If you have "no place to go," come here!

Indeed, indeed

An oldie but goodie:

Rep. Marion Berry, D-Ark., fears that these midterm elections are going to go the way of the 1994 midterms, when Democrats lost control of the House after a failed health care reform effort.

But, Berry told the Arkansas Democrat Gazette, the White House does not share his concerns.

“They just don’t seem to give it any credibility at all,” Berry said. “They just kept telling us how good it was going to be. The president himself, when that was brought up in one group, said, ‘Well, the big difference here and in ’94 was you’ve got me.’ We’re going to see how much difference that makes now.”

Yeah, it sure is.

One of the many, many reasons why 2010 is so much worse than 1994: We've got a conservative for a President, instead of a Democrat who, however flawed, at least some of the time tried to use the government to help people, for "public purpose."

Thanks, "progressives"!

NOTE Via C&L from Digby.

No votes yet


gqmartinez's picture
Submitted by gqmartinez on

Clinton (Bill) *did* raise all boats, however meager. I tend to give him more credit than pretty much anyone on the left because for him to do so he had to reverse a 10-15 year trend that had a ton of momentum and not necessarily a whole lot of folks on his side. Public sentiment in the 1990s was no where near where we are today in terms of distrust for corporations and it was Clinton that put a temporary halt to the deafening and constant drumbeat of "Government = evil" that I grew up hearing from Republicans.

I think the biggest contrast to Bill and Barry is the 1995 showdown. Even after Bill Clinton lost the house and senate after he was thwarted by his own party on Health Care and, incidentally, by folks pushing a bill that was the precursor to Barry's Bill, Clinton prevented some really evil shit from happening...all by himself.

Eureka Springs's picture
Submitted by Eureka Springs on

hit you on the way out, Berry. Why just yesterday Berry voted against extending unemployment. But Obama just wants to get along, continue to endorse just this kind of Blue Dog. And they (D's) will all miss Berry, who's seat is now Republican for the first time in eons. Never admitting to themselves just what went wrong. (Hint - Southern DLC strategy fail)

okanogen's picture
Submitted by okanogen on

Here is a quote:

If Obama believes this -- and it seems clear that he does -- you have to wonder why he keeps heaping blame on himself for failing to change the tone in Washington.

Yes, because "heaping blame on himself" is an Obama trademark. Plus, it's all about "the tone", rather than the shit sandwich.

Bonus! Lack of agency (and therefore accountability) throughout!

okanogen's picture
Submitted by okanogen on

Forgetting Greg Sargent (easily), and going back to the key Obama quote:

‘Well, the big difference here and in ’94 was you’ve got me.’

First, that pretty much tells you everything you need to know about Obama, right?

Second, I don't think that came off the way he meant it. As in, ".....and I couldn't have said it better myself".

Do you think when he said that, that anybody in the room thought, "Oh shit. We're fucked."?

Valley Girl's picture
Submitted by Valley Girl on

Or is this a statement of intent?

‘Well, the big difference here and in ’94 was you’ve got me.’

I ask because I started reading Lambert's wonderful link from this: The taxonomy of logical fallacies

I was poking around the link, and "wishful thinking" grabbed me as the most obvious logical fallacy.

My comment on that thread was to a different point (phrase from Krugman), but does go to the point of "what are Obama's intentions".

Submitted by lambert on

It certainly is psychologically. But formally?

I want P to be true.
Therefore, P is true.

We can project that thinking into Obama's mind, and into the mind of the listeners. But if it is not there in the text, not there formally, I don't think it qualifies.

The nice thing about the taxonomy is that it's (reasonably) formal. You can test whether an argument falls under one of its categories or not. Another way of looking at this is that you can turn rhetoric into evidence. Interesting, no?

Read "Poisoning the Well." That's a great one. I've done that myself, certainly, at least with the banksters. One might look at almost everything Versailles does as a variation on that technique...