dagblog - Comments for "Why Paul Krugman’s Wrong About Bernie Sanders"

Thank you and mazel tov on

armchair guerrilla — Sun, 14 Feb 2016 15:14:52 +0000

In reply to Hey armchair, it's great to

Thank you and mazel tov on such a good site!

Hey armchair, it's great to

Michael Wolraich — Sun, 14 Feb 2016 14:55:47 +0000

Hey armchair, it's great to hear from you after all these years. Sorry that I missed this comment before. First off, I agree with you about Obama's executive actions. I mentioned in the post that TR did the same thing, using executive authority to prosecute trusts and conserve wilderness. But that isn't what Krugman was talking about. He was writing about compromising in order to achieve legislative change. And in that sense, neither TR nor Obama was very successful.

Regarding La Follette, let me be clear. He brought together a fairly small faction of disaffected insurgents. They were nowhere close to a majority in the Republican caucus, but they deprived the GOP of its legislative majorities and brought down Speaker Cannon by voting with the Democrats. La Follette was always an outsider, however, and loathed by Republican establishment far more than the contemporary Democratic establishment dislikes Sanders.

It's not a perfect parallel, of course, and I'm not suggesting that LF = Sanders. But their political strategy is the same: Instead of compromising on weak legislation, fight for the big idea to galvanize a political movement that overhauls Congress. So contrary to Krugman's claim that Sanders' strategy has never worked, it did work in the progressive era, far better than the conciliatory approach that Krugman recommends.

I've never said anything

Ramona — Wed, 03 Feb 2016 19:25:29 +0000

In reply to Hard to say since LF never

I've never said anything about Hillary compromising her way through. What I have said is that she knows where the skeletons are buried and she knows how to deal with these guys. She knows their dirty tricks up one side and down the other, and she'll use her knowledge against them. They know that and they'll do everything they can to stop her, but it won't be enough because they're already used up their quota of everything to stop her. And she hasn't been stopped.

My daughter took horse riding

CVille Dem — Wed, 03 Feb 2016 14:07:48 +0000

In reply to "Mobilize Millions and

My daughter took horse riding lessons for years. I was always afraid of horses -- they are so much BIGGER than I am. But I was determined to partner with her in grooming Pete (a big, sometimes moody Arabian) and trailering him (AGAINST his wishes), etc. When I tried to cajole him into doing something I talked to him the same way as when I wanted my dog to do something or if I was going to give my kitty some tuna juice. So imagine a high-pitched squeaky voice saying, "Come on Petie, get on into your stall," or "Give me your foot so I can get that mud out."

No results, of course.

Finally someone said, "Jan! You have to use your BOY VOICE!" So I did. And it worked to some extent.

That is what Hillary's voice sounds like to me...her BOY VOICE. We, however, are not horses. I agree it is irritating as hell, and I think a voice coach should be on her staff permanently. I think that when she talks loud to address a large crowd, or just to sound tough she would probably sound screechy if she didn't modulate her voice, but seriously, it is truly annoying and I LIKE her. Those who are not nuts about her surely must flinch every time she does it.

Has no one ever mentioned this to her? Hard to believe.

I have friends on both sides

LULU — Wed, 03 Feb 2016 12:59:14 +0000

In reply to Why Paul Krugman’s Wrong About Bernie Sanders

I have friends on both sides of the Bernie-Hillary divide. And tonight on Facebook, they're all posting articles that give the edge to their favored candidates, articles that anticipate alternative—and conflicting—futures. And that is as it should be.

I.m still trying to

Peter — Tue, 02 Feb 2016 23:57:00 +0000

In reply to Why Paul Krugman’s Wrong About Bernie Sanders

I.m still trying to understand why Mike thinks Obama has gotten nowhere with Congress. BHO has signed 55 major pieces of legislation and treaties, only vetoing 9 and will sign more before he leaves office. Besides the insurance company bailout called Obamacare he made the Bush tax cuts permanent, dramatically expanded surveillance of his subjects and even cut SNAP. Even though the Tea Party denied him his Grand Betrayal he certainly has been effective working with the opposition.

"Mobilize Millions and

jollyroger — Tue, 02 Feb 2016 22:34:42 +0000

In reply to This is a comment I read

"Mobilize Millions and Millions of People." I've never seen that happen

Bear in mind that Obama deliberately stood down his millions (Thanks, Rahm...)

That said, I am haunted by the same doubts that you express, with the quibble that every time Hillary ~~shouts~~ gives a speech it makes my skin crawl a little. Can she not hire a voice coach? Please?

One of Obama's best deals was

HSG — Tue, 02 Feb 2016 20:40:06 +0000

In reply to Hi Genghis. Remember me?

One of Obama's best deals was the one he didn't make. By his proposed "grand bargain", he was prepared to sacrifice future seniors on the altar of getting something done. Fortunately, the RepubliCons wouldn't even give him that "victory". I want a truly liberal President who refuses to do harmful things to the American people.

Hi Genghis. Remember me?

armchair guerrilla — Tue, 02 Feb 2016 20:13:06 +0000

In reply to Why Paul Krugman’s Wrong About Bernie Sanders

Hi Genghis. Remember me?

I enjoyed the history lesson but don't think your analogy is apt. La Follette didn't initiate change by running for President. Rather, according to what you write (of which I was completely unaware - thanks for the history lesson), he managed to bring enough representatives to his side to overthrow the elected leadership. Sanders has been banging the same drum for as long as I remember and has not managed to bring even a single major progressive leader to his side. To the contrary, progressive elected officials are uniformly supporting Clinton. Sanders has mostly galvanized the same voters who went for Bradley, Nader, Dean and Obama the last time around - young, liberal, predominantly white and looking for a transformative candidate. Mostly, they show up every four years, and unreliably at that. Even if you believe his nomination wouldn't risk a crushing defeat and downballot disaster that could set back his causes for decades, at the very least, he is putting the cart before the horse.

And as an aside, I don't agree with your assessment that Obama has gotten nowhere with Congress over the past five years despite repeated attempts to compromise. I'd say that once he recognized that compromise was futile, he cut some pretty good deals and accomplished quite a bit through executive action. In other words, he has governed as the president Clinton campaigned to be the last time around and will be when she is elected in November. Not only can I live with that, I'd be thrilled, particularly given the alternatives.

Mike - why aren't you

HSG — Tue, 02 Feb 2016 20:03:14 +0000

In reply to Thank you and thanks for the

Mike - why aren't you suspicious when Democratic politicians like Chicago Mayor Rahm Emanuel steer funds to for-profit charter schools, close public schools, and receive huge campaign contributions from the private school operators? How about when Indiana Senator Evan Bayh refused to help include a public option in the ACA back in 2009? At the time Bayh's wife sat on the Board of health insurer Well Point. Bayh himself took in over $500K in 2008 from health insurers when he ran for reelection. Does that raise suspicions in your mind? For what it's worth the good people of Indiana indicated contemporaneously that they wanted a public option.