So are you saying that conservatives have been purposefully sabotaging bipartisan cooperation in order to undermine New Deal institutions?

Key GOP strategist Grover Norquist likened bipartisanship to "date rape".  Going back to 1994, Bill Kristol urged GOP members of Congress to oppose Clinton's HC reform sight unseen.  His belief was that if it passed and worked a lot of Reagan Dems would go back to the Dems for a long time.  And there was Rove's GOP's strategy of positive polarization for the 2004 election; if memory serves, the wedge issue they used to try to make that work was the Constitutional amendment banning gay marriage. 

The game has been: block popular economic opportunity/economic security legislation benefiting the middle class, which is the Democrats' potential strength and the GOP's liability.  Blame the Dems for being ineffective--not passing the legislation they have blocked--and/or partisan.  This will help erode the popularity and credibility of liberal Democrats on pocketbook issues.  Also actively demonize the liberal and Democratic brands. 

And what does that have to do with the corporate leadership and alternative visions?

Discredit, thwart, demonize the liberal and Democratic brand, and this chips away at the barriers to enacting the GOP, corporate-supported economic agenda of deregulation, privatization and tax reduces.  Which has done very well regardless of which party has been in power, as when Clinton went along with two key financial dereg measures late in his 2nd term which have come back to haunt us. 

Re alternative visions, the old saw on first rule of advocacy is you can't beat something with nothing. Ask 5 people you know--heck, 5 Dems you know--what the Democratic party's ideas are to help and better protect the middle class with the enormous challenges this economic globalization poses.  You'll get 6 different answers, 2 from one of the Dems who can't quite make up his mind which it is.  Which helps explain why the popular anger, unrest and anxiety, instead of supporting what was being done under a Democratic-controlled federal government as was largely the case under FDR, was directed at the party in power earlier this month.  What anxious voters saw was the Democrats rescuing wealthy, ethically challenged screwups and letting them walk away with sweet taxpayer-funded bonuses, but little action to help ordinary people with jobs.  Much to their dismay.  So why would it be a shock when they rejected that with gusto?  They expected different and better when they put the Dems in power in 2008.

I think a good number of people who voted for Obama's post-partisan message did it because they thought he'd use some sort of magic post partisan techniques to get Democratic ideas turned into law.  Ultimately it was still about getting our ideas turned into reality.  The partisanship part, defined as parliamentary games and CNN's Crossfire is what many of them saw as a silly obstacle to turning good ideas into good practices.

I don't think any of these moderates were really looking for "a little bit of this and a little bit of that" from both sides.  What they found out was that our current system has been so bent and twisted by the partisans that Obama's attempts to get around them by, you know, treating people like grown ups, didn't work.  Actually, he got an amazing amount done that way.  But it wasn't what everyone was looking for.

Then I think the base got disillusioned and, anyway, it was the midterms and no post partisans were running, just those old old people, and so they stayed home.  Meanwhile the fierce partisans on the right sensed our weakness, showed up and stomped us, in one case in Kentucky, quite literally.

I'd say partially because "the enemy of my enemy is my friend," but they must have felt the wave and resisted the urge to hate competition from the "Judean People's Front." They went from booing Ron Paul in the 2008 presidential debates to wooing Rand Paul followers in less than two years.

Hah! Don't have much of a clue. Some kind of reductionism. Purification. Maybe it's like boiling down chicken stock. This is great stuff, only now there's not enough left to feed all the hungry voters. Or religious aceticism--if I'm pure enough this will work out well for me. It seems crazy. What bothers me is that they may be on to something that will work out for them. My groundless hope is that '10 was a watershed, but that is dangerous thinking. As far as "poisonous", there's nothing like a self righteous s.o.b. to make everyone feel like throwing dishes. Now, I hope you'll give me the answer.

The GOPer's move farther to the right simply because their based moved there...they don't have a choice unless they abandon them, which would give Democrats an open political field without any substantial advasary to oppose them.

Yeah, basically.

I can say here in Indiana, Ellsworth was attacked in tv commercials for basically for being a stooge for Peolisi and Obama.  That was it for the attack ads.  It was worded in a way that didn't imply he believed in what he voted for, only that he did the bidding of the Dem leadership.  Also, here in Indiana the Republicans on a state government level swept into power.  So on a state level, it is probably seen as a positive thing as well.

The value of this type of marketing strategy I think, from the party's point of view, is that whenever someone in the other party screws up or puts out a gaffe, they gain an advantage.  The Dems saw this in 2006 real well when all the corruption and sex scandals came out regarding republicans.  Even someone like Lincoln Chaffee, who was the least like the image of the "bad republican" was swept up and thrown out, a Dem taking his place.

And how do we increase the informed decisonmaking by the citizenery? Through a transformational cultural paradigm shift. Hee. 

Tricky this, because I think the exit polls showed "bipartisanship" almost a non-issue, in terms of what drove voting. When you then look at how people voted, again it's tough to say they cast their vote either to increase or decrease bipartisanship - largely because such huge %'s don't even know which party controls what, much less what might "make it work better."

Personally, I think bipartisanship is one of those horseshit claims that people support when asked, mostly because it sounds civil - like agreeing that spitting in public is bad.

Which it isn't.

*Hork*

Beltway pundits like to push the idea that 'voters like a divided Congress.'  It's absurd on the face of it; they vote how they vote, whether in anger or approbation or desperation or ennui, but not so much 'messaged pre-planning.'

Yes, and there is always the pablum of Fox News with it's infotainment to drown out the world beyond, and Hate Radio to provide targets for frustration and anger.

Ok...i'm fessin up...I'm a geek for techo-toys.

From what I have found out, it's mainly for college types, but it has wifi capabilitites as well as internet and e-mail and and I suspect a browser...no idea what OS. I believe they were aware people wanted to use it for other materials than college e-books so I think they either worked it out or they're in the process of. They have a forum you can get more specific info for your particular needs.

So couple the Kno with EyeOS...a place in the clouds...that holds all my info, like resumes and so forth i can be quite mobile without having to worry about disk storage space or spyware distrupting internal services and so forth. And if I lose it or it's stolen, all they get is the device not the data.

I just think it's kewl and passing the word on before someone makes an awful and costly mistake and buys an IPad not knowing there are other alternatives. Besides, compared to the IPad, the Kno gives you more bang for the buck, IMO.

You've pretty well nailed it, stardust. Sometimes, it seems like so many analysts get so involved in picking through the minutiae and the convolutions of political strategizing and whatnot that they fail to see the guy picking their pocket. In another way, it's like getting all wrapped up in the game whilst losing sight of the overall objective. Must be a guy thing! ;O)

Please see my comments below. I carefully frame the discussion around socio-economic issues as a means of focusing the discussion. I appreciate your introduction of other concerns, such as this obsession with winning wars that have long ago lost any patina of legitimacy. There are lots of interests that need to be represented in Washington, and even the "anti-war" " constituencies generally identify one party or the other as their "natural" advocates in the political give-and-take that is required.

Bringing it all back to the socio-economic point of reference and the evil influence of campaign finance, I am reminded of Eisenhower's warning about the MIC and of the Dems present inability to stand in its way. 

Where to begin...First this blog was Genghis inquiring into the dynamic of voter behavior as compared to their expressed sentiments for bi-partisanship.  It wasn't about which side of the "should we play nicey nice with the Republicans" each of us are on.  I am not so much advocating bipartisan approach as the preferred method, but rather viewing it as one approach which has it benefits and drawbacks.  To take a more confrontational approach has its benefits as well as drawbacks.   But going back to the original questions posed by Genghis, what we can see is that dynamics are at play that undermine the sentiments expressed regarding bipartisanship.

My own opinion is that given the coalition nature of the Democratic Party which allowed it to achieve the majority created the larger need for "bipartisanship" approach because of its internal members that were, depending on the policy, more aligned with the Republicans than with the liberal wing of the Democrats.  The Republicans, on the other hand, have generally purified their ranks so that it can operate more unilaterally on a host of issues without members breaking rank.

I would add that while socialism/capitalism spectrum has some value in understanding Congress, and how the parties operate or are expected to operate, it ignores much of governance that is not grounded fundamentally in economics.  Stem cell research, Gitmo, and DADT have very little if nothing to do with class warfare.  Of those three, the least partisan of the bunch is Gitmo which has continued to swing to the right of the spectrum because generally the public doesn't want to follow the liberal approach to closing it down. 

An example of the complexity faced by any administration in pushing through an agenda only has to look at the abortion issue that reared its head during the HCR debate.  That it was the Democrat Stupak who on many issues fell on the liberal side of things led the charge only illustrates that on something like HCR and with a non-purified party like the Democrats, there is so much compromise that has to be done if the legislation is going to see the light of day.

You mentioned that what people fought for when they fought for Obama's election was "a change in the way Washington does business."  Now some people, such as myself, interpreted that as meaning working toward greater bipartisanship.  And I think underlies the drive of Genghis' questions in the original blog.  Apparently others such as yourself saw it meaning that they would work to overturn the current system of power. Personally I think that is abit unfathomable.  At least in two or three years time.  As I have said before, Obama never promised a revolution.  He didn't even promise radical change.  He stood right in the center of that socialism/capitalism spectrum not out of necessity, but out of belief that this was the place to stand.

Now personally I would prefer a socialist president.  I knew I wasn't voting for one.  But the significant point I think is that had we actually elected a socialist president, one that sought to fundamentally alter the relationship between business and government, turning the tables so to say who exercised power over who, this president would have been quickly and effectively marginalized, if not torn down.  Much more so than what we saw happen to Obama with the tea party rallies and the Becks and Rushes pontifications. 

Maybe I am too jaded.  Maybe a real socialist president would have been able to quickly rally a strong popular support that would have able to counter the fury of the monied elites who would have thrown everything including the kitchen sink at him or her.  I doubt it.  It would have felt nice for the moment watching someone speak real truth to power from the Oval Office.  But in the end, nothing would have come of it in terms of legislation from Congress.  We wouldn't have had the public option.  We wouldn't have any finance reform.  Hell, we wouldn't even be close as we are to ending DADT.  At least that is my take on the speculation of what might have been.  I know others feel differently, their speculation leading to a grand rising of the people who deep down support the liberal agenda even though they think consciously otherwise.

Which leads back your post just before this one: the desire for a leader to lead the way to this new alignment of power in DC.  I just want to say that given the structure of our government makes it almost impossible with its three branches of separated powers, that for a single individual (or even a small group of individuals) to be able to bring fundamental and transformational change in the power structure.  There is a very dangerous slope in looking for a leader to make the change we want.  That is why I always respected Obama for saying "we are the change we were looking for."  The only way this is going to get better without throwing out the Constitution is if the people turn to themselves for the answers.

Now you have no argument from me over the power which is derived through campaign finance dynamics, nor on the dynamics of how it influences those who would otherwise fight for a liberal agenda.  Given this power dynamic, we can very well say with some certainty that there is not going to be any campaign finance reform in the near future.  It is the reality we are stuck with.  So the question is how do the people fight back? 

My simplistic answer is that the power of this money in large part is the ability to communicate to the people and influence their voting decisions.  One of the primary means of this communication is through the television via the mainstream media.  These communications are time and time again shown to be quite effective in swaying enough votes this way and that way.  (Remember the death panels) If the people, however, take back their decision-making from marketeers and strategists, and instead actively work on informing themselves on the candidates and policies, then this lessen the need for a zillion dollars to counter the opponents zillion dollars.  (And for a philosophical question or two: if the use of money to influence campaigns is evil, is not those who take the money to thus influence the voters evil?   Does walking hand in hand with the devil not make one a demon?)

This is where I am putting the responsibility at the feet of the American voting public when I place any blame.  There are ultimately no legitimate excuses for disengageing from politics and the governance of the country if one wants to call oneself a citizen.  I get disillusioned like the rest.  Watching and reading what is happening can create some serious depression spirals.  And sometimes I just check out.  But in the end, I have to return to it.  Too much is at stake.  And while having some leader who is inspiring is nice, it cannot be the foundation upon which we rest our hopes.  We need to be that foundation. 

Of course, this is about as likely to happen as having a leader who will be able to effectively change the current system in a forenight. 

I had carefully prepared a response over the last hour and a half, and then it disappeared with one misplaced click of the mouse. I'll have to get back to this when I've got some time. Meanwhile, I refer you to a previous blog I posted that is related to this topic.

Palooka-Dems, I call them. They pull their punches to make certain they don't overreach in getting policies and/or reforms enacted that do not first have the approval of their monied owners. ("Yeah, I understand the need for financial reform after we burned down the house," sayeth Wall Street. "So go ahead. Knock yourself out. Just don't let it get out of hand, ok? We've got a business to run here, and we don't need any cumbersome regulations getting in our way. Tell you what. Give me a day or two and I'll even have my people write the goddam regs for you to pass. Understand? Now be a good boy, and I'll make sure there's something in the ol' campaign Christmas stocking for youse guys, got it?")

The examples of this are manifold. And the implications of it are that we can never land an effective blow in any contest that pits our interests against theirs.

And just watch where Dodd surfaces after his "retirement." I'll shave my beard (had it for over forty years) if Dodd ain't soon working on a high 6 figures salary lobbying on behalf of the financial industry. He's a natural given the way this Palooka-Dem game is played! And in light of the fall he took for the industry as Chairman of the Senate Banking Committee, that should be a troubling - yet wholly expected! - dynamic for anyone interested in maintaining anything like honest power-brokerage and democratic governance in Washington.

We had a chance to fix it after a lot of hard work getting Obama elected. People sensed it was going to happen. "Change You Can Believe In." "Hope & Change" "We're going to change the way Washington does business." We handed him the ball. Gave him great field position. And then Obama/Rahm punted on first down. And now you wonder why everyone gave up and went home?

"We're going to change the way Washington does business."  Yes a little more specific.  And my memory serves me correctly this was done in the context of bipartisanship which brings us back to the original blog by Genghis.  Apparently for some when they voted for Obama the hope they would take the majority and push it through in the spirit of partisanship. I would ask those people if they turned to fellow liberals during the days when Bush and Republicans controlled DC and told them to shut their mouths regarding complaints that the Republicans were not working with the minority party.  And should the Republicans take back the White House and Senate in 2012, I assume you will join those liberals telling us other liberals to shut up when the conservatives ram their agenda through, shut down the liberals in committee, etc.  I mean we wouldn't want them punting on first down after the People have given such great field position.

The way Washington does business also applied to the influence of lobbyists.  Obama made some strides within his own administration.  But the problem of dealing with lobbyists is centered on the first admendment.  If a private citizen calls their representative to express their support for a bill, they are lobbying their representative.  To tell BP or Chase Bank that they cannot either as an organization or through their employees express their opinion in DC, to lobby elected officials, is to tell you and me that we cannot lobby them either.

The reality is that when a BP executive says something, there is the implied tie to future campaign financing.  A leverage someone such as you or me do not have.  We all know that the implied tie is there, but unfortunately is only implied.  If it was explicit then there is a bribe.  Most of them are smart enough to keep it from becoming explicit.

So again we are back to whether we hold Obama accountable on a realistic level regarding the extent that he could actually change how lobbyists work in DC.  To think that he or anyone could just walk into office and kick out all the lobbyists and their influence is living in la-la land.

Which takes us to Obama and Wall Street.  I am not arguing, nor have I ever, that Obama is doing some 30 dimensional chess game through which he will bring it down at the end of the game.  On one hand Obama looked at future financial support through these wealthy elites.  Given the election game, which as you have stated quite emphatically goes to the one with the most money, as representative of not only his own election finance needs but of those of the party, I believe he did make decisions with the money flow in consideration.

We can burn him on the proverbial stake for this.  We can say he should have stood up to them regardless of the consequences from a campaign financial point of view and the implications for future elections (and the power to push the agenda forward that is impact given the outcomes of those elections).  We can say that the minor difference that results between the Dems over the Repubs as a consequence of using this financial consideration as part of the decision making process is so small that there is no difference between the two. Or not.

And there is what in the other hand.  To go after "Wall Street" required to go after it in full.  It meant during the midst of the downturn of the economy, one had to rock the boat upon which the economy was dependent.  The one thing we can for sure is that no one know how the ripple effects would have played out in 2009 and into 2010 had Obama's administration taken to giving a middle finger approach.

Moreover, Obama had never promised that he would work to bring down the current economic system.  Given the vehemence by which Obama supporters across the board attacked the tea party folks for claiming he was a socialist, I would say that he made this point quite clear. We didn't elect a socialist as president (which I wish we had).  To criticize him as if he promised that he was is unfair. If the people want the capitalists to take the perp walk then let prove it with the next election.  My guess is that isn't going to happen. Right now it looks more likely that the people will elect someone like Governor Daniels of Indiana who will take the use of the Karma Sutra to whole another level.

And this again brings us back to Genghis' original blog.  If the people are so outraged by how Obama worked with Wall Street, then why are leaning toward voting for the very people who are more likely to work with Wall Street in a way that made them so outraged.  So far the best answer you have offered to this dynamic is that through frustration they are justified for dropping out and letting others put the uber supporters of the wealthy elites into power.  I say this justification is unacceptable.

Now on to the other part of your response.  I will try to keep this short.  Along with say health care reform and financial reform, we also wanted to deal with things like DADT, START and Gitmo.  There is Cap and Trade.  There is zillion of little admendments and tweaks in the lesser know pieces of legislation from environmental regulation to educational reform.  It is a perpetual state of compromise.  So, yes, if one wants help a year or two down the road, you work not to step on toes in the present moment.  It creates watered down legislation.  But the alternative is even more watered legislation, or worse the legislation can't make it out of committee. 

Maybe you believe that a true believer could change this dynamic of politics in the belt way.  That someone like Lieberman would suddenly change his spots if Obama and Rahm had somehow unflinchingly taken the high road of liberal policies.

Regarding question 1) that any kind of finance reform was passed (as watered down as it was) after the health care reform debacle. Given the seemingly absolute power of the wealthy elite, one wonders how any reform was passed at all.  There was changes that the wealthy elite were not happy with.  Yet they were able to get through.  These changes were not DOA.  To think that had Obama's administration burned bridges during HCR that we would have the Consumer Protection Agency is naive. That Elizabeth Warren got push back from some those in the Democratic Party is just one little piece of the legislative environment Obama was working with.  No matter how liberal any president was, that could not be changed.

Regarding question 2) is that the blue dogs began to amount their opposition from the get go. I might suprise you that Senator Bayh or Lincoln could care less what those in more liberal places in the country think.  Going for broke from the get go was from the start a plan that would have ended in defeat on the big ticket items.  Remember how they quickly put Obama in place regarding Gitmo. Going for broke implies going for the whole loaf.  That Obama looked at getting half a loaf from the start is what you calling punting on first down.  

And regarding question 3) is that the legislation passed is the legislation that is possible given the collective whole of DC.  What criticism of the Democrats as a whole tends to overlook is the coalition nature of the Democratic party which allowed it to gain the majority.  The simple fact, and it one that truly sucks, is that if the Democrats only put forth candidates like Pelosi or Sanders, they would be in minority - definitely in the Senate.  This last point is to not say that the country is center-right but the fact that North Dakota has as many votes as New York in the Senate.  

And there is another factor.  As with so many issues, while the people dislike (even loathe) special interests influencing Congress, they not only tend to look the other way when that benefits their own state's or legislative district's economic prospects.  Growing up in Seattle, I can tell you that any politician from that area that stood up to Boeing wouldn't last long.  Even if it was done in the best interest country.  Which is again to say there is plenty of blame to go around to all sides over the years as to how we have gotten to the place we are.

If we go back and look at how things played out in real time in those first months of 2009, how could have the Republicans fought the stimulus so thoroughly and not to have suffered any backlash had the "whole agenda" failed so miserably.  Maybe because if we look at the election of Obama as the country's reputiation of the "whole agenda" we need to take into account that McCain (and Palin for god's sake) still had nearly 60 million Americans who thought he offered the best choice, that McCain won 22 states.  

So I do not apologize for the course taken, but merely understand it as one conclusion from the negotiation of the realities that were and are present in our political environment.    They made mistakes, fumbled talking points, and committed other actions deserving of criticism.  What I would say though it is a intensely simplistic position that had Obama administration taken the high road from the beginning (a larger stimulus or nothing), that we would be a better position today, both economically and politically.

And if you should write that blog, what I hope you address is the question Genghis asks at the end of his blog: how do we the people change things?  Because you get no argument from me about the corruption that is going on because of the money.  But given the political realities that are evident in polls such as this one done by gallup in Feb. 2010 in which when asked which worries them more 57% said "too much regulation of business by government" compared to 37% who said "not enough regulation of business by government." 

Tut, tut, now; there's no need to throw a shoe.  Yes. I'm full of bullshit, you may be, too.  It's just that I like my bullshit infinitely better than yours.  What you always fail to realize is this: politics is not science, and the field is not static.  Any great idea at the right time can spread like wildfire, as in 'hundredth monkey' meme.  I'm counting on the folks I read and love to be the new Thomas Paines.  I think you would have told him he was full of bullshit, too, but it's just a guess.  ;o)

Put on some dance music, and do some wild dancin' tonight, is my advice.

the question for right here right now is to what extent does such a statement resonate with the American public.

Oy! Here in a nutshell is the problem with the Dems and their messaging. It kinda goes like this:

A.) The Republicans scream over and over that "Tax cuts for the wealthy create jobs, will reduce the deficit, and will prevent cavities when used in a conscientiously applied program of oral hygiene and regular professional care."

B.) The Dems recognize that the public now believes "Tax cuts for the wealthy create jobs, will reduce the deficit, and will prevent cavities when used in a conscientiously applied program of oral hygiene and regular professional care" because that is what they have been told.

C.) The Dems don't dare say anything to the contrary because the Repubs won't respond too kindly and because it ain't where the people are at and therefore won't "resonate" with them.

In other words, leadership is defined by these cowardly asshats as meeting the public where they are at - even if "where they are at" is standing on the zipper line whilst a crazy-drunk driver bears down on them - rather than actually attempting to move them out of harm's way.

Inspiring, indeed, this leadership you propose.

If it is your position that a "proper politician" or political party is one that does not attempt to manipulate the media - especially in light of today's realities - then God help us, indeed!

Is Obama in collusion, to this scam by the banker class?

http://slackwire.blogspot.com/2012/06/pain-is-agenda-method-in-ecbs-madness.html

A vote for either candidate tightens the noose?