General Discussion
Related: Editorials & Other Articles, Issue Forums, Alliance Forums, Region ForumsAnother BRILLIANT strategy in the offings ...
Cross posted from the BOG:
Progressive are ecstatic!
Now ... look at the progressive stuff being put out there: Pension security, Reduction of education's cost burden (e.g., cost of higher education and cost of educational financing), day care support, etc., all paid for by closing loop holes of (i.e., raising the taxes on) the wealthy.
Now ... look at where these progressive ideas came from: See President Obama's campaign Platforms for 2008 and 2012.
So much for the "he's not a progressive" narrative.
I wonder how many people think that President Obama and, Elizabeth Warren and Elijah Cummings, are disconnected rivals, with one side pursuing a "corporatist agenda" and the other pursuing policies that benefit the middle and working classes?
In short, there really is a "Team Democratic" {gasp}, working in concert to benefit the middle and working classes, and the Quarterback of that team is one, President Barack H. Obama.
Sometimes, the Quarterback hands the ball off; other times, the Quarterback passes the ball; still other times, the quarterback runs the ball his/her self ... but, always ... always ... there is a plan and that plan works best when everyone is running the same play.
= new reply since forum marked as read
Highlight:
NoneDon't highlight anything
5 newestHighlight 5 most recent replies
NYC_SKP
(68,644 posts)FFS, if you need focus groups and advisors to decide what matters, then you should not be considering a run at the office.
Go Warren!
Or Sanders, or somebody!
1StrongBlackMan
(31,849 posts)so much weaker than going with one's decisive gut.
Number23
(24,544 posts)
Cosmic Kitten
(3,498 posts)Anyone who STILL doesn't know what's wrong
or how to fix it isn't qualified for the job.
Unless advisers and focus groups are just
tools to figure out which lies sell best?
1StrongBlackMan
(31,849 posts)tools to figure out which lies sell best?
As shocking as it might seem, whatever position HRC takes must be sold to the 47% of the electorate that did not vote Democratic (in 2012) and the 56% of eligible voters that didn't come out to vote (in 2014) and the 99.999% of the American public that doesn't frequent the pages of DU.
Cosmic Kitten
(3,498 posts)It shouldn't take a small army or advisers
to speak plain truth to the majority of people.
The "selling" of ideas comes off as calculating and manipulative.
1StrongBlackMan
(31,849 posts)"The "selling" of ideas comes off as calculating and manipulative"?
What do you think campaigning is, if not a calculated selling of ideas?
If nothing else, the 2014 elections should make it clear that this thoughtfulness is absolutely necessary ... In 2014, the electorate adopted progressive issues AND elected governors that actually run against those progressive ideas ... clearly "plain spoken truth" ... the messaging ... failed.
upaloopa
(11,417 posts)progressive laws. We don't have one.
Back in the days of sailing ships, when there was a calm sailors would whistle in order to whistle up a wind.
Your OP is like that. Whistling up a progressive movement. The sailors thought they were actually effecting the winds.
guillaumeb
(42,641 posts)is it because so many on the Democratic/liberal/left side do not bother to vote in non-Presidential elections?
Do they not bother to vote because that perfect candidate does not happen to be running?
Can we only vote for the perfect candidate, or can we vote for the best available candidate, even if that candidate does not perfectly represent our ideals?
If we vote for the best available candidate, and that candidate wins, maybe we should pressure that candidate to move more to the progressive side.
Last, the GOP has been putting money and effort into turning the GOP into the KKK. If progressives spent less time complaining about candidates and more time running for entry level political office, we could do what the GOP/KKK has been doing for the past 40 years. Many current GOP politicians started out running for school boards, library boards, and other local offices. Sarah Palin started out as Mayor of Wasilla.
upaloopa
(11,417 posts)is prohibitive. Those who can raise money do so from groups opposed to progressive ideals.
Somehow we have to be able to fund progressive candidates. I think we need to get more people involved and they need to give money. We need to see that funding progressive candidates is our duty.
I have begun to contribute to Kamala Harris. I will give every quarter until the election. If she wins the Senate seat given up by Boxer she may even run for President some day. Imagine a Black woman President.
1StrongBlackMan
(31,849 posts)have a more progressive legislature.
upaloopa
(11,417 posts)1StrongBlackMan
(31,849 posts)but without whistling.
upaloopa
(11,417 posts)It seems the public is supportive of progressive ideas. If we could get the message out there, get people engaged and offer money to support candidates things could change.
I guess that is what Warren and Cummings are working on.
Mean while I will be supporting Kamala Harris as my effort right now.
1StrongBlackMan
(31,849 posts)I guess that is what Warren and Cummings are working on.
That's exactly what they are doing ... in concert with President Obama.
guillaumeb
(42,641 posts)When you say:
"It seems the public is supportive of progressive ideas"
it brings to mind that when people are asked whether they support the Affordable Care Act, and the act is explained to them, a majority of people support the act.
but when people are asked about "Obamacare", even with explanation, far fewer are in favor.
The power of advertising, and the power/advantage they have in framing the issues. With the assistance of the corporate media. Remember that Grover Norquist and Karl Rove are former advertising people. They can sell anything, and have.
guillaumeb
(42,641 posts)but candidates for local office generally do not need to raise a lot of money to run. The advantage of starting small is that a local candidate can put progressive positions into discussion and try to reframe the narrative. If you run for a town position you can discuss issues in the context of your position and at least expose people to different ideas.
When you write:
Somehow we have to be able to fund progressive candidates. I think we need to get more people involved and they need to give money. We need to see that funding progressive candidates is our duty.
I think you are right on target. We need to do both, and it does take time and money.
LondonReign2
(5,213 posts)No, it is not.
Did liberals really stay home and cause the 2010 rout?
http://www.dailykos.com/story/2011/08/06/1003805/-Did-liberals-really-stay-home-and-cause-the-2010-rout
“So I went back to the exit polls and the picture I see shows nothing like that. If you are a proponent of this claim, I challenge you for empirical proof that some set of activist liberals "took their ball and went home" or whatever metaphor you prefer to make Obama's leftward critics appear childish and immature. Inside, the evidence I found that shows this just ain't so.”
http://blogforarizona.net/do-progressives-even-sit-out-elections-the-numbers-say-no/
“As you can see, Democrats did slightly better with liberals in 2010 than in 2006. Had there really been a collective we’re-sitting-out-the-election-to-spite-Obama pout going on, then there should have been a sharp drop in the liberal participation percentage. Yet notice the 9% in moderate voter participation and the concomitant 10% increase in conservative turnout. Republicans were pumped for that election but their turnout tends to be higher in midterms anyway. Millions of moderate voters either flipped to conservative or stayed home in 2010.”
“As you can see, all the Democratic groups dropped, but the liberal Democrats dropped least of all”
http://www.americanprogress.org/issues/progressive-movement/news/2012/11/08/44348/the-return-of-the-obama-coalition/
Ideology. Liberals were 25 percent of voters in 2012, up from 22 percent in 2008. Since 1992 the percent of liberals among presidential voters has varied in a narrow band between 20 percent and 22 percent, so the figure for this year is quite unusual. Conservatives, at 35 percent, were up one point from the 2008 level, but down a massive 7 points since 2010.
Ideology. Obama received less support in 2012 from all ideology groups, though the drop-offs were not particularly sharp in any group. He received 86 percent support from liberals (89 percent in 2008), 56 percent from moderates (60 percent in 2008), and 17 percent from conservatives (20 percent in 2008).
http://graphics.wsj.com/exit-polls-2014/
Ideology: Liberals were 23% of the vote in 2014, up from 20% in 2010.
http://www.thirdway.org/third-ways-take/the-impact-of-moderate-voters-on-the-2014-midterms
There is no doubt that moderate voters were crucial to the outcome in 2014, and though Democrats won them 53% to 44% overall, it wasn’t sufficient (in fact, they did 2 points worse with moderates than in the 2010 wave).
jeff47
(26,549 posts)"Activist" liberals are the ones likely to be very involved in politics. They'll always vote.
Where we're failing on the left is in attracting younger voters. Younger GenX and older Millennials trend much more liberal than average. They're also much more likely to not vote. And this isn't typical "youth apathy" - they're not voting at a rate much higher than previous generations.
Why? They don't feel like they have a real choice. Either party gets them to the same place, so why bother voting? Vote R and get to hell in 5 years. Vote D and get to hell in 10. You're still in hell.
Warren-style populism could upset the current situation, and get these people to the polls. Which is why the party is trying very hard to "Howard Dean" Warren - Contain her until she can be either marginalized or controlled.
jeff47
(26,549 posts)Political alignment doesn't line up along generational boundaries. Roughly speaking, older Boomers, younger GenX and older Millennials are liberal. Younger Boomers and older GenX are conservative. (We don't know where younger Millennials are going to end up yet).
The Republicans formed a strong coalition between younger Boomers and older GenX. They are the tea party.
Older boomers and younger GenX never formed a similar coalition. IMO, this was largely due to age - issues vital to younger GenX weren't that important to older Boomers, and vice-versa. For example, much of my generation did not believe Social Security would exist when we hit 67, yet it was vital to older Boomers. Meanwhile, my generation was extremely concerned about high tuition costs and destruction of the safety net. That did not resonate with older Boomers as much as protecting Social Security, because they were at a different point in their lives.
And frankly, older Boomers didn't need us. Younger GenX is so much smaller of a demographic that they did not need to cater to us in order to win elections in the late 80s and 90s. They could make a winning coalition with older, "FDR Democrats", and that was much easier due to the greater similarity in issues.
So "the kids" stopped showing up on election day - no one was listening to what they wanted. That formed a pattern of ignoring "the kids", which continued into older Millennials.
With those groups turned off of politics, not many ran for school board, or mayor, or city council, or any of the other "low-level" political positions. And if older boomers had wanted these jobs, they would have already run for them. This created a very shallow "bench" of candidates for higher positions.
What's gonna fix it? Time. It's not going to change until enough older boomers retire from politics or die for the younger generations to take over.
I'd like to believe that a coalition could be created between these groups, but it's apparent that this will not happen. Take a look at all the threads lecturing "the kids these days" about politics, and how they got out and protested the draft and other issues. That "the kids" are lazy. That "the kids" only care about their iPhones. There's no effort to even begin to understand what "the kids" want, it's only "you should do exactly what we did for the reasons we did". That isn't going to result in a coalition.
treestar
(82,383 posts)There is this tendency to think the Presidency is the be all and end all. They think the right leader can get everyone else in line. The point of the separation of powers was to avoid that.
1StrongBlackMan
(31,849 posts)what are Elizabeth Warren and Elijah Cummings saying about their latest initiative? What are they saying they are hoping to accomplish?
Cosmic Kitten
(3,498 posts)
FSogol
(45,514 posts)randome
(34,845 posts)...simply hasn't been paying attention. For some reason, it's only Obama who needs to make loud, grandstand ploys, not calm and deliberative ones as you outlined. 
[hr][font color="blue"][center]There is nothing you can't do if you put your mind to it.
Nothing.[/center][/font][hr]
1StrongBlackMan
(31,849 posts)Obama doesn't care and/or is a puppet of shadowy forces ... doesn't that mean Elizabeth Warren is in that company? After all, everything in her (and Cummings') new initiative was in President Obama's platform, since 2008.
randome
(34,845 posts)I'm amazed at how strong and on script he and Michelle and their daughters can remain in the face of an ungodly amount of vitriol hurled at them 24/7.
[hr][font color="blue"][center]Treat your body like a machine. Your mind like a castle.[/center][/font][hr]
Android3.14
(5,402 posts)Like he will actually pass any progressive legislation in the next few years.
When he could do something, he didn't. Now that he cannot do something, he pretends he wants too.
This quarterback works for the 1% team.
1StrongBlackMan
(31,849 posts)if you are willing to listen to, one, Elizabeth Warren, is not to pass anything this year ... or even next year ... (though that would be nice); but rather to run the table in 2016 and secure the House, the Senate and the Whitehouse. Then, and only then, will we get the legislation that supports/benefits the working and middle classes.
ETA: Are you suggesting that Elizabeth Warren and Elijah Cummings are a part of this "Sleight of hand", "meme act"?
When, exactly, did Democrats have the numbers to pass anything progressive?
And other times, the Quarterback plays for the Democratic team ... he just doesn't call the play the fans, sitting in front of the TV, on their couches (or in the bar), want him to call, when they want him to call it.
guillaumeb
(42,641 posts)The President had a veto proof Senate and a House Majority for 24 days out of 6 years. Was he supposed to completely transform America and undo 30 years of Reaganomics and 350 years of racism in 24 days?
1StrongBlackMan
(31,849 posts)Bagger Vince, John Coffey, "Red" Redding and Noah Cullen would have.
guillaumeb
(42,641 posts)That clears that up. Hate to see GOP misinformation become DU talking points.
1StrongBlackMan
(31,849 posts)google those names in a string.
I think you'll laugh.
guillaumeb
(42,641 posts)your right laugh. But magical realism only works because the author controls.
Again, I hate to see GOP talking points/misinformation repeated in a Democratic site.
1StrongBlackMan
(31,849 posts)It's NOT a Democratic site (anymore) ... it's open to principled progressives that have no desire to elect Democrats.
guillaumeb
(42,641 posts)Principled Progressive Posters, than a KKK I suppose.
Fumesucker
(45,851 posts)The veto is irrelevant when we are talking about progressive legislation and President Obama, yes?
guillaumeb
(42,641 posts)President Obama is a progressive. In my opinion he is a center right politician who could have run as a Republican 40 years ago. But that may be more a reflection of the President recognizing political reality in the US rather than his true feelings on issues.
In spite of the post-racial America that we live in, the President has also had to deal with organized political obstructionism by the RepubliKKKans who obviously cannot accept that a black man can sit in the White House.
Last, who in the Congress can pass progressive legislation in the face of GOP refusal to work together and compromise?
Fumesucker
(45,851 posts)I don't get it, Obama is a Democratic President, hopefully he's not going to veto progressive legislation.
1StrongBlackMan
(31,849 posts)"Filibuster proof."
guillaumeb
(42,641 posts)Android3.14
(5,402 posts)When there was a majority in both houses. Where was the supposed progressive talk then? Then he just had a single obstacle, Lieberman, and he sounded like a Reagan conservative.
That "poor-poor pitiful me" act was nothing but BS.
Now, when he has a dozen or so Liebermans blocking progressive legislation, he goes all liberal for the cameras.
1StrongBlackMan
(31,849 posts)have to be refuted with FACTS, before supposedly informed Democrats/liberal/progressives, stop trotting it out?
Just Liebermann? Another fact-free statement. But where was the progressive talk? It was in President Obama's jobs bills and his executive orders.
What are you talking about?
Democrats have more republicans to deal with; bu,t most of the Liebermann-like Democrats (and Democratic candidates), lost in 2012 ... that's why Democrats have more republicans to deal with.
Android3.14
(5,402 posts)The fact is that there was a majority early on. Obama supporters can create all the excuses they want, but the majorities were there.
But it is not about the majorities, but about this change in behavior.
Back then, he sounded very different than he does today. Back then, when he had power over legislation, he refused to use it. Today, when he has far less power, he engages in liberal posturing.
And then here is the whole TPP fiasco.
Nah, Obama was never on our side, and he still isn't. He was compromised from the beginning.
Using your quarterback analogy, he went to one knee during every play in the first three quarters, unless it served the 1 percent. Now that it's time to run out the clock, he's saying "Put me in coach. I'm ready to play".
But hey, wave your $20 foam finger, drink your $8 beer, and cheer.
guillaumeb
(42,641 posts)GOP talking points do not become true with constant repetition.
Some not so ancient history:
Remember the Norm Coleman/Al Franken affair? If not, look it up and then let us talk.
Remember Ted Kennedy's health issues and how he was not in the Senate? If not, again, look it up and then let us talk.
President Obama enjoyed a veto proof majority in the Senate for 24 days. Doubt me, look it up.
Does the President pass legislation, or does Congress?
A President can only sign legislation that Congress passes.
Last question: Remember the 400 filibusters from the Senate?
Android3.14
(5,402 posts)Stop trying to shift the attention. There are all sorts of excuses for missing the boat when they had the majorities. The truth is that if the motivation were there, they could have done something. QED.
The point is that Obama's behavior as a supposed progressive seems to only increase as his actual influence decreases and vice versa. This is intentional in order to maintain the status quo of faux conflict between left and right rather than the real issue of the bloodsucking rich keeping us divided in order to continue their exploitation.
guillaumeb
(42,641 posts)As I said in post #46, I would not argue that President Obama is a progressive.
When you wrote:
The point is that Obama's behavior as a supposed progressive seems to only increase as his actual influence decreases and vice versa. This is intentional in order to maintain the status quo of faux conflict between left and right rather than the real issue of the bloodsucking rich keeping us divided in order to continue their exploitation.
While I understand your view, and share it in part, and also appreciate and share your frustration, allow me to pose an alternative.
Perhaps it took the President 6 years to realize that no matter how polite and accommodating he is and has been, the GOP haters and KKKlan members will always hate him. Perhaps he has decided to try to reframe the conversation by forcing the GOP to respond to his actions rather than always trying to accommodate the supposed moderates in the GOP.
Again, my reading of the matter only.
Android3.14
(5,402 posts)It just seems unlikely that someone as smart as our President would take six years to realize something so that was so obvious that most of us knew it going in.
I appreciate that we want Obama to be a great President, a man of the people, a defender of the common good. But the reality is kind of hard to ignore, and the cognitive dissonance is showing in the strident words of many of Obama's defenders (I'm not saying your words are strident, but you know the folks to which I am referring).
1StrongBlackMan
(31,849 posts)being polite and accommodating to the republicans might be met in good faith; I doubt he was under any delusion of what he faced (the witch-doctor signs and that early gop meeting disabused him of that notion); however, the American people wanted cooperation among the parties and for Washington to get something done. It is only within the last 18 months that a majority of the population came to see that the gop was the group not cooperating.
Until we reached that point, the American people would not have been ready for, or accepting of, any of the actions President Obama has taken. Had he acted sooner, he certainly would have been impeached and likely convicted.
Fumesucker
(45,851 posts)Dude... 
guillaumeb
(42,641 posts)but convicted in the Senate? No.
The President is not a leftist, or a socialist, as the GOP insists. But we know and knew that. I think part of the disappointment was that the hopeful sign of a country founded on chattel slavery of blacks could elect a mixed race President.
That hope was shown to be foolish by the actions of unreconstructed, mainly southern, Republicans. But we know that also. I think that any criticism of the President for being insufficiently progressive fails because he did not campaign as a progressive and he received no cooperation from the GOP and not a lot from the conserva-Dems.
Same for criticism that he did not accomplish enough.
But I feel that what President Obama is doing now is trying to reframe the terms of political debate in a way he could not do legislatively. The veto of Keystone is a good step, as was the small step on immigration. I hope he will take more such actions and keep the GOP in the defensive.
1StrongBlackMan
(31,849 posts)in 2010, there were 6-10 Democrats in the Senate that were far from a "no impeachment" vote lock, if such a Bill had been brought. In 2015, impeachment is unlikely to come to the table.
Fumesucker
(45,851 posts)I'm actually pretty good at putting the liberal case to conservatives but I get bored with it after a while because they quit answering.
I trashed trickle down economics on Discussionist and had no one really disagree with me for instance.
http://www.discussionist.com/1015104018
1StrongBlackMan
(31,849 posts)Fumesucker
(45,851 posts)Nice demonstration of my point.
1StrongBlackMan
(31,849 posts)Fumesucker
(45,851 posts)
1StrongBlackMan
(31,849 posts)on the other hand, perhaps those you are addressing get bored with you and your argument(s).
Fumesucker
(45,851 posts)Go ahead, post as a liberal on a neutral or conservative site and get back to us about how much they ignore you..
1StrongBlackMan
(31,849 posts)I post to neutral sites all the time (I avoid knowingly posting/going to conservative sites ... I have better things to do with my time than seek out verbal fights) ... Sometimes folks reply a bunch, other times I am ignored ... when they reply it's because they have the time and interest, when I get ignored it's because they DON'T have the time and/or interest. I ascribe very little of their actions/response to me.
Fumesucker
(45,851 posts)I quit because I got bored with it, too easy but I have around four thousand posts there..
Trickle down is conservative orthodoxy and I explicitly trashed it and they couldn't be bothered to disagree.
I know Mr Scorpio is or was there and several other DUers I recognize by style.
1StrongBlackMan
(31,849 posts)I lurked early on and went there twice because I was being discussed.
I have zero interest in seeking out conservatives for discussion, or anything else.
Fumesucker
(45,851 posts)Actually I rather suspect we want much the same things but differ on strategy and tactics.
The thing is that conservatives are actually quite easy to overwhelm if you get them where they can't just cut off your mic and you have a good command of facts and rhetoric.
I did it for several years on riehlworldview and balloon-juice. In fact John Cole of balloon-juice flipped from conservative to liberal because his commenters beat the snot out of him over a period of years, I am proud to be one of those who helped him see the light.
I have long standing permission to post whatever I wish from that blog.
http://www.balloon-juice.com/2008/03/21/my-iraq-war-retrospective/
I see that Andrew Sullivan was asked to list what he got wrong about Iraq for the five year anniversary of the invasion, and since I was as big a war booster as anyone, I thought I would list what I got wrong:
Everything.
And I don’t say that to provide people with an easy way to beat up on me, but I do sort of have to face facts. I was wrong about everything.
I was wrong about the Doctrine of Pre-emptive warfare.
I was wrong about Iraq possessing WMD.
I was wrong about Scott Ritter and the inspections.
I was wrong about the UN involvement in weapons inspections.
I was wrong about the containment sanctions.
I was wrong about the broader impact of the war on the Middle East.
I was wrong about this making us more safe.
I was wrong about the number of troops needed to stabilize Iraq.
I was wrong when I stated this administration had a clear plan for the aftermath.
I was wrong about securing the ammunition dumps.
I was wrong about the ease of bringing democracy to the Middle East.
I was wrong about dissolving the Iraqi army.
I was wrong about the looting being unimportant.
I was wrong that Bush/Cheney were competent.
I was wrong that we would be greeted as liberators.
I was wrong to make fun of the anti-war protestors.
I was wrong not to trust the dirty smelly hippies.
I mean, I could go down the list and continue on, but you get the point. I was wrong about EVERY. GOD. DAMNED. THING. It is amazing I could tie my shoes in 2001-2004. If you took all the wrongness I generated, put it together and compacted it and processed it, there would be enough concentrated stupid to fuel three hundred years of Weekly Standard journals. I am not sure how I snapped out of it, but I think Abu Ghraib and the negative impact of the insurgency did sober me up a bit.
War should always be an absolute last resort, not just another option. I will never make the same mistakes again
1StrongBlackMan
(31,849 posts)I challenge some opinions, with the hope of either getting them to see things my way, or having them understand why I see things the way I do.
I don't give a damn what conservatives think/believe or why.
Fumesucker
(45,851 posts)I've provided an example of such that I personally was involved in bringing about, that's not the only time it's happened to me either it's just the only one I can find at this juncture.
Not all of them of course but a significant minority of conservatives are reachable.
I think a complete failure to defend trickle down economics shows almost all of those who say they believe it are either lying to us or to themselves.
1StrongBlackMan
(31,849 posts)That has not been my experience ... anymore than, discussing conservative thought/arguing with a liberal might turn them into a conservative.
Fumesucker
(45,851 posts)You rather sound like a conservative that way.
1StrongBlackMan
(31,849 posts)it's more, that I don't care to spend the time or effort trying to change someone's world view. I will dialogue with anyone, when we start from the common place where water is wet ... if I first have to convince someone of that basic point; then, I do not have the time, energy or desire to try and convince them otherwise.
Thank the Universe for people like you!
Fumesucker
(45,851 posts)The story gives rise to the idiom to bell the cat, which means to attempt, or agree to perform, an impossibly difficult task.
I may have been a Seabee in a previous life.
1StrongBlackMan
(31,849 posts)I recall it from my school days, and again, while in law school. I'd like to believe that the lesson is well ingrained in my decision-making process.
It seems that any response/solution that begins with, "If only ..." or (more frustrating to me) "All we/he need(s) to do is ...", this story should be the only response necessary.
Fumesucker
(45,851 posts)Not any more so than anyone else, to a big extent it's the fact that they've never heard a non-conservative point of view articulated with any skill if at all.
John Cole is from West Virgina and fits that model very well, not a natural conservative but grew up hearing nothing but conservative rhetoric.
Such people can be reached and I do it from time to time but it takes a fairly subtle approach that nibbles away at the edges of their conservatism rather than confronting it head on which triggers automatic resistance. I'm working on a neighbor and pretty good friend at the moment, grew up in small town South and knows nothing other than conservatism but he's not really a natural for it.. It doesn't hurt that I have some skills he's quite eager to learn so he's sort of accepted me as a teacher about other things than politics to start with.
On the other hand I have family members it's impossible to reach at all, not every one but some of my family by marriage are to use a technical term nuttier than a department store fruitcake.
1StrongBlackMan
(31,849 posts)
mcar
(42,366 posts)So tired of these zombie lies 
fredamae
(4,458 posts)for roughly 72 days in 2009 (If I recall) before Scott Brown got in and tipped the scales.
1StrongBlackMan
(31,849 posts)
TheKentuckian
(25,029 posts)still brought unprecedented levels of them anyway.
Make it clear who the villains were and that for the shit to stop they have to go.
Not "bipartisanship" and "meeting in the middle" while "co-governing" with the psychopathic and delusional terrorist just run out and on record as making mission #1 the failure of the President.
Supposedly, this had to be the way it was played to attract "independents" who broke their necks to hit the exits.
Nothing is more frustrating than the pretense of the Turd Way and their supporters that they made the right moves because we can trust that simple motherfuckers learned NOTHING and would do the same shit again given the chance which means the current "turn around" is marketing, a hook.
RiverLover
(7,830 posts)the TPP must be a good thing!
See, he's working for the 99%. Look over here!
1StrongBlackMan
(31,849 posts)President Obama has ALWAYS back progressive legislation ... he even has done progressive stuff on his own initiative (while remaining within his Constitutional role).
TPP is an unknown thing! I suspect TPP hysteria will fizzle in the same manner of "He's going to bomb the Assad Regime over the gas" concern fizzled, and like the "He's going to cut Social Security through the CCPI" concern fizzled, before that.
FWIW, President Obama has ALWAYS been working for the 99%.
RiverLover
(7,830 posts)along with JP Morgan CEO.
Deregulation is so good for the 99%. So is spying on all of us. So is making us "safe" by killing 2400+ innocent civilians by drone and spending $312,000 per HOUR fighting ISIS. So has massively cutting food stamps. So is opening the Gulf & the Atlantic to unregulated fracking. So is losing 150K US jobs with his South Korea Trade deal.
He's definitely been all about the 99%. Not for Big $ & corporations at all.
1StrongBlackMan
(31,849 posts)Marr
(20,317 posts)The fact that the Republicans wouldn't get on board doesn't change the fact that he offered it.
1StrongBlackMan
(31,849 posts)Last edited Tue Feb 24, 2015, 03:31 PM - Edit history (1)
It seems that the only folks that did not understand that CCPI was an offer that the republicans could not accept without taking a Senior beating at the polls AND when they rejected it, they took a teaparty beating from the right.
That's called strategy.
ETA: And sadly, even republicans understood it!
zappaman
(20,606 posts)
1StrongBlackMan
(31,849 posts)I just call it: "He's not doing what I would do ... Hey?!? ... How'd that first advance in 50 years on healthcare financing happen? 'Not good enough!' ... Hey?!? How'd Russia get to own Assad's disarming of the gas? 'We made (President) Obama make him' ... Hey?!? How'd {insert policy/negotiation accomplishment here} happen? ... 'to credit President Obama is a leap of logic; all this stuff happened out of sheer, and complete, luck/happenstance!'."
YoungDemCA
(5,714 posts)When they can't do that, they then say they weren't really victories to begin with.
Notice that the people engaging in this "logic" are mostly white-just out of SHEER coincidence, LOL! 
zappaman
(20,606 posts)So, there's that, I guess.
TheKentuckian
(25,029 posts)acknowledged, and spoken to.
Austerity scheme after austerity scheme was pushed no matter if TeaPubliKlan sponsors dropped off or the committee or gang failed, triggers set, plan after plan over and over with laser focus. Look at the ideas pushed by appointees. Look who got onto the committees and gangs.
You've got a fable you can tell yourself and try to peddle but it is goofy and certainly isn't something that can be presented as fact no matter how much faith that your eyes are lying to you.
Plus, even if true the "strategy" is super stupid and failed.
As predicted the net result was fucking up the party advantage on Social Security to the point where I've seen polls where incredibly the TeaPubliKlans have the lead and are running as the protectors of the program (even as they of course work as always to destroy it while stealing the receipts).
Pretty much the opposite number of looking for birth certificates. Aesop would be proud and the Disney animated would make a mint.
1StrongBlackMan
(31,849 posts)Did the CCPI go anywhere? And did, the polling from that point on have the republicans as the party of obstruction among all segments of the electorate, save the far right?
Post a link to the polls.
TheKentuckian
(25,029 posts)plan go?
Where did Clinton health care plan go?
And yes it was stupid. For now I will link to a supporting article that references one such poll and the whole thing is worth a scan on the issue and how the party could be making political hay instead of shooting ourselves in the foot with at best, too clever by half strategies.
"When the Democrats took back the House of Representatives in 2006, Social Security was a key part of that victory. President Bush and Congressional Republicans tried unsuccessfully to privatize the program in 2005, which proved to be deeply unpopular with voters. The memory of that attempt was fresh in voters’ minds when they went to the polls the following year.
That year the Democrats held a nearly 30-point advantage among voters who were asked, “Which party do you trust more on Social Security?” (Wall Street Journal/Lake Research Partners) Four years later, after the Obama White House began flirting with Social Security cuts through the Simpson/Bowles Deficit Commission, the Dems’ 28-point lead had become a 3-point deficit. Voters actually trusted Republicans more on the issue, if only by a slight margin.
The Democrats lost the House that year"
http://ourfuture.org/20141022/5-reasons-democrats-should-push-social-security-expansion-now
Marr
(20,317 posts)three dimensional chess.
In what world is it brilliant 'strategy' to publicly offer your opposition an item because accepting it will hurt them at the polls? The person making the offer takes a PR hit, whether the offer is accepted or not-- and the Democrats most certainly did take a hit for it.
That interlude was exactly what it appeared to be. Obama's Administration had already spent considerable time maneuvering Chained CPI into the agenda via the so-called 'Catfood Commission'. And the policy has long been an openly-stated goal of DLC-styled Democrats.
What you've got there is a very silly conspiracy theory.
1StrongBlackMan
(31,849 posts)
BrotherIvan
(9,126 posts)But they are the ones who are spearheading it and putting their necks out for it. It's very obvious that this flows from the way Warren has been stumping on her book tour.
When progressives complained that the president wasn't doing enough to focus on the working class, the BOG screamed he is not a dictator and can't pass legislation. So now that two Senators are working on this project to get something done, you can't take the credit away from them. If this was Obama's proposal, he would have introduced it himself. On this one, he is the president, he is the head of the administration, and the administration has the machine to put the proposal to work that a couple of Senators do not have. If he is supporting the project, great.
Give him credit for his own accomplishments. That is fair. But it looks completely self-serving to make this kind of leap in logic.
1StrongBlackMan
(31,849 posts)Do you really think that Warren and Cummings are acting on their own initiative (in opposition to President Obama)? Really? Even though their focal point(s) are things that President Obama has been promoting since 2008? Really?
And completely lost progressives ... such as yourself.
Exactly ... and without losing progressives ... such as yourself.
Was it merely a coincidence that President Obama and Elizabeth Warren, jointly, announced the pension protection initiative and now the Warren/Cummings initiative is announced? Strategy is often seen as "leaps of logic" to those unable/unwilling to see it for what it is.
SidDithers
(44,228 posts)The Oligarch Rulers / BFEE / Illuminati are running the show anyway. Warren and Obama are just pawns in a game with a fixed outcome.
Or something like that.
Sid
randys1
(16,286 posts)We have who we have and what we have, to wish we had something else, is the irresponsible way to deal with our situation.
Will BOTH Liz and Bernie vote FOR Hillary if she is the nominee?
I bet large amounts of money on YES, which would then prompt me to ask that anti Hillary bunch:
"What is your excuse for not voting for her, what do YOU Know Liz and Bernie dont?"
As to Obama, he had 8 years to fix over 200 years of white man fuck ups and he only fixed half of it, what is wrong with him?
randome
(34,845 posts)[hr][font color="blue"][center]If you think childhood is finished, you didn't do it right the first time.
Start over.[/center][/font][hr]
1StrongBlackMan
(31,849 posts)YoungDemCA
(5,714 posts)...to straight, white, middle-class people.* Mainly men, but women are allowed too, as long as they shut up about women's rights, or racism, or any other issues that "distract and divide us."
*You know, the progressive heart and soul of the Democratic Party voter base. 
JDPriestly
(57,936 posts)Obama was too easy on Wall Street. Fear overcame his passion for justice.
But his mistake will be wiped away if we get a strong team that will really fight for at least some justice in 2016.
I think that the movements in Greece and Spain which have followed the Occupy movement may put some fear of the potential for extremism and some sense of the need for change even into some of the hearts and minds of people who have resisted Obama's calls for fairness.
Obama has the right ideas. He just does not appoint the people who can make them real. There is a disconnect there. He listened too much to the Clinton crowd and their DLC backers.
Hekate
(90,768 posts)
revmclaren
(2,528 posts)
