dagblog - Comments for "March Of The Centrists"

I guess you could say the

Ramona — Tue, 02 Aug 2011 16:37:37 +0000

I guess you could say the same for Kennedy and FDR. They didn't have to claw their way up or worry about going down to the bottom ever again. There are rich folks who have empathy for those who are far from rich, and then there are rich folks who can't see beyond their own back yards and don't want to.

The people we elect to government positions should be chosen on the basis of their understanding of the problems and workings of the community, whether it's city, state, or country. The amount of money they have at their disposal is or should be meaningless. They've chosen a calling and they have to be held to it. They're representatives of the people and once they've taken the oath of office, their own personal ambitions fall by the wayside. They have work to do and it doesn't involve lining their own pockets or raising them to astronomical levels of celebrity.

At least that's the way it's supposed to work.

Friedman's existence in such

Michael Maiello — Sat, 30 Jul 2011 14:53:38 +0000

In reply to Destor, Thomas Friedman is a

Friedman's existence in such a competitive media environment is certainly puzzling and doesn't say much for meritocracy. He has a very influential audience and I think, in his books, he was careful to tell these people what they want to hear. If you want to make money at TED or in Aspen, you can't be a dangerous thinker. Like Malcolm Gladwell, Friedman is expert at making the conventional wisdom sound clever while giving it the whiff of moral superiority. Sigh.

I agree about Bloomberg and the mosque issue. I think he's been a good mayor. But I don't think he's equipped for the White House. He's a true CEO, the type who believes that while it would be nice for the people under him to buy into his agenda, that it isn't entirely necessary. I doubt he'd accomplish much more or less than Obama has and, what more he might manage would likely anger progressives.

E.J. Dionne's remarks covered

AmiBlue — Fri, 29 Jul 2011 22:23:47 +0000

In reply to March Of The Centrists

E.J. Dionne's remarks covered the centrist topic well, too. He believes, and I agree with him, that people are yearning for moderation, not centrism.

[Obama's] advisers are said to be obsessed with the political center, but this leads to a reactive politics that won’t motivate the hope crowd that elected Obama in the first place. Neither will it alter a discourse whose terms were set during most of this debt fight by the right. There’s nothing wrong with moderation that immoderate doses of conviction and courage won’t cure.

E.J.'s comment about centrism being reactive rather than springing from conviction and courage, is particularly apropos and accounts for Obama's alarming move to the right. It also suggests to me a lack of core values.

Freidman married an heiress

brewmn — Fri, 29 Jul 2011 19:07:42 +0000

In reply to Destor, Thomas Friedman is a

Freidman married an heiress to a billion-dollar fortune. If anything, he's richer than G.W. Bush.

Destor, Thomas Friedman is a

David Seaton — Fri, 29 Jul 2011 17:58:39 +0000

In reply to March Of The Centrists

Destor, Thomas Friedman is a very special, case the question always is, how could somebody who continuously says so many dumb things can have such a cool career? George W. Bush at least had the excuse that his family had money and fantastic connection. I suppose it says more about the people who pay Friedman and read him than about Friedman himself... He should worry, if it works for him, he'd be a fool not to stick with it.... However, if I were you, I wouldn't waste my time and talent trying to figure out some inner logic in his drivel.

Having said that, I think Bloomberg might make a good president, especially because he is Jewish. I very much like the principled and evenhanded way he navigated the Ground-Zero mosque business. I get the feeling that only a Jewish president of the USA could whip the Israelis into line and if some POTUS doesn't man up and finally do, it will mean disaster for both the USA and Israel too.

Dreamer, I think the action

Oxy Mora — Fri, 29 Jul 2011 14:01:56 +0000

In reply to As I've written before,

Dreamer, I think the action for Progressives is in the states like Wisconsin and Ohio. I feel I have leveraged my contributions by contributing to the recall effort in Wisconsin and not contributing to Obama yet, or maybe never.

I think we have a great deal to lose long term by a short term mistake now. Such a mistake would be to accept a two stage raise in the debt ceiling. So,imo, would be using the 14th Amendment prior to a lot of Wall St. "blood" in the streets.

Yeah, well, I think you're

Verified Atheist — Fri, 29 Jul 2011 13:29:41 +0000

In reply to Dreamer, I meant no

Yeah, well, I think you're both wrong. There's no possibility of substantive near-term change and no possibility of substantive long-term change.

Although I'm being partly snarky, unfortunately, I'm also being partly non-snarky.

Dreamer, I meant no

Michael Wolraich — Fri, 29 Jul 2011 13:20:50 +0000

In reply to As I've written before,

Dreamer, I meant no disrespect. I'm not sure who the ordinary citizen activists are, but I don't see you as overly impatient or insufficiently committed to the long haul. I haven't suggested that you abandon your values or muffle your voice. I haven't told you to go out and vote for Obama or anyone else.

My criticism is simply that I think you're being unrealistic about the possibility of substantive near-term change. Any strategy that does not account for liberals' weak political position is destined to fail. You may disagree with me about that, and I'm certainly open to discussing how I'm wrong and how such change might come about it. But telling me that we have no choice does not refute my assessment.

Given that context, my long-term suggestions are not meant to counsel patience but to offer a way out. There is a path to a liberal resurgence. It can begin today. I suspect that it has already begun and that your passion is part of it. But sadly, it cannot accomplish the change that you seek this year or next year or the year after.

As I've written before,

AmericanDreamer — Fri, 29 Jul 2011 06:49:45 +0000

In reply to OK, Dreamer, we must. So lets

As I've written before, liberals should focus on the long term, get more votes, get more power. But in the short term, you can shout "Must!" until your throat is raw; it won't accomplish anything.

It won't accomplish anything if I'm the only one "shouting", as you put it, "Must!" (I didn't see myself as shouting, but never mind.)

If there's one thing that pushes my buttons these days it is statements by Democrats that sound to me irresolute, as offering easy outs for setting a low bar. That's how your reminders, and AT's ready agreement, about the historical slowness of political change in this country struck me. You see Democratic ordinary citizen activists as overly impatient and insufficiently committed to the long haul. Which I think has been true, BTW. But I feel we are all up against it now and need to act with a sense of urgency to reverse the tide.

Progressives have no voice in the national debate at this time. We face the distinct prospect of next year being the only part of the political spectrum whose views and proposals are unrepresented in the presidential race, notwithstanding that progressives have by far the most relevant things to say and offer about the country's plight, and notwithstanding that progressive policies find at least as much support in public opinion polls as policies advocated by any other part of the political spectrum.

How do you win a majority if you abandon your values under duress? The only way I know of to try to get a progressive voice in the national debate is to make some noise, insist on our relevance, and press our case.

A bit more on Cantor (also,

AmericanDreamer — Fri, 29 Jul 2011 04:47:44 +0000

In reply to Thanks Dreamer. I never

A bit more on Cantor (also, VA said Cantor declined to caucus with the House's Tea Party caucus, of around 58 or 60 members I believe, at a meeting which was said to have included talk of deposing Boehner), courtesy of Harold Meyerson at The American Prospect Online this morning, at: http://blog.prospect.org/harold_meyerson/2011/07/cantors-quandry.html

....In Boehner’s meeting with the House GOP caucus on Wednesday morning, Cantor, according to The Wall Street Journal, not only defended Boehner’s bill but declared that “he was tired of hearing Republicans criticizing other Republicans on cable television.” He called on caucus members to “rally together” to pass the speaker’s bill.

Cantor’s pirouette may not be all that surprising; he is, after all, the No. 2 Republican in the House. But it makes perfect sense when we learn—courtesy of a terrific Alec MacGillis piece that ran in Monday’s Washington Post—that he’s the congressional point person for Wall Street hedge-fund operators and private-equity bankers. “For the past four years,” MacGillis reports, “Cantor has taken the lead in the House on fighting” proposals that would tax hedge-fund pay as ordinary income (it’s currently taxed at a rate of 15 percent) and other proposals that would compel the private-equity bankers to pay taxes at rates at least as high as their secretaries’. Indeed, MacGillis writes, it was Cantor’s opposition to the Democrats’ proposal to increase taxes on this very small number of gazillionaires that prompted his exit from the Biden negotiations.

Cantor has been well rewarded for his services to the super-rich. In 2010, MacGillis documents, Cantor’s “two fundraising committees took in nearly $2 million from securities and investment firms and real estate companies, more than double the figure for Boehner.” His top-ten contributors included the employees at three leading investment firms: Steve Cohen’s hedge fund, SAC Capital Advisers ($64,964); KKR ($52,600); and Paul Singer’s hedge fund Elliott Management ($44,198).

But now that push has arrived on the doorstep of shove, those Wall Street guys whom Cantor has served so faithfully want the debt ceiling raised lest financial havoc is loosed on the land...