dagblog - Comments for "Politics and Poker"

The Americans who took a seat

Lazy KGB — Mon, 11 Apr 2011 19:15:48 +0000

The Americans who took a seat at the table, who chose to vote in November, won that hand and are now picking up the chips. That's as it should be. They're entitled to have their views reflected in what the government decides to do.

You know ... fiddle that first sentence around a bit and this is pretty much the same conclusion Democrats have been using to explain cramming Republican policy points into every piece of legislation they've passed since 2008 (except Lilly Ledbetter, I suppose). Seems odd that prior to 2010 establishment Democrats didn't feel - or at least certainly didn't promote - the idea what you articulate here applied to Democrats. Even after what can only be described as far more sweeping wins than the GOP saw in 2010. Seems a bit of a double standard with GOP ideology always taking an upside in the formula.

Imagine if Democrats invested the same energy in promoting the idea DEMOCRATS (including all progressives and rationals and most independents) are entitled to have their views reflected in what the government decides to do as they have invested in hyping GOP legitimacy ...

This isn't poker. It's politics. Perhaps that's why Obama keeps losing (or alternatively, he keeps winning and is actually playing for the other side). There aren't hidden hands as you propose; it's about guts. Obama doesn't demonstrate any. Nobody in the world holds more cards than the POTUS. Period. Assuming good-intent, Obama has gotten his ass kicked non-stop since he took office. Not sure how this deep understanding of "the rules" governing a game neither of us have played directly was acquired but to me you seem off base. Specifically, you don't appear to understand power even in the most rudimentary forms. Bush pretty much definitively proved your view of how things really work is dead wrong - it's one reason he vexes you so; you could never beat his approach sitting in an arbitrary box called "the possible" your party crawled into sometime around 1989 and refuse to climb out of. It's a problem which persists for your party today. The refusal or inability to proactively wield power to achieve clearly stated objectives doesn't mean the office of the POTUS became impotent - it only reflects on the officeholder (and advisers).

When you write that the

AmericanDreamer — Mon, 11 Apr 2011 16:02:28 +0000

In reply to The GOP held 4 aces and Obama

When you write that the Congressional Republicans received "nothing" as part of this deal why do you say that? The content of the spending cuts has, according to what I've been reading, not been determined yet, or in event is not known to the public at this time.

Also, do you see any advantages a President has vis a vis Congress in these kinds of decisions, or only disadvantages?

I disagree with you

we are stardust — Sun, 10 Apr 2011 16:35:09 +0000

In reply to I disagree. I mean I disagree

I disagree with you disagreeing with me diagreeing with yourself...or something.

What I meant was using the bucks for spinning like mad for the win. By the by, on the White House website Dan Pfeiffer actually use Win the Future when (not)describing what the budget deal actually IS.

And yes; I had forgotten how soon the cuts will affect massive amounts of people, just as commondities rise and rise. Grocery shopping here already is hard; and combing the sales circulars doesn't help much. Here is the tulies I'd say stuff we buy is up about 50%, and it will be good if people like beans. And gas is already $3.75, which I know is low for Europe, but here is tough if you have to have it.

'Progressives get their ass in gear.' Wellllll...there's a thought. Who are they again? ;o)

I disagree. I mean I disagree

Obey — Sun, 10 Apr 2011 16:04:16 +0000

In reply to My only point of possible

I disagree. I mean I disagree on whether we disagree.Ha.

Like I said at the end of my comment, he may well just opt for a more congenial class of base.

But now, (yes I'm bored) I'm gonna disagree with myself.

You can have all the campaign cash in the world, and you can move as far right to pick up more conservatives. Bu there are going to be precious few votes there waiting for you if the economy tanks again. Which it will after this and the next set of budget cuts. If you go into an election with 40% approvals you're fucked (think Bush Sr.). Even if your GOP opponent is awfully unappealing, elections are not binary choices. It will, in voters' minds, not be a decision determined by some utility-maximizing function, it will be a referendum on Obama.

That - sadly - is human psychology, however much Obama-supporters bitch about it.

There will be a vast untapped reserve of voters seeking another option, meaning some kind of third party option is going to happen. The question for progressives is, where is it going to come from? If they don't get their own ass in gear, it's going to be another third party corporate conservative, as an alternative to ... two other corporate conservatives.

My only point of possible

we are stardust — Sun, 10 Apr 2011 15:40:25 +0000

In reply to Obey is on target as far as I

My only point of possible disagreement with Obey's take was that a decrease in approval polling numbers would move him into a different directon, and that with a billion bucks he could sorta advertize his way into a better base, disregarding further critics. Which leads me to say again that his SOTU speech was the first since 1948 that didn't speak to the issues of poverty in this country; a seriously historical ommission, IMO.

And yeah, wags call that process 'Lemon Socialism'.

You just don't get it NCD. He

Verified Atheist — Sun, 10 Apr 2011 15:11:22 +0000

In reply to Obey is on target as far as I

You just don't get it NCD. He doesn't want to cut tax revenues, he wants to cut tax rates, and on the wealthy so that they'll work harder and earn more, thus increasing tax revenues. (Just think how much tax revenue we could bring in if tax rates were cut to 0% on the very richest!)

Obey is on target as far as I

NCD — Sun, 10 Apr 2011 15:08:18 +0000

In reply to All that possible Medicare

Obey is on target as far as I see. The GOP/Ryan plan will cut taxes first, making the Bush cuts permanent and bigger, then end Medicare, by sending the former Medicare funds directly to GOP leaning for-profit health care insurance corporations on Wall Street. They usually do things that way, cut the tax rates, on the rich, privatize to enrich their donors and themselves, then say we are broke and can't afford the given gov't program and of course, we can't possibly even consider raise taxes (back to previous levels).

The problem is Obama has seemed to go along with this all by extending the Bush tax cuts and not reining in or discussing income disparity and malfeasance in our financial system, and his health reform is a potentially fatal public/private setup like Fannie and Freddie, where private corporations make the money, and the government gets the blame, and the middle class pays the bills.

Yes Des. I agree with those

Flavius — Sun, 10 Apr 2011 14:06:44 +0000

In reply to "Squeeze out a majority in

Yes Des. I agree with those details . And 220 is my definition of squeezing out a majority.

I think you missed the part

Desider — Sun, 10 Apr 2011 13:04:54 +0000

In reply to Eggsactly. A DINO is better

I think you missed the part where Blanche Lincoln won the primary, but lost the general, despite having lots of DCCC money pushed her way.

Most of the DCCC money supported Blue Dogs. Most Blue Dogs lost. Therefore, most DCCC money supported losing candidates.

Meanwhile, liberal/progressive Democratic candidates had to suck hind tit. Rahm's wisdom. And still lost a number of elections only barely. But being Rahm means never having to say you're sorry - now he's mayor of Chicago so you all can still, in his words, Go F--- Yourselves.

And it's pretty obvious that the Republicans have figured out that a Republican is better than a Blue Dog, so no matter how hard a Blue Dog tries to act like a Republican, come November they'll be rejected. So why go in for a suicidal strategy?

"Squeeze out a majority in

Desider — Sun, 10 Apr 2011 12:57:09 +0000

In reply to Oh come on Des. You surely

"Squeeze out a majority in the house" - through 2009, the margin was 255 Dem to 178 Republican. That's a 77 vote spread.

By the time it passed reconciliation, the margin was down only slightly, 253 to 177, and passed the House 220-211. But by that time, the bill was a stinking fish that had lost much public support, so Democrats in tight election year races began to be reluctant to support it. Especially if the President himself wouldn't stick his neck out for game-changing provisions.

But it was never about the House, and I presume you could realize that? After all, Pelosi was basically told, "shut up and pass it, we have to compromise in the Senate". More time was spent trying to get Olympia Snowe on board as a token sign of bi-partisanship than in trying to make the bill attractive for left-leaning Democrats or for the public at large.