Comments on: Dear Mitch http://www.stickybuffalo.com/2009/dear-mitch Belaboring the Obvious Since 2001 Thu, 09 Feb 2012 22:47:49 +0000 hourly 1 http://wordpress.org/?v=3.0.1 By: gray http://www.stickybuffalo.com/2009/dear-mitch#comment-263 gray Fri, 11 Sep 2009 20:44:07 +0000 http://www.stickybuffalo.com/?p=428#comment-263 I just don't think it's that stark. Plus, the progressives in Congress are finally starting to flex their muscle (hell, that Obama didn't entirely torpedo the PO in his speech, despite weeks of telegraphing exactly that, seems to me to be a fairly clear sign that the progressives in Congress are more powerful than anybody previously thought), so I think it's entirely possible that we'll end up with a decent PO (possible, but by no means certain, or even necessarily likely). I just don’t think it’s that stark. Plus, the progressives in Congress are finally starting to flex their muscle (hell, that Obama didn’t entirely torpedo the PO in his speech, despite weeks of telegraphing exactly that, seems to me to be a fairly clear sign that the progressives in Congress are more powerful than anybody previously thought), so I think it’s entirely possible that we’ll end up with a decent PO (possible, but by no means certain, or even necessarily likely).

]]> By: josh http://www.stickybuffalo.com/2009/dear-mitch#comment-262 josh Fri, 11 Sep 2009 16:51:55 +0000 http://www.stickybuffalo.com/?p=428#comment-262 Oops, there's that scat talk again. Sorry, folks. Oops, there’s that scat talk again. Sorry, folks.

]]> By: josh http://www.stickybuffalo.com/2009/dear-mitch#comment-261 josh Fri, 11 Sep 2009 16:48:45 +0000 http://www.stickybuffalo.com/?p=428#comment-261 And another thing... No more lectures about not "letting the perfect be the enemy of the good." For my part, I'm okay with letting the lame and disappointing be the enemy of the totally, execrably unacceptable. Better yet, how about letting the nothing-at-all be the enemy of the totally-meaningless-simulacrum-of-a-political-victory? Why should the Republicans be the only ones who get to indulge in the odd pyrrhic victory? The more I think about it, I <b>am</b> going to call my congressman -- to tell him, "kill the fucker." No bill. If the progressive wing of the party is going to have any relevance at all, Rahm can't be allowed to call this shit sandwich a win. And another thing…

No more lectures about not “letting the perfect be the enemy of the good.” For my part, I’m okay with letting the lame and disappointing be the enemy of the totally, execrably unacceptable.

Better yet, how about letting the nothing-at-all be the enemy of the totally-meaningless-simulacrum-of-a-political-victory? Why should the Republicans be the only ones who get to indulge in the odd pyrrhic victory? The more I think about it, I am going to call my congressman — to tell him, “kill the fucker.” No bill. If the progressive wing of the party is going to have any relevance at all, Rahm can’t be allowed to call this shit sandwich a win.

]]> By: josh http://www.stickybuffalo.com/2009/dear-mitch#comment-259 josh Fri, 11 Sep 2009 12:38:38 +0000 http://www.stickybuffalo.com/?p=428#comment-259 What I heard was "I'm for the public option, but it's not a dealbreaker." In the current climate, that amounts to capitulation. What was so frustrating about the speech was that rhetorically it *was* a really eloquent and forceful articulation of the problem and the urgency of the need to address it, but in terms of content all he did was formally indicate to Congress that he's ready to concede his key provision. Do you think they won't take him up on that? Like all of his speeches it was an exquisitely beautiful container, but in this case the payload it delivered was "I give up!" If he's not leading the fight, who's going to get the public option through? The progressives? I wish, but I doubt it. It's over. You're right about the scatological imagery though, I did go a little overboard there... What I heard was “I’m for the public option, but it’s not a dealbreaker.” In the current climate, that amounts to capitulation.

What was so frustrating about the speech was that rhetorically it *was* a really eloquent and forceful articulation of the problem and the urgency of the need to address it, but in terms of content all he did was formally indicate to Congress that he’s ready to concede his key provision. Do you think they won’t take him up on that? Like all of his speeches it was an exquisitely beautiful container, but in this case the payload it delivered was “I give up!” If he’s not leading the fight, who’s going to get the public option through? The progressives? I wish, but I doubt it. It’s over.

You’re right about the scatological imagery though, I did go a little overboard there…

]]> By: gray http://www.stickybuffalo.com/2009/dear-mitch#comment-258 gray Thu, 10 Sep 2009 23:20:20 +0000 http://www.stickybuffalo.com/?p=428#comment-258 Capitulation? Wow, I think we must have been watching different speeches. It wasn't the full-throated demand for a public option I would have liked, but he's clearly not abandoning it. I think you may have jumped the gun on this one, especially with that "turd of a presidency" stuff. Capitulation? Wow, I think we must have been watching different speeches. It wasn’t the full-throated demand for a public option I would have liked, but he’s clearly not abandoning it. I think you may have jumped the gun on this one, especially with that “turd of a presidency” stuff.

]]>