dagblog - Comments for "Republican Debate Shocker! No One Turned Into a Werewolf"

I think of it in terms of

AmericanDreamer — Sat, 18 Jun 2011 04:59:23 +0000

I think of it in terms of specific votes, not limited to who is a member of the Progressive Caucus.

Pelosi's House passed a large public jobs bill. Passed. The Senate passed a puny one and that was basically what the compromise was. The White House pretty much sat this one out even though Pelosi begged it to weigh in strongly to help the party for the midterms.

33 Senators voted for the Kaufman-Brown amendment to the financial reform bill to break up the megabanks. 33 members--of the millionaires' club. The White House opposed the amendment.

Pelosi's House passed a cap-and-trade bill. Sure, it was a baby step, very much a flawed bill. But it was a baby step in a progressive direction. I thought you are among those who regularly sings the praises of incrementalism?

The initial stimulus bill passed. Here the White House fought hard. Had Obama asked for a bigger number, the inevitable compromise number could well have been higher, maybe even approaching adequate. When Bush II pegged $1.7 trillion as the size of his initial tax cut, that was reduced by a few hundred million IIFC. That's generally how the process works.

Those are not insignificant facts if one is assessing past performance and potential future prospects for passing progressive legislation, if progressives continue to support members of Congress who are doing good things and persist for the long haul instead of giving up in frustration, and actively support solid candidates who are progressive on economic issues in particular as the party's nominees and/or in primary contests.. Not all, but too much of the good done in the first two years was despite the White House more than because of it. I would say a yes vote on any of the above is a progressive vote for the purposes of the point I am making.

There is a lot to build on. I hope that is not thrown away on account of progressives forgetting about the good work many, yes many, House and Senate members did on these among other bills, out of frustration or disgust with Obama or just the end results of the first two years.

Like I wrote in Dan K's walkout of the Democratic party post, I try to remind myself that the members who voted the right way on these bills are, almost all of them, Democrats just as much as Obama is. They are just as much what the Democratic party is as he is.

Funny, brew. I would have thought that the point of view expressed in this comment is one you would strongly support, based on what you write at dag.

I replied to a comment by

brewmn — Fri, 17 Jun 2011 01:38:31 +0000

In reply to "A bully pulpit is a public

I replied to a comment by Genghis. You chose to respond to my comment, and several of your thuggish friends decided, as per usual, to pile on. Once again, your obnoxious self-righteousness and complete ignorance of facts and context make you look like the priggish fool that you are.

You tell him Stardust. Obama

Resistance — Thu, 16 Jun 2011 19:35:36 +0000

In reply to "A bully pulpit is a public

You tell him Stardust. Obama the Executive had the tools and he failed to utilize them.

We didn’t put him in the Whitehouse to lead us in a chorus of Kumbyjah. We put him there, as OUR VOICE, scream if necessary, that was the change I was looking for.

Change you can believe in, what change did Obama bring to the table?

A change in face, Obamas got two faces, is that what my eyes see?

Tell us YES WE CAN, and Obama immediately capitulates and becomes afraid to use the bully pulpit, to speak up in defense of the Working class?

We couldn't direct what other States do, or what representatives other States send to Congress, but when we elect a President an executive, not a gopher boy, the executive sets the direction, he the executive is to intercede in behalf of the people, exposing the idiocy of individual State Representatives, HOW? By using the bully pulpit.

He becomes the Voice of ALL the People,

Use the bully pulpit to expose the corruption in Washington, Shine a light on the backroom dealings.

When Obama realized the Republicans were never going to work with him, he should have shoved it in their faces 24/7

Telling the obstructionists, " if I go down, so do you."

We weren't looking for the House servant. We gave Obama the bully pulpit so he could exercise POWER

"A bully pulpit is a public

we are stardust — Thu, 16 Jun 2011 18:55:20 +0000

In reply to "I can see how he got where

"A bully pulpit is a public office or other position of authority of sufficiently high rank that provides the holder with an opportunity to speak out and be listened to on any matter. The bully pulpit can bring issues to the forefront that were not initially in debate, due to the office's stature and publicity." -- from wikipedia

Of course one of the two candidates for the Presidency has a position of authority sufficient to be listened to on any matter.

You come off like the flock of magpies outside my house; defending their fledgings in raucous and obnoxious sqrawks whether or not their is an imminent threat. Shorter: it's your personality and inclination to act in this abrasive manner; it's your nature, but not to men in the thread who weighed in on Obama not using his bully pulpit. Get it?

"I can see how he got where

brewmn — Thu, 16 Jun 2011 18:11:40 +0000

In reply to Did you read the book? I

"I can see how he got where he did, but I disagree."

You're disagreeing with a factual analysis; and he didn't even look at Obama, he mainly used the Reagan and Clinton years as a data source. You come off like a lefty version of the climate change denialists here; "it's snowing in New york in April, so how can you say the planet's getting hotter?"

"Do you or do you not agree that Obama used his bully pulpit a) to get elected President and b) to get the ACA passed?"

a) by definition, a candidate doesn't have a bully pulpit; and b) no.

Did you read the book? I

we are stardust — Thu, 16 Jun 2011 17:25:19 +0000

In reply to Well, I'm glad you are able

Did you read the book? I wasn't trying to debunk it so much as say I'd guess he might have looked at the data with a certain eye. Polls are notoriously easy to misread, IMO. One or two words changes responses dramatically. The Schlaes was by way of a little fun over 'statistics can be manipulted theme', but I forgot you are a) humorless and b) love to fight with me.

I did spend about an hour reading about the author's opinions and findings, and also some articles based on what he said. I can see how he got where he did, but I disagree. Do you or do you not agree that Obama used his bully pulpit a) to get elected President and b) to get the ACA passed?

See, where you go wrong every time is thinking that criticism of Obama is personal; you coudn't be more wrong. Please google: Obama's bully pulpit and read a few dozen of the hits you select by author. Many many Obama supporters want him to use it to help us all out, brew.

Right. And if you look at

Cho — Thu, 16 Jun 2011 17:06:22 +0000

In reply to This is an interesting point

Right. And if you look at racial breakdowns of income trends in the working class, blacks have moved up, hispanics have moved up, women have moved up over the past thirty years. White males however have been falling behind not just in relative terms but in absolute terms. So,sure, there is a lot of bigoted whining by disgruntled white guys on the right, but there is a real grievance lying under the surface there as well that needs to be addressed. Every time some otherwise well-meaning liberal takes a dump on these guys, dismissing their complaints and their distrust when it comes to liberals, I want to bang my head against the wall. Liberals haven't demonstrated they care the least about these people. Every day with every snarky blogpost, we demonstrate that we despise them. No wonder they 'vote against their interests' and 'cling to their guns and religion'. Liberals really need to rethink their relationship to the less privileged section of the white male demographic, imho.

Well, I'm glad you are able

brewmn — Thu, 16 Jun 2011 17:04:37 +0000

In reply to Could it possibly be time to

Well, I'm glad you are able to debunk the conclusions a professor who actually studied the issue empricially and in-depth without reading his book. And the comparison to noted right-wing hack Shlaes is a nice touch; you wouldn't want to miss an opporunity to smear someone you know absolutely nothing about in support of your insistent denial that you couldn't possibly be misinformed about an issue.

But the facts are the facts; and you have none in support of your assurance that the president could have mobilized greater public support for his policies if only he'd given a few more speeches.

As far as Bill Clinton goes, maybe you could actually point to a policy that didn't initally have broad public support that he advocated for, and which then became law. I remember the Clinton presidency much differently than you do; which is to say, I remember it accurately, and not merely selectively to use as a cudgel with which to bash to current president.

Glad we agree on some stuff

Cho — Thu, 16 Jun 2011 16:50:10 +0000

In reply to This is a great comment.

Glad we agree on some stuff Brew!

;0)

Yup, they have invested alot in not being like "those people". Generationally, thought, time is on the side of progressives. Demographically too. Just have to pick them off at the margins I guess...

This is a great comment.

brewmn — Thu, 16 Jun 2011 14:23:27 +0000

In reply to I didn't intend the piece as

This is a great comment. The failure of progressive policies over the last forty-plus years is primarily due to the abandonment of the Democrats by the white working and middle classes (as I pointed out when the WI protests were going strong, well over 40% of unions members vote Republican - hell, the Teamsters endorsed Reagan in 1980!).

Of course, the probelm we currently face is how to keep the gays and ethnic minorities firmly in the Democratic camp while also managing to win back some of those white working and middle class voters. I'm afraid that we are going to have to have an extended period of poor economic conditions before they support anything other than tax cuts for the rich and more deregulation. They've invested an awful lot of theirselves in not being like "those people" who are dependent on the government (even as they expect government to satisfy their own needs quickly and effectively), and I think changing that mindset is nigh unto impossible at this point.