Once again, obama gets it right !!!!!

[TomCat84]

Either way, it is crucial that the Dems hold onto their majorities in both houses of Congress. I'm not saying that the Dems aren't flawed, even very deeply (corporate donations, Blue Dogs/conservatives, etc.), but we will have a better chance of favorable policy outcomes, at least to a small degree, if Congress remains in Dem hands. Such a situation may be frustrating and seem very lame to the more liberal among us, but we cannot allow the return of any powerbase to the Republicans. Most of these motherfuckers are simply evil and they need to be kept in their place. And, right now, the Dems are all we've got. Let's do the best we can and politically educate the country from a position of at least relative strength.

You know, its my sincere belief that people would respect the Democrats more if they didnt hem and haw- if they actually proudly admitted the fact they are liberal, and want *gasp* liberal policy outcomes. The Democrats only grow balls when they are in the minority

 

[maxcok]

All I'm saying is maybe the Greens will be better dates. They'll at least call you back the next morning.

Well, I'm not so sure about that. I actually went the Green route for awhile back in the '80's, registered party activist. After a few years I figured out we didn't have enough presence to get anyone elected, even at the local level, with no hope of shifting the equation in the forseeable future - even in liberal SoCal. Furthermore, we were siphoning off organizational energy and votes from other progressives, i.e. Democrats, i.e. making it easier for conservatives to get elected. I don't like the two party system one damn bit, but you have to actually get into office to make a difference, so I became a pragmatic Democrat again. Even if you don't like everything on the buffet, stay at the party or get to work in the kitchen. We need you.

Sorry VB, but I'm sick and tired of waiting for the breadcrumbs to fall from the table of power. I'm sick and fucking tired of the cocktail queers (read: HRC) saying we have to be patient. Fuck that. Tell Obama to grow a pair, sign an executive order stopping enforcement of DADT until Congress passes legislation, and fire any military commander who disagrees.

This would be a very bad approach, as bad as his premature push for healthcare reform. It would be highly emotional, distractive, divisive, overwhelm the media narrative, draw even more vicious attacks from the right, waste precious political capital he can't afford, and put the brakes on advancing other legislative priorities.

He's doing the smart thing allowing the Joint Chiefs to study the issue and come up with a plan for implementing the change, which will show in the end that the top brass is behind it and prepared to implement it - and that's critical. A majority of Americans now favor the change as well. He doesn't need to stick his neck out on this one prematurely. He's stated in no uncertain terms that he wants it to happen, he's laid out a plan to proceed accordingly, and I fully expect him to follow through when the study is complete.

As for the HRC, it takes all kinds of activists on every front to effect change - from the stormtroopers on the street to the guys in ties working the back halls of Congress. Take the approach that suits you best, but while we work for the same goals, let's work together and keep our eggs in many baskets. Again, pragmatism baby.

I almost wish I voted for Hillary in the primary. She may be more moderate than Obama, but at least she would FIGHT

I don't know that she's more moderate necessarily. After all, Obama has turned out to be far more moderate than he projected in his campaign. I do think she understands how to work Washington, knows how to communicate a strong message, and the bitch has balls for sure. It's pure speculation if she would have fared any better than Obama in the office or whether she would be seen as equally divisive, but she does have the experience, more notably her advisors are far more experienced than his. If things continue at the present pace, or we have even more stalemate in Congress as I predict, I wouldn't be surprised if she mounts a challenge in 2010.

 

[Bbucko]

Not true. As someone who voted for Hillary Clinton during the Primary, everyone knew that she was the favorite to win the Democratic nomination. In fact, she lead in delegates throughout a major portion of the primary race. Her mistake was assuming that it was "in the bag", and with various verbal gaffes by herself, her husband and a pretty flimsy campaign she wound up losing.

During the primaries I was quasi/semi-dating someone who, though a Mensa member, couldn't reason his way out of a wet paper bag (which is why it never went major-league ). His reasoning sounded much like TC's (and others) here right now: hard times call for a hard bitch. He felt that Obama was too equivocal and that the Republicans would eat him alive in the general election.

Things didn't quite work out that way

The fact of the matter is, much like Gore in 2000, the election was Hillary's to lose, and she (and that dump truck of hubris she carts around everywhere she goes, again much like Gore) lost it spec-tac-ular-ly. Her run to the right (as she was a centrist to begin with) in PA was so cynical as to make me nearly literally nauseous.

Anyone who didn't/doesn't understand that we need everybody's input to solve the intricately-dug cesspool we now find ourselves in after decades of fiscal madness (GW Bush) and Culture War capitulation (Clinton) just wants to prolong both.

Am I the only one who really read and comprehended Goodbye To All That ?

 

[TomCat84]

During the primaries I was quasi/semi-dating someone who, though a Mensa member, couldn't reason his way out of a wet paper bag (which is why it never went major-league ). His reasoning sounded much like TC's (and others) here right now: hard times call for a hard bitch. He felt that Obama was too equivocal and that the Republicans would eat him alive in the general election.

Things didn't quite work out that way

The fact of the matter is, much like Gore in 2000, the election was Hillary's to lose, and she (and that dump truck of hubris she carts around everywhere she goes, again much like Gore) lost it spec-tac-ular-ly. Her run to the right (as she was a centrist to begin with) in PA was so cynical as to make me nearly literally nauseous.

Anyone who didn't/doesn't understand that we need everybody's input to solve the intricately-dug cesspool we now find ourselves in after decades of fiscal madness (GW Bush) and Culture War capitulation (Clinton) just wants to prolong both.

Am I the only one who really read and comprehended Goodbye To All That ?

Let me clarify: I voted for Obama during the primary. I thought what I was getting was a Chicago politics kind of guy- hard nosed, ballsy, and proudly liberal. Instead, what we got was someone who truly thought he could change the system instantly. I'm not saying dont negotiate with Republicans...never said that. What Im angry about is his insistence to keep on negotiating with them even after theyve made it clear they refuse to negotiate in good faith

 

[B_VinylBoy]

Let me clarify: I voted for Obama during the primary. I thought what I was getting was a Chicago politics kind of guy- hard nosed, ballsy, and proudly liberal. Instead, what we got was someone who truly thought he could change the system instantly. I'm not saying dont negotiate with Republicans...never said that. What Im angry about is his insistence to keep on negotiating with them even after theyve made it clear they refuse to negotiate in good faith

That's a very valid point. At the same time, I can see why he does it because come 2012 when it's his turn to get re-elected there will be absolutely no doubt that he tried to work with his opposition. But it would be nice if he did toss the people who got him elected a bone once in a while.

 

[TomCat84]

That's a very valid point. At the same time, I can see why he does it because come 2012 when it's his turn to get re-elected there will be absolutely no doubt that he tried to work with his opposition. But it would be nice if he did toss the people who got him elected a bone once in a while.

Not to worry VB, Congress is VERY hard at work on repealing DADT

 

[Rikter8]

Worst.
President.
Ever.

(and may I offer my unreserved apology for buying into that 'Change/Hope" hype and voting for him)

Hardly.
You must have had your head in the sand during the Bush administration.
This is a vacation compared to that crook.

 

[B_VinylBoy]

Not to worry VB, Congress is VERY hard at work on repealing DADT

It'll happen eventually. That is, of course, if we don't get too disgruntled and not support the people who are most likely to make it happen.

 

[Bbucko]

Let me clarify: I voted for Obama during the primary. I thought what I was getting was a Chicago politics kind of guy- hard nosed, ballsy, and proudly liberal. Instead, what we got was someone who truly thought he could change the system instantly. I'm not saying dont negotiate with Republicans...never said that. What Im angry about is his insistence to keep on negotiating with them even after theyve made it clear they refuse to negotiate in good faith

The first sentence shows how little you understood BHO: he's a pragmatic, cagey, nearly-intolerably unflappable man. He's the adult in the room and probably has been since he was nine years old (just a guess: I'm the eldest in a chaotic family, too).

He was sold as a firebrand and a lefty by those who had it in their best interest to sell McCain as a "Maverick": the press loves a good cliché no matter how distorted it reflects reality.

If BHO were really that fearless Lib, he'd have had a positive position on marriage equality and ending DOMA, just for starters (and only from the queerest of queer perspectives). He's a consensus builder whenever possible, and even then will pick an extremely moderate position as a fall back.

What you thought you were getting was an "articulate" Jesse Jackson; in reality we got a dark-complected JFK :wink: Any variation of the "angry black man" would render him instantly unelectable.

One reason why you may have been misled is a trick that's been used by successful presidential candidates going back to GHW Bush: the two-fer. George runs pro-life, but Barbara's pro-choice and will somehow "moderate" his policy initiatives. The Clinton boasted and ran on this concept of a co-presidency. Even Laura Bush was sold as a "moderating force" (and a closet smoker, too).

Michelle was carefully packaged and marketed as Barack's "black conscience" and the unrepentant lefty, "proud for the first time", etc etc. She's rumored to be his fierce gay-rights proponent, much the same way Babs covered women cagey about George's stand on abortion.

You've been sold somethng; to a degree we all have. The question, as others have pointed out, is WTF's the alternative?

 

[HazelGod]

You've been sold somethng; to a degree we all have. The question, as others have pointed out, is WTF's the alternative?

And this is the sad truth about a government based on popular democracy.

 

[TomCat84]

The first sentence shows how little you understood BHO: he's a pragmatic, cagey, nearly-intolerably unflappable man. He's the adult in the room and probably has been since he was nine years old (just a guess: I'm the eldest in a chaotic family, too).

He was sold as a firebrand and a lefty by those who had it in their best interest to sell McCain as a "Maverick": the press loves a good cliché no matter how distorted it reflects reality.

If BHO were really that fearless Lib, he'd have had a positive position on marriage equality and ending DOMA, just for starters (and only from the queerest of queer perspectives). He's a consensus builder whenever possible, and even then will pick an extremely moderate position as a fall back.

What you thought you were getting was an "articulate" Jesse Jackson; in reality we got a dark-complected JFK :wink: Any variation of the "angry black man" would render him instantly unelectable.

One reason why you may have been misled is a trick that's been used by successful presidential candidates going back to GHW Bush: the two-fer. George runs pro-life, but Barbara's pro-choice and will somehow "moderate" his policy initiatives. The Clinton boasted and ran on this concept of a co-presidency. Even Laura Bush was sold as a "moderating force" (and a closet smoker, too).

Michelle was carefully packaged and marketed as Barack's "black conscience" and the unrepentant lefty, "proud for the first time", etc etc. She's rumored to be his fierce gay-rights proponent, much the same way Babs covered women cagey about George's stand on abortion.

You've been sold somethng; to a degree we all have. The question, as others have pointed out, is WTF's the alternative?

Look...my thinking comes from the fact that he fucking came out of Chicago.....thats a tough political environment to come out of- one doesnt come out of chicago unharmed by being the "ADULT IN THE ROOM". this isnt Mayberry sweetheart. I apologize fo rbeing slighlty cynical lately...but law school really has been kicking my ass

 

[lurker37160]

The president once again pointed out in elegant but plain language why the War in Iraq must be part of our past. He graciously acknowledged his predecessor and told us bluntly that the pullout from Afghanistan starts next year and it is NOT an endless war for the US.
This stupid war in Iraq killed 4400 Americans, injured more than 35, 000 and brought death , injury and pain to millions of Iraqis.
As the president correctly pointed out, now we must work to provide our returning vets with jobs, the best of health care, housing and college educations through the renewed and enhanced post 9-11 GI bill.
God bless our troops, our vets and our president.
and all you nay sayers can go to hell.:wink:

Is that why the polls today say that only 38% say he should be reelected and 48 say that he shouldn't?

 

[HazelGod]

Is that why the polls today say that only 38% say he should be reelected and 48 say that he shouldn't?

Polls reflect the opinions of the average people surveyed...and since the average member of the general population is ignorant to the point of borderline retardation, only a complete idiot would attempt to extrapolate anything meaningful from poll numbers.

 

[lurker37160]

Polls reflect the opinions of the average people surveyed...and since the average member of the general population is ignorant to the point of borderline retardation, only a complete idiot would attempt to extrapolate anything meaningful from poll numbers.

Last time I checked, average people vote.

 

[B_VinylBoy]

Last time I checked, average people vote.

That wasn't what HG was getting at.
But ironically, your post does reinforce his point.

 

[Smaccoms]

Last time I checked, average people vote.

Exactly his point

Look...my thinking comes from the fact that he fucking came out of Chicago.....thats a tough political environment to come out of- one doesnt come out of chicago unharmed by being the "ADULT IN THE ROOM". this isnt Mayberry sweetheart. I apologize fo rbeing slighlty cynical lately...but law school really has been kicking my ass

Let me clarify: I voted for Obama during the primary. I thought what I was getting was a Chicago politics kind of guy- hard nosed, ballsy, and proudly liberal. Instead, what we got was someone who truly thought he could change the system instantly. I'm not saying dont negotiate with Republicans...never said that. What Im angry about is his insistence to keep on negotiating with them even after theyve made it clear they refuse to negotiate in good faith

Is it just me, or are you basing your thoughts off of assumptions, not facts (and you're a law student, what?)...I can see what you mean by "kicking your ass" bub

 

[Bbucko]

That's a very valid point. At the same time, I can see why he does it because come 2012 when it's his turn to get re-elected there will be absolutely no doubt that he tried to work with his opposition. But it would be nice if he did toss the people who got him elected a bone once in a while.

He has, VB: you really haven't forgotten that, despite all its flaws and compromises and the urgent need for fix-ups, we will have the closest thing to universal access to health care eventually, finally...right?

Everything that I believe to to true about Obama is being proven the longer he's in office; the fact that his accomplishments don't form 24/7 cable news soundbites actually confirms that fact.

Everyone who elected him (well, nearly everyone) wishes he were more of an arm-twister. Believe me, I sympathize: but neither LBJ nor FDR were on the 2008 ballot. And anyone who thinks that Hillary could have morphed into either really needs to drop the glass pipe for a bit: she was the most polarizing figure in contemporary politics from the instant her husband was nominated until her final humiliation in the primaries.

Again: it wasn't the caucus system, an kick-ass Facebook page or BHO's over-hyped "articulate" ability to deliver a speech that spelled HRC's doom: it was the weight and baggage that both she and her husband brought to bear in the spring and summer of 2008 in the form of monumental hubris and the expectation of a coronation rather than a campaign.

Obama was (and still is, at heart), a legislator without benefit of a legislature to dominate: he refuses to rule by fiat and consistently insists on a consensus. Blue state Dems seem to forget that both House and Senate are majority Democratic because of Blue Dogs, who need to be reelected by a predominately conservative electorate. That's a cold hard fact. If Scott Brown or Olympia Snowe morphed into Rick Santorum they'd be kicked out immediately: the same applies to Ben Nelson, Blanche Lincoln and all the other Blue Dogs, both House and Senate versions, but in reverse party affiliation.

Every elected official requires the support of his/her constituency. They tread very fine lines. If they sensed that real compromise and cooperation were required to get things done (as do both Snowe and Senator Collins, to a lesser degree) and had their constituency's approval in such matters, they would. But as the Republican base turns further to Teabaggery and Palinism, they either toe the (very fine) line or lose their jobs.

The baby that's been thrown out with the bathwater in recent Republican tactics as the "Party of No" is the fact that Independents are the red-headed stepchildren of the American electorate, despite majority or near-majority in many jurisdictions: they have no base, and really have little if any media that parrot their "principles" (aside from some very interesting blogs). Being of split and often contradictory view-points, the best partisan candidates (from either side) can hope to do is pander to their ignorance, or their passions revolving around single issues: the level of discourse in this country is intolerably polarizing and getting dumber by the minute. Hence the truth in HG's post:

And this is the sad truth about a government based on popular democracy.

To be continued...

 

[Bbucko]

Continued...

I cannot provide a link, but on another message board, I posted this OP on Thursday, 11/06/08 titled Secularize, Intellectualize and Nationalize:

I work for a pair of fiscal conservative, socially progressive political consultants for whom I have enormous respect and affection. One of them even voted for Obama, incurring much wrath from many of his associates and much of his family. As we sat in front of the television on Election Night, we had a short conversation regarding the future of the Republican party specifically and American Conservatism more generally.

The one who voted for Obama (his first time voting for a Dem in all his 36 years), shook his head and insisted that, after having trashed our economy and international reputation (I didn't belabor my opinion regarding constitutional soiling) these last eight years, the Republicans deserve "a time in the wilderness".

They rarely ask explicitly for my opinion (I rarely surprise them, anyway, with my political POV), but I ventured the three words in the title of this thread. Asked to explain what I meant, I clarified:

1) Secularize: It's time to understand that the strident bigotry of religious zealots should no longer be the outward face of the conservatism in the US. It doesn't just turn off those with no religious conviction, it alienates vast amounts of moderate Independents who prefer that their faith remain more circumspect in their lives.

2) Intellectualize: The parties have switched from when I was a kid. There was a time when WF Buckley and George Will were respected for the intelligence and erudition of their opinions; Dems were considered the populists and know-nothings who voted with their feelings instead of their brains. In the switch from Country Club to barbecue pit, intellectual curiosity and sound, reasoned discussion seems to have evaporated.

The subsequent story that Sarah Palin didn't know who was in NAFTA or that Africa was a continent and not a country may or may not be true, but it's entirely plausible. I'm not a snob because I want the leaders of this country to be the best and brightest, and have found this demonization of "elites" as either disingenuous or deeply frightening. Her utter incuriosity should disqualify her from national office, not be lauded as an asset and celebrated as "genuine". She is not a dumb woman, just profoundly willfully ignorant.

3) Nationalize:
[See map attached below]

The map above shows the counties where McCain/Palin outperformed Bush/Cheney (in '04). The message seem pretty clear to me: the Republicans are in real danger of becoming a Southern regional party without sufficient strength to carry a national ticket. One can only call so many places "the real America" before the rest of America understands that they are excluded from the club. Instead of demonizing and marginalizing, they should be looking for inclusion. Toning down the rhetoric about "San Francisco values" would be an excellent place to start.

The last thing I said was that everyone needs to finally bury the corpse of Ronald Reagan. His time (such as it was) was thirty years ago. Everything was different in 1980 and in 1984 (I was there, I should know); nostalgia is a terrible filter through which to judge history and a poisonous way to look to the future.

Instead of beating the drum about "returning", they need to look ahead. If they believe that regulation thwarts freedom (it obviously imposes rules), then make the case for it. If they believe that the smallest government possible is best, then advocate it: start by dismantling the growth of the last eight years. Name which entitlements need to be eliminated and which redundant government offices specifically should be closed. Outline how the federal government can be dismantled, streamlined and realigned. Then go sell it with reason and intelligence.

If they cannot do that, then the only alternative for conservatives is to continue and amplify the losing mindset that has brought them where they are today, which, short-term, looks likely.

The reason why I bother is because, as much as I may agree with the emerging national shift to the left, in order for democracy to function, we need a loyal opposition. And, as both of my employers abhor the Culture Wars as much as anyone here (actually, even more so), they know that they need to think outside of that box, too. If that means that the Republican brand is so sullied that it will go the way of the Whigs, then so be it.

 

[maxcok]

Either way, it is crucial that the Dems hold onto their majorities in both houses of Congress. I'm not saying that the Dems aren't flawed, even very deeply (corporate donations, Blue Dogs/conservatives, etc.), but we will have a better chance of favorable policy outcomes, at least to a small degree, if Congress remains in Dem hands. Such a situation may be frustrating and seem very lame to the more liberal among us, but we cannot allow the return of any powerbase to the Republicans. Most of these motherfuckers are simply evil and they need to be kept in their place. And, right now, the Dems are all we've got. Let's do the best we can and politically educate the country from a position of at least relative strength.

^ This.

You know, its my sincere belief that people would respect the Democrats more if they didnt hem and haw- if they actually proudly admitted the fact they are liberal, and want *gasp* liberal policy outcomes. The Democrats only grow balls when they are in the minority

^ But also this.

Worst.
President.
Ever.

How bout this?

 

[B_VinylBoy]

He has, VB: you really haven't forgotten that, despite all its flaws and compromises and the urgent need for fix-ups, we will have the closest thing to universal access to health care eventually, finally...right?

You're right... I didn't form my statement clear enough.
What I was trying to say is that sometimes I wish Obama was more progressive on certain things. Although we did get HCR signed (which was important and I'm glad that something got passed), it still was pale in comparison to what we could have received.