The Partisanship Trap

I've decided that I'm just never going to understand the "progressive" netroots these days. With all due respect to Al, I understood Obama's game pretty clearly today without having to have it explained to me. And it's not because I'm just that brilliant a political observer. It's actually pretty easy to figure out because it's just another version of the game he played in the election campaign:

1. Call on people to listen to their better angels and put aside petty fights.

2. Extend an olive branch and make a "concession" that's not really as big as it seems.

3. Allow himself to be slapped by the other side who thinks they've got a pushover on their hands.

4. Wait for the other side to overextend themselves.

5. Chide the other side for being childish and then proceed to do what he always meant to do anyway.

He did it to Hillary (most notably when dealing with the issue of delegate counts in Michigan and Florida), he did it to McCain (the debate rules), and now he's doing it to the Republicans in Congress. What amazes me is the other side falls for it every time. You'd think they would learn by now.

And you would think the "progressive" blogosphere would figure out Obama's MO by now, too. But time and again, they call on him to get in McCain's face, refuse to sit down with Bill O'Reilly, refuse to listen to the Republicans when in office, run more negative ads and on and on. The net critters never seem to realize that he might very well not be the President right now if he listened to their hounding advice.

It's like OpenLeft, MyDD, DKos and their various brethren are less interested in being "progressive" (which by definition means making progress and actually getting something done) and are more interested in just getting mad at somebody and shouting. Maybe they just never knew how to do anythingc else. I'm starting to think it's just pathological.

Seriously, I don't think you should hesitate to get involved in what may seem like a petty, semantic debate over the meaning of "progressive," "partisan" and other terms.

I, too, thought it was perfectly obvious that Obama's conciliatory talk was not meant at winning GOP votes, but at maintaining strong approval and, therefore, enhancing leverage for the battles yet to come.

Those who denounce this most-basic strategy as some kind of betrayal risk undermining the "movement" that gives Obama strength.  And I'm not saying that criticism or pressure is bad; indeed, I'm sure that Obama wants and needs pressure from the left.  But there's a distinction between pressure in favor of particular policies and demagoguery that promotes nothing but cynicysm.

Simply put, I'd like to see you wade into these debates occasionally, simply to act as a counterweight and provide some needed historical perspective.  Besides, it will almost certainly be entertaining.

I've thought that this might have been his strategy. I really hope it is, but I've been ignoring my own assumptions because, until now, they hadn't been confirmed anywhere else. I'm stunned that no one in the netroots has picked up on it. I mean, I read the above blogs all the time, and usually they're pretty sharp. This kind of strategy seems obvious to me; how come this is the only blog I've read that's even mentioned it?

I have learned to have confidence that Obama is smarter than I am. The primary taught me that his strategic mind is far superior to mine. I just want to add that David Sirota is a hack. He doesn't even pretend to do research or reporting.

During his meeting with the House Republicans, Obama was reportedly asked about coming to compromise on taxes by including an income tax cut. He responded by insisting that there was a need to focus at least in part on payroll taxes, to help families that don't pay income tax (most Americans pay more in payroll tax than they do in income tax), saying, "feel free to whack me over the head because I probably will not compromise on that part." He added, according to NBC's First Read, that he understands there's a time for politics and for the GOP to "beat him up," and said, "I understand that and I will watch you on Fox News and feel bad about myself.

http://www.salon.com/politics/war_room/?source=refresh

I hear what you are saying and I agree. But I like those guys at OpenLeft as well.

In the agreement with you mode, look at the Michigan Republicans in the table below compared to the other states Republicans. They really want the auto bailout and are smarting at how easy Wallstreet got theirs and the hoops the auto makers had to jump through.:

H R 384 RECORDED VOTE      21-Jan-2009      4:44 PM
QUESTION: On Passage
BILL TITLE: TARP Reform and Accountability Act

In a way it's good that "the left" complains in that it makes the trap look more believeable.

When I watched President Obama emerge from his meeting with House Republicans, he definitely didn't look like a man who just had his hand slapped, he looked like a man in the zone. His confidence and swagger struck me immediately.

Obama knows exactly what he is doing. He has set the trap perfectly and the Republicans have taken the bait. Very impressive for his second week in office, but he's been refining that move for a few years now.

I'm always happy to read your take Al, because he's the only one I've read who gets what's going on. It'd be nice if the rest of the "Progressive" net-roots would catch on, but we wouldn't want them to tip the Republicans off, would we?

I worked as an organizer for OFA, and it always bothered me to explain these things to CL's who would frequent my office, but I got used to calming them down, setting them straight, and getting them back out knocking doors.

Some people just need a little hand-holding, they're not used to effective political tactics coming from Democrats.

thanks for the score card, Al.  It's chuckle worthy to see these egoists trying to get the attention Nate so well deserves!  He created something of value.  The other self appointed 'leaders' of whatever they want to call their 'movement' aren't of interest to me.  I still reject labels - and if really pushed, will only respond to KJL (Knee Jerk Liberal).

I love these kinds of posts where you demonstrate what the forest looks like while so many argue about the placement of a tree.

Last night I saw Sirota on Maddow's TV show. I almost laughed when he criticized how Obama is handling the stimulus bill as "bad political strategy" and then went on to explain what Obama should do. I don't always see Obama's strategy as clearly as you do, but I've watched him long enough to say that I'd lay odds on Obama any day over Sirota.

Another liberal blogger who gets this stuff is BooMan. His website is at www.boomantribune.com.

I actually believe much of Obama's non-partisianship is based on actual respect for others. You know, plays well with others as in Kindergarden.

And I couldn't agree more with those claiming to speak for all Progressives when dissing Obama. Especially those that never gave him the benefiit of a doubt in the primaries. This guy is a leader, and we are so incredibly lucky to have him.

While I think it is very plausible that Obama is setting the Republicans up in this way, I'm also very concerned at the degree to which he has substantively undermined the stimulus - pointless corporate tax cuts, reductions in mass transit, etc. etc. I understand he has to give something away, but at what point does the compromising stop?

within the website of a professional organization to which I belong.  In addition to discussions related to the practice of that profession, they maintain an "off-topic" BB where matters of general interest can be discussed, and where the conversation frequently moves to US politics.

There are various posters there who frenetically copy-and-paste the talking points from Townhall, Drudge, etc. and who emulate and worship Limbaugh, Hannity, etc.

I laid off during the election but I'm now back in there, and I'm amazed myself at how much more effectively I argue there thanks to Al, Daily Kos, etc., and my improved ability to search out information on the web to support my claims.

Having one particularly protracted debate with one of Rush's acolytes, who said something to me about enjoying arguing with me and how he would win, I enlightened him.

I explained that I was not arguing with him, because the incoherent and internally self-contradictory comments he posted did not rise to the level of argument, and I had no expectations of changing his mind about anything.  Instead, I used him.  I used his posts as a vehicle in which to respond with facts, figures and sources to back them up, so that the lurking readers who were watching our exchange would know definitively who was right and who was wrong.

That's what Obama does with the Republicans.

Dems letting GOP chase after shiny bipartisanship ball seems to get it more than most. I can also strongly second the recommendation of Booman Tribune. That blog and The Field are about all that keeps my sanity sometimes. Why do "progressive" bloggers persist in thinking that Obama is some naive Obambi. Do they seriously imagine he made it this far if he is that helpless in dealing with Republicans?

While I agree that there is some strategy in having lefty blogs "hold Obama's feet to the fire", they could at least be intelligent about it, which seems to be mostly lacking.

Obama is a master of politics, and the so-called "progressive blogosphere" isn't. I have no doubt that Obama is right on the politics of the moment, and he's going to get what he wants. What concerns me is the policies that are going to be enacted.

There's not enough real stimulus in this bill, and far too many tax cuts. Obama could have played essentially the same political hand and increased the real stimulus by reducing tax cuts and still fulfilling his campaign pledge to cut middle class taxes. For example, the bill identifies about $50 billion in ready-to-go transit projects that it does not fund and funds a mere $9 billion. It would be easy to fund all of that transit, leaving the tax cuts still well above $200 billion. But his policy is too influenced by Larry Summers and others who are negative on infrastructure spending.

Paul Krugman is one person who has done a good job of criticizing these policy shortfalls. Bloggers in general should take his lead and focus on affecting policy rather than dictating policy. Of course, that would mean being pragmatic and farsighted instead of ranting at the events of the day.

We progressives can help this along by playing our assigned part.  We can rail against Obama, accuse him of selling out progressive ideals in general and the working class in particular.  Make a lot of noise about Obama the DINO. We can withhold money when we get begging e-mails from David Plouffe.

And this will help Obama claim that he went the course -- alienated his base and caught holy hell, all in the name of bipartisanship.

So Al, by providing the analysis in this piece, you are undercutting what Obama is trying to achieve.  How un-Machiavellian can you get?

Underestimate Barack Obama.

Kaleidescope - Very cute! That said, I think a far bigger problem that has to be fixed - because presidents only last four-to-eight years - is the weakness of the US left, much of it self-imposed, because too many "activists" haven't figured out that activism is not organizing and complaining is not by itself movement building. This blog is, in part, a school that seeks to draw the best and brightest to it and create a place where we can arm each other to be smarter at analyzing and acting on human events. The concept of the "useful idiot" only goes so far!

particularly with Tim who writes

they're not used to effective political tactics coming from Democrats.

I think that's a critical part of understanding the Chicken Littles (should you wish to do so). Obama has assiduously avoided reciting any litany, progressive or otherwise (he's pretty clearly his own guy, with positions that are more nuanced than some other politicians', and his assessment of how to vote on a given bill is probably similarly complex). This has left room for doubt or suspicion on a number of issues (e.g. voting for telecom immunity), particularly among people who are used to being represented ineffectively. If Obama pushes Congress to strike the Medicaid waiver for family planning from the stimulus bill, these folks see this for its symbolism (anti-choice) rather than as possibly part of a longer-term, grander strategy that they can't comprehend.

And I can't blame them -- there's been precious little evidence of progressive strategy in the past decade. These reactions are a hard habit to kick, but the calmer analysis at The Field, along with Obama's concrete successes, really helps.

Those would be the tax cuts that Obama made a centerpiece of his campaign? Should he break his campaign promise then? Tax cuts are not necessarily a bad thing, if they are aimed at people who are struggling to get by, even while increasing the tax burden on those who can most afford it.

Larry Summers seems to be a convenient villain when the tax cuts were something Obama promised all along that he would do.

Hey Al:  On the activism part I completely agree.  Last night I was at a community forum in Eureka, California, a gathering of citizens concerned about a proposed big box development at a toxic contaminated former rail yard  (Home Despot and Best Buy) that will cripple downtown Eureka.

There were about 150 people there.  My assigned role was to present two sectitons on how to provide comments to the city in a way that is effective under the California Enviromental Quality Act.  The idea being that we want to delay approval of the project until after the upcoming city council election, at which we can tip the balance on the city council to anti-big box.

There were seven other presenters, on subjects like air quality, transportation, urban blight, toxic waste, etc.  We were all helping the people in the audience be more effective in their concerns about the development. Many presenters, as well as many people in the audience, made the explicit point that we were all getting involved in working to protect our city, exactly as President Obama asked us to.  Smiles all around when that point was made.

So, yes, getting out there and doing the work is by far the most important thing we can do.  Far more important than simply gesticulating at one's computer.  The real work is exhilarating, which democracy in action usually is.  It's good for us and, to the extent it matters, it's good for Obama too.

Al excellent article. the only thing I can add is that this technique or style Obama has, has in the past lead to his opponents self-destructing. it happened in IL and in the Presidential camapaigns. he hands them the shovel and they dig their own holes.

also at some point it is going to become clear the economy is improving, and it will. with Tim G at the spiget I just can't see Wall Street not going long soon. well, at that point he will pick up enough bipartisan support to hit the heavy social issues. the GOP will think about their own jobs and not the Presidential Election to come.

it will be everyone for themselves time. and the end of the GOP as we know it.

They jump all over this kind of stuff because they are pissed that Obama really didn't need them to get elected. I was just one of many who went out and registered voters, and talked to neighbors, and made phone calls. Of all the Obama volunteers I met, so very few of them read the "progressive" blogs. Remember, Daily Kos was John Edwards central prior to Iowa. Remember, only John Edwards could win cause he was a white male and he had a southern accent. John Freakin' Edwards. I think he's a great guy, but ask anyone from North Carolina, and they will tell you they were't shocked at all about the pregnant mistress. They did a lot to push up Edwards and Obama still won.

They are just completely out of touch and I don't even visit Daily Kos anymore.

smartest 7 words written. 

Ok - OT - does anyone know the name of the blog, well known, but it's a guy who has a great writing style? Is that a poor question or what!??  (I think his website is just his first name like Steve or something) and he writes about Obama and other political current events rather infrequently. 

About 3-4 months ago, one of the Field Hands here posted a link to it and I loved it and this Field Hand said they primarily read Al's, 538, and this guy's blog.  I know my description is very weak,  Anyway, I apologize I can't be more descriptive but if any of you Field Hands have any idea, please let me know what the website is.  I would love to see what he has written about the Inauguration.

were discussing how wrong was President Obama in calling Rush Limbough by name, thus giving the lunatic a bigger stature, and making him the voice of the republican party....

I was LOL at their stupidity and total lack of understaning how smart our president is.

He actually want Rush to be the GOP voice...he plays chess while the village idiots in the media are playing Tic Toe

and Al...I was thinking the same as your marvellous post as I was watching the events of the day unfold.

In this diary - http://www.openleft.com/showDiary.do?diaryId=11170 - David Sirota begins:

Al Giordano and Election Inspection make arguably the most ignorant, least informed, stupendously idiotic assertion that Obama is trying to negotiate with Republicans on the economic recovery package in the belief that if he plays his cards right now, they will cooperate with Democrats when Democrats push more contentious bills like the Employee Free Choice Act.

C'mon, Al, get in the sandbox already.  I've got my popcorn ready.

We could rent neon billboards along the beltway and the Republicans would not change their tactics, even as President Obama undermines those very strategies.

They worked this to so many victories they cannot let go of it now. All along, their strength was twofold: it sounded so good, as only a soothing lie can, and they could claim it had not yet been really tried.

At this point, the public knows it was tried right into the ground, and the lies are not so soothing anymore. By eliminating any moderate voices, the Republicans have painted themselves into a corner; stepping out of this sizzling frying pan will create disenchantment and cries of "traitor!" by their very own base.

They trained them thus.

I think your read of Pres. Obama's strategy is right Al, with one signifcant caveat:  What makes his traps especially devastating is he provides a reasonable option as a first choice.  The trap is only sprung by his opponents overplaying their hand or trying to play politics when they shouldn't.

The Stimulus package is a perfect example of this.  What makes Pres. Obama's trap so incredibly effective is that he is setting it by being truly bipartisan, instead of just posturing.  He seems more than willing to accept the Republicans actually being bipartisan and making reasonable compromises on the bill as a Plan A.  If they are unwilling or unable and decide to play politics (like they seem to be now) the trap springs, but part of what I admire about our President, is I really feel like the trap is Plan B, not Plan A.

It is not worth your (or Nate Silver's time) getting in an argument with David Sirota.  That guy is stridently ignorant.  

Anyone remember Sirota's "race chasm" theory during the primary - how Obama only wins states with really high or really law African-American populations because whites don't vote for Obama when there is a high African-American population in their state.  Sirota got really angry when other people tried to very gently suggest that white people in the US differ a lot by region and the percentage of African-Americans in a state probably isn't really explanatory of white voting behavior (i.e. this is a pretty simple case of mistaking correlation for causation).  Of course, if Sirota's theory was right, Obama would have done quite pretty well in West Virginia and so-so in Kentucky, when it fact anyone who was paying attention to earlier primaries knew that he would lose big in both places (Nate Silver predicted this too of course, but it was so blindingly obvious that one didn't need fancy multiple regression analysis, just basic knowledge of American political geography and access to a map of county level primary returns).  Anyhow, the point is that when people point out pretty obvious flaws in Sirota's theories, he just digs in his heals and accuses them of stupidity or bad faith. Which is a sign of at best small-mindedness and at worst ill-tempered dimwittedness.    

Sirota also seems prone to making sweeping pronouncements about complicated matters of economic policy and, frankly, he doesn't appear to have any real understanding of.  But probably the less said about him, the better.  Suffice to say that his opinion on political tactics shouldn't count for anything.

...to the hapless Sirota, above, in Update III.

I don't know if it's the blog you mean, but Steve Benen is now the primary author of Political Animal, at

http://www.washingtonmonthly.com/

Great analysis. Most folks out there are mighty impressed that Obama actually goes out and talks to folks who disagree with him. It's such a clear contrast to Bush (for which they are mightily grateful) and it fulfills his campaign promise to listen and treat others with civility. Heck, it goes back to the basic message of the 2004 convention speech.

And this is how Obama continually builds political capital, real political capital, from the support and respect of the American people. Let the Republicans isolate themselves.

By the way, I think I'm going to e-mail Rachel to suggest that she give Sirota a rest and have Al on.

Ha, Ha!  That was damn funny.  At least there is a lot of entertainment value in your mixing it up with Sirota.

I'm not much of a fan of Matt Stoller, but, in fairness, he did decide to go work in Congress where he might learn something useful and grow up a bit.  Sirota takes the stupid to a whole new level.  Even by OpenLeft standards.

thank you, thank you, thank you. Sirota is an asshole, period.  His OpenLeft post attacking you sucks not only because it is yet another unhinged attack, but more importantly, because it is a complete misrepresentation of what you wrote.

It's typical of him. Fabricate, misrepresent, exaggerate.

Your link to the Daily Kos diary is hilarious. But I will let you in on a little additional DKos history: although he has many followers there (mostly former Edwards supporters, given Sirota was a rabid anti-Obama Edwards fanatic), he actually lost any and all credibility at Daily Kos years ago.

Your link showed how Sirota was pretty much lying about Rangel saying Obama wanted to "expand NAFTA" or some such nonsense. Well, Sirota has a long and pathetic history of pretending any possible trade deal with Columbia is a "NAFTA expansion".

Yes, that's right. South and/or Central America apparently would somehow become part of . . . N (north) AFTA. Here's the link, and please note how he goes completely batshit insane in the comments: http://www.dailykos.com/comments/2009/1/26/1956/33472/656#c656

It is this insane behavior that led many of us to seriously hate him. Not to mention the loony, non-stop self-aggrandizement.

by now we should know better than to question his calls. The vast majority of the time he is right - I had exactly Al's reaction to watching the Republicans carry on in their usual fashion after meeting with Obama - they are so being played.

And I'm glad to hear I am not alone in wondering why Sirota has any standing at all among progressives. He is a pseudo populist who does not seem to understand the issues he purports to advocate with such passion. I'm thinking in particular of his harangues against trade deals where I sense that he does not know what his is talking about. (For the record, I too object to most of the same trade deals but I don't believe that his arguments are any more nuanced or sophisticated than my simplicistic emotional reaction to them.)

One of the things that always frustrates in the blogosphere is the manner in which style debates trump content debates. By this, I mean that too often up-to-the-minute commenters like Sirota (who appear to be ginning for that 10pm slot on MSNBC) resuscitate the general election confusion between tactics and strategies. The fact is that that Obama is working with knowledge of an agenda that, even though he painted it in broad-brush strokes during the campaign, remains known only by him and his inner circle.

Now, in an $800+ billion bill, there's a lot of room for folks to be simultaneously pleased and concerned. Removing family planning from the bill seems like a relatively easy bone to toss the GOP, especially after rescinding the Mexico City policy practically a few hours earlier. However, I am concerned at the low-balling of mass transit needs in this bill. TPM is making hay out of this but other groups like the Environmental Defense Fund are organizing calls and emails into representatives voting Wednesday on an amendment to increase funds for transit. My point is that we do NOT know that there is not a proper transit bill further on down calendar. Obviously, this is not to say that we shouldn't make noise about key issues--that's what this site is for, to remind us all that we need to organize the President--but in making big claims out of shoddy evidence progressive enthusiasts risk pulling a Sirota wasting real energy that might actually do something beyond mere fulmination. 

Obama's strategy appears to holistically marry legislation and politics in a way that few Democrats have tried in recent years/decades. And he does so having already counted the cards; in other words, he knows the strategic legislative (long term) plan in a way that very few can match. 

While I would still like to see Nate quantify "political capital," it appears that Obama has not only not spent a cent but is accruing more and more (say it!) power as we speak. All in all, this has been a very impressive week since the Inauguration. (I just want transit to get serious long term funding!) 

Of course what's really funny is that Sirota doesn't seem to get that the Republicans, who had a nasty habit of doing the sort of things that Sirota is advocating, just got their you-know-whats handed to them two years in a row. Jesus that guy has no mind for long term strategy.

Well Al, he may have misspelled your name, but I'm a mere website!

"The great enemy of the truth is very often not the lie, deliberate, contrived and dishonest, but the myth, persistent, persuasive and unrealistic.” JFK

My point is that we do NOT know that there is not a proper transit bill further on down calendar. Obviously, this is not to say that we shouldn't make noise about key issues--that's what this site is for, to remind us all that we need to organize the President--but in making big claims out of shoddy evidence progressive enthusiasts risk pulling a Sirota wasting real energy that might actually do something beyond mere fulmination.

I wish many more progressive bloggers would pay attention to this. There seems to be an idea in some parts that if something is not in the stimulus package, that must mean it is not important. Rather, if it is important enough, it should be handled in its own bill and not shoehorned into the stimulus.

For instance, with transit, since the stimulus is intended to provide short-term funding only, wouldn't it be much better to handle it separately and set up a good regime of permanent funding? And I am not aware of anything to stop state and local governments from spending the money that they receive to help with their budget shortfalls towards transit issues. That is the level at which most transit is run, not at the federal level.

I think there is a lack of trust by many people that Obama will do what he said he was going to do, and so they are not willing to wait and see what his program is. There is also a tendency to see every action that they do not like as a "betrayal". The drama wears me out.

Starbucks is getting some serious volunteering hours pledged:

http://pledge5.starbucks.com/

And this recent survey is pretty interesting.  I think it proves Al's point of how President Obama is playing this.  I am from KS and found his approval there astounding.  Also, Alabama, Kentucky etc.  It is a link on 538 so you might have all seen it already.

http://www.pollster.com/blogs/14state_obama_job_approval_sur.php

Pretty Impressive!

Slightly OT - Looks like the Lilly Ledbetter Fair Pay Act will be the first bill Obama signs into law, in a ceremony on Thursday. Apparently Obama already told Ledbetter she'll be there when he signs it.

I'm feeling all wonderful about this, and I wonder if the male-dominated blogosphere is WAY misunderestimating the emotional impact.  All of us who couldn't support Clinton's bid, and all those who were behind her, and this is the first bill Obama signs.

The only Senators to vote against it were Republican males (all but Specter).  I guess I'm just stunned that the GOP seems not to know or care how this looks to the majority of the country that isn't both white and male.  If they're isolating themselves all by their lonesome, and Obama's aikido suckers them farther out....  It's fun drama to watch.

What's up with Open left?  Attacking Al?  What's that all about?

http://www.openleft.com/showDiary.do?diaryId=11170

Just wanted to chime in that this (Obama letting the Republicans make asses of themselves) was my read as well. IMHO, he tipped his hand with the "I won" comment the other day, making it clear that he was going to work for bipartisan problem solving, but he wasn't going to sell his soul to do it.

I, at least, think it's pretty obviously working, too. Watching Boehner come out and declare that no Republicans should vote for it before the meeting even happened was especially idiotic. Reminds me (as another poster commented) of when the Repubs shut down government during the Clinton era and looked like idiots in the process.

Oh -- and superb work riling up Sirota's feathers. He's kind of become unglued over there. Someone should tell him that real  progressives are pro-psychodelic fantasyland.

I agree that Obama is the one who will come out shining in the end when all of this stimulus talk is said and done. The Repubs do look very petty and misdirected in the news coverage I've seen. I especially enjoyed hearing that Boehner met with his legions behind closed doors before the President got there and implored them to vote no on the stimulus. Does that sound like a man who has control of his army? I think not.

Yes, our Pres. looks very much in control and he knows what he is doing. From the Executive Orders about closing Guantanemo and the FOIA, to his interview on Al Arabiya, I wish progressives would understand that we have never had it so good.

Kudos to you Al, for getting it.  

Now if only the President would deny Karl Rove's bogus claim to Executive Privilege...wouldn't that be something?

The next "Chicken Little?"  I think so.

While it's fun sometimes to make a mess at the Kid's Tables, I'm finding I need to return to the Adult Table more and more often.  Thanks Al!

NLinStPaul mentioned Sirota's appearance on the Rachel Maddow Show.  It pains me to say that Maddow herself, who did such fine work on Air America Radio, seems to have fallen prey to the same "Obama's doing it wrong" "Obama's a traitor to the left" syndrome (another example: her stuff on Afghanistan).

Damn, ACORN needs to get this guy out in BigMedia much more.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iEOx82rpHq0

Their spokesperson Austin King goes onto Pox Newz and calmly delivers a smackdown on the condescending bobbleheads, and thus earns a seat at the Adult Table.  It reminds me of the approach Obama is taking with the Stimulus, where you just take it right to them and let them embarrass themselves.  Obama's dinner with the wingnut writers was all part of this plan as well, and it's really working well so far.

Just as I think this ACORN guy probably won some unexpected Pox viewers over, or at least softened them up to the idea, of civil disobedience to stop foreclosures, which Al has suggested as well.  People here might want to learn about this program ACORN has started in this regard.

Republicans stiff Obama on stimulus before he arrives on Capitol Hill

President Obama had not even arrived on Capitol Hill yet for his personal attempt to lobby reluctant Republicans on his $825-billion stimulus plan when House leaders started telling GOP colleagues to vote against it. Rep. Mike Pence of Indiana, chairman of the Republican conference, said: The Democrat bill won’t stimulate anything but more government and more debt. The slow and wasteful spending in the House Democrat bill is a disservice to millions of Americans who want to see this Congress take immediate action to get this economy moving again. The thumbs-down seemed particularly ungracious given the unprecedented nature of Obama's outreach. First, most presidents ask Congress to come to them -- not the other way around.

http://latimesblogs.latimes.com/washington/2009/01/republicans-sti.html

Al, your critique of Sirota is not just useful in his case, but as pointing out a broader cancer within the netroots. Distinct from chicken-little'ism, which looking at a set of facts and trying to get others to panic as much as you are, Sirota'ing is taking a set of facts and deliberately misconstruing them to make your concern appear relevant.

I agree with Matthew when he sees this partisan trap as Plan B, with Plan A being truly bipartisan legislation. The great thing is that either way Obama wins. Either: A. Obama fufills his promise of a post-partisan presidency or, B. The Republicans look like whiny kids that don't play well with others. This strategy will be ongoing.

Then comes the second part of the plan: Organizing for America or as we former staff know it, OFA 2.0, and it will be bigger than you can imagine. I like to think of it as the 50 state stategy on steriods.

There will be offices in every state (possibly more in vunerable districts) with multiple organizers. This will be how we keep the heat on Republicans, pushing legislation and organizing their constituents. Only then will they see the writing on the wall: you can't stand in the way of millions of voices calling for Change.

But by that point it will probably be too late for most of them.

OFA 2.0 will lay the ground work for 2010 (and 2012,2014,etc.) mobilizing and training an even larger volunteer army than in '08, recruiting and supporting strong progressive candidates to run, and setting up a grass-roots fundraising network that will run circles around the GOP.

I'd be reserved about putting this information out there except it already is, but I don't think the Republicans or Democrats understand it's scope, outside of the former OFA staff. It was all the buzz at the Staff Ball in DC. We had 5000-6000 people on staff and 60% were Field Organizers, many with multiple states under their belts and they're all ready to get back out there and start working. Mitch Stewart (Iowa Caucus Director and Virginia State Director) will be at the helm and community organizing will be on the rise, in the style of Alinsky, Obama, and Giordano.

I get a tingle up my leg just thinking about it!!!

Republicans better fall in line with the change America wants or they will be forced out of the way. This is just the start of "Change You Can Believe In", wait till 2010!   

I am really surprised by the nastiness directed at Sirota and Hamsher.  A commenter even referred to Sirota as an "asshole"!  Al, I hope this isn't your way of generating readers?

If you want to see a classy response to disagreement, go read Juan Cole's reply to Taylor Marsh who attacked him for criticizing  Obama.

I have been waiting for decades for a generation like Hamsher, Bowers, Kos,  etc to rise up.  We are at the beginning of a long period of progressive change.  Disagree all you want on tactics, but, please, stifle the crap!

Al,

Is a phrase like "Matt Stoller memorial dunce stool" necessary? It seems a bit personal to me.

This is just intended as friendly criticism. I get a bit nervous whenever I see a circular firing squad starting to form :)

@Catherine

You asked about the blog - I think that was me recommending the blog called "diatribes of jay".  (Just google diatribes of jay and you will find it.)

RHowe,

I want to make sure I'm reading this right. Are you telling me that Taylor Marsh got mad at Juan Cole because she thought HE was criticizing Obama?

Do I have that right?

Eric - I don't consider myself in Stoller's circle or allied with him in any way in the slightest. Therefore, it can't be a "circular firing squad" by definition.

If you read my September essay, "Guest Editorials from When the Sky Fell in 2007" I resurrect some of Stoller's quotations in the early stage of the presidential campaign. They reflect his immense stupidity at analyzing politics as everything he claimed did not come true, and in fact, the opposite happened at every step. I had higher hopes for Open Left when he left to join a Congressional staff, but apparently those hopes were misplaced. Not my problem, really, but let me make this crystal clear: I am not on the same side as him or the others mentioned, I would never allow them in my foxhole, nor would I enter theirs. I think they're sloppy and careless and lack the intellectual honesty, rigor and discipline that is the bare minimum for collaborating with me.

RHowe - If a commenter here referred to Sirota as an "asshole," I'll simply ask: Who could make a credible case that he's not? Read his blog post dedicated to me, his flimsy grasp of the easily found facts, his penchant for inventing fictions and calling them facts, and his claims to speak for a "movement" that never selected him to do so. He is an ass.

Hamsher wasn't mentioned on this thread and I've already explained to you in another thread that she, too, is persona non grata in my foxhole. I don't form alliances with dimwitted pundits who don't base their arguments on fact or back them up with it.

Juan Cole is welcome to suffer fools any way he wishes. We all have our distinct personalities and styles (and come from different classes and ways of doing things). I like him and his work a lot. But let a thousand flowers bloom.

And your suggestion that I would mention B-listers with less spectacular terrain than I as a way of "generating readers" is patently ridiculous and not reality based. If anything, the opposite is the dynamic here: Sirota dedicating entire blog posts to taunting people like Nate and I may well be a lunge to get some of our readers. Good luck to him on that. Every single reader of Open Left or Fire Dog Lake reads the Daily Kos. If I want to talk to those people, I go there to do it, as I do frequently. Both blogs are redundant wanna-be mimics of the real thing. And they don't have that many readers to invite anyway. If I thought that mixing it up with another blogger was something I needed to do to generate readers, I'd insult somebody bigger than me, like Nate. Oh, wait. Somebody just did that, didn't they? Don't assign other people's silly methods to me. That's not how I roll.

Kat - That is correct, Taylor Marsh was critical of Juan Cole for doing what academics do: analyzing the effect of the continued drone bombing in Paskitan on our relationship with the Muslim world.

http://www.juancole.com/2009/01/cole-marsh-debate-on-obamas-bombing-of.h...

Sorry, sorry . . low blow: the "generating readers" crack.  I just don't get your anger at Sirota and Hamsher.  We're talking conflicting ideas, here.

RHowe - I am surprised that you think it is OK to come into Al's house, so to speak, and tell him how to express himself.  Many of us come here to read Al's unvarnished opinion and would be disappointed to get anything less.  If you don't like his tone, there is a really easy way to avoid being upset.

JoAnn

Actually, Sirota got at least one new reader - me - who had lurked some in the past but was finally motivated to sign up in order to smack him down a bit.  I suppose he'll see that as evidence that he's on the right track because of an uptick in registered users and double down on the stupid.

RHowe - I don't know what makes you think I'm angry. Disrespect doesn't require anger or caring much at all. It's the absence of respect. 

And we're not talking about conflicting ideas because those folks don't have any ideas. They spend all their time coming up with boring ways to make the same complaints over and over and over again (which can be boiled down to "oh noes, that one's not progressive but I am") merely substituting last week's epithet with this week's and next week recycling the old one over again. They're johnny and janey one-notes. And less than one percent of my prose here has been devoted to them or others like them. Don't you think that if I were "angry" I wouldn't be shy about whacking them pro-actively, rather than just swatting them only when their antics infrequently wander near my work?

If you're worried about "angry" people, talk to them and people like them. They're looking to start fights in empty rooms, dripping with poutrage at every turn. 

But, again, absence of respect is not anger and does not require it. 

Thanks Rachel for your response.  The one I was looking for was Nancy's "Diatribes of Jay"  I'm so excited that you responded!! 

For those of you who may be interested, here is his story about attending the Inauguration.

http://jaydiatribe.blogspot.com/2009/01/day-to-cherish.html

Thanks again Nancy - this time I will be sure to bookmark it!!

Catherine

I recommend an article that appeared in Sports Illustrated a couple of weeks ago, "The Audacity of Hoops," about Obama's favorite pastime, basketball, and what it tells you about him. Here's the takeaway: since high school, his signature move on the basketball court (as a left-handed player) is to feint right, then drive left and take it to the rim.

Oops.  I'm pissing off your regulars, Al!

Okay, I see the anger/disrespect differentiation.  And, I went to read some more of Sirota.  Man, he can be nasty, too!

I read political blogs to get information not available elsewhere.  It would be unfortunate if progressive bloggers start regularly attacking one another other with the bellicosity displayed by you and Sirota.

JoAnn, I doubt you'll see a change of tone on my behalf.  I bet Al doesn't even know the words to Kumbaya.

I would like to take a bow for throwing some gasoliine on the fire by being the first to link Sirota's personal diatribe here, and daring Al to reply.

I suppose there's a small possibility that Al might have deigned to reply without my prodding, but I have a little fantasy that I can manipulate bloggers and pundits to battle each other directly.  It's not just out of the desire to watch a train wreck; I actually believe such exchanges can be enlightening, especially for those of us who seek informed opinions.

To put it differently, Al, do I have permission to keep stoking the fires? :)

@ RHowe

We're pissed off? No, I'm not trying to be sarcastic. I'm honestly asking here. Who is pissed off? What words have they used that make you think anybody is pissed off? Because I've been reading this thread, and I honestly don't see it. Some people are addressing you directly to point out places where they believe you have misunderstood Al and this blog, but I haven't seen anyone acting remotely peeved -- towards you or anybody else.

Please, if somebody here is acting irritable and unduly negative towards you, point it out to us. I don't think anybody means it that way.

Tim, thanks for the enticing words on OFA 2.0.  I hope you and others will share more about that in the weeks and months ahead.  Our team of volunteer organizers in wee Terre Haute, IN is definitely fired up for the coming organizational battles. 

RHowe: the fretting about everyone getting along or not getting along is not a subject of great interest around these parts.  If there is a movement--and I am uncertain if that is what is actually going on nationally--then Sirota is certainly not a leader of it, even if he is angling for that MSNBC 10 pm slot. And regardless of his silliness, said "movement" can certainly stand the challenge of direct criticism.

And if anyone wants to see a real political pro manage a Senate hearing, watch Gore's performance today. His graciousness to the Republicans on the Senate Foreign Relations Committee was the mark of a consummate professional--who knows he is right--and knows which way the political/social/economic winds are blowing. Gore can afford to be Obamaesque (a combination of dignity and cool) because he has NO fear and has committed all to the mission. Oh, that our "movement" might demonstrate the same (say it!) class.

I heart AL for succintly boiling down what I tried to explain to my conservative sister today.

President Obama is playing the idiots on both sides, playing them like a master violinist with a treasured Strativarius 

I really loved that word "poutrage." I don't have anything else to contribute at the moment but that word combo made me grin.

Though I'm not sure he actually accepts it as part of the president's plan or thinks it's just a lucky side effect.

...the kleptocracy bill passed without a single Republican vote. Another huge win for progressives!

Al - so glad you're onto this charade. Sirota and Hamsher are nothing more than reliable Pez dispensers of faux "progressive" outrage, their empty plastic heads spitting out sour pink blocks of phony indignation. Rots the teeth. Stay clear.

I also want to acknowledge how important your voice is going to be over the next four years. The easiest thing in the world to be is contrary. Costs nothing and feels good going down. Much harder to see an actual leader and the shifting political and cultural plate tectonics that he's bringing about. Just think of this shortlist: Reagan, Mondale, Bush I, Dukakis, Clinton, Gore, Bush II, Kerry. What we have in Obama is something altogether different. This administration is an opportunity for reform like one we haven't seen in decades. Too much at stake to waste time on trivia.

Keep on keeping on.

Regarding the House vote - the elephant is now on the endangered species list. I hope Obama continues with the "bipartisan" tacking. It works like a charm in making Republicans seem like, well, they hate America. More votes like this, please. 

Al, I agree completely with your analysis of how Obama is playing the politics of this.  He's playing chess and setting a trap for the GOP by playing nice and reaching out in a high profile way.  So far so good.

But the GOP is also playing chess.  They are all over TV saying they are all for stimulus and in fact, although they'd like more tax cuts, they say the bill needs MORE (!!) infrastructure spending.  They're also saying that they support many of the proposals in the bill as general policy, but the proposals are not stimulative and therefore shouldn't be jammed through.  All the news outlets are playing along, saying "this was supposed to be infrastructure spending -- what happened?  This scattershot bill isn't the stimulus that was advertised."

Sadly, I think this GOP spin is playing out rather effectively.  I don't think,

based on what we've seen so far, that the GOP will pay any price at all.  They are being portrayed has having a different policy view,

not as obstructionist.

Which is not to say that Obama's bipartisanship  won't pay long term dividends -- I think it will -- but I think the GOP is playing the stimulus debate extremely well.

RHOWE:

I'm not certain where you're coming from, though I don't doubt you would support world peace.

But the blogosphere isn't where it's found, as best as I can figure.

My rule of survival in this virtual habitat is one I aquired while living near the desert.

Some folks out that way enjoyed venturing into the land of the saguaro with a long stick, at least half the length of your typical rattle snake -- maybe a bit longer if they were conservatives. 

And when they came upon one of those reptiles, the challenge was to flip the snake without getting bit.

Now, that might sound crazy, but I swear there were folks who did this. And I expect along the way, more than one did get bit.

Can't say for sure whether the snake was angry, since I don't think they think that way. It's just what happens when you try to flip a rattler.

So, the lesson translated for blogland, for me, is don't go flipping snakes if you don't want to get bit, particularly if you have a short stick.

"I don't consider myself in Stoller's circle or allied with him in any way in the slightest."

Al, it was a poor choice of words. I should be used to the specificity with which you use language by now :) I apologize for implying that you shared much in common with Stoller and Sirota. This is a consequence of posting a quick reply in the middle of working on another project.

Let me rephrase:

As a reader and supporter of narconews, I appreciate a vigorous debate. I don't expect you to play by puritanical rules of decorum; mixing it up is healthy.

I felt that the back and forth got a bit too personal in this particular post. You may, of course, disagree ... I am simply offering feedback.

Thank you.