home

The Well Earned Death Of The PPUS

By Big Tent Democrat, Section Other Politics
Posted on Mon Apr 06, 2009 at 01:20:57 PM EST
Tags: (all tags)
Share This: Digg! StumbleUpon del.icio.us reddit reddit

Nate Silver writes about the Pew poll showing President Obama with the widest partisan divide in recent years:

These are highly partisan times in America. "Bipartisanship" (or, in the Obama nomenclature, "post-partisanship") makes for a catchy campaign slogan, but is difficult to execute upon in practice.

Knock me over with a feather. Who could have predicted that? I guess politics has not changed forever. Can we concentrate on the policy changes now?

Speaking for me only

< Supreme Court Invalidates Voluntary Confession Due to Delay | Toxic Assets, Toxic After All >

  • The Online Magazine with Liberal coverage of crime-related political and injustice news

  • Contribute To TalkLeft


    • Display: Sort:
    The Well Earned Death Of The PPUS | 42 comments (42 topical)

    Readers Must Login or Create an Account to Comment

    it always seemed to me that (5.00 / 6) (#3)
    by kempis on Mon Apr 06, 2009 at 01:36:14 PM EST
    the main proponents of the story that Obama had a remarkable ability to unite the country were those who really, really hated Hillary. An irony in the primaries is that Democrats who claimed to yearn for a "post-partisan" era merrily practiced the politics of knee-capping contrast against a Democrat, Hillary Clinton. She was divisive and polarizing; he was a great leader who would unite the country like a King Arthur. It was crap, but some really believed it, including some in the media like Herbert and Rich. But in reality, the PPUS was just a holdover tactic from the primaries. Even Rich seems to have lost interest in it now that it's real target--Hillary Clinton--was vanquished in the primaries.

    It worked, too. A few of my Obama-supporting friends argued that their support of Obama was based largely on his ability to attract Republican and Independent support--something Hillary would not be capable of doing.

    So much for that myth.

    perhaps she'd have been even more polarizing. (5.00 / 1) (#6)
    by Salo on Mon Apr 06, 2009 at 01:39:44 PM EST
    However we might have gotten a few key reforms out of her.

    Parent
    one thing is sure (5.00 / 4) (#7)
    by Capt Howdy on Mon Apr 06, 2009 at 01:42:21 PM EST
    if the numbers in that poll were Hillary Clintons numbers it would be the lead story on every cable infotainment show.
    "Hillary The Divider"

    Parent
    Well (5.00 / 2) (#8)
    by Ga6thDem on Mon Apr 06, 2009 at 01:43:45 PM EST
    now Obama is everybit as "polarizing" and he's not willing to fight to do the right thing. Wow, we're a genius of a party aren't we?

    Parent
    I'm sorry (2.00 / 1) (#13)
    by Socraticsilence on Mon Apr 06, 2009 at 03:14:31 PM EST
    what evidence do you have that Hillary would have "fought what's right" I mean during the primaries I had a hard time believing that any of the three major Democratic canidates was anything other than a centrist (different flavors for each- Obama was more liberal on FP, Hillary on Health Care, Edwards supposedly on labor) because hey, that's exactly what their voting records said they were.

    Parent
    'Tis (5.00 / 1) (#17)
    by Ga6thDem on Mon Apr 06, 2009 at 03:33:21 PM EST
    always better to have a centrist who will fight for what they believe in rather that a centrist who caves to the GOP.

    My main problem with Obama has always been inability to keep his word on a lot of things and his kumbaya approach to the GOP. He's a chamelon who changes constantly depending on the background behind him.

    Parent

    I have concluded (none / 0) (#40)
    by TeresaInPa on Tue Apr 07, 2009 at 08:58:19 AM EST
    that he has spent his life running for office and has yet to decide what his core political beliefs are. That is the only explanation for his lack of identity.

    Parent
    I go to Hillary's record on health care and... (5.00 / 3) (#25)
    by Pacific John on Mon Apr 06, 2009 at 06:31:04 PM EST
    childrens issues. She did a lot of work in the trenches on health care and adoption when no one in the media cared, and has long been dedicated to universal health care. She has a 35 year record on these specific core values, and at least on these, she would dig in and do what's right.

    I also have high confidence she would have done the right thing on NCLB and government student loans, two issues on which Obama has been squishy out of the gate.

    This all comes down to, like you say, the policies they ran on. Obama could be good on FP, but that's a distinction that's lost when his highly competent Sec of State is his former competitor, and when he sticks with the Bush team in the DoD. He's not strong on the economy, but many of us expected that well over a year ago from the band of free-marketeers on his campaign economic team.

    Parent

    On Student Loans (2.00 / 1) (#29)
    by Socraticsilence on Mon Apr 06, 2009 at 08:00:05 PM EST
    Obama has pushed the right answer (and added his community service thing) its just that local interest are protecting the industry.

    Parent
    Three things: (5.00 / 3) (#31)
    by Pacific John on Mon Apr 06, 2009 at 08:18:00 PM EST
    • Economic liberals think requiring community service of lower income kids that upper income kids won't have to perform is classist.

    • His proposal is smaller than it should be and less than JRE and HRC proposed. The line in the sand should be that college should be nearly free for talented kids whose families cannot afford it. Hillary made it clear that the pre-Reagan financial aid she received for law school should be reinstated.

    • Because he has not laid down specific principles, and in fact prefers to leave everything on the table, it's not at all clear he'll dig in to protect economically vulnerable people. He resonates with upper income liberals, and has work to do to prove he'll champion middle and lower class voters.


    Parent
    yes? (none / 0) (#39)
    by TeresaInPa on Tue Apr 07, 2009 at 08:55:00 AM EST
    what right thing has Obama pushed? And as for his mandatory volunteerism...l0ol, good luck on that.  It's not going through and he knows it.  It's a ridiculous idea that will not work in this country.

    Parent
    more propaganda and no facts (5.00 / 2) (#38)
    by TeresaInPa on Tue Apr 07, 2009 at 08:52:37 AM EST
    her voting record was more liberal and more populist than Obama's.  She had a record of life's work indicating she was very dependable on core democratic issues that the majority of democrats care about.  She was more honest about her DLC and lobbyist ties (Obama had them too and so does Edwards...they just lied and faked out their supporters...edwards not so much as Obama). Now the Obama team is packed full of lobbyists.
    And her focus on healthcare was much more liberal than his.
    Perhaps you are one of those people who can not separate a woman from her husband (who had a republican congress to face down for six years)?

    Parent
    exit polls in november (5.00 / 1) (#37)
    by TeresaInPa on Tue Apr 07, 2009 at 08:46:47 AM EST
    indicate she would have gotten 4 percent more voters than Obama.
    Remember that the people she was supposed to be at risk of losing to the republicans, blue collar guys voted for her over Obama in the primaries (as did the majority of democrats)

    Parent
    Frank Rich (5.00 / 4) (#12)
    by NYShooter on Mon Apr 06, 2009 at 02:29:20 PM EST
    is a sideline pee shooter who puts into poetic and flowery words, "revelations" that we here at TL have known for weeks and weeks, if not months and months.

    Even now, he holds Obama accountable for nothing. Obama is the brave knight, pure of heart and intent, who rode into Dodge City in pursuit of the noble cause of uniting the warring parties. Ever innocent, he must be constantly vigilant towards  the schemers and connivers, even within his inner circle.

    If the economy implodes, it's the evil Sir Geithner's fault. Obama, hard as he tried, simply wasn't told of alternatives. George Bush tortured because he was evil; Barack Obama tortures because he's good, and the cause is noble. G.W. eve dropped, and violated the Constitution; B.O. eve drops, but it can't be unconstitutional; for he's a constitutional professor.....and the cause is noble. George Bush robbed from the poor and gave it all to his rich friends and cronies. President Obama, all-knowing master of insight and knowledge, brilliantly understood that first, the innocent, virtuous, and noble bankers must have their bruised feelings repaired; then the greedy, ungrateful, masses can resume their pitiful game, "scrambling for scraps."

    What makes Frank Rich so great is, he understands all this.

    Parent

    Conventionally, it's "pea shooter" ... (none / 0) (#41)
    by RonK Seattle on Tue Apr 07, 2009 at 08:39:04 PM EST
    ... but in the case of Frank Rich, convention may not hold.

    Parent
    ROTFLMAO! (5.00 / 2) (#4)
    by Ga6thDem on Mon Apr 06, 2009 at 01:36:30 PM EST
    Really now? I guess there were plenty of clueless people who thought that the GOP had suddenly had a change of heart in their tactics.

    Obama has put himself in a box with the pp crap. He's given an opening for the GOP to bludgeon him with pp when he doesn't do things with them.

    And where the Hell is Rahm? (5.00 / 1) (#10)
    by oldpro on Mon Apr 06, 2009 at 01:58:05 PM EST
    My personal favorite polarizer.

    Every now and then, I wonder if (5.00 / 2) (#14)
    by Anne on Mon Apr 06, 2009 at 03:16:26 PM EST
    I would be happier if only I could close my eyes and ears and shut off my brain and just...believe.  You know, be one of those people who make you want to bang your head on the desk or throw things at your TV.  Who just smile and go about their Stepford-like lives, blissfully unaware or so deeply in denial that their tender sensibilities are forever safe from intrusion by the unpleasant realities of life and the truth .

    Alas...I don't think I am capable; perhaps someday the genetic marker I seem to be missing, or the extra one I have, will be identified, and steps can be taken to save me from so much thinking, but until then, I guess I am doomed.  

    At least I am in good company here, huh?

    Anyway, we knew this post-partisan, bi-partisan stuff was just so much hogwash - not least because as long as Republicans are on the other side of the divide, there could never be true unity.  What we are seeing from Obama, and from others who insist on watering down the Democratic brand until it resembles Cream of Wheat, is not going to move us in the direction we need to be going.

    I am at a loss about how to fix that.  I don't see any indication of any rising, liberal stars in the party that can whip these weak-kneed, spineless creatures into shape.  Feingold and Conyers are treated like eccentric characters who aren't to be taken seriously.  Leahy barks, but never bites.  Obama keeps hedging and backtracking and reaching out to the other side for their good ideas, and treats the liberals like lepers.

    And I don't think Obama is going to change.  I think this is who he is and how he intends to govern.  I don't see transparency or accountability for anything on Bush's watch, and I think the bankers and brokers are going to keep sucking money, and regular folks are going to suffer.

    And I think the 2010 mid-terms will be a bloodbath.

    It's as depressing as still being under Republican rule, really.

    So BTD is a PPUMA (5.00 / 1) (#26)
    by Cream City on Mon Apr 06, 2009 at 07:10:10 PM EST
    Post-Partisan Unity, My A**.

    Well, with that, I can agree.

    Oh, sher, grow a sense of humor. (5.00 / 5) (#30)
    by Cream City on Mon Apr 06, 2009 at 08:02:22 PM EST


    Parent
    Or better yet, come out from (5.00 / 4) (#32)
    by Anne on Mon Apr 06, 2009 at 08:27:58 PM EST
    behind the curtain and post a comment now and again.

    Parent
    your passive-aggressive, pseudo-intellectual (1.00 / 3) (#33)
    by sher on Mon Apr 06, 2009 at 09:01:53 PM EST
    hostility is not funny!

    Parent
    Well, I suppose that's a start... (5.00 / 4) (#34)
    by Anne on Mon Apr 06, 2009 at 09:19:16 PM EST
    See, the thing is, sher, that we don't always agree with each other, but now and again, we do sometimes find a moment or two to laugh a little.

    As someone who's been married to a Republican for almost 30 years, I know it's possible to  be passionately at odds on some of the issues, and still find commonalities - great ones.

    No one was trying to be any of the things you've accused us of.

    Parent

    See, now, your response was a personal (5.00 / 3) (#35)
    by Inspector Gadget on Mon Apr 06, 2009 at 09:35:21 PM EST
    attack, which actually does deserve a '1' rating.

    Parent
    "Grow a sense of humor" (5.00 / 2) (#36)
    by Cream City on Mon Apr 06, 2009 at 10:38:45 PM EST
    is not passive; it's right out there, direct as can be.  And it's an almost entirely monosyllabic sentence, so how it can be construed as pseudo-intellectual is difficult to understand.  Explain.

    Parent
    Only the Broderites (none / 0) (#1)
    by ruffian on Mon Apr 06, 2009 at 01:25:20 PM EST
    even find it catchy as a compaign slogan.

    may I live to see (none / 0) (#2)
    by Capt Howdy on Mon Apr 06, 2009 at 01:31:00 PM EST
    post-Broder

    Parent
    Broderatti (none / 0) (#5)
    by Salo on Mon Apr 06, 2009 at 01:38:38 PM EST
    or High Broderism.

    Parent
    But will Obamacrats give it up? (none / 0) (#9)
    by oldpro on Mon Apr 06, 2009 at 01:55:16 PM EST
    No doubt there will be a convoluted explanation proving that Obama is 'our kind of progressive-liberal' but 'those nasty old partisan Rs just won't cooperate with him.'

    Meanies.  And they don't play fair.  But let's try one more time to, as LBJ was reputedly fond of saying, "Come, let us reason together!"

    hehehe. (5.00 / 2) (#11)
    by Salo on Mon Apr 06, 2009 at 02:19:56 PM EST
    Sadly about 25% of the party will never ever question him--Evuh.   Then the Blue Dogs are happy to see him drift--that's another 15%.  Then the Clock Punchers and careerists will defend him reflexively that's about another 15%.   Then there's the anti-Iraq war faction maybe another 10%. Over half the party will be completely uncritical for various reasons. And thats the end of the game, an unholy alliance of the two core constituencies, which can be played and played by Oligarchs, Banksters and Blue Dogs.

    Parent
    What I love (5.00 / 0) (#15)
    by Socraticsilence on Mon Apr 06, 2009 at 03:17:55 PM EST
    is that some people pretend that Obamacrats are a new phenomenon, I mean we had to deal with these people in the 90s- The Clintonistas, and during Bush and Reagan (the entire GOP) basically any president has a faction of his own party that bows to him regardless of what he does.

    Parent
    We've never had (5.00 / 4) (#16)
    by jbindc on Mon Apr 06, 2009 at 03:32:51 PM EST
    The absolute adoration by the media, entertainers, college kids, blogs, etc. who for almost two years now have really refused to question this man or his administration.  Bush-Clinton-Bush had their pocket of unwavering supporters, but not like this.  This is a new phenomenon, where the ideal the man portrays is substituted for the man and his actions, words, and policies. In other words, we've never seen a myth get the adoring treatment like we've seen now.  And that's dangerous, for if a politician cannot be held accountable, then we might as well be some third world country where we hang on Dear Leader's every word.

    Parent
    Sounds Like (5.00 / 1) (#18)
    by squeaky on Mon Apr 06, 2009 at 03:38:31 PM EST
    A cult fantasy along the lines of the end is near, to me. In my not so small circle of friends, no one is as you describe. Almost all were for Obama from the beginning, I was an exception, and all are quite happy to criticize Obama when he strays to the right and quite happy to applaud him when he moves to the left.

    Parent
    Exactly (5.00 / 0) (#19)
    by Socraticsilence on Mon Apr 06, 2009 at 03:53:28 PM EST
    Frankly, I thought the idea that the media was giving Obama a free pass disappeared in March of 2008, but here we are more than a year later- I mean I guess people who say this get all their news from Olbermann and the blogs and thus self-select because the press and especially the village was downright nasty on Obama for a period of about 2 and a half months following his inaugaration- basically until it became clear that they were being so disconnected from the public's perception of the man that they were endangering their own influence.

    Parent
    March 2008? (5.00 / 2) (#21)
    by jbindc on Mon Apr 06, 2009 at 03:58:27 PM EST
    Seriously?

    Apparently you haven't been paying attention.

    Parent

    Really (2.00 / 1) (#22)
    by Socraticsilence on Mon Apr 06, 2009 at 04:09:26 PM EST
    I hallucinated Obama being drilled about the words of a Pastor for a solid month, I made up the man being slurred for serving on a board with a guy who was a terrorist when Obama was 8, I mean I must have dreamt up that stuff because surely those wouldn't have been not only the major story for weeks on News Networks but also the first questions in the one of the last primary debates, because hey the press loves Obama. Heck, they would never run a cover asking if we're "All Socialists Now" for Obama taking an essentailly center-right postion on the economy, especially after they gave Bush a free pass on virtually everything for 3 solid years- after all the media in "unprecedentedly" friendly to Obama.

    Parent
    In his own words... (5.00 / 0) (#23)
    by Inspector Gadget on Mon Apr 06, 2009 at 04:21:26 PM EST
    Get. Over. It.

    Parent
    What (5.00 / 0) (#24)
    by Socraticsilence on Mon Apr 06, 2009 at 04:37:02 PM EST
    do I need to get over, the poster claims that Obama recieves unequalled press- something that anyone who lived through the post 9-11 era, much less the last few months can tell you is blatantly wrong.

    Parent
    Hi (1.50 / 2) (#20)
    by Socraticsilence on Mon Apr 06, 2009 at 03:57:35 PM EST
    I just wanted to greet you because its amazing that a 7-10 year old would be a reader on this blog, I mean I assume that's your age, or perhaps you woke from a coma around 4 years ago, because you obviously weren't concious From 9-11-2001 to at least around mid-2004 perhaps even until Katrina in August of 2005- the press Bush recieved in that period makes the treatment Obama gets seem like a Nixon press conference from the height of Watergate.

    Parent
    Ask independents. (none / 0) (#27)
    by KoolJeffrey on Mon Apr 06, 2009 at 07:10:41 PM EST
    Independents are the voters that count. Republicans are an embittered and shrinking minority who can't believe how far they've fallen so fast. The fact that only now are they coming to grips with the disaster that was/is George W. Bush still amazes.

    True. It was noted in a critique (none / 0) (#28)
    by Cream City on Mon Apr 06, 2009 at 07:20:14 PM EST
    today of this poll that the number of respondents identifying as Republican showed the remarkable decline.  But that doesn't mean that those identifying as Democrats are solid, as many just voted Democrat this time and could swing back to being the modern-day Reagan Democrats again.

    I also wondered how many in this poll actually are, over the course of their years of voting, best classified as Independents -- but that negates the ability to so clearly demarcate the polarization in this country.  It is there, and I am not fooled into thinking that the red-blue divisions are gone.  This just was an unusual election, and the red-blue map will be back.

    Parent

    Nota bene, Obama's foreign policy model ... (none / 0) (#42)
    by RonK Seattle on Tue Apr 07, 2009 at 08:43:28 PM EST
    ... is likewise premised on a miraculous end to adversariality.

    The Well Earned Death Of The PPUS | 42 comments (42 topical)

    Readers Must Login or Create an Account to Comment