Prompted by Josh Feit, I recently beheld with wonder this post from dear Andrew Villeneuve. Needless to say, they're not happy with Democrats in the Legislature.
This theme has now been picked up by David Postman, who honed homed in on blogger discontent with the lack of "progressive" accomplishments in Olympia. Feit has also spent some time on such topic in the past.
At it's core, progressive/liberal activists (dare I say liberal fascists?) are finding out how devilishly difficult our Founders made governing, no matter how well you do in elections.
This of course is all very similar to the conservative activists who were likewise frustrated in the post-1994 era, when they realized it was a lot easier to campaign on the Contract with America than to pass it.
Yet, there is something a little deeper in the current left-of-center angst. Give this article on SEIU losing a couple recent battles in Olympia a gander. First it was the WEA, now it is the purple-shirted powerhouse which has even Democratic allies saying: "Time out!"
Part of it is just a rational process of figuring out that doing the complete bidding of interest groups on either side of the aisle rarely works out to be entirely prudent public policy. The other is not quite so obvious, but easily deduced. Look at the seven legislators highlighted in Dear Andrew's post above. Aside from Frank Chopp, they are all from the suburbs.
Funny thing. Serious service in swing districts actually requires more than following the whims of one extreme of the political spectrum.
Posted by Eric Earling at March 10, 2008 10:16 PM | Email ThisA bunch of Nutroots children. And when they don't get their way, we'll hear plenty of profanity laced temper tantrums.
Posted by: Jeff B. on March 10, 2008 10:13 PMSee: the results of the 2006 United States congressional elections.
Posted by: noble on March 10, 2008 10:38 PMNope, because you haven't got the spine to actually say it: you just insinuate by asking the question.
Posted by: Daniel K on March 10, 2008 11:08 PMAh Dear Eric, I'm sure you remember those days well, when you were, hmmm... let me do the math... hey waddya know: Andrew's age.
Posted by: Daniel K on March 10, 2008 11:13 PMThe fact is that almost all of the Contract Eric refers to in the phrase: "This of course is all very similar to the conservative activists who were likewise frustrated in the post-1994 era, when they realized it was a lot easier to campaign on the Contract with America than to pass it." was passed in the first 6 months after Republicans took Congress.
So, in short, that was very little frustration on the part of those of us who busted our collective butts to make it happen.
Details, Eric. They're supposed to be important to Republicans.
Posted by: Hinton on March 11, 2008 12:15 AMNo wonder they are angry.
Oh wait, the Nutroots are always angry.
Posted by: Jeff B. on March 11, 2008 12:36 AMCan't wait for my autographed copy to arrive.
Yes, I remember those days. I was in college. Studying hard during the week and drinking myself silly on the weekends. I was a conservative and a Republican then, but no activist.
Hinton @ 8 -
You're right details do matter. Which is why I'm sure you'll agree that while components of the Contract largely passed the House, many of them fell victim to an unenthusiastic Senate or the Presidential veto pen. Thus, leaving many in the base annoyed with a perceived lack of follow-through.
Furthermore, I remember quite distinctly steady grumbling in the grassroots in 1996 and 1998 - when you'll recall we were bleeding off some of the seats we won in 1994. And of course the culture of the Contract long since disappeared from Congressional Republicans, witness the scandals and policy problems (such as spending) that irritated many in the base by 2006.
Posted by: Eric Earling on March 11, 2008 07:46 AMThat expression is "home in on," not "hone in on." "Home in on" is an idiom meaning "to guide or be guided . . . to a destination." The Columbia Guide to Standard American English defines "hone in on" as "an erroneous version of 'home in on,' attributed to George Bush, among others." Walsh's "Lapsing Into a Comma: A Curmudgeon's Guide to the Many Things That Can Go Wrong in Print" says, "You can hone a skill, but you can't hone in on something. The term is 'home in.'"
Can we please read Sound Politics without having so often to edit it, too?
Posted by: stu on March 11, 2008 07:33 PMAlternatively you could respect the fact Sound Politics is a forum where unpaid bloggers take time out of an otherwise busy life to contribute to the public discourse. Accordingly, you could be a little more forgiving of typos that sometimes slip through the cracks, including one where two letters are right next to each other on the keyboard.
In the meantime, if you'd like to front the money for a copy editor please contact Stefan.
Posted by: Eric Earling on March 11, 2008 09:09 PMChopp, Gregoire and others would never try to make bold progress on the issues their core cares about because it's too risky. Same was true of Locke. They are pathetic, really. But it has worked just enough to avoid losing. That's how you get what is it now 28 years of straight Dem govs? R's would never last that long because they actually want to DO things. The great Dan Evans regularly spent his political capital over and over again.
They are an embarassment. Not just to us but to themselves.
Posted by: GovtMole on March 11, 2008 10:56 PMThat response was dead-on and deserves a kudos. Well said.
Posted by: Mark1 on March 16, 2008 06:43 PM