dagblog - Comments for "Trouble in Paradise"

If we want the President to

Resistance — Mon, 25 Apr 2011 18:09:06 +0000

In reply to Good example. The polls pick

If we want the President to stand up for what we believe, we have to vote, we have to make noise, we have to become a force,

A noise of discontent, a vote of NO confidence?

LISTEN UP YOU ARROGANT POLITICIANS, DO AS WE SAY OR YOU WILL NOT GET OUR VOTES.!!!!!!!

Yet elsewhere in this post you say those who speak up are a "part of the problem:"

The problem is, the Democratic (small r) and the Republican ( R ) ARE listening to the same bosses. (Sorry, but you are not the boss)

You peons are led to believe the Politician really cares about YOU.

FOOL. As long as you think you have a voice or any power. , Those in Power will remain in Power.

Good example. The polls pick

Barth — Mon, 25 Apr 2011 17:55:16 +0000

In reply to This comment reminded me of a

Good example. The polls pick up people who just did not like President Reagan, nor did they like what he represented. But Vice President Mondale was boring, they told us and omigod, he said that taxes would be raised during the next four years: what a mistake. And they stayed home. And President Reagan won a huge re-election, followed by Iran-Contra---hugely unpopular, but yet Vice President Bush won the election to succeed him because, Gov Duakakis was boring and, Iomigod! he looked like a fool wearing that helmet on a tank and what about that Willie Horton....

If we want the President to stand up for what we believe, we have to vote, we have to make noise, we have to become a force, We have to make someone pander to us, instead of to Them. We don't and we jump ship over every single disagreement.

Watch Rachel's summary of the first two years, linked above. It is quite a record despite it all. Yes, it could be better, but that is as much our fault as it is the President's. "In your hand, more than mine...."

Not to mention how the price

we are stardust — Mon, 25 Apr 2011 01:02:42 +0000

In reply to Sure, polls are problematic

Not to mention how the price of a gallon of gas tends to affect Presidential politcs, no matter who is driving the price up...silently.

This comment reminded me of a

brewmn — Mon, 25 Apr 2011 00:12:45 +0000

In reply to by "support" I mean from the

This comment reminded me of a recent comment by Bob Somerby. He was commenting on the tendency of the punditry to rely on opinion polls to the exclusion of election results. I forget what was driving this mini-story, but a lot of the commentariat was pointing out that, if you went by opinion polls, Ronald Reagan was never that popular with more than half of the country for most of his presidency. Yet he managed to win 44 and 49 states in his two victories, by far the most massive back-to-back landslides in the last half-century.

So, which was more important, the opinion polls in 1983, or the election in 1984? I've gotta go with the second option.

My evidence is what has

Obey — Sun, 24 Apr 2011 23:51:44 +0000

In reply to by "support" I mean from the

My evidence is what has happened in fact, not what I want.

We must be reading the evidence differently. In my world, we had a Dem administration running republican-lite policies, and then getting killed in the Midterms for that record. There was no referendum on any progressive policies. So there is exactly zero evidence for the proposition that the public dislikes progressive policies. On the other hand we do have polling evidence that suggests they DO like a whole host of progressive policies.

The problematic policy positions I'm talking about have nothing to do with GOP resistance, or the 60 vote barrier in the Senate. It's the behavior of governmental agencies - Obama nominees. Financial regulation is the most glaring example. Then there is the decision not to pass the budget nor hiking the debt ceiling during the fall. That was a decision. Not a desire coming up against an obstacle. They wanted to hand the GOP power on those votes. That's the evidence.

So instead of some much needed further stimulus, we have budget cuts. And more in the pipeline over the debtceiling negotiations. And worst of all, we have fear-mongering over entitlement cuts. If there is ANYTHING highly destructive of economic recovery, it's the fear that one won't be taken care of in retirement. It raises the savings rate as people retrench in fear, and aggregate demand consequently falls. So WHY is the administration playing along on this mascarade?! Because they want the cuts. Geithner is on record saying that everyone understands the need to increase the ceiling, "we want to take advantage of this moment".

These cuts are highly unpopular. that is uncontroversial. Yet the administration intends to team up with the GOP to push through cuts anyway, doing so while holding a gun to the economy with the self-imposed threat of a debt default. It's not just bad policy. It's insane. They will get hurt at the next election if they go through with it.

But then people like yourself will just say ... it's the dumb electorate's fault.

Dumb and dumberer...

Resistance, you know I

Richard Day — Sun, 24 Apr 2011 23:02:28 +0000

In reply to "To be a big

Resistance, you know I respect you and your opinions.

We cannot always get what we want; and sometimes we cannot get quite enough for our needs.

But I agree with Barth, our House of Lords (the Senate) stopped over 450 bills coming out of the Democratic House.

And yet we managed to pass several stimulus bills, a health insurance package neverbefore seen in this country, and we managed to really piss off repubs and other corporate interests.

Anyway, here is song for you. A song I need to listen to when I am a little to full of anger over what might have been:

by "support" I mean from the

Barth — Sun, 24 Apr 2011 22:09:37 +0000

In reply to Sure, polls are problematic

by "support" I mean from the voting public. The rest of the people don't matter to the political system for obvious reasons. If there was a groundswell of support for what we believe to be required, those things would happen. There is not. We are never allowed to say that the voters are stupid fools, but they are and we have the government we deserve as a result.

Yes, the stimulus was too small and should sbe larger today than it was two years ago. There is no ecocnomic question about it. Politically, though, there is inadequate support to overcome GOP resistance. Same with the public option: the only really effective way to resolve the heath care problem. Single payer has been what was needed, but it will not happen with this electorate. What was enacted was probably all that could be enacted.

And so on. My evidence is what has happened in fact, not what I want.

The real problem

Resistance — Sun, 24 Apr 2011 21:58:55 +0000

In reply to You want a king or dictator.

The real problem is: President Obama fails to understand the simple principle

"You can not serve two masters".

Make a choice, get off the fence,

The downtrodden slave class, wasn't looking for a fence- straddler, who was trying to avoid picking a side

Now both sides hate him.

He claiming to be a centrist is a cop out, a manifestation of his weakness and not being loyal to those who delivered him to victory.

We the victors of the election wanted a servant who would change Washington, and serve the causes WE the People fought for.

Having fought and won the electoral battle, we expected the Servant who said he would do the peoples will, to do as we were led to believe he would do.

Now we find out; the servant wants to be indecisive.

We don’t need either a King or a dictator; ….we need the person who sought the position of President, the servant who claimed he would serve the Democratic ideals. Where is the servant who said he would serve WE.

The servant Obama THINKS he can now serve two masters. WTF?

Wrong?

Wrong person, who took us down the wrong path.

While one of the masters Obama serves, attempts to enslave the other party.

Sure, polls are problematic

Obey — Sun, 24 Apr 2011 18:18:15 +0000

In reply to No. Those are just

Sure, polls are problematic in all kinds of ways. But there isn't much else to go on. Especially elections are a terrible way to gauge support for any given policy or set of policies. Notably so if neither party actually supports them or tries to implement them, right?

In any case, you're the one who claimed progressive policies DON'T HAVE THE SUPPORT. And YOU gave no evidence. AT ALL. Right? So we can start swapping evidence if you want, poll-based or otherwise. But it is ridiculous to refuse to consider more fine-grained - policy specific - polling evidence (especially those based on likely voters) and rely only on elections, where none of these policies even come up, because the Dem party itself opposes progressive policies like these - opposing tax hikes on the rich, opposing the public option, opposing stricter financial regs.

I tend to think the most important factor in elections is the state of the economy: Is it improving or not? It's a referendum on the incumbent party. And so, when the Dems have power, one should support Dem policies that promote economic welfare and oppose those that don't. So one way to take left-wing opposition is not to regard them as a bunch of petulant impatient children who get pissed whenever they don't get 100% of what they want, but rather to see them as people who think the current set of policies and policy-directions are ... failing.

As an objective matter.

These policies aren't going to help the economy recover. And THAT, going into 2012, is what is frightening. Obama, for all his electoral skill, can't win unless unemployment starts falling, wages stop falling, foreclosures slow, house-prices bottom, gas-prices stops rising. Cheerleading, loyalty, and fervent support - in words and action - from his base, whatever that now is, is not going to suffice. And it's frankly not even helpful.

I'll be happy and relieved if I'm proven wrong. But part of being a progressive is not just the set of values you have, but the set of beliefs about how economic reality works. Tax cuts, deregulation, and liquidation of debtors don't work. Government spending, a social safety net and helping homeowners does. And this administration is broadly opting for the former. So if you think that is likely to work, or good enough, go ahead and support it. But if they fail, and they will, don't go pointing a finger of blame for electoral losses in 2012 on left-wing critics of this administration. That's all I'm saying.

There isn't really

anonymous — Sun, 24 Apr 2011 17:39:54 +0000

In reply to No. Those are just

There isn't really disageement between you and Obey; the answer is in polls of likely voters vs. polls of the populace at large. Especially in mid-term elections. Many of those who might answer a pollster that they suppot progressive programs rarely vote at all unless there is someone charismatic running for president. Which addresses your point elsewhere here about people looking for a king or a hero.