Franken to Netroots: "we don’t have enough progressive votes to pass the agenda you and I want."

[Clio the Leo]

He says it a bit more eloquently than I would which would be to snap my fingers and go, "snap out of it!!! Helloooo!!!!"

The progressive movement has made Congress do some great things.

On health care reform, we didn’t get everything we wanted. But we did expand coverage to 32 million more people. And we did get a medical loss ratio, a provision I authored which requires that insurance companies spend at least 85 cents out of every premium dollar on health care. That leaves them just 15 cents for administrative costs and executive salaries and marketing and profits.

On Wall Street reform, we didn’t get everything we wanted. But we did get a Volcker rule, and an open exchange for trading derivatives, and an independent bureau of consumer financial protection.

These bills were better because you made us make them better.

But I agree that we haven’t won nearly enough.

And I know that many progressives are frustrated – not just because we haven’t gotten as far as we thought we would, but because it sometimes feels like not everybody in our Party is pushing forward at the same pace.

We have a lot of Democratic votes in Congress. And that’s a good thing. But we don’t have enough progressive votes to pass the agenda you and I want.

And I’m not satisfied with how far we’ve come.

And I’m not alone.

Sherrod Brown isn’t satisfied. Sheldon Whitehouse isn’t satisfied. Tom Udall isn’t satisfied. Jeff Merkley isn’t satisfied. Bernie Sanders is extremely dissatisfied.

I don’t think it’s a coincidence that most of the members of our Coalition of the Impatient have joined the Senate since the netroots became a political force to be reckoned with.

We wouldn’t be Senators without your support, and without the inspiration and motivation we draw from this community, we wouldn’t be the kind of Senators we are.

We need you to send us more Senators like Sherrod and Sheldon and Tom and Jeff and Bernie.

And that’s why, no matter how frustrated you are, you can’t check out now.

It only took a few years for the progressive movement to establish a foothold in Congress, but it’s going to take a little longer for us to have enough votes to pass the agenda you and I want.

I’m not going to tell you to be patient. That would be hypocritical. Because I’m not patient, either.

But while we’re shaking our heads at the things we didn’t get, Republicans are making plans for taking back the things we did get.

And we cannot let that happen.

Read the entire speech here...

http://www.midwestvaluespac.org/blog/2010/netroots-nation-2010-senator-al-franken-closing-keynote-address/

[valerief]

1. Electronic voting dictates who controls Congress. nt

[slay]

32. +1

even after the stolen elections in 2000, 2002, and 2004 we are all STILL voting on unverifiable voting machines MADE BY REPUBLICANS! Andy Stephenson would NOT be proud. :(

[glitch]

35. +18181

Although that doesn't mean we stop fighting and "opt out", Al Franken is correct on that. I do wish he'd paid more attention to election fraud back when he was a radio host. IIRC he didn't believe the machines could be rigged. I wonder if he still believes that after his own "narrow" win.

[Sebastian Doyle]

54. You would really think that Al Franken, of all people, would be on top of that issue

He missed the first 9 months of his term because of that bullshit. Might have missed it altogether, if Norm the used car salesman had gotten away with it.

And you would think that after Ohio 2004, John Kerry would have already ripped the electro frauders a new asshole.

The Bush Crime Family's Five Assclowns on the Supreme Court screwed Democracy over big time with Shittyzens United. The very LEAST we can do is to ensure that votes actually exist.

[FSogol]

2. Spot on. K & R. n/t

[zipplewrath]

3. Conservadems

It's not that we don't have enough progressive votes, it is that there are too many conservative democrats leveraging the GOP to their own ends. And Obama goes out and campaigns for them.

It's not that everyone in the party "isn't pushing forward at the same pace". It is that some members of the demcratic party are pushing backwards. And one of them occasionally pushing back has the title "Mr. President".

[Jeff In Milwaukee]

14. The Ugly Truth

Is that Franken is absolutely correct.

Most recent Gallup Poll on the subject has 42% of American describing themselves and Conservative and only 22% self-identifying as Liberal. Now you can nitpick or quibble over Gallup's methodology all you want, but even if a different poll results in a ratio of something less than 2-to-1, the broad picture is that Liberal political philosophy is minority opinion in this country.

Now I happen to think that many voters, once they're convinced that a new Liberal program (like Health Care Reform) isn't going to be a complete disaster, will be willing to expand and improve the program. But first we've got to give them time to feel comfortable with what we've done so far and keep the Far-Right from dismantling it in the meantime. That means we take one step forward, play defense for a couple of election cycles, and then take another step forward.

That takes some serious discipline.

Which we don't have.

[Liberal_Stalwart71]

19. The good news is that when you actually break down survey questions and word them in a way

that people understand, the answers are generally reflect liberalism.

In other words, even though most Americans think they are right of center, when asked about what "conservative" or "liberal" mean, they don't know. But when given a set of questions, the answers are much more center-left than center-right.

It is because for over 40 years that the Republican Party and its conservative affiliates (think tanks, lobbying firm, etc.) have successfully turned the word "liberal" into something bad, most Americans don't want to identify as such. But when you really break it down, Americans are more liberal than they know.

Huffington Post had a great article over the weekend about how the younger generations are starting to break down cultural proclivities. They are decisively more liberal and more tolerant.

Unfortunately until society changes, reflecting a more liberal and tolerant ideology, we are stuck with what we have.

Liberals have to keep fighting. But we have to hold ourselves accountable and hit back when conservatives, Republicans, even Democrats themselves turn "liberal" into a bad word. We can't run away from that word and what it means.

The next time someone calls us a "liberal," we should bow our heads in gratitude and say "why, thank you, so was Jesus Christ!"

[CakeGrrl]

23. The MSM beats the "liberal is a dirty word" drum daily

The vast majority of times I've seen or heard the news in public, the channel was on Fox news or the radio was on a conservative talk station.

They train their viewers/listeners like Pavlov's dogs; repeat certain concepts as negatives and that's how people react when they hear them: liberal, socialist, dangerous, communist, threat, etc etc.

[zipplewrath]

21. It wasn't liberal

HCR wasn't liberal and it wasn't health CARE reform. And it won't be a complete disaster, it just won't address the core problem. It was a GOP concieved approach to block universal health care. We don't need to expand mandates for health insurance, or cadillac taxes. We need to pass single payer. A step in that direction could have been the public option. The bill that passed did little to nothing to advance us towards that goal. Waiting a couple of election cycles isn't going to help, and may put the GOP in charge to pass their own mandates and cadillac taxes.

[Jeff In Milwaukee]

25. I have no interest in a six-month-old debate....

Every single Republican member of Congress voted against Health Care Reform. On the flip side, people like Bernie Sanders and Al Franken and Sherrod Brown -- and a host of other Democrats in both the House and the Senate with well-established progressive credentials, voted in favor of it. So your thesis that this was a Republican Bill is somewhat UNDERCUT by the fact that (and I can't emphasize this enough) NOT ONE SINGLE REPUBLICAN VOTED FOR THE BILL.

Based on your post, a "step in the right direction" of a Public Option would have been to pass the Public Option. Tautology, thy name is Zipperwrath.

A step in the right direction is providing health care insurance to millions of people who didn't have it before. A step in the right direction is eliminating the worst abuses of the insurance companies and limited their ability to reap huge profits off taxpayer-funded insurance plans. All of which this bill did.

Now...

A couple of years from now, once those fence-sitting conservatives realize that Health Care Reform didn't unleash the Kraken, we'll have a chance to expand coverage and possibly get to the final goal of a Public Option. But right now, there is neither the public demand nor the political will to do so.

And so to get back to Al Franken's message. You can be pissed off that you didn't get everything you wanted, which will allow the Republicans to get back in power and undo everything we've just done (which puts you back at "Go" without your $200). Or you can keep the Democrats in office so we can move the ball a little farther next time.

You pick.

[zipplewrath]

26. Obama himself tried to tell you

I can't help it if you won't even listen to Obama. He explained to the GOP at the Blair house that the bill was not all that different from what the GOP had already proposed in previous administrations. I don't know what more I can tell you other than to go back and look for yourself.

As for "exanding coverage", you're already at roughly 93% or so. And that's after you mandated it for everyone. Part of the 25 million that still won't have converage includes about 8% which are illegal aliens, so don't hold out alot of hope for them. A large part of the rest is estimated by the White House to be people who choose to pay the fine and not have insurance. They actually like that because it brings in more revenue so the White House isn't particularly interested in "expanding" anything to encompass them either. I don't know what more you hope to "expand". More mandates? More Cadillac taxes? None of that moves you towards a public option. Obama doesn't want a public option at this point. Obama doesn't want anything about HCR at this point. He already spent more time than he wanted on the subject, and his only real interest in it in the first place was to get the budget savings. He'll block anything that increases the deficit.

And I'm not buying your false dichotomy either. There's vastly more choices that the two strawmen you throw out. I can get progressives elected to congress, over the objections of Rahm and Obama for one. I can oppose the bad legislation that Obama tries to get passed for another.

But just keep demonizing the folks that know what they are actually talking about.

[TheWraith]

40. That's rich coming from somebody spewing GOP talking points.

"As for "exanding coverage", you're already at roughly 93% or so. And that's after you mandated it for everyone. Part of the 25 million that still won't have converage includes about 8% which are illegal aliens, so don't hold out alot of hope for them."

93% of the country is insured, and 8% is illegal aliens? I think you want to recheck your math.

So we don't really have a healthcare access problem in this country, because everything is just peachy keen and all those uninsured people are just illegal aliens? That'll be news to a friend of mine, whose father is getting chemo right now for both lung and liver cancer, and has to rely on Medicaid because he's uninsured. And prior to Obama's bill, he couldn't buy insurance because he had pre-existing conditions.

[zipplewrath]

41. 8% of the 25 million

And some estimates have it much higher than that.

We do have a serious health care access problem, and the HCR didn't do anything particularly significant to address that. It merely mandated that people purchase health insurance. But health care, and access to it are still not rights. Furthermore, nothing in the HCR can be expanded to particularly address that. A few more CHC centers, that'd be about it. And your friend may still not be able to afford health insurance because the bill allows them to charge up to 300% more for pre-existing conditions. And if he's on Medicaid, he probably still will be, or he'll have nothing at all, because the bill is very specific about who isn't required to purchase health insurance, and it is predominately those who don't qualify for medicaid, and yet their premiums would be higher than the available subsidies. i.e. people with pre-existing conditions.

[creeksneakers2]

44. They set aside a trillion dollars to help pay for coverage

for those who need subsidies. Why didn't you count that? Is a trillion dollars "anything particularly significant?

[zipplewrath]

46. For several reasons

1) it isn't for health CARE it is for health INSURANCE. People who already have health insurance can't get health care because they can't afford it.

2) Those trillions are merely money that was already being spent in other ways and forms. It total, there won't be all that many more people insured under the new plan than were eligible under the old plan. And, as I said before, if they are insured now, they typically won't be able to afford to use the insurance.

3) Those that MOST need the subsidies, will be exempt from having insurance, because their subsidy won't cover the cost of their insurance premium, because they have an existing condition and the insurance company will be allowed to charge them 300% more. That means their premium will be too high to be covered by the subsidy.

4) Ultimately, this is SAVING the federal government money, because they will actually be spending LESS on health care and health insurance. They achieved this by various means, including increased revenues from folks who will pay the various penalties for not having insurance, and reduced coverage for some people already covered. I'd hardly suggest that what we want to "expand in the future" is that kind of accomplishment.

[BootinUp]

64. There are things you ignore

guarantees on preventative care, elimination of caps on coverage, etc. I am not saying the ACA or whatever the bill was called is the greatest thing since sliced bread, but it clearly does improve coverage (and resulting healthcare) for a lot of people.

[zipplewrath]

65. Several false assumptions

1) Having health insurance, especially medicaid, means you have access to health care. It doesn't. That was a problem before this reform and it did little to nothing to address it. To some extent there is the anticipation that it will make it worse. It was part of the justification for the CHC centers. Because they knew they were going to price medicaid such that it would be difficult to find providers.

2) Preventative care was a primary problem. It isn't. HMO's tried going that route and found out it didn't really save them much (for really sick and twisted reasons of logic, but that unfortunately was the result).

3) That it "improves" for "alot" of people. It made some small changes "around the edges" that will help various individuals. But on balance, predominately it will just force alot of people to have/buy insurance that won't really be able to afford to use it. And it did little to nothing to address the unsustainable growth in health CARE costs.

4) On balance it was a net loss. It established health insurance as an obligation, it further moved health care away from being a right, it exempted the government from any responsibility for providing health insurance (much less actual care) for a whole class of people (it was very detailed about this part). And it was modeled on GOP proposals that were created to specifically block universal health CARE. Truth is, the mandate feature was something that the GOP wrote into medicare part D, only they actually did it more elegantly. Obama shoulda taken a clue.

[BootinUp]

66. Exceedingly negative narratives

don't interest me a whole lot. For one you reject the basic idea that everyone should contribute into the pool of insurance as they are able to. You apparently prefer the government to collect taxes and administer all healthcare. Clue: there would be similar problems with access going that route (Ignoring that it was not politically possible except in netrooters dreams).

[zipplewrath]

67. Kinda strange interpretation

"everyone contributes as they are able" isn't particularly addressed by the legislation. Quite the opposite, the cadillac taxes were functionally regressive, despite their name. And "single payer" isn't the government "administering health care", it is them PAYING for it. Virtually no one was advocating a British style NHS system. Single payer leaves the administering to the private healthcare system, it just manages the payment.

"Everyone" already constributes into the pool of insurance, some through taxes, some through premiums, some through both. The public option was going to require people still make premium payments. It was also going to provide that the people "pay into a pool of insurance" to pay for actual care, not stockholder dividends and executive compensation packages. Obama rejected a plan to have an income tax increase on the top 2% of wage earners, and instead prefered mandates and cadillac taxes. ya wanna talk about a "negative narrative", there it is. How about this negative narrative. The bill very specifically outlines who is exempt from the mandate, and it is those of meager means who have excessive premiums, generally those with pre-existing conditions. So they don't have to pay the fine, but they still don't get health insurance, much less actual health care.

[BootinUp]

68. The Obama rejected or didn't want this or that nonsense

from you netrooters is tiresome. He didn't veto (reject) anything. He marginally participated in negotiations to get a bill passed by both houses, but allowed the process to go forward as it must to get something to sign.

I meant administer health insurance (medicare for all).

[zipplewrath]

69. You under represent his influence on the process

Which isn't uncommon when folks defend Obama. The things worthy of criticims are always someone else forcing things upon him, but he is some how responsible for Leadbetter.

He publicly expressed his support for cadillac taxes over raising taxes upon the wealthiest incomes.
He personally tried to distance himself from his committment on the Public Option.
The White House negotiated both the mandate, and the perscription drug negotiation restrictions, for a while to the ignorance of congress.

I'm not sure how any of that is "marginal".

And I'm not opposed for medicare for all, but I was willing to accept the public option as a step in that direction. The funding of Medicare for all would have ultimately involved everyone paying into the system through a variety of means, almost assuredly a progressive taxation methodology. What we got was fairly regressive instead.

[BootinUp]

70. Not sure I understand your tax complaint

As far as I know, allowing the Bush tax cuts to expire on the wealthiest was always the plan. Hasn't changed.

[zipplewrath]

72. House plan had a tax increase on the rich

top 2% IIRC. Simultaneously, the Senate proposed the cadillac tax. Obama broke the tie and chose the cadillac tax, said it would help control the cost of health CARE. Yeah, because it would make it harder to pay for the health care you need, so you won't buy it. Basically forcing a market surplus to drive down costs for the government. HCR ended up being mostly about getting the total cost to government down, any savings to individuals was secondary. They succeeded by setting limits on subsidies, and anticipated cost savings in medicaid by reducing payments. It was kinda funny because it put the GOP back on their heels a bit. The plan saved money, and did it in part by reducing the amount the government paid. All things the GOP shoulda liked, so they were forced into complaining about something they have long proposed. Truth is, much of this bill contained items the GOP had proposed in the past, including the cadillac tax (McCain ran on it) and the mandates (they have a variation in Medicare Part D).

[BootinUp]

74. While rejecting your description of the cadillac tax

because its simply preposterous, I do now recall yes that the House bill was better. And of course you think its Obamas fault that the parts of the House bill like that did not get in the final legislation. Apparently while you have lots of little pieces of facts here and there you just don't know the basics of how bills are legislated and passed.

[zipplewrath]

76. I do know Obama advocated for the cadillac tax

He explained, in detail, how the cadillac tax was superior to the tax on the wealthiest. His explanation had to do with its ability to be a check on escalating health care costs. I'm sure your explanation and understanding of his motivations are superior though.

[BootinUp]

77. Its the effect of them

that I differ with you on.

[zipplewrath]

78. Not sure which "them" you refer

You accuse me of having facts, but not understanding the process. Which "effect" there do you suggest?

As for the cadillac tax, you do remember that he had to negotiate with the unions to delay implementation of that tax because of its disproportionate effect upon them. So unless you are suggesting that those labor unions somehow employ the top 2% or something, it was pretty much a regressive tax, moderated by the fact that they gave time for the unions to negotiate newer, less generous, plans. As health care costs rose, more and more plans were going to become "cadillac" plans, which would mean that more people, DOWN the income scale were going to get taxed. The tax was relatively "flat", and disconnected to income, so it would become more regressive (by definition) as time went by. (Yes, it could be moderated by changing the threshold every few years. That doesn't make it progressive, it merely moderates the regressive nature of the tax.)

[area51]

92. +1 (n/t)

[Hawkowl]

22. Too true

I only hope that when the people that Obama, and more likely Rahm, have been trying to cram down our throats like Specter and Blanche Lincoln go down in flames, that the president finally turns to the progressives out of desperation to pull his ass out of the fire. The Blue Dogs and the conservadems are going to be the ones getting the smack-down come November. It would behoove progressives to start making that distinction right now.

Currently the MSM can't shut up about how the dems are going to lose seats in Congress and perhaps lose control blah, blah, blah! What we need to point out is that it isn't dems across the board who are losing, it is the far right dems (mislabeling themselves as centrists) who are losing. This is a sign that the dems need to swing more to the left, towards POPULISM (i.e; popular, meaning most people are in favor) if they want to win elections.

[rury]

43. President Obama and Rahm Emanuel are NOT

trying to cram Specter and Lincoln down anybody's throats.
They are working with what they have and the president always supports the incumbent in his party in a congressional race.
You don't want to alienate that person when you they are all you've got for the remainder of the current congress and the challenger might not make it in the general election.
If and when we send more progressives to congress, Obama will be more than happy to work with them to advance his preogressive agenda!

[zipplewrath]

47. Unsupportable assertion

Their support for Spector was way beyond what they were obligated to do. They actually like and prefer Specter over Sestak. Spector and Biden are old friends. Obama PREFERS Lincoln over Halter, again his support for her exceeded any "obligation" he had to support her.

Obama isn't being forced by politics or circumstance to escalate wars, make Gitmo permanent, classify torture photos, or negotiate with Big pharma, much less block single payer from participating at all. He willingly chooses to pursue these aims. And he willingly and enthusiastically supports the candidates he actually wants to hold office.

[rury]

60. Your post is an unsupportable assertion

and BTW, IOKIYAO (It's Okay If You're Anti-Obama)
I like and support him and you feel the opposite way.
It's a free country and you can do that!

[zipplewrath]

62. Quite to the contrary

It is fairly easy to show that Obama gave more assistance to Lincoln or Specter than almost any other senate primary candidate (not that there were alot). Thus, he isn't obligated to give that kind of support, he chooses to.

And really, it is kind of an insult to Obama to suggest that he isn't capable of achieving his legislative goals, or support the candidates he likes. It is condescending to suggest he is merely a pawn being pushed and shoved all over the political landscape against his will or better judgement. He's doing what he wants, he's accomplishing his goals, he's supporting the candidates he prefers. I'm not sure what is really radical about such a suggestion.

[rury]

87. Obama cannot achieve his legislative goals alone

He needs Congress - they LEGISLATE!!!
And I did not make any "condescending" suggestion that President Obama is a "pawn."
Your imagination is as wild and unrealistic as your posts.
I simply saying he is an intelligent man who knows that he must work with Congress because there are limits on presidential power, he is not a dictator and cannot do everything and anything he wants by fiat.

[Nicholas D Wolfwood]

86. Draw me a blueprint to how we get a non-conservadem elected in Nebraska and you'll have a good point

Until then, you really don't. The Senate is structured such that we'll almost definitely always have a conservadem in a Democratic majority unless we go out and change the landscape. Bitching at our own people isn't going to accomplish that.

[sandnsea]

4. The netroots didn't want Brown or Merkley

Too funny. I'll just shut up now.

[dkf]

5. So he supports our efforts to replace Blanche Lincoln?

[daleanime]

7. Is Blanche Lincoln progressive?

:evilgrin:

[Clio the Leo]

9. He said we need to elect Senators like Bernie and Sherrod....

.... there is NO ONE IN ARKANSAS like Bernie or Sherrod.

So the answer you're looking for would be "no."

[Bryn]

89. Yes, Virginia, there will be someone like Bernie or Sherrod

who's progressive on the ballot against Blanche Lincoln and John Boozman. This is who I plan to vote for, whom has earned my vote. :hi:

[onenote]

18. I'm pretty sure its safe to say the answer to your question is no

Since the only people in the race at present are lincoln and repub boozman and since Bill Halter has formally endorsed linoln, I think its pretty safe to say the answer to your question is no.

[Sebastian Doyle]

55. So there are only two candidates in Arkansas?

But there are three in Florida, right?

[onenote]

61. yes there are three candidates in florida

The Democratic nominee. The repub nominee. And the current governor, elected as a repub but now running as an independent.

Hope this helps. Not sure what it has to do with Blanche Lincoln's race in Arkansas where she won the Democratic nomination and her primary challenger didn't mount an independent campaign but instead endorsed her, raising the question of who the poster I was responding to wants to win the election there if he doesn't want Lincoln to win.

[Sebastian Doyle]

71. Do you agree with the DLC'ers here who are supporting Frist in Florida?

And if so, then why not support the Green party candidate in Arkansas?

(who would be far more progressive than Crist. Or Blanche WalMart)

[onenote]

82. i support the Democratic candidate in Florida

and I don't support the Green candidate in Arkansas for the same reason I imagine Frankin probably doesn't -- I only support Democratic candidates.

[Bryn]

91. There will be 4 way race for US Senate in Arkansas come November

(D) Blanche Lincoln
(R) John Boozman
(G) John Gray
(I) Trevor Drown

[Bryn]

90. Not True!

There's someone who's progressive on the ballot against Blanche Lincoln and John Boozman this November. He could be our Bernie Sanders.

[Davis_X_Machina]

6. He's wrong! Just wrong! We do have the votes, if...

...LBJ-arm twisting-committee-chairs-Obama-executive-orders-signing-statments-Bush-did-it-electronic-voting-primary-challenges!

Save it as a macro, and you can cut your time at DU in half....

Me, I think the problem is we don't have enough giant puppets....

[Liberal_Stalwart71]

10. If it is true that we DO have the votes, then why aren't they working harder?

How big is the House Progressive Caucus? What about the Senate? Because I would argue that we DON'T have enough progressive votes. I can count on less than two hands the number of *truly* progressive senators: Brown, Whitehouse, Feingold, Sanders, Franken, Boxer, Harkin, Udall, Merkley, maybe Stabenow (maybe?), Cardin, etc. I mean, I had to really think hard to come up with these names. Now that Teddy is gone, it seems that even the liberals left, except for Brown, Sanders, and Feingold hold any influence at all.

In the House, the liberals have been marginalized to the point that they seldom appear on these punditry shows.

I think that the moderate, DLCers, and some Blue Dogs have much more visibility and influence.

[Davis_X_Machina]

12. I'm tellin' ya....

...it's the giant puppets. More giant puppets!

[Liberal_Stalwart71]

15. Exactly! I think Sherrod Brown has been a giant puppet. I think he has been an amazing leader

only in his first term. He's quite audacious!! And considering the ideological divide in Ohio, I commend him for his bravery. He could have easily been more conservative or moderate, reflecting the views of his state, but he has been a "liberal stalwart," unyielding and very, very brave.

My own senator, Ben Cardin, has been wonderful. Though he isn't very visible at all, he is a workhorse on many issues; a very brilliant litigator who fights back and is one of the leaders on the "Kill the Filibuster" front.

And how could I forget about Patrick Leahy? He could be another liberal stalwart, but I often feel that he is too soft-spoken. Hence, the reason I forgot to include him on my list. I wish he would be a bit more passionate and forceful. Most of the Republican filibusters have been targeted at his committee. I would like to see him on T.V. more exposing these slime balls for who they are. It could be, however, that he simply doesn't have enough visibility, and these mainstream corporate pundit shows don't invite him on.

[boppers]

31. ...and chants! Giant puppets get their awesome power from chanting!

:rofl:

[Liberal_Stalwart71]

8. Al is absolutely right. The problem is that the White House seems to hold a disdain for...

...almost a hatred or strong dislike of liberals. That is clear.

I still cannot understand why the hatred exists, especially since the liberals tend to be the most loyal to this party. And yet, we are always asked to compromise for the sake of the party.

It's as if they know that we have nowhere else to go--we sure as hell won't vote Republican as some of the more moderate/conservative Dems tend to do. So, they take us for granted as a result because they know we'll be around, even when the chips are down.

[geek tragedy]

11. Oh nonsense. The admin does not 'hate' liberals

or even disdain them. Just because Rahm throws a curse word at a couple of liberals one time does not mean Obama himself hates all liberals.

[Liberal_Stalwart71]

13. I'm not talking about the rhetoric or curse words. I'm referring to actions! I'm referring to

the fact that even many of the liberal talking heads can't get the White House to appear on their shows. I'm talking about taking single payer off the table. I'm talking about not ending rendition. I"m talking about the drones. I'm talking about reports that liberal groups were explicitly shunned by the White House when they wanted to visit and share some time with the president. (It wasn't until we kept fussing and complaining about it that the White House finally gave in.)

I am what you call a pragmatic liberal. I agree with Franken. I do not believe that the votes are there. But I do believe that the administration has tried way too hard to appease the Right, to his own detriment and to the extent that he is starting to alienate his base.

This is my opinion. You can attack me all you want, but that won't shut me up. Trust me!

[geek tragedy]

16. So, his failure to appear on cable tee-vee shows

means he hates liberals? Come on.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2010/06/17/obama-lunches-with-progre_n_616105.html

How does not pushing for single payer mean he hates liberals?

[Liberal_Stalwart71]

20. Apparently you do not read well. He DID meet with liberals only after they kept pushing for it...

His not pushing for single payer makes sense when confronted with the realities of this political climate. But the fact that he promised to listen to *all* sides except for the groups that were arguing for single payer is just one incident. An example that I used. There are others, but I see that I'm not getting anywhere with you.

So let's just agree to disagree.

I still believe that the administration is alienating its liberal base. I'm not suggesting that liberals will sit out the elections. I'm certainly not going to, but you cannot negate that fact.

Finally, I always knew that Obama wasn't a liberal, hence my support for other candidates over him. But I did eventually come to him and voted for him. And guess what? I still believe in him and trust that he will do the right thing ultimately.

But I'm not going to stop criticizing him when I believe that criticism is warranted. Likewise, I will praise him--and I do--when praise is deserved.

[geek tragedy]

24. A lot of your criticisms are fair.

I just don't see how they prove that anyone in the WH hates liberals. They could be too centrist, too quick to avoid a tough fight, etc etc without hating liberals.

[creeksneakers2]

45. Obama appointed lots of liberals.

A couple of them to the Supreme Court. He doesn't hate liberals.

[zipplewrath]

48. That remains to be seen

They weren't in any way "liberals" to the extent that Roberts is a "conservative". They were fairly middle of the road, as far as we know.

[Sebastian Doyle]

56. What about his cabinet?

Maybe Van Jones, but the reich wing managed to get rid of him. We were told Steven Chu was a "librul from Berkley" and then found out (at the worst possible time) that he had ties to British Petroleum. The cabinet's job is to advise the President. Looking at who is in this cabinet, it would appear that he gets a lot of really crappy advice.

[Exilednight]

94. Those appointees to the Supreme Court are not liberal. Left of center? Yes ..............

but a far cry from being liberal.

[ProgressOnTheMove]

17. The great thing is he's been on the outside with us, and reporting from the lions den he's letting..

us know it's hard without a progressive congress. That's where we come in November. But specifically the primaries, that's where we do accoutability then win lose or draw we place them in office. Even if we lose a primary we send the message but we must then send them back to office. Accoutability after the primaries is illogical. No message is sent staying home in the full election but move right and right they will clearly go without us. Now sure disappointment is still on the cards if we get 60, but we'll still have fighting chance if we do.

[DCBob]

27. HA! Even Franken is gettng bashed by the "progressives"..

Pathetic.

[w4rma]

36. It's the stupidest thing I've ever seen to bash Franken. (nt)

[Sebastian Doyle]

57. I think Al's been a decent Senator so far.

Better than I expected, really. Given the DLC-centric nature of his former radio show, I wasn't sure he'd make a good senator. Hopefully he will never go back to that mode.

[WonderGrunion]

28. Al is right (Again)

But while we’re shaking our heads at the things we didn’t get, Republicans are making plans for taking back the things we did get.

And we cannot let that happen.

Preach it brother Al.

[KoKo]

29. You know about sweeping "dust under carpet?" That's

what is done to folks to the Left of the DLC.

[Arkana]

30. Couldn't have said it better myself.

Don't fight us--for God's sake, HELP us!

[slay]

33. Conservadems can either start voting liberal or lose the liberal base

we've tried it the conservadem way for wayyyyy too long. i'm done. conservadems will never get another vote from me. i've had it and if that ends up fracturing the democratic party so be it. they are next to useless in their current form anyways.

if we can do like Franken said and get progressive Dems elected despite the opposition from conservadems and the DLC, then great. but i am DONE voting for conservadems. might as well vote republican.

[hulka38]

34. The problem with this is that the time to be progressive is when you had

the overwhelming majorities in both houses and an extremely popular President who had a huge mandate for change and an opposition party that was beaten like a dog and cowering in the corner. Al is saying, "Wait for change", progressives. The change is coming." No it isn't. Who does he think he's crapping? The window for progressive change is closing if not closed already. That should be obvious to everybody. When are we going to have that kind of leverage again? Ten years? Twenty? If there was any intention of having a progressive agenda it would have been immediately after the Republicans were told, "Hey guys, we won - now go get your fucking shine box!". The leadership of the party (not just Obama) slowly blew the capitol by playing to the center right per the dusty old playbook. I've seen this car crash in slow motion. I'm not going to watch it again.

[DCBob]

37. We do NOT have "progressive" majorities.. why is that so difficult for some of you to understand??

Do you have a math problem?

[hulka38]

58. If you and the leadership of the party continue to maintain

through November that there must be sixty progressives in the senate in order to make real progressive policy then this party will sink like a rock. First, it's complete bullshit and second, if it was true, progressives should wait around a little while longer until it becomes a reality? Wait for the impossible - nope. The landscape is shifting the other way because the Democratic Party leadership has reconfirmed to the American people it lacks conviction.

[NorthCarolina]

39. The promise of Progressive Change is a DLC campaign tactic, nothing more.

Their SOP is to campaign left, and govern right. They make no secret of it.

[uponit7771]

52. In THIS country we haven't had a progressive majority since LBJ

[Exilednight]

95. LBK didn't have a progressive majority either, but he knew how to lead and get conservadems to .....

do what needed to be done.

Basically - He knew how to be a leader.

[rury]

53. You keep referring to "overwhelming majorities"

in both houses of Congress and the whole point of this post is that there are not enough progressives in that majority to get liberal legislation passed.
Hence the compromises to get the moderate/conservative Democrats on board since ALL Repthuglikkkans are opposed.
What is it about that crystal clear point that you don't understand??
That window was never open.
But go ahead and blame President Obama for not being a magician since that is your security blanket.
The adults in the room know the reality.

[vaberella]

81. Exactly. There was never enough Progressives---especially in the Senate. n/t

[Exilednight]

96. Yes. The adults in the room know the reality. And the reality is ..........

Obama is far from being a true leader. He's no LBJ when it comes to pushing Congress to get liberation through.

Now, it's past your bedtime and you should go to bed and let the adults finish their discussion.

[vaberella]

80. once again this does not work if there are Dems who won't vote for it.

Why is this so hard to believe?! There are Dems who won't vote for certain shit either because they are borderline REpub or they don't think a bill will go far enough. HELLO!

[Exilednight]

98. In that case ......

If Dems aren't going to vote for it, why do we bother to keep electing Dems. Maybe it's time to start looking for alternatives. And once Dems start losing elections to split votes or the occasional 3rd party candidate, they might just wake up and figure out that they can't keep ignoring us.

[jamalhernandez]

38. Wait...didn't Rahm claim that once Al Franken was seated everything would be a-ok?

when krugman said the stimulus wasn't big enough, rahm replied in a new yorker profile, "but has he (Krugman) figured out how to seat the Minnesota senator?"

The excuses keep on coming.
http://www.newyorker.com/reporting/2009/03/02/090302fa_fact_lizza?currentPage=all

[BumRushDaShow]

42. A-f'in men Senator Franken!

As long as the Landrieus and Nelsons and Baucuses and Libermans abound, there's nothing one can do other than keep pushing AND put the blame squarely where it belongs - at the feet of the conservadems.

[Sheepshank]

49. good god

even Franken isn't Progressive enough for some here.

[okieinpain]

50. fantastic. n/t.

[Orsino]

51. Unfortunately true.

There are damned few progressives in Congress, and most Americans are fine with that.

Combining democracy with 24/7 corporate televised propaganda is fatal.

[AtomicKitten]

59. Good speech. Franken is a realist. I hope Democrats are listening to him. nt

[Stoic]

63. He's right but if we had a progressive president who'd twist arms...

FDR had to twist arms and bully the Democrats in Congress to get his "radical" agenda passed. Sure would be nice if we had a president like that.

[SkyDaddy7]

73. You can't twist the arms of Blue dogs

Because you will have a hard time running a progressive in a purple to red state or district!

Keepin it real!

[Vinca]

75. I wish they would stop with the meme that coverage has been expanded

to 32 million people. No. It. Hasn't. Maybe some will be able to afford coverage under the new "pre-existing conditions" pool. Maybe some will be able to stay on their parent's policy if it's not too expensive. Maybe in 2014 the majority of people will be able to afford insurance with the subsidy. Maybe. Maybe not. In any case, "coverage" does not mean automatic medical care.

[harun]

88. Totally agree. Insurance != Care.

[vaberella]

79. The nation is overall Republican and we have Dems who are borderline or kissing repub butt.

So...this is not surprisingly and what Franken says is true. These types of Dems won't let us get anything done.

[Enthusiast]

93. The nation is not overall Republican.

There is no reason to believe this.

[grillo7]

83. I

I didn't know he authored the medical loss ratio...that's one of the best parts of the whole bill.

[andym]

84. Franken is being Captain Obvious here

and the reason we don't have enough Progressives to pass strong legislation is because the country is still suffering from the cultural damage Reagan and friends did starting about 30 years ago. The conservative mantra that being "free" means that "government is the problem", that the rich deserve tax cuts and that tax increases should never happen still resonate with the American mind. The country is so much further to the right economically than when Nixon was President, it's scary.

[LatteLibertine]

85. The way it needs to be done today

is run as a moderate and push issues that most people do resonate with. Get in office and implement the most progressive measures that you may. Reform is going to be slow and I believe more than a few Democrats are dedicated to it. We aren't going to radically alter the system in four years, never mind two. IMO President Obama and certain Democrats have opened the door for further changes. The first few steps are always the most difficult. I plan on being patient and applying even consistent pressure over the years. I hope to see a day when the interests of most United States citizens are considered first over simply serving the most wealthy minority. I don't consider social and economic justice dirty concepts like many Republicans. The exploitation and abuse of the middle class and poor must end. Personally, I'd rather achieve some progressive ends than enjoy posturing as a progressive.

[stevietheman]

97. This is why I really like Franken -- He's progressive _and_ level-headed.

He makes a great case for why we need to work to expand Democratic control, not sit on our hands and punish the party that has deliver 3/4 of what we want.