Screw the national committees this cycle, give directly to the candidates

Community (This content is not subject to review by Daily Kos staff prior to publication.)

Saturday December 26, 2009 · 1:55 PM PST

2009/12/26 · 13:55

I can't donate to the national-level Democratic organizations this year. I just can't. If I give to the DSCC, some of that money will go to Blanche Lincoln. And I absolutely will not countenance funding that traitor's re-election. If I give to the DCCC, some of that money will go to Blue Dog and 'New' Democrats, and I can't stand the thought of that either.

Rather than give to the national-level committees, I'm going to donate directly to the people who share my values, and only those candidates. Let the conservadems lose in the general for all I care -- we'd be better off with Republicans taking their place. At least then we'd have enemies sitting across the aisle, rather than traitors in our midst.

MTiffany

Community (This content is not subject to review by Daily Kos staff prior to publication.)

Thursday December 24, 2009 · 12:23 PM PST

2009/12/24 · 12:23

The United States Senate took bold action today, passing the Crime Reduction through Arming the Public Act. The controversial bill, actively opposed by police unions, passed the upper chamber, 60-39, on a strict, party-line vote. Progressive Senate Democrats, though disappointed by their failure to attach an amendment to the bill which would have secured more funding for local law enforcement, remained loyal to their party and their President.

Citing concerns that failing to successfully pass the bill would effectively hobble the President's legislative agenda, Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid offered, "Sure, we could have taken the traditional approach advocated by some and just thrown money at local law enforcement, but we've been doing that almost since day one, and we still haven't eliminated crime. No," Reid continued, "we couldn't just keep doing the same old thing any longer. Just hiring more police won't do a thing to get our crime problem under control. Besides, we needed to give the President a win. Rahm said so."

MTiffany

Community (This content is not subject to review by Daily Kos staff prior to publication.)

Tuesday December 22, 2009 · 8:32 AM PST

2009/12/22 · 08:32

Nate Silver over at 538 has his 20 question for bill killers post which by now most interested parties have probably read. Most of the time I like the stuff over at 538, but in this instance Mr. Silver has stopped crunching numbers and just picked a side. And his side is the "people-opposed-to-the-bill-are: stupid, Obama-haters, uninformed, petty, vindictive, childish, pick-your-favorite-insult," side.

And BTW, I think it's just great that we're picking sides here, because in this new age of nuance and shades of gray -- for which we ought to give thanks to our lord and savior, our Obama who art most post-partisan from on high, for delivering unto us -- it's good that we've finally moved beyond the bad-old days of Bush era black-and-white "if you're not with us, you're against us" stupidity.

MTiffany

Community (This content is not subject to review by Daily Kos staff prior to publication.)

Monday December 21, 2009 · 2:09 AM PST

2009/12/21 · 02:09

Let me just get this out there: I voted for Barack Obama because he's smart. I think he's the smartest person I've had the opportunity to vote for who was running for President. And I think, not counting Nixon, he's the smartest President so far in my lifetime. So how can someone so smart be so unforgivably stupid when it comes to his handling of the health care reform process going on in Congress?

While the President has no legislative authority, he does have the bully pulpit -- in the age of TV AND the Intertubes, a very bully of a bully pulpit indeed -- and a sizable margin of electoral victory and large party majorities (of which he is the de facto leader) in both chambers of Congress. His margin of victory of the popular vote and legislative majorities translate to a popular mandate for his campaign issues - of which health care reform - which included a robust public option - was one of the most prominent.

How could he have let health care reform go so abominably wrong?

MTiffany

Community (This content is not subject to review by Daily Kos staff prior to publication.)

Friday December 18, 2009 · 4:14 AM PST

2009/12/18 · 04:14

There has been much pissing and moaning from some quarters that even though the Lieberman-appeasing polished turd of a Senate health care reform bill is deeply flawed, liberals and progressives should not try to kill the bill because: first, it does a lot of good; and second, once we get this piece of crap enshrined into federal law, we can always improve it later. For now I'm going to rebut the second point, and then perhaps later I'll attack the first.

To be clear: the incremental improvement argument is demonstrably wrong. If it weren't, we wouldn't be arguing the point because we'd already have a public option.

RSS

Screw the national committees this cycle, give directly to the candidates

Citing crime, Congress makes everyone buy a gun

20 questions for doody-head liberal bill-killers and the one answer that matters

What if he vetoes it?

If Incrementalism Worked...