Reading the comment thread on Anne Laurie’s early morning post, I’m reminded of a friend’s favorite saying, which I used to headline this post. Nobody’s covered in glory after yesterday’s ugly compromise. But, once a government shutdown was on the table, the other alternative was even worse — the only sense in which Democrats “win” if Republicans shut down government is that they would be perceived as the less petulant of the two sets of bedwetting children running DC.
My question is how the Democrats can make the Republicans pay for putting a shutdown on the table, not for trying to defund Planned Parenthood and NPR, or for never wanting to raise taxes. The latter policy issues are worth fighting for, but right now the question is whether we’re going to transition from a DC culture of admittedly dysfunctional debate to a culture of simple hostage taking. I don’t see any Democratic messaging addressing the latter issue, but it’s certainly early days in what appears to be a two year stretch of constant Republican-led hostage situations.
JPL
The highlighting of the social issues started to hurt the republicans. IMO..Spending time on voting for social issues that won’t pass will hurt the repubs because they promised jobs, jobs, jobs.
BUT…then I looked at the Sunday news shows and realized that I’m living in a fairy tale world. Ryan will be portrayed as the adult in the room because he wants to cut taxes for the rich and put the elderly in the poor house.
just f**************ck
Lol
Bully pulpit.
JCT
I am really starting to transition from disillusionment to despair. It is very unclear to me how we are going to escape the clutches of this starve the govt mentality and what it means in the long run for the less fortunate on all levels and, as importantly, education.
Horrifying article in the NYT this morning that illustrates the end-effect of “lean govt” (and the “leadership” of today’s republicans) on education and health in Texas.
It is unclear how this ever gets reversed.
dr. bloor
To be more than a little sociopathic about it, the hostage-takers won’t pay until some of the hostages are killed.
Bloix
Well, last night when the Republicans put down the gun after Obama gave them his wallet, he came out to tell us all what a wonderful thing it is to reach a good-faith compromise with thugs and muggers. I expect that in the debt ceiling fight he’ll give them the keys to the house and the car, and while he’s huddled in a doorway under a sheet of cardboard he’ll lecture us again on the virtues of compromise.
justawriter
My favorite way of expressing your saying is “The problem with a pissing match is the biggest prick wins.”
Jack
The saying I heard on the farm as a kid:
Well, all the Democrats can do is be just as obstinate and goalpost-moving as the Rethuglicans.
burnspbesq
The problem with the way this fight got resolved is that both sides will convince themselves that they won. Which means that both sides will feel empowered going into the fight over the debt ceiling.
My view is that the Republicans have the upper hand, because they, like Samson or Lear, are clearly willing to pull the whole thing down around them in order to make a point. For them, there is no such thing as a Pyrrhic victory. On the other hand, I don’t know whether there is any hill on which Obama is willing to die.
Another way of thinking about it: Obama is Harvard, and the Republicans are Princeton, and as I said before the Harvard-Princeton playoff game (won by Princeton at the buzzer), “teams that aren’t accustomed to winning find ways to lose.”
Hermione Granger-Weasley
Well….this is the system the Founders and Framers built. They believed everyone should have representation, and built as well as they could.
They were not elitists (except maybe Jefferson), and they believed even the ignorant and the low intelligent should have representation.
Already the right cannot win a general election, and starting in 2020 they will be less and less able to win local elections.
I think the system is WAI, it is just really, really slow.
Belafon (formerly anonevent)
I’ve actually become convinced that it would not matter what the Democrats do. Until 27% of the Democratic base comes out to vote for them, no matter what they’ve accomplished, then we’ll never win. There needs to be this amount to counter the craziness of the right. Let the independents decide the election as they should. But, until the Democrats match the Republicans vote for vote, nothing will ever actually move, and no one will actually get “punished”.
General Stuck
The only win I can see is the fact that not all wingnuts are insane nihilists, and there is limit to the courage of their convictions, that in this case was shutting down the federal government in a time of war and economic recovery. And least a good chunk of them that was their limit. Bodes well, them not playing the dangerous game of chicken with debt ceiling, at least for the older guard in the gooper caucus.
Dems didn’t win, but they didn’t lose either, within the confines of a functioning democracy. imo. As far as highlighting the behavior of the wingers taking hostages to get their way, I’m not sure dems could do much more, other than doing what they did. Draw a line they won’t go past like they did this time. The Ryan budget should be handed over to Comedy Central for them to make campaign ads for democrats for the coming election. That would be my suggestion.
It is a free country, mostly. And the wingnuts are free to use the tactics they want. At some point, you just have to explain what those tactics are to the American people, and let them make their decisions. If they are too cynical or stupid to make a choice in their best interest, then we are fucked, no matter.
I take some solace in the fact the the right wing blogosphere is hollering cave at Boehner, even louder than the liberal one is doing the same with Obama. A crude test for measuring success or failure, but I can’t think of a better one.
WereBear
There isn’t. He doesn’t work that way. And I don’t know any politician who does; because the minute they die on that hill, they aren’t a politician any more. And then they can’t do squat.
Why do you want our side to die on a hill? Any hill?
Woodrow "asim" Jarvis Hill
As he often does, John Rogers of KUNG FU MONKEY underlined the core problem, in his famous “I Miss Republicans” post — the GOP was, for 2 generations in America, seen as the adults in the room for many conversations. They’re still riding those coattails, that remembrance, and it drives how many media folks and Washington pundits — not to mention more than a few folks of a Certain Age — view the GOP, no matter what they actually do.
That’s not a boat you turn around with mean words. It’s not a boat you can slap a proxy war on, and force everyone to “see truth” with. It’s a boat you have to turn with actions, not just words, with acting like the adult, and keep doing it, over and again, until the media and the generational shifts play out in your favor.
This “win the day” crap is useful, yes, but it’s not going to change the actual discourse. The most important thing we could have done, we, the Democratic Party, did — we worked to save people’s jobs, and the overall recovery. Moreover, we made clear that all this bollicks wasn’t about the budget. It was about the same damned social issues that it’s always about, in the end, and that’s the story I think will be pushed forward, and should be.
If you want a “winning story?” Wrap the scalps the GOP took around their necks and mark ’em with the Scarlet A. Let their base have their wins, while the rest of America sees once again exactly what the GOP prizes as “important”. That’s the story that seems to be coming from our side anyway, and it’s the best way to underline what the GOP has become, today.
General Stuck
@WereBear:
I don’t know. Obama seemed to put his foot down on most of the policy riders, especially the PP one. Reid drew a line in the sand at 38 billion, and only added an extra one billion at the end for The repubs to drop the policy riders the tea baggers insisted on.
superluminR droid
I find a lot of the commentry stupid here, as it is merely continuing obot/firebagger wars from earlier when right now the battle is between left and right. There is an appropriate time to blame Obama et al, but it is certainly not now. Right now is exactly the moment for solidarity, however much that may suck.
Elia Isquire
Posting this here so it gets noticed:
Can someone — ANYONE — point me in the direction of an analysis of whether or not Dem turnout in 2010 was lower than expected? I’ve been looking off-and-on for weeks for some empirical answers to the “enthusiasm gap” question and I just can’t find any.
Thanks.
balconesfault
The Dems need to come out of the room saying “we made a deal with these lunatics because it was important to keep government going, but the cuts we agreed to are counterproductive for the recovery and will hurt Americans.”
You don’t use the term “needed cuts”. That’s just stupid.
Omnes Omnibus
@Hermione Granger-Weasley:You really need to put down the science fiction and fantasy novels for a bit and read some US history. Your statement that the Founders were not elitists is stunningly inaccurate even for you. Wow.
burnspbesq
One fully expects that tens of millions of people whose fragile economic position will be further damaged by a Republican win will continue to support the Republicans. That’s the frustrating part.
WereBear
@General Stuck: So you’re saying there was some spine shown?
Speaking personally, our lives would have been so screwed up if we didn’t get either our half of the household income, OR the tax refund… “losing our apartment and car and living in the in-laws garage” f^@%ed.
I find that worth fighting for; and perhaps the President and Reid did too?
General Stuck
@WereBear:
It’s all how you look at it. Was Obama showing spine by biting the bullet and extending the rich Bush tax cuts, in order to keep the Middle class ones for now, to keep folks like you with heads above water in a bad economy, and taking the lumps from some quarters of his base, as a sellout? That is the three dimensional viewpoint of politics. Other folks take the two dimensional look at points scored for our team and theirs, then we fight on blogs at which is the best way to go about things.
cleek
fucking election-based consequences, how do they work?
JPL
One of my Senators gave a speech yesterday about deal making. Most of the speech had to do with deficit cuts but he wanted a deal made to prevent a government shutdown.
Another thing on the current, pending, looming possible shutdown is that it is absolutely crazy, when we have committed our sons and daughters to harm’s way — right now, they are in three countries: Libya by the Air Force, Iraq, and Afghanistan. To put them in a position of accruing their income because we have shut down the government is just not right. It is not the right thing to do. We ought to debate these matters on the Senate floor with the government functioning.
His speech is on the AJC and his name is Isakson. The comments are vilifying him because he is now a RINO and a traitor. The whackos really wanted a government shutdown.
J.W. Hamner
It seems to me that few liberals/progressives understand how much a government shutdown would have hurt your average American… so how can you expect the media?
They all look at it like it was a chess piece.
cat48
There was newby TParty Rep on msnbc a few minutes ago and he said in order to raise the Debt Limit; they will ask for something HUGE. i.e. Defunding & Repealing Obamacare. Wow! Everyone hates it anyway, right?
kdaug
@Hermione Granger-Weasley: I appreciate the coherence. Good points.
PurpleGirl
I’m taking the day off from reading postings or comment threads. Can’t think about politics or policy. I have to find a way to pay back rent or be evicted. I have to find relatives who have money to loan to me.
Omnes Omnibus
@cat48: I really hope they try something like that. All the Dems need to do is say no and wait for Wall Street and Big Business to have a come to Jesus talk with the recalcitrant GOPers.
Elia Isquire
God, how I love Michele Bachmann.
General Stuck
@PurpleGirl:
Sorry you have this situation. Been there, done that myself, and it is an awful feeling of a knot in the stomach that won’t let up till it’s solved. Good luck
cat48
@Omnes Omnibus:
I was suspicious last nite when Reid thanked Tom Donahue in his speech. Maybe he keeps the rowdy boys in line or something? Trying to figure that out. At least he’s right across Lafayette Park.
I was disappointed when they gave in on Planned Parenthood. Rove & Huckabee were begging them to give in.
Butler
@Elia Isquire: I don’t think it being lower than “expected” is the issue. It was lower, but that was easy to predict given typical midterm behavior and the situation at the time.
All turnout goes down in midterms compared to the previous election, but in this case democratic turnout dropped more than republican turnout. This results from a number of factors, including the mobilization efforts of the Tea Party/GOP, which spent 2 years whipping their base into a frenzy so they would be highly motivated to vote. The few swing voters who come out sway with the direction of the economy. And the Democratic coalition is built out of groups who are less likely to vote anyway: young people, minorities, the poor, etc.
If you want some indirect numbers, I can point you to this study about youth turnout in 2010. Take away point: young people, who say they are are overwhelmingly democratic and supportive of the President, sat this midterm out (as usual). Their turnout dropped from 50% in 2008 to 20% in 2010. But this shouldn’t be unexpected, its just sad.
Elia Isquire
@Butler: Right, this I knew. I appreciate the help, though. I’m just trying to see if there’s anyway to prove one side another right on the “enthusiasm gap” argument. Obama’s more prominent liberal critics argue that more than was to be expected Dems didn’t turn out because they were dissatisfied.
Joey Maloney
@Jack:
I kinda like “lie down with asshats, get up with dingleberets”.
Hermione Granger-Weasley
@Omnes Omnibus: umm one of my fav books right now is the Jefferson/Adams letter collection. ;)
The Founders were strong populists. And they were utopians too.
But even Jefferson thought the Noble Yeoman Farmers should have representation–but also worried a lot about them being taken advantage of by demagogues.
Which is kind of what is happening today.
The system is heavily damped, to prevent violent oscillations.
But already I don’t think the right can win a presidential election ever again.
I think the teatards lost a lot of power within the GOP caucus. They blew their fiscal conservative cover and revealed themselves as garden variety socons.
Watch for polls showing the TP dropping in popularity nationally, especially with independents.
There is not a lot the democrats can do against Distributed Jesusland right now. So kabuki is important here. I think the dems actually won this round, because Obama and Reid were able to pin the impending shutdown on a social issue and discredit the TP.
Davis X. Machina
@cat48:
Re the debt ceiling and the tea party, I can do no better than Shakespeare:
Glendower: I can call spirits from the vasty deep.
Hotspur: Why, so can I, or so can any man; But will they come when you do call for them?
@J.W. Hamner:
They would have reveled, reveled, I tell you, at being given an opportunity to take one for the team, because long-term strategic thinking, and the principle of calculated risk, comes as second nature to the median independent, or loosely affiliated, 2012 general election voter. Which is the only thing you worry about for the next 18 months.
Shared sacrifice is something everybody likes to call for. It’s bi-partisan. There are differences in what gets sacrificed, but who gets to sacrifice — that’s the same here, and at the Heritage Foundation.
gogol's wife
@superluminR droid:
I wish more people could see this so clearly.
FoxinSocks
This is what I’ve been telling people: This was a hostage situation, and I blame the guy with the gun, not the negotiator. In other words, Obama did the best he could under very difficult circumstances.
Personally, I would’ve broken off a chair leg and beaten Boehner and his cronies senseless with it, so I give Obama major props for restraint. I live in DC, and a lot of people I know, including Republicans, were deeply shaken by this. Republicans threatened their families and their livelihoods and even if a shutdown didn’t occur this time, people were hurt emotionally and financially. I hope it’s something people won’t forget.
I woke up this morning feeling threatened and used by the GOP and the first question I asked myself was, what can I do to make the GOP pay for what they did to my friends and family?
cat48
@Elia Isquire:
Turnout for Whites, Dem voter total was lower than normal in 2010. It was in the high 20’s to mid 30’s in some areas. All the Electorate was older and whiter than usual based on the exit polls I saw.
I honestly think that’s why Obama’s behavior has changed b/c he lost Independents and white women was lower than normal. He won with 42% of whites.
Hermione Granger-Weasley
@cat48: i think the teabagger part will try this, but it is overreach like the planned parenthood strike.
Obamacare is slow death for the GOP and they know it. The longer it exists the more people will grow used to the benefits.
But as long as the dems hold the senate and the executive they will not be able to repeal it. They may defund some of it, but that is just trimming.
It will be interesting to see what Boner does.
justawriter
@WereBear: It’s like the old George Carlin bit about the Native Americans making a few concessions to the Pilgrims on Plymouth Rock. A few hundred repeats of “excuse me, pardon me” and “then the next thing you know all they have is an island off the coast of California, and they had to take that!” (referring to the occupation of Alcatraz in 69-71) If you decide no hill is worth defending, then eventually the tanks will be rolling down the street in front of your house, and it will be too late to defend anything.
Hermione Granger-Weasley
@superluminR droid: agree. And more than that, it is kind of a manichean binary– the freemarketeers vs. the social justice ninjas.
OzoneR
@Bloix:
who most of the country thinks is ok that they’re thugs and muggers.
Omnes Omnibus
@Hermione Granger-Weasley: I am afraid we wil have to agree to disagree on the populism of the Founders. They were are group of largely upper-middle class and above planters, lawyers and merchants who designed a governing system in which the populist part of the government, the part elected by the people, the House of Representatives was balanced by a Senate whose members were chose by state legislatures. This branch of government was countered by an indirectly elected executive and a judiciary with lifetime appointments. This is not the way a group of populists would design a government.
Davis X. Machina
You can argue from outcomes. The only way you get a 60-seat House swing away from you is if the voters who elected those 60 reps in the first place don’t vote, or vote Republican, both of which have an indistinguishable psephological outcome –it’s called ‘losing’
The only way you get a 60-seat House swing, instead of a more normal 25-35 seat House swing away from you is if the voters who elected those reps in the first place don’t vote, or vote Republican, in larger than expected numbers.
You could have specific polling numbers to the enthusiasm gap question, but the gross outcome is so different, it’s like a debate over the color of the bus that ran you over. The bus is the important thing.
And I’m not sure what yo do with the data that you couldn’t do from generally available data, like exit polls. In looking over them, I found this interesting 11/2/2010 nugget: “…about three in four voters said in a recent CBS News poll they want Republicans and Mr. Obama to compromise with each other.
Elia Isquire
@cat48: Source?
OzoneR
@Elia Isquire:
Dem turnout was where it was in 2006, the problem is it was mostly older and whiter and more Democrats switched to Republicans.
Obama’s base didn’t show up, Hillary’s did and many of them voted Republican.
The other problem is the wild swing among Independents. If they voted for McCain the way they voted in 2010, McCain would have won despite huge Democratic turnout. Our politics is determined by Independents who don’t take sides and don’t take a stand for pretty much anything.
Hermione Granger-Weasley
@justawriter: nah. Obama is a good shield fighter. He is always doing what he can.
In this analogy the Holtzman shield that republicans maintain is that freemarket-gawd-n-country-anti-intellectual layer of lying bullshytt they swath their base with.
sry Omnes. Dune just seems so spot on for me right now.
;)
BTD
Don’t worry. Obaama can “win” again in a few weeks when the dbet ceiling issue is the hostage.
What a thread.
FoxinSocks
And another thing…
The Republicans are reminding me of Charlie Sheen. They’re shouting, “Winning!” when everyone around them is starting to notice that they’ve gone stark raving mad.
In the last week, they’ve threatened to tank the economy over Planned Parenthood and proudly declared their intention to abolish Medicare, keep up the good work nutjobs, I’m sure that’ll play well in 2012.
General Stuck
@BTD:
What a clown,
Elia Isquire
@OzoneR: Again, a source would be great. Not that I doubt either of you.
Master of Karate and Friendship
What a pathetic party the Democrats are. Republicans say “cut spending!” and Democrats say “aw, alright, but let’s not cut it quite as much as the teabaggers want, okay?” Pitiful, spineless, useless–especially the one at the top.
cat48
I’m glad there was no shutdown for everyone’s sake, but I enjoyed watching the GOP squirm a bit.
The Hill said Biden got frustrated Thurs. nite & left negotiations b/c the Planned Parenthood Rider really upset him. He told Boner’s guys “it would be taken to the people”
He’s been negotiating w/them since early March.
Omnes Omnibus
@BTD: I don’t think Obama and the Democrats won here. I think they minimized losses and made the GOP pay a potentially huge cost. As FoxinSocks noted, the GOP really brought the crazy and did it out in the open. It should have a cost.
Master of Karate and Friendship
@Belafon (formerly anonevent):
Yes, liberals should vote for the Democrats no matter what they do, good or bad, because then the Democratic party will reward liberals by giving them what they want. That’s how politics works.
Sheeeeeeeesh.
Hermione Granger-Weasley
@Davis X. Machina: i luffed the shakespeare, btw.
is the Revenge of the Heartland, enthusiasm gap, and Distributed Jesusland.
Look what happened in Colorado where the Red Wave turned into beach break and Bennet and Hicklooper were elected. The enthusiasm gap narrowed because youth turned out for two things–the fetal personhood bill was on the ballot, and Buck made this dumb youtube about abolishing federal student loan programs that went viral.
The House can be carried by local elections–it is designed to function that way. The senate and the whitehouse cannot.
If the cell phone nation turns out (cell-only households tend to vote dem and to be underpolled) then the dems will win.
It is very normal for youth to not turn out in off year elections.
BTD
@Omnes Omnibus:
The President gave a speech thanking Boehner for his leadership.
Not sure how that works exactly.
The Sheriff's A Ni-
@BTD: Abe Lincoln thanking Bobby Lee for his leadership at Gettysburg.
cat48
@Elia Isquire:
I’m doing it from my best memory. CNN Politics section has exit polls for 2010 and National Journal, Gallup. Just compared them with Gallup’s 2008 exit polls.
Hermione Granger-Weasley
@BTD: it is kabuki. Obama is a machiavellian pragmatist, not a liberal.
Butler
@Elia Isquire:
I’m not sure any data exists to really prove or disprove such a claim. You can try to model predicted turnout based on past elections but its messy at best. Elections follow patterns but each is its own trial with its own set of circumstances, and the makeup of the electorate is slowly but constantly changing.
Even if you could get a satisfactory model which showed less than expected turnout, you still wouldn’t know their motivations for not voting. Its just as valid to claim that someone didn’t vote because they were satisfied, or at least oblivious enough to the situation not to care one way or the other.
cermet
@cat48: Gave in? What country do you live in? Not here if you believe that nonsense – last time I checked our government policies in congress allow any member to raises issues and these issues should be brought to the floor for debate and a vote if enough members support this motion. Tacking on riders is immoral and the democrats stood firm and held their ground fully winning on this critical battle -giving floor time and an independent vote is a victory for both sides, too but no matter what you think, the thugs had every right to demand and get this agreement. Its called the US Congress.
Master of Karate and Friendship
@burnspbesq:
What does the other party offer? What did they do to help ordinary peoples’ fragile economic position? Seriously, what?
HAMP could have helped, but it is a disaster, a poorly-designed stupidly-implemented program that does more for banks than struggling homeowners. The stimulus was too small. The head of the president’s Jobs and Competitiveness council is an outsourcer, for criminy’s sake. Meanwhile Goldman Sachs gets whatever they want.
Elizabelle
A lot of “Independents” are low information voters.
Butler
Its almost as if we have a government with built in checks and balances which is deliberately designed to require consensus in order to operate.
ruemara
This is bullshit reasoning at it’s finest. You hand the wallet over to the biggest collection of lunatics and it’s Obama’s fault. The Democratic House failed to deal with tax cuts or a budget for this year, even after the midterms, yet it’s Obama’s fault. When is anything going to be House Reps fault, or even, and I hate to do this since I think she’s been damned effective, Nancy Pelosi’s fault. I’ve been told that this was a betrayal of public employees. I keep hearing that the problem is Obama’s a pussy and he’s not going to die on X hill for us. W.T.F. When half the elecotrate sends you crazies, are you seriously wondering why the sane people just roll up their sleeves and deal with them as opposed to acting just as conscienceless and crazy as they are? Jesus Christ on a Hickory Stick.
OzoneR
@Elia Isquire: I meant to say total turnout was where it was in 2006.
Larry Sabato mentions it here
http://www.centerforpolitics.org/crystalball/articles/ljs2010111102/
Now that I think of it, I did remember reading somewhere that Dem turnout was similar to 2006, but down dramatically from 2008, but the thing about 2006, IIRC, is that Democratic turnout wasn’t exactly great, Republicans didn’t really show up and that’s how we won.
Hermione Granger-Weasley
@Omnes Omnibus: I think it is. ;)
Like Washington said, the Senate is the saucer that cools the hot tea of the House. Are you thinking they would have gone one man-one vote?
That is mob rule.
America is a Republic, not a democracy.
Valdivia
@FoxinSocks:
This. I know quite a few conservative who work for the govt who are now in a red fury with Republicans. Not because they went for the deal but because they threatened their livelihood.
OzoneR
@Master of Karate and Friendship:
if you show up and become a significant part of the otherwise pragmatic, moderate, Democratic base…yes.
Aimai
I respect the personal suffering that would have accrued to many Americans in a shutdown but it’s inaccurate to say that dems who would have preferred Obama to fight harder against the 80 billion in cuts were just treating this as some kind of chess move or pawn sacrifice. The Obama admins move towards austerity first language and practice is going to cost the economy and American families a whole lot of suffering. Jobs are going to be lost– houses and health care and you name it. I’m ok with Obama and Reid bargaining away billions of dollars in services and public goods in order yo prevent a bullet to the brain. But I’m not ok with the strategy of praise for the humane process the hostage takers used towards the kidnap victims. If thevdems wantbto use this debacle as more than an object lesson in graceful losing they are going to have to choose a different rhetorical strategy than bragging about how great the cuts are and how bipartisan the agreement and the compromise. I had to give the murderous bastard mony to save the baby is legitimate. I gave the money to my dear friends on the other side of the aisle and they generously offered to let me bury the corpse when they are done savaging it is less attractive as a governing philosophy or a rallying cry.
OzoneR
@Master of Karate and Friendship:
it’s almost like our government functions on compromise. It’s as if it was set up so different groups can control different branches and be forced to work with each other..nah couldn’t be.
Omnes Omnibus
@Hermione Granger-Weasley: I am well aware that the US is a republic, not a democracy. If you believe that the US Constitution, as originally drafted, is a populist document, you either do not understand populism or you do not understand how the Constitution works. I suppose there is also the possibility that you do not understand either, and, upon reflection, I would hazard a guess that this is the situation. I am done dealing with your confusion. Have a nice day.
OzoneR
@Hermione Granger-Weasley:
so why are people surprised when it doesn’t function as a democracy?
Hermione Granger-Weasley
@Omnes Omnibus: sorry. :(
cleek
@Butler, @OzoneR:
your outrage levels are below the minimum required of all True Liberals.
please report to Room 1541 for reliberalization.
sukabi
@dr. bloor: unfortunately I agree… sooo, the question becomes, how do we put pressure on the Dems and the President to take preemptive action and metaphorically kill the tea-errorists holding everyone hostage?
4tehlulz
Has the House actually voted on this yet?
I’m not convinced this is going to pass.
Master of Karate and Friendship
@Butler:
“Its almost as if we have a government with built in checks and balances which is deliberately designed to require consensus in order to operate.”
Not even close to what I’m saying.
Look: you want consensus? Okay. There are two ways to get it. 1–your crazy negotiating partner proposes something crazy, so you counter with something slightly less crazy and crow about your compromising ability. 2–your crazy negotiating partner proposes something crazy, so you counter with something the exact opposite of crazy and get a consensus that falls withing not crazy.
Obama always goes with #1. People who actually get what they want go with #2.
Elia Isquire
Thanks to all for the links and 2 cents. I was always suspicious of the “enthusiasm” argument since, as was said, it can’t really be proven one way or another and is often very politically convenient for those making it.
it’s funny how much everything during the past 2 years — well, not everything, but A LOT — can be explained by the same answer: stimulus was too small.
Master of Karate and Friendship
@OzoneR:
You really have no understanding of how power is wielded at all.
“Hey Democrats, do whatever you want, I’ll vote for you anyway!” And you really think their response is “let’s give the loyals what they want instead of giving someone else what they want, thus getting two groups of votes instead of just one”?
Basically, your strategy boils down to “support the party whether they do good or bad, and send a sternly-worded letter when they do bad.”
OzoneR
@Master of Karate and Friendship:
Yes…I know when I wanted that condo and the seller told me it cost $1 million and I countered the offer with $100, I got closer to what I wanted and didn’t get laughed out the door.
That’s ridiculous, no one gets what they want by offering something as crazy, nothing gets done. I’m not even getting to the fact that 68 percent of Democrats wanted their party to compromise on Republican end of crazy.
Remind me not to take you with me when I buy a car
General Stuck
@4tehlulz:
It will pass. The only question is whether Boehner will need democratic votes to put it over the 217 mark. If he does, it is a huge loss of face for him and the gooper held majoritarian body that is the House of Reps.
balconesfault
I just don’t get Obama’s rhetoric here.
What would “better circumstances” be?
Less of a deficit? If they were common sense, given the economic situation – then he’s basically admitting that his budget proposal was flawed.
Less intransigent Republicans? If the only reason Obama approved the cuts was because the GOP was willing to bring government to a halt if they didn’t get them … then they weren’t “common sense”. They were capitulation to people he really views as extremists, pure and simple.
This reminds me much of the extension of the Bush tax cuts – where Obama gives significant ground just to keep things going (then unemployment benefits, now the government) because he doesn’t believe in allowing the GOP the rope to hang themselves with, instead always pulling them back from the brink of disaster. He’s the best political ally the Republicans have these days.
cat48
@Master of Karate and Friendship:
Actually Jack Lew, Biden, & Daley have been negotiating since early March with these fools. They’re not exactly pushovers. They had 50 Riders they wanted attached. Obama was there 3 days & they were already up to $30B when he got more involved himself since they couldn’t close it.
OzoneR
@Master of Karate and Friendship:
that’s how it works in the Republican Party, and every other damn party in the Western world.
I mean it really helps to accept the Democratic Party voting bloc is a center-left group, not a progressive group, because true progressive barley make up 20 percent of the country.
You’re getting ignored because you aren’t the base.
Glen Tomkins
Don’t negotiate with hostage-takers.
If you let them win by their use of hostage-taking, of course they’re going to do it again and again, probably in escalating fashion, with demands ever more outrageous.
This rationale explains why the “no negotiations” rule doesn’t apply categorically to every bank robbery gone bad where the criminals take hostages to hold off the police who have them surrounded. The robbers are not an ongoing threat. You’re not going to encourage them to rob more banks in the future by letting them negotiate the terms of their surrender, because when it’s all over, they’ll be in jail.
But the Rs are (sadly) an ongoing threat. At the end of the day, they will not (sadly) be carted off to jail. We will have to deal with them long into the indefinite future. So in dealing with them, the rule applies — iron-clad, categorical, no exceptions.
The public explanation forno negotiations surrounding the annual budget rconciliation process is simple, because the situation is quite simple. The only legitimate, Constitutional, way to create or remove a govt obligation to spend money, is to pass or repeal the law that creates the obligation, period. It’s not legitimate to try to end-run the Constitution by exploitng a feature of this rather obscure, inside baseball, budget reconciliation process, to hold the whole govt and the economy hostage. The Rs need both chmabers plus the WH to write or repeal laws. They didn’t get that in the last elections, they only got the House. What they’re trying to do in taking the budget reconciliation process hostage is simply and unequivocally cheating, trying to get what only the trifecta would get them legitimately, the ability to make or unmake laws.
The mistake was even talking to them about the budget in the setting of their threat to us this budget reconciliation process to take the country hostage. The size and make-up of the national budget is obviously open to negotiation in a democracy. The size and make-up of the national budget are obviously important (though not the crisis concern the Rs paint it as), necessary parts of the public conversation of governance in a republic. But our form of govt is a democratic republic, not a dictatorship of the House. We need to have the budget conversation over the passage of laws the way our Conssitution requires, not in the context of an attempted House putsch.
Oh, wait, did I say “attempted” putsch. I guess that’s not really accurate anymore, is it?
General Stuck
@sukabi:
Code Pink metaphoric snipers. duh
OzoneR
@balconesfault:
I took it to mean “If these nuts didn’t control the House”
but, yes, less of a deficit would mean he had a stronger bargaining hand.
I think he, like me, doesn’t believe hurting people is worth the not-certain possibility the Republicans will hang themselves with the rope. Let’s face it, a significant number of people would claim Obama lynched them (I apologize for the offensive lynching thing, I wanted to keep the “hang themselves with the rope” analogy)
Master of Karate and Friendship
@OzoneR:
“when I wanted that condo and the seller told me it cost $1 million and I countered the offer with $100”
You’ve never actually negotiated for anything, have you? Because what you described is how it works. That’s how you move someone to a good price.
Or you could use the Obama method, and make a counter offer of $990,000 dollars, and get taken to the cleaners but try to spin it as a triumph of compromise.
“Remind me not to take you with me when I buy a car”
Freaking fine with me, no way I would ride in a car driven by someone who sees no problem with driving off a cliff.
General Stuck
clearly, Obama needs to conduct mock public hangings of hostage takers on the WH lawn. Just to send a message. He could use dummies, but that might be too realistic.
Jay B.
Since none of you idiots understand what has been going on — this is and has always been the fruition of the GOP strategy of drowning government in a bathtub. The way they have been doing this is through shameless tax cuts and corporate giveaways, while pounding on the hateful evil of government spending. The democrats, few of them anyway, ever bother to provide a counterargument. Instead they passively accept the premise, vote for the tax cuts which have and will continue to cripple the government and agree that the deficit truly is a scourge. Hell,they brag about their seriousness. They laud people whose visions are shameful and immoral for their bravery.
So they were slightly more responsible than the GOP in this case, great, but they continue to play on the other side of the field. They have a moral case to make, but they don’t. They are content to drown government too, just in a kinder and gentler way. There is zero mystery why the GOP says the solution to everything is tax cuts and spending cuts. Why do the Democrats agree?
This “deal” is simplythe next step down the hill.
Master of Karate and Friendship
@OzoneR:
“that’s how it works in the Republican Party”
Really? Teabaggers haven’t moved their party rightward by throwing out good, solid, loyal, experienced Republicans who aren’t right enough for them? Really?
OzoneR
@Master of Karate and Friendship:
Actually yes I bought an apartment and when I did, I offered $50,000 less than what the owner wanted and he wouldn’t take my calls. I did it again and again and again and I was still living in a hotel or commuting from my sister’s house in Connecticut. I wondered why, until I did this;
And finally got a place to live.
This is the dumbest thing I’ve ever heard, honestly.
Master of Karate and Friendship
@Glen Tomkins:
Awesome, awesome post. This is the whole matter in a nutshell.
Master of Karate and Friendship
@Jay B.:
Another excellent post.
FlipYrWhig
@Master of Karate and Friendship:
That presumes that both sides are interested in consensus and see that the common ground is something like a midpoint. Not all negotiations are like that. In this case, the Democrats felt that they needed to make a deal; not arriving at a deal would be a failure. Republicans, the thinking went, might feel like not arriving at a deal would be a triumph. It wasn’t just a buyer and a seller who both like what’s on the table, where the only issue is determining the price. Republicans set things up so that they had the power to walk, and Democrats didn’t.
I’ve been asking if there was a way for Democrats to emerge from a shutdown looking better than they do now. By reputation, Clinton did, but I have no recollection of why. What was it, and what could it be?
Brachiator
@burnspbesq:
I see your point here, but as a couple of other posters have noted, perhaps the idea is not for Obama to have to make a sacrifice, but to make the Republicans yield, to be the ones who have to make a sacrifice.
The problem is that Obama, always looking for the bipartisan compromise which prevents people from being hurt, is unwilling to stare down the Republicans, and his fellow Democrats don’t have anything in them at all.
The result tends to help Republicans in at least the short term.
Bush would always talk about how the Democrats needed to agree to his policies, pass his legislation, ratify his appointments. And Congressional Republicans, and their quislings in the media, always talked and acted as though the GOP were the only legitimate political party in America, and only conservative values represented Real American(tm) values. And look at how we still talk about Bush tax cuts, etc.
Obama needs to break the Republicans. They are already embracing the more extreme wing of their party. Obama needs to make them own it, reject it, and push his own agenda every freaking day. It’s worked before, a la Harry Truman in the 1948 presidential campaign:
Obama and the Democrats need to point out that once the official GOP platform “called for expanding social security, more funding for public housing, civil rights legislation, and promotion of health and education by the federal government.” He should dare the GOP to return to real American values, and not suck up to corporate interests.
Master of Karate and Friendship
@OzoneR:
Yup, you have no idea at all how negotiating works if you think that one experience is the rule rather than the exception.
OzoneR
@Master of Karate and Friendship:
That’s what I was saying. They moved their party rightward by showing the fuck up at the polls.
FlipYrWhig
@Glen Tomkins:
That always sounds tough and strong. Phrased as, “Sometimes ya gotta let ’em kill the hostages,” it doesn’t feel nearly as much like something to be proud of.
The Sheriff's A Ni-
@Brachiator:
As long as the 27 percenters march in lockstep and there’s enough independents willing to see the GOP in Ike ‘n Ronnie sepia tones despite every evidence to the contrary, its not going to happen any time soon.
Master of Karate and Friendship
@FlipYrWhig:
I don’t know where you’re getting that. Clearly both sides had something they wanted. Republicans wanted big spending cuts (and a few wanted to shut down the government for its own sake). If the Democrats were smart, they would stop agreeing to what Republicans say before even trying to find a workable deal.
“Oh yes Mr. Boehner, clearly the government needs to cut spending, because a government is just like a family!” Way to go guys, you are already 90% of the way to losing.
OzoneR
@Master of Karate and Friendship:
yeah ok whatever. Keep living in that delusion. I can give you a whole list of examples when that’s the rule and not the exception.
Master of Karate and Friendship
@FlipYrWhig:
Well, it does work though. If you want to feel good, go rent “Beauty and the Beast”.
The Sheriff's A Ni-
@FlipYrWhig:
If you’re not one of the hostages, though, well, no skin off your back, right?
Master of Karate and Friendship
@OzoneR:
“That’s what I was saying. They moved their party rightward by showing the fuck up at the polls.”
Sigh.
Did they move their party by blindly endorsing whatever it wanted, or did they propose their own agenda and show up at the polls to support it?
John Boehner isn’t looking to give the tea party what it wants because they are so nice to him–he’s looking to do that so they don’t throw his ass out into the street.
OzoneR
@Brachiator:
and you think, what? The American people are just going to back him on this? Get out and fight for him?
The Tea Party will put 50,000 people in the street while we bicker about the wording of what he said.
Davis X. Machina
Nobody likes Matt Yglesias, but he’s right.
The Sheriff's A Ni-
@Master of Karate and Friendship:
‘Fuck ’em, I’ve got mine.’
OzoneR
@Master of Karate and Friendship:
a little of both. Because their were more powerful in the party than Republicans who just want to be nice and moderate and compromising. Until that’s true of Democrats, liberals will be powerless. I suspect you know that and you’re not angry at Obama or Congress, you’re angry at your fellow Democrats
and yet they didn’t get much, or anything, they wanted.
General Stuck
@FlipYrWhig:
I think it is the fact the the GOP has long postured itself as the party of anti government, that is pretty well fixated in the public’s mind. Ergo, a short trip for that GOP to get most of the blame with a shutdown, and I think they would have.
But that is currently not the only large pol factor in play at this particular time. This economic downturn is much more deep and structural than was the recession Clinton was dealing with, and the recovery is much more fragile. And the effect on this would likely not go in Obama’s and dems favor, and could largely derail an upstart recovery, especially job creation that is just starting to look better.
It would be too big a leap in the public’s mind to also blame the GOP for longer term damage to the economic recovery. The president always gets that blame, or credit, when it is due.
Omnes Omnibus
@Master of Karate and Friendship: In a negotiation, everyone should consider their best alternative to negotiated agreement (BATNA). The BATNA for GOP was to blow everything up. Hell, I suspect that this was the preferred alternative for man of them. For Obama and the Democrats, shutdown was also the BATNA, but, since, by and large, they seem to care about having a functioning government, a shutdown was not an attractive option. If one side wants a deal and the other side is at best indifferent, the people who are indifferent have leverage.
If you want a change, you must create a situation in which the GOP suffers for being unreasonable.
Master of Karate and Friendship
@The Sheriff’s A Ni-:
“If you’re not one of the hostages, though, well, no skin off your back, right?”
Clearly, the way to stop people from taking hostages is to give in to their demands.
“Hey, taking hostages got us everything we wanted. Clearly it’s time to abandon the hostage-taking strategy.”
The naivetee on this board is off the charts.
Davis X. Machina
@The Sheriff’s A Ni-:
Or if you’re not one of the Libyans….
(ducks)
dr. bloor
The idea of getting taken to the cleaners again for the sake of keeping the government running and stripping entitlements is one thing–and in many respects a good thing.
For Obama to use his radio address to hail this as some sort of noble “compromise” and win for the American people is galling. He should have used his air time to make it plain that the American people got dicked over again, the pain he avoided in the short run will only be offset by slower bleeding over a longer period of time, and that we should all expect Boner and Co to hold CPB, PP and any other shred of decency in government hostage yet again the next time the Tea Partiers start whining about something.
But he didn’t, and he never will.
Butler
Something crazy like… shutting down the fucking government?
Master of Karate and Friendship
@OzoneR:
I understand not knowing what happened in, say, the reign of Pharoah Khufu. That was thousands of years ago. But the tea party has been happening for only two years. People, pay attention.
“A little of both.” That statement doesn’t even make any logical sense on its own merits. “They blindly followed the party’s lead except when they didn’t.” Come on.
Davis X. Machina
@Omnes Omnibus:
We have one. They suffer re-election.
Rational-choice theory has no more place in the voting booth than it does on Wall Street.
jinxtigr
Wow. That’s going to make him look just ducky with the teabaggers :D
Yes yes. Thank you, Boehner, so effusively, for your courageous dedication to working WITH the Democrats and your President to arrive at a wonderful solution that pleases everybody, thanks entirely to your wonderful leadership…
He’ll have teabaggers lynching the orange one. What do you call orange when it goes permanently pale from fear? :)
Davis X. Machina
It’s galling to you. It’s not galling to the people he’s trying to move.
He’s telling the people he’s trying to move want to hear. Which is what politicians do, or so I am told.
Master of Karate and Friendship
@dr. bloor:
This is true.
OzoneR
@Davis X. Machina: In our system of government, progress is slow and incremental, it was meant to be that way.
The right is ok with moving backwards at any speed, slow, fast, they don’t care. We’re the ones who throw hissy fits if progress isn’t fast enough.
cat48
Dems are on TV today whining about what the president did. They don’t even blame the rethugs. It was all his idea not to pass a budget last year…..
Master of Karate and Friendship
@Davis X. Machina:
“It’s galling to you. It’s not galling to the people he’s trying to move.”
Obama tries to move people who will never move toward him, rather than moving for people who support him.
That, too, is galling.
OzoneR
@Master of Karate and Friendship:
Did they show up to vote for non-tea party candidates in November?
Yes.
They blindly follow their party’s lead when they fail to influence it. Now if they destroy the GOP over this, then that’ll be different, but if they don’t, they’ll still get to the polls in 2012 to keep the gavel in John Boehner’s hands.
OzoneR
@Master of Karate and Friendship:
He has to do both, because not everyone who supported in 2008 are you.
Davis X. Machina
@Master of Karate and Friendship: Compromise rather than draw a line in the sand and face a shutdown was preferred roughly 2 to 1 by Democrats, his own voters, without whom he can’t win, and independents, without whom he can’t win.
Republicans, and soi-disant internet progressives, were the only subgroups pushing for a shutdown.
Which ought to give one pause — and won’t.
OzoneR
@dr. bloor: That’s what campaigns are for. The people who are listening to the President now will tune him out if he starts pointing fingers.
sukabi
@General Stuck: naw… I’m thinking it’s going to have to be a well organized (from the roots) walkout / shutdown … and it’s going to have to involve getting in the faces of the major media clowns and making THEM part of the shutdown… otherwise they just ignore and report on the 3 paid teabaggers outside Reid’s office for 24/7.
Master of Karate and Friendship
@OzoneR:
“In our system of government, progress is slow and incremental”
It sure took a long time for the New Deal to work, didn’t it? 3 years. About as long as that slow, incremental Great Society took to take a bit out of poverty. And how about that slow and incremental Emancipation Proclamation?
Fortunately, the Democratic party is making incremental progress toward peace by continuing the war in Afghanistan; incremental progress toward clean energy by increasing offshore oil-drilling; incremental progress toward human rights improvement by secret military trials in Guantanamo Bay; incremental progress toward erasing wealth inequality by cutting taxes for the rich and cutting programs for the poor; etc.
The Sheriff's A Ni-
@Master of Karate and Friendship:
Because they wouldn’t take bigger hostages the next time, of course. Meanwhile, the 27 percenters cheer them on, independents place a pox on both houses while shining their portraits of Saint Ronnie, and there’s dead hostages everywhere but fuck ’em they ain’t you.
We ain’t got nothin’ on your smug condescending sociopathy, asshole.
Brachiator
@The Sheriff’s A Ni-: RE:Obama needs to break the Republicans.
Boehner is already fighting with the Tea Party people and, as we are seeing in some of the state battles, voters are no longer just lying back and waiting for the Republicans to roll over them.
@OzoneR:
Yeah, I do. Otherwise, what’s the point?
I’ve been seeing some impressive crowds pop up to fight back against the bullshit that GOP state governors are trying to pull. The Tea Party People are running out of gas and have been running on the fumes of racial anxiety and false promises.
Glenn Beck, for example, is a joke looking for his next punch line. And a lot of the wild unfocused anger that the Tea Party People used to exploit is now dissipating itself into farces like the Charlie Sheen Performance Art Train.
There is no reasons, none, for Democrats to continue to surrender ground to conservatives. It has never worked for them. They need to stop pretending that political cowardice is some kind of savvy strategy.
surly duff
I’m frankly a little surprised at the approval toward how the Dems handled this situation. The reps got what they wanted; significant cuts in the budget and 80 million under the Pres budget during a recession, the worst time to have cuts. What did the Democratic reps get again? Or did they just avoid even greater losses? And then talked about how well the bipartisan deal worked? Why should their be praise for anything that occurred?
The Sheriff's A Ni-
@Davis X. Machina:
Not while Grover’s checks aren’t bouncing.
General Stuck
@sukabi:
So you favor the tea bagger hostage solution, only with different demands. Cool.
dr. bloor
@Davis X. Machina:
I didn’t say the compromise itself was galling. “The People” who wanted their compromise, presumably at any cost, got it.
It is galling–not just to me, but in an absolute sense–that he’s not telling the public the truth about the consequences of giving them what they wanted.
Davis X. Machina
Except for it being popular with Democrats.
The Sheriff's A Ni-
@Brachiator:
And yet 50% of Wisconsinites still pulled the lever for Judge Bitch. The Democrats have a better hand now, sure, but we’re not near the breaking point yet. Not when you have your own party’s polls supporting compromise.
Master of Karate and Friendship
@OzoneR:
“He has to do both, because not everyone who supported in 2008 are you.”
Okay, let me know when Obama convinces the Republicans who wanted a government shut-down to vote for him in 2012. Should be any day now, right? I know–he should focus on those Southern Republicans who are against interracial marriage. Shouldn’t be too hard to sway them, right?
@OzoneR:
“They blindly follow their party’s lead when they fail to influence it. ”
Another statement that simply makes no sense on its own terms, saying nothing about any others.
“Did they show up to vote for non-tea party candidates in November? Yes.”
And those non-teabagger candidates are terrified of being given the boot because enough of their kind were destroyed in the election. And the government continues to move rightward.
dr. bloor
@OzoneR:
The problem here is that Obama owns the compromise now, lock, stock and barrel. He’s going to look stupid pointing his finger at election time, because it’s going to look like he’s pointing it at himself.
The Sheriff's A Ni-
@dr. bloor:
I can see where you’re coming from and understand. Not completely agreeing, not while everyone still remembers Jimmy Carter’s sweaters, but I can understand.
Master of Karate and Friendship
@Davis X. Machina:
“Except for it being popular with Democrats.”
So you think in 2012 a weak economy and a miserable job market will be less of a factor to voters than “at least the president compromises a lot!”
Hint: look at the 2010 elections to see.
The Sheriff's A Ni-
@Master of Karate and Friendship:
Because the economy would be puppies and rainbows following an extended government shutdown.
OzoneR
@Master of Karate and Friendship:
I really have no idea what you’re talking about, do you? FDR’s New Deal as full of compromises, Huey Long was going to freakin run against him because of it. Some of it didn’t even pass Congress, Social Security was only given to rich white guys and he couldn’t even get any universal healthcare system talked about. WPA didn’t even pass Congress, FDR had to fund it himself using a mechanism that no longer exists, and even THEN, it didn’t drop unemployment out of the double digits. This great fantasy about the New Deal saving the world needs to stop. Liberals at the time during it was a huge sellout.
And the end result of the New Deal was that he was forced in cutting the budget massively within four years.
OzoneR
@dr. bloor:
To you he might look stupid, to everyone else he looks like the bigger guy who sucked it up for the good of the country.
OzoneR
@Master of Karate and Friendship:
Obama doesn’t need to convince them, he needs to convince the independents and Democrats who thought he was being unreasonable for not agreeing to anything the GOP wants to avoid a shutdown.
Master of Karate and Friendship
@OzoneR:
“FDR’s New Deal as full of compromises”
But was still a radical break from what had come before.
“And the end result of the New Deal was that he was forced in cutting the budget massively within four years.”
Nonsense. The result of the New Deal was that unemployment was plummeting and the economy was rising. Then FDR mistakenly listened to the Larry Summerses of his day and cut government spending, undoing much progress.
The Sheriff's A Ni-
@Master of Karate and Friendship:
Its as if the years of ground work laid by abolitionists and socia1ists to get to the point where Lincoln, Roosevelt, and Johnson could put these policies in place never existed. Or that there wasn’t a massive national crisis to give them the urgency needed to get them past a reluctant American populace.
Master of Karate and Friendship
@OzoneR:
“To you he might look stupid, to everyone else he looks like the bigger guy who sucked it up for the good of the country.”
We’ll see.
@OzoneR:
Please follow the line of discussion.
dr. bloor
@OzoneR:
Yeah, I’m pretty sure it’s just me seeing things this way. Thanks for pointing out my isolated ignorance.
If you think this willingness to suck it up will mean jack to anyone he’s trying to persuade a year from now–when job growth is still lagging, in part because of this noble deal–you’re dreaming.
Davis X. Machina
@Master of Karate and Friendship
Yep. Brief — one week shutdowns don’t have much of an impact. — minus 0.2 to 0.8 GDP. Protracted government shutdown(s) just about guarantee a weaker economy, and a more miserable job market.
You can’t run around shouting “Aggregate demand, aggregate demand” and then take avoidable steps to depress aggregate demand.
Master of Karate and Friendship
@The Sheriff’s A Ni-:
How in the world does FDR using a national crisis to implement the New Deal go against my statement that progress in America is often not slow and incremental???
OzoneR
@Brachiator:
It’s the only thing that HAS worked for them.
I see the problem now. You have to believe Americans will fight for the right thing, otherwise you lose all hope.
I don’t, sorry, I’ve never seen them hit the streets for the “right thing” only wars, spending cuts, and, at the Rally for Sanity, mocking the left and the right as crazy.
cleek
@dr. bloor:
only to people who don’t realize that he’s not a dictator and can’t always get everything he wants, let alone everything everybody wants, all the time.
the GOP won the House. we’re seeing the results of what that means. it’s up to the Dems to explain that this is what electing Republicans, especially teabaggers, leads to.
there ain’t no fucking “hostages”. ain’t no fucking “surrender”. there’s just deadlines, process and simple math: the GOP has the seats to drive the agenda on the House. and when things have to be done, they can use their numbers as leverage. simple.
don’t like it? elect more Democrats. it isn’t fucking rocket science.
OzoneR
@Master of Karate and Friendship:
Because the New Deal WAS slow and incremental.
OzoneR
@Master of Karate and Friendship:
Perhaps in the 1910s, yes, but in the 1920s much of the New Deal was already being explored in states like New York and Wisconsin.
Bob Loblaw
@Davis X. Machina:
This should be the only takeaway that matters. The federal government is now actively obstructive to the broader economy on a scale not seen in years. We’re all Texas now. Forget winning the future, we can’t even win the fucking present.
And here you all are talking about optics. Substanceless optics. Looking good while doing bad. Funny, the 2008 Obama campaign had something poignant to say about that kind of thinking. Oh well, twas a different time I guess.
Master of Karate and Friendship
@Davis X. Machina:
“You can’t run around shouting “Aggregate demand, aggregate demand” and then take avoidable steps to depress aggregate demand.”
Like freezing federal employee wages?
OzoneR
@dr. bloor:
It was going to happen either way.
dr. bloor
@cleek:
.
Maybe it got lost in the crosstalk, but this is my point. His radio address today didn’t explain anything. He essentially took credit for the deal.
sukabi
@General Stuck: no.
A large part of the problem in this country stems from the fact that our media is corrupted, THEY report only what their corporate masters deem “important”… it’s why all the anti-war protests in this country didn’t get the time of day… it’s why there was NO thought or counter argument presented to going into Iraq, it’s why you get 24/7 coverage and interviews with Charlie Fucking Sheen and updates on all his subsequent farts, but NOTHING or a passing 20 seconds on the important life changing policies the assholes on the hill are implementing.
If you want something to happen other than what has been “approved for consumption” by our “betters” you’ve got to make them understand you’re not swallowing their crap any more. They’ve got the game rigged to play out THEIR HAND, and we don’t even get a seat at the table.
Here’s the thing, if the people you elect aren’t representing you because they are bought and paid for by big $$, and the media won’t honestly inform or discuss all sides of policy issues, because they like the status quo — and they are looking out for their own and their bosses interests what options do you have for being heard through the regular channels of Rep / Sen. contact, let alone have some of your needs addressed?
The basic tools of our democracy are broken — the tools that give voice to the people are compromised. I’m suggesting that in true democratic fashion the people stand up and speak.
Brachiator
@Davis X. Machina:
Are the Democrats winning right now?
There was a variation of this discussion when Obama compromised over the tax cuts. What people kept missing, or ignoring, was the fact that compromise became necessary because the gutless Democrats in Congress (and the president) couldn’t come up with any goddam tax policy and waited until the last minute, when they had to make concessions.
The Republicans learned from this. The Democrats did not. Now, we have this bi-weekly threat to shut down the government, which is resolved only when the Democrats agree to more cuts. The Republicans will gladly keep kicking this can down the road, until we get into the swing of the 2012 presidential campaigning season, when they will try to take credit for keeping the government running.
cleek
@dr. bloor:
i suspect the govt not shutting down is a big deal to most people. if he can take credit for preventing that, why wouldn’t he ?
OzoneR
@Bob Loblaw:
The 2008 Obama campaign was chock full of naive thinking and pie in the sky soundbites, I said as much at the time, but it’s not like the left would’ve shown up for the truth.
The Sheriff's A Ni-
@Master of Karate and Friendship: Because you missed the thirty-plus years before the New Deal where guys like Eugene Debs were drumbeating those concepts into the heads of the American public. Change takes time, and even then you still need a Great Depression or Civil War or dead president.
Master of Karate and Friendship
@OzoneR:
“Because the New Deal WAS slow and incremental.”
On what scale? It didn’t happen in one day, true. It took a few years to happen. I don’t count that as “slow and incremental” as compared to the lifetime of a nation.
And just as surely, FDR wasn’t stupid enough to cut taxes for the rich and cut programs for the poor then say “hey, change takes time!”
Corner Stone
We’re witnessing incremental change alright. A slow but sure ceding of rhetorical territory to the conservative lege.
Where is the pivot point? Where does the argument start from next time?
OzoneR
@dr. bloor:
If job growth is lagging a year from now, and I’m not so sure it will, the deal will NOT be what gets the blame, and if it does, it’s going to be that we didn’t cut enough.
As it is most people think the deficit is what’s causing high unemployment.
Corner Stone
@balconesfault:
Hmmm…
Master of Karate and Friendship
@The Sheriff’s A Ni-:
So what are you saying? We need to spend thirty years convincing people that jobs are good, wars are bad, and it just might be time to base our economy on something other than oil? Guess what–we’re already there. Now if only people would stop supporting gutless politicians who pursue policies the exact opposite of what we need, we would make some progress.
Instead, people like you look at Barack Obama bombing more countries, giving more concessions to Wall Street, giving polluters more ocean to drill in, and you can’t bring yourselves to criticize him because he listens to the same music as you and his wife is so glamorous so you use the “change takes time!” canard.
OzoneR
@Master of Karate and Friendship:
Minorities didn’t get Social Security until the 1950s. We still don’t have universal healthcare. Wall Street never ceased to exist.
The New Deal was probably less than half the amount the left wanted at the time.
Corner Stone
@Jay B.:
As was the Bush Tax Cut deal before it.
Master of Karate and Friendship
@OzoneR:
“As it is most people think the deficit is what’s causing high unemployment.”
Why shouldn’t they? BOTH PARTIES are saying so.
OzoneR
@Master of Karate and Friendship:
no, we’re not, we haven’t even begun to fight back. They’re thirty years into convincing Americans that spending is bad, wars are good, climate change is bunk and there’s enough oil for everyone.
sukabi
@Master of Karate and Friendship: ummmm, pretty sure someone did — cut taxes and programs — which lead to a further shrinking of the economy and more job losses… pay attention to 1937 – 1938…
OzoneR
@Master of Karate and Friendship:
because they’re already long believed it. Politicians don’t create public opinion, they’re too hated to be able to do that, they react to it
Master of Karate and Friendship
@OzoneR:
“Minorities didn’t get Social Security until the 1950s. We still don’t have universal healthcare. Wall Street never ceased to exist. The New Deal was probably less than half the amount the left wanted at the time.”
So clearly the left should have not complained and supported whatever their party wanted to do. I mean, obviously demanding more didn’t work now did it?
I acknowledge that the New Deal wasn’t perfect, and yet it was a huge break from what had come before.
General Stuck
@sukabi:
Here’s the thing, If you really believe you are being sold out in toto from both sides, then organize and find a third way, and rally votes for the candidates you support WHO WILL do what you want. And YES, you are advocating hostage taking tactics, if you are advocating anything other than what I stated as the open avenues in a democracy for the change you want. Or, you can just drop out.
I don’t have near the jaded viewpoint of the compromises we have just witnessed, made by both sides. I think it is bad policy to reduce govt. spending right now. But the wingers just won an election partly on that platform of austerity but I seriously doubt the cuts are enough to derail any recovery, . You can blame the media, or corporations, or bought and paid for politicians all you want. But more people voted for republicans last election of their own free will, and their vote counts the same as mine, and they won, this time.
And going off the deep end, over a budget that is for only 5 months seems a little much for me, but to each his own. The fact is the wingers caved more than dems during the crunch time at the end. Go read some RW blogs if you don’t believe me.
Master of Karate and Friendship
@sukabi:
PLEASE pay attention to what is being said.
I know that FDR–mistakenly–pursued austerity. But he wasn’t FORCED to, he CHOSE to.
This is grade-school reading comprehension, people.
The Sheriff's A Ni-
@OzoneR:
The pluarality, if not majority, of Americans are entitled, privileged, and segregated. We can drive to work and back and never see how the other side lives. Our communities consist of a bunch of cookie cutter homes on cookie cutter streets in a city where if we’re lucky we’re one voice in tens of thousands. We don’t go to bars or dances or church functions anymore, we stay at home to watch who gets kicked off of American Idol. We’ve got ours, and we’re very happy on our own islands. As long as we don’t suffer, all’s well in the world.
In the meantime, the GOP has been shouting for lower taxes and less bureaucracy for the past three decades. How the fuck do you argue against that? Shared sacrifice left the barn the instant the Greatest Generation bolted for the suburbs. There were – and maybe still are – unions that vote en masse for Republicans. Where do we get the massive change in this environment?
I can see where dr. bloor is coming from, and I can share some in his disappointment. But this is isn’t FDR’s America or Kennedy and Johnson’s America. This is the aftermath of Reagan’s America and we’re all – Barack Obama included – still coming to terms with it.
OzoneR
@Master of Karate and Friendship:
Except that’s exactly what they did and they got what they wanted, 10-20 years later.
so was 2009-2010, and you know what, this is a huge break from what we had in 2009-2010, which the American people clearly said with their votes in November was too much progress for them. Did they know that was what they were saying? I don’t know, but that’s what they said.
Master of Karate and Friendship
@OzoneR:
What do polls today say about those things?
@OzoneR:
Then where do people get the idea that deficits cause unemployment?
Master of Karate and Friendship
@OzoneR:
“Except that’s exactly what they did and they got what they wanted, 10-20 years later.”
Thank you for agreeing with me.
@OzoneR:
“so was 2009-2010”
Nonsense. A piddling stimulus that every economist said was much too small for the modern economy, a terrible HAMP program, the Heritage Foundation’s health care coverage reform plan, and big bailouts for Wall Street are not a brave new world.
The Sheriff's A Ni-
@Master of Karate and Friendship:
If we’re already there, then explain 2010. Or how John McCain made a race out of 2008 instead of getting Goldwatered. We’re not there yet, and heaven help us that we get there before its 1932 all over again.
Master of Karate and Friendship
@OzoneR:
“which the American people clearly said with their votes in November was too much progress for them. Did they know that was what they were saying? I don’t know, but that’s what they said.”
LO freakin’ L.
On that note I’m out.
sukabi
@Master of Karate and Friendship: And just as surely, FDR wasn’t stupid enough to cut taxes for the rich and cut programs for the poor then say “hey, change takes time!”
when that is your statement, devoid of any other context/qualifying remarks, don’t get huffy if someone points you to something that counters it…
And since neither of us was present or privvy to the conversations / pressures that were going on during that time period you’re making assumptions about what did or did not motivate FDR to go that route…
It’s not like any president sits in the OO and says without input “Hummmmm, today I’m going to cut taxes and programs”
OzoneR
@Master of Karate and Friendship:
Global warming is a lie
Spending cuts are good
Drill Baby Drill
St. Ronald of Southern California
OzoneR
@Master of Karate and Friendship:
And yet is still a remarkable step forward than the Bush years.
You can piss on it all you want, but it doesn’t make you right. You’re never going to be happy, so just fucking learn to live with it
Brachiator
@OzoneR: RE: There is no reasons, none, for Democrats to continue to surrender ground to conservatives. It has never worked for them.
Let’s see, it didn’t work when Dubya was president. It didn’t work when the blue Dog Democrats convinced the rest of the party to do nothing about tax policy. The Blue Dogs still got their asses bounced by Tea Party People.
RE: Yeah, I do. Otherwise, what’s the point?
I don’t think I have written about losing hope in any blog or Internet post in my entire life. It ain’t in my nature.
My point is that the Democrats have to quit being passive. The GOP is not just sitting back, but acting as though they run the entire government.
You clearly have not been paying attention. And taking to the streets is not the only way that people rally.
sukabi
@General Stuck: here’s the thing … “it doesn’t matter who votes, what matters is who counts the votes”
you can sit back and go through the motions of touching the screen for your favorite candidate all you want… doesn’t mean that vote will actually be counted as cast… how much do you know about THE PROCESS by which our “votes” are cast and counted?
OzoneR
@Brachiator:
and so did progressives like Alan Grayson, Russ Feingold, and even Anthony Weiner and Raul Grijalva, who both saw their vote totals tumble to teabaggers. On the other hand, giving ground to conservatives helped Bill Clinton in the 90s, for example. Gutting welfare didn’t hurt his reelection.
.
Go to your local Democratic club meeting and tell them that. Maybe you’re in one of the few places where they agree with you, or maybe you’ll get laughed out of the room like they do in others.
it’s the only way to get people to notice that you’re rallying. Signing petitions online that no one will ever see or posting on blogs no one reads doesn’t get you anywhere, sorry.
shut down a highway or something.
Davis X. Machina
@OzoneR:
Getting a full-blown social democracy up and running in such a climate is clearly just a case of wanting it bad enough.
Davis X. Machina
@Master of Karate and Friendship: The White House — more’s the pity — aren’t the people drumming ‘boost aggregate demand’ as the answer. I wish they were. They’re politically constrained, and they’re temperamentally constrained, from doing much more than they’ve done.
It’s the left/progressive wing of the party — the same people who are willing to take the shutdown — who are running with the fox and hunting with the hounds on this one.
ruemara
@Master of Karate and Friendship:
You do realize that you’re arguing against your initial point that Barak Obama has not done much in the 3 years he’s been president with his slow approach. If the New Deal was totally awesome and radical goodness-years after it was passed as a very weak program with limitations and heinous compromises to see it passed, then what prognostications do you have on why ACA, the current deals to have functioning government etc are so damned awful the sky is going crash about our heads etc etc?
I suppose it’s worthless to ask you to look at your reasoning critically by pointing out the facts of history, but what the hell, I needed a gardening break.
Brachiator
Sweet baby Jebus
Why? Why?
If cuts and “compromises” get you further from your overall goals, what is the freaking point?
If you honestly believe that GOP policy and ideas are wrongheaded, and when incorporating them does not bring promised results, then what is the goddam point in compromising just so you can say that you brought both sides together?
@OzoneR:
This ain’t the 90s.
And gutting welfare didn’t hurt Clinton’s re-election, but it did hurt poor people. Is this all you’ve got to offer, get elected and then don’t do shit?
Also, seems to me that giving ground to conservatives didn’t do squat when it came to conservative efforts to hound Clinton out of office. Seems to be a lesson here for Democrats.
But even here, the point that you are missing is that Clinton appropriated Republican plans, pissing them off greatly, and reshaped the plans to reflect his vision. Later, though, the Democrats meekly went along with anything Dubya did, and while Obama has crafted some good stuff despite fierce opposition, he simply does not have a coherent tax policy.
You’re joking. Right?
Elie
@The Sheriff’s A Ni-:
Wisest comment that I have read here in a while…
We ARE in rare times that are challenging beyond anyone’s concept. Many left progressives, including myself, initially thought that we could pick up where we left off in the social consciousness of the Great Society. Nope, we could not — the Reagan years and subsequent Republican fun fests changed this country down to its toe nails. Not sure what will get it back on the other track, but I know and hopefully every left progressive now knows (beyond blaming Obama one more time), that this aint gonna be easy or even 100% doable.
All those years of anti-busing and focus on crime and punishment rather than social justice and raising all boats has made us a country of selfish narcissists on left and right — each demanding that his world view is the only one and that fairness, mercy and shared fates for those living in this country are just beside the point.
I have begun to limit my blogging — just too damned depressing in light of what you absolutely truthfully point out. That and getting pushed to quit my job in an environment of absolute ruthlessness has just turned me into a stunned and depressed observer of where we are right now.
I am trying to figure out what I can do to heal myself enough to participate in anything again. It is quite quite clear that if we want change after all, we had better be able to make it ourselves and stop whining for someone else to fix it for us…My question: do we have faith enough to work as hard as we we will have to?
OzoneR
@Brachiator:
no, it’s much worse.
over and over again, that seems to be what people want.
Yeah, appease moderates and conservatives and many will back you when Republicans hound you. What were Clinton’s approval ratings like during impeachment?
No one does and no one ever will, because taxes are something this country is completely incapable of having an adult conversation about.
OzoneR
@Brachiator: then what is the goddam point in compromising just so you can say that you brought both sides together?
Because he’s, as liberals keep asking him to, listening to his base.
Mnemosyne
@Master of Karate and Friendship:
Huh? Climate change is still “controversial.” People think that cutting the deficit will create jobs. Americans are just starting to come to the realization that wars are bad, but it took them almost a decade to get there. I’m just not seeing this great awakening that you’re claiming has happened with the American public, especially in light of the midterm elections.
The US is nowhere near where it was politically in the 1920s and 1930s in the days when communism and fascism were perfectly viable political systems. FDR was able to do what he did because the oligarchs were afraid of being overthrown by communists the way they Russian oligarchs had been 15 years earlier.
Communism was a credible threat, and the oligarchs caved. What similar credible threat are you picturing here that the Democrats aren’t using?
FlipYrWhig
@Brachiator:
The freaking point is that the public likes cuts and compromises (unfortunately). He’s not just conducting a negotiation with Republicans, he’s trying to make the people side with him.
FlipYrWhig
@Master of Karate and Friendship:
Yes, yours. Your theory is “balls win.” That’s not sophisticated, that’s just naive from another direction.
The Sheriff's A Ni-
@Elie: Thanks, and honestly, I’m not really sure. The same folks who survived the Great Depression were the same folks who voted in Eisenhower, Nixon, and Reagan. I guess we just keep working to do what we can. Keep moving forward.
Brachiator
@OzoneR:
Uh, no. The present tax policy has been largely crafted by the Republicans to give huge advantages to the wealthiest Americans. Democrats like to play games with crap like “targeted tax cuts.” I am hugely disappointed at the Obama administration’s lack of imagination here. But that’s another story for another day.
I really wish that people would stop using this term, because there really is no such thing as “the base.” Or it’s an overrated concept. Ronnie ignored his “base” on key issues, but the retrospective myth was that he gave them everything they wanted.
@FlipYrWhig:
This is not true and doesn’t even make sense. The Village pundits love the idea of compromise. And while Obama talks “compromise,” Boehner and the Tea Party People especially, always talk in terms of the Democrats needing to do what the Republicans want, because this somehow magically reflects the will of the people.
And it makes no sense to suggest that “the people” want compromise without regard to what the final agreement looks like. That’s like saying that if everyone “compromised” and ended Social Security, then “the people” would be happy.
I don’t even believe that “the people” like cuts. When the Republicans were in charge and there was a huge deficit, the Republicans fought off any cuts to defense spending and other shit they liked by simply declaring that “deficits don’t matter.” And a lot of people went, OK, fine.
Shit, if people like cuts, then why didn’t Obama just agree to a cut of unemployment benefits and let the Bush tax cuts die?
sukabi
@Brachiator: most of what gets passed off as “common wisdom” or “the people want” or “the base needs”, ect. are carefully crafted messages, devoid of anything meaningful, except the goal of moving the public off the “cliff of the day”…
we’re spending hours of everyday arguing the fine points of meaningless phrases cooked up by Washington insiders, while they’re off in the corners pushing policy that benefits only them.
OzoneR
@Brachiator:
Every single poll tells the opposite story.
FlipYrWhig
@Brachiator: You’re choosing to disbelieve something that has been well attested in recent polls. A big chunk of Democrats say “yes” when directly questioned on the matter of whether Democrats should compromise with Republicans, and a big chunk of independents say the same. (Republicans, given the same question, say “no.”)
It is an unfortunate fact that another big chunk of the public has internalized the idea that the government spends too freely and that that causes a weak economy. It’s a dumb idea. But they believe it. Many Democrats even believe it! Those people have to be catered to. Like you I think there needs to be a long-term, fairly intense effort to re-educate people in those Keynesian basics. But that doesn’t help in the short term. And we have to live in the short term. Sadly.
Brachiator
@OzoneR:
Polls don’t actually tell stories. Poll results substitute for analysis.
@FlipYrWhig:
Uh, no. A poll result that says “do you like compromise” without denoting the actual nature of the compromise is meaningless. It’s like polling “do you like breakfast?” Doesn’t tell squat about whether you like oatmeal or bacon and eggs.
As I noted in another thread, a lot of people believe that homeopathic medicine works. A lot of these people will end up dead in both the short term and the long term when they are catered to.
But I guess I’m not sure what people think is being accomplished with all the compromising. The Tea Party gains seats, the Democrats lose the House, Boehner and the Gang keep getting more cuts, and come back swinging to defund reproductive rights, health care, environmental regulations, net neutrality, etc.
So, what is it that you want, what if anything do you expect to keep, with the Democrats doing the compromise thing? As far as I can see, the Republicans are committed to expunging everything that has ever been promoted by liberals since FDR. All in the name of compromise.
OzoneR
@Brachiator:
Doesn’t matter when the choice is “breakfast” or nothing. But regardless, the NBC poll made the question opening-ended
Do you want Democratic leaders in the House and Senate to make compromises to gain consensus on the
current budget debate, or do you want them stick to their positions even if this means not being able to gain
consensus on the budget
This is basically asking “do you like breakfast even if it means you don’t really like anything being served?”
OzoneR
@Brachiator:
because the Bush tax cuts would have died.
FlipYrWhig
@Brachiator:
Except that when asked the same questions, Republicans say “no.” That’s meaningful too. Democrats incline towards compromise, Republicans don’t. You’re overcomplicating it to make a point that feels more true to you. But it’s not accurate.
Wolfdaughter
@Master of Karate and Friendship:
So we have to do the same thing on our side. Start finding progressive candidates to run against the Blue Dogs.
Wolfdaughter
@dr. bloor:
Wait a minute. I can see a strategy to Obama’s advantage. He can claim, with some justification, that he headed off cutting Medicare off at the knees. And then segue into, “this is what the Republicans were proposing, getting rid of Medicare”.
Make them own that.
dr. bloor
That’s Krugman, today. I rest my case.