dagblog - Comments for "Our Big Mistake"

Consider for a moment that

SleepinJeezus — Tue, 12 Jul 2011 00:12:07 +0000

Consider for a moment that from this perspective you insist on calling me culpable for internecine warfare for daring to suggest that Obama be accountable to his constituents. Quit insisting he deserves a free pass whenever he cuts us off at the knees, and I'll quit fighting with you. Deal? Otherwise, pleas accept responsibility for YOUR (yes, in caps) culpability in prolonging this dispute.

Let me be clearer tmc: When I

Dan Kervick — Mon, 11 Jul 2011 19:09:04 +0000

In reply to You and I can never come to

Let me be clearer tmc: When I said that I don't know what you are talking about, all I was referring to was your suggestion that I was saying that I don't need to participate.

Sleepin put four words in

acanuck — Mon, 11 Jul 2011 18:42:16 +0000

In reply to You've missed the entire

Sleepin put four words in caps in a 13-paragraph comment, tm.

If you fight with your natural allies, you never win.

Tmc, please avoid

Michael Wolraich — Mon, 11 Jul 2011 15:41:00 +0000

In reply to You and I can never come to

Tmc, please avoid personalizing the discussion. Dan wrote nothing about his opinion of you as an individual nor described you as an enemy. Bloggers around here have strong opinions about political issues, and they are welcome to express them.

Thanks.

PS I've heard that strong opinions are elitist, however. ;)

"...confuses the issues

Michael Maiello — Mon, 11 Jul 2011 15:34:17 +0000

In reply to Studies... oh yes, we will

"...confuses the issues enough because the approach treats each solution as plausible."

Nicely put.

You and I can never come to

tmccarthy0 — Mon, 11 Jul 2011 15:22:03 +0000

In reply to I really don't know what you

You and I can never come to an agreement Dan, you simply don't like me, which is fine I have no argument to make to change your mind. But when you read what I write you always have an argument against it, as to why whatever I write is entirely wrong and can never be right and how you will never understand it, etc and so on. And this is why we lose so often, you are fighting, someone who is your natural ally.

Eye's on the Prize I always say and if you look at me as the enemy, we've already lost.

Studies... oh yes, we will

tmccarthy0 — Mon, 11 Jul 2011 15:19:13 +0000

In reply to I'm sure you're right, tm.

Studies... oh yes, we will always try to study things endlessly and although I have no academic argument against that approach, but the organizational argument against it is that is confuses the issues enough because the approach treats each solution as plausible.

Tribal.. hmm, I don't know about that, mostly because I don't love that word anymore, it has been used to drive a wedge between people who are natural allies. That doesn't make me happy and it keeps us on the losing side. But I agree we do have to foster some participation by those who really do have great ideas who are firebrands so to speak, that attract listeners. See Sarah Palin, Michele Bachmann as dumb as they seem to me, they certainly attract listeners, in droves leaving them with the ability to drive the political conversation. But they don't seem outright angry, they seem personable, whereas a smart guy like Grayson, comes off as really angry, and no doubt I love to see him rant, but that does turn regular voters off.

Yeah we have to foster some good 'ol people, who speak the language of the regular guy. I guess, but we also need the participation of people who simply for whatever reason, don't participate. It would be easier to push a progressive agenda if they did participate. Want to push Democrats in the right direction, make them by infiltrating the organization. At least that is what I think.

I'm sure you're right, tm.

Michael Maiello — Mon, 11 Jul 2011 14:50:37 +0000

In reply to He is talking about deficits

I'm sure you're right, tm. So often we blame the substance of our message but "you have to spend money to make money" is really as easy an argument to make to the average person as "we have to deal with these deficits right now!"

I think one of the reasons that they seem to control the debate, aside from media complicity, is that our side tends to respond to everything so politely. "Deficits, you say? How about we form a bipartisan commission to study that."

Whereas, had we said the same thing to George Bush he'd have said, "How about we form a bipartisan commission of you shutting the Hell up?" He just never, ever devoted the resources of his administration to studying the priorities of his political opponents. I'm not advocating that approach but you see the results in practice.

So maybe we have to replace our post-partisans with partisans. I'm very skeptical about the two party system but if that's what we have, maybe that's the same we have to play. So beyond policy, which we love to talk about around here, we're also going to have to foster some out and out tribalism, where, say, the argument against putting together a bipartisan commission to discuss dealing with the debt has nothing to do with the merits of budget balancing and everything to do with not handing out opponents the rope that they're going to slip around our neck.

I really don't know what you

Dan Kervick — Mon, 11 Jul 2011 14:48:11 +0000

In reply to He is talking about deficits

I really don't know what you are talking about. When have I ever said that I don't have to participate?

I have asked myself many times why Republicans drive many issues - even issues in which they are in the minority. And I have given an answer: They drive many issues because powerful and prominent Democrats don't fight back against Republicans when Republicans get aggressive. Instead, they wheedle, and hand-wring, and compromise, and plead and submit.

When the Republican Party decided in 2009 to go in for a party-wide brain removal, and then to stick their loud flapping gums and newly vacant heads up their asses, Barack Obama decided that the appropriate political response was to go on defense, remove half of his brain and stick his head halfway us his ass. Because you know, that's how things work in the Obama world of "bringing people together" through compromise.

Republicans told the world loudly in 2009 that they were so terrified of the new black president that they were going get guns, get mad, get stupid and just say no. The White House response: "It's OK honey; I'll move over and let you drive."

Now we wonder why the Republicans are driving.

He is talking about deficits

tmccarthy0 — Mon, 11 Jul 2011 14:26:18 +0000

In reply to I've been trying to go back

He is talking about deficits because Republicans even when they are the minority party, control the conversation just like the did under Bill Clinton. Remember that during the Clinton Administration ending Welfare became the big issue, oh and balancing the budget and lower taxes even more and de-regulation, Republicans drove those issues. Now you can say Clinton was always a "conservative" and that is an easy out, and easy way to say to yourself I don't have to participate, and so stuff never changes, in fact, the country becomes more conservative.

We have to ask ourselves why Republicans always drive this issues, Democrats don't not even when they are the majority party, still those conservatives drive the issues, why? Unless we are willing to infiltrate government by being inside the government we will never drive the issues. We can see that now, you blame one guy, I blame all of us.