dagblog - Comments for "Fair Weather Dems will be the Death of Us Yet"

HAMP was barely used, that's

PeraclesPlease — Fri, 25 May 2012 13:13:19 +0000

In reply to * Message for the future; if

HAMP was barely used, that's why it was a failure.

So your earlier statements

PeraclesPlease — Fri, 25 May 2012 13:12:19 +0000

In reply to Quite true Peter, we get

So your earlier statements that you won't criticize Obama no matter what are not responsible, only that you're a woman?

Curious.

Quite true Peter, we get

tmccarthy0 — Fri, 25 May 2012 11:56:14 +0000

In reply to Well, it does sort of seem

Quite true Peter, we get much of the blame.

I chalk it up to a silent misogyny, where women are expected to agree with men, prop them up, make them feel they have giant brains and are smart, but if you don't play that game, and make them feel smart and clever, they do everything they can't to make sure you stay silent. Even as far as making specious claims about being personally attacked.

It's quite comical to read though and I get a real chuckle reading their crazy, way too long, treatises about how everyone is picking on them and god will strike us all down, etc and so on.

Well, it does sort of seem

Peter Schwartz — Fri, 25 May 2012 01:56:32 +0000

In reply to Umm, if I were a "big wig" in

Well, it does sort of seem that you and Ramona get blamed for the current state of the Democratic Party. So, I thought, well, maybe you wield some power.

* Message for the future; if

Peter Schwartz — Thu, 24 May 2012 22:34:47 +0000

In reply to If were all about sending a

* Message for the future; if a sitting President loses a majority in either House they should automatically be primaried. Losing at the midterm was a message.

But do you really think Obama lost the mid-terms because his policies weren't progressive enough? That if he'd had a public option in the ACA, the waters would have been calmed?

Maybe if he'd paid more attention to housing and had "solved" the problem before 2010, the Tea Party wouldn't have found any fertile soil.

But at the risk of sounding like an excuse maker, my memory is that there was a lot of confusion as to what to do to solve the housing crisis back then. HAMP was tried and was a failure.

And as I recall, the Tea Party was sparked less by anger at the bank bailouts than by anger that some homeowners--the "irresponsible ones"--were going to get help from the government while folks who were responsible, didn't take out loans they couldn't afford, were going to see their home values decline and still be required to make the same payments they'd always made. That was what Santelli was screaming about.

Umm, if I were a "big wig" in

tmccarthy0 — Thu, 24 May 2012 22:26:08 +0000

In reply to We democrats were not

Umm, if I were a "big wig" in the Democratic Party, what on earth would I be doing at DAGblog? (Not saying anything bad about dag, but seriously?)

We democrats were not

Peter Schwartz — Thu, 24 May 2012 22:24:44 +0000

In reply to If were all about sending a

We democrats were not afforded the opportunity to force Candidate Obama in any direction.

We Democrats are not able to send a message, until the fateful hour and day arrives.

We are forced to accept the "establishment" choice, never having any other option or opportunity to send a message.

Talking about "not being afforded the opportunity" strikes me as a dead end.

Nor do I see where anyone was forced to do anything--but I'm happy to be enlightened. Maybe Ramona and TMac are bigwigs in the Democratic Party and wield a lot of power, but at one point Quinn sort of accused me of throwing progressives out of the party (just for making some comments here he didn't like). I can assure you I have no such power and am not a political player at all.

Some of this has to do with the dynamics of who's in power. You didn't see the Tea Party rise when GWB was in the WH, and yet if you listen to conservatives now, they almost ALL say that Bush displeased them with all this spending. Were they biding their time until the Republicans had lost the WH?

I don't know if there was much conservative teeth gnashing over Bush's deviance from conservative principles while he was in office. Maybe there was, but it seemed to explode just after Obama was elected.

I wonder how this "spontaneous" "populist" movement was able to field 60 first-time candidates and win. Get them from 0 to 60 in less than two years.

Do you know?

Minus their very rich backers, how far would they have gotten? How many folks would they have elected? How many rich folk do we have backing progressives?

Leave aside Obama for the moment...

What was stopping progressives from running for Congress in 2010? What was stopping progressives from stopping the Tea Partiers from taking over the House? The party establishment should have been much more on the ball in 2010, but what stopped progressives from running, too?

Losing at the midterm was a

Peter Schwartz — Wed, 23 May 2012 13:15:18 +0000

In reply to If were all about sending a

Losing at the midterm was a message.

Thing is, the Democratic party misread the message, to late, as they might find now.

What do you think the message was, Resistance?

I'm not dissing real

Peter Schwartz — Wed, 23 May 2012 11:53:15 +0000

In reply to If you think X will only ever

I'm not dissing real estate.

Nor am I plugging for bonds and stocks.

But NO asset can increase in value, especially at that speed, forever.

That includes stocks and bonds and gold in particular.

"Ghengis is one of those

PeraclesPlease — Wed, 23 May 2012 04:59:03 +0000

In reply to John is a friend of mine, and

"Ghengis is one of those holier-than-thou whiners on the left." - It's a shame John is an uncultured pig, but I'll try to be more gracious -

"John, I know you come from white trash beginnings, but around here, 'up yours' to the owner of the house is not considered a proper way of introducing yourself. So pull up a chair and enjoy the vittles - they ain't much in the way of taste, but they're at least filling".

See, we can all be accomodating.