built a massive cargo vessel that floats on that sea, and that vessel can be sunk. Once Jane were to publicly endorse even the concept of a primary or third party challenger, she would cross the political Rubicon. I understand that, and don’t expect her to change.
Begging for changes in party and administration policies is permitted. It’s actually part of the kabuki: we beg, they pretend to agree, we contribute or endorse, they sell us out, we feel bad, then we come back to reward the next sellout of our hopes with more effort and more money. All the ire on the left is tolerated, simply because everybody knows it’s all sound and fury signifying nothing of substance. But threaten to burn down the kabuke theater, or bring in a new cast in a new play? That cannot be tolerated.
Correction:
That should read “and I’d be willing to bet that the House Dems will do the same on the conference audit bill.”
I just want to go on the record as being in support of the views expressed by you and the other malcontents.
Jane is wonderful and heroic, but is also heavily invested in her path. I just hope FDL doen’t start banning those of us who think outside of Jane’s box. This is still the best place to get good info and interact with other smart people who are truly committed to change, whether by Jane’s route or some other.
Another Ross Perot style candidacy will end just like Ross Perot’s did, which is nowhere. Perhaps it would be worth it if that maintained itself from election cycle to election cycle, but then you would be talking pretty much about a 3d party. But you haven’t addressed how it’ll be brought about. Same goes for destroying the democratic party at the national level. How are you going to do that?
Good questions. To talk effectively about a third party I think we need to do the following: (General, partial list, thought starters.)
1. Decide on a name. Another FDL poster on another thread recently suggested the Commonwealth Party. I think that is nothing short of brilliant because the party’s motto can then be “Dedicated to the Common Wealth of All.”
2. Establish a party Mission Statement (including Guiding Principles). Focus on economic and control of government (Presidential power) issues. Include also a list of “will not do’s”.
One of the suggested policies: a legally binding self-actuating term limits contract in which the candidate agrees to return all previous campaign funds, with interest, if he/she runs for re-election more than “X” times. (“X” varing according to the length of a single term; obviously more re-election cycles for a House Rep than a Senator.)
3. Focus initially on a handful of specific economic and/or financial welfare issues and solutions. (Financial welfare defined as encompassing federal, state, local, and personal/family issues; i.e. healthcare would be included, genuine immigration controls, national industrial policy, etc.)
4. Focus initially on a small handful of specific races where the demographics, voter unrest, attackability of the incumbent or other party candidates is highest, etc. Look at the outsized influence that Bernie Sanders and Joe LIEberman have as “independents”. Look at the outsized influence Stupak and his small bloc had. A new party elects even two members of Congress in the same election, it’ll be one of the biggest stories of election night. (And beyond.)
5. Perhaps also look at a few targeted state races, maybe a governorship. (Remember Jesse Ventura in Minn? People scoffed, but he won. People still scoffed, but I bet a lot of Minnesotans have found moments when they would prefer him to Tim Pawlenty.)
6. Concentrate on building a boots-on-the-ground operation rather than a large, D.C.-centered central party apparatus. In fact, set up the By-Laws so that the party’s HQ is outside D.C. and N.Y. In fact, put it in some midwest red state; aim to give the economically disgruntled, currently bambozzled Tea Party types a rational alternative. Make the GOP defend it’s own turf. Remember, “populism” was originally “prairie populism”.
Like I said, just a few general ideas.
Starting from scratch doesn’t speak to how one raises the awareness of said party such that it is able to actually compete outside of local elections here and there. Maybe working to coopt/reform an existing party, or work towards establishing IRV would be more plausible. But again, I don’t see a probably path towards achieving either.
Soooo.
We don’t have any success of forming a new party…
And we don’t have any success of getting IRV…
But we’re expected to reform an existing party will billions of dollars in resources and an entrenched power structure bent on ignoring us at best and crushing us at worst?
People call me a cynic, but next to you I look like a cockeyed optimist.
If those are our options, why bother even visiting here, blogging, voting, etc.Why not just go the Alfred E. Newman “What, me worry?” route?
That’s the whole point of trying to come up with an alternate strategy.
Actually, there is one more route we could go:
massive sustained civil disobedience.
However, that would result initially in a lethal government response. Thousands would be killed and tens of thousands more arrested. I don’t mean arrested, arraigned, out on bail, pay a fine or do a weekend in jail; I mean arrested and held indefinitely, guests at the “Fema Lodge near you”.
those aren’t community limits. those are top-down decisions more draconian than i’ve usually found in the MSM’s comment sections.
disclaimer: i’m not working for or against a third party challenge to obama. but if that is now going to be off limits at fdl, would you please make a public announcement in a post explaining why? i don’t see any reason to fear different ideas or to enforce the party line.
Heh, well I never said I was an optimist :) And I’m not trying to bring anyone down, I am just trying to explain my view of what is probable or not. I could be wrong, who knows. But I think the amount of effort and resources needed to go head to head against the power structure in DC would be far better spent and realize more progressive goals by working towards a strong (as opposed to the current weak and spineless) progressive bloc in congress, and towards trying to keep the left wing activist organizations independent of the WH control and influence.
You’ve unintentionally made my points for me:
The current PINO bloc is weak and spineless. Okay, what rational reason do you have to suspect that new members will not either be that way when they arrive or soon coerced into acting that way by threats from the leadership? (You know, junk committee assignments, shit-box basement offices, reduced office staff and budget, no help from the Dem House/Senate campaign re-election committees, not getting your legislative proposals given a hearing or voted out of committee.)
Keeping the left wing activist organizations independent of WH control and influence: Just how to you do that operating within a Dem party that controls the WH, the national party apparatus, a ton of money, and hates “fucking retard” progressives?
I hate to make the Hitler analogy, but isn’t this a little like expecting to overthrow the Third Reich by getting enough members of the Nazi Party to vote Hitler out of power?
Thanks, Selise.
How’s your health? Spring coming to your area, making things more comfortable?
NBC reported tonight that 31% favor a third party, and 83% don’t think the two-party system is working well.
31% is a third of the pie folks. PLEASE TAKE NOTICE!!!!
You appear to have forgotten that before Perot dropped out in mid-July of 1992 he was leading at 39% in the polls (vs. 31% for Bush and 25% for Clinton). He didn’t re-enter the race until the beginning of that October (at which point his support was a bit under 10%) – but still managed to garner 19% of the popular vote on election day (in the process having significantly affected the national political conversation). So claiming that such a candidacy, especially if not derailed en route by dirty tricks, would ‘go nowhere’ in today’s political climate with its desperate thirst for ‘change’ is, well, ridiculous.
(By the way, Perot’s candidacy WAS a third-party one, and while he campaigned far less aggressively in 1996 he still won over 8% of the popular vote that year – more than twice what Nader managed in 2000. Did you actually know anything about Perot’s candidacies when writing your response above?)
As for destroying the national Democratic establishment, even Nader’s limited success in 2000 managed to make the presidential election sufficiently close to be hijacked. Combine progressive support for third-party candidates with some willingness to vote Republican when no legitimately progressive alternative is available and it should be possible to make pretty deep inroads into national Democratic representation with a relatively small percentage of adherents.
Thanks, Bill.
And Razorbrain.
Very informative posts.
My point concerning those two is that they both ultimately failed, were both outliers and not repeated in successive election cycles.
Yes you’re right that Perot was doing well in mid ’92, but comparing a poll in July to a poll in October is two different ball games. The mindset of the voting populace in the two times can’t be construed as the same. And yes both his and Naders candidacies drew a not insignificant portion of the vote, certainly enough to affect the elections, but in all of them please name a single positive outcome. Perhaps Perot drew off voters to boost Clinton to the presidency, but Nader had the same outcome for voters on the left in later cycles which helped boost Bush to the presidency.
Neither candidates party repeated these successes. How do you plan on sustained progressive support for third parties when progressives can’t even agree to be critical of the areas of which Obama needs to improve (with regards to progressive causes vs generic centrist democrat). Furthermore, I don’t see how you convince people to do this cconsistently when the possible outcome will always be the next Bush.
I would love to have a strong, viable third party, but short of a populist electoral uprising I just don’t see it happening especially considering we’ve had the perfect opportunity for such in the last few years and nothing right now. Maybe it’ll take another couple of generic years to fuel something and 2012 might be it. Who knows.
That’s the thing, I don’t have a rational reason or expection for the future strong independence of the PINO bloc. That’s why we need strong organizations like FDL doing the work it does and setting positive examples for other left wing organizations to follow.
Which leads back to the original point behind all these posts of mine which was defending the work that FDL is doing as a positive and an ultimately an example that the rest of the left needs to pay special notice to (don’t want you thinking I was railing just to rail).
Course now I want to do some more indepth reading on third parties and such.
I would submit that populist anger is much higher now, with good and obvious reasons, than in Perot’s time. That’s good for a third party.
If such a party was centrist, emphasizing clean accountable govt, rule of law, and people over corporations, I thi k a tsunami of support could be generated quite easily.
NBC reported yesterday 31% favor a third party, 83% think the two-party system is not working well. There is a great opportunity revealed by those numbers.
Going from what we have straight to a left/progressive plaform is a pipe dream, but centrist comforts many and does not scare regular people, which is where the numbers are. A move from here back to the center would be a huge move in the right direction.
Dismissing Perot’s 1992 performance as having ‘[gone] nowhere’ while ignoring the fact that a dirty trick caused Perot to withdraw from the race from mid-July to the beginning of October is either blind or deliberately disingenuous – especially given the significant ground that he managed to regain in that last month after reentering. And you’ve also ignored the fact (which I stated clearly) that Perot’s presence in the race greatly changed the content of the national political conversation on the issues that year.
What Perot brought to the table was a clear agenda, the will to run, and the money to make a legitimate run possible. Had his run not been side-lined for a critical 11 weeks he might well have won the presidency. A similar candidacy today would stand at least as good a chance.
Yes, you might well benefit from doing considerably more in-depth reading on such subjects.
The biggest thing standing in the way of a third-party candidate having a legitimate chance to win is the absence of what Perot brought: the money to go with the will and the plan.
Say, for instance, that George Clooney or Elizabeth Warren or Jane Hamsher had Perot’s money and could pump hundreds of millions into their campaign from the get-go. Then you’ve changed the equation because you can buy airtime to generate further funding, rather than having to generate initial funding in order to get on the air or establish boots on the ground.
BTW, I threw out Clooney’s name because, if he ever decided to go the politics route, he could be the left’s answer to what Reagan was — a charismatic message deliverer — only with real substance and not being just a puppet on a string.
Perot’s issue was the deficit-not tops on most people’s minds.
Current issue is rampant corporate ass-fucking. Might take much less money to get that message out, no?
Conceivably you’re correct. That’s why Elizabeth Warren’s name keeps cropping up. Under normal circumstances, the idea of someone like her, with no elected office or major Cabinet level experience on her resume, even being mentioned as a dark-horse third-party candidate would be ludicrous. The mere fact that she is now mentioned is testament to both the seething rage among the populace and the paucity (virtual absence) of any other even “semi”-establishment banner carrier.
Well I don’t remember the specifics of Perot’s campaign in ’92 and admittedly didn’t think to look it up, so you’ve got the right of me there. Maybe my assertions are more based in defeatist opinions than well thought out opinions.
That said, it still sounds like you guys are pinning your 3d party hopes on one person with the right confluence of money, name recognition and politics to strike out on their own, win the presidency and then be able to use that position to forge a 3d party which would go forward. What if that doesn’t happen? Am I wrong in that regard?
Also, reading suggestions are welcomed if you guys know any, and doesn’t have to be recent history.
I would support the hell out of a Warren candidacy.
I hadn’t heard her name mentioned in this regard, but she is TOPS in my book.
Perot’s isssue was the deficit, at a time when both parties were ignoring it; he forced the issue into the mainstream.
Now, corporate abuse is the issue; much easier for the common man to understand.