dagblog - Comments for "On a Potential Sanders Primary Challenge"

Coda As I write, now less

AmericanDreamer — Tue, 17 Jul 2012 18:35:37 +0000

In reply to On a Potential Sanders Primary Challenge

Coda

As I write, now less than 4 months prior to the election, real unemployment remains dismally high. The foreclosure situation remains a mess. Tens of millions of Americans who are in dismal straits and who were taught in school to believe that ours is a government of the people, by the people, and for the people have nowhere in our political system to look to for the hope many allowed themselves to feel four years ago. It is misguided and misdirected anger on one side versus a kind of bunker "it could be worse, and it will be if the other guys win" mindset on the other.

Our choice in the presidential election--and however disappointing a choice it is to many of us, it is a choice, and an important one--presents a GOP nominee who offers a return to Bush 43's failed economic policies, which blew a gigantic hole in the federal deficit while redistributing income, money and opportunity upward.

That Romney stands some chance of winning--notwithstanding his remarkably unwinning personality and a past and present he is flailing about attempting to conceal if he can get away with it--is a testament to the vulnerability of the incumbent.

In the other corner, our President's preferred approach to boosting our economy and helping millions back on their feet would appear to be "hope and pray". The word "hope" is a constant from four years ago. However, its meaning has changed. "Hope" today seems to amount more or less to an ardent wish that, on the current trajectory, things will somehow work themselves out and we will see an economic recovery sooner rather than later. And that, if there is to be another downturn, it will not begin until after the election. His prayer for an almost comically limited general election opponent has already been answered.

We will know soon enough whether the monied interests, who heavily prefer Romney as the real thing to Obama as a bit squishy and unreliable at times, will be able to take advantage of the post Citizens United campaign finance realities to prevail in this election, rather than merely ensure that any public policy options that might actually work to do what both parties will insist they want--generate a strong recovery--are off the table.

Sanders would have represented a real choice, albeit one squarely within the American political tradition. This was, roughly speaking, the approach of Franklin Delano Roosevelt, which did a great deal to reduce misery in this society and bolstered the kind of faith in our form of government, and in one another, that appears in short supply in our day. It is also, roughly speaking, the approach recommended not solely by those as readily dismissed and marginalized as Sanders, but by Nobel laureate economists such as Paul Krugman, who are able to marshall what to my way of thinking is a case for their approach which is coherent and far superior to anything we are hearing from the presidential nominees.

As a society we are being the opposite of "conservative". We are preparing to roll the dice for another 4 years, at least. We are likely to see growing public unrest in the face of what are almost sure to be further inadequate economic policies, regardless of who wins. We have only to look at our own recent past, and look around the world, to get a preview of likely coming attractions--that would be my surmise, at any rate.

What a sad and pathetic state of affairs in our country that, on the issue of the economy and what to do about it, this is the "choice" the American electorate is presented with. It is no wonder that the reaction of the public overall contrasts so starkly with four years ago, amounting to a collective yawn.

No one can honestly maintain that any of what is on offer for what to do about the economy offers some reason for grounded optimism that such measures would improve matters any time soon.

Which is why, for me, as I've written, the choice is a matter of picking my poison. I'll be voting for the candidate I would rather have making the sum of all the decisions the next President will make (which might keep us out of another ill-advised war and which might halt or even begin to reverse the US Supreme Court's decades-long march towards handcuffing 21st century America with imagined 18th century tools and rules), and the candidate I would prefer as the Oval Office target of the pressure that must follow from the sufficiently motivated or outraged parts of the public that needs our government to do better, or simply insists that it both can and must.

If we are to begin to turn things around, that is, instead of continuing to flounder and kick cans down the road, or accelerate towards the cliff under our very own death wish party, the GOP.

If Obama does win I suspect for me the feeling will be one of mild relief, a bullet temporarily dodged, hardly one of joy or celebration. We have to be doing better in this country than avoiding a resumption of freefall descent starting next year. We are hardly helpless to act upon our plight and begin to take up, instead of duck, unduckable challenges. As has always been the case in American history, come November 7, it will, still, be up to ordinary citizens acting--or not--to force responsiveness out of our government.

I should have added: as if

AmericanDreamer — Wed, 20 Apr 2011 18:31:15 +0000

In reply to Fried chicken for the masses

I should have added: *as if* he didn't have enough other disqualifiers to contemplate before stating he would not be making the challenge...you know, like that incumbent President thing, plus possibly his age, plus having no political party to back his candidacy (will there come a day any time soon where that is seen as an advantage?), plus having no money to run a campaign with, plus likely having a dismissive media to refer to his campaign as "quixotic" in every other sentence of any articles they choose to write about his campaign, plus probably a few others I'm overlooking...

Also, another thought re that fried chicken for the masses thing: maybe not so helpful for the US national obesity epidemic.

Fried chicken for the masses

AmericanDreamer — Wed, 20 Apr 2011 17:47:50 +0000

In reply to No family dynasty? The

Fried chicken for the masses beats starvation any time.

I didn't automatically assume you were kidding and when I went to wikipedia on Sanders' background I discovered another disqualifier I had not known about, beyond the Socialist self-identifier: he's Jewish. Put those two together and that's mighty scary for a lot of Americans.

No family dynasty? The

quinn esq — Wed, 20 Apr 2011 17:16:59 +0000

In reply to Not sure I disagree, but

No family dynasty? The Colonel would like a word with you.

"continued deregulation in

brewmn — Wed, 20 Apr 2011 16:53:17 +0000

In reply to Just a thought here, AD. The

"continued deregulation in finance"

Seriously?

I agree with the

Treadmill Traci — Wed, 20 Apr 2011 16:43:25 +0000

In reply to Flavius, I read more of your

I agree with the socialism, but what I don't understand is how he fooled everyone the first time around. I am an ordinary American, nobody of high status or claim to fame and power and I saw right through him. Don't give excuses, there are none.

Flavius, I read more of your

we are stardust — Thu, 17 Mar 2011 14:41:00 +0000

In reply to On a Potential Sanders Primary Challenge

Flavius, I read more of your comments about deLong's opinions on the ACA, and googled about it a bit. Most of what I found, he referenced Romney-care in MA, and extrapolated, so he seemed to believe that the mechanics were similar. I remembered reading this piece at Angrybear quoting some reports on the MA plan's effects on real people's lives, and it wasn't all skittles and beer:

"US News and World Report: Mass. Health Reform Hasn't Halted Medical Bankruptcies

"Health costs in the state have risen sharply since reform was enacted. Even before the changes in health care laws, most medical bankruptcies in Massachusetts -- as in other states -- afflicted middle-class families with health insurance. High premium costs and gaps in coverage -- co-payments, deductibles and uncovered services -- often left insured families liable for substantial out-of-pocket costs. None of that changed. For example, under Massachusetts' reform, the least expensive individual coverage available to a 56-year-old Bostonian carries a premium of $5,616, a deductible of $2,000, and covers only 80 percent of the next $15,000 in costs for covered services," the researchers wrote.

The results from the actual published article in The American Journal of Medicine:

In 2009, illness or medical bills contributed to 52.9% of bankruptcies in Massachusetts. In contrast, in early 2007, medical bankruptcies accounted for 59.3% of personal bankruptcies in the state (P#.44 for comparison with 2009 proportion) and 62.1% nationally (P#.02). Because the total number of personal bankruptcy filings in Massachusetts increased by 51% between fiscal years 2007 and 2009(6) the absolute number of medical bankruptcies in the state actually increased by more than one third during that period, from 7504 to 10,093.

(There's more of course.) It's not an issue I know much about, but I read somewhere recently that the reason most of the plan went into effect in what, 2014 and 2015 were partially about tweaking the numbers to look better, though I can't remember what that was about. Anyway, I thought you might want to read these reports.

It would be easy to counter

Resistance — Thu, 17 Mar 2011 11:39:46 +0000

In reply to Thanks. If he registers as a

It would be easy to counter Fox's labeling of the man.

The Christain Right listeners could be reminded of another man named Jesus, who was also labeled as hanging out with Tax collectors, harlots and other sinners. ...He also collected from those able to afford and he gave to the poor.

Sanders still calls himself a

acanuck — Thu, 17 Mar 2011 06:45:52 +0000

In reply to Thanks. If he registers as a

Sanders still calls himself a democratic socialist, Wikipedia says, though he formally belongs to no party and is listed on ballots as independent. I heard he had Chuck Schumer's endorsement before he ran for Jim Jeffords' old Senate seat in 2006, but I hadn't known this bit:

Sanders entered into an agreement with the Democratic Party to be listed in their primary but to decline the nomination should he win, which he did easily.

So Vermont Democrats actually voted to make Sanders the party's official candidate, and he coyly agreed to let them do so. The man is one helluva politician. Maybe he could win a White House race. I say he goes for it in 2016, when the country is in even worse shape than now.

Thanks for the details. I'm

Obey — Thu, 17 Mar 2011 03:00:29 +0000

In reply to Delong is quoting Orzac.The

Thanks for the details. I'm not questioning delong's competence. Just noting the discrepancy in reports.