dagblog - Comments for "When Did Liberals Become So Unreasonable?"

Begone, paperless pauper! We

Qnonymous — Sun, 27 Nov 2011 17:30:36 +0000

In reply to Right you are - there's not a

Begone, paperless pauper!

We don't take to your ~~ink~~ ilk 'round these parts!

Right you are - there's not a

PeraclesPlease — Sun, 27 Nov 2011 14:05:43 +0000

Right you are - there's not a shred of historical record as to LBJ's voting, passage of legislation, election theft, escalation of the war, or anything else in that faraway time of 1936-1968.

It's almost as if ink & paper wasn't invented then.

Shame on me, but you caught me.

There is so much biased,

Ethanator — Fri, 25 Nov 2011 17:05:11 +0000

In reply to 1) you can primary Obama and

There is so much biased, fact-free blather in this comment that I debated whether to respond at all. Not a single one of your points survive much logical or factual scrutiny.

"FAIL."

Right back atcha, champ.

"...Somehow I think if he

Ethanator — Fri, 25 Nov 2011 15:12:05 +0000

In reply to Well, LBJ had a reputation as

"...Somehow I think if he wanted a bill to pass, 59 votes or not, he'd find the votes..."

But, sadly, all you have are your own baseless thoughts or assertions as to these matters, without a shred of factual support. Like every other argument you've made in this thread.

FAIL.

Well, LBJ had a reputation as

PeraclesPlease — Thu, 24 Nov 2011 16:23:58 +0000

In reply to "...A careful, cautious

Well, LBJ had a reputation as being a big persuader.

Probably got that reputation by charm, bribery, twisting arms & breaking heads - i.e. persuading.

Somehow I think if he wanted a bill to pass, 59 votes or not, he'd find the votes, as his early record of voting Texas' cemeteries attests.

Excellent points, Red.

acanuck — Thu, 24 Nov 2011 06:53:25 +0000

In reply to Frum is, actually, a

Excellent points, Red. Chait's article is sloppy, lazy and rote. As he runs through the terms of the various Democratic presidents, he makes a decent case that congressional majorities or lack of same limited how liberally they could govern. He could have stopped there, and simply urged liberals to give that fact more weight and cut past presidents (and Obama) some slack.

But that would imply that liberals' political and philosophical aims had some worth. Instead, he dons his psychoanalyst's hat and concludes liberals are pathologically unable to be satisfied with any Democratic leader. As evidence, he lumps together Occupy Wall Street and Tom Friedman's third-party musings. If the definition of liberal were really that broad, we'd already have our own party and wouldn't need to vote for bloody Democrats, would we?

Look, centrists, you've got control of one of the two parties with a chance to elect the next president. Why don't you focus your attacks on the party that's determined to keep your guy from getting re-elected, and leave off the badmouthing of people you claim to share some values with? You're getting on our nerves.

"...A careful, cautious

Ethanator — Thu, 24 Nov 2011 05:17:47 +0000

In reply to Ethanator, herewith a brief

"...A careful, cautious president, eager to strike a bipartisan compromise with his opponents, might not have done that."

This couldn't be a more obtuse reading of any comparison of Obama and LBJ. Can you wrap your head around the fact that Congress passes legislation? And, if you have the votes, you can be as "bold" as you want. You seem to be making the argument that LBJ could have passed Civil Rights and Great Society legislation with 59 votes in the Senate and a Republican minority determined to filibuster every single bill brought up for a vote simply by being "bold." I would like to know what you base this argument on, because it isn't based on anything corresponding to objective reality.

You note 1 aspect of

PeraclesPlease — Thu, 24 Nov 2011 02:28:12 +0000

In reply to Nearly 4 million Medicare

You note 1 aspect of pharmaceuticals and that's supposed to address the whole.

Even if 4 million seniors get $250, a $1 billion payment, does that mean prescription costs have been contained across the board? Did seniors get whalloped with new $30K drug treatments to offset the $250? Does it mean the federal government is subsidizing big pharma? Is that $1 billion a payoff for seniors' support at the expense of younger health care recipients? What happened to overall drug costs in the period to enactment and what happens to them after?

You ignore all this, and just publish a factoid to say all's well.

I hear home ownership in Orange County is doing well - that should mean we have no housing problem in the US.

Ethanator, herewith a brief

Red Planet — Wed, 23 Nov 2011 18:59:30 +0000

In reply to A better solution than

Ethanator, herewith a brief Q&A about mid-20th century American History:

Was LBJ driven out by progressives? Sure, if by "progressive" you mean people opposed to dying and wasting our nation's resources in a senseless, illegal, immoral, not to mention losing war.

Was Nixon's southern strategy the result of LBJ's being driven out by progressives? No. LBJ was an effective president and did some very bold, very progressive things. One of which was signing the Civil Rights Act. Which was the catalyst of Nixon's southern strategy. A careful, cautious president, eager to strike a bipartisan compromise with his opponents, might not have done that.

I would say that he ditched

Elusive Trope — Wed, 23 Nov 2011 17:25:18 +0000

In reply to Obama ditched Warren when

I would say that he ditched her when the Democrats who are aligned with Wall Street got too worked up over her. Given none of the Republicans would support her, she was DOA in terms of her nomination.