That'd be a significantly better message than "stop whining" which the rest of his administration keeps saying in various forms. Yes, he's... mostly right. I'd make an argument on a hypothetical more aggressive Democratic position re: health care and I have, but that's essentially quibbling. We'll get it later, if funding is actually provided.
Are we trying to just keep everybody ginned up for the next election, or at some point do you try to win elections because you're actually trying to govern?" I made a decision early on in my presidency that if I had an opportunity to do things that would make a difference for years to come, I'm going to go ahead and take it.
And this being right is the single most frustrating thing. They botched the stimulus from the policy side for political considerations, mostly related to making Larry Summers' buddies happy.
enlightenedbum on
Self-righteousness is incompatible with coalition building.
Christ, they still don't seem to understand that the problem with the Health Care legislative process wasn't that they compromised, but that they compromised before they ever started negotiations and then compromised down from the original compromise position. What kind of shitty negotiator starts off the negotiations by conceding their position without requiring a similar concession from the other side? Democratic negotiators.
Or they thought that if they pushed too hard at the start, the whole process would end before it even began. The thing with negotiation is you can't start TOO high either, or the whole process shuts down.
shryke on
0
Options
Deebaseron my way to work in a suit and a tieAhhhh...come on fucking guyRegistered Userregular
Christ, they still don't seem to understand that the problem with the Health Care legislative process wasn't that they compromised, but that they compromised before they ever started negotiations and then compromised down from the original compromise position. What kind of shitty negotiator starts off the negotiations by conceding their position without requiring a similar concession from the other side? Democratic negotiators.
I'm pretty sure the thinking was "Hey guys, let's just deliver a bill that's so reasonable that republicans will HAVE to jump on board lest they be revealed as dishonest obstructionist douchebags"
Christ, they still don't seem to understand that the problem with the Health Care legislative process wasn't that they compromised, but that they compromised before they ever started negotiations and then compromised down from the original compromise position. What kind of shitty negotiator starts off the negotiations by conceding their position without requiring a similar concession from the other side? Democratic negotiators.
I'm pretty sure the thinking was "Hey guys, let's just deliver a bill that's so reasonable that republicans will HAVE to jump on board lest they be revealed as dishonest obstructionist douchebags"
How'd that work out (politically)?
enlightenedbum on
Self-righteousness is incompatible with coalition building.
Christ, they still don't seem to understand that the problem with the Health Care legislative process wasn't that they compromised, but that they compromised before they ever started negotiations and then compromised down from the original compromise position. What kind of shitty negotiator starts off the negotiations by conceding their position without requiring a similar concession from the other side? Democratic negotiators.
I'm pretty sure the thinking was "Hey guys, let's just deliver a bill that's so reasonable that republicans will HAVE to jump on board lest they be revealed as dishonest obstructionist douchebags"
How'd that work out (politically)?
DEATHPANELS SOCIALISM WHARGLEBARGLE
It was just plain old political incompetence. Trying to act like you're above the fray and that your opponents are reasonable is retarded when the other side isn't paying you the same courtesy.
Christ, they still don't seem to understand that the problem with the Health Care legislative process wasn't that they compromised, but that they compromised before they ever started negotiations and then compromised down from the original compromise position. What kind of shitty negotiator starts off the negotiations by conceding their position without requiring a similar concession from the other side? Democratic negotiators.
I'm pretty sure the thinking was "Hey guys, let's just deliver a bill that's so reasonable that republicans will HAVE to jump on board lest they be revealed as dishonest obstructionist douchebags"
How'd that work out (politically)?
DEATHPANELS SOCIALISM WHARGLEBARGLE
It was just plain old political incompetence. Trying to act like you're above the fray and that your opponents are reasonable is retarded when the other side isn't paying you the same courtesy.
Also when the media holds your opponents to roughly the same standard parents who indulge their 2 year old having a temper tantrum have for their child while holding you to the standard of Mahatma Gandhi.
enlightenedbum on
Self-righteousness is incompatible with coalition building.
0
Options
Deebaseron my way to work in a suit and a tieAhhhh...come on fucking guyRegistered Userregular
edited September 2010
Oh I thought you were in NY. Well, ummm....How bout 'dem path trains?
So why is it exactly that Democrats can't completely change the narrative? Bush turned this country upside-fucking-down after 9/11. We went from "Cold war is over. Nation building is a foolish enterprise as well. We should really scale down our military" to "Let's invade two countries! Endless, borderless war on a nebulous concept, here we come!"
So why is it exactly that Democrats can't completely change the narrative? Bush turned this country upside-fucking-down after 9/11. We went from "Cold war is over. Nation building is a foolish enterprise as well. We should really scale down our military" to "Let's invade two countries! Endless, borderless war on a nebulous concept, here we come!"
The media is set to produce the Republican narrative and have at least since after Clinton was re-elected.
enlightenedbum on
Self-righteousness is incompatible with coalition building.
I bet congress could go out and publically announce that they're ending state welfare, the states that don't pull their own weight will be normalized, and as a result the deficit will go down - and most of the south would cheer.
Until they found out that it meant that much of their populations couldn't have roads or running water anymore
override367 on
0
Options
Deebaseron my way to work in a suit and a tieAhhhh...come on fucking guyRegistered Userregular
I bet congress could go out and publically announce that they're ending state welfare, the states that don't pull their own weight will be normalized, and as a result the deficit will go down - and most of the south would cheer.
Until they found out that it meant that much of their populations couldn't have roads or running water anymore
Wasn't it on one of the political threads right here on this board where someone posted an article about some states letting their roads revert to gravel due to lack of infrastructure funding? And that the local voters were more or less happy about this because yay lower taxes?
So, I'm reading this thread and finding myself in total agreement with Fartacus and wwtMask, only I have this question: what do we do, then? I don't see the Democrat way of doing things changing, nor do I see a grassroots *cough*funded by some liberal Fox analogue, which doesn't exist*cough* movement a la the Tea Party springing up to demand more backbone out of the D leaders.
So... what? My fiance expresses a strong urge to stay here and "fight" with our votes and/or helping Democrats campaign, but, while do I believe this country is on a leftward arc, and will end up closer to my ideal sometime in my life, I'm not sure what good we can do in the meantime. I kind of feel like voting for Obama was my last good-faith effort here, and if that isn't good enough, well, my dual citizenship is thataway.
I realize this isn't remotely a solution, and gives fuel to the "America: love it (the way WE want to run it) or leave it" crowd, so what do good Democratic folks do given the hands we've been dealt?
You mean the people that see small towns and suburban/rural lifestyles get mocked?
Small towns and suburbs don't have a monopoly on blue-collar life. In fact, suburbs generally include a good deal of white-collar folks -- depending on where you live many are even almost entirely white-collar. I guess it depends on what you call a suburb and a small town, but whatever. Oh, and don't close to 80% of Americans live in cities at this point?
The same people that realize their kids won't get targeted funds for education and give their companies bonus points when they get promoted?
It's important here to separate out small city and suburban from rural here, because the first two categories tend to do just fine as far as public education goes. And as for rural schools, they actually do often get targeted funds, especially if those funds are set up for underachieving schools in general (i.e. based on outcome metrics, which most funding bills that have been supported by Dems for years are). And they don't tend to be quite as bad as inner city schools anyway.
Realistically, if you remove black and hispanic students from national and statewide education statistics, our "education problem" mostly disappears. The reality is that, more than anyone else, those inner city kids are getting screwed. But, yes, you're right -- rural poverty, like all poverty, is also bad and should be addressed. However I don't really understand what sort of America you're envisioning that has this huge swath of rural Americans that make up the bulk of the blue-collar workforce or the GOP. And I also think you're subtly lumping in suburban and city-dwelling (but not large, coastal city-dwelling) people in here and that's disingenuous.
The same people that have watched their jobs get farmed out overseas due to globalization?
How is that a Democratic thing? Last time I checked, we were the pro-union party, and the Republicans were the ones eager to push free-trade reforms and deregulation.
The same people that have been bashed for clinging to guns and god? The same people who are constantly getting ripped off because funding inner city schools is more trendy than funding ones in their areas?
Again, most statewide and national funds are targeted at low-performing schools. Those tend to be inner-city schools, because poor minority students have worse outcomes than any other group, including rural students (who tend to do alright on tests, though have trouble matriculating to college, and obtaining degrees). "Ripped-off" is pretty loaded, too. I mean what you're basically saying is dog-whistle stuff for (and this is what they believe themselves, so you're not wrong in characterizing them this way) "fuck the n*****s, I want my share of the pie."
I think this forum has already gone over many times how red states receive substantially more federal funds relative to their federal income contributions than blue states anyway, so your statement is also hyperbolic.
The same people who's entire industries have been shuttered?
Actually this isn't a rural issue, this is a city-issue, mainly in the industrial Midwest. Oh, and those people vote for Democrats still. Active and retired union members are still reliably Democratic, to the point where union voters over 65 went for Obama in 2008 (the over 65 demographic overall was his worst group). Correct me if I'm wrong, but didn't Republicans fight for trade reforms and union busting policies that accelerated that decline of those industries?
The same people who see their way of life and values shat on continually?
By whom? I have a feeling more often they spend their time being told by conservative pundits that their values and way of life are being shat on than it actually happens. And meanwhile Republicans pass legislation that hurts all poor people, including the rural poor and the white poor (which is really what this whole post is about right? That poor whites don't like Democrats because they give the darkies too much money? I should remind you that poor whites outside of the South still vote Democrat. Being poor is more important than race, apparently)
The same people who see tons of aid money get sent off to other countries where helping out puts you in the cool kids category while their own community is a shit hole?
Haha, foreign aid makes up a miniscule portion of the budget -- way less than poor and rural whites get from Social Security, Medicare, Medicaid, SCHIP...hmmm, those are all Democratic bills, right?
Yeah, those people really don't want to hear anything from the Democrats. They've lost that base.
Not according to the way they actually vote (see above)! Also, again, this is really only true of rural whites, who are solidly Republican. Suburban whites are swing voters, and urban whites tend to skew to the Ds.
And any sort of "trust us" is going to have all sorts of negative baggage associated with it when they've spent the past several decades taking a giant shit on them at every chance and then mocking them after the fact.
Again, given that Democratic policies have mostly been beneficial to all working people and poor people, and whereas Republican policies have been mostly shitty to all poor people and working people, I'm not sure how this makes sense. I mean, if you play up culture war bullshit, I guess. This is certainly the sort of stuff O'Reilley and Beck say all the time, but it's not really true from a standpoint of receiving actual funds and helpful legislation.
Those people have long since migrated over to the Republicans who also screwed them, but at least kiss their ass instead of mocking them.
Screwed them much harder, really. And I think you've got your timeline on all of this backwards -- this whole post is pretty much race dog-whistling, which is accurate in the sense that that's how the GOP got poor and rural whites in the first place (who indeed used to be hardcore Democrats). We already saw the classic Lee Atwater quote earlier in the thread.
I think a more accurate assessment would be that Democrats were pursuing legislation that was beneficial to all poor and working people, but did pay special attention to the urban poor because their conditions were noticeably worse and there's something to be said for trying to prevent our major cities from becoming post-apocalyptic despairing ghettos.
But that was OK until the CRA, when rural and Southern poor whites said "fuck the n***** lovers" and started voting for the policies that ultimately screwed them economically. They destroyed their own way of life out of a bullshit us-vs-them mentality that said they'd rather have no government at all than one that gave money to black people. And you know what? If it only affected them, I would say they fuckin' deserved it.
It's going to take a lot of effort and sustained reversing of all those trends before the Democrats can really expect those people to take them seriously. Because right now government isn't any more of a friend to them than Walt and Mortimer.
Actually it is. See above social programs (SS, Medicare, Medicaid, etc), stimulus spending on rural broadband penetration, etc. Oh, and again the issue of the fact that Republican policies hurt all the poor, regardless of race (but hurt poor minorities slightly worse).
And it's that core issue why "trust us we know best" sounds a shit ton worse than "keep your cash business will sort it out". The Republicans know that and are going to bank on it.
But "trust us we know best" is the Republican way of framing the issue, and has no inherent objective basis. "Here let me help you stick it to the rich CEO who isn't paying you enough" is an equally valid framework.
edit: oh yeah I forgot massive agricultural subsidies
Spoiler'd for length.
Can I say how much I love you right now Fartacus? Is that okay? Because I totally do.
I think at this point the key is we need more Grayson's. The left needs to start trying to redefine the narrative.
The truth Obama has been learning here is that it doesn't matter what you actually do, because if the narrative is against you even your own supporters will believe it before the facts.
I think at this point the key is we need more Grayson's. The left needs to start trying to redefine the narrative.
The truth Obama has been learning here is that it doesn't matter what you actually do, because if the narrative is against you even your own supporters will believe it before the facts.
I bet congress could go out and publically announce that they're ending state welfare, the states that don't pull their own weight will be normalized, and as a result the deficit will go down - and most of the south would cheer.
Until they found out that it meant that much of their populations couldn't have roads or running water anymore
I would get behind this if it didn't lead to more undereducated idiots. Plus I'm sure the GOP would find some way of blaming the liberals that most southerners would believe.
CommunistCow on
No, I am not really communist. Yes, it is weird that I use this name.
I think that a lot of what people in this thread are saying about one party or the other is really just about where that party currently fits into a rather loose cyclical pattern that political power seems to revolve through. The minority party successfully rallies voters around some basic ideas that resonate with morality and reason (ideas that probably largely relate to problems with the current party in power), and they become the majority party. As they try to best use the ideological power shift, the core ideals they grew on start to seem less relevant, freshman politicians join the ranks every year, personal ambitions become more attainable, political goals and interests become more splintered, unity transforms into a bunch of conflicting ideals and interests, until the stuff they are saying and doing turns into practically nonsense, and continues as such until long after the opposing party has already unified on sensible ideals and taken back power. I'm pretty sure I've watched this happen to both Dems and Pubs in the not-too-distant past, and looking across that entire cycle I don't there is much I can say to describe one party as opposed to the other (i.e., neither was the free-thinking party, or the moral party, or the incompetent party, or the reasonable one, they both seemed all of these at one point or another). There are some traits that consistently identify as liberal or conservative, but those traits don't line up along party lines as much as we try to pretend they do.
The only consistent patterns that seem to hold are that the Pubs are successful at chipping away at personal liberties while unsuccessful or counter-productive at fiscal reform, and the Dems are successful at entitlement programs but unsuccessful or counter-productive at protecting civil liberty. We get more and more of what each party wants government to do but rarely any less of what either party wants government not to do. And also the cycle seems to get faster and more extreme.
I'm gonna respond to the president a little bit here:
All that has taken place against a backdrop in which, because of the financial crisis, we've seen an increase in poverty, and an increase in unemployment, and people's wages and incomes have stagnated. So it's not surprising that a lot of folks out there don't feel like these victories have had an impact. What is also true is our two biggest pieces of legislation, health care and financial regulatory reform, won't take effect right away, so ordinary folks won't see the impact of a lot of these things for another couple of years. It is very important for progressives to understand that just on the domestic side, we've accomplished a huge amount.
Highlighted in red is the problem. No one gives a shit about your checklist or you legislative victories if they don't affect the situation on the ground. That's why we needed bolder legislation -- a jobs bill, a bigger stimulus, and/or just an outright jobs guarantee.
Also it would help if Congress didn't needlessly implement these timelines for implementing policy which hurt our ability to campaign on the legislation we passed. Right now it's just a really unpopular piece of paper. In six to ten years it will be something we can campaign on, but it's completely retarded that we can't campaign on it now.
But if you feel like you can't really change the way people feel in their daily lives in two years, then you absolutely need to do a better job of framing your accomplishments so people feel like things are moving in the right direction!
What is true, and this is part of what can frustrate folks, is that over the past 20 months, we made a series of decisions that were focused on governance, and sometimes there was a conflict between governance and politics. So there were some areas where we could have picked a fight with Republicans that might have gotten our base feeling good, but would have resulted in us not getting legislation done.
This is a false dichotomy. The thing is, if you win the messaging battle, you can get better legislation passed. This is the missing connection in the Obama WH. Part of the reason we had to pass a gimped healthcare bill or nothing at all was because the bill became unpopular and that put pressure on many Democrats to not vote in favor of it without concessions. And it completely ruled out the chance of getting Republicans on board.
If we had fought more, and fought persuasively, then the political pressure would have been in our corner. We could have been the ones demanding concessions, and we could have been the one peeling off members of their caucus (at the end of the day, there are plenty of R senators in states that should have been overwhelmingly in favor of the healthcare bill. Off the top of my head, Grassley, Collines, Snowe, Voinovich, Gregg).
It's not that you have to choose between politics and governance. That's a backwards notion. Good politics helps you do good government.
I know I'm about a page late on account of a horrible commute home tonight, but ntsf: On what fucking planet does Jim Webb know about electoral politics?
I worked on Senator Webb's campaign, and I will never regret doing so. I felt validated in working on his election six minutes after George Allen conceded when Donald "Army You Have, Not the Army You Want" Rumsfeld realized that he was going to have to start cleaning out his desk. Navigating the Post-9/11 Veterans Educational Assistance Act through Congress cemented my appreciation for him as a legislator. I'm thrilled to know that America's still the sort of place where someone as smart as him can sometimes get elected to the United States Senate.
But he has the electoral panache of a sock full of dry sand. Like Joe Biden without the charisma.
I know I'm about a page late on account of a horrible commute home tonight, but ntsf: On what fucking planet does Jim Webb know about electoral politics?
I worked on Senator Webb's campaign, and I will never regret doing so. I felt validated in working on his election six minutes after George Allen conceded when Donald "Army You Have, Not the Army You Want" Rumsfeld realized that he was going to have to start cleaning out his desk. Navigating the Post-9/11 Veterans Educational Assistance Act through Congress cemented my appreciation for him as a legislator. I'm thrilled to know that America's still the sort of place where someone as smart as him can sometimes get elected to the United States Senate.
But he has the electoral panache of a sock full of dry sand. Like Joe Biden without the charisma.
Well, I was referring to his hitting on the problems of "blue collar" America.
Thanks for working for him though! He's probably the only politician I ever put up a sign and a sticker for!
Thanks also for your work on the GI Bill. I was in the USN, including post 9/11 and it has made a different in my life.
There is a certain general who could quickly retire and then go on the attack against Obama about costing us the war in Afghanistan who is popular. He also isn't bat shit insane. It's not 2012 yet.
I think Americans in general are tired of the war, and are more concerned with the economy at home. A general could bring out the security vote, I just don't think that enough people in the Republican party or in general have that as their main sticking point.
Seriously, unless someone can point out to me someone that has the potential to unite the Republican party that is:
1. A politician.
2. Coherent.
3. Charismatic.
4. Appears to have a sense of vitality.
5. Qualified.
I'm not entirely sure what democrats are worried about.
There is a certain general who could quickly retire and then go on the attack against Obama about costing us the war in Afghanistan who is popular. He also isn't bat shit insane. It's not 2012 yet.
I think Americans in general are tired of the war, and are more concerned with the economy at home. A general could bring out the security vote, I just don't think that enough people in the Republican party or in general have that as their main sticking point.
Seriously, unless someone can point out to me someone that has the potential to unite the Republican party that is:
1. A politician.
2. Coherent.
3. Charismatic.
4. Appears to have a sense of vitality.
5. Qualified.
I'm not entirely sure what democrats are worried about.
Romney will never get the nod because of his religion, his seeming lack of authenticity, and because he can't fake being ultra far right. Palin is a more likely nominee than Romney.
1) A Mormon is not winning the GOP nomination for President. Especially not a Mormon who passed government health care.
2) Charismatic? He's GOP Kerry.
enlightenedbum on
Self-righteousness is incompatible with coalition building.
The teabagger candidates are a fucking gold mine for campaign ad creators. We need more of this.
Speaking of which, does anyone remember the two posters who put together a web ad calling out republican senators who voted against a law to allow employees of military contractors who were victims of rape to sue the company for preventing them from pressing charges?
There is a certain general who could quickly retire and then go on the attack against Obama about costing us the war in Afghanistan who is popular. He also isn't bat shit insane. It's not 2012 yet.
I think Americans in general are tired of the war, and are more concerned with the economy at home. A general could bring out the security vote, I just don't think that enough people in the Republican party or in general have that as their main sticking point.
Seriously, unless someone can point out to me someone that has the potential to unite the Republican party that is:
1. A politician.
2. Coherent.
3. Charismatic.
4. Appears to have a sense of vitality.
5. Qualified.
I'm not entirely sure what democrats are worried about.
Have we not met?
You know Romney has the charisma of a snake oil salesman, right?
Plus, the image url amusingly spells out another major reason why he's going to have issues.
edit: Beaten like a bad puppy by wwwtMask and Enlightenedbum.
Whereas my state gets like 70 cents to the dollar of it's federal tax money back.
Maybe if the GOP was serious about porkbarrel spending they'd start at home first.
This and we have the least per rider subsidy of our public transportation.
I live in Jersey the only state that gets fucked worse than NY
Stop wasting it all on Superfund clean up sites, then you guys can have nice things too.
Have you ever smelled the air in Jersey? The whole state is one big toxic wastleland beyond saving. I keep writing to the Governor, requesting that he call down exterminatus, but I don't get any response. :?
An NBC/WSJ poll says the midterms are getting tighter. Unfortunately:
But young voters, who helped fuel Obama’s presidential victory in 2008, are now sitting on the sidelines. Just 35 percent of those ages 18-34 are enthusiastic about the election in November, versus 65 percent of seniors who say that.
We're getting out-enthused by old people.
Finally, a step in the right direction:
[Among] The most unacceptable outcomes ... [are that] Sarah Palin become the leading spokesperson for the Republican Party (55 percent of registered voters, 53 percent of likely voters).
1) A Mormon is not winning the GOP nomination for President. Especially not a Mormon who passed government health care.
2) Charismatic? He's GOP Kerry.
Romney is definitely GOP Kerry. While he appears to have vitality, coherence, qualifications, and is a politician, I can never see average Republicans looking at him as their guy. It's not even that he's rich or Mormon. In my mind, he's always given off a persona that makes him tough to identify with. He just seems like a robot built for being a politician, but he is still in the process of learning to be human.
In the modern political era, that's actually pretty remarkable he couldn't pull that off. George W. appeared to be their kind of guy despite being a Yale grad and having been built up from pure nepotism. Obama seems to be viewed as a regular guy despite having been a Law Professor.
Seriously, I've asked this question to my Republican friends a bunch of times. It mostly is a series of "maybe" *insert person* followed by "but no."
Seriously, check out this interview on Letterman with Romney:
It's like he's never himself. Like he always has politician shield up. His expression seems never changing. It feels like he's constantly playing it safe.
You guys are mostly Democrats, and it appears you guys think you're having some strategic problems, but honestly, what Republican politicians are you guys actually, legitimately concerned about?
I know I'm about a page late on account of a horrible commute home tonight, but ntsf: On what fucking planet does Jim Webb know about electoral politics?
I worked on Senator Webb's campaign, and I will never regret doing so. I felt validated in working on his election six minutes after George Allen conceded when Donald "Army You Have, Not the Army You Want" Rumsfeld realized that he was going to have to start cleaning out his desk. Navigating the Post-9/11 Veterans Educational Assistance Act through Congress cemented my appreciation for him as a legislator. I'm thrilled to know that America's still the sort of place where someone as smart as him can sometimes get elected to the United States Senate.
But he has the electoral panache of a sock full of dry sand. Like Joe Biden without the charisma.
Well, I was referring to his hitting on the problems of "blue collar" America.
Thanks for working for him though! He's probably the only politician I ever put up a sign and a sticker for!
Thanks also for your work on the GI Bill. I was in the USN, including post 9/11 and it has made a different in my life.
I can't take any credit for the GI Bill, but I'm glad you're happy with his job performance thus far. I am, generally, as well. Also, it's always a pleasure to hear that someone's life is measurably better thanks to a candidate I helped promote.
But I reiterate that if Jim Webb could live up to his own hype about connecting with lower-class white voters better than non-veteran gun-restricting Ivy League career politicians who perpetually wring their hands over black's civil rights -- the Democrats he so frequently derides -- he wouldn't have been outperformed in almost all of the poor white rural counties by Harvard educated civil rights attorney Timothy Kaine a year earlier.
I know I'm about a page late on account of a horrible commute home tonight, but ntsf: On what fucking planet does Jim Webb know about electoral politics?
I worked on Senator Webb's campaign, and I will never regret doing so. I felt validated in working on his election six minutes after George Allen conceded when Donald "Army You Have, Not the Army You Want" Rumsfeld realized that he was going to have to start cleaning out his desk. Navigating the Post-9/11 Veterans Educational Assistance Act through Congress cemented my appreciation for him as a legislator. I'm thrilled to know that America's still the sort of place where someone as smart as him can sometimes get elected to the United States Senate.
But he has the electoral panache of a sock full of dry sand. Like Joe Biden without the charisma.
Well, I was referring to his hitting on the problems of "blue collar" America.
Thanks for working for him though! He's probably the only politician I ever put up a sign and a sticker for!
Thanks also for your work on the GI Bill. I was in the USN, including post 9/11 and it has made a different in my life.
I can't take any credit for the GI Bill, but I'm glad you're happy with his job performance thus far. I am, generally, as well. Also, it's always a pleasure to hear that someone's life is measurably better thanks to a candidate I helped promote.
But I reiterate that if Jim Webb could live up to his own hype about connecting with lower-class white voters better than non-veteran gun-restricting Ivy League career politicians who perpetually wring their hands over black's civil rights -- the Democrats he so frequently derides -- he wouldn't have been outperformed in almost all of the poor white rural counties by Harvard educated civil rights attorney Timothy Kaine a year earlier.
The teabagger candidates are a fucking gold mine for campaign ad creators. We need more of this.
Speaking of which, does anyone remember the two posters who put together a web ad calling out republican senators who voted against a law to allow employees of military contractors who were victims of rape to sue the company for preventing them from pressing charges?
Medicare is socialized medicine! People are afraid of that because they'll say "ohhh, you're against Medicare." No, I'll say "We have to do something different. We can't just eliminate Medicare, but we have to get more to a market-based system."
It's counter-intuitive to a lot of people, but you have to pay for things if you want prices to come down. So you really need higher deductibles. And the real answer to Medicare would be a $2,000 deductible, but try selling that one in an election. But that's the real answer, you have to pay for things, and when you do, you also get rid of price controls. So raise the deductible, you get rid of price controls, and you allow more competition. And you may have to allow more competition from other parties.
Sad thing is, he is right...sort of. His idea wouldn't sell if it came wrapped in Persian fur and embedded with precious jewels. And seriously, $2,000? The video is from '09, so it has more impact, imo, than "Taliban Dan".
And the website about "Republicans for rape" stops being funny after one paragraph.
Posts
And this being right is the single most frustrating thing. They botched the stimulus from the policy side for political considerations, mostly related to making Larry Summers' buddies happy.
Or they thought that if they pushed too hard at the start, the whole process would end before it even began. The thing with negotiation is you can't start TOO high either, or the whole process shuts down.
I'm pretty sure the thinking was "Hey guys, let's just deliver a bill that's so reasonable that republicans will HAVE to jump on board lest they be revealed as dishonest obstructionist douchebags"
How'd that work out (politically)?
DEATHPANELS SOCIALISM WHARGLEBARGLE
It was just plain old political incompetence. Trying to act like you're above the fray and that your opponents are reasonable is retarded when the other side isn't paying you the same courtesy.
I live in Jersey the only state that gets fucked worse than NY
Also when the media holds your opponents to roughly the same standard parents who indulge their 2 year old having a temper tantrum have for their child while holding you to the standard of Mahatma Gandhi.
Stop wasting it all on Superfund clean up sites, then you guys can have nice things too.
PATH is more govt run than the MTA. It isn't bankrupt, the trains run on time and are much cleaner on average.
The MTA is the whore of babylon
The media is set to produce the Republican narrative and have at least since after Clinton was re-elected.
Until they found out that it meant that much of their populations couldn't have roads or running water anymore
And don't you guys pay like HALF what a metrocard costs?
/RAGE
Wasn't it on one of the political threads right here on this board where someone posted an article about some states letting their roads revert to gravel due to lack of infrastructure funding? And that the local voters were more or less happy about this because yay lower taxes?
So, I'm reading this thread and finding myself in total agreement with Fartacus and wwtMask, only I have this question: what do we do, then? I don't see the Democrat way of doing things changing, nor do I see a grassroots *cough*funded by some liberal Fox analogue, which doesn't exist*cough* movement a la the Tea Party springing up to demand more backbone out of the D leaders.
So... what? My fiance expresses a strong urge to stay here and "fight" with our votes and/or helping Democrats campaign, but, while do I believe this country is on a leftward arc, and will end up closer to my ideal sometime in my life, I'm not sure what good we can do in the meantime. I kind of feel like voting for Obama was my last good-faith effort here, and if that isn't good enough, well, my dual citizenship is thataway.
I realize this isn't remotely a solution, and gives fuel to the "America: love it (the way WE want to run it) or leave it" crowd, so what do good Democratic folks do given the hands we've been dealt?
Can I say how much I love you right now Fartacus? Is that okay? Because I totally do.
The truth Obama has been learning here is that it doesn't matter what you actually do, because if the narrative is against you even your own supporters will believe it before the facts.
Rigorous Scholarship
Graysons, Frankens, and Wiener's oh my!
Seriously, this.
I would get behind this if it didn't lead to more undereducated idiots. Plus I'm sure the GOP would find some way of blaming the liberals that most southerners would believe.
We could help you out but the Situation is in the top marginal tax bracket now so he doesn't pay anything
You need to start feeling bad now.
The only consistent patterns that seem to hold are that the Pubs are successful at chipping away at personal liberties while unsuccessful or counter-productive at fiscal reform, and the Dems are successful at entitlement programs but unsuccessful or counter-productive at protecting civil liberty. We get more and more of what each party wants government to do but rarely any less of what either party wants government not to do. And also the cycle seems to get faster and more extreme.
Highlighted in red is the problem. No one gives a shit about your checklist or you legislative victories if they don't affect the situation on the ground. That's why we needed bolder legislation -- a jobs bill, a bigger stimulus, and/or just an outright jobs guarantee.
Also it would help if Congress didn't needlessly implement these timelines for implementing policy which hurt our ability to campaign on the legislation we passed. Right now it's just a really unpopular piece of paper. In six to ten years it will be something we can campaign on, but it's completely retarded that we can't campaign on it now.
But if you feel like you can't really change the way people feel in their daily lives in two years, then you absolutely need to do a better job of framing your accomplishments so people feel like things are moving in the right direction!
This is a false dichotomy. The thing is, if you win the messaging battle, you can get better legislation passed. This is the missing connection in the Obama WH. Part of the reason we had to pass a gimped healthcare bill or nothing at all was because the bill became unpopular and that put pressure on many Democrats to not vote in favor of it without concessions. And it completely ruled out the chance of getting Republicans on board.
If we had fought more, and fought persuasively, then the political pressure would have been in our corner. We could have been the ones demanding concessions, and we could have been the one peeling off members of their caucus (at the end of the day, there are plenty of R senators in states that should have been overwhelmingly in favor of the healthcare bill. Off the top of my head, Grassley, Collines, Snowe, Voinovich, Gregg).
It's not that you have to choose between politics and governance. That's a backwards notion. Good politics helps you do good government.
I worked on Senator Webb's campaign, and I will never regret doing so. I felt validated in working on his election six minutes after George Allen conceded when Donald "Army You Have, Not the Army You Want" Rumsfeld realized that he was going to have to start cleaning out his desk. Navigating the Post-9/11 Veterans Educational Assistance Act through Congress cemented my appreciation for him as a legislator. I'm thrilled to know that America's still the sort of place where someone as smart as him can sometimes get elected to the United States Senate.
But he has the electoral panache of a sock full of dry sand. Like Joe Biden without the charisma.
Well, I was referring to his hitting on the problems of "blue collar" America.
Thanks for working for him though! He's probably the only politician I ever put up a sign and a sticker for!
Thanks also for your work on the GI Bill. I was in the USN, including post 9/11 and it has made a different in my life.
I think Americans in general are tired of the war, and are more concerned with the economy at home. A general could bring out the security vote, I just don't think that enough people in the Republican party or in general have that as their main sticking point.
Seriously, unless someone can point out to me someone that has the potential to unite the Republican party that is:
1. A politician.
2. Coherent.
3. Charismatic.
4. Appears to have a sense of vitality.
5. Qualified.
I'm not entirely sure what democrats are worried about.
SteamID: devCharles
twitter: https://twitter.com/charlesewise
Have we not met?
1) A Mormon is not winning the GOP nomination for President. Especially not a Mormon who passed government health care.
2) Charismatic? He's GOP Kerry.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lliSqYNt5_Y&feature=player_embedded
The teabagger candidates are a fucking gold mine for campaign ad creators. We need more of this.
Speaking of which, does anyone remember the two posters who put together a web ad calling out republican senators who voted against a law to allow employees of military contractors who were victims of rape to sue the company for preventing them from pressing charges?
http://www.republicansforrape.org/
You know Romney has the charisma of a snake oil salesman, right?
Plus, the image url amusingly spells out another major reason why he's going to have issues.
edit: Beaten like a bad puppy by wwwtMask and Enlightenedbum.
Have you ever smelled the air in Jersey? The whole state is one big toxic wastleland beyond saving. I keep writing to the Governor, requesting that he call down exterminatus, but I don't get any response. :?
Good news, though:
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/39405132/ns/politics-white_house
An NBC/WSJ poll says the midterms are getting tighter. Unfortunately:
We're getting out-enthused by old people.
Finally, a step in the right direction:
Romney is definitely GOP Kerry. While he appears to have vitality, coherence, qualifications, and is a politician, I can never see average Republicans looking at him as their guy. It's not even that he's rich or Mormon. In my mind, he's always given off a persona that makes him tough to identify with. He just seems like a robot built for being a politician, but he is still in the process of learning to be human.
In the modern political era, that's actually pretty remarkable he couldn't pull that off. George W. appeared to be their kind of guy despite being a Yale grad and having been built up from pure nepotism. Obama seems to be viewed as a regular guy despite having been a Law Professor.
Seriously, I've asked this question to my Republican friends a bunch of times. It mostly is a series of "maybe" *insert person* followed by "but no."
Seriously, check out this interview on Letterman with Romney:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jTwLFWauz3o
It's like he's never himself. Like he always has politician shield up. His expression seems never changing. It feels like he's constantly playing it safe.
You guys are mostly Democrats, and it appears you guys think you're having some strategic problems, but honestly, what Republican politicians are you guys actually, legitimately concerned about?
SteamID: devCharles
twitter: https://twitter.com/charlesewise
I can't take any credit for the GI Bill, but I'm glad you're happy with his job performance thus far. I am, generally, as well. Also, it's always a pleasure to hear that someone's life is measurably better thanks to a candidate I helped promote.
But I reiterate that if Jim Webb could live up to his own hype about connecting with lower-class white voters better than non-veteran gun-restricting Ivy League career politicians who perpetually wring their hands over black's civil rights -- the Democrats he so frequently derides -- he wouldn't have been outperformed in almost all of the poor white rural counties by Harvard educated civil rights attorney Timothy Kaine a year earlier.
well, I was part of vets for Webb
Quote from Rand Paul:
Sad thing is, he is right...sort of. His idea wouldn't sell if it came wrapped in Persian fur and embedded with precious jewels. And seriously, $2,000? The video is from '09, so it has more impact, imo, than "Taliban Dan".
And the website about "Republicans for rape" stops being funny after one paragraph.