dagblog - Comments for "Purity Angels Promote Disintegration Democratic Majority"

I never assumed he'd be a

PeraclesPlease — Mon, 08 Apr 2019 10:51:34 +0000

In reply to Thanks for all the thoughts.

I never assumed he'd be a politician, and thought the "President" thing was more a joke, just capitalizing on his recent traction.

P.S. Always behooves to

artappraiser — Mon, 08 Apr 2019 10:30:57 +0000

In reply to Thanks for all the thoughts.

P.S. Always behooves to remember Obama's personal bent and history. Being a multi-culti mixed race child of African striver and hippie mom with Indonesian stepfather, staid white grandparents in Honolulu, Columbia, Harvard law with expertise in the radically compromising Constitution of this country, Sidley & Austin vs. Chicago community organizing vs. Chicago liberal elite fundraising yeah he's anti-tribal and into compromise, DOH! Wouldn't have survived if he wasn't!

Thanks for all the thoughts.

artappraiser — Mon, 08 Apr 2019 10:15:14 +0000

In reply to I'm less worried about

Thanks for all the thoughts. However, I was not liking or disliking that Obama did this, I was pointing it out just as a political fact, an actuality. To me what he does politically seems quite important, given the situation of Obama/Trump swing voters and many of those who might be regretting their Trump vote now. He's more important than Hillary to be sure, as they didn't want to vote for her. There's plenty enough out there, I am sure that don't tend to favor the populist thing., but rather voted for both Obama and for Trump simply as not the "same old same old", i.e., let's try something and someone different and new. I think Obama still gets that, as he did in 2008. A hunger for "change", not populism, as shallowly symbolic as the change may be. Could be wrong but I suspect he sees the progressive faction as being too populist, too Bernie-like angry, too trollish, and in that, too like Trump.

I don't have anything against Avenatti as a rabble rousing pop culture and politically influential lawyer, he's got what it takes to do that. That's not same as a successful politician, not at all. I just didn't see how you didn't see how aggravating and irritating that type of guy is to most people. When you revealed that you hadn't seen his public appearances, that explained it. When you have you see why he would not be successful at getting votes. I mean, he's the type that would tell voters straight to their face to go fuck themselves if they didn't like what he was saying. Instead of asking for their votes. Arrogant and egotistical in the extreme. You know like what Gore got blamed for in debates with Bush, the arrogant know-it-all? That's like pussycat stuff compared to Avenatti. Just would go nowhere as a vote getter.

I'm less worried about

PeraclesPlease — Mon, 08 Apr 2019 09:41:41 +0000

In reply to Think it's worth re-linking

I'm less worried about progressives not compromising as I am them putting the wrong kind of line in the sand that doesn't make good policy sense. Compromise on abortion such as the Hyde Amendment has only encouraged the Republicans to keep moving the goalposts.

But I didn't find arguing over $12 vs $15 minimum wage terribly useful when a) it was down at $7.50 and the chance of either was slim, and b) few had a good idea of actual negative effects, despite having a good gut feeling that raising it significantly would be a good thing for those mired in stagnant low wages.

Obama's signalling he was willing to compromise on everything - dying to find a Republican to give Obamacare street cred, for example, or agreeing to hand out big bonuses to brokers for banks getting bailed out while everyone else sucks hind tit - is 1 reason we're in this position. Even when they stole his Supreme Court pick, he didn't tell them "fuck you", and get even in some obvious way - he just calmly took it. Aaarggh!!!! Of course they stole more after that.

You don't like Avenatti, I get it, but like on hockey teams here and there we need a "defender" or "enforcer" or however it's called, someone who'll punch someone out & or make a dirty hit & take the penalty so the rest of the team can play normal hockey - otherwise the other side will butcher you, will just perceive you as weak and ripe for the picking. And we also need the AOC's who come in and say, "rules? who made this dilapidated shit up?" - not just to derail everything for no reason, but to clean out the drain every once in a while and get intelligent things moving.

I was fine with Clinton reforming welfare (with controls and reviews et al) - the Great Society approach had some pitfalls, sacred cow as it was. Doing that, dealing with crime, refinding a foreign policy that included security and military options allowed us to grow up, to compete. So the Republicans abandoned policy and went for emotional/religious touchpoints instead - lots of gotchas to exploit instead of actual serious plans, with a major propaganda arm to feed the frenzy. We don't know how to compete yet, and I'm pretty sure Steny Hoyer isn't going to be the one to figure it out.

Even the EU has to come down from its lofty perch and realize that its nice-guy approach to social democracy is weak in the very area of allowing populist barbarians to come in and steamroll people who play by the rules. It's not just a gentleman/woman's club - it's politics, where we earn the genteel approach, we're not guaranteed it.

Think it's worth re-linking

artappraiser — Mon, 08 Apr 2019 07:28:36 +0000

In reply to Purity Angels Promote Disintegration Democratic Majority

Think it's worth re-linking here to my Sun. morn. post that Obama spoke out about this on Saturday., especially as the Times article doesn't mention him. While the context was an event for his Foundation in Berlin, I think it's still important that he "came out" on this, however obliquely and far away, as he was staying silent until now. And so did The Hill or they wouldn't have wrote it up as a story for everybody else on "The Hill" to read and notice.