These people really know how to send spam.
I get at least one e-mail a week from these guys always asking for money along with their petition-du-jour. I wouldn't normally mind receiving the inordinate number of e-mails (many of them now with quite a bit of snark) screaming at us to sign their petition to stop the latest deal that the President made with the Republicans over taxes. However, I do have one issue with them on this.
What I would ask Bold Progressives is what I would ask any Congressional Democrat that I might run into about this issue. "Where in the world were you when Stan Greenberg was practically begging Congress to take this issue head on in September, before the election?"
In that same month, Greg Sargeant wrote on his blog "The Plum Line":
If House Dems hold a highly-charged vote on whether to extend the middle class tax cuts, it will go a long way towards exciting the lackluster Democratic base, by proving to rank and file Dems that the party is willing to actively fight Republicans on their behalf, a top Dem pollster told me in an interview.
The pollster, Stan Greenberg, made news this week by presenting the Dem caucus with data showing that the debate over the Bush tax cuts is a winner in general. But in our interview, he focused specifically on whether Dems should stage a vote on extending the middle class tax cuts -- something Dem leaders may not do, because moderates are balking -- and suggested doing so could help solve some of their worst political problems.
"A vote will make this issue real, and bring out the clarity of the Democrats' position," Greenberg told me. "This is an election that's being profoundly shaped by who's engaged. Republicans are engaged. They are turning out in large numbers."
"You have got to give Democrats reasons to vote," Greenberg continued. "Things have to be at stake for Democrats to vote. This is an opportunity to make politics relevant to these voters."
Some Dem leaders have suggested that if Republicans block such a vote in the Senate a clear enough contrast between the parties will have been drawn, making a House vote unnecessary. But Greenberg dismissed this argument, saying that Dems should hold the vote to prevent the issue from fading from the headlines.
"If this gets blocked in the Senate without a visible filibuster, and if the House does not vote, this issue goes away," Greenberg said. "This issue is only real if you hold a vote."
Greenberg added that a vote would convince the base that "finally, Democrats are really fighting." He added: "Taking this to a vote sends a very clear signal that we're serious about this issue, and that we're taking it to the Repubicans."
Listening, Dems?
Obviously, they didn't. This includes Bold Progressives and others like them.
Just a couple of days ago on "Countdown with Keith Olbermann" Howard Fineman of "The Huffington Post" discussed how 68 angry Democrats were "effing" angry towards Vice President Joe Biden about this aforementioned deal from the White House and told Keith about how they used the F-bomb towards the President in a variety of ways.
My response to them would be as follows:
"Where the F were you in September when Stan Greenberg practically begged you to do your jobs?"
This "sturm und drang" about this deal has such a palpable sense of hypocrisy that it would be funny if it weren't so tragic. Most of the 68 who were at the meeting were Democrats who were voted out of office. A number of those Democrats were reviled on this blog because they were Blue Dog Democrats. You know, those who weren't all that liberal and were many times the obstruction to progressive reform for this government, as stated in the above-quoted article.
Often times, I would receive e-mail from BoldProgressives.org regarding issues like this. Funny, I have kept pretty much every e-mail from them over the last year and I can't find anything about any disgust over the lack of action on the Bush Tax cuts before the election. As a matter of fact, I am looking over some that have actually congratulated the President on things such as appointing Elizabeth Warren to put together the Consumer Financial Protection Agency. Another e-mail congratulated Ann Kuster for beating a Blue Dog in the New Hampshire primary.
Speaking of the Blue Dogs, you think that they were the ones using the F-bombs? They have now suddenly found a spine now that they have lost their jobs? Now BoldProgressives.org is looking to these guys for help?
I have received more e-mails regarding this single issue than for any other issue they have tried to contact me about, and, of course, each e-mail that I have received from them asks for more money.
I have a feeling that they have lost some support on this issue because of not only the fact that they, like Congressional Democrats, have been late to the party, but also because they are blinded by their own selfishness and petty behaviour. They stated in one e-mail that they have received 60,000 small donations over this issue. 60,000 over the last week and change? That's really not that much. They probably got more money with the Olbermann petition in three days than with this one.
I commented awhile back that we should all sign the first petition to not cut a deal. This petition was long before the deal was struck. It was in the hinting stage. I wasn't sure what to think about this and I was ambivalent about this because of the way they the petition was written, but I felt that maybe it might help.
In my diary, I talked about how the negativity on this site sucks. I wasn't totally for the petition. Reading it again, I realized that the President was doing all he could. He was even keeping the DADT repeal alive at the time (Remember that? Markos Molitsas favorite issue?). I didn't want the rich included in the extension of the tax cuts was my point, but I realize that by reading it again, I wasn't as vitriolic in my opposition as others.
Quite a few people who responded to my diary came right back at me with criticisms of what the petition contained. They hated the lack of respect. They lambasted me for it.
I hate all caps here on DKos, so seeing that in a petition that I'm supposed to sign is really not helpful.
That is the reason I didn't sign it. And I stated I didn't like the wording and the tone when they first posted the link. And I also made clear I sent my own petition, but in much more respecful language.
So trying to shame us now because they composed a shitty petition is rather cheeky.
These two were my favorites:
I suspect I was not alone in deciding not to sign that juvenile and insulting petition. I did make my views known directly with the White House.
My support for ending tax cuts for the rich has nothing to do with the 2012 horserace.
The President deserves at least my respect when I lobby on any issue.
First rule of lobbying - build relationship, then make your case.
You know, I had to admit that they had a point.
After the President announced "the deal", the liberal blogosphere erupted. In reading some of the statements and seeing people like Adam Green on Lawrence O'Donnell's show, "The Last Word", I couldn't help but feel that this was no longer about what is right or what is wrong, but how they aren't getting exactly what they, Adam Green and Jane Hamsher, wanted. While another person was slamming the President during the show, he and Jane Hamsher were grinning from ear-to-ear. Meanwhile, Ezra Klein, another guest on the panel, and Lawrence O'Donnell were serious. Later, Jane went off about the estate tax hike calling it worse that the Bush rates. I am so glad Mr. O'Donnell erupted right back at her. "Worse than Zero? How can Bush tax rate of 0 be better than what the President proposed?" Lawrence was right. Mr. Klein also made that this isn't a perfect bill, but that there was stuff that he supported in it. Green and Hamher didn't care about the argument. They only wanted to see a big, fat, ugly fight and damn the consequences.
They seem to enjoy this whole exercise, this silly political game. I, for one, do not. I am geniunely worried about the unemployed in this country. I have a friend that I have kept in touch with since high school who is unemployed and she has been for a long time. A lot has happened to her as a result, most of it not good. Now, people like Adam Green and Jane Hamsher want to play a political game of chicken with people like my friend and I don't like that one bit.
The snarkiness of the last week from their supporters has only entrenched my belief that the far left were never really interested in a middle class tax cut and that they wanted to see all of the Bush tax cuts expire. This fight has been more about winning political points than actually moving forward and getting other things that they have supported (like DADT) passed. This is not a defensible position. Doing nothing does not sit well with anyone outside of the far left on this issue. To actually make this happen would leave the far left out into Naderland: no longer relevant and lost. I have said this before, all of the polls say one thing that is absolutely clear, people don't mind seeing the rich have their taxes hiked, they do NOT want to see their own taxes go up. The highest number that I have seen is from the Bloomberg poll on the issue of letting them all expire. Only 25% of Americans support it.
I know that many of you want to keep fighting on principle. I understand the frustration of what is going on, but we need to accept the fact that we got beat and that we have to step back and think of different strategies. Holding your breath until you turn blue doesn't work. It never has.
To wrap this up, I have thought about unsubscribing to BoldProgressives.org. It seems to me that they are just a petition machine and not a real, active, group of individuals trying to make things better.
I am sure most individuals that might read this blog disagree with me, but I wonder how many agree.
