Do we know what Wyden and the Oregon progressives think about the nomination of Ken Salazar as Sec. of Interior? Some of the early comments from East coast environmental groups are not very positive. I know very little about Salazar although being from Colorado I trust he is at least somewhat friendly to oil and gas interests. Will he be in a position to reverse the Bush & Co. damage at Interior?

The more things "change", the more they stay the same.

Now we have the bumpkin Ken Salazar at Interior, he who SUPPORTED Gale Norton at Interior (not to mention Gonzalez at AG). He who threatened to SUE the USFW if they dared to list the prairie dog as endangered (he fought to keep it regarded, by Colorado, as a "pest"). He who voted AGAINST raising CAFE standards, voted FOR offshore drilling, and on and on.

Obama's increasingly worrisome Cabinet choices (Monsanto lackey at Agriculture, a Republican at Transportation) are, well, very worrisome! Not the "change" that I was envisioning (actually I was, as I never supported Obama precisely for these reasons).

Will he be in a position to reverse the Bush & Co. damage at Interior?

Will he be in position to reverse? Yes he will. Will he actually do that? No he won't. Read here.

Speaking of which, why in Goddess name is Merkley sending me an appeal to donate to Harry Reid ... At the time, majority leader Harry Reid and the White House conspired to shove through the nominee, over Wyden's objection, at the precise moment when Wyden and his wife were delivering their newborn twins. ... That's what I call tenacious oversight. Nice. ...

Only on Blue Oregon could that add up to "Ain't we doin' great." This blog has never existed during a Democratic administration. This is going to be dizzying reading! One can avert the vertigo by looking at a fixed point in the distance. I would suggest the Federal, non-violent prison population. It doubled under Bill Clinton. Keep your gaze fixed on that point and you will be able to get everyday functions accomplished without tossing your cookies as you are spun and spun.

If Ron Wyden wants a report relating on impact to the environment tell him to start with nanotechnology research which is something he helped surge 3.7 billion dollars into!

Did not mean to hijack post, but isn't it more important to talk about what is going on today and tomorrow than to re-hash events of last year or last decade? I am fearful that the next four years of the Dem majority may be spent (wasted?) conducting investigations and hearings into what the Bush admin did or didn't do. I know what they did - they screwed us and made their friends rich. I don't need four years of boring C Span hearings to tell me that. I am interested in solutions going forward, not whining about the past. Perhaps I am a minority of 1 in the progressive community.

Kari, thanks for this post. i continue to be amazed at Ron's growth over the years. he began in Congress as an ok, almost-liberal Representative who voted for the Trident sub and just didn't ever seem to do anything meaningful. but somewhere in the Bush|Cheney years, probably with his vote on the Iraq war, he has risen to the level of leadership we always hope to get from a US Senator. on subject after subject, he has led with intelligence, creativity, persistence and even courage. by getting this report, he makes it more possible for the Senate and Administration to effectively undo the damage the Bushies did. this may not seem exciting to many people, but it's the way change happens in Congress. Wyden's stock will continue to rise in the Senate, especially with Merkley there to partner with him, which means his efforts on net neutrality, health care and tax reform are more likely to lead the way in real change.

and i speak from personal experience in saying that he really does give a damn about our people in the National Guard.

I know what they did - they screwed us and made their friends rich.I don't need four years of boring C Span hearings to tell me that. I am interested in solutions going forward, not whining about the past.

In other words, let them go scot-free and get away with their travesties that screwed us and the next generations.

Won't the environmental groups use Wyden's work to go to court and overturn Bush's corrupt species decisions? How can that be anything but a good thing?

Re: "I know what they did - they screwed us and made their friends rich.'

Once again, as if we didn't need another example, another DP "progressive" shows his bigotry by failing to note that the crimes committed by Bush and his DP enablers were primarily crimes against others, e.g., the millions of slaughtered, tortured and terrorized people of Iraq, Iran, Somalia, Lebanon, etc.

I could accept Democrats' unwillingness to punish the war criminals in chief if they also were calling for the release of all who have committed murder who now are incarcerated, but they only want amnesty for the elites.

Thank God, Ron Wyden is our Oregon Senator. He works tirelessly on our behalf and for our environment!!

...the nattering nabobs... of Naderism, I presume. I apologize in advance if that isn't what you're saying, but...

I wouldn't be so sensitive if Kari didn't overuse it. The obvious contempt really doesn't expand the Democratic party base. It's really hard to see the diff from where I sit between Palin and co. disparaging Powell et al., for not being "real Republicans" and the rhetoric that the "nattering nabobs" are not "real progressives".

Besides, don't you think it's just bad karma to use a phrase popularized by Spiro Agnew?

Posted by: Peter Bray | Dec 17, 2008 2:16:54 PM

The more things "change", the more they stay the same.

Now we have the bumpkin Ken Salazar at Interior, he who SUPPORTED Gale Norton at Interior (not to mention Gonzalez at AG). He who threatened to SUE the USFW if they dared to list the prairie dog as endangered (he fought to keep it regarded, by Colorado, as a "pest"). He who voted AGAINST raising CAFE standards, voted FOR offshore drilling, and on and on.

Obama's increasingly worrisome Cabinet choices (Monsanto lackey at Agriculture, a Republican at Transportation) are, well, very worrisome! Not the "change" that I was envisioning (actually I was, as I never supported Obama precisely for these reasons).

Actually, if things stay the same everything will change, eventually. I've enjoyed reading this blog during the election cycle. I really do think liberals are going to destroy this country (have) but it's so hard to get through that thick skin. I knew Prez Barry could do it! Two weeks ago bloggers were talking about Richardson and Guvala or whatever his name was! As if!!! Face it, what ain't badly broken will stay in the hands of corporate America, where it belongs. See 'ya next cycle. God bless!

What Harry Kershner and the other nattering nabobs of naderism want Democrats to do is go out of our way to insult, demean, and dismiss 90% of those who voted with us...

I believe he wants you to bring them along the progressive trail. People know what the right thing is to do, by and large, but they don't do it. Leadership is getting them to do what they know they should be doing. A lot of your votes weren't with you, but against them. Now that they're in the tent, time to lead.

I definitely don't want to hear future whining about third party progressives stealing your votes. You are making absolutely no attempt to reach out to those parties. It is incredible, and an incredible slap in the face, to think that you identify more with middle of the road undecideds than progressive Libertarian, Constitution and Labor party members.

Actually, it's the exact opposite. You're describing an idiotic extremist dismissing a reasonable mainstream guy.

What I've been doing is dismissing the idiotic extremists.

This is precisely the mentality that has people like Cheney thinking that what they're doing is good for America and that dove eyed constitutionalists are moonbats. Basically, you're saying the two parties aren't just alike. The big difference is they're wrong and you're right?

For the record, Obama's justice pick supports the greatest litmus test in history, pre-employment drug screening. I know of no nabobs that support such a "competence comes second" mentality. Let's not try to color a litmus test, please!

America is run by whoever figures out how to get 51% of the people behind them.

But the simplest of observations will reveal that the majority, whether it is 50.1% or 99.9% is not necessarily right. Perhaps it is time for one and all to read and ponder the moral of Hans Christian Andersen's story about the Emperor's New Clothes or, because this blog is inhabited by supposedly astute political groupies and "progressives," consider how well this country was run by some leaders voted in by majorities and, in some cases, landslides - Harding, Hoover, Reagan, Nixon, Bush Poppy and Dubya, Newt Gingrich, Tom DeLay, Mitch McConnell, Phil Gramm, etc. Presumably, Rod Blagojevich was elected and re-elected by majorities in Illinois.

Another scenario to consider is that a mob is composed of a majority. From historical photographs of lynchings it appears reasonable to conclude the KKK and supporters formed a sizable majority when these barbarisms were committed.

As a "nattering nabob of Naderism," allow me to assure those concerned by people of our ilk we have no interest in converting the Democratic Party to Nader's philosophy and standards. It is futile to undertake the impossible. The lust for wealth and power is not confined to Wall Street but is rampant on both sides of the aisle in a Congress owned and paid for by corporate America. I do, however, take a certain delight in seeing naked emperors exposed.

"Nattering nabobs of Naderism"

Hands up all who recognize the original of that alliteration! For the younger generation and those who should know better the original - "Nattering nabobs of negativism" - came from the mind of that great "progressive," Pat Buchanan who got around 3,000 votes in Palm Beach County, FL to help Bush win in 2000. Buchanan's phrase was given national exposure by Vice President Spiro Agnew - before he resigned his office in disgrace. So, echo chambers, you're in really great company.

Now, "progressives" let's consider a few things about Ralph Nader.

He believes in adhering to the Constitution. A majority of Democrats in Congress have shown they will toss aside that document that is basic to our democracy when it is politically expedient. Presumably, people who vote back in office these politicians who reneged on their oaths to uphold the Constitution think that is okay.

Ralph Nader believes in a single-payer health care program. Mixed support among Democrats.

Ralph Nader was opposed to the illegal war on Iraq. About half of the Democrats voted for it. A sizable number of Democrats keep voting to fund this illegal war, in part because of donations from the war armaments corporations and jobs for their constituents.

Ralph Nader was opposed to trashing habeas corpus. Many Democrats went along with it.

Ralph Nader believes in living up to the United Nations Charter and the Geneva Conventions to which the United States is signatory. As with the Constitution, Democrats toss aside those documents when it is politically expedient.

Ralph Nader is opposed to the American people being spied on. Many Democrats voted a few months ago for the FISA bill that gave retroactive immunity to telecoms that went along with spying and made it possible for continued spying.

Ralph Nader was opposed to the Patriot Act. Every senator in Congress, except for Russ Feingold, voted for it even though, as some later admitted, they never read it. But, Kari, according to your standards, 99 to 1 would make it okay.

Ralph Nader ... Well, Blue Oregon progressives, you should have gotten the message by now.

What I would add to Bill B's and Zara's accurate depictions is this:

The voting patterns of Americans account for only a sliver of the actual desires of the public. At least half don't vote, and that's because they know the system is corrupt and stacked against them (Look at the proportion that approves of the "Democrat-led Congress" and its bailout-of-the-rich philosophy). Those who do vote are victimized by the well funded and efficient public relations (propaganda) machine that distorts all electoral outcomes.

David Sirota and Noam Chomsky (I won't list their sources because it does no good here) are two of many progressives who have consistently shown that the public is far to the left of both corporatist parties on most issues that progressives care about.

The mindlessly repeated "nattering nabobs" quote is emblematic of a corrupt and cynical institution that prefers winning to progressive change and that is essentially to the right of the Nixon political philosophy that originally produced the quote.

You are pathetic and you deserve what you and your Republican brethren have wrought, even if the rest of us don't.

Speaking only for myself here... I utterly reject your self-annointed role as the sole arbitor of what constitutes progressive change.

Kevin: Several months ago I challenged bloggers on this web site to define what they meant by "progressive." No one responded in accordance with standard operating procedure here and in other political cabals. Can't come up with a valid response and they know it, then dummy up. Would you care to try? Check Ralph Nader's positions above. They partially represent my understanding of "progressive."

Kevin:

I accept your points on defining what a progressive is or might be; however, the people administering this site claim it is for progressives, so it seems to me that they should have explained what they meant by the term. It seems from most of my readings most of the contributors have equated "progressive" with "Democratic Party" which, of course, is utter nonsense.

For what it is worth, let me repeat my interpretation. Progressives work (to make progress) towards a society and a world where all people will have a right to enjoy life, liberty, the pursuit of happiness and justice, including economic justice.

The corporatocracy running Congress and state and local governments has the opposite approach and the politicians in their duopoly are more inclined to go along with the corporatocracy's regressive programs than what I would consider progressive.

I think Harry and Kevin are saying the same thing in very different moods. I can certainly identify with both.

Perhaps the reason that progressive doesn't get defined much and is easily ridiculed is because there is a certain element of "utopian" to it, which concept has become largely identified with dictators, theorists and other megalomaniacs. If the meaning of a term is it's use, progressive is pretty much meaningless, as it is used in contradictory ways with no clear consensus. At the least, it announces "progress", which can only be defined if you have a goal and a way of measuring progress towards it. As the former is seldom well-defined (our fault), utopia becomes the stand in, and as using science and logic for the latter causes temper tantrums from the religious right, entrenched power interests and people that are congitively challenged, any definition usually doesn't leave people in a position to consider the merits of the policy, imo.

I don't think any of that is accurate, though. You can call Ralph Nader's view of consumers that have as many rights as large corporations that choose to think of more than the bottom line utopian, and ask why you should spend anytime thinking about something that'll never happen, but history shows that that has nothing to do with the actual outcome of the policy. The actual outcome is that you have a car to drive that is unimaginably better than if Ralph Nader had never lived, not to mention how many people are living that never would have been- a very practical matter- if he had not been pursuing his pie-in-the-sky agenda.

I have a real prob. with some of his personal statements and way of presenting things. But that's part of the beauty of being a progressive. We don't care. It's just data and process; personal style is irrelevant. Is he the best person to make US policy? Who cares? I don't want any one making policy. Right wingnuts love to parody committee or consensus decision making and tout the strong leader, but they don't exist anymore. Cheney isn't free; the corps that control him aren't free; all inter-dependent sycophantry. It's a myth anyway. Even that son of a Bush doesn't buy it. Before he was the wartime President, he was the CEO President, which is probably the truest thing he ever said. Much of the absurd policy in Iraq has come from the fact that he doesn't micromanage, but lets State and Defense fight amongst themselves, much as contemporary, crappy CEOs do. Not arguing for that, but saying that the whole attitude about consensus and facticity that comes from both sides of the aisle is classic American anti-intellectualism (so I can empathize with Harry's mood as a natural geworfenheit of that facticity).

For progressives, an idea is a good one or works because it is factually sound, and addresses real need in a parsimonious way. You could have a sacred cow fart the message in morse and it would not change the validity of the policy one iota. When a sizable majority still look at someone and get a feeling, then vote their impressions, what can we expect? You can expect to hear people say, "oh, Jesse Ventura...look at him; I could never vote for anybody like that". Maybe all that consciousness about how groups that one doesn't identify with look funny is what blinds those same people to the nakedness of their leaders. Kinda like when that ultimate threat to the Constitution, Robert Bork, was in Senate confirmation hearings, Sen. Howell Heflin (D-AL) went on and on about nothing, following his sagacious opening shot, "Would you like to give us an explanation relative to the beard?". Which is all I can find doc for, but I remember at the time it sounded more like, "Jerge, some of my constituents say you look funny."

“I know your race. It is made up of sheep. It is governed by minorities, seldom or never by majorities. It suppresses its feelings and its beliefs and follows the handful that makes the most noise. … The vast majority of the race, whether savage or civilized, are secretly kind-hearted and shrink from inflicting pain, but in the presence of the aggressive and pitiless minority they don’t dare to assert themselves.” (The Mysterious Stranger)

Hey Kev - it's "arbiter".

Kevin: Here is another way of looking at your A-B-C scenario. Some people pushed for an agenda that was unlikely to happen because it demanded too much. They didn't get what they wanted. The C-people settled for less, but they got some improvement. Would they have made that gain if a high demand had not be established in the first place so that the eventual compromise proved to be better than before? If the original goal had been defined at a lower level as "doable" the eventual compromise would very likely have been less.

MLK, Jr. is rightly given credit for progress in civil rights. He set the bar high, not at what conventional wisdom considered pragmatic. I also am inclined to believe that Malcolm X was helpful by being perceived as the "bad cop" causing some people to be sympathetic to MLK as the "good cop."

We may have to settle for less than utopia, but if we set a mediocre destination as our goal we are more likely to continue our position closer to dystopia. We may want to sit up at the front of the bus, but if we make the middle of the bus our goal then a compromise will still leave us in the back half.

Posted by: rw | Dec 20, 2008 2:57:12 PM

Hey Kev - it's "arbiter".

<h2>"r" biter?</h2>