More from David Plouffe's warning "left" of tough times. How I feel about such warnings. [View all]

[madfloridian]

I just posted Ed Schultz's segment on David Plouffe in the video forum.

It was about Plouffe's visit to the campus of the University of Delaware. There he told the group that Medicare and Medicaid were the chief drivers of the deficit. He warned that the "left" would have tough times. In fact he said Democrats would have to do tough things on spending entitlement and be criticized by "their left." He did not say "our left", he could have at least made it a little more personal.

There are constant jibes at the left, the liberals. We are always talked about in the 3rd person. Like we are in a separate place or location in time and space from the rest of the party. We are referred to as they or them, never in the 1st person plural like we or us.

As we have moved to the right things have changed in this country. The wars are growing longer, the rich are getting richer, and now the poor are growing poorer.

Each time we get in power now we move right so as not to offend the Republicans, while they have no hesitation about offending us greatly and often.

The most annoying thing of all is the attempt to portray liberals as not very bright, not very politically savvy, unable to see the big picture.

I remembered a post at Daily Kos in 2010 about a diarist talking with David Plouffe at the Tom Harkin steak fry in Iowa. Apparently he showed those colors about the left and the future stances of the party even then.

Social Security and David Plouffe: An Action Diary (Updated)

When David Plouffe held out his hand, I introduced myself as a precinct captain, and told him I'm concerned about the future. I said that I fear that the debt commission will recommend cutting Social Security by raising the retirement age and messing with cost of living adjustments, and that the President will sign the bill.

..."Instead of responding on Social Security, Plouffe started talking about the deficit and how it had to be addressed, implying that it would justify changes to Social Security. I said that according to Krugman and other economists, Social Security doesn't affect the deficit, and people want to cut it just to make the bond market happy. He said they don't always agree with Krugman, and made a little face that said he isn't their favorite. Then he started talking about China and the trade situation, and a mixed salad of other "big issues" facing the White House. I don't remember everything he brought up because I was thinking that he was filibustering to avoid talking about Social Security, and it was frustrating. I think his point was that they have big problems to address, but he did not explain why any of it was relevant to raising the Social Security retirement age.

..."In 2012, he wants Iowa precinct captains on his side, so it would have been in his interest to reassure me when I declined to be distracted by GOP privatization threats and the trade deficit. It would have been easy, but he didn't even try. His body language was closed. He seemed uncomfortable or slightly irritated.