Creative Destruction

By Big Tent Democrat, Section Other Politics
Posted on Wed Nov 03, 2010 at 07:51:07 AM EST
Tags: (all tags)

Share This: Digg!

A historic loss for the Democrats last night creates opportunities for progressives around the country. Now more than ever, the primary process should give progressive candidates chances to capture Democratic nominations around the country.

While the Beltway and The Third Way will argue that Democrats need to run moderate Republicans as their candidates in the next election, the reality is the Beltway and The Third Way can no longer get a single person elected in a Democratic (or Republican, for that matter) primary.The era of the smoke filled room is over.

Progressives can be the change they are looking for. But they need to start now. And they need to focus on Dem primaries for House seats.

As Rahm Emanuel said, a crisis is a terrible thing to waste. Progressives should not waste this one.

Speaking for me only

< Colorado Senate Race : Still Too Close to Call | Fingerpointing >

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

Menu

Home | About | RSS
E-Mail | Comment Policy |
Search
Login

Make a new account

Existing Users

Username:
Password:
Creator and Principal Author
- Jeralyn E. Merritt
TL Alumni

Contribute To TalkLeft

Sections
Site Credits
- TalkLeft Graphics by C.L., Our Man in Hollywood (2006 - 2008)
- TalkLeft Header Graphic by Monk
- Powered by Scoop
Legal
- All Content Copyright ©2002-2023. Reprints only by permission from TalkLeft.com
- Nothing on this site should be construed as legal advice. TalkLeft does not give legal advice.
- TalkLeft is not responsible for and often disagrees with material posted in the comments section. Read at your own risk.
"The pump don't work 'cause the vandals took the handles"
© 1965 Bob Dylan

Creative Destruction | 164 comments (164 topical)

Readers Must Login or Create an Account to Comment

BDT gotta ask you (5.00 / 1) (#35)
by Capt Howdy on Wed Nov 03, 2010 at 08:39:13 AM EST

did you see the MSNBC conversations last night on the debt ceiling? do you think Paul could/would stop it from being raised (one) and two, would it really bring the chaos to world markets they said it would. (cant find the video yet)

sorry if this is a dumb question but I have not heard that much discussion of the debt ceiling and how important it is to raise it.

How could Paul do that? (none / 0) (#45)
by Big Tent Democrat on Wed Nov 03, 2010 at 08:46:28 AM EST

They need 60 votes in the Senate.

Paul is just one.

Parent

one senator can (none / 0) (#51)
by Capt Howdy on Wed Nov 03, 2010 at 08:49:42 AM EST

stop anything is what was said. and he mentioned drowning in debt in his little speech. the gist, no video I can find, was that his whole career has been built on complaining about the debt so he will not vote to raise the debt ceiling even tho McConnel and Boner both know it has to be done or the world markets will crash and burn.

Parent

I should say not ALLOW (none / 0) (#53)
by Capt Howdy on Wed Nov 03, 2010 at 08:50:46 AM EST

it to be raised, not that he wont vote for it.

Parent

Well that's wrong (none / 0) (#54)
by Big Tent Democrat on Wed Nov 03, 2010 at 08:50:48 AM EST

Parent

ODonnell is correct though no (none / 0) (#62)
by Capt Howdy on Wed Nov 03, 2010 at 08:59:08 AM EST

one senator is "empowered" to stop pretty much anything?

Parent

O'Donnell is wrong (none / 0) (#63)
by Big Tent Democrat on Wed Nov 03, 2010 at 09:00:18 AM EST

as usual.

It takes 41 votes to sustain a filibuster.

Parent

: He worked in the Senate (none / 0) (#101)
by Harry Saxon on Wed Nov 03, 2010 at 09:48:53 AM EST

so his sense of what goes on there and what can and can't be done does have experience behind it.

Parent

found the video (none / 0) (#66)
by Capt Howdy on Wed Nov 03, 2010 at 09:03:03 AM EST

half way down on the Paul blog.

Parent

: maybe the reason (none / 0) (#78)
by Capt Howdy on Wed Nov 03, 2010 at 09:17:42 AM EST

the only available version of this is a bootleg is that MSNBC didnt think it was one of its shining moments and chose not to post it on the web?

Parent

Are you sure that wasn't a (none / 0) (#59)
by observed on Wed Nov 03, 2010 at 08:55:30 AM EST

question about Paul Ryan? That would make more sense, as he is to be House Budget Chair, right?

Parent

quite sure (none / 0) (#61)
by Capt Howdy on Wed Nov 03, 2010 at 08:58:18 AM EST

Parent

And Ryan will do it (none / 0) (#68)
by Cream City on Wed Nov 03, 2010 at 09:05:24 AM EST

and enjoy stopping the gummint.

He has been positioning himself for years now for bigger things in 2012 or 2016. Watch him grab this opportunity to be the hero who stops the gummint in its tracks.

Parent

That worked out well for Newt (none / 0) (#111)
by Socraticsilence on Wed Nov 03, 2010 at 10:57:09 AM EST

shutting down government sounds all well and good- but watch how fast that support turns sour when Social Security checks quit getting mailed out.

Parent

It worked out best for Bill Clinton (none / 0) (#135)
by Cream City on Wed Nov 03, 2010 at 11:52:25 AM EST

yes. There's the rub: Can Obama stand up to it?

Btw, the SS checks will be handled, per the plan I have been hearing about ad nauseam from Paul Ryanites.

Parent

: Ryan is so freaking overrated (5.00 / 1) (#139)
by Socraticsilence on Wed Nov 03, 2010 at 12:06:09 PM EST

as a thinker- I mean Newt at least seemed smart- his idea's were wrong and he had no ethics whatsoever but he seemed intelligent at times- Ryan's plan actually increases the deficit in his estimations.

Parent

This is annoying: (5.00 / 1) (#121)
by oculus on Wed Nov 03, 2010 at 11:13:01 AM EST

Progressives can be the change they are looking for.

Is BTD sowing the seeds for a run for president?

Obama, Dean and Pelosi (1.00 / 1) (#6)
by sas on Wed Nov 03, 2010 at 08:12:24 AM EST

are to blame for this mess. They pushed this empty suit on us. This excerpt from Riverdaughter at the Confluence sums it up for me.....
" Along the way, the base of the party who actually elected another candidate were told to suck it up or leave. Preferably leave. And of course, as most any candidate that wasn't Bush would do, this guy became President. Then over the next two years he proceeded to do exactly the kinds of things he did in his previous career. Play golf, party, get others to do his work for him, and do pretty much what his backers wanted. Mostly he just golfed and really didn't give a damn. Apparently, many of the "little people" expected a bit more out of him. Silly little people. And so, they got angry. They still hate the party of Bush, make no mistake about it, but now they hate this new group just as much, and yesterday they sent a little message."

/yawn (5.00 / 1) (#10)
by Thanin on Wed Nov 03, 2010 at 08:16:56 AM EST

Parent

God (5.00 / 1) (#46)
by lilburro on Wed Nov 03, 2010 at 08:46:44 AM EST

so ridiculous. Who really thinks that Obama golfed for the last two years? It's sad that you've forgotten how bad Bush was.

Parent

Now you've done it (none / 0) (#7)
by jbindc on Wed Nov 03, 2010 at 08:13:37 AM EST

You're going to wake them up and then they'll start commenting.....

Parent

Well (none / 0) (#8)
by Big Tent Democrat on Wed Nov 03, 2010 at 08:14:15 AM EST

If that's what you want to dwell on, go for it.

Parent

: not a choice (5.00 / 2) (#11)
by Capt Howdy on Wed Nov 03, 2010 at 08:17:49 AM EST

a compulsion

Parent

Sorry, they lose me with stuff like this (none / 0) (#81)
by ruffian on Wed Nov 03, 2010 at 09:19:39 AM EST

Play golf, party, get others to do his work for him, and do pretty much what his backers wanted.

He has not done what I wanted, but I don't think it was because of too much golf or partying or getting others to do his work. And all pols do what their backers want.

Parent

Referencing The Confluence (none / 0) (#106)
by AngryBlackGuy on Wed Nov 03, 2010 at 10:42:22 AM EST

hurts your argument.

Parent

Gotta love Riverdaughter (none / 0) (#112)
by Socraticsilence on Wed Nov 03, 2010 at 10:58:01 AM EST

still holding strong to that "Black People aren't part of the base" message.

Parent

Of course (none / 0) (#130)
by sas on Wed Nov 03, 2010 at 11:23:26 AM EST

Black people are part of the Democratic base. The key word is "part". A good portion of the other "parts"of the traditional Democratic base, working class whites, and white women, voted for the other side last night.
"It's all about the economy, stupid" is spot on.
Where's the jobs program from the Democratics? Do you think the angry part of the populace thinks Obama is on their side? (People knew Bill Clinton cared about them, but you can't say that about Obama.)
I voted straight Democratic last night, but my state, PA , went totally Republican for major offices. It was the "bitter, clingy" group that kicked the Dems out the door.
And it will be a repeat in 2012 if the Dems don't do something.

Parent

And the opposite happened (none / 0) (#140)
by Socraticsilence on Wed Nov 03, 2010 at 12:07:22 PM EST

in Nevada, Colorado, Washington, and California- go figure.

Parent

I'm talking about PA (none / 0) (#146)
by sas on Wed Nov 03, 2010 at 01:13:38 PM EST

where there aren't too many Latte sippers, and the average person is working class.

Hey, it's obvious the states are different. You can pooh, pooh what I say, but I know whereof I speak.

If the Dems want PA, they better come out with "jobs" programs. Hey, maybe they don't need PA....
whatever

Parent

Deep blue MI, home of the UAW, went deep red... (none / 0) (#152)
by dkmich on Wed Nov 03, 2010 at 04:30:45 PM EST

Republicans took Gov, AG, SOS, House, Senate and re-elected two Supreme Court judges..... Dingell and Conyers barely won. Peters ran against the Democrat Party and barely won. They lost Michigan big time.

Parent

: When I heard of the red vote in Kenosha (none / 0) (#158)
by Cream City on Wed Nov 03, 2010 at 05:55:12 PM EST

in Wisconsin, where the last Chrysler rolled off the line just days ago -- the city that still has not received the help it needed to recover from the last recession -- I was thinking about Michigan.
So your Repub sweep of offices, national and state level, was almost as wide as the sweep in Wisconsin -- more evidence that it really isn't that difficult to figure out reasons for what happened yesterday. Jobsjobsjobsjobsjobs. . . .

Parent

Excellent point (none / 0) (#1)
by glanton on Wed Nov 03, 2010 at 07:54:04 AM EST

What (none / 0) (#2)
by Ga6thDem on Wed Nov 03, 2010 at 07:59:58 AM EST

do you think about Obama ruining liberalism?

I agree with what you are saying. At this point what do we have to lose? Cut Obama loose and run on issues would be my suggestion.

I wonder how long (5.00 / 3) (#9)
by Big Tent Democrat on Wed Nov 03, 2010 at 08:16:21 AM EST

progressives will spend decrying Obama when an opportunity to take matters into their own hands stands before them.

This is a Congress and Presidency that is baked. Nothing to be done about that.

But change can happen, now more than ever, because of the wipeout last night.

The action should be in the House Dem primaries.

Parent

Well, (5.00 / 2) (#13)
by Ga6thDem on Wed Nov 03, 2010 at 08:20:13 AM EST

some time needs to be spent cutting Obama loose so as not to have liberalism identified with his policies. I would recommend doing both. Take things into your own hands and cut Obama loose at the same time. Start talking about how Obama is not liberal then defining liberal. They both need to be done to make progress. If you allow people to keep thinking that Obama is a liberal then you are undercutting your message IMO.

Parent

I think we define liberal by getting (5.00 / 1) (#97)
by ruffian on Wed Nov 03, 2010 at 09:35:36 AM EST

liberals out there talking like liberals in primaries and any other venue available. One Russ Feingold is now available for such speaking engagements, since he does not have to worry about getting elected in an increasingly conservative state (for now).

I see how much the tea party benefitted in PR and recruiting from having Sarah Palin out there unfettered by elections this time around, and it looks like a good model.

I think talking about how Obama is not liberal is fine, but more or less irrelevant. Having liberals out there talking liberal will show the contrast better than saying it to people who don't listen anyway.

Parent

: David Sirota said the mantra this time (none / 0) (#113)
by hairspray on Wed Nov 03, 2010 at 10:58:35 AM EST

around was "Its the stupidity, stupid" for the electorate. I think I agree. Less than 25% of the population has any idea of the extreme wealth mal distribution in this country. Same for knowing of the accomplishments of Obama of the last 2 years. Not that they were so phenomenal but for a short time with a steep learning curve they were on the right track. They have been fired up with soundbites about health care and the stimulus. Too bad the Dems don't do class warfare. The GOP do it all the time only not in public.

Parent

Why? (none / 0) (#18)
by Big Tent Democrat on Wed Nov 03, 2010 at 08:24:21 AM EST

Parent

Because (5.00 / 1) (#24)
by Ga6thDem on Wed Nov 03, 2010 at 08:30:22 AM EST

Obama is being defined as a liberal by the GOP and his policies are decidedly not liberal.

Do you really want a repeat of Carter? Unless people start cutting Obama loose, we are looking at complete GOP control of the government for quite a while. You don't attach yourself to failure.

Anyway, this is all predicated on the fact that Obama has already said that he's willing to cut any deal with the GOP. The GOP has said no deals. Well, then Obama will have to bow to their wishes to get any legislation done and I think he has shown no inclination to fight. Maybe he will turnaround but he has shown nothing so far to change my mind.

Parent

Obama needs new advisers. (5.00 / 1) (#33)
by observed on Wed Nov 03, 2010 at 08:36:56 AM EST

That seems the only realistic way to change course for the next two years.

Parent

Advisers? (5.00 / 1) (#163)
by Romberry on Wed Nov 03, 2010 at 07:18:33 PM EST

The cossacks work for the czar. I can't see how bringing in a new load of cossacks will help so long as the czar remains.

It fundamentally boils down to this: If you believe an economy is built from the bottom up rather from the top down, if you believe that the same rule of law which applies to the little people should also apply to the elite, if you believe that government should serve the masses of people rather than just corporations and the moneyed, then you need to understand that the Democratic Party at the elite level does not believe what you believe. That party is gone.

We one party in these United States. It's the money party. The Democrats and the Republicans form its two wings.

Parent

He (none / 0) (#37)
by Ga6thDem on Wed Nov 03, 2010 at 08:40:26 AM EST

won't do it though. And I'm beyond thinking that his advisers are the problem. He is the problem because he naively bought into the PPUS stuff and doesn't have the experience or knowledge to know when not to listen to his advisors. After all, all advisors give bad advice at one time or another.

Parent

His advisers believed the BS. (none / 0) (#40)
by observed on Wed Nov 03, 2010 at 08:44:04 AM EST

He needs the equivalent of a James Baker to take over now. Maybe Daschle can strongarm Obama into making the necessary change.

Parent

He believes the BS (5.00 / 1) (#72)
by Cream City on Wed Nov 03, 2010 at 09:07:33 AM EST

and picked the advisers to fit his preconceptions. Not the other way around.

Parent

: Sure, but he still needs new advisers. (5.00 / 1) (#77)
by observed on Wed Nov 03, 2010 at 09:15:22 AM EST

Parent

OMG (5.00 / 3) (#84)
by ruffian on Wed Nov 03, 2010 at 09:22:22 AM EST

Did you really use Daschle and strongarm in the same sentence? And what do you think Daschle and Obama disagree on? My guess is not a dang thing.

Parent

Dasche? (none / 0) (#48)
by Ga6thDem on Wed Nov 03, 2010 at 08:48:03 AM EST

LOL! Surely you jest!

Parent

Daschle? (none / 0) (#83)
by sj on Wed Nov 03, 2010 at 09:22:21 AM EST

ha ha ha ha ha .....

Parent

If many of those who voted for Obama (none / 0) (#110)
by oculus on Wed Nov 03, 2010 at 10:51:56 AM EST

"bought" his PPUS theme, why wouldn't his advisors?

Parent

But Republicans don't vote (none / 0) (#29)
by Big Tent Democrat on Wed Nov 03, 2010 at 08:35:00 AM EST

in Democratic primaries.

Parent

They do if they're open (none / 0) (#30)
by jbindc on Wed Nov 03, 2010 at 08:35:31 AM EST

Parent

Yep. Too many always forget that (5.00 / 1) (#70)
by Cream City on Wed Nov 03, 2010 at 09:06:46 AM EST

except for you.

Parent

This is ridiculous (none / 0) (#76)
by Big Tent Democrat on Wed Nov 03, 2010 at 09:11:22 AM EST

Republicans do not vote in Dem primaries, even when they are open.

Except for Presidential primaries.

Are you seriously arguing that Republicans for in Dem House primaries? Are you really arguing that?

Parent

Sure they do (none / 0) (#82)
by jbindc on Wed Nov 03, 2010 at 09:20:46 AM EST

If there really is no Dem challenger. I know plenty of people who voted in the other party's primaries.

So yes, I'm really arguing that.

Parent

: "You know plenty of people" (5.00 / 1) (#99)
by Big Tent Democrat on Wed Nov 03, 2010 at 09:40:20 AM EST

I love that type of "fact."
I know the facts - Dems vote in Dem primaries. Republicans vote in Republican primaries.

Parent

Yes (none / 0) (#137)
by Cream City on Wed Nov 03, 2010 at 11:56:03 AM EST

in my state -- and it's not widespread elsewhere, of course. But never say never when it comes to Wisconsin, as ought to be all too evident today.

Parent

: But btw, there may not be opportunity (none / 0) (#138)
by Cream City on Wed Nov 03, 2010 at 12:00:45 PM EST

for such fun to happen again anytime soon in Wisconsin, with the massive sweep by the GOP last night -- not only a Senate seat and House seats and the governorship but also both houses of the state legislature. (That's how bad the Dem governor was here, plus how badly the White House messed up the gubernatorial race here, to punish the Midwestern chair of the HRC campaign, as well as much else.)
A lot of the election rules and regs long have been on the agenda for the GOP here, so say hello to voter ID and say g'bye to same-day registration, open primaries, late primaries, etc. And with redistricting in their hands, Wisconsin will be GOP for a long time to come.
Heckuva job.

Parent

I'm talking (none / 0) (#34)
by Ga6thDem on Wed Nov 03, 2010 at 08:37:58 AM EST

big picture building a governing consensus in the future.

I have no problem with primarying candidates.

Parent

: Small steps first (5.00 / 1) (#52)
by Big Tent Democrat on Wed Nov 03, 2010 at 08:49:56 AM EST

Win in the Dem party first.

Parent

California just voted for open primaries (none / 0) (#108)
by hairspray on Wed Nov 03, 2010 at 10:50:37 AM EST

in which candidates are not required to state their party affiliation. It was sold as a governmental reform by ....you guessed it, a Republican. I see a lot of mischief. I hope Jerry, who is as seasoned as they get, puts this state in a better place than what Arnold left it in.

Parent

Kind of like how Dems (none / 0) (#114)
by Socraticsilence on Wed Nov 03, 2010 at 11:00:11 AM EST

cut Clinton loose in 1994- this could work it'd let Obama be what Clinton was- the moderate answer to the extremes on each side.

Parent

Clinton (none / 0) (#124)
by Ga6thDem on Wed Nov 03, 2010 at 11:15:32 AM EST

was a success. Obama is not. Big difference. Obama is not going to have low unemployment to run on. So far Obama is looking more like Carter II than Clinton.

Parent

: Clinton was a success (none / 0) (#141)
by Socraticsilence on Wed Nov 03, 2010 at 12:08:41 PM EST

in 1996, not so much in 1994- he'd just had his signature legislative initiative go down in flames and lost both houses of Congress for the first time since 1946.

Parent

Haven't exactly been following the selection (5.00 / 1) (#44)
by MO Blue on Wed Nov 03, 2010 at 08:45:52 AM EST

process for House Dems. Who has replaced Rahm in choosing the candidates for the House? IIRC from past elections, Rahm was often successful in killing off the more progressive primary candidates in favor of Blue Dogs.

Parent

I just don't get how (none / 0) (#115)
by Socraticsilence on Wed Nov 03, 2010 at 11:02:39 AM EST

Blue Dogs being primaried is the solution except in extreme cases- I mean last I checked this election also showed that pushing out moderates will cost a party- see Nevada, Delaware and quite possibly Alaska.

Parent

: IMO the definition of "moderate" (none / 0) (#127)
by MO Blue on Wed Nov 03, 2010 at 11:17:21 AM EST

has been distorted. Conservative Republicans are now "moderate" in comparison to people like Miller, Angle and O'Donnell. All things are relevant, I guess.
If I were a Republican, I would love the so called "moderate" Blue Dogs since they vote for Republican legislation more often than not. The Republicans have the best of both worlds. They win legislatively when they are in the majority and the win legislatively when they are in the minority.

Parent

The Republicans have always been better at this. (none / 0) (#32)
by honora on Wed Nov 03, 2010 at 08:36:19 AM EST

They build for the future, Democrats react to the situation at hand. While the House losses are dramatic, they cull some dead wood for the Democrats and should allow 'regrowth'. No matter how wonderful a congressmember is, at some point they should retire. Edwards and Kanjorski were both in the House for 20+ years.

Parent

Amen. Out with the Blue Dogs... (none / 0) (#89)
by magster on Wed Nov 03, 2010 at 09:25:37 AM EST

In with the Dems in 2012.

Parent

Won't the media say that Obama's (none / 0) (#4)
by observed on Wed Nov 03, 2010 at 08:08:01 AM EST

liberal policies have been deemed a failure?

Parent

That's (5.00 / 4) (#5)
by Ga6thDem on Wed Nov 03, 2010 at 08:09:04 AM EST

exactly the problem. He's passing conservative policies and people think it's liberalism.

Parent

thats an interesting comment (none / 0) (#12)
by Capt Howdy on Wed Nov 03, 2010 at 08:19:04 AM EST

how the hell do we change that?

Parent

You start (5.00 / 1) (#17)
by Ga6thDem on Wed Nov 03, 2010 at 08:24:08 AM EST

by cutting Obama loose and telling people he is NOT a liberal by pointing out how much he has continued the policies of Bush.

The best example I can think of in recent history is what the GOP did during the Nixon years. Like BTD says above, Obama is baked. There's nothing that's going to change that.

One thing would be to have the liberals in the party start voting against his policies.

Parent

seems to me you are (5.00 / 1) (#21)
by Capt Howdy on Wed Nov 03, 2010 at 08:27:20 AM EST

ignoring the larger point that Obama has been a republican lite and half the country thinks he is Mao.

that seem a problem of education as much as anything else. of the voters not the politicians.

Parent

And how do (none / 0) (#26)
by Ga6thDem on Wed Nov 03, 2010 at 08:32:38 AM EST

you change that? Talk about how Obama's policies are Republican policies. What exactly has he done different than Bush? Not too much in my book. When the GOP says that he's a communist I say are you now saying that Bush was a communist too? They have no answer. If you fight back they don't know what to do.

Parent

dont think (none / 0) (#27)
by Capt Howdy on Wed Nov 03, 2010 at 08:34:11 AM EST

saying he is no worse than Bush is a good plan

Parent

I'm not (none / 0) (#31)
by Ga6thDem on Wed Nov 03, 2010 at 08:35:41 AM EST

talking about him being not worse than Bush just pointing out how he has continued the same policies as Bush.

What do you suggest? Do you think clinging to Obama is good?

Parent

Obama and Bush (none / 0) (#55)
by lilburro on Wed Nov 03, 2010 at 08:53:11 AM EST

are not the same. Bush didn't pass a stimulus package, Bush didn't do anything about healthcare, Bush started two wars...etc. etc.

Applying obvious pressure to President Obama so that he has to "cave" to liberals is good. He should not and cannot at this point represent the liberal view. Pointing out that his policies are old school Republican is fine. Pummeling the current GOP for being insane and shifting radically to the right is fine. But you can't get anything done by just slamming Obama, you have to slam the GOP too, and that requires differentiating between the two.

Parent

People (none / 0) (#64)
by Ga6thDem on Wed Nov 03, 2010 at 09:00:57 AM EST

don't even know what old school republican is anymore I don't think. Yes, Obama passed healthcare but it was massively unpopular so I don't think bringing that up would really work. I'm wondering if Obama will cave in to the GOP and go to war with Iran right now.

I'm not really into slamming the GOP so much as slamming conservatism and Obama has been passing conservative policy. Make conservatism a failure and you are demolishing the GOP. Make the GOP a failure and you are just allowing them to put another face on.

Parent

If Obama is conservative (none / 0) (#69)
by lilburro on Wed Nov 03, 2010 at 09:06:00 AM EST

to you then what in the world does that make the GOP? You can't define them both the same way as they are massively different. In really, really obvious ways.

Parent

Do (5.00 / 1) (#73)
by Ga6thDem on Wed Nov 03, 2010 at 09:09:23 AM EST

tell what has Obama done that's not conservative? You are never going to change things if you allow conservatives to define the territory. You have to make a clear distinction between conservative policies and liberal policies and point out that Obama is failing because of conservative policies. People's minds can be changed but not if you let conservatives continue to define things.

Parent

Out of curiosity (none / 0) (#118)
by Socraticsilence on Wed Nov 03, 2010 at 11:07:47 AM EST

in your world was Bill Clinton a conservative or a radical right guy- I mean slashing welfare, not reforming HC, passing DADT, signing DOMA, expanding the Death Penalty- by your definition the guys a Bush republican right?

Parent

Bill (none / 0) (#129)
by Ga6thDem on Wed Nov 03, 2010 at 11:22:34 AM EST

Clinton was a success. Obama is not. Obama is a failure. Obama has no spine. Do you want the entire country to think that Obama is typical of liberals? Whiny mush mouthed weasels?

Obama is for those policies too so why aren't you excoriating him for those stances?

Bill Clinton could have reformed health insurance (like Obama did) if he had caved into the GOP. He chose no reform over that.

Obama is defending DADT. DADT was very progressive FOR ITS TIME. It's something that people like you don't understand. It's time has past and Obama continues to defend it just like the GOP. Right?

What is Obama going to do if the GOP shuts down the government? He's going to whine and give them what they want. Right?

Parent

So you'd argue that no reform (none / 0) (#142)
by Socraticsilence on Wed Nov 03, 2010 at 12:12:43 PM EST

and then slashing entitlement spending would be a good way for Obama to go? Maybe cut the regulations on the financial sector back some to? Seriously, its been 2 years- at this point in Clinton's presidency he was a much greater failure than Obama- HCR had crashed and burned and he'd lost both houses of congress.

Obama will push for the repeal of DADT- after the release of the study- which was the plan all along.

Oh, and giving the GOP what they want- you mean like slashing welfare, signing DOMA, and backing Phil Gramm's deregulation of the finance industry?

Parent

: The only (none / 0) (#148)
by Ga6thDem on Wed Nov 03, 2010 at 01:26:17 PM EST

entitlement spending that was cut was welfare. Keep defending welfare then. Clinton actually wanted to put the surplus into SS but Obama has commissioned a cat food commission to cut SS.
Obama has lost the house by one of he hugest margins in the history of this country and you think that's worse than '94? The GOP picked up way more seats this year than they did in 1994 and they are even crazier than they were in '94. If he had started with 55 seats like Clinton did he would have lost the senate too.
Obama is hiding behind the report. He is actively promoting to keep DADT in the courts is he not? There is no reason for him to be defending it in the courts is there other than he thinks it is good policy.
The disastrous HCR that Obama pushed has been worse than NO HCR. He just wanted to check off his list and throw some piece of crap legislation through so he could check it off his list.

Parent

radical (none / 0) (#86)
by sj on Wed Nov 03, 2010 at 09:23:35 AM EST

The GOP is radical

Parent

That's my point (none / 0) (#95)
by lilburro on Wed Nov 03, 2010 at 09:30:02 AM EST

Obama may pass conservative(ish) policy, but the GOP is radical. You can't call them the same and get anything accomplished. You have to make a more complex argument.

Parent

: I agree that you have to make ... (none / 0) (#109)
by sj on Wed Nov 03, 2010 at 10:50:54 AM EST

... a more complex argument (although, paradoxically, keeping the message simple). But allowing Obama to be defined as "liberal" just because he isn't radical is a major problem.

Parent

Obama has escalated a doomed (none / 0) (#71)
by rennies on Wed Nov 03, 2010 at 09:07:06 AM EST

war. He passed Health INSURANCE reform not health CARE reform -- making deals with big Pharma and Ins. companies (how Bushian) -- and has extended Bush national "security" policies.

Parent

I actually do not feel that qualified (none / 0) (#60)
by Capt Howdy on Wed Nov 03, 2010 at 08:57:52 AM EST

to make suggestions. clinging to Obama, no. but there he is. we cant ignore him either.

I think BTD is correct that we need to rebuild the party. one of the things that galled me the most last night was the crocodile tears for Blanch Lincoln.

oh, poor Blance and that mean ole Bill Halter for primarying her. no mention that he was polling better than her and he might have actually won if Clinton had kept his big feet out of it. Lincoln and many of the losers last night we are just as well off without. at least now republican votes will be made by republicans in those districts.

Parent

Well (none / 0) (#67)
by Ga6thDem on Wed Nov 03, 2010 at 09:04:03 AM EST

Halter was probably going down too but he would have gone down fighting unlike Lincoln.

What to do about Obama then? Right now I would think that the liberals in congress should start voting against the GOP policy that he is going to put forth. That would be the best way to start separating him from liberalism.

Parent

Nice job (none / 0) (#119)
by Socraticsilence on Wed Nov 03, 2010 at 11:08:54 AM EST

sliding right past the fact that Conservative Icon Bill Clinton back Lincoln.

Parent

You're (5.00 / 1) (#131)
by Ga6thDem on Wed Nov 03, 2010 at 11:23:53 AM EST

the one that's calling him a conservative not me. Clinton is/was to the left of Obama. So what does that make Obama?

Parent

: No, no Clinton (none / 0) (#143)
by Socraticsilence on Wed Nov 03, 2010 at 12:13:32 PM EST

is not to the left of Obama, despite what you may want to believe factually this is not the case.

Parent

So what exactly (none / 0) (#116)
by Socraticsilence on Wed Nov 03, 2010 at 11:05:44 AM EST

do we do about history- because if Obama- isn't a liberal then certainly Clinton wasn't one, heck Carter is iffy at best. Seriously, this post is going to look hilarious in 2012 when Obama is re-elected with relative ease (I'm willing to bet a higher popular vote share than Clinton in 1996- even after adjusting for Perot)-- remember you're writing off Obama despite the fact that he is currently in a better position than Clinton was in 1994 or Reagan was in 1982.

Parent

You seem to think (5.00 / 1) (#132)
by Ga6thDem on Wed Nov 03, 2010 at 11:27:39 AM EST

that Obama is going to reelected with high unemployment and a GOP that is determined to make him look like an idiot that he has no idea how to fight?

Obama's position is more like Carter's than Reagan or Clinton.

Do tell what states is Obama going to win in '12? We can write off NC VA for sure this time. Michigan even maybe? Iowa probably? I imagine unless things change a lot between now and '12 that he will do about what Kerry did in '04.

Parent

Please explain to me (none / 0) (#144)
by Socraticsilence on Wed Nov 03, 2010 at 12:15:00 PM EST

how Obama's standing with a bad economy is different than Reagan's standing with a bad economy in 1982, and Clinton's standing in the face of manifest incompetence in 1994.

Parent

: Manifest (5.00 / 1) (#147)
by Ga6thDem on Wed Nov 03, 2010 at 01:19:56 PM EST

incompetence? That is Obama trying to work with the GOP when he didn't need to.
There are so many structural problems with the economy that need to be fixed and Obama does not have what it takes to do it.

Parent
: "Manifest Incompetence"?? (none / 0) (#154)
by Yman on Wed Nov 03, 2010 at 04:43:26 PM EST

You mean HCR? Yeah - he should have just caved and adopted the Republican plan of '93 after making backroom deals with the pharma and insurance lobbyists, ...
... like Obama just did. That would have demonstrated "competence".
Heh.

Parent

Lawerence ODonnell (none / 0) (#14)
by Capt Howdy on Wed Nov 03, 2010 at 08:20:35 AM EST

has not shut up since about 8 pm last night on how stupid the democrats were to pass healthcare and how everyone wants it repealed.

Parent

You know what? (5.00 / 1) (#20)
by Ga6thDem on Wed Nov 03, 2010 at 08:25:55 AM EST

I find that highly ironic since we were told that we had to pass this bill so that the Dems could run on it in the fall. Too bad no one thought that passing bad legislation was worse than no legislation.

Parent

Yeah... (none / 0) (#16)
by Thanin on Wed Nov 03, 2010 at 08:23:14 AM EST

he's been pissed for about 14 hours straight now.

Parent

gotta say tho (5.00 / 1) (#19)
by Capt Howdy on Wed Nov 03, 2010 at 08:25:20 AM EST

his other sticking point, the debt ceiling vote, was pretty interesting.

Parent

: Yes, and we will see a lot more (none / 0) (#75)
by Cream City on Wed Nov 03, 2010 at 09:10:31 AM EST

about it, with the showdown to come. The only question is when -- and the shutdowners are so energized now that it may be within a week of getting into their new Congressional offices.

Parent

Because it was too left wing? (none / 0) (#23)
by observed on Wed Nov 03, 2010 at 08:30:04 AM EST

Parent

Because they caved to the Republicans (none / 0) (#38)
by sallywally on Wed Nov 03, 2010 at 08:40:31 AM EST

on every single point. It was far too conservative.

Parent

I doubt that was O'Donnells point, but (none / 0) (#43)
by observed on Wed Nov 03, 2010 at 08:45:21 AM EST

if it was, I'd be pleasantly surprised.

Parent

: I think O'Donnell was saying... (5.00 / 1) (#56)
by Thanin on Wed Nov 03, 2010 at 08:53:15 AM EST

that the administration pushed a health care bill that was unpopular rather than doing more for the economy/jobs.

Parent

It really didn't though (none / 0) (#120)
by Socraticsilence on Wed Nov 03, 2010 at 11:10:35 AM EST

I seriously think some people can't remember just how badly HCR went down in flames in 1993- I mean admittedly Obama's team was more adept than Clinton's but even taking that as a given you have to credit them for getting what they did through.

Parent

Yes, very much so. (none / 0) (#128)
by MO Blue on Wed Nov 03, 2010 at 11:19:13 AM EST

Calls today for Obama to move to the "center" abound from both Republican and Democratic pundits.

Parent

I see a role for Feingold, if he (none / 0) (#3)
by observed on Wed Nov 03, 2010 at 08:07:24 AM EST

wants it.

When he said... (none / 0) (#15)
by Thanin on Wed Nov 03, 2010 at 08:21:36 AM EST

"On to the next battle in 2012", was he referring to Democrats preparing for the presidential election or himself?

Parent

I noticed that (none / 0) (#25)
by Capt Howdy on Wed Nov 03, 2010 at 08:31:03 AM EST

also. it seems to me he is a clearly thinking about primaries. the other one who looked on the same page was Evan Bayh. couldnt help wondering if he was not considering an indie run or a primary challenge. in his case I would say more likely indie since his sthick is to hammer dems.

Parent

: Dear Gawd (5.00 / 2) (#36)
by MO Blue on Wed Nov 03, 2010 at 08:40:26 AM EST

Please save us from Evan Bayh. His candidacy could almost make me join the tea party. (Joining the tea party was snark. My disdain for Bayh was not)

Parent

You got a good start (none / 0) (#22)
by jbindc on Wed Nov 03, 2010 at 08:29:51 AM EST

23 of the 46 members of the Blue Dog Coalition went down last night. Of course, they lost to Republicans, so there's a fairly good chance that liberals won't ever win there anyway, so pretty much, all that's left is the liberal wing of the Democratic Party. Let's see what they do now.

Again (3.50 / 2) (#28)
by Big Tent Democrat on Wed Nov 03, 2010 at 08:34:11 AM EST

you demonstrate your ignorance regarding my thinking on this issue and the arguments I have made for over 7 years.

I repeat, your comments on these issues have no relation to what I have argued or what I think.

Parent

Your post and philosophy (none / 0) (#39)
by jbindc on Wed Nov 03, 2010 at 08:40:44 AM EST

Says that House Dems should be primaried by liberal opponents, yes? I can only go by what you wrote - and no, I'm not going back through 7 years' of posts - I can go by what you write now:

While the Beltway and The Third Way will argue that Democrats need to run moderate Republicans as their candidates in the next election, the reality is the Beltway and The Third Way can no longer get a single person elected in a Democratic (or Republican, for that matter) primary.The era of the smoke filled room is over.

Sounds great, except for the fact that liberal candidates can't get elected everywhere there's an actual Democratic House member. Anyone who believes that is living in fantasy land

Should all candidates be primaried? Yes - I agree with you there. The Blue Dogs are decimated, as many around here wanted. All that's left now are members of the Liberal wing of the party - the Blue Dogs can't be blamed anymore for the woes of the Democratic Party. Let's see how that works out.

Parent

You know what? (5.00 / 1) (#42)
by Ga6thDem on Wed Nov 03, 2010 at 08:45:18 AM EST

I used to think like you but at this point I no longer do. I mean Obama has governed like a blue dog and where has that gotten us? It has gotten us exactly nowhere. I think the time is right and the voting public is willing to listen to liberal ideas whereas they weren't in the past. People are desperate. Don't you think that if Obama had used Bill Clinton's plan to spend government money on green energy plants that people would have rewarded that? I mean people say they don't like big government but what if big government was creating jobs instead of wasting money on bailing out the banks?

Parent

I think its a bit funny (none / 0) (#122)
by Socraticsilence on Wed Nov 03, 2010 at 11:13:03 AM EST

that Clinton once he left office suddenly realized that governing like a Blue Dog was a bad thing- but when he was actually accountable to the voters well, it was hard to stop the guy from expanding the death penalty, slashing welfare or undercutting more liberal members of his party.

Parent

Okay. (none / 0) (#133)
by Ga6thDem on Wed Nov 03, 2010 at 11:29:38 AM EST

Well campaign on increasing welfare then and see where that gets you. I'm sure Obama plans to extend welfare reform. Are you going to take him to task for doing that?

Parent

Ah so (none / 0) (#145)
by Socraticsilence on Wed Nov 03, 2010 at 12:17:39 PM EST

its okay to cut entitlments when you don't like them- then its not a sign of being a sell out- its simply politically necessary, but when Obama pushes through something moderate like HCR its a huge tell. Interesting, its almost like you have a double standard where anything Clinton did, no matter how conservative was cool because it was politically popular whereas Obama is judged strictly on the policies.

Parent

: That's (none / 0) (#149)
by Ga6thDem on Wed Nov 03, 2010 at 01:40:16 PM EST

what you are saying. Again, campaign on increasing welfare. You didn't answer my question.
Actually you are the one with the double standard. Do you see me criticizing Obama for his stance on welfare reform? No, I haven't. You are the one who seems to think welfare reform was so bad yet you are not criticizing Obama for the same stance.
Obama's HCR was bad policy. There's no other description of it. Just because he was able to check a box and declare it done doesn't make it good policy like you seem to think.
I've never seen people who have lower standards than Obama apologists. You are the different side of the same coin of the Bush apologists.

Parent

No (none / 0) (#50)
by Big Tent Democrat on Wed Nov 03, 2010 at 08:48:28 AM EST

I think everyone should be primaried.

I think that since there are now so many open seats, that a great opportunity for primary success is upon us.

But again, you simply have no idea what I have argued and think on this because, for whatever reason, you decided to try to engage me on the issue for the first time without having considered all the posts I have written on the subject over the past 7 years.

Why are you reading now?

Parent

So (none / 0) (#80)
by jbindc on Wed Nov 03, 2010 at 09:19:24 AM EST

Unless someone has been reading you for 7 years, they should not have an opinion, nor engage in conversation.

Got it.

Too bad - I'm sticking around anyway.

Parent

Strawman argument. (4.25 / 4) (#94)
by Thanin on Wed Nov 03, 2010 at 09:29:52 AM EST

It seems to me that you're not engaging in a debate as much as you're dictating a misunderstanding of someone's position to them, then attacking the fabricated argument, the one the other person never proposed.

Parent

Do what you feel (none / 0) (#98)
by Big Tent Democrat on Wed Nov 03, 2010 at 09:38:03 AM EST

You started off with deliberate misstatements yesterday.

I'm not interested in discussing this with you.

I will continue to correct your misstatements about MY position.

Parent

Deliberate Misstatements? (none / 0) (#100)
by jbindc on Wed Nov 03, 2010 at 09:46:20 AM EST

Um. Ok.

The fact that liberal candidates will not win in Blue Dog districts? You can primary Blue Dogs with more liberal candidates until the cows come home, but they won't win.

Please enlighten me. If you want people to understand your writing, especially those who have not read you for 7 years, then you need to be clearer - I am only going by your own words that you currently write - no strawmen.

And BTW - it's not "misrepresenting your position" - it's having my own position and trying to engage in conversation. Apparently, you aren't interested in that, and I will continue to point that out as well.

Parent

Primaring Blue Dogs with liberal (5.00 / 1) (#105)
by MO Blue on Wed Nov 03, 2010 at 10:00:00 AM EST

candidates until the cows come home is IMO a good idea win or lose. You can't change public opinion when people in a region are only exposed to one viewpoint. The Republicans understand this and have spent 30 years making their once radical ideas commonplace. Unfortunately the Dems do not understand this concept.

Parent

And it also backfires (none / 0) (#123)
by Socraticsilence on Wed Nov 03, 2010 at 11:14:10 AM EST

see: Angle, O'Donnell, and Miller- all cases in which the GOP wins easily without the primary whackjobs.

Parent

: Most of us are proposing (none / 0) (#134)
by MO Blue on Wed Nov 03, 2010 at 11:30:51 AM EST

sane liberal candidates with a populist agenda and not primary whackjobs the equivalent of Angle, O'Donnell, and Miller. Libs would have to work awful hard to come up with whackjobs like Angle, O'Donnell, Miller, Crazy Carl (Paladino) and Nazi enthusiast Iott.

Parent

Stop (none / 0) (#103)
by Big Tent Democrat on Wed Nov 03, 2010 at 09:56:40 AM EST

saying what my position is. You simply do not understand it.

Your position is of no interest to me.

I will continue to correct your misstatements of MY positions.

Parent

The Emerging Democratic Majority has arrived (none / 0) (#41)
by Dan the Man on Wed Nov 03, 2010 at 08:44:50 AM EST

In the Emerging Democratic Majority, it was hypothesized the future of the Democratic Party would be made up of 3 groups: 1) latte sipping progressives 2) minorities esp. blacks and hispanics and 3) working class whites.

It turns out working class whites have rejected Obama, but the other 2 classes are sticking with the Democrats. See the victories of senate democrats in CA, NV, WA, and CO. In NV, Reid won by a comfortable margin because of hispanics. In WA, Murray will win because of latte sipping progressives. And in CO and CA, Bennet/Boxer wins because of both groups.

The (none / 0) (#47)
by Ga6thDem on Wed Nov 03, 2010 at 08:46:52 AM EST

"new democratic" coalition Obama and Brazille wanted has been a failure. Remember we actually lost seats in places where if the EMD had been in effect we would have won.

Parent

You (none / 0) (#58)
by lentinel on Wed Nov 03, 2010 at 08:55:09 AM EST

mention "working class whites" having rejected Obama.
But you infer that working class black people are sticking with him.

How about what Velma Hart expressed?

Parent

Did you miss the part (none / 0) (#125)
by Socraticsilence on Wed Nov 03, 2010 at 11:15:45 AM EST

where she said she was sticking with him but wanted more progress? Look at any polling data Obama's approval among African-Americans is basically steady.

Parent

I'm just relieved to see (none / 0) (#151)
by jondee on Wed Nov 03, 2010 at 03:48:29 PM EST

someone at this site finally getting around to acknowledging that there might be such a thing as a black working class.

As esoteric as that reality may seem to some..

Parent

Yeah, ... (none / 0) (#155)
by Yman on Wed Nov 03, 2010 at 04:46:03 PM EST

... that's quite a shock to everyone.

If only they could figure out that water is wet ...

Parent

That's what that Y (none / 0) (#156)
by jondee on Wed Nov 03, 2010 at 05:20:42 PM EST

stands for..It's short for everyman.

How universal and all-embracing of you.

Parent

Good thing you're here to explain ... (none / 0) (#157)
by Yman on Wed Nov 03, 2010 at 05:44:12 PM EST

... these "esoteric" realities.

Now - one more time - tell us the the fairytale about all those people at the liberal blog who don't believe there's such a thing as a 'black working class".

Parent

you're right (none / 0) (#161)
by jondee on Wed Nov 03, 2010 at 06:24:32 PM EST

they believe in it so much, no one sees any point in ever mentioning it. Whereas, it's important to mention "the white working class", because their affection for Bill and Hillary proves what deeply caring people the Clintons are..

Parent

: Oh .... now you're not even ... (5.00 / 1) (#162)
by Yman on Wed Nov 03, 2010 at 06:49:33 PM EST

... making sense.
Go back to the fairytale about all the liberal racists being mean to Obama and just figuring out that there's a black working class. Yes, it would be nice to try out a new one now-and-again, but ...
... practice makes perfect ...

Parent

I think that you are on to something (none / 0) (#107)
by eric on Wed Nov 03, 2010 at 10:44:35 AM EST

Here is Minnesota, we lost a representative in the 8th district, Jim Oberstar, that was thought to be 100% safe. This guy didn't even need to campaign for the last 20 years. The biggest problem with his district is that it almost completely lacks any latte sippers or minorities. It is one of those old school Democratic districts that is pretty much all middle and lower class whites.

It's the only way I can explain it.

And look at North Dakota and South Dakota. Voting out Dem incumbents that were popular. Again, no category 1 or 2 Dems there.

Parent

: The Dakota's (none / 0) (#126)
by Socraticsilence on Wed Nov 03, 2010 at 11:17:08 AM EST

are just weird- seriously, we were losing seats there when we were doing well- I don't really get why they've moved in the opposite direction of Montana.

Parent

working class (none / 0) (#150)
by dandelion on Wed Nov 03, 2010 at 03:32:24 PM EST

Well I'm not sure there are so many working class whites anymore. I think the problem is that they are now "unemployed whites" or possibly "underemployed whites," which is probably why they aren't sipping lattes they can't afford.

Parent

Yes, all the Starbucks closings (5.00 / 1) (#160)
by Cream City on Wed Nov 03, 2010 at 06:01:50 PM EST

could have been a tipoff that latte liberals have been in decline along with the economy.

We don't do lattes in Wisconsin, either. We kaffeeklatsch around a kringle!

Parent

whites are not the only ones (none / 0) (#153)
by Capt Howdy on Wed Nov 03, 2010 at 04:38:24 PM EST

underemployed. or even the most impacted by unemployment. from last summer:

On the whole, the economic news was mixed, but for African Americans, it was particularly troubling. The unemployment rate for whites held steady at 8.8 percent compared to February and went down for Asians from 8.4 percent to 7.5 percent. But it rose to 16.5 percent for blacks from 15.8 percent. Hispanics showed a slight increase as well from 12.4 percent to 12.6 percent.

Parent

: Sure, but whites will have different (none / 0) (#159)
by Cream City on Wed Nov 03, 2010 at 05:59:08 PM EST

reasons for voting or not voting with Obama than do a lot of AAs, as you point out elsewhere, so the different reasons do not lend themselves to relevance in this analysis.

Parent

We can (none / 0) (#49)
by lentinel on Wed Nov 03, 2010 at 08:48:07 AM EST

take a lesson from these so-called teaparties.

Why can't we have our own grassroots movement and field candidates to challenge incumbent "centrist" or bluedog dems?

Failing this, why not attempt to create a third party - if the dems will not listen to us?

And there is the matter of the wars.
And there is the matter that no candidates are mentioning them.

I must say that until the wars are truly ended, I don't feel that I will be able to recognize my country. I don't know how we can live with what has happened to us domestically. I don't know how we can live with what we are doing in Afghanistan and Iraq. I don't know how we have been able to completely ignore the facts revealed by WIkiLeaks. To hold no one accountable. To ask no questions of Obama - under whom these horrors continued until "at least 2009".

I also don't know how we can create jobs if our government continues to spend two billion dollars a week for these wars.

And there is the continuing scandal of the treatment of our soldiers and veterans.

If we can't challenge incumbents who support the war, I would suggest forming a party whose sole agenda is the termination of the wars and the return of our troops to our home soil.

Who are the American billionaires (5.00 / 1) (#57)
by observed on Wed Nov 03, 2010 at 08:54:55 AM EST

who will fund OUR grassroots movement?
Where can we find our own Kochs?
(absolutely no pun intended)

Parent

I (none / 0) (#65)
by lentinel on Wed Nov 03, 2010 at 09:02:09 AM EST

don't think money is the problem.

It's lethargy.
It's a sense of hopelessness.
It's an acceptance of things as they are.
It's our capacity to be diverted.
It's fear.
Maybe fear most of all.
Our government depends on instilling it in us.

Martin Luther King and Malcolm X turned the country around.
Nobody funded them.

Parent

Heh, heh ... n/t (none / 0) (#74)
by Yman on Wed Nov 03, 2010 at 09:09:56 AM EST

Parent

there is this guy named (none / 0) (#79)
by Capt Howdy on Wed Nov 03, 2010 at 09:18:34 AM EST

Soros.

Parent

He's an American billionaire? (none / 0) (#87)
by observed on Wed Nov 03, 2010 at 09:24:08 AM EST

That's news to me.

Parent

I see (none / 0) (#90)
by Capt Howdy on Wed Nov 03, 2010 at 09:26:48 AM EST

they have to be AMERICAN billionaires. does it matter if they give us money?

Parent

I don't mind Soros giving money, but (none / 0) (#92)
by observed on Wed Nov 03, 2010 at 09:28:31 AM EST

he's a great boogeyman for the right.
Bill Gates would be much better, and Warren Buffett even more so.

Parent

: Well Gates Jr is busy (none / 0) (#104)
by brodie on Wed Nov 03, 2010 at 09:56:44 AM EST

with his Foundation and their massive funding of public health initiatives overseas, iirc. And Buffett, he recently gave most of his billions to the Gates Foundation.
Which leaves our side of billionaires kinda depleted. Soros recently gave a good chunk of change (though not billions) to MediaMatters, a worthy org, but a secondary one. Not sure to what extent he was in the game this time funding message ads, but he's been pretty helpful in the past.
Another Dem b-aire, Theodore "Ted" Turner, gave a lot away to the UN.
Sure would be nifty for a few of these folks to pool their resources and create a Dem-friendly major media outlet.

Parent

Yes, he is. (none / 0) (#96)
by Tony on Wed Nov 03, 2010 at 09:32:32 AM EST

.

Parent

Well, what do I know. He's as (none / 0) (#102)
by observed on Wed Nov 03, 2010 at 09:51:12 AM EST

American as Henry Kissinger.

Parent

: ??? Aren't they both ... (none / 0) (#136)
by Yman on Wed Nov 03, 2010 at 11:52:25 AM EST

... as "American" as the rest of us?

Parent

Yes, he is. (none / 0) (#164)
by Romberry on Wed Nov 03, 2010 at 07:27:50 PM EST

Soros became a naturalized American citizen in 1961. So yeah, he's an American billionaire.

Parent

The fact that the wars are now Obama's wars (none / 0) (#85)
by MO Blue on Wed Nov 03, 2010 at 09:23:10 AM EST

have to all extents and purposes ended any serious anti war activity.

The main advantage that the tea party has is that they are not a grass root funded group.

There's just one element missing from these snapshots of America's ostensibly spontaneous and leaderless populist uprising: the sugar daddies who are bankrolling it, and have been doing so since well before the "death panel" warm-up acts of last summer. Three heavy hitters rule. You've heard of one of them, Rupert Murdoch. The other two, the brothers David and Charles Koch, are even richer, with a combined wealth exceeded only by that of Bill Gates and Warren Buffett among Americans. But even those carrying the Kochs' banner may not know who these brothers are. NYT

Also, one of its main backers just happens to own large segments of the media.

Not saying that it is impossible for a progressive movement to work just that we would have a much tougher hill to climb.

Parent

another place (none / 0) (#88)
by Capt Howdy on Wed Nov 03, 2010 at 09:25:23 AM EST

where Paul may not be on board with his party.

will he be the first republican to come out strong for getting out

Parent

No (none / 0) (#91)
by Ga6thDem on Wed Nov 03, 2010 at 09:28:12 AM EST

he won't I'm sure. He'll roll right with whatever the GOP leadership tells him to do. He's already backtracked on a bunch of his stances so I don't imagine he'll keep that one either.

Parent

: he also said (none / 0) (#93)
by Capt Howdy on Wed Nov 03, 2010 at 09:29:16 AM EST

he plans to challenge Mitch every day or something like that

Parent

Note: here is the inscription on the (none / 0) (#117)
by oculus on Wed Nov 03, 2010 at 11:06:04 AM EST

India Gate in Delhi: link

and during the Third Afghan War."

The cornerstone was laid in 1921.

Parent

Creative Destruction | 164 comments (164 topical)

Readers Must Login or Create an Account to Comment