dagblog - Comments for "Three guys who seem to "get it""

I see it as a good and

AmericanDreamer — Wed, 10 Nov 2010 17:29:52 +0000

In reply to I hate to admit that I can be

I see it as a good and healthy thing that folks here are putting their thoughts out there on this, are engaging one another in discussion. I thought this was a good thread where points of view have been advanced and responded to with plenty of passion and conviction, but without the kind of name-calling and interpersonal nastiness that just get in the way of any of that being potentially useful. Maybe on the GOP side of things, matters are often resolved, or at least decided, in ways that are much less messy. More culture shock, perhaps. Trying to put myself in your shoes, stilli, I can readily imagine how disorienting it must be to see what goes on in this neck of the woods! Heck, it can be disorienting to many of us who have been having discussions on these matters for years now. This discussion was far better than most, though, I thought. Notwithstanding (partly because of?) no agreed-upon or "consensus" conclusions. It doesn't work that way in my experience. People continue to process parts of good discussions after they have ended.

Just to try to close this

AmericanDreamer — Wed, 10 Nov 2010 17:14:11 +0000

In reply to No, I wasn't being

Just to try to close this conversational loop--the point I am trying to make is that "progressive", or "liberal", or "moderate", or "centrist", do not even come close to meaning one thing in each case. Different people use these terms in very different ways. A candidate who, to one person's way of thinking is a "moderate" or a "centrist", or even a "mild conservative" may be seen by and labeled by another person, focusing on different issues, as "liberal" or "progressive".

Using these terms in a specific context assuming, when this may not be correct, that there is a shared understanding of what they mean often can get in the way of clear communication and thinking. People end up thinking they are disagreeing with one another when, if they knew what another meant by a key term, what appears to be a disagreement is in some cases not even a real disagreement at all, but, rather, more accurately described as a misunderstanding or as talking past one another.

The GOP and the Right have for decades invested lots in marginalizing and demonizing--negatively "branding"--the terms "liberal" and "left". They've been extremely effective in doing this. The reason is obvious: if you can put someone on the defensive simply by calling them a "liberal" or a "leftist", you've already all but won the "argument", just based on the ensuing optics and how bad people who are hopelessly on the defensive in debate tend to look.

Although I think you miss an

AmericanDreamer — Wed, 10 Nov 2010 16:34:24 +0000

In reply to You've got to bear in mind

Although I think you miss an increasing isolationist/anti-war sentiment in blue-dog territory that is ripe for a "get out of foreign wars" style message if properly couched.

Perhaps. I'm not feeling quite as hopeful on that front, as I think the political opposition is unfortunately very good at branding opposition to any specific war or military activity as equating to being "soft on defense", equated with being unreliable if not opposed to keeping military dollars and the jobs that come with them flowing into the district or state. Heartland America long ago was isolationist and some parts of it, in the upper Midwest as an example, still are.

But that was at a time when we were spending far less on defense than we are now. On the disconnect between the public's views on foreign policy versus all the wars our leaders suck us into, see The Foreign Policy Disconnect: What Americans Want From Our Leaders But Don't get, by Ben Page and Marshall Bouton. Lots of good data there, going back many years so it's not just cherry picking.

I'm just not far along in my thinking on how this ball might be moved forward. I'm sure there are people who have excellent suggestions. These are major issues which cannot be ducked and my hat is off to Bacevich and Chalmers Johnson for getting out there and pointing out the massive costs of continuing with business as usual on these matters. They are doing a great public service and making an invaluable contribution.

One of the positive things about having a few libertarians among the Republicans is that, if they vote what they believe in rather than how the GOP leadership will try to coerce them into voting, they will find common cause with those Democrats who are willing to publicly oppose ill-advised wars. That is also the case on several social policy issues.

Wish I could be a fly on the wall when some of those spunky folks put on the gloves and start hammering away during GOP caucus sessions at all the hypocritical corporate welfare enablers, intrusive social conservatives and (usually) chickenhawk armchair war lovers. It's more on economic issues that I see the libertarians as being largely, in the broad picture, out to lunch. :<) Although, even there, there may be some possibilities for shorter-term tactical alliances on economic transition issues as well.

Kgb, I was responding to

we are stardust — Wed, 10 Nov 2010 15:21:42 +0000

In reply to I know. But she is the other

Kgb, I was responding to Brewmn there.

Coalitions with Libertarians: a dude who calls himself Fuckno at MyFDL is all on board with the Pauls; claims that the 50% of their positions he agrees with 100% (LOL!) are waaaay more important than the remaining 50%, thus: he could support him for President.

Wow. For Prez. It's just that remaining 50% that niggles at so many of us.... None of which precludes coalitions on financial matters or anti-war positions.

You probably know Jello Biafra; someone linked to his open letter to the President. It's looooong, but you may get a boot out of it.

http://www.alternativetentacles.com/page.php?page=jello_openletter

You've got to bear in mind

kgb999 — Wed, 10 Nov 2010 02:48:02 +0000

In reply to No, I wasn't being

You've got to bear in mind you are responding to a defense of Bill Clinton, not Barack Obama per se.

Clinton's was a lazy approach that sought to shortcut the traditional need to make the political sale. Accept as given people are immutable and defined by the space they occupy. A "conservative" area will only vote for someone who is a republican. Period. Or at least selling them on a new idea is too much work and takes too much time.

Therefore don't defend democratic principles, run republicans of the "agreeable" sort. Then split policy between them and the more aggressive republicans occupying the other party. The liberals on the left and anti-corporatists on the right are to be scorned and frightened into voting by stirring up the ghosts of the civil war ... playing the respective roles of North and South while the gloabalist corporate whores willing to play ball on both sides of the aisle divvy up the spoils and invest in keeping tensions high and polarization at max. The colloquial term is "triangulation".

It's a very easy formula. But it's brutal for the American worker, national peace, and in retrospect the entire economy. Turns out the "agreeable" sort of republicans use the government to stack the odds in favor of their patrons making tons and tons of money ... damn the consequences. And so do the less agreeable sort. Yay!

A big problem for Obama is he didn't win on the same grounds Clinton did and he is facing a combination of national crises whereas Clinton presided over a relatively easy time both economically and internationally. Yet Obama appears to have basically turned the wheel over to Clinton's former staff (hence the Clinton supporters' general approval of his post-election political operation). However. In addition to cracks this has created in his own coalition and the need-based impatience of the electorate, on the other side republicans appear to have figured out the game and are playing Democrats trying to relive the Clinton presidency like a cheap fiddle.

IMO, the world AA imagines is long gone. If Democrats don't make the sale and distinguish themselves, I don't see them holding power by trying to run moderate republicans as democrats in conservative districts. The Teabaggers took that card away from them by essentially moving "conservative" out of reach.

I believe the bright side of this is that it has left the nation is crying out for *someone* to at least try to make that sale. But it has to be with actions now ... words will never be enough. Your suggestions for possible action are quite good, IMO. Although I think you miss an increasing isolationist/anti-war sentiment in blue-dog territory that is ripe for a "get out of foreign wars" style message if properly couched.

No, I wasn't being

AmericanDreamer — Wed, 10 Nov 2010 00:47:50 +0000

In reply to I simply used DF's term and

No, I wasn't being disengenuous. Again, take a couple of big issues. Are you suggesting that Democrats running against the big banks and the people who screwed the taxpayers, and for public jobs and help for small businesses, cannot be competitive in blue dog territory?

There is a whole history of economic populists who are moderate to conservative on social issues representing what would now be considered blue dog territory. I wouldn't think it would come as news that right now there is a boatload of anger at the big banks and the people who run them, and also desperation for sources of jobs, any sources of jobs. It's a heck of a lot harder to get that message out when the President is not reinforcing those themes, even with perhaps some of the sharper rhetorical edges rounded off.

The Democratic party sponsored infrastructure development programs like the Tennessee Valley Authority during Roosevelt's time that were a source of jobs and economic development in poor parts of the country. Southern Democrats during Roosevelt's day voted with Roosevelt on public jobs and other economic issues because it provided tangible benefits to their constituents. Especially in the current context, when the economy is in such tough shape in so many parts of the country, it seems to me those would be obvious issues to run on in blue dog territory.

But, again, if the President of your own party is sending messages that are directly contrary in some cases to the ones you are trying to put out in your campaign, you've got a much bigger uphill fight than would be necessary if your party's President is connecting on these issues on some level with your mutual constituents. Which is why Pelosi was begging Obama privately to aggressively back a big public jobs program and why she went to the wall to get the House to pass a $200 billion jobs bill .

The community-based smaller banks were hampered in their ability to extend loans to small businesses as part of the fallout of the financial meltdown--more might have been done to try to help them out.

On social issues and foreign policy issues those running in blue dog territory have fewer options and need to take more moderate or conservative stances.

And here is as good a place

kgb999 — Wed, 10 Nov 2010 00:01:24 +0000

In reply to I hate to admit that I can be

And here is as good a place as any to note my use of the phrase "get it" is kind of tongue-in-cheek referencing Jon Stewart's post-election montage.

Agreed that he played things

DF — Tue, 09 Nov 2010 23:59:11 +0000

In reply to I don't see him as having

Agreed that he played things differently in the Senate than in the House. I'm sure part of that was the filibuter, part of it was being a former Senator and part of that was Pelosi being a more reliable source of votes. In terms of staying out of the way of Congress, I meant that more in the sense that he never got out and said what he expected them to do except "increase access and control costs." He basically just stayed out of that debate publicly.

I don't see him as having

kgb999 — Tue, 09 Nov 2010 23:48:46 +0000

In reply to Two words: Bully pulpit. He

I don't see him as having allowed Pelosi and Reid guide things. Especially with Reid. It seems Obama took his knees right out from under him by going direct with the caucus and offering deals to both Nelson and Lincoln (and I think a few others) that totally bypassed the whip. It seems more like Obama held the filibuster in his pocket and tried to hang Reid with the outcomes by playing puppet master from the shadows.

But to the bully pulpit observation and veto pen, Yes! That is the appropriate tool for the President anyhow. It is a total bastardization of the constitutional principle of separation of powers for legislative deals to be cut in the White House. That's another thing about Obama that really sticks in my craw but goes unmentioned because there are so many other issues that concern me. He's supposed to be a *(&@# constitutional lawyer!

I didn't find any real

kgb999 — Tue, 09 Nov 2010 23:38:51 +0000

In reply to I hate to admit that I can be

I didn't find any real answers to the dilemma in this video. But I think it was an excellent articulation of the question: what *is* the vehicle if not Obama? And you are right. This is a huge piece that is missing. Ultimately the simple answer seems to be "unity". But without a vehicle, it seems hard to figure out how to turn that into action.

Even if Obama turns out to not be "the answer" ... don't lose hope. Something has got to give. Americans are like water, we'll find a crack in the rocks and get through somehow. We always have.

Though I personally don't expect anything to be different and found just as much troubling in his post-election statements as I did heartening, it should be noted he left the country right after making them. So, if "getting it" is going to be turned into action on his part specifically, we won't know what form this will take until he returns.

The only thing I've seen from the executive side since Obama embarked is a trial balloon for Melissa Bean to head the CFPB. We know the banker's objective is to weaken it into impotence, so this wasn't a good sign IMO.