The Obama Brand Implodes
21 January 2010 1:11 am by Taylor Marsh
–bumped – cross-posted on Huffington Post–
In the special election to replace Edward M. Kennedy, Barack Obama and the Democratic Party leadership were handed their heads in the most stunning, avoidable repudiation of ineptitude in recent political memory. Obama’s reaction, which was given through an interview with George Stephanopoulos, as translated by Paul Krugman is: In short, “Run away, run away”!
It’s not like they didn’t know this might be a rough one. Virginia and New Jersey were warnings, as was NY-23, with the added reality accompanying these shots that independents were scurrying from Democratic sights by the dozens. Sen. Jim Webb responded quickly to Coakley’s defeat, no doubt speaking for more than himself; Rachel Maddow read Barney Frank’s statement out loud, though he’s since flip flopped on it.
Now we’ve lost Massachusetts to the Republicans, emboldening them further, dreams of defeated Dems dancing across their heads. Rubio in Florida the first to get a boost, Blanche Lincoln further endangered, with Harry Reid’s days now surely numbered, if they weren’t already. Imagine that sight come November. It will make Daschle’s thumping by Thune, seen today as a possible presidential contender, look like a blip.
All of this manifesting after the welcome relief of voters finally getting rid of the Bush-Cheney regime, which had sullied the doorstep of our democracy on every front, the people eager and ready for the change and hope promised from Barack Obama. Who walked into Washington with the wind at his back, the press at his feet, and the world waiting for him to begin delivering on all that his candidacy promised. Certainly expectations were high, way too high, but it wouldn’t have taken much to appease the anxiousness everyone felt at what we all knew was possible, because Democratic policies were just what the voters had ordered.
Instead, Barack Obama reached across the aisle and let the Republicans stymie the Democratic agenda on the altar of Let’s Make A Deal, which they had no intention of doing. For one full year Pres. Obama has laid back, waited, and let things spin completely out of control until even Ted Kennedy’s old seat has been squandered on the altar of bipartisanship.
The President pretending he wasn’t a Democrat so much as some mediator in a policy dispute, making sure not to pick his own side over the other.
Obama’s promise unfulfilled, the voters decided to seek another kind of change for themselves.
The urgency of personal plight waits on no politician.
The White House allowed the health care narrative to be all about process, and the process the American people saw wasn’t pretty. It scared seniors, who worried what would happen to their Medicare. It scared workers, who worried about what would happen to the plans their unions had negotiated so hard for in lieu of salaries. It scared middle class Americans with good health insurance plans, who had–and have–no idea whether their plans will be deemed–if not today, in three or four years–Cadillacs, which will first be taxed and then discontinued, leaving them with exactly what Frank Luntz told them it would leave them with: a bureaucrat between them and their doctor. And worst of all, it seemed to most Americans that the reason they were being asked to make such potentially big sacrifices was so that health insurance companies, pharmaceutical companies, and millionaires wouldn’t have to. It seemed not only risky but unfair.
So in that sense, the story of health insurance played right into the story that lies behind the looming tsunami that swept away Ted Kennedy’s Senate seat and will sweep away so many more Democratic seats if the Democrats draw the wrong conclusions from this election. The White House just couldn’t seem to “get” that the American people could see that they were constantly coming down on the side of the same bankers who were foreclosing people’s homes and shutting off the credit to small business owners, when they should have been helping the people whose homes were being foreclosed and the small businesses that were trying to stay afloat because of the recklessness of banks that were now starving them. Americans were tired of hearing Obama “exhort” bankers and speculators to play nice as they collected their record bonuses for a heckuva job in 2009. It took him a year to float the idea of making them pay for a fraction of the damage they had done, and at this point, few Americans have any faith that a tax on big banks will ever become law or that the costs won’t just be passed on to them in new fees.
Still, over the evening last night, messages drifted in that it wasn’t Obama’s fault, that it was Coakley, that is was –insert the excuse here– and that Obama wasn’t to blame. The ObamaforAmerica crowd turning escaping their panic in the ObamaForever bubble, with the reality too much for the unthinking, uncritical, unconcerned, because Obama simply can’t fail, though he had, once again sending out their message of more time is needed, it’s everyone’s fault, just not his. Never mind that it hardly matters the mistakes of Martha Coakley’s campaign, because the boss gets paid to see these things coming. The boss and party leaders expected to understand the symbolic importance of Teddy Kennedy’s seat, which even Teddy always treated as the people’s seat and worked his heart out to deliver for them; no one knowing more than Kennedy that coattails are an illusion, as he and John Kerry couldn’t even deliver for Barack. Vicki Kennedy may take last night’s blow as a final insult and rise up to take it back, but nothing can undo the damage done. That replacing Kennedy with a Republican went beyond the right’s hopes and dreams of Virginia and New Jersey, NY-23, because now they’d deprived Democrats and their bright shining political star, Barack Obama, of a Senate seat that meant more than any single number. They took down Democratic history and did it in a walk, putting the President’s plans in limbo, because there was no Plan B. Like when Ted Kennedy was dying and neither Obama or the Democratic leadership felt the urgency to pass health care before he himself passed. All in due time, they chanted, even when time ran out.
The “fierce urgency of now” now rendered to just words.
The huge good will Barack Obama walked into Washington now been frittered away, as the Democratic leadership stood by and watched it happen, starting with health care. First August came and went, then Sarah Palin’s “death panels” came and went, and now the super majority Pres. Obama believed he needed to pass health care has come and gone. Reconciliation or bust? On which bill? Because conservative Democrats now have a place to take refuge, on the porch biding time for survival. With foreign policy the other casualty; the strength Obama showed towards Israel and their obligation to freeze settlements looming large beyond, the weakening on the domestic front likely to empower the status quo crowd, who have simply waited out the inevitable. The previews of what was coming feeding their patience. The promises at Cairo a mere memory.
We can only hope that one year after Obama took office, his win putting the very question of conservative relevancy into question, that the Democratic leadership will wake up. That the stark reversal of fortunes sent through the message of independents who have manifested two party disgust by outnumbering both sides now, aided by many Democrats as well, will make a dent. But if the last year has taught us anything, it’s that Democrats will double down on reaching out and going right to where they can nurse their own caution, instead of digging in and getting what was promised done sending the sign that they got the message.
Instead, Obama’s first instinct is to “run, run away,” as Paul Krugman writes.
We’ve been showing the way for months on health care, but Obama wouldn’t listen. He still isn’t.
Peter Daou wrote about this the other day. I was writing the same thing at the very same time, because it’s true.
We told you so.
TM NOTE: The above post has been edited, matching the Huffington Post entry that was posted on 1.21.10, the day after this post originally appeared on TM.com
Democrats have done nothing to counter the propaganda machine which has been in place since Reagan. Dems don’t even play defense most of the time, they just roll over when Frank Luntz’s dishonest but catchy talking points are rolled out. When they do respond, it is too little too late – and too lame. It took the debacle that was 8 years of Republican rule to get voters to temporarily stop drinking the Kool Aid but they are still thirsty and Dems are offering them nothing so they are again lapping up Republican swill.
Dems have repeatedly failed to point out the fundamental truth that it is Republican policies rooted in their deep-seated beliefs that have gotten us in trouble. To me the clearest is example is that the easily disproved, bald-faced lie that tax cuts cure all ills and pay for themselves has never been challenged by Democrats. Every time it has been tried since Reagan began the propaganda, our deficit has ballooned. Clinton reversed the policy and raised taxes, leading to a budget surplus and strong growth (yes some was a bubble, but a lot was not). Bush then cut taxes and the deficit climbed. Yet Republicans are still able to portray themselves as the party of fiscal discipline.
The evidence is overwhelming that tax cuts always add to our deficit by at least 50% of the total amount cut, but usually by much much more. So how is it that Scott Brown is able to win by touting tax cuts as the road to economic health and fiscal discipline? Clearly it is because Democrats and the media are too cowed to bother to tell Americans the truth or to push the media to do so.
Obama sold himself in large part by touting his ability to communicate and lead people yet he has done nothing to help Americans understand fundamental facts that are necessary for our democracy to return to sanity. Bromides about bipartisanship and change will not do the trick. Let’s hope this loss is the wake up call he needs to begin communicating about fundamentals instead of platitudes.
When I first laid eyes on Barack Obama, the first word that came to mind is “arrogant”. That he was brash enough to think that he was ready to vault into the presidency of the United States from junior senator from Illinois was a red flag for me. Along with Obama, we have the arrogant Harry Reid and Nancy Pelosi who have made it clear that they are not listening and really could care less about public opinion. It became all about them and THEIR agenda. All have proven to be out of touch and the people have had enough. Americans are pushing back. There’s an old saying that is applicable here: Pride goeth before a fall.
I’ve always had a problem with the Obama brand, and with the silly rhetoric and his starry-eyed minions. I think Victor Davis Hansen describes it well:
“Devotees turn on false prophets with a special vengeance. Obama is beginning to grate. His flip-the-switch-on, evangelical cadences at rallies sound more like a Harvard nerd doing blues imitations than Martin Luther King Jr. Purple-state presidents don’t appoint Van Joneses and Anita Dunns, or turn the NEA into a quid pro quo Ministry of Approved Culture. A healer doesn’t start in on the “rich,” “Wall Street,” the “big” oil companies, drug companies, insurance companies, or “fat-cat bankers” — especially when he has done his best to shake them all down for campaign money, hire as many of them as he can in his own administration, and arrange cut-rate loans, insider deals, bailouts, and guarantees for all of them.”
http://article.nationalreview.com/?q=MjBjY2Y3NGM3Y2UzYTA0MGJmZGQ3OGY2ZmE3NGZhMDA=&w=MQ==
Democrats have done nothing to counter the propaganda machine which has been in place since Reagan. Dems don’t even play defense most of the time, they just roll over when Frank Luntz’s dishonest but catchy talking points are rolled out.
Don’t forget wingnut radio, BernieO. They’ll be burning up the airwaves today.
To BernieO’s point, we can certainly find better links than propping up the right-wing who handed Obama & the Dems the miserable mess we’re trying to fix. Come on, BluePuppy, get a grip.
ALL politicians who run for president are arrogant, nzanh, pride part of the courage grab bag they need to face it.
But when you cultivate a presidency or political foundation on LACK OF IDEOLOGY, walking away from Democratic principles, putting in place of it the power of personality, the politician stands alone, with no larger mandate from which you or others can draw, thus decimating the Democratic brand. When loyal supporters and other machine minions won’t face it either, refusing responsibility, you’re all willfully choosing to head down a doomed path. Ideology and political principles must matter more and come before any one person or politician. When they don’t a person loses his/her way, with anyone following taken down too.
And I have told you so for months. People have refused to go on a boycott of conservative funders and force their ceos to go to congressional leaders to get us the progressive legislation we progressives want or lose a lot of business. In between elections, do you whining progressives have a better way to destroy conservative power? Do you? What’s your plan to threaten conservatives in congress and get them to go along in passing progressive legislation. I’m calling everyone who reads this out now. Give me a better plan than I have offered in the last number of moneths here. Give me a better plan. If you can’t then sign some or all of my petitions and stop whining and do something!
Go to http://www.democratz.org
You can hear my broef speech to frustrated Democratic coting students at George Wahington UNiversity on Washington Journal on Jan 12, 2010.
I’M NOT WHINING. I’m DOING SOMETHING. Stop your stickholm syndrome. Stop it now!
Democrats, end your frustration with conservatives in both parties.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8NNgFBN8Mfc
DAMN we need an edit feature for the comments and the diaries Taylor.
Obama the Republican. During a debate between Coakley and Scott both were asked their position on Obama’s troop surge into Afghanistan. Coakley, the Liberal Democrat, said that she did not support the troop surge and felt that Obama was doing the wrong thing in escalating the war in Afghanistan. (That would have been the way that Ted Kennedy would have answered that question.) Brown, the right wing Republican, said that Coakley’s position was wrongheaded and that he supported Obama and his troop surge. Brown also said that it was important to support Obama’s escalation in Afghanistan to keep the USA safe. (Brown’s is the neocon (warmonger) position.) No Democrat can win anywhere when they are forced to run against the policy positions of the Democratic leader of their own Party. Especially when those positions are pro-Republican (pro-war and fear) in their ideological makeup. Peace
Well Mr. Imhotep Go to http://endthewars.democratz.org and get everyone you can to sign this petition.
Do you have a better plan to get congress to end the wars?
Give me your plan. If not then sign this petition.
A lot to chew on, Taylor. I’m wondering which conclusion the Dems and Obama will draw. The MSM, of course, is drawing the conclusion that supports more reaching out to the Repubs. Nobody seems to be talking about the Democratic base.
I have always felt torn about Obama’s bipartisanship and reaching out to Republicans, more often feeling he should really take the bull by its horns and lead the charge on the mandate he was elected on. But now the evidence seems pretty clear this is a matter of the base not feeling excited enough to show up. At least this is how I see it. Perhaps others see it differently. Your post makes a lot of sense to me.
Wow, Drew Weston totally NAILS IT, in this article. Thanks for highlighting that Taylor. It’s excellent, and it is precisely what happened. I’ve heard so many ridiculous reasons this morning from every quarter about what happened, and I was frustrated with hearing such stupidity, thinking they’d never “get it” if they don’t get this election. Then I came here and read Weston, and it’s just EUREKA.
I hope they get it. If they don’t, there’s going to be even bigger implosions ahead. And, that is BAD for the rest of us. I’m not partisan in the sense that I’m not a supporter of either party–but Weston’s assessment strikes me as exactly the message to take away from Massachusetts.
Will the Democrats “get it?” Who knows. I hope so.
But, something else:
Will the Republicans “get it?” I certainly hope so. Because there’s a message here for THEM too. This is a win for moderate Republicans–Mitt Romney and John McCain–who groomed and sponsored Brown into this campaign, and helped him get this victory. It is a shot across the bow to the wingnut evangelicals in the GOP that their day is over, too.
lynette
I am in general agreement with you. He seemed more interested in the Republicans than getting real work done for the people or the interested of the Democratic Party that brought him to the Presidency.
If Obama can’t get the significance of losing the seat Teddy Kennedy held for 50 years – then we’ve got another 35 months lost.
From Taylor’s post above:
“The “fierce urgency of now” now rendered to just words.”
Is anyone thinking Axelrod’s retreads are not working?
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8M6×1H08aFc
Stringing together a bunch of pretty words means nothing if you don’t have the courage or principles to act on the words you espouse.
Check out Martin Luther King to see what acting with courage on principle means. More than “just words.”
The pro-war Democrats are responsible for the loss in Massachusetts yesterday. These people are not Progressives and they will cause the defeat of any Progressive–like Coakley–who runs for office in November. When the Democrats and the Republicans conduct the same foreign policy from one administration to the next there is really no need for two political parties. Peace
Hey Lynnette, djjl, all.
Anyone see Axelrod & Gibbs on Daily Rundown today? They acted shell shocked, but nobody was worse than David Plouffe, who was in the time machine, going backwards before Obama’s first year, blathering talking points that are irrelevant today. It was surreal.
The SOTU is going to be something. The speechwriters are in for it, because nobody wants to hear more words at this point, but obviously that’s where Obama begins year 2. Tough duty.
Obama, Axelrod & Gibbs—all pro-war Democrats. As long as these people, and people of their ilk, control the agenda of the Democratic Party no real Progressive stands a chance of winning in November. The pro-war wing of the Democratic Party is more Republican in its ideology than it is Progressive. Peace
I’d take a read of what Celinda Lake has to say. I think she makes a lot of sense – especially because she’s saying what I’ve been thinking and saying:
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2010/01/19/coakley-pollster-defends_n_428600.html
‘Pollster Celinda Lake said Coakley was hampered by the failure of the White House and Congress to confront Wall Street. That failure, she said, means that Democrats are being blamed by angry independent voters worried about the state of the economy.
“If Scott Brown wins tonight he’ll win because he became the change-oriented candidate. Voters are still voting for the change they voted for in 2008, but they want to see it. And right now they think they’ve got economic policies for Washington that are delivering more for banks than Main Street.”
Asked about reported criticism from White House Chief of Staff Rahm Emanuel, Lake said she had seen the stories. “I think it’s a circling squad to protect the White House. I don’t think it’s very useful,” she said, mixing a metaphor while getting across a clear message.
Lake said that the problem for Democrats is that voters are blaming them for the nation’s poor economic conditions. “2010 is fast turning out to be a blame election and I think that either we are going to characterize who deserves the blame – whether that’s banks and lobbyists and people who still want to hold on to national Republican economic strategies – or we’re going to get the blame. And that’s a very different tone than, often, the administration is comfortable with,” she said.
The feeling among voters, said Lake, is that Washington prioritizes Wall Street over Main Street and that, despite Coakley’s credentials as a state attorney general who has taken on and beaten Wall Street banks, sending her to Washington would not make a difference. “On the eve of the election, Martha Coakley had a 21-point advantage over Scott Brown on who would fight Wall Street and deliver for Main Street. But it didn’t predict to the vote, because voters thought, even if they sent her down here that it wouldn’t happen. ‘Fine, she had done it in Massachusetts, but no one was doing it in Washington,’” Lake said. “Voters are voting for change and we have to go back to that change message. And we have to deliver on change, especially an economic policy that serves working people.” ‘
I agree the brand has imploded but for the opposite reason. The party has been hijacked by the far-Left, the ideologically “pure,” those who were willing to smear Bill Clinton as a racist in order to promote Obama. I think Lanny Davis nicely lays out the failures of Daily Kos-Olbermann-Michael Moore gang and the real success of the Clintons.
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748703837004575013221708478134.html
The Democrats’ finger-pointing, while natural, is petty and ill-serving. Everyone — from Coakley to Obama — showed extreme hubris in assuming that she would coast to victory. She was a flaawed candidate. And Obama should have recognized this much earlier and committed resources and appearances well ahead of time. But, in truth, this thing was over once Brown uttered the line “This is the PEOPLE’S seat.” Knockout rhetorical blow, as it neatly encapsulated both the Democrats’ sense of entitlement and the strong independent streak of Massachusetts voters.
I notice that both McConnell and Brown have positioned themselves as independent-minded “solutionists.” The scuttlebutt is that Brown refused to identify as a Republican. If this is true, then it is the Republicans who have learned the lesson of the 2008 election: easy on the ideology, heavy on the solutions. And the perennial favorite: It’s the economy, stupid.
I had hoped that it would be Democrats who would understand this. But, judging from the commentary here and on similar sites, the lesson still eludes grasp. Bottom line: Pelosi shoulda took the Senate deal. I told you guys not to fall in love with a negotiating position. Clinton said it. Begala said it. Even Krugman said it. Pass it, they said. It’s imperfect, but it’s a start. We can fix the rest over time. But you wouldn’t listen. You drew a Maginot line: Public option (if not single payer) or bust. Well, there you go.
It’s not funny, but I find it ironic that the progressive commentariat today is recommending holding their nose and taking the Senate deal. They must not have got the memo, but folks like Weiner, Frank, and Webb surely have: Senate deal go buh-bye.
So I hope that common sense financial prevails and we can pass a slimmed-down health care bill and return to kitchen table issues, like fixing the economy and passing comprehensive financial reform. Exactly what moderates have been begging this administration to do, to little avail.
“finally prevails”
Big Winner here? Mitt Romney, who’s been quietly backing Brown, and other Republican candidates around the country: And, it shows how amateur this White House–and DNC–really is…..not to have paid any attention to any of this!
“While the former governor and presidential candidate himself was mostly absent from the campaign trail, Romney’s advisers were responsible for the strategic vision and execution that helped propel a little-known state senator to a historic upset victory.
The Romney loyalists, now part of the Boston-based consulting shop The Shawmut Group, crafted a series of memorable ads that underscored Brown’s everyday image, including a spot of him driving an old beat-up pickup that’s already an instant political classic. Romney adviser Eric Fehrnstrom, a former reporter, deserves special kudos for his ad imagery and media management, as do aides Beth Myers, Peter Flaherty and Rob Gray.
Read more: http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0110/31706.html#ixzz0dAHFwQFl
Daily Beast is much more in-depth, a good article:
http://utahpolicy.com/featured_article/mitt-romney-could-be-behind-brown-win-massachusetts
If Scott Brown pulls off an upset in the race to replace Ted Kennedy in the Senate, he may have Mitt Romney to thank. Samuel P. Jacobs on the 2012 GOP presidential hopeful’s hidden hand.
There are a number of forces driving Republican Scott Brown’s surprising surge in the Massachusetts special Senate election campaign. He’s benefiting from public anger over the Obama administration’s health-care reform plan. He’s buoyed by a tide of cash from around the country, donated by conservatives eager to send a message by upsetting Democratic front-runner Martha Coakley. And then there’s the lackluster campaign Coakley herself has run.
Largely overlooked in assessing Brown’s prospects: the hidden hand of Mitt Romney. The former Massachusetts governor headlined at a fundraiser for Brown last October. And Romney has helped Brown raise money outside the state as well. “I know Scott and how determined he is to win. I’ve campaigned for him, raised money on his behalf, and we’re doing all we can to help him over the finish line,” Romney wrote supporters last Monday. Brown, 50, raised $1.3 million that day.
But lest anyone accuse Romney of being a Johnny-come-lately—stepping up only as Brown has vaulted from sacrificial lamb to serious threat—the 2008 presidential hopeful has lent crucial support behind the scenes from the start of Brown’s campaign. Ever since he entered the race to succeed the late Sen. Ted Kennedy, Brown has been counseled by members of the Shawmut Group, a Boston-based consulting firm that acts as the Romney political brain trust in exile. Among the many Romney disciples running Brown’s campaign are Beth Myers, the campaign manager of Romney’s presidential run; Eric Fehrnstrom, Romney’s chief spokesman; Peter Flaherty, Romney’s “go-to-guy for conservatives”; and Rob Cole, Romney’s 2008 deputy chairman manager. Beth Lindstrom, another player in Romney World, is working as Brown’s campaign manager. Lindstrom’s ties to Romney go back years; she started working with him in the Massachusetts State House as director of consumer affairs.
A Brown victory would be a huge upset—threatening the viability of Obama’s health-care plan and providing the GOP a burst of energy and confidence heading into the 2010 midterm elections this fall. It would also be a big boost for Romney’s 2012 presidential campaign. Up against a populist wave on the right that favors candidates like Sarah Palin, Romney can improve his appeal and influence by gaining the loyalty of newly elected officials. And Brown is hardly the only GOP contender Romney is helping. The Hill reported in September, Romney’s followers have spread throughout the country to help candidates in Connecticut, New Hampshire, New York, and California. Most notable among them: Former eBay CEO Meg Whitman has a stable of Romney aides helping her try to her win the governor’s mansion in Sacramento.
Romney’s role is all the more interesting because he’s not exactly Brown’s ideological soulmate. One of the winning lines of the Brown campaign was his protestation that he can’t be tied to George W. Bush and Dick Cheney. “I’m Scott Brown,” the state senator told the audience of the campaign’s only debate. “I’m from Wrentham. I drive a truck.”
Wrentham is best known for its shopping outlets. Romney, before recently decamping for New Hampshire, lived in Belmont, a tony Boston suburb, home to Harvard professors and families who send their kids to local private schools. Brown’s worked in state government since 1992; Romney made his name in private equity. Brown went to Boston College Law School, and Mitt Romney was schooled at Harvard Business School. They represent two different strands of American conservatism, or at least their New England versions.
But Romney intimates see similarities between the two.
Essential reading! Full Article at:
http://www.thedailybeast.com/blogs-and-stories/2010-01-17/mitt-romneys-man/
BluePuppy
Will you please post some of these FAR LEFT programs Obama has backed?
You won’t find a bigger backer of the Clintons here than I am. I think, as I’ve said before, Obama ran a cynical and craven campaign. he decided he do whatever it took to win.
But,it was people who looked along the lines that you seem to be following that allowed him to do it. They ignored facts, simplyh ignored truth and logic and followed nothing more than emotion – they adored him – you apparently loathe him.
It really shouldn’t be about HIM. He’ll leave office never to have to do any real work again in order to maintain a lifestyle of the rich and famous. It is about the people of this country. About what is best for this country and it’s people.
It’s about not being crushed by the health care industrial complex and it’s minions in the right wing and Republican Party. You might do best if you simply ignored anyone with a name (Clinton, Obama, Coakley,Romney,etc) and focused on what is being proposed and not who is doing the proposing.
You seem to care mightily. I think you care about the same things that most of us do. But there is nothing leftist about Obama or his proposals. He’s much closer to the right wing ilk at this point. I’m hoping that losing the seat Ted Kennedy served for 50 years serves as a wake up call to Obama, Axelrod and Emmanuel. It really is about more than “just words.” At this point, all Obama has shown anyone is “just words.”
If buttercups buzz’d after the bee,
If boats were on land, churches on sea,
If ponies rode men and if grass ate the cows,
And cats should be chased into holes by the mouse,
If the mamas sold their babies
To the gypsies for half a crown;
If summer were spring and the other way round,
Then all the world would be upside down.
The US political world has been turned upside down. It doesn’t matter what the Dems and Repubs think of their candidates, it’s what the Independents think of them both.
It’s not Dems vs. Repubs any more, it’s Independents (49% Mass., 41% nat’l) looking at them both, not liking what they’re seeing and giving them a jolt.
Unfortunately there aren’t any exit polls for the 2010 Massachusetts Senate Race, so we don’t know for sure if the Indies went for Brown because they like him and the Repubs, or if it was a protest vote against the Dems who are now in power in Washington. But because the majority (57% nat’l) of the electorate think the country’s on the wrong track I’m sure it’s the latter.
This wasn’t merely message to the Dems, but to Washington: You’re supposed to be a government of the people and for the people. This inter-party charade while you butter your bread with corporate gifts doesn’t cut it any more, you clowns, so you’d better listen to us who have no party because we outnumber either party and we can take you down.
Senator-elect Brown shouldn’t be too confident. It’s not that the Indies like him so much, it’s that they hate Washington (Dems and Repubs), and for many good reasons.
LEt’s look at what Lanny Davis posted in the link from BluePuppy – Davis says the party needs to be reclaimed – by who:
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748703837004575013221708478134.html
“snip
Then, in 2008, Barack Obama added something extra: a commitment to a “new politics” that transcended the “red” versus “blue” partisan divide. He explained this concept clearly in his 2004 Democratic Convention keynote speech and during his 2008 presidential campaign. It meant compromise, consensus and bipartisanship, even if that meant only incremental change. The purists on the left of the Democratic Party who demanded the “public option” or no bill at all apparently forgot that candidate Obama’s health-care proposal did not include a public option; nor did it include a government mandate for everyone to either purchase insurance or pay a significant tax approximating the cost of that insurance—the “pay or play provision” in both the Senate and House bills.
Bottom line: We liberals need to reclaim the Democratic Party with the New Democrat positions of Bill Clinton and the New Politics/bipartisan aspirations of Barack Obama—a party that is willing to meet half-way with conservatives and Republicans even if that means only step-by-step reforms on health care and other issues that do not necessarily involve big-government solutions.
That’s what Massachusetts Democrats and independent voters were telling national Democrats yesterday. The question isn’t just, will we listen? The question is, will we stop listening to the strident, purist base of our party who seem to prefer defeat to winning elections and no change at all if they don’t get all the change they want.
Stay tuned.”
Personally, I don’t see Obama listening to any strident base at all. I guess those are the people who stayed home and didn’t vote.
ogenec~ None of this mess is because the President and his administration listens to the like of us! Come on!
Celinda Lake is a Democratic pollster who was working for the Coakley campaign. She knows what the voters were thinking. She was absolutely correct along with Taylor and Drew Weston. This election was not about HC,MA has HC it was about Obama’s deal makng with banks,big Pharma,the insurance industry. MA has been solid blue for all those years because it’s citizens believed that Democrats protected the interests of the common person. They are perfectly able to see that the current leadership of the Party is far more interested in protecting the interests of big money.
Obama really needs to find his inner Democrat and govern like one or we are done for….”Nothing in the middle of the road but dead opposums.” ~ Sam Rayburn
Sam Rayburn knew what it meant to be a Democrat. I’m not certain Obama does.
Do we have a Mass voter posting here? If not, I’m not so certain anyone here has any impact on what Mass voters did. We just try to understand what the hell is going on. Why ?- because it has an effect on our lives and the lives of those we love.
Celinda Lake has it right imo.
The feeling among voters, said Lake, is that Washington prioritizes Wall Street over Main Street and that, despite Coakley’s credentials as a state attorney general who has taken on and beaten Wall Street banks, sending her to Washington would not make a difference. “On the eve of the election, Martha Coakley had a 21-point advantage over Scott Brown on who would fight Wall Street and deliver for Main Street. But it didn’t predict to the vote, because voters thought, even if they sent her down here that it wouldn’t happen. ‘Fine, she had done it in Massachusetts, but no one was doing it in Washington,’” Lake said. “Voters are voting for change and we have to go back to that change message. And we have to deliver on change, especially an economic policy that serves working people.”
ogenec I’m afraid is emblematic of the response the Democratic leadership, wants to and will take from this. The Senate Health Care bill, along with people like Barney Frank blocking Financial Industry reform is what’s fueling outrage. No solutions to anyone’s plight, just a stunning dose of “More of the Same”. But if that is the Democratic Leadership’s response, we’ll finally at least be rid of them. Because they won’t be coming back.
Then perhaps the Whig party will dissolve and we’ll be able to make a real Party from the goo.
Lake Lady says:
20 January 2010 at 11:01 am
This election was not about HC,MA has HC it was about Obama’s deal makng with banks,big Pharma,the insurance industry.
______________________
LL, there is an element of truth to that. I don’t completely discount it. In fact, that is very much part of my critique of this administration. How many times have I argued that the economy is what matters, and that we should have left this distracting issue of comprehensive healthcare for later? Obama should have focused on the economy, stimulus measures, and comprehensive financial reform that would prevent the excessive risk-taking by financial intermediaries that caused the economic meltdown.
But here is how this election in MA impacts the healthcare issue. Since Obama ignored everyone’s remonstrations to focus on the economy, we urged him to get what he could and then pivot back to the economy. Not ideal, but the least-worst alternative. And it is at that point that progressives screwed the pooch. By insisting on legislative arcana, like the public option shibboleth. Getting pledges from Congress to support said public option, only to see them back away when they gazed into the abyss of legislative realities.
Raise your hand if you think last night makes it more, not less, likely that we’ll get anything like what was on the table with the Senate bill. No takers? Thought so. Pelosi shoulda taken the deal. Now it’s a slimmed-down bill, if any, and economy is back on the front-burner. As it should have been. Even Weiner, the ardent single-payer advocate, now understands this.
autumnal says:
20 January 2010 at 11:18 am
___________
Sorry, but that charge is untrue. I want comprehensive health care. I want financial reform and the economy fixed. I just believe in the concept of opportunity cost, and I think the latter takes precedence over the former.
Don: Apparently there were exit polls. It was “Health Care.”
Voters said they voted for Brown to stop Obama/Democrats HEALTH CARE PLAN.
http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0110/31708.html
But this incredibly arrogant White House didn’t get the message:
http://dailycaller.com/2010/01/20/following-scott-brown-win-white-house-insists-its-mandate-stands/
you know ogenec back when Rahm was saying let’s take advantage of crisis and move on some big things I was in agreement. That was when I believed they would MOVE.Instead they took months and months trying to be bi-partisan, they lost the message war,and then it became apparent that special interests were in control of the process ruining our mandate. Looking back now over what a cluster***k this has all become I agree he should have started with the economy.But if the handling of the banks and AG and Freddy and Fanny so far are any indication of what they would come up with I can’t really see how we would be in a different place today.
Noogan~ The missing information in the poll is the people(Dems) who stayed home. Only a little over a third of the voters were self identified Dems.
Boy, Kathleen Kennedy Townsand just went after Coakley big time on MSNBC!
You will NEVER when in MASS with 1/3 Democrats bothering to vote.
pheww – win
Perhaps DC – and that REALLY includes the WHITE HOUSE – will recognize that the long, long, long pep rally really is OVER.
The stay-at-home Dems DID bother to vote — with their fannies. Just like 38% of the electorate voted in the last presidential — none of the above, thank you very much.
You know I’m starting to feel I can not handle three more years of Obama in power…If his White House keep ignoring angry voters we will be witnessing many more lost seats for Dems.
Obama White House just does not get it…and pretty speeches by him will not get these people jobs or stop the war….He needs to act like a Leader and quit hiding behind his speech writer.
“The stay-at-home Dems DID bother to vote — with their fannies. Just like 38% of the electorate voted in the last presidential — none of the above, thank you very much.” – Don Bacon
Your right…this election seem to have had shades of McCain failed campaign when many Republicans stayed home.
From Taylor’s link to David Westin:
“You can blame a bad candidate, bad organization, bad timing of a vacation — choose your rationalization. But the reality is that voters in Massachusetts were reacting to the same foul mist coming off Boston Harbor that New Jersey Voters smelled coming off the Hudson and Virginia voters off the Chesapeake.
What they all understood was that the source lay on the shores of the Potomac.
It is a truly remarkable feat, in just one year’s time, to turn the fear and anger voters felt in 2006 and 2008 at a Republican Party that had destroyed the economy, redistributed massive amounts of wealth from the middle class to the richest of the rich and the biggest of big businesses, and waged a trillion-dollar war in the wrong country, into populist rage at whatever Democrat voters can cast their ballot against.
All of this was completely predictable. And it was predicted. I wrote about it for the first time here on the sixth day of Obama’s presidency, and many of us have written about it in the intervening year.
The President’s steadfast refusal to acknowledge that we have a two-party system, his insistence on making destructive concessions to the same party voters he had sent packing twice in a row in the name of “bipartisanship,” and his refusal ever to utter the words “I am a Democrat” and to articulate what that means, are not among his virtues. We have competing ideas in a democracy — and hence competing parties — for a reason. To paper them over and pretend they do not exist, particularly when the ideology of one of the parties has proven so devastating to the lives of everyday Americans, is not a virtue. It is an abdication of responsibility.
And so he did!
Sorry
“And so he did!” is me – not Westin
The message has been sent:
“I’m hoping that it gives a message to the country,” said Marlene Connolly, 73, of North Andover, a lifelong Democrat who said she cast her first vote for a Republican on Tuesday. “I think if Massachusetts puts Brown in, it’s a message of ‘that’s enough.’ Let’s stop the giveaways and let’s get jobs going.”
http://www.nytimes.com/2010/01/21/us/politics/21elect.html
Seventy-three, first vote for a Repub, the message sent. A strong protest message. Has it been received? I doubt it.
djjl says:
20 January 2010 at 12:26 pm
Good afternoon.
Drew Westin always puts it perfectly.
In the annals of human history, outrage has always won the day in politics.
Obama has had heaps to be outraged about given the gross injustices working people suffered had to endure under Republican rule, yet he decided on the persona of Mr Cool.
“Present”
Lake Lady says:
20 January 2010 at 11:54 am
you know ogenec back when Rahm was saying let’s take advantage of crisis and move on some big things I was in agreement.
__________________
And I wasn’t. I never understood that. The way you take advantage of a crisis is to end the crisis. Period. Then, and only then, do you move on to other things. As to what the financial reform would have looked like if they’d tried it first, it’s hard to say. But the coalition that voted for Obama — from Republicans through to progressives — would not have been splintered by financial reform that fixed the banks etc. without adding one red cent to the deficit.
Taylor, you have written about this since the beginning.
There is a reason approval of him is high, yet his policies are not.
The politics of personality propelled him throughout the primary and GE. And it may have served democrats to cling to him, and “change!” “hope!” in 08′ but those days are over.
My concern, since the beginning has been he has no ideological core. Over and over, from “be a democrat for a day” to “Harry and Louise” attack ads, this is a man who was going to fight for democratic principles?
Buyer’s Remorse:
He’s Done Everything Wrong
by Mort Zuckerman
Let me tell you what a major leader said to me recently. “We are convinced,” he said, “that he is not strong enough to confront his enemy. We are concerned,” he said “that he is not strong to support his friends.”
The political leadership of the world is very, very dismayed. He better turn it around. The Democrats are going to get killed in this election. Jesus, looks what’s happening in Massachusetts.
http://www.thedailybeast.com/blogs-and-stories/2010-01-19/hes-done-everything-wrong/?cid=bs:archive3
The reason to think he MIGHT turn it around is because it is in his personal self interest to do so. No reason to think he’ll do it for anyone other than himself. It’s not about the people of this country – it’s about not losing his “cool” rating as well as burying the Democratic Party and everything it stood for at one time.
Axelass just said on MSNBC that the Administration is a “victim” of the economy. What a bunch of whiners. They just don’t get it. Where are the adults in the WH?
BluePuppy says:
This is so sick I can’t even begin to respond – first Bill Clinton did make racist statements during the campaign and second to quote the ultimate Corporate Tool “Lanny Davis” and sight it from Fox’s Wall Street Journal when we are talking about the disaster the Corporate Democrats have brought to us is unbelievable. The nasty fact is that Hillary was and is just as Corporate as Obama is and it was Bill Clinton that did everything he could to destroy the middle class with NAFTA and then showed his homophobia with DADT & DOMA. The Clintons and slimy sacks of Corporate shit like Lanny Davis are part of the problem in the Democratic Party not part of the solution.
Axelrod’s “just words” campaign just ran off the tracks.
The victims are the people who were forced to FUND the outrageous bonuses being passed out on Wall Street and the Big Banking Industry. Oh let’s not forget the money he’s trying to guarranty to the Health Care Industry – want to talk about Death Panels – call em for profit insurance companies and the for profit health care industry.
Noogan says:
20 January 2010 at 12:54 pm
Noogan, great article by MZ. Thanks for posting it.
djjl says:
20 January 2010 at 1:10 pm
I wonder if he can turn it around. Whether its in his own self interest or not. IMO this man does not have the constitution to fight. In the past, he has picked his battles and only when he has been assured of a win then he jumps in.
My guess is that he will do what he has always done which is to take the middle course. Only this time he’ll be a bit more rambunctious about it. He will continue to “reach out” to the Repugs while taking a harsher and more populist tone in his speeches. But fewer are taking him seriously now anyway.
Action? Some tinkering perhaps, but no bold or dramatic moves. I further do not expect him do do anything that will so gratify the left that it irritates the right.
It seems from all the comments on yesterday’s election that Obama has simultaneously leapt to the right, followed a far-left agenda, been too centrist and not been as centrist as independents thought he was. Just as his supporters were accused of projecting their hopes on him irrespective of what he did or said, everyone just seems to be projecting their frustrations. But the broader problem is just failure to lead as much as everyone expected him to/or feared he would, on most issues. And the remoteness and technocrat approach to issues that he adopted as soon he took office.
One year after voting for him, I am not sure anymore what he stands for and it seems that no one does since he is blamed for doing/believing one thing and its absolute opposite. I hope that he gets one big lesson from this collective and conflicting rant. He was not elected to be a policy mediator as Taylor puts it. Most people are running out of patience with his failure to take a stand one way or the other. Another one would be that the Obama “brand” and his marketing of himself (transparency, pragmatism, bottom-up) was hugely important for democrats and independents, almost more important than his beliefs, that is why he was able to attract both segment of voters. In all three he has not been too successful. That may explain why anyone who tries to tout the achievements of his administration is dismissed. While he promised CHANGE, his achievements are more of an administrative nature and difficult to boast about in comparison to what he promised.
Also I just find it baffling that after his successful campaign, which mobilised grass root to a level rarely seen before, he and the dems failed to understand that this was not a time for top-down detached leadership. Because one thing that is clearly annoying all voters across the board is the status quo, Washington politics and the impunity of Wall Street. The fact that he has allowed himself to be seen as being on the side of Washington and Wall Street one year after campaigning against them is really demoralising.
“The Obama Brand Implodes” — and if a brand, not an actual product, is what you’re relying on ….
In an NPR Morning Edition interview this morning, a Brown voter identified himself as Dem, but explained his vote by saying, “It’s time for a change.” Maybe some / many voters will start flipping back and forth on a yearly, election to election basis, looking for “change,” but never dealing with the realities of the similar corporatist nature of our “legacy” parties.
As is showing up on various blogs, facetiously, but perhaps not so facetiously: Perhaps Brown will be the next big hope, from the right — after all, he went from a few years as a state legislator to the U.S. Senate. By 2012, he’ll have ample experience to run for the White House. Though he does have that centerfold history …
http://www.democratz.org — actions are needed, I agree. The good conversation, thoughtful criticims, etc., are vital. But actions are needed.
Peter Daou has an interesting perspective. Give it a read Bluepuppy.
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/peter-daou/liberal-bloggers-to-obama_b_429031.html
Ogenec~ you make a good point about the financial reform not adding to the deficit but not fixing HC adds to the deficit too,so do two wars.
Joyce Arnold~ He was asked that this morning in his first press conference. He seemded to be honestly dumbstruck by the question.He was modest and humble in his answer.
Ramsgate: So true, below; I think you’re exactly right. It won’t work; people are past the point of hearing what he says anymore, past the point of being “razzle-dazzled,” because that’s all he does. So, more dogmatic or pedantic podium banging just won’t do it. The economy looms large over everyone’s lives. He thinks doing a shell-game to distract people will keep them happy; it won’t. People are having to make tough, heartbreaking choices in their every day lives; they’re sick of being conned with “pretend and extend” policies and with the Blame-Bush game. They’re not buying the brand anymore. But Obama is constitutionally unable to actually invest in a principle; his character is all about the shallow exterior and getting by on charm. After a while, people start to look for the work horse, not the show horse, especially when they’re in a crisis. So, if they think continuing to do the 3-card-monty-shuffle will satisfy the masses, well…..November will be a cold day in hell for Democrats.
“IMO this man does not have the constitution to fight. In the past, he has picked his battles and only when he has been assured of a win then he jumps in.
My guess is that he will do what he has always done which is to take the middle course. Only this time he’ll be a bit more rambunctious about it. He will continue to “reach out” to the Repugs while taking a harsher and more populist tone in his speeches. But fewer are taking him seriously now anyway.”
also from the Zuckerman article.
One business leader said to me, “In the Clinton administration, the policy people were at the center, and the political people were on the sideline. In the Obama administration, the political people are at the center, and the policy people are on the sidelines.”
Zuckerman is livid! So the big money people who supported him are amazed at the incompetence.
Bill Clinton …….. then showed his homophobia with DADT
LOL, it was Sam Nunn and the Democrats who gave us DADT, not Clinton.
Lake Lady says:
20 January 2010 at 2:24 pm
____________________
Now, now, LL.
You shouldn’t quote selectively from Zuckerman. The incompetence to which he refers is that Obama focused on healthcare reform, which he called a “disaster,” rather than the economy. His POV is diametrically opposed to yours. I share his concerns about healthcare and the stimulus.
“I am not sure anymore what he stands for.”
Jeez, come oooon, he doesn’t stand for anything and he told us so more than four years ago.
TM: “The President pretending he wasn’t a Democrat so much as some mediator in a policy dispute, making sure not to pick his own side over the other.”
This was Obama’s pitch from the beginning. Why did thirty-eight percent of the electorate stay home in 2008? Well, speaking for myself, it was because of this:
“According to the storyline that drives many advocacy groups and Democratic activists – a storyline often reflected in comments on this blog [DKos] – we are up against a sharply partisan, radically conservative, take-no-prisoners Republican party. They have beaten us twice by energizing their base with red meat rhetoric and single-minded devotion and discipline to their agenda. In order to beat them, it is necessary for Democrats to get some backbone, give as good as they get, brook no compromise, drive out Democrats who are interested in “appeasing” the right wing, and enforce a more clearly progressive agenda. The country, finally knowing what we stand for and seeing a sharp contrast, will rally to our side and thereby usher in a new progressive era.
“I think this perspective misreads the American people. From traveling throughout Illinois and more recently around the country, I can tell you that Americans are suspicious of labels and suspicious of jargon. They don’t think George Bush is mean-spirited or prejudiced, but have become aware that his administration is irresponsible and often incompetent.”–Barack Obama
Fri Sep 30, 2005
http://tinyurl.com/6oen4m
So now, as in the race against HRC, we supposedly have “responsibility” and “competence” and not a Democrat, or even a democrat. In fact we don’t have much of anything, do we, except for a sharp end of the stick. But don’t forget, Obama can be tough when he needs to be — just ask Van Jones and Charles Freeman, among others.
Noogan says:
20 January 2010 at 2:16 pm
Exactly. You got it.
He has to recalibrate the whole damn thing. He has to ask himself WHY he wanted to BE President, that is if he wanted to be, and he just didn’t get into it because Harry Reid and other senate Dems told him to. WHAT does he want to achieve for the country? Sometimes it seems to me that he got the job and once he got it he had no idea what to do once he got it. Like the dog that caught the car.
He should look at HBO campaign film to remind himself of what America and the world saw in him and what they voted for. The hope he once enthusiastically inspired. The change for which we all yearned, because he seemed to be a decent man. The enormous potential at his disposal. He had real power. He should reflect upon it all.
Then he would get rid of the Chicago crew that surrounds him, all of them, and the millionaire Wall street bankers he callously put in charge of the economy although they were the ones who created the mess that we are in.
Once he has cleaned house only then can he begin to think about turning this thing around.
i wonder what the kennedy clan is thinking? viki? one of em i bet runs to take out brown for sure. there is something creepy about brown. why do i get this feeling ma in 2 weeks will have huge buyers remorse.
Don Bacon says:
20 January 2010 at 2:41 pm
___________________
And therein lies the dilemma. Because that Daily Kos diary you so often quote articulates perfectly what I believe. It’s the reason I voted for Obama. So the real question is how folks like you and me can learn to sing from the same sheet of music. Because if we can’t, we’re all doomed. Every last one of us, progressives and moderates alike. I think the answer is “progressive ends by moderate means.” Incrementalism, a la WJC. It is the only political strategy that a Democratic president has successfully employed in generation. And there is a reason for that.
Moderates and progressives must make peace. Peace. LOL!!
ogenec~ The whole article is there for everyone to read. I was interested in the perceived political meddling. I wasn’t trying to manipulate. Seemed like he is worried about more than what you discuss.My guess would be that the international leaders he is referring to are Israeli,I could be very wrong about that but if it is,depending on who they are I might not be so concerned with the observation.
If you can’t beat ‘em join ‘em. Obama associates himself with Brown.
He tells ABC News:
“Here’s my assessment of not just the vote in Massachusetts, but the mood around the country: the same thing that swept Scott Brown into office swept me into office,” the president said in an exclusive interview with ABC News’ George Stephanopoulos. “People are angry and they are frustrated. Not just because of what’s happened in the last year or two years, but what’s happened over the last eight years.”
WTF.
Well we might as well elect Brown in 2012 or Palin, since he can relate so well to them.
Lake Lady says:
20 January 2010 at 2:58 pm
___________
Hey, I was teasing. Not accusing you of any dastardly acts. Peace, my sister, peace. I’m copping Imhotep’s line today.
Before we can make “peace” Ogenec we need to talk about another “piece” as in how big a piece of the pie do you think corporations and banks deserve?
Incremental made sense during Clinton’s time but now the problems are so much bigger.People are really in crisis out there and what about climate change? Progress toward that seems a faraway dream but if I understand it we don’t have that much more time.
Peace to you too
Lake Lady says:
20 January 2010 at 2:12 pm
I missed that, LL, so thanks much.
No you guys I think that is pretty smart. He is trying to take back the argument and refocus it.
Anytime Joyce Arnold
ogenec: “that Daily Kos diary you so often quote articulates perfectly what I believe.”
But what you believed would work hasn’t worked. Obama bargained away the power of the Dem majority trying to be reasonable with unreasonable people, and we’re all suffering from it while he continues to blame George Bush for his own failings. Obama = Loser.
Sen. Harry Reid said the Senate will wait for Sen.-elect Scott Brown to be sworn in before we do anything new on health care.
For more information…http://www.politico.com
What do you all think about this? I think it was the only thing they could do. They can’t just jam that Senate bill down the throat of the house,for many reasons.
Lake Lady says:
20 January 2010 at 3:13 pm
Before we can make “peace” Ogenec we need to talk about another “piece” as in how big a piece of the pie do you think corporations and banks deserve?
____________________________
Ha-ha. I’m a dyed-in-the-wool capitalist, as if you couldn’t tell. I believe in free markets and free enterprise. But free is not the same thing as laissez faire. The former is what we need; the latter is what we’ve had for the past eight years. And I firmly believe that democrats are the true defenders of capitalism, because they insist on openness and transparency. Democrats are heirs to the tradition of great statesmen like FDR and Ferdinand Pecora, whose hearings during the Great Depression paved the way for the SEC and the separation of commercial from investment banking.
So I don’t begrudge banks and companies making lots of money. God bless ‘em. But past is prologue, and just like the 30s, banks are engaging in business that is fraught with conflicts of interest. That needs to stop. So I’m not for breaking up or nationalizing banks. But I am for comprehensive financial reform that ends the abuses and conflicts of interest.
Your point about problems being bigger now is well-taken. But the only way I know to tackle a big problem is to break it down into smaller pieces and tackle them one at a time. This “never waste a crisis” talk has always struck me as horse manure.
Don Bacon~ it depends on how he blames them. He needs to clearly articulate how the policies of the preceeding administration got us into the place we find ourselves. I don’t think people understand it.
I don’t go along with this meme that we need to forget the past and move on,people need to realize how Republican POLICIES and ideology wreaked our economy. They need the dots connected how lowered taxes lead to high deficits.That lax regulation incentivizes high risk taking by the financial industy. That it is a myth that the unseen hand always corrects the market.
intersting from dfa: 25pct of ma dems voted for brown. those dems strongly back pub opt etc.. it was a protest vote against obama failing to bring change. but dc wont get that.
If we only had democrats like that now
Don Bacon says:
20 January 2010 at 3:20 pm
But what you believed would work hasn’t worked.
________________________
Not yet it hasn’t. But it will.
ogenec: “laissez faire . .is what we’ve had for the past eight years.”
Actually, it isn’t. What we’ve had is unabashed corporate welfare, with corporations writing laws and huge financial transfers from the working people to the fat cats, including humungous bailouts. Plus the ongoing Pentagon corporate welfare program, seven hundred billion or so per year for useless military expenditures.
And the banks are now lending less money to small business than they were before the bailouts! So don’t call it laissez faire, call it what it is, corporate welfare.
ogenec: “Not yet it hasn’t. But it will.”
It hasn’t worked yet, and so desperate Dems are now voting for Repubs, but it will work in the future because . . .why?
Ratigan is on…I want to get his take.
Don Bacon says:
20 January 2010 at 3:54 pm
__________________
I can’t speak to the military-industrial complex. I know nothing about it. I’m not sure what you mean exactly by corporate welfare. If you mean that Main Street rescued Wall Street via money transfers intermediated by the government, I agree with you. I probably disagree with you in my assessment that it was necessary. But the root problem is that the financial companies took too much risk, which begat the need to rescue them in the first place. That’s what I mean by laissez faire. Derivatives and securitizations are VERY valuable financial tools, provided they are regulated and used prudently. That didn’t happen, and the system almost collapsed.
As for banks not lending, that’s a natural reaction. Economists even have a term for it: “The Paradox of Thrift.” Rescued banks will be very loath to lend again, but that reluctance is peversely what makes the economy so bad to begin with. It’s a liquidity problem. This is why we needed targeted stimulus spending, to boost consumer confidence and, hence, the willingness to lend. Plus small biz is inherently riskier than big biz, so banks are more leery. Government should provide guarantees and other incentives to encourage lending to small business.
“People are angry and they are frustrated. Not just because of what’s happened in the last year or two years, but what’s happened over the last eight years.”
Well, at least now he’s not going back to 1992 and blaming Clinton. Maybe this is the first sign that he’s going to focus on actual REPUBLICAN policies as the root of the problem. Maybe he’ll look into the great redistribution of wealth – taking from the middle class and transferring it to the bank accounts and trust funds of the top 1-5%. I mean, the big idea President did say it would trickle down.
hmmm.I always thought the paradox of thrift referred to people saving rather than spending during a recession not banks lending. Why do they have a liquiddy problem if they can borrow from the government at 0% ? Seems to me like they are borrowing and doing other activities with the money other wise how did they get the enormous profits besides lay-offs?
liquidity
Lake Lady says:
20 January 2010 at 4:36 pm
______________
Yes, LL, you’re right. It’s the same issue. If you’re a bank whose butt just got rescued, you are going to be very gun-shy about putting that money into this bad an economy. You’d rather “save” it by investing in ultra-safe things. That’s how they are getting the immense profits: they are borrowing at close to zero, as you said, and lending to the big, highly-rated corporates. They then are taking the proceeds and engaging in proprietary trades. Sometimes the trading department is shorting the securities of companies that the investment bank arm is selling! That’s precisely the kind of conflict I was talking about. The same kind that led us to separate commercial from investment banking.
Hence the liquidity problem for Main Street. Banks and consumers have the money, but they won’t lend to the people who need it.
Well, don’t pay out those bonuses to the folks that failed to judge their risk properly.
I tell you what the great anger is about – why do the folks who f’d it up get paid big bonuses and the Main Street workers lose their jobs and homes.
JimK says:
LOL, it was Sam Nunn and the Democrats who gave us DADT, not Clinton.
Whow! I didn’t realize that Sam Nunn was president so he not Clinton signed DADT and DOMA into law? Wonder if Monica was giving Sammy boy hum jobs while he did it!
mwfolsom
do some homework
ogenec,
Corporate welfare is when the government materially aids corporations at the expense of the rest of us. It does this by:
*Promoting job outsourcing (I just did a series on it)
*Allowing undue influence by corporate lobbyists, to include the writing of bills favorable to corporate sectors, to the point where Senator Durbin has said that the banks own the Senate
*Reducing taxes on corporations, to the point where some aren’t paying taxes
*Weakening unions, so that corporations don’t have to worry about labor
*Financing un-necessary programs which result in large, profitable, often non-competitive contracts to corporations via the military, homeland security, war on drugs, and other follishness
*Aiding banks with looser credit-card and tighter bankruptcy laws
*etc.
ogenec, again,
It hasn’t worked yet, and so desperate Dems are now voting for Repubs, but it will work in the future because . . .why?
Whow! I didn’t realize that Sam Nunn was president so he not Clinton signed DADT and DOMA into law? Wonder if Monica was giving Sammy boy hum jobs while he did it!
Sammy boy led the campaign against Clinton lifting the ban on homosexuals in the military. In 1993 President Bill Clinton attempted to lift the ban on homosexuals in the military. It was one of the most contentious efforts of his administration, sparking months of intense debate. Following twelve legislative hearings and field trips, Congress passed a law codifying and confirming the pre-Clinton policy. That statute, technically named Section 654, Title 10, P.L. 103-160, “Military Personnel Eligibility Act of 1993.”, The statute, which has been upheld by the courts as constitutional several times, clearly states that homosexuals are not eligible for military service.
By the beginning of 1993, it appeared that the military’s ban on gay personnel would soon be overturned. Shortly after his inauguration, President Clinton asked the Secretary of Defense to prepare a draft policy to end discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation, and he proposed to use the interim period to resolve “the real, practical problems that would be involved” in implementing a new policy. Clinton’s proposal, however, was greeted with intense opposition from the Joint Chiefs of Staff, members of Congress, the political opposition, and a considerable segment of the U.S. public.
After lengthy public debate and congressional hearings, the President and Senator Sam Nunn (D-GA), chair of the Senate Armed Services Committee, reached a compromise which they labeled Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell, Don’t Pursue. Under its terms, military personnel would not be asked about their sexual orientation and would not be discharged simply for being gay. Engaging in sexual conduct with a member of the same sex, however, would still constitute grounds for discharge. In the fall of 1993, the congress voted to codify most aspects of the ban. Meanwhile, the civilian courts issued contradictory opinions, with some upholding the policy’s constitutionality and others ordering the reinstatement of openly gay military personnel who were involuntarily discharged. Higher courts, however, consistently upheld the policy, making review of the policy by the U.S. Supreme Court unlikely.
http://psychology.ucdavis.edu/rainbow/HTML/military_history.html
The following is Public Law 103-160, Section 654, Title 10—the homosexual exclusion law passed by both houses of Congress in 1993 with veto-proof ,
Yes, we did tell them so. Arrogance was the first thought I had about Obama, too–from first term senator to president. But there is plenty of arrogance to go around. Martha Coakley herself, many in the party establishment such as Rahm Emanuel, and then Ted Kennedy himself. He should have resigned when he got sick, got behind a suitable candidate; then we might still have 60 votes.
Of course 60 votes have not helped us so far. Without competent executive leadership, we could have 65 votes and still not succeed.
Thank you JimK for offering education to the chosen ignorant (apparently they choose – it is sooooo easy to determine the truth).
Don’t forget the arrogance of the gentlemen who encouraged Obama to run BEFORE he had a record. Ya’know run on CHARM. Worked for Bush – why not the charming fella from Illinois with all the big money backers who knew how to disguise the money.
Don Bacon says:
20 January 2010 at 5:25 pm
___________________
Some of what you say I agree with. Other parts, I don’t. But if you are the paradigmatic progressive, and I the paradigmatic moderate, then we agree on enough that a center-left financial overhaul bill should be a piece of cake. So we should get to work.
ogenec, again,
It hasn’t worked yet, and so desperate Dems are now voting for Repubs, but it will work in the future because . . .why?
I’m not avoiding the question; I just don’t know how to answer it without giving an overly long response. Even by my standards.
Most people here care passionately about politics. They devour new and old media, and are up on the latest political arcana, which they’d happily debate into the night. But most regular folk aren’t like that. They just want things to work. Good schools, good roads, good jobs. And they will vote for the person who convinces them they will deliver these things. From 2006 through 2008, we Democrats put this proposition to the test. And it worked. As an example of the then-new religion, see this “solutionist” post by Dionne from 2007: http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/11/08/AR2007110801806.html
Now in VA and in MA, it is the Republicans who have learned the lesson. When Deeds tried to make it all about McConnell’s thesis, McConnell was discussing issues, like transportation, that matter intensely to Virginia. Same with MA: while we were trying to make it all about the cultural issues, Brown shed the Republican tag and touted his moderate bona fides. NY-23 is a bit of an outlier, but also provides proof: the rabid Tea Partier turned off Republican-leaning independents, who defected to the Democrat.
Someone, likely a Republican, has convinced us that we need to course correct from what worked in 2006-08. That we need to adopt the old Republican model of pushing hot button cultural issues, while the Republicans (!!) wrap themselves in the solutionist mantle. That strategy will always meet with defeat for Democrats. We are better off working with moderates wherever we find them, be they in the Democratic or the Republican party. The folks want solutions; they give f**k-all about labels.
So the strategy will work because, at least for Democrats, it is the only thing that has. Again, I will invoke the presidency of Clinton. Whether by choice or by political necessity, Obama will have to govern in the way set out in his diary. There is a reason why no modern progressive has been elected to the office of the President, let alone governed in the way you would like. I just heard on C-Span that the WH is now looking for a slimmed-down healthcare bill. Sounds like they got the memo.
Constantly pounding on cultural issues rather than substance is my problem with most of the pundits on MSNBC.
To JimK -
No one held a gun to Clinton’s head and forced him to sign that bill or DOMA or anything else. The fact that he did speaks volumes about his willingness to throw a minority under the bus for a political advantage.
Please go ahead and worship the Clintons I and many, many other folks know they will sell anything and anybody out to get power. They have no honor and no ethics.
No one held a gun to Clinton’s head and forced him to sign that bill or DOMA
If it was not for DOMA Congress would of passed a Constitutional Amendment to ban gay marriage and getting the 3/4 of the state legislatures to vote for that ban would of been easy. How would you like that.
As for DOMA, Clinton said it was necessary to head off the possibility of Congress passing a Constitutional Amendment to ban gay marriage.
http://blog.gayrightswatch.com/2009/08/bill-clinton-dont-ask-dont-tell-the-gays-fault/
Their was never a DADT bill to sign, Congress added a rider to the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 1994 H.R. 2401 passing a law codifying and confirming the pre-Clinton policy. That statute, technically named Section 654, Title 10, P.L. 103-160, “Military Personnel Eligibility Act of 1993.”, The statute, clearly states that homosexuals are not eligible for military service.
Clinton defied congresses and established the DADT policy through Executive Order after negotiation with some in congress. It was congress that set the DADT parameters with the threat if Clinton did anything more aggressive with Executive Order, they would just write a veto proof law forbidding it.
H.R. 2401 passed the senate veto proof 77 to 22 http://www.senate.gov/legislative/LIS/roll_call_lists/roll_call_vote_cfm.cfm?congress=103&session=1&vote=00380
Why does it have to be “ITS ALL HIS FAULT!!111!!!” or it is “NOT HIS FAULT AT ALL!!!1!” You and the sycophants are equally as shrill. Chill out. Most people actually do think Obama’s brand is weak AND that Coakley was a sucky candidate too. Those two things can both be factors at the same time.
I think that most of the senators, congresscritters, and the president behave like they really don’t believe in the party platform. They timidly trot out watered down versions of Democratic priorities then wait for the Republican Hammer of Disapproval to come – or from some Blue Dog to bully them into watering it down more. I have a hard time believing in our progressive principles if everyone we elect has internalized the notion that “The country is conservative and no one wants liberal ideas anyway! It is impossible! Crazy! Stupid!”
So yeah. Obama is weak. Congress is weak. The Senate is SUPER weak. And we the voters are weak. We talk a good game about principles, but the polls show that we generally don’t support a given idea for longer than a season of American Idol. The people we elect reflect our own weak, intellectually lazy, mercurial, and peasant-minded selves.
“Sycophants”? Wow.
Sycophants: The “Obama is All Awesome All the Time” crowd. I recognize they are there and just as strident as the Bush fan-kids were. But I don’t think that everyone who holds out high hopes for him is a gushing Obamite in deep denial. I think it is reasonable to say that the Mass election was a massive party-wide fail and Obama more than anyone because he is supposed to be setting the message and tone. And right now it is “What we say or do doesn’t really exist until a conservative has weighed in on it and pronounced it Marxist. Because we are losers. Sorry. Be my friend, please.”
Got it.
Massachusetts voters wanted to send a message to Washington, Weezie2008. At the top of the list was how the Dems handled health care the last year.