Fuckin' Midterms! How Do They Work?: The Lawrence O'Donnell/Glenn Greenwald Slapfight

We are all socialists now.

As expected, Democratic losses last week led to certain Professional Asshats squealing with glee: “OMG OBAMA IS SO FAIL LOL.”

“See! I told you so! Why didn’t you listen to meeeeeeee. I told you that everybody wants a public option or a pony or the right to [be gay, to not be gay, to be gay on Tuesdays, or to wear jean shorts and not be called gay]. Didn’t I say everyone should have a right to [insert issue].”

“And by the way!” –they just kept on talking and wouldn’t shut up, “I don’t want to brag, but I’m pretty sure I also told you that everybody wanted a bigger stimulus and nobody wanted any sort of stimulating if it wasn’t going to be the biggest hardest stimulus EVAR!”

Finally, on November 2 and 3, these asshats laughed and laughed and immediately joined together in one giant circle jerk to give each other the happy ending they’d been yearning for ever since Obama slapped that smirky public option off of the health care reform bill’s face with his giant pimp hand.

Knowing that my reaction to the post-election shenanigans would run the gamut of “oh kindly STFU” to “If you don’t STFU, I’m going to stab you in the neck with my pen,” I promised myself that after the election I was done: I was done reading comment fuckery, and I was done even attempting ironic responses to idiotic comments. (To understand why this is a big deal, you have to know me. I’m an argumentative person by nature. Just ask my friends. I will argue and argue until you concede simply because you want me to shut the hell up.) But I couldn’t. I didn’t have it in me.

For the past week, it’s been grand! I’ve stayed away from certain political websites. I stop myself from reading any comment sections (aside from Balloon Juice and occasionally, Wonkette). It doesn’t hurt that I’m too busy at work to cast vitriolic tweets into the Twitter vacuum at the asshats out there who think that they—and only they—hold the secret to whatever is going to usher in the greatest Progressive Revolution since the New Deal, the Great Society, Progressive Era, and the era of ubiquitous Progressive Insurance commercials combined.

Nevertheless, I winced as I saw certain bloggers claiming that the Republican Party—ZOMG! they are gonna take back the country and holy shitballs, the Democratz are going to be executed by fire squad and we’re all gonna have to wear hats with tea bagz on our headsz lol—took back the House because gay people were pissed about DADT. (I even saw a number being floated around—did you know that 76% of gay men voted for Republicans? [I’m not even going to look it up because to do so would be a colossal waste of my time, I suspect].)

My blood pressure rose when I saw pundits claiming that the Republicans had been given a mandate to kick Obama out of the White House and send him back to Muslimistan to live in exile for all eternity with his anti-colonial Kenyan father and his former Pastor Jeremiah Wright who will be screaming “GODDAMN AMERICA!” every hour on the hour.

My head ached when I saw blog posts definitively stating that the midterm election was a referendum on Obama and his inherent wussiness or Blue Doggedness, or his failure as Our Leader because he didn’t crap a public option into America’s Toilet.

And my head almost exploded upon reading that the Teatwits think they are the center now.

But none of it was anything that stirred up enough rage to warrant a blog post.

I just read an article, however, that is such a load of shit that it has quite figuratively bottled my mind.

The article details the kerfluffle between Glenn Greenwald at Salon.com and MSNBC’s Lawrence O’Donnell. Greenwald and O’Donnell have been slap-fighting about Greenwald’s criticism of O’Donnell’s analysis during MSNBC’s election night coverage. Greenwald accused O’Donnell of blaming liberalism and liberals for the blowout. Lawrence responded that he had done no such thing. According to Greenwald:

I wasn’t sitting in front of the TV watching MSNBC until numerous people started emailing me and alerting me on Twitter to the fact that O’Donnell was repeatedly blaming liberalism and the Left for the Democrats’ political problems. That’s how I became aware of what O’Donnell was saying. Beyond that, here is what Salon’s Editor-in-Chief Joan Walsh wrote on election night, long before I wrote a word about any of this (I hadn’t read this until yesterday):

“Strangely, I watched Democrats including MSNBC’s Lawrence O’Donnell try to blame the blowout on whiny progressives.”

If O’Donnell didn’t actually do that, he might want to ask himself why so many people think he did. [Because they have no critical thinking skills? -ed.] Did huge numbers of people simultaneously suffer a mass hallucination, or did his comments — spread out over the course of several hours that night — create the impression that this was precisely the point he was making? [No, the people who are pissed off about what he said were inclined to be pissed off no matter what he said and therefore didn't actually listen to the words that were coming out of his mouth. -ed.]

Here’s an exchange between O’Donnell and Maddow that Greenwald uses to illustrate the point:

MADDOW: The situation is that Russ Feingold never earned the loyalty of his party because he was so iconoclastic, he went his own way, he made principled votes on things like the Patriot Act . . . he never earned any national favor from anyone but progressives . . . . . he’s against someone who has a ton of outside help and a ton of money. He just didn’t have anyone supporting him because the national party just never backed him up.

O’DONNELL: What does this have to do with the argument that’s going on inside the Democratic Party between progressives and others about how Democrats should run? Did Russ Feingold lose because he wasn’t liberal enough? . . . . When we talk about money in races, we have to face the fact that it’s not the full explainer that everyone thinks it is. If money beat Russ Feingold in Wisconsin, why isn’t it beating Jerry Brown in California? . . . This is about real candidates, this is about real positions they’ve taken, especially if they’re incumbents, like Russ Feingold, and to pretend that voting on Russ Feingold has nothing to do with his voting as an incumbent I think is to ignore the reality of life on the ballot as a Democrat in Wisconsin.. . . .

MADDOW: If you really believe he could have campaigned his way out of this race, I’d love to hear how he could have campaigned differently in a more effective way, but I just don’t see it.

O’DONNELL: A liberal was defeated by a Republican — by voters who had information about this one being a liberal, this one being a Republican. We have to then assume the voters are completely irrational and don’t know what they are doing, or we assume that they do know the difference between a liberal and a Republican and they made that choice, based on his being a liberal and him being a Republican, money being whatever it was in that situation.

(As much as I love the Maddow (and I do, deep in my lady areas), O’Donnell is dead on here. Russ Feingold never earned the loyalty of his party because he made principled votes, i.e., liberal votes, on things like the Patriot Act. America didn’t want a principled vote on the Patriot Act at the time. Americans wanted to send its military somewhere to blow some shit up! Russ Feingold went down, in my humble opinion, because he voted his conscience. There aren’t a lot of politicians who are willing to risk their careers in order to do the right thing. For that, I say, HUZZAH FEINGOLD.)

Later, Greenwald posits that the midterm results were actually a good thing because the Blue Dog Democrats got crushed:

Half of the Blue Dog incumbents were defeated, and by themselves accounted for close to half of the Democratic losses. Some of us have been arguing for quite some time that the Rahm-engineered dependence on Blue Dog power is one of the many factors that has made the Democratic Party so weak, blurry, indistinguishable from the GOP, and therefore so politically inept, and would thus be stronger and better without them…. Despite viewing last night’s Blue Dog losses with happiness, I wouldn’t point to this outcome as vindication for my argument, as there are many complex factors that account for last night’s crushing of Congressional Democrats: widespread economic suffering, anxiety over America’s obvious decline, the perception that Obama has done little to undermine destructive status quo forces and much to bolster them, etc. etc.

But for slothful pundits who want to derive sweeping meaning from individual races in order to blame the Left and claim that last night was a repudiation of liberalism, the far more rational conclusion — given the eradication of 50% of the Blue Dog caucus — is that the worst possible choice Democrats can make is to run as GOP-replicating corporatists devoted above all else to serving corporate interests in order to perpetuate their own power: what Washington calls “centrists” and “conservative Democrats.” That is who bore the bulk of the brunt of last night’s Democratic bloodbath — not liberals.

I watched MSNBC’s election coverage, and I didn’t get the sense that O’Donnell was blaming “The Left,” but rather making the point—the very valid point—that not everyone in the Democratic party is a paint-by-numbers liberal. As such, it seems facile to argue that the thrashing of the Blue Dogs means the Democrats should have run a more liberal candidate in those particular districts. It seems more likely that a conservative Democrat was the only electable Democrat in that district.¹

Well, last night, Greenwald appeared on the Last Word to get this whole slap-fight sorted:

I have respected Greenwald for years. During the Bush Nightmare, he was one of the lone voices detailing the gross abuses of power going on in that Administration. On policy and constitutional theory, Greenwald is one of the best, but when it comes to political analysis, he’s not so great. The constant “Obama is fucking it all up” and the “Obama is alienating his base” drumbeat is the reason I stopped reading him on a regular basis. I do, however, agree with some of Greenwald’s criticism and I believe that Obama does have his hopey head up his changey ass on important issues.

Obama was too slow to recognize that the Republicans were going to be obstructionist and united behind their “we don’t have a square to spare” plan for governance. Obama’s extension of Bush’s executive authority is bullshit. I’m pissed off about FISA and the continuing invasions of privacy. Obama should be busting mad caps in Wall Street’s ass. And, I don’t think the CIA should be running around the globe assassinating fools willy nilly (although I watched Alias and you can’t convince me that shit ain’t real — there’s some sort of shadow government, with shadow ops doing shadowy shit.)

All that aside, however, I have to say yell this: I AM PART OF THIS HOLY BASE YOU KEEP YAMMERING ABOUT, AND I DON’T FEEL ALIENATED.

A lot of colored folks don’t feel alienated. But those who cry “hippy punching” don’t seem to care about us.² They just want to complain.

So whatever. Let these people who clearly know what is best for me throw their tantrums because that’s definitely what will build a better Progressive Coalition. Keep shooting inside the tent at those who are your allies because that’s definitely the way to build a broader coalition. Completely ignore that your base comprises more than white men, gays who want to serve in the military, gays who want to be married, and rich armchair feminists because that’s also an excellent way to build a broader coalition.

Progressives have a long road³ to hoe. Face it–this country is not predominantly “liberal.” As O’Donnell pointed out, this country doesn’t even like the word “liberal.” [Check out the video after the jump; O'Donnell proclaims that yes, he is a socialist and no, he's not ashamed!] This summer’s freak out over healthcare is evidence of that. Add to that the fact that Fox News is pouring propaganda into the minds of millions of Americans twenty-four hours a day/seven days a week, and it becomes apparent that liberals/progressives are pretty much fucked.

Liberals are losing the message war, and liberals can’t stop in-fighting long enough to make it clear to the millions who are being screwed by the Tea Party and by the GOP that they are, in fact, being screwed by a bunch of rich white assholes.

Which brings me to this bullshit from Jane Hamsher:

The bottom line is, either you believe in your theory of change or you don’t. If you believe that progressive policies such as a bigger stimulus package, or more banking regulation will have a greater impact on restoring the economy and creating jobs, then the people who won’t let you do that are hobbling your ability to succeed. Because the public doesn’t really care whether the change is happening because of liberal or conservative policies, they just care that it’s happening. And they make their choices at the ballot box based on what is happening in their lives.

From November 2009:

Pelosi, Reid have “failed,” Shuler says

Rep. Heath Shuler (D-N.C) has further ingratiated himself with House Speaker Nancy Pelosi — not — by declaring that Pelosi and Harry Reid “failed” the bipartisanship test on stimulus.

“In order for us to get the confidence of America, it has to be done in a bipartisan way,” Shuler said in Raleigh following an economic forum, according to the AP.

“We have to have everyone — Democrats and Republicans standing on the stage with the administration — saying, ‘We got something done that was efficient, stimulative and timely.’”

Here’s the kicker: “I truly feel that’s where maybe House leadership and Senate leadership have really failed.”

So if you believe that a bigger stimulus would have created more jobs and kick started a sluggish economy, Heath Shuler’s presence within the Democratic Party demanding a “bipartisan” agreement that was never going to happen was not helpful. If you think that all tax cuts, all the time would have been a better solution, you’re probably a Republican anyway.

The Democratic Party also has a huge issue with Latino voters, largely thanks to members of the Democratic caucus like Shuler (who cosponsored the SAVE Act at Rahm’s behest, triggering a revolt of the Hispanic caucus on the floor of the House). The fact that the Blue Dogs wouldn’t even consider the immigration legislation that Barack Obama promised on the campaign trail has been one of the contributing factors to the dramatic drop in support among Hispanic voters, who comprised 22% of the electorate this year (up from 18% in 2008).

Glenn’s larger point is that the punditocracy is reading the results of the election through their own eyes, and their desire to break everything down into a right-left dialectic. But the public is judging results, and if the Democrats are sabotaging their own ability to deliver those results by pandering to the punditocracy and “conventional wisdom,” they can not effectively govern. And that is why they lost. It was good to be able to hear that effectively explained on cable news.

And with my peanut  gallery-style commentary:

The bottom line is, either you believe in your theory of change or you don’t. [Actually, that’s NOT the bottom line. You can believe that every child should get a pony, but if you can’t get the Pony Bill through Congress, then you’ve done jackshit. -ed.] If you believe that progressive policies such as a bigger stimulus package, or more banking regulation will have a greater impact on restoring the economy and creating jobs, then the people who won’t let you do that are hobbling your ability to succeed. [Holy amazeballs! You’re just now realizing that if you believe in something, and someone is not letting you do that something, then that someone is hobbling your ability to succeed at doing that something!! Gold star! -ed.] Because the public doesn’t really care whether the change is happening because of liberal or conservative policies, they just care that it’s happening. [Is this some sort of coded explanation for why you made that stupid Kill the Bill deal with Grover Norquist? You’re just covering your ass, here, aren’t you? -ed.] And they make their choices at the ballot box based on what is happening in their lives. [Ohhhhhh, so that's how it works!? really? -ed.]

Glenn made the point that the 2006 and 2008 wave elections were largely votes against the failures of the Bush administration, and the Democrats could have recruited candidates in swing districts at that time who shared the economic values that were broadly accepted within the party at that time, but instead, Rahm Emanuel chose to recruit former Republicans like Heath Shuler, who was out there undermining the party on the stimulus from the get. [Hold up, hold up. Rahm recruited Shuler in 2006 and Shuler “undermined the party” in 2009, which means the stimulus and whatever else is all Rahm's, and by extension, Obama's fault? Wow. That's some clear thinking right there. -ed.]

From November 2009:

Pelosi, Reid have “failed,” Shuler says

Rep. Heath Shuler (D-N.C) has further ingratiated himself with House Speaker Nancy Pelosi — not — by declaring that Pelosi and Harry Reid “failed” the bipartisanship test on stimulus.

“In order for us to get the confidence of America, it has to be done in a bipartisan way,” Shuler said in Raleigh following an economic forum, according to the AP.

“We have to have everyone — Democrats and Republicans standing on the stage with the administration — saying, ‘We got something done that was efficient, stimulative and timely.’”

Here’s the kicker: “I truly feel that’s where maybe House leadership and Senate leadership have really failed.”

[Look,whatever your views on Shuler's policies, tarring and feathering him for wanting to legislate in a bipartisan manner is weak, especially considering that the polls about the stimulus and bipartisanship seemed, at the time, inconclusive. Some people like bipartisanship! KILL THEM!! -ed.]

So if you believe that a bigger stimulus would have created more jobs and kick started a sluggish economy, Heath Shuler’s presence within the Democratic Party demanding a “bipartisan” agreement that was never going to happen was not helpful. [This doesn’t even make any sense. Whether or not I believe a bigger stimulus would have been better has no connection to the statement that Shuler’s presence was unhelpful. Seriously. What the fuck are you talking about? -ed.] If you think that all tax cuts, all the time would have been a better solution, you’re probably a Republican anyway. [What? What are you talking about? -ed.]
…

Glenn’s larger point is that the punditocracy is reading the results of the election through their own eyes, and their desire to break everything down into a right-left dialectic. [And my larger point is that certain bloggers are reading the results of the election through their own glassy eyes, hindered by their desire to break everything down into Obots vs. Righteous Hippies. -ed.] But the public is judging results, and if the Democrats are sabotaging their own ability to deliver those results by pandering to the punditocracy and “conventional wisdom,” they can not effectively govern. And that is why they lost. [::bangs gavel:: resolved!] It was good to be able to hear that effectively explained on cable news.

Of course, it doesn’t matter that the entire post is nothing but words strung together that have little meaning and which do not form a cogent argument; she doesn’t need to have point or even make sense. Her followers will work themselves into a rabid frenzy no matter what. ::eyeroll::

Look, I think it is a fantastic idea for lefties to band together and kick the asses of Republicans and corporatist Democrats. President Kucinich? I’d be down. But pragmatically, that shit ain’t happenin’, and if it does, it certainly ain’t happening if folks on the left keep crapping on one another’s faces.

Seriously, Democrats/Progressives/ Liberals (and all non-neocons/Teatwits, and nutjobs), get your shit together. It’s time to get over yourselves and realize that you and people who think exactly the way you do are NOT THE BASE. The Democratic Party is not the GOP; it isn’t a lockstep party. It’s messy being a Democrat. It’s even messier being a liberal. And all the bullshit (mine included! but it’s my blog and I’ll do what I want!) simply isn’t helping.

All your base are NOT belong to you. All your base are belong to US.

/end rant

¹ I don’t know, I haven’t actually googled it or anything. This is political analysis from my own ass.

² Straw man, party of one!

³ I literally just learned that the proper phrase is “long row to hoe.” First “notar republic,” then “all intensive purposes,” then “kitten caboodle,” and now this! Our childrens is learning, y’all.

[image via xkcd]

[cross-posted at Balloon Juice. How many times will I be called an Obot in the comment section?]