Will 2010 See The Emergence of a 'Scream Party?' Maybe Howard Dean Was Just A Few Years Too Early
Will 2010 See The Emergence of a 'Scream Party?' Maybe Howard Dean Was Just A Few Years Too Early
January 26, 2010
By Joe Rothstein
Editor, EINNEWS.COM
Before the year 2010 ends we will have a major new political party in the U.S. It's called the "Tea Party." Maybe it will be what was once called the "Republican Party." Maybe not. If right wing challengers are defeated in Senate primaries in Utah, Illinois, Delaware and elsewhere my guess is they will split from the Republicans and create their own.
It's also possible we will have a second new political party. Call it the "Scream Party," as in, "I'm so frustrated I can scream!" Its leader would likely be Howard Dean, whose untimely scream in Iowa may have cost him the 2004 Democratic party presidential nomination---but who today is the closest thing political progressives have to a worthy, high profile spokesperson of their frustrations.
The Scream Party would represent all of those who thought they would see rational health, energy, and privacy reform when they opened their wallets, minds and hearts to elect President Obama, and gave him 59 Democratic senators and a 79-seat Democratic majority to work with. They also believed, and had every right to expect, that so many Democrats would get people back to work and arrange for people to not lose their homes. They certainly weren't in any mood to coddle the same Wall Street gamblers who got us into this financial disaster or to abide trickle down recovery policy.
The emergence of a Scream Party is not inevitable.
Let's say that if President Obama, before the run up to his State of the Union speech, or during it, or immediately after it were to announce that Geithner and Summers have decided to resign to spend more time with their families and would be replaced by Volker and Stieglitz, or their disciples who understand that more is needed to help Main Street---and to change Wall Street's ways.
And let's say that consistent with this new direction, he will propose a trillion dollar program to rebuild the nation's roads, rails, bridges and infrastructure, putting 2 million people back to work right away----along with $200 billion for the states to cover their shortfalls so that they will not have to continue shutting down essential state and local services and/or raising taxes.
To pay for all of this, Obama will propose letting the $1.5 trillion Bush tax cuts expire. (Thereby going back to the tax system we had during the Clinton years when the economy was booming).
On health reform, let's say Obama will propose unwinding the deal made with the big drug companies where he promised not to negotiate for lower drug prices, and the other incomprehensible deals made to buy support for health reform (deals the health industry didn't keep because they fought it anyway).
....And that he will use every ounce of his power as president to do what he promised, and what he has repeatedly told us is critical to do for so many reasons---get a reasonable health reform bill enacted despite all of the background noise from the Massachusetts election.
What else? How about accelerating troop withdrawal from Iraq. How about supporting efforts to modify the filibuster. How about altering the nation's trade policies to encourage buy America and discourage those who continually sap our nation's strength by sending manufacturing, intellectual property, and precious jobs elsewhere.
...And so on.
Naturally, the Republican congressional leadership would be unhappy about all of this. This is the same Republican congressional leadership that for the past year has been so aggressively faithful to the Rush Limbaugh post-election strategy, which Limbaugh so elegantly and simply formulated within days after the 2008 election: "I hope he fails." How many more nails in the road could McConnell, Boehner, et al throw if the President transformed himself from a post-partisan into a presidential Patton?
And, naturally, Wall Street would not be happy about all of this. This is the same Wall Street that has yet to acknowledge that its greed and stupidity (abetted by Bush-era non-regulators) has resulted in pain and suffering for tens of millions of Americans, and in the loss of more national wealth (about $12 trillion) than all the goods, services and economic activity the U.S. will produce this year.
If President Obama doesn't move forcefully to put people back to work and save peoples' homes, 2010 is likely to see continued, if not increased unemployment and economic distress as: 1) State and local governments continue to lay off workers 2) Businesses large and small continue to fail because they can't get financing 3) As many as 3 million more homes go into foreclosure, taking with them the values of whole neighborhoods and communities and the small and regional banks that hold their mortgages.
While the Republican political game-players in Congress would not be happy, the Republicans who govern nearly half the states would applaud new White House aggressiveness along these lines. Maybe not too loudly, lest Democrats get any credit. But despite a lot of posturing they all took money from last year's Recovery Act. (An Act that not a single Republican in the U.S. House, and only 3 in the U.S. Senate voted for).
The Democrats have 59 Senate seats. (The same number they had before Specter switched parties). They have more House seats than they had after the 2008 landslide because of special election victories.
People who can't get things done with these kinds of margins don't deserve to be in power. Neither do the Republicans who seem only to care about elections, not governing.
It's a new year. A new time for testing. President Obama needs to be a new kind of leader. A leader who responds to Eliza Doolittle's plea in My Fair Lady where she repeatedly sings: "Show me," after venting how frustrated she is with "words, words, words."
It's time for the Democrats to show us. Otherwise, they may have to make room for the Scream Party.
(Joe Rothstein can be contacted at joe@einnews.com)
January 26, 2010
By Joe Rothstein
Editor, EINNEWS.COM
Before the year 2010 ends we will have a major new political party in the U.S. It's called the "Tea Party." Maybe it will be what was once called the "Republican Party." Maybe not. If right wing challengers are defeated in Senate primaries in Utah, Illinois, Delaware and elsewhere my guess is they will split from the Republicans and create their own.
It's also possible we will have a second new political party. Call it the "Scream Party," as in, "I'm so frustrated I can scream!" Its leader would likely be Howard Dean, whose untimely scream in Iowa may have cost him the 2004 Democratic party presidential nomination---but who today is the closest thing political progressives have to a worthy, high profile spokesperson of their frustrations.
The Scream Party would represent all of those who thought they would see rational health, energy, and privacy reform when they opened their wallets, minds and hearts to elect President Obama, and gave him 59 Democratic senators and a 79-seat Democratic majority to work with. They also believed, and had every right to expect, that so many Democrats would get people back to work and arrange for people to not lose their homes. They certainly weren't in any mood to coddle the same Wall Street gamblers who got us into this financial disaster or to abide trickle down recovery policy.
The emergence of a Scream Party is not inevitable.
Let's say that if President Obama, before the run up to his State of the Union speech, or during it, or immediately after it were to announce that Geithner and Summers have decided to resign to spend more time with their families and would be replaced by Volker and Stieglitz, or their disciples who understand that more is needed to help Main Street---and to change Wall Street's ways.
And let's say that consistent with this new direction, he will propose a trillion dollar program to rebuild the nation's roads, rails, bridges and infrastructure, putting 2 million people back to work right away----along with $200 billion for the states to cover their shortfalls so that they will not have to continue shutting down essential state and local services and/or raising taxes.
To pay for all of this, Obama will propose letting the $1.5 trillion Bush tax cuts expire. (Thereby going back to the tax system we had during the Clinton years when the economy was booming).
On health reform, let's say Obama will propose unwinding the deal made with the big drug companies where he promised not to negotiate for lower drug prices, and the other incomprehensible deals made to buy support for health reform (deals the health industry didn't keep because they fought it anyway).
....And that he will use every ounce of his power as president to do what he promised, and what he has repeatedly told us is critical to do for so many reasons---get a reasonable health reform bill enacted despite all of the background noise from the Massachusetts election.
What else? How about accelerating troop withdrawal from Iraq. How about supporting efforts to modify the filibuster. How about altering the nation's trade policies to encourage buy America and discourage those who continually sap our nation's strength by sending manufacturing, intellectual property, and precious jobs elsewhere.
...And so on.
Naturally, the Republican congressional leadership would be unhappy about all of this. This is the same Republican congressional leadership that for the past year has been so aggressively faithful to the Rush Limbaugh post-election strategy, which Limbaugh so elegantly and simply formulated within days after the 2008 election: "I hope he fails." How many more nails in the road could McConnell, Boehner, et al throw if the President transformed himself from a post-partisan into a presidential Patton?
And, naturally, Wall Street would not be happy about all of this. This is the same Wall Street that has yet to acknowledge that its greed and stupidity (abetted by Bush-era non-regulators) has resulted in pain and suffering for tens of millions of Americans, and in the loss of more national wealth (about $12 trillion) than all the goods, services and economic activity the U.S. will produce this year.
If President Obama doesn't move forcefully to put people back to work and save peoples' homes, 2010 is likely to see continued, if not increased unemployment and economic distress as: 1) State and local governments continue to lay off workers 2) Businesses large and small continue to fail because they can't get financing 3) As many as 3 million more homes go into foreclosure, taking with them the values of whole neighborhoods and communities and the small and regional banks that hold their mortgages.
While the Republican political game-players in Congress would not be happy, the Republicans who govern nearly half the states would applaud new White House aggressiveness along these lines. Maybe not too loudly, lest Democrats get any credit. But despite a lot of posturing they all took money from last year's Recovery Act. (An Act that not a single Republican in the U.S. House, and only 3 in the U.S. Senate voted for).
The Democrats have 59 Senate seats. (The same number they had before Specter switched parties). They have more House seats than they had after the 2008 landslide because of special election victories.
People who can't get things done with these kinds of margins don't deserve to be in power. Neither do the Republicans who seem only to care about elections, not governing.
It's a new year. A new time for testing. President Obama needs to be a new kind of leader. A leader who responds to Eliza Doolittle's plea in My Fair Lady where she repeatedly sings: "Show me," after venting how frustrated she is with "words, words, words."
It's time for the Democrats to show us. Otherwise, they may have to make room for the Scream Party.
(Joe Rothstein can be contacted at joe@einnews.com)
Legal Disclaimer:
EIN Presswire provides this news content "as is" without warranty of any kind. We do not accept any responsibility or liability for the accuracy, content, images, videos, licenses, completeness, legality, or reliability of the information contained in this article. If you have any complaints or copyright issues related to this article, kindly contact the author above.