How FDR would’a done it
September 4th, 2009 9:13 am · 27 comments
Via Kos, this is Franklin D. Roosevelt biographer Jean Edward Smith in the NYT:
PRESIDENT OBAMA’S apparent readiness to backtrack on the public insurance option in his health care package is not just a concession to his political opponents — this fixation on securing bipartisan support for health care reform suggests that the Democratic Party has forgotten how to govern and the White House has forgotten how to lead.
This was not true of Franklin Roosevelt and the Democratic Congresses that enacted the New Deal. With the exception of the Emergency Banking Act of 1933 (which gave the president authority to close the nation’s banks and which passed the House of Representatives unanimously), the principal legislative innovations of the 1930s were enacted over the vigorous opposition of a deeply entrenched minority. Majority rule, as Roosevelt saw it, did not require his opponents’ permission….
<snip>
Roosevelt relished the opposition of vested interests. He fashioned his governing majority by deliberately attacking those who favored the status quo. His opponents hated him — and he profited from their hatred. “Never before in all our history have these forces been so united against one candidate as they stand today,” he told a national radio audience on the eve of the 1936 election. “They are unanimous in their hatred for me — and I welcome their hatred.”….
<snip>
Roosevelt understood that governing involved choice and that choice engendered dissent. He accepted opposition as part of the process. It is time for the Obama administration to step up to the plate and make some hard choices.
Emphasis added.
Can you imagine. Where’s the bipartisanship! Can’t we all just get along???
When will the Democrats ever learn. Maybe never. Leadership involves taking on your political opponents, rather than trying to play patty-cake with them. No, Mr. President, the Republicans aren’t interested in bipartisanship. They are trying to take you down.
Rhetorically, Mr. President, you are being slapped across the face. Repeatedly.
So what are you going to do about it?
Share and Enjoy:
These icons link to social bookmarking sites where readers can share and discover new web pages.
Tags: Obama · Health care
There are currently 27 comments on this blog postView Topic | Comment on this blogBouquet
9/4/09
10:57 AM | I just finished an old article that shows FDR dealing with his own version of tea-baggers. It was written on December 7th, 1941.
It's an "America Firster" meeting in Pittsburgh where (with knowledge of the attack on Pearl Harbor) they accuse Roosevelt of trying "to make everything Russian appealing to the U.S."
They think Pearl harbor was a set up to promote Roosevelt's agenda. They also physically attack a soldier who speaks out at the meeting and says we should enter the war now that Japan attacked.
It's called "The Worst News That I Have Encountered in the Last 20 Years" by Robert Hagy.
If you can find it, it's great.
But you are right, Obama in the White House, a majority in the house, a filibuster proof majority in the Senate is the will of the American People. The Republican's place at the table should mirror what the voters decided. |
grieker
9/4/09
11:24 AM | I just finished an old article that shows FDR dealing with his own version of tea-baggers. It was written on December 7th, 1941.
It's an "America Firster" meeting in Pittsburgh where (with knowledge of the attack on Pearl Harbor) they accuse Roosevelt of trying "to make everything Russian appealing to the U.S."
They think Pearl harbor was a set up to promote Roosevelt's agenda. They also physically attack a soldier who speaks out at the meeting and says we should enter the war now that Japan attacked.
It's called "The Worst News That I Have Encountered in the Last 20 Years" by Robert Hagy.
If you can find it, it's great.
But you are right, Obama in the White House, a majority in the house, a filibuster proof majority in the Senate is the will of the American People. The Republican's place at the table should mirror what the voters decided.
I think the table is mirroring what is currently the mood of America.
The prez was elected (as is in most cases) based on lies, he is a bold faced liar.
The people are catching on to what this socialistic devil is attempting and they aren't falling for the smooth talking shell anymore.
There IS NO TRANSPARENCY AT ALL.
Obama lied about transparency...
Obama lied about the stimilus bill...
Obama lied about no lobbyists in his administration...
Obama lied about AAPR supporting the bill…
Obama lied “So you will not run for president or vice president in 2008?”Obama: “I will not.”…
Obama lied about Selma…
Obama lied when he said, “I was a constitutional law professor”…
Obama lied when he said how much money he received from indicted businessman Tony Rezko…
Obama lied about his belief on decriminalizing marijuana…
Yet we should believe him now...
Next week he is going to attempt to suade congress by meeting with both sides "reaching out", right.
He is desperately trying to get some votes - HE OWNS CONGRESS and cannot get the votes.
What's that tell ya people?
|
Save-the-Land
9/4/09
11:55 AM | It's funny how if you don't agree with everything Obama or his supporters say you are labeled a "tea bagger" or worse yet.....a racist. It's a shame this president doesn't respect my right to free speech.
I didn't vote for him, but readily accepted him after the election and I was very excited to see how he was going to bring the country together and stop politics and business as usual in DC....what a huge disappointment this guy has been! His definition of bipartisanship is to think that if he explains what he is doing, we will just accept it. He is using a crisis to ram every radical and socialist idea down our throats.
I'm glad the mask is off of this fraud and people are seeing him for what he is.
BTW, Big governement and FDR's social programs didn't bring us out of the Great Depression...they actually prolonged it. |
notveryhow
9/4/09
12:09 PM | QUOTE I didn't vote for him, but readily accepted him after the election and I was very excited to see how he was going to bring the country together and stop politics and business as usual in DC
So you say. But I don't believe you. You go on to say.
QUOTE It's funny how if you don't agree with everything Obama or his supporters say you are labeled a "tea bagger" or worse yet.....a racist. It's a shame this president doesn't respect my right to free speech.
QUOTE He is using a crisis to ram every radical and socialist idea down our throats.
QUOTE I'm glad the mask is off of this fraud and people are seeing him for what he is.
So you "readily accepted him", but then in 7 months time, you find yourself embracing and repeating every exaggeration, lies and smear that crosses your path. You're either trying to snow us with this "readily accepting him" line, or you are really suggestible. |
Bouquet
9/4/09
12:19 PM | BTW, Big governement and FDR's social programs didn't bring us out of the Great Depression...they actually prolonged it.
Incorrect
Year.................Unemployment %.............GNP Growth %
1933.................24.9..............................-2.1
1934.................21.7..............................7.7
1935.................20.1..............................8.1
1936.................16.9...............................14.1
1937.................14.3..............................5 (Govt spending is cut back at this point)
1938.................19..................................-4.5
1939.................17.2..............................7.9
Except for the year they cut the "big government spending", things improved every year.
Roosevelt's average GNP growth of 5.2% during the Great Depression was better than Reagan's 3.7% during his "seven fat years" |
gsmart
9/4/09
9:49 PM | So you "readily accepted him", but then in 7 months time, you find yourself embracing and repeating every exaggeration, lies and smear that crosses your path. You're either trying to snow us with this "readily accepting him" line, or you are really suggestible.
This actually has come up in several discussions recently, and what I think is going on is this:
There were a lot of people in the last election who identified themselves as independents who voted for Obama - and a good percentage of them were former Republicans, even those who thought of themselves as movement conservatives, who bailed out before the end of the Bush presidency. In theory, they were going to give Obama a chance - but they remain conservative, and and for some reason got it in their heads that Obama would actually govern as a conservative - that, to them, is what the "bipartisan" pledge meant, to them.
And now they feel betrayed, because what the Obama administration is doing is not conservative.
Conservatives try to pretend that this is some disastrous thing. It's just a different approach to governing after the previous approach - largely a conservative approach - failed.
Let's not forget that it failed. Government needs to do certain things, perform certain functions, and for the better part of this decade it didn't - or at least it didn't do them well. And in part that was ideological - Republicans weren't interested in governing, because they're convinced government is destined to fail. So long as they were running the show - it was.
I've soured on Obama because if he believes something he has to stand up for it. Lead, dammit. His administration did early on, but this health care summer has been ridiculous - the Dems got completely sandbagged, completely taken by surprise because they underestimated the right's willingness to go for the big crazy.
Never underestimate the right's willingness to go for the big crazy. |
Save-the-Land
9/4/09
10:02 PM | So you say. But I don't believe you. You go on to say.
So you "readily accepted him", but then in 7 months time, you find yourself embracing and repeating every exaggeration, lies and smear that crosses your path. You're either trying to snow us with this "readily accepting him" line, or you are really suggestible.
You don't have to believe me, but I'm being truthful. I do feel duped and lied to by this man. He had much good will from the people of the US, including me, and he trampled all over us. It is amazing that this guy became so drunk with power that within 7 months he tried to cram so much of his radical and liberal agenda down our throats that many have turned against him. He was supposed to be a uniter, moving beyond the poitics as usual, and he has only divided. He severely miscalculated and got caught with his hand in the cookie jar (as old Rahm told us, he didn't want to waste a good crisis).
BTW, what lies, smears and exaggerations about Obama am I repeating? |
Weyland Yutani
9/4/09
10:34 PM | "He was supposed to be a uniter, moving beyond the poitics as usual, and he has only divided. He severely miscalculated and got caught with his hand in the cookie jar (as old Rahm told us, he didn't want to waste a good crisis)." Save-The-Land
Noonan touches on this in her recent column.
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB1000142405...3099885242.html
"A greater concern about President Obama's staffers and appointees is that so many of them are so young and relatively untried. And not only young and untried, but triumphant. They're on top of the world. They came from nowhere and elected their guy against the odds. Against expectations, they beat a machine (the Clintons) and a behemoth (long-triumphant Republicanism). Now nothing can stop them, Let's do big things, let's be consequential. Consequentialism has been the blight of America's political life for a decade. Because of it, America's nerves have been rubbed raw."-Noonan
The Obama administration is too cocky and over reached. Now the fan boys are trying to blame the wing nuts and tea baggers.....
They would be better off to stop pointing fingers and look in the mirror.......
|
Bustina di tè
9/4/09
11:30 PM | Noonbag has it wrong ... completely.
George W. (the Lesser ) Bush did in the republican party.
How against the odds was it when you had the print and broadcast media, with the exception of the right wing AM loons, spewing their DNA down their pant leg over Obunko.
Nature abhors a vacuum*, Obunko and krewe should have held their debates on C-Span as promised then gone into the town halls with a concrete set of choices on how to reform health care. But like a spoiled kid in a toy shop he had to have it now. Remember, he wanted a vote before the August recess. The republicans took the half as baked ideas and twisted them into lies to rile the mouth breathers. You know, if they would have put this much effort into pre-911 intelligence and responding to hurricane Katrina a lot of Americans would be alive today.
*This also explains the popularity of the usual AM suspects, their words get sucked into the void between teabagger's ears. |
notveryhow
9/5/09
7:33 AM | This actually has come up in several discussions recently, and what I think is going on is this:
There were a lot of people in the last election who identified themselves as independents who voted for Obama - and a good percentage of them were former Republicans, even those who thought of themselves as movement conservatives, who bailed out before the end of the Bush presidency. In theory, they were going to give Obama a chance - but they remain conservative, and and for some reason got it in their heads that Obama would actually govern as a conservative - that, to them, is what the "bipartisan" pledge meant, to them.
And now they feel betrayed, because what the Obama administration is doing is not conservative.
Conservatives try to pretend that this is some disastrous thing. It's just a different approach to governing after the previous approach - largely a conservative approach - failed.
Let's not forget that it failed. Government needs to do certain things, perform certain functions, and for the better part of this decade it didn't - or at least it didn't do them well. And in part that was ideological - Republicans weren't interested in governing, because they're convinced government is destined to fail. So long as they were running the show - it was.
I've soured on Obama because if he believes something he has to stand up for it. Lead, dammit. His administration did early on, but this health care summer has been ridiculous - the Dems got completely sandbagged, completely taken by surprise because they underestimated the right's willingness to go for the big crazy.
Never underestimate the right's willingness to go for the big crazy.
You must move in some interesting circles. I don't believe I've ever met a conservative who somehow expected Obama to govern as a conservative. Just a touch of self-delusion there. All you had to do was read the party platform or listen to his speeches. I worked on the campaign door to door (first time since McGovern) and met a number of moderate conservatives who were just sooo weary of Bush that they were willing to vote for Obama, just for the change of direction. Health care reform was a given, perhaps some of them were frightened by the stimulus???
I've always been amazed that Republicans vote for candidates that openly say that government is inherently flawed and will fail to work. Then when push comes to shove (think Katrina) lo and behold, because they paid scant attention to appointing competent people and holding them to a high standard, government fails on a massive scale. It's like Henry Ford said, "Believe you can, believe you can't, either way you're right."
I learned with McGovern that a candidate as liberal as myself will rarely win an election, so I am niether surprised nor dissappointed that Obama has been charting a relatively moderate course. But disappointed in Obama for a relatively passive approach to legislation? Perhaps a little.
I keep thinking that he was trying to avoid the fate of the Clinton health care effort, which was perceived as top down, by allowing Congress to formulate a plan and hash it out. But that is not working very well. He's going to have to ride to the rescue. And when the "loyal opposition" is trying to create your Waterloo and, unlike the Democrats, is so good at voting as a monolithic block, there is precious little room for bipartisanship. And that will ruffle even more feathers. But truth be told, whatever he does will ruffle feathers, so where's the loss. |
notveryhow
9/5/09
8:33 AM | You don't have to believe me, but I'm being truthful. I do feel duped and lied to by this man. He had much good will from the people of the US, including me, and he trampled all over us. It is amazing that this guy became so drunk with power that within 7 months he tried to cram so much of his radical and liberal agenda down our throats that many have turned against him. He was supposed to be a uniter, moving beyond the poitics as usual, and he has only divided. He severely miscalculated and got caught with his hand in the cookie jar (as old Rahm told us, he didn't want to waste a good crisis).
BTW, what lies, smears and exaggerations about Obama am I repeating?
Well, starting with your last point first:
QUOTE It's funny how if you don't agree with everything Obama or his supporters say you are labeled a "tea bagger" or worse yet.....a racist. It's a shame this president doesn't respect my right to free speech.
When did that happen? I can't account for the ravings of anonymous bloggers (like me), but when did Obama say anything like that. Pelosi and Hoyer said that disrupting and shouting down people at town halls, thus interfering with others 1st Amendment rights, is antiAmerican. But they did not say that anyone disagreeing is a "teabagger". I'm not even sure what that means. So unless you are one who thinks it is a good thing to yell and heckle and chant and deprive others of their rights, then no one was speaking about you.
And it is a similar thing with racism. I don't think anyone would deny that some of the opposition to Obama is based on racism, pure and simple. But if you are not in that category, then why do you think anyone is talking about you? Don't take Rush's word for it. If the shoe doesn't fit, why try to wear it.
QUOTE He is using a crisis to ram every radical and socialist idea down our throats.
I assume you are talking about the stimulus package. (Remember, TARP was the previous administration) Most economists thought both these programs were a necessary evil, to prevent a slide into an even deeper recession/depression, which would cause an even steeper drop in tax revenue, causing even larger deficits. yes, it was a crisis. Now if you disagree with this, fine. Argue about economic theory, but don't construe what was purposed as an economic stimulus as a shove towards "socialism".
QUOTE I'm glad the mask is off of this fraud and people are seeing him for what he is.
I really don't understand what you mean by this. He is at least trying to do what he said he would (Health car, cap and trade, a new foreign policy). Is this not what you were expecting in the way of policy?
As for bipartisanship, there were zero (0) House members who voted for the stimulus. And considerable compromise was made to peel off (IIRC) two (2) votes (Specter and Snowe) to get the necessary 60 to pass the bill in the Senate. It takes 2 to Tango, and if one side wants to Waltz, and the other side is doing the Sack of Potatoes, it's not much of a party.
And again with health care. Zero (0) Republicans voted for the House bill. In the Senate, the Democrats agreed to set up a gang of 6, sacrificing their committee majority in the name of bipartisanship, to hammer out a compromise. And then came the recess. What was the Democrats reward for this display?
It's one thing to have lobbyists to be rabble rousing at the town halls with catch phrases like "death panels", It's another thing entirely to have Republican luminaries like Gingrich, Palin, and even Chuck Grassley (of the above referenced gang of six) repeating this nonsense. Many Republicans have made it abundantly clear that they want to defeat health care as a way of defeating Obama, or, in the words of Sen DeMint (R-SC), to make it his Waterloo. Where, in the face of this almost monolithic resistance, is there room for bipartisanship. |
ceejay
9/5/09
9:21 PM | All you liberals are totally cracking me up. You too, Gil.
Seriously, you go on and on about the Republican obstructionists, and no Republican support, and how awful Conservatives and Republicans and especially those rotten Christian Conservatives.
YOUR GUY WON. ALL YOUR GUYS WON. AND THEY ARE NOT GETTING THE JOB DONE. Whassup wit' dat???? And you blame the Right? The Wingers????
YOU GUYS HAVE A CLEAR AND RESOUNDING MAJORITY. SHUT UP AND GOVERN! PASS SOMETHING! And for God's sake stop bellyaching and whining and pointing at the Big Bad Right as if we are the problem.
Democrats, YOU are the problem! Your guys! You can't even get YOUR GUYS to pass THEIR OWN BILL.
Gil, you say stupid conservatives voted for Obama thinking he would govern as a conservative?? I'll have some of what you are smoking, please. The votes cast for Obama were votes cast against GWB and against the lousy candidate the party stuck Conservatives with. But, Gil Smart, you are as foolish as you imagine conservatives to have been if you thought for a single moment that any Conservative in Congress was ever going to screw his political future by voting for Obamacare. If it is so great, how come YOUR OWN GUYS don't support it, huh?
I would be rolling on the floor laughing if it wasn't so depressingly sad!!!
|
lanzate
9/5/09
10:19 PM | I'd have to agree with cj on this one. I am an independent but generally conservative and yes i did end up voting for Obama. I knew i wanted Obama over Hillary (couldn't vote in the primary) but i was undecided until the last few weeks in the final election. It was a vote against the way conservatism had gone in the last few years that let me to vote for Obama. I still think he was a better choice over McCain but i'm beginning to think there is something about the white house that just lowers a persons IQ.
No one in the Obama camp talks reality when it comes to health care. You can't lead unless you are real. Somehow FDR did that and Obama has yet to learn. I have read commentary from all kinds of very smart people who all say a national health care system that does not address cost will bankrupt the country. There is no way around that. Every country that has a national health system has massively lower health cost then we do. That is why it works in Canada, Europe and Japan. If you are going to socialize health care then you have to socialize it all. That includes doctors, nurses, hospitals, and the drug companies.
For me it makes me disillusioned with the whole political structure here in the US. No one lives in reality. It is all a popularity game. I wish i did know better how FDR lead the country but I'm convinced people trusted him more than Obama. Maybe back then, before the rise of the post moderns, people naturally trusted the president more.
Maybe that is Obama's goal in the new curriculum to go with his speech to school kids, Get the kids to understand why it is important to obey the president. Sounds like his is trying to take the post modern gene out of the next generation.
|
Artie See
9/5/09
10:57 PM | The prez was elected (as is in most cases) based on lies, he is a bold faced liar.
Oh, really?
President Obama could say that the sky is blue and the grass is green during the first week in September, and you STILL would be calling him a liar. |
Artie See
9/5/09
11:08 PM | Seriously, you go on and on about the Republican obstructionists, and no Republican support, and how awful Conservatives and Republicans and especially those rotten Christian Conservatives.
YOUR GUY WON. ALL YOUR GUYS WON. AND THEY ARE NOT GETTING THE JOB DONE. Whassup wit' dat???? And you blame the Right? The Wingers????
YOU GUYS HAVE A CLEAR AND RESOUNDING MAJORITY. SHUT UP AND GOVERN! PASS SOMETHING! And for God's sake stop bellyaching and whining and pointing at the Big Bad Right as if we are the problem. As for bipartisanship, there were zero (0) House members who voted for the stimulus. And considerable compromise was made to peel off (IIRC) two (2) votes (Specter and Snowe) to get the necessary 60 to pass the bill in the Senate. It takes 2 to Tango, and if one side wants to Waltz, and the other side is doing the Sack of Potatoes, it's not much of a party.
And again with health care. Zero (0) Republicans voted for the House bill. In the Senate, the Democrats agreed to set up a gang of 6, sacrificing their committee majority in the name of bipartisanship, to hammer out a compromise. And then came the recess. What was the Democrats reward for this display? |
notveryhow
9/6/09
12:23 AM | All you liberals are totally cracking me up. You too, Gil.
Seriously, you go on and on about the Republican obstructionists, and no Republican support, and how awful Conservatives and Republicans and especially those rotten Christian Conservatives.
YOUR GUY WON. ALL YOUR GUYS WON. AND THEY ARE NOT GETTING THE JOB DONE. Whassup wit' dat???? And you blame the Right? The Wingers????
YOU GUYS HAVE A CLEAR AND RESOUNDING MAJORITY. SHUT UP AND GOVERN! PASS SOMETHING! And for God's sake stop bellyaching and whining and pointing at the Big Bad Right as if we are the problem.
Democrats, YOU are the problem! Your guys! You can't even get YOUR GUYS to pass THEIR OWN BILL.
Gil, you say stupid conservatives voted for Obama thinking he would govern as a conservative?? I'll have some of what you are smoking, please. The votes cast for Obama were votes cast against GWB and against the lousy candidate the party stuck Conservatives with. But, Gil Smart, you are as foolish as you imagine conservatives to have been if you thought for a single moment that any Conservative in Congress was ever going to screw his political future by voting for Obamacare. If it is so great, how come YOUR OWN GUYS don't support it, huh?
I would be rolling on the floor laughing if it wasn't so depressingly sad!!!
So you mock liberals and Democrats for not just ramming through legislation, and absolving " the Big Bad Right as if we are the problem". We've already been around the block on the "Cloture Rule", so there's no reason to rehash that.
But on other threads, writing about Medicare, Social Security, and Health care, you bash liberals and Democrats for forcing legislation down our throats. I know it's fun to complain, but which is it?
Reminds me of the Woody Allen story:
Two women in a restaurant. The one says,
"The food here is terrible"
The other woman replies,
"I know, and the portions are so small". |
notveryhow
9/6/09
12:51 AM | One very important factor to consider when comparing FDR with Obama is the make-up of the House and Senate.
In 1933 there were 313 (72%) Democrats in the House, 117 Republicans, and 5 Farm Labor.
In the Senate the breakdown was 60 (62.5%) Democrats, 35 Republicans and 1 Farm Labor.
After the 1934 elections, there were 332 (76.5%) Democrats, 103 Republicans, 7 Progressive and 3 farm labor.
The Senate stood at 69 (72%) Democrats, 25 Republicans, 1 Progressive and 1 Farm Labor. (No problem with the Cloture Rule there)
Today, in the House, there are 257 (59%) Democrats and 178 Republicans.
In the Senate, there are 58 Democrats, 40 Republicans, 1 Independent (Lieberman) and 1 Socialist (Sanders), who incidentally doesn't think Obama is a socialist.
So to compare legislative accomplishments betwen the 2 administrations is not entirely fair. Obama does not have nearly the majorities that FDR had. With the Republicans displaying great Party discipline (or mind numbing obedience to the hive brain, take your pick) in voting as a block, Obama has a challenge, particularly in the Senate. And with Kennedy out even with Specter, he only has 59 votes in the Senate. So the Republicans ARE in a position to block ANY legislation. And thus the need to compromise.
|
ceejay
9/6/09
1:44 AM | So you mock liberals and Democrats for not just ramming through legislation, and absolving " the Big Bad Right as if we are the problem". We've already been around the block on the "Cloture Rule", so there's no reason to rehash that.
But on other threads, writing about Medicare, Social Security, and Health care, you bash liberals and Democrats for forcing legislation down our throats. I know it's fun to complain, but which is it?
Reminds me of the Woody Allen story:
Two women in a restaurant. The one says,
"The food here is terrible"
The other woman replies,
"I know, and the portions are so small".
Not at all. I don't enjoy having bills I don't like jammed down my throat. But you honestly expect me to vote with you so you can get the bill you want passed, when you know I hate the bill??????
C'mon. There is not dichotomy at all in my post. You want the bill? You own the Executive branch, you own both houses of the legislative branch!!!! Quit your bellyaching! I'm sick of all the poor, poor you whining about how the Big Bad Right won't let us have our bill! Are you kidding me???? If you, the Majority, are this whipped by a very clear Minority, then I guess we can sit back and relax. Like the doberman pincher intimidated by the little kitten.
Your party is positively pathetic. Own it! |
gsmart
9/6/09
2:35 AM | Your party is positively pathetic.
And that's it. It lacks the killer instinct the Republicans have. Of course, that's why some people vote for it.
It was a vote against the way conservatism had gone in the last few years that let me to vote for Obama.
So what way is conservatism going now?
This is my problem with the right - at some point it's going to have to stop telling me what it's against and start telling me what it's for. If the GOP regains the House - or at least comes close - in 2010, it's going to be veddy interesting - because I can't see where they have any ideas whatsoever to deal with the fiscal crisis, which overshadows everything else. |
ceejay
9/6/09
10:54 AM | And that's it. It lacks the killer instinct the Republicans have. Of course, that's why some people vote for it.
It was a vote against the way conservatism had gone in the last few years that let me to vote for Obama.
So what way is conservatism going now?
This is my problem with the right - at some point it's going to have to stop telling me what it's against and start telling me what it's for. If the GOP regains the House - or at least comes close - in 2010, it's going to be veddy interesting - because I can't see where they have any ideas whatsoever to deal with the fiscal crisis, which overshadows everything else.
Listen, Gil, so-called "conservatives" make me so sick I could gag on a daily basis. Where did Conservative principles go? The way of the lunatic fringe. Just like your party. On another thread I alluded to Wm. F. Buckley, God rest his sainted soul, who had the courage and integrity to disassociate from the John Birchers. Where are the Conservative lions? Where are the men of principle and integrity willing to disavow birthers and deathers and Education speech over-reactors? If you meet any, tell them I am looking for them, please. And for God's sake, please don't mention the air-headed empty suit from Alaska, or the gag will become projectile vomiting.
But when I rant about Democrats, I voice all the frustrations of my truly leftie son who makes you, Mr. Smart, look like a moderate. And he is spittin' mad at Obama and Reid/Pelosi and all the Dems right now and what he refers to as the P.W.'d impotents. |
doghead
9/6/09
11:38 AM | I see Obama as trying to be the anti Bush. Bush never really cared much for the American people and what they thought. He only went for 51%, that's all he wanted. No consensus, no uniting, just the 51% he needed and the hell with everyone else.
Obama is trying to hard to appease those that would stick a shiv in his kidneys if given the chance. You don't hand those people a knife and then turn your back to them.
Obama is looking weak for it, not strong.
Another thing he needs to learn is the fine art of media manipulation. Start with Marshall McLuhan's "The Media is the Message".
thumbnail sketch:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_medium_is_the_message
Reagan understood this, Carter did not. Bush the W probably did not understand it, but Karl Rove did so Bush did not have to do any extry thinking. 
If Obama understood how the Message is in the medium, the townhall meetings could have been turned on their heads, Instead the repubs made the townhall meetings appear not only spontanious but also a cross section of American opinion.
Obama has to learn how to work the media to his advantage. The repubs are experts on this and it is no surprise that many of their top advisors were in advertising, such as Alex Castellanos.
Clinton also stumbled badly in the beginnig but once he understood the nature of how things work he had broad support.
Obama can do the same but he better get crackin!! |
ReverendAlobar
9/6/09
11:45 AM | How is governing with a total disregard for bipartisanship anything but divisive? It seems to me, playing the filibuster, ignoring the wishes of a very large portion of the public, albeit a minority, is a sure fire way of losing Democratic control over congress. If you think nothing is getting done now, try imagining the cooperation between the executive and legislative branches if the Republicans regain control.
The password is "zilch." |
Bustina di tè
9/6/09
4:51 PM | The Obunko you see today is the real Obunko, Axlerove did a good job scamming the 'bots.
If you want to compare styles, look to Hillary's example of LBJ twisting arms and calling in favors to get civil rights legislation through congress.
Why do you think the Obunko campaign played the race card on her for that?
Could it be Axlerove knew Obunko didn't have the balls to go to the mat on something so basic to the Democratic party as affordable health care for all? |
reese
9/6/09
5:06 PM | The Obunko you see today is the real Obunko, Axlerove did a good job scamming the 'bots.
If you want to compare styles, look to Hillary's example of LBJ twisting arms and calling in favors to get civil rights legislation through congress.
Why do you think the Obunko campaign played the race card on her for that?
Could it be Axlerove knew Obunko didn't have the balls to go to the mat on something so basic to the Democratic party as affordable health care for all?
He's really painted himself into a corner when it comes to health care. I'll be interested to see what he has to say in his speech later this week.
|
lanzate
9/6/09
6:51 PM | Come up with a party that does not rail against abortion, gay marriage, and other christian right pet issues and america still leans right.
|
grieker
9/8/09
8:10 AM | Noonbag has it wrong ... completely.
George W. (the Lesser ) Bush did in the republican party.
How against the odds was it when you had the print and broadcast media, with the exception of the right wing AM loons, spewing their DNA down their pant leg over Obunko.
Nature abhors a vacuum*, Obunko and krewe should have held their debates on C-Span as promised then gone into the town halls with a concrete set of choices on how to reform health care. But like a spoiled kid in a toy shop he had to have it now. Remember, he wanted a vote before the August recess. The republicans took the half as baked ideas and twisted them into lies to rile the mouth breathers. You know, if they would have put this much effort into pre-911 intelligence and responding to hurricane Katrina a lot of Americans would be alive today.
*This also explains the popularity of the usual AM suspects, their words get sucked into the void between teabagger's ears.
QUOTE You know, if they would have put this much effort into pre-911 intelligence and responding to hurricane Katrina a lot of Americans would be alive today .
Quick, send in your resume', I hear they're looking for another truther since Van Jones Left "amongst all the llies".  |
View Topic | Comment on this blog
