The Democrat Thread

[bmags]

No, I'm saying it wouldn't have been all that much different because no one in Washington really represents progressives, liberals or leftists.

 

You know why? Because the democratic base considers themselves moderate. And moderates love compromise. And in a system that favors smaller populations instead of larger more liberal ones you need moderate-conservative dems to make a majority. And they will be needed to vote. So, either fight to change the structure, or put pressure on the moderate candidates by running a candidate to their left (see: lincoln, ark.). It works remarkably well, but also requires work to be done, soooo...better just let the tea party take over.

[BigSqwert]

I've never advocated not voting, though. I've simply advocated against voting for politicians like Obama.

 

^This

[bmags]

It worked for the Republicans after winning one house of Congress in one election. Eight months later and we've got serious entitlement cuts on the table and a mandated vote on a balanced budget amendment.

 

I've never advocated not voting, though. I've simply advocated against voting for politicians like Obama.

 

That's because they continue to raise hell and their members know they will be primaried if they dont' vote their way. The left never does this. They vote someone in, sit and wait, then when they don't vote like they want, they just don't show up and he loses.

[StrangeSox]

bmags, I used to be the guy saying exactly what you're saying. Now we're at our 2nd budget cut debacle in the past what, 4 months? And whether we like it or not, there'll be another one with another shutdown deadline in September.

 

Yes, the PPACA was good policy, and the Dodd Frank act as written was at least decent policy, and there are other victories (lilly ledbedder, etc.) But how much of that matters if it gets rolled back in the next deal? How much does a health care coverage expansion matter if 12 months later you get rolled to the point that you're taking on significant health care coverage cuts? How much does extending one type of protection gain if simultaneously you're doing things like dramatically slashing student loans?

 

Maybe I'll be back saying what you're saying again once there's a Republican nominee...but this budget debacle really has me down.

 

Right, and that's what BS and I were stressing to you recently. I can't imagine when the Democrats will have as strong of a position as they did 2009-2011. This is the best they can do? And 7 months later, after one measly election in which they lost the House, they're not only begrudgingly voting for but actually proposing far-right, far-reaching fiscal reform/austerity in the middle of a prolonged recession?

[BigSqwert]

That's because they continue to raise hell and their members know they will be primaried if they dont' vote their way. The left never does this. They vote someone in, sit and wait, then when they don't vote like they want, they just don't show up and he loses.

 

They just had a billion constituents flood their phone lines last week. You recommend pitchforks instead?

[StrangeSox]

You know why? Because the democratic base considers themselves moderate. And moderates love compromise. And in a system that favors smaller populations instead of larger more liberal ones you need moderate-conservative dems to make a majority. And they will be needed to vote. So, either fight to change the structure, or put pressure on the moderate candidates by running a candidate to their left (see: lincoln, ark.). It works remarkably well, but also requires work to be done, soooo...better just let the tea party take over.

 

I'm not advocating apathy. I'm rejecting the "keep voting Dem presidents because at least they're not Republicans" ideology. Unfortunately that obviously won't change in 2012, but I still won't be voting for Obama.

 

But you know what makes it hard to run liberal candidates? When the top Democrats immediately cave to conservative fiscal narratives and don't even bother advocating for another position or viewpoint. When they instantly come into the conversation from the same perspective as Boehner, it only strengthens the legitimacy of their claims and prevents any liberal positions from being advocated. Single-payer, instantly off the table. Large-scale stimulus of actual spending, instantly off the table. Refusing to tie the debt ceiling and deficits together and instead focusing on jobs jobs jobs, instantly off the table.

[StrangeSox]

That's because they continue to raise hell and their members know they will be primaried if they dont' vote their way. The left never does this. They vote someone in, sit and wait, then when they don't vote like they want, they just don't show up and he loses.

 

The left's been pretty pissed and pretty vocal about Obama's administration since damn near the start. His response has been to s*** all over them and delegitimize progressive viewpoints in important political discussions by adopting conservative viewpoints from the start.

[StrangeSox]

I do need to get around to writing Durbin a letter though.

[bmags]

bmags, I used to be the guy saying exactly what you're saying. Now we're at our 2nd budget cut debacle in the past what, 4 months? And whether we like it or not, there'll be another one with another shutdown deadline in September.

 

Yes, the PPACA was good policy, and the Dodd Frank act as written was at least decent policy, and there are other victories (lilly ledbedder, etc.) But how much of that matters if it gets rolled back in the next deal? How much does a health care coverage expansion matter if 12 months later you get rolled to the point that you're taking on significant health care coverage cuts? How much does extending one type of protection gain if simultaneously you're doing things like dramatically slashing student loans?

 

Maybe I'll be back saying what you're saying again once there's a Republican nominee...but this budget debacle really has me down.

 

Liberals brought this on themselves by not doing s*** for the 2010 election. None of this would be happening if there was a good economy. But there's a s***ty economy, and when there's a s***ty economy then people start to want to protect their jobs and start fearing losing their status. Good on dems for not becoming protectionist. It ruined the platform for immigration reform. But liberals do nothing to explain why immigration is a good thing. That's counterintuitive to people, so they just fall back on complaining and b****ing when laws are enacted to tighten it.

 

You guys just think someone going in swinging a big dick can get things done right now. But with a s***ty economy, 100% debt and an opposition party acting like a parliamentary opposition party in a system not set up to deal with that, nothing gets done. But, liberals, who blame environment and structure for everything except politics, just sit and whine and pout when daddy doesn't fix everything.

[Balta1701]

Right, and that's what BS and I were stressing to you recently. I can't imagine when the Democrats will have as strong of a position as they did 2009-2011. This is the best they can do? And 7 months later, after one measly election in which they lost the House, they're not only begrudgingly voting for but actually proposing far-right, far-reaching fiscal reform/austerity in the middle of a prolonged recession?

You know, I think they did a fairly decent job in 2009-2011 of getting passed what they could given the Filibuster constraint. That was probably the most productive Congress since the 60's.

 

My problem now is I'm watching it all get thrown out the window.

[StrangeSox]

You guys just think someone going in swinging a big dick can get things done right now. But with a s***ty economy, 100% debt and an opposition party acting like a parliamentary opposition party in a system not set up to deal with that, nothing gets done. But, liberals, who blame environment and structure for everything except politics, just sit and whine and pout when daddy doesn't fix everything.

 

The Republicans took one part of one branch of government and forced serious policy changes within 7 months. Largely because Obama was afraid of their big, swinging dick. He immediately adopted their narratives and immediately took legitimate options to get around their obstructionism off the table. He fought for nothing and capitulated to everything while getting nothing in return. Somehow this is liberals' faults. Dumb, whiny liberals who are stupid for expecting Democrat supermajorities in Congress and a Democrat President to make equivalently substantial changes in the two years they controlled government.

[BigSqwert]

Plus the Congressional GOP's approval ratings are even worse than the Dems' or Obama's. So basically a small minority of the population is running the show while the Dems bend over.

[StrangeSox]

You know, I think they did a fairly decent job in 2009-2011 of getting passed what they could given the Filibuster constraint. That was probably the most productive Congress since the 60's.

 

My problem now is I'm watching it all get thrown out the window.

 

Part of the problem here is that the reason Democrats had such strong majorities is that they had conservative candidates win seats.

 

My objection here isn't against voting for or campaigning for liberal Democrats; it's against voting for someone just because they've got a (D) next to their name, even though they might be a terrible politician with what would have been considered strongly conservative positions a decade or two ago.

[bmags]

The Republicans took one part of one branch of government and forced serious policy changes within 7 months. Largely because Obama was afraid of their big, swinging dick. He immediately adopted their narratives and immediately took legitimate options to get around their obstructionism off the table. He fought for nothing and capitulated to everything while getting nothing in return. Somehow this is liberals' faults. Dumb, whiny liberals who are stupid for expecting Democrat supermajorities in Congress and a Democrat President to make equivalently substantial changes in the two years they controlled government.

 

They did make substantial STRUCTURAL changes. The way our military is run, the way women in the workplace can be treated, the way health insurance and care is run. The republicans got a bunch of one-off cut promises. Not even cuts, promises to cuts, in exchange for not completely ruining our economy.

 

And the republicans can do this because their base is conservative and votes, and is active. The democrats can't do this because their base is moderate, wants compromise, and liberal base just doesn't vote so they pander by being more conservative to get the median voter to their side. Your behavior reinforces this. You could go and organize a primary to get someone more liberal, you won't do that, you just will vote for a third party that will put absolutely no pressure on the democratic party or conservative party.

[Balta1701]

Part of the problem here is that the reason Democrats had such strong majorities is that they had conservative candidates win seats.

 

My objection here isn't against voting for or campaigning for liberal Democrats; it's against voting for someone just because they've got a (D) next to their name, even though they might be a terrible politician with what would have been considered strongly conservative positions a decade or two ago.

Especially in the Senate though where it actually mattered...how many of them could win if they were legit liberals? Nelson in Nebraska? Lincoln in Arkansas? Are those seats going to be won by Russ Feingold?

[StrangeSox]

Plus the Congressional GOP's approval ratings are even worse than the Dems' or Obama's. So basically a small minority of the population is running the show while the Dems bend over.

 

Right. There's wide support for increasing revenues as part of a deficit reduction plan. There's more concern about jobs than about deficits. But the Democrats immediately caved to the Republican talking points of deficits, deficits, deficits, never once fighting them on it. And once Obama inexplicably takes Constitutional back doors off the table, he's lost any negotiating power he might have had. He's so damn eager to be perceived as some great post-partisan President that he'll sell out his progressive base as his opening move.

[bmags]

Especially in the Senate though where it actually mattered...how many of them could win if they were legit liberals? Nelson in Nebraska? Lincoln in Arkansas? Are those seats going to be won by Russ Feingold?

 

Did you miss what happened when Lincoln was primaried? She all of the sudden become the world's biggest derivative regulation backer.

[StrangeSox]

Especially in the Senate though where it actually mattered...how many of them could win if they were legit liberals? Nelson in Nebraska? Lincoln in Arkansas? Are those seats going to be won by Russ Feingold?

 

You know what makes it really hard to legitimize liberal policy? Not having either party in a two-party system ever advocate for it.

[StrangeSox]

Did you miss what happened when Lincoln was primaried? She all of the sudden become the world's biggest derivative regulation backer.

Lincoln also helped form the Moderate Dems Working Group, a coalition of moderate Senate Democrats whose stated goal is to work with Senate leadership and the administration toward finding bipartisan solutions to controversial political issues. In addition, she co-founded and currently co-chairs Third Way, a moderate think-tank whose self-described goals are "an economic agenda that is focused on growth and middle class success; a culture of shared values; a national security approach that is both tough and smart; and a clean energy revolution." [10]

 

In September 2009, Lincoln pledged to filibuster any legislation containing a Public health insurance option, such as the Affordable Health Care for America Act, the House of Representatives' proposed health care reform bill.[11] Lincoln voted in favor of the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act, the Senate bill which eventually became the Barack Obama administration's health care reform bill. However, she voted against the Health Care and Education Reconciliation Act of 2010, an package of amendments to the former bill passed by the reconciliation process in the Senate. She also spoke out in opposition to the Employee Free Choice Act, garnering her the praise of Americans for Tax Reform.[12]

 

On December 9, 2010 Lincoln missed a critical vote to repeal Don't ask, don't tell after a dental appointment and missed voting by three minutes. A supporter of the bill, Sen. Joe Lieberman (I-CT), told reporters: "She was very frustrated and apologized to both of us." She claims she would have voted for repeal had she made the vote.[13]

 

Lincoln opposes bringing Guantanamo Bay prisoners to the United States for trial.[14]

[BigSqwert]

You know what makes it really hard to legitimize liberal policy? Not having either party in a two-party system ever advocate for it.

Amen.

 

What would be sad is if Obama and the Dem majorities he enjoyed during his tenure were forced out without ever really trying to enact progressive policies.

[bmags]

"she all of the sudden became the world's biggest derivative regulation backer"

[Balta1701]

"she all of the sudden became the world's biggest derivative regulation backer"

And yet left enough loopholes that Dodd Frank still has very few teeth behind it.

[StrangeSox]

"she all of the sudden became the world's biggest derivative regulation backer"

 

"she said she would have voted to repeal DADT, but darn it, she just missed it"

 

Obama campaigned on all sorts of stuff he immediately backed away from as his opening move.

 

edit: What Balta said.

Edited August 2, 2011 by StrangeSox

[BigSqwert]

Obama campaigned on all sorts of stuff he immediately backed away from as his opening move.

 

Perhaps he feels that if he immediately caves on everything for 3 and a half years, his opposition will be likely to help pass his progressive agenda right before the next election.

[StrangeSox]

Perhaps he feels that if he immediately caves on everything for 3 and a half years, his opposition will be likely to help pass his progressive agenda right before the next election.

 

I'm past the point of thinking that Obama is just weak and ineffective. I don't believe he has anything close to a progressive agenda.