It's the economy, stupid
Primary tabs
Submitted by lambert on Fri, 09/12/2008 - 11:26am
Well done? Or completely cooked? "Battle for Congress Suddenly Looks Competitive." Harry, Nance, HoHo, Donna, Obama:
Nice work.
I sure hope Tom Daschle hasn't been measuring the drapes for a White House Office.
- lambert's blog
- Log in or register to post comments
Comments
I've been fearing this might happen--since the Democratic Party
brand has been downplayed by the Democratic Party standard bearer, just why would voters think a Democratic Congress and filibuster-proof senate would be important?
This is is possibly the most Democratic year since, well, since maybe one of FDR's follow-on victories or post-Nixon. The voters should be thinking that the only worthwhile vote is a Democratic vote.
I realize our leadership also helped to denigrate the brand and the party, by saying such things as "impeachment is off the table" and making some decisions which seemed to only enable BushCo. So, there is also that damage.
But, this leadership also thinks Mr. Bipartisanship is the cat's meow--and didn't even push compare and contrast that much at the convention. Thank goodness the Clintons could do that in their speeches.
Well, that meow is one of those meows that sounds increasingly like a scream of pain and anguish! (Poor lady cats--conception requires that barbed boy cat penis actually ripping their flesh when it's withdrawn, something to do with releasing the eggs. And they have to go through that several times....)
We are so fucked.
Please, say it isn't so!
A consequence of "the world will end with McCain"?
If the argument is that the world will end if McCain is president despite a Dem Congress doesn't that entail impotent Dems? Why bother with Dems if they didn't challenge Bush and state almost explicitly that they won't challenge McCain?
and your point is, gq?
My argument, the one you're disputing, is that only a Democratic president and a strongly held Democratic congress will be able to stand up against the massive criminal organization that controls the Republican Party.
I do not dispute that the Democrats in congress are ineffectual at combating a Republican Executive; a quarter to a third of the Democratic caucus is under direct corporatist control and more closely aligned with the Republicans on major issues than they are with Democratic policy positions.
We have essentially a three party congress; a Democratic minority, a Republican minority and the BlueDog minority. The BlueDogs hold power because they are willing to swing one way or the other depending on what they see as their own best interests. On many issues, such as militarization and corporatization and erosion of Constitutional rights and Supreme Court justices, the BlueDogs consistently side with the Republicans.
It is simplistic to argue from a construct of two parties when there are three. Unless there is a Democratic president, the BlueDogs will continue to defy the Democratic caucus with impunity and we will see a continuation of the last two years - and worse.
I argue that it will be much, much worse because we are at a tipping point with both the federal judiciary and the environment; both of those are self-evident and beyond any reasonable dispute. Both of those issues will require the policy pattern long held and soundly affirmed by the Democratic Party leadership, and can be dealt with positively under a Democratic presidency. If the Republicans control those two agendas in concert with the BlueDogs, we will be destroyed and there is nothing a minority Democratic caucus can do to stop it.
My point is exactly what I implied
It doesn't matter if the Dems control congress, so why bother voting for them?
I don't ascribe to that view, I'm just pointing out that continuously implying that Congressional Dems won't do anything might get people to think that Congressional Dems who won't do anything will be Dems in Congress who won't do anything. You can argue that congressional dems won't do anything because of some subset of the congressional dems who won't do anything will be responsible for the congressional dems not doing anything, but the fact remains--whether its because of some subset of congressional dems who won't do anything or not--that congressional dems won't do anything.
Maybe it's because I grew up in a trailer, but when I hear Congressional Dems won't do anything over and over--again, even if it is a subset of congressional dems who won't do anything--I start to get the idea that Congressional Dems really don't plan to do anything. Sure, Congressional Dems who don't do anything may really desire to do something positive, but if they don't do anything, they are still just Congressional Dems who don't do anything.
Oi, my head hurts after reading that
I CAN HAZ HILLARY NAO?
Gilbert Gottfried
It was my riff of Gottfried's roast of Bob Saget :o).
Still haven't seen that yet
If you haven't seen Saget's stand up special, That Ain't Right, I highly recommend it, so long as you understand that this ain't Danny Tanner.
i can haz hillary nao?
Gilbert Gottfried...
Heck, part 2
The very last joke -- "Something tells me you don't just come here to hunt" -- seems to have application this primary season...."
[ ] Very tepidly voting for Obama [ ] ?????. [ ] Any mullah-sucking billionaire-teabagging torture-loving pus-encrusted spawn of Cthulhu, bless his (R) heart.
No
n/t
Sorry to have introduced complexity to the debate
You're right, it is all a Gilbert Gottfried shtick. Completely forgot myself; what was I thinking.
Us trailer folk are incapable of complexity
so we's have to go to the funnies to make an obvious point. But, shucks, I forgot that because something is based off a joke it can't be serious.
Your points about Congress
Are 100% spot on, but unfortunately, 80% of the electorate doesn't see that*, all they see are people saying we have to vote for Obama or the world will end under McCain.
They know the Dems control Congress, but also know that they control Congress now, and they aren't stopping Bush, so why bother supporting the downticket Dems, who won't stop McCain, if elected.
The Dems own spinelessness, and the prevailing WYMVFB** narrative, are the cause of this.
*You say yourself we go to the polls we the electorate we have, not the electorate we wish we had.
**Why You Must Vote For Obama
i can haz hillary nao?
Now with complexity and steely logic.NOW what would you pay?
BIO, you've hinted in the past at your political work.
Does it actually involve talking to/engaging the public?
Because if it does, I hope you're working for McCain this year. You know, it IS possible to engage on these topics without insisting that all of your correspondents are somehow defective - either swayed by extreme emotion (as opposed to your cold, steely logic); or unable to handle complexity.
It is this singular defect which most turned me off to the Democratic nominee this year - the idea that anyone who wasn't head over heels for him was: cynically embittered by politics; bitter and clingy; scapegoating xenophobes; or somehow or other, plain old defective.
I guess this is why Republicans are just better at business and politics - they don't go around insulting potential customers/voters.
poor thing
Does it hurt when I push back? Aww. How gratifying.
This is a debate forum, a place for creative engagement and the development of novel useful concepts for the advancement of progressive causes, not a simple GOTV exercise. If you don't like bullshit being called bullshit, you're in the wrong place with the wrong set of expectations.
Of course I could be incorrect, maybe this is an echo-chamber for ObamaHate and McCainMightNotBeAllBad and SavePoorSarahPalin, but if my annoying insistence on a POV other than yours runs counter to the values of the blog then one of the Fellows will let me know. Their opinions on my tactics I accord great value. Yours, well; picture Obama flicking imaginary dust off his shoulders.
When I lobby politicians or walk precincts or organize protests or negotiate terms of engagement with law enforcement or write in a particular blog or journal I put on whatever hat I need to wear in order to accomplish whatever job is at hand. Why on Earth would you think that I or anyone doing entirely different tasks would employ the same tactics, the same demeanor and the same persona, regardless of audience or circumstance? Do you really think everyone is a one-trick pony?
Let's share an inconvenient truth, shall we? My arguments here are not made with the intention of satisfying your individual expectations or meeting your particular esthetic requirements; I have other objectives in mind. You are welcome to engage, of course, great sport and all; the Fellows manage that aspect and whatever they decide about who writes here and within what boundaries is what it is. I'll respond to posts and comments as I see fit, directly and openly and bluntly when I think that's called for, and let the Fellows do the policing.
Thanks so much for your comment though, means a lot to me, it really does. I believe the appropriate phrase is "stuck pig squeals" but then we're not supposed to mention pigs anymore or maybe that is only if they are Republican and wearing lipstick - the rules around anthropomorphized animal metaphors have gotten awfully confusing so please accept that in employing that phrase I had no sexist intentions; boar or sow, it is all the same to me.
If you have something to contribute in this thread that is based on substance rather than a diversionary personal attack, TonyRZ, I look forward to reading it. As you formulate that commentary, please keep in mind it is axiomatic within every faction of liberal philosophy that any proposed solution which fails to accurately characterize the nature of the problem is inherently doomed to failure.
D vs. R; an apt or inapt construct for the analysis of national electoral politics? Discuss.
You overrate your intellect, too....
Okay!! You write like a 12 year old.
The job at hand
"When I lobby politicians or walk precincts or organize protests or negotiate terms of engagement with law enforcement or write in a particular blog or journal I put on whatever hat I need to wear in order to accomplish whatever job is at hand."
And the job at hand here is what, beating people into submission?
Sorry
The problem isn't you offering a POV, it's you offering it piled with one of the most anti-social and distracting online personalities I've seen in a long time. You really do flatter yourself. Yes, it's everyone else that's the problem. You're just a good spirit bringing truth to a lost corner of th blogosphere. Forgive most of us for not being able to stomach the "sorry for being so brilliant and complex" and "dont' hate me because I'm so beautiful" complex.
If your goal here is really for honest and thought-provoking debate, you've been sure done a helluva good job hiding it. If your goal was to debate with the folks, here, instead of debating at the folks, here, you wouldn't be greeting everyone with headbutts.
Maybe, you'd find a more inviting place, elsewhere, that thrives off of needless combativeness and unncessary aggresiveness. You're obviously miserable, here. Everyone can see that.
Damon, a remark and a piece of advice
The advice: Nobody forces you to interact with anyone online. If a series of interactions is too much for you, then detach. It's what I do. I recommend the practice; it's good for the blog pressure.
The remark: In common with serveral other posters here [lambert blushes modestly], bringiton is a warrior; you arrived too late to see his work for Hillary, but if there was better work done on her behalf, I don't remember seeing it. And warriors -- with the exception of my humble self, naturally -- aren't known for their teddy bear personalities.
Even Obama can't lose this one, and when he doesn't, and it all turns to shit, as it will, you're going to want bringiton on your side, as he will be. So, grin and bear it, or detach, and think of it as an investment that will bring returns in short order. It's only 50-odd days, and we need warriors.
[ ] Very tepidly voting for Obama [ ] ?????. [ ] Any mullah-sucking billionaire-teabagging torture-loving pus-encrusted spawn of Cthulhu, bless his (R) heart.
When I see that the tactics of my critics are shifted
from debating substance to attacking me personally, my worth, my motives, my tone, it is clear that I have found a seam and a path forward along which there is no suitable refutation. I am grateful for that.
If you're bothered by being beaten, try formulating better arguments and see how that works for you.
Oh, and sorry to disappoint you Damon but in spite of your repeated invitations to leave I'll be sticking around a good while longer. Brace yourself.