Pundit Country

The Internet is abuzz today with people wondering about the giant George W. Bush billboard hovering over I-35 near Wyoming, Minn. The billboard features a smiling picture of the former prez with the caption “Miss Me Yet?”

From where did this strange advertisement spring, and what is its intended purpose?

Asylum spoke to the advertising agency behind the advertisement, and though they preferred not to be named, they did tell us that the sign was rented by a group of small businessmen from the twin cities area, who pooled their money to make the political statement.

Why? The businessmen say they invested in the billboard because they “thought Washington was against them.” The billboard has been up for a month and drivers can look forward to enjoying the billboard for at least another month that is already paid up.

The billboard had spurred discussion this week, with some convinced it was a PhotoShop hoax, but its existence was verified by reporter Bob Collins at Minnesota Public Radio, who has been trying to track down the people behind it ever since.

The renters wish to remain anonymous for now, but they say they have been “overwhelmed by the response” and are considering renting more billboards. Suggestions?

What with all of the news regarding the officer shooting in Lakewood, WA today, I completely forgot that today is the 10th anniversary of the start of N30, or what it’s become known as: the Battle in Seattle.

It’s kinda odd looking back then and seeing where we are now. We were largely ignored by the WTO then and they seem to have repeated that strategy with every subsequent protest since as more and more of the world’s wealth goes to fewer and fewer hands.

Anyway, some of the readers I’ve seen have been posting a “where I was” perspective of the events of that day and I thought I’d add mine. I knew exactly where I was on the 30th. Right behind this photographer, much to the consternation of my girlfriend at the time.

Glenn Greenwald writes of the need among progressives to separate the man from the movement, namely President Obama. It’s a sentiment that’s been growing over the last few weeks and and months as he begins to enact his agenda; one that many wish was more aggressive in both scope and nature.

However, many liberal-progressives are struggling to differentiate the man from the mission now that the man they worked so hard to put into office isn’t living up to the progressive ideals they believed (in cases inaccurately) he would. Those who are openly criticizing his policies and administrative directions are being met with harsh words from some of our own allies and organizations that, just months ago, were working together somewhat harmoniously.

What needs to be brought to light, though, is the simple truth that Obama is not the head of the progressive movement. He never was. He used that movement to achieve a political end, just as any other campaigning pol would. Some in the movement saw it as such and others did not, which is why I believe the schism is now occurring.

Greenwald notes that it’s a bit too much like defenders of the Bush administration and their never-ending love for George W. In their minds, he could do no wrong. And he asks an important series of questions both activists and organizations need to consider in the coming months as causes are advocated for and polices take shape:

I’ve always seen the unique value of political blogs as applying outside citizen pressure on Beltway institutional political power — which now resides primarily in Barack Obama and the Democrats — to reject or at least resist the standard Washington influences.  Every well-funded institutional faction is working feverishly using every means they have — lobbyists, money, advertising — to pressure the Democratic Party to serve their agenda.  Why shouldn’t “people on the Left” do the same?  Shouldn’t health care activists care more about the public option than Obama’s political standing?  Shouldn’t gay rights activists be agitating aggressively for concrete action rather than pretty speeches?  Shouldn’t civil libertarians be constantly protesting an administration that has stomped on their beliefs?  Shouldn’t anti-war activists and empire opponents be objecting to the obvious incompatibility between escalating a war and being deemed the earth’s leading peace activist?

The whole piece is here.

Related articles

• Now Olympia Snowe isn’t sure she likes the public option opt out (americablog.com)
• Maxine Waters: Obama Needs To Get Tough On “Neanderthals” In The Senate (huffingtonpost.com)
• Silence Isn’t Golden: Keep Demanding Healthcare. Loudly. (crooksandliars.com)
• AP: Democrats may go it alone on gov’t insurance plan (americablog.com)
• White House Contempt for Bloggers and “Left of the Left” is a Pattern (campaignsilo.firedoglake.com)

Seriously guys, this really isn’t playing to your strengths (although no one seems to know what those are yet). Trust me on this.

Chris Bowers at Open Left discusses a very salient issue occurring at this point in the movement as we find ourselves not getting the issues we feel need redress addressed by the very leaders we helped send to Washington to deal with. From DADT to the removal of troops from Iraq and Afghanistan, we are told time and time again that the sensible thing to do is wait, and wait, and wait.

This generally doesn’t happen to those on the right. But this goes back to a point I made in an earlier post that one of the chief differences between the parties is that the Democrats loathe their base while the GOP fears and coddles theirs. Both may feel they are out of touch, but at the GOP leaders are aware that not acting on red meat issues like gun control, pro-life legislation, and low taxes will have an adverse reaction from those they need most at the ballot box come election day.

On the left side of the aisle, that equation simply doesn’t come into play. Look no further than the two main issues of concern to the LGBT community; the repeal of Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell and gay marriage (if not a federal law protecting it, at least blocking any legislation that would forbid it). Leader after leader campaigned on the issue, took the donations of the group and promptly ignored the issue once they attained the office they sought. The same thing can be seen on such issues as the repeal of the Military Commissions Act, the closure of Gitmo, and the need for single payer option in healthcare reform. Congressional Democrats and dare I say even the President himself do not fear the progressives who helped get them/him elected.

Going back to the old FDR quote, “I agree with you, I want to do it, now make me do it”, one has to wonder not why Democrats have no fear of progressives turning away from them, but how that change that dynamic. There has been some success with public shaming, particularly with regard to the healthcare reform debate and pushing the public option, but that has not been enough to sway the blue dogs. So do we do as John Aravosis of AMERICAblog suggests and withhold all donations from pols who do not do our bidding? Do we adopt the tactics of the NRA and actively campaign and fund candidates to oppose our failed leaders when they come up to primary? Do we organize as a group ala MoveOn.org and police the Dems on the issues that mean something to us or is it a combination of tactics? Bowers writes:

My experience in politics has taught me that it is impossible to influence politicians unless they are frightened of you. Over the past couple years, the only votes we have managed to flip on major legislation have come as a result of either strong swings on public opinion (as happened in Iraq from 2004-2006), or from spending resources on advertisements and / or primary challenges (click here, here and here for a few examples). That the House quickly passed executive bonus compensation in the wake of the AIG bonus scandal is another good example. Non-progressive politicians will only act progressive when they are afraid doing otherwise will cost them something of great value (such as their jobs).

No matter how this proceeds, a change is most certainly needed. Our current crop of Democrats have proven, despite holding the reigns of power to all three branches of government, to capitulate or compromise far to easy in order to achieve consensus rather than trying to push their beliefs to the opposition. This allows the GOP to continue to push the debate to the right, which is neither what the country wants or needs.

Related articles

• Show Obama you mean business. Donate to AMERICAblog. (americablog.com)
• Obama criticizes media emphasis on health protests (ctv.ca)
• Why Should We Believe Anything Specter Says? (mydd.com)
• Gay Democratic Donors Boycotting DNC Bash (blogs.abcnews.com)
• Gay community disappointed by Obama’s lack of action (ctv.ca)