dagblog - Comments for "The Change We Weren't Waiting For After All"

That said, I will offer up

erica20 — Mon, 12 Nov 2012 20:08:22 +0000

In reply to Nah. Just more overbearing.

That said, I will offer up the butterfly effect cliche. The thing about cliches is, they turn out to be true often enough to survive. It was gratifying yesterday to watch the "Move Aside, White People, We've Got Us Some Hispanics to Woo!" frenzy on the news shows. Peggy Noonan was definitely having some new vibrations, and even if the halls of Washington are the last place to feel them, I would never argue with Peggy's vibrations, misguided though her interpretations of them might be.

Dude.. and I mean that with

DF — Mon, 12 Nov 2012 19:07:31 +0000

In reply to Oy, don't talk to me about

Dude.. and I mean that with the utmost, like, respect, brah: California voters do not hurl props at the legislature. It's definitely not an effective form of legislating, but the voters do not drive it primarily, which is one of the main reasons it sucks. Props are largely spearheaded and funded by the usual suspects: big business, unions and the parties themselves. There are rare exceptions to this, like 215, but they're just that - exceptions.

No one in poli sci really

DF — Mon, 12 Nov 2012 19:02:02 +0000

In reply to 1. Yes, voter turnout is up.

No one in poli sci really believes that spending moves the needle. There's just no good evidence that it does. Then again, there was no good evidence that Romney was winning. The takeaway? The findings of modern social science - economics, poli sci, sociology, etc - are not at all part of mainstream knowledge or discourse.

Just examine the debate as

DF — Mon, 12 Nov 2012 18:58:39 +0000

In reply to I'd like to think so, but

Just examine the debate as its emerging. You already have the two camps staked out. One camp recognizes the writing on the wall - demographic transition. One is hollering about doubling down, polishing the message, etc. Nothing much surprising there. The questions are whether or not the latter group wins that internal debate and, assuming they do, whether or not they can translate that into winning externally. Clearly, one camp thinks they must change or perish. If they're right, mellowing will be enforced by the reality of continued political losses.

Obama was a stronger

oleeb — Sun, 11 Nov 2012 07:54:55 +0000

In reply to The Change We Weren't Waiting For After All

Obama was a stronger candidate, but not particularly strong as a candidate and the opposition put up a particularly weak candidate to oppose him. He was, however, the incumbent and what was strong was the multi-racial/ethnic, mutli-generational coalition determined to keep him in office and prevent the Republicans from returning to power.

In the coming 4 years, the Democrats in the Senate, like the President, will play a strong hand weakly and will not stand up to the Republicans primarily because they are so compromised and beholden to the same corporate powers that fund and manipulate the GOP. Remember where most of the President's campaign cash was coming from (spoiler alert: it wasn't from small donors).

The President proved in his four years, more than anything else, to be a staunch advocate not of change, but of the status quo. His record is clear.

On the mythical "global war on terror" the President adopted all of Bush's policies lock, stock and barrel. On the Patriot Act and domestic spying, again the President adopted the Bush administration's positions and added some features even more extreme, more illegal, and more disrespectful of the innocent citizen's right to be left alone and to rest assured that he/she will not be the subject of arbitrary state policing powers similar to those of the secret police agencies in eastern Europe and Russia during the Soviet era. The President's escalation of the Afghanistan War, his escalation of the use of drones and subsequently of the ongoing slaughter of hundreds if not thousands of innocent people, and his entirely illegal claim of having the right, on his word alone, to designate US Citizens as terrorists and to have them murdered on that same illegitimate authority are all shameful acts that Democrats have had little or no objection to these past four years. The President, in his first term, tried several times to get the ball rolling on cutting Social Security and Medicare in the name of deficit reduction. He caved in an allowed the Bush tax cuts to continue in return for precious little. He got the Heritage Foundation's healthcare reform proposal passed which will cover many for the first time but do nothing about rising premiums or the unacceptable health outcomes of our medical system. He did little to combat global warming and abandoned the top priority of the labor movement (EFCA) almost immediately upon being sworn in.

People can fool themselves into believing that Obama has tried to bring change to our government by accepting all of the very poor excuses offered by the administration but the facts are stubborn and there's simply no evidence to support the claim that Obama has tried to bring change as promised--other than in platitudes and symbolic first efforts quickly abandoned. To expect the population to be organized and demand change without any leadership is the worst kind of wooly minded thinking.

The President repeatedly promised on election night in his victory speech that he would "fight" for us. Well, now that he's been reelected it is time for him to put up or shut up. We will find out soon enough if he meant any of it.

The faux "crisis" of the "fiscal cliff" will be a moment of great consequence for all of us little people. The critical question will be whether or not Obama will again try to cut Social Security and Medicare and even Medicaid as part of a "grand bargain' to address the deficit as he did after his Catfood Commission recommended it. I suspect that he will do just that. And this will be billed as making "the tough choices" that needed to be made and Democrats (who would oppose any Republican making such a vile proposal) will go along with it because he's their guy.

But of course the only sacrifice those "tough choices" will produce will be from workers who will have to work more years before being able to retire and receive less in retirement despite having paid for more all their lives or in other words, by stealing from the elderly and the poor. And all this will be in service to making sure no significant cuts are made to the sacrosanct and obscene Pentagon budget along with preserving inexcusably low tax rates on the rich.

Change and resistance aren't

anna am — Sat, 10 Nov 2012 16:38:19 +0000

In reply to Oy, don't talk to me about

Change and resistance aren't precisely the same things. People said yes in 2008. This year they said no. And by the way I live in NY myself and, certainly, people were elated in 2008. But they were elated about Obama and I hardly see that at all this year. People feel more like they dodged a bullet.

I think that's a step in the right direction because I don't put much faith in messiahs. I'd much rather see people open their own eyes since politicians don't initiate as much as they follow trends -- which means there just may be some shifts within the Republican party as well. I wouldn't count on that. But they are doomed if they don't open their eyes as well.

Sorry you feel so negative about California. I tend to see the mobilization of minority voters there as a hopeful thing, and the successful fight against education cuts seems to me more than hopeful. But I do understand that there's reason for your negativity as well. We're still a long way from home.

I'm not, however, the only one who sees California as a promising sign.

http://prospect.org/article/future-white-mans-party

Nah. Just more overbearing.

Michael Wolraich — Sat, 10 Nov 2012 13:52:20 +0000

In reply to I'll take that. Because I am

Nah. Just more overbearing.

Who belongs to the latter

Michael Wolraich — Sat, 10 Nov 2012 13:50:53 +0000

In reply to the beltway is filled with

Who belongs to the latter group and what level of their power amongst the Republicans is what is unknown.

I certainly agree, and I may be wrong. But as I have argued before, the Republicans have consistently steered right for the past twenty years--in the face of far greater defeats than Tuesday's. It is quite possible that a bunch of them will suddenly see the light of moderation this year. But I would not bet on it.

Oy, don't talk to me about

Michael Wolraich — Sat, 10 Nov 2012 13:45:18 +0000

In reply to I think you're taking a

Oy, don't talk to me about California props. That's dumbest form of governance in America. Unlike Washington, California does not owe its gridlock to hyperpartisan politics. It owes it to the contradictory props that voters keep hurling at the legislature. May we please not imitate CA in this regard.

As for the rest, I remember a quite buoyant mood in 2008. People were very proud of themselves and excited about the change to come. In NYC, we were literally dancing in the streets. And at that time round, we actually elected an overwhelmingly Democratic House and a supermajority in the Senate. So it's odd to suggest that Obama's win on Tuesday and a few additional Senate and House seats represents a more profound victory than 2008.

Welcome to the long

anna am — Sat, 10 Nov 2012 04:59:23 +0000

In reply to He did exactly what he had to

Welcome to the long emergency. This is just a taste and, no. No government that the world has ever seen will ever be up to the task.