If you have "no place to go," come here!

Another email offer for commemorative plates!

[UPDATE Another career "progressive" joins the fun! -- lambert]

I just got some spam from one "Michael Bennett" at FDL, with a subject line so crudely deceptive that it could only have been written in a shop somewhere on K Street, albeit a second-rate one. The subject line:

BREAKING: Public option back in play

A little deconstruction:

1. "BREAKING" is crudely deceptive; it's general practice in the blogosphere to reserve "BREAKING" for actual news. Of course, "Bennett" might argue that the beginning of yet another useless "progressive" whip campaign is itself news, but that's way too meta for me.

2. "back in play" is crudely deceptive; combined with "BREAKING," it implies that somebody other than "Michael Bennett" pressing the Submit button on his bulkmailer regards the so-called "public option" as being in play, which of course is not the case.

3. Assuming, for the sake of argument, only the best of intentions, the lesson of this entire HCR cycle is that "progressives" have never put anything "in play," including the so-called "public option". Instead, they have been played.

4. Assuming, alternatively, that career "progressives" can put policy in play, then why in the name of sweet suffering Jeebus are they trying to pump more blood into the public option zombie? Why not advocate for an actual policy, instead of a marketing slogan? Oh, wait. Funding. Sorry. My bad.

UPDATE The "progressives" have managed to fill Bennet's mailboxes up in DC and the Denver office. However, I'm betting if you start at the bottom of this list and work up, you'll have better luck.

No votes yet


mass's picture
Submitted by mass on

And, the new Swopa post of the front page endorsing the bill. Eh, looks like I was wrong. Either they are playing both ends of this thing or Jane has no editorial control over her front page.

Submitted by jawbone on

been where he is now, realizing a pol we admire is doing the wrong thing, but rationalizing it for future good...or good of the party. For getting better Supreme Court justices, as just one powerful example.


When did many of us realize how completely corporatized the Dems had become? It sure took me awhile. I still cannot believe Al Gore would have been as Corporatist as Obama is, but I sure see what Nader was getting at.

Oh, this is depressing.

three wickets's picture
Submitted by three wickets on

Harry Reid is talking about a public option again, vaguely promising something down the road. Nancy and Harry like to bring up the possibility of a public option whenever they need to whip their side or threaten the other side. It’s as if that was the plan all along, to use it as a whip or tool. Does look like Obama is going to get his historic healthcare victory in the end and people are cheering him again. Too bad the bill itself is a lemon. Maybe Harry’s just posturing for his election too.

sisterkenney's picture
Submitted by sisterkenney on

Sheesh, just realized I got the same EM, and immediately "unsubscribed". My reason given? "I'm Sisterkenney" LOL

Submitted by cg.eye on

by Andrew Romanoff, who I will vote for if he gets to the ballot. And this is why -- Bennet makes huge bank from people who are on the wrong side of supposedly his party:

Colorado billionaire Phil Anschutz is famous for embracing conservative causes, but he also is a friend and former boss of Colorado Democratic Sen. Michael Bennet's.

While Anschutz is officially backing Bennet's GOP opponent, Jane Norton, companies that Anschutz now owns and companies that were once keystones to his fortune are strongly backing Bennet — often upending their normal patterns of political giving.

Through the end of 2009, executives and family members associated with Anschutz Co., Anschutz Group or Anschutz Investments donated more to Bennet — $39,400 — than to any other federal candidate.

We could have gotten somebody truly better than Salazar, but no, we get the same brand-substitution as Obama -- a man who knows how to produce images of neo-liberality, but not one concrete result that isn't legislatable down to irrelevance. If Romanoff can manage to at least put pressure on Bennet so he gets worried, then he'll have done his job.