Good morning, Dogs! Tgif…

‘You think they’re pouring millions into the election because Republicans and Democrats are exactly the same?’

Exactly right. The drumroll of that ‘not a dime’s worth of difference’ always, always is pushing authoritarian government on those who can be influenced to vote against their own interests.

the kock brothers have been doing this for quite some time, they are responsible for krystol, they are responsible for just about every fox pundit, they are responsible for the kato institute

they have taken over our government

they are enemies of the state, there is no question about that

Mornin’, BT, pups

I suggest we start referring to Tea Partiers as Kochheads. Somebody used that term yesterday and I can’t think of anything more appropriate for these people.

Oh, and Krugman is spot on.

So what? If the D’s in power were remotely interested in pushing back against the Tea Party they’d be aggressively pushing back against the Koch’s.

Where are they?

With so much at stake, why does the nominal leader of the Democratic party go out of his way to belittle its two most revered icons, FDR and MLK, right before the election?

There’s always this.

You all remember this Jimmy Carter quote..

‘At stake is nothing less than our nation’s soul’

We lost that election and we may lose again. God help us.

What are you referring to?

Krugman is spot on.

Likewise is Keith.

Hey, this is a nice family blog. *g*

You could start by looking at the video in the post. If you aren’t seeing Dems, you’re blinding yourself deliberately.

Nice rant Keith but I doubt it will change anyone’s mind.
Great suggestion SD
Good morning koinu

Obama’s meeting with selected members of blog world, where he claimed FDR slacked off for six months after his election to begin implementing Depression-era reforms, and that MLK’s letter from the Birmingham jail was a “work of literature” encouraging patience when King’s message was just the opposite.

EXTREME arrogance.

I remember when oilbama first showed his corporate head pre-election with some policy directives to the democrats

I said then;

“we might be better off if a republican wins, with a republican we can mount an oposition against corporate policy, with a democrat it will be almost impossible’

seems to me we might have been better with mccain, he would not have been able to get away with the same crap democrats allowed oilbama to get away with

I have no idea how we are going to mount a primary challenge against this trojan horse but we surely need one

Has anyone ever seen BHO and John Boehner in the same room at the same time?

dontcha remember when he gave reagan kudos?

holy crap, this man does not even hide it

I have no idea how we are going to mount a primary challenge against this trojan horse but we surely need one

By the time the Rs get through this guy — totally humiliating him for two years — the Ds will be desperate for a replacement.

I disagree. He showed it pre election by voting for and advocating for telecom immunity.

ah, you mis-understood

I agree with you, it was pre-election I made that comment.

I have to admit I wanted him over mccain but I did speculate he might be able to do more harm.

so I had all my bases covered

There are only two alternatives:

–the Rs completely shut him down and show him to be weak and ineffective
–the Rs let him cooperate in the destruction of the social safety net.

Either way, he’s fucking toast in 2012 — at the point of nomination.

that is a hopeful thought econombuz

hey, I wanted to have a conversation with you about my pet economic thingy that you and I always bat heads, got email?

I seem to remember clinton was toast the first half of his term and managed to turn it around before the election.

You keep track of your predictions to see if time proves you right?

off to work, will catch up with responses later…have good morning all

nah

it seems I only remember the times I was right *g*

Miread it. Too early for me to comprehend I expect. :)

The front page headline at HuffPo last night was

IS OBAMA TRYING TO LOSE THE ELECTION?

The answer is, it depends on which party he really belongs to.

Economic times were very different.

Morning All,

I think this is the link to the text version.

How about a boot to the head from Michael Moore.

Found some work, ya-hoo, everybody be well and be good. laters.

Yup. And the idea that “let’s let the worst guys win because then they’ll cause the masses to revolt against them!” — in other words, the reason Nader backed Bush in 2000 — has been shown not to work. The masses didn’t rise up against Bush and overthrow the entire system.

Great suggestion.

Before I leave, NPR was reporting Verizon would be returning $M50 in bogus charges soon. Deregulate some more, we’ll police ourselves.

The problem is, the DeeCee Dems will nominate him, even if his popularity is in the single digits. Let’s look at HI-01. There you had a special election in a very heavily Democratic district with a strong progressive running but here comes the DNC and the DCCC with Blue Douche Dog Ed Case and they tried to force Hanabusa out with the result that they split the Democratic vote and Djou cruised to victory. Now it’s a race as should never have been in that district because Djou is coming from the strength of incumbency. The establishment Dems are more concerned with pushing their agenda and installing their meat puppets to kowtow to the corporations than they are about governing or even winning elections.

The Republicans have O right where they want him. It’s probably right where O wanted to be all along.

Not really. Clinton inherited a Bush depression, same as Obama. And like Obama, he did things (in his case, pushing through rollbacks of Reagan-Bush tax cuts) that pissed off certain people yet eventually led to recovery, not soon enough to help the Dems in 1994 but which had kicked in by the time 1996 rolled around.

Eli’s been using “Kochheads” quite a bit. Fits in many ways.

but which had kicked in by the time 1996 rolled around.

That’s what I meant.

Great Moore article. The man has a gift with the pen.

A perfect storm has gathered of racists, homophobes, corporatists and born agains and they are on fire.

I am seeing all the same talking points as 2000, and it makes my blood boil to see that the ‘some of the people you can fool all of the time’ fall for it again. No, revenge on the Dems for not getting back all those lost terms isn’t going to work out for us.

HuffPost Hill:

MCCONNELL PUTS BUSH’S LEAD PRIVATIZER ON SOCIAL SECURITY BOARD – HuffPost Hill’s six eyebrows lifted up a bit when Tim Geithner swore in Charles Blahous and Robert Reischauer as Public Trustees for the Social Security and Medicare Trust Funds on Tuesday. Blahous is a former staffer to Alan “Social Security Is A Milk Cow With 310 Million Tits!” Simpson, was Bush’s point man in his attempt to privatize Social Security and is now at the far-right Hudson Institute. Treasury officials say that one of the two slots is required to be filled by a Republican and that Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell tapped Blahous, an assertion McConnell guy Don Stewart confirms. The administration could have rejected the suggestion, but, said an official, it was considered a Senate matter, so it went along. Both nominees were approved as part of a pile of papers pushed through at the end of the Senate session. Blahous is a startling selection for a party that claims no longer to have any interest in privatizing Social Security.

Oh its a matter all right, not sure if its a Senate matter… but its a matter all right.

Hey, I’ve been wrong before. Lots. But I think folks — including the WH — are miscalculating how the Rs are going to treat this guy. They will follow Rush’s lead — again — and not let him succeed. Or let him succeed only in ways that depress his base. I really think that Mr. Eleven-Dimensional-Chess is fucked.

Of course so are we. But come 2012, I really don’t see him as the nominee.

The man is a neocon.

Actually, this is been pretty much a replay of the Clinton years: Dem inherits recession from Republican, does things to fix the recession that don’t have an immediate effect, plus he tries to placate the corporate leaders whose financial backing’s necessary in the age of wall-to-wall (and expensive) TV and radio ads, which pisses off his base, who stay home in the first midterms after his election. Then, the economy kicks into gear just in time to save his butt for the second presidential election, and he coasts to victory.

Then, the economy kicks into gear just in time to save his butt for the second presidential election, and he coasts to victory.

Of course, that’s what the WH is hoping for. But the economic conditions are really quite a bit worse. There is very little on the horizon to rescue this economy. And Barry has completely discredited the stimulus — and any further stimulus.

And he’s not going to get credit for the first glimpses of recovery. The Rs will.

Mr. Eleven-Dimensional-ChessDeceit is fucked.

Fixed it for ya.

OT – Anyone notice in an increase in solicitations from Democrats lately? WTH.

I don;t know if those voters are fooled or just fools. I tend to think that they are the people who read the arts and leisure section and use the rest to line their birdcages. The kind of folks who get p*ssed when a political speech or debate comes on because Dancing with the Stars or Survivor gets pre-empted. The same people who talk about their day while the news is on in the background but don;t really pay attention until the weather and sports scores come on. Not the fooled voters but the irresponsible ones.

Sorry to monopolize, but this is what Krugman warned about way back when the size of the stimulus was being debated. A too-small stimulus would put the WH in exactly the position they are now in.

It wasn’t an eleven-dimensional chess move that Barry made with a too-small, politically-determined stimulus. It was a gamble — and he lost the gamble.

Not me. I long since moved all of that crap into my spam folder, plus they don’t call cell phones and that’s all I have.

Well said.

There’s a lot of that going around. But I fear that I will get into my usual trouble if I suggest there should be basic requirements for voting rights. (Then we have to determine who would administer them.)

Oh yeah, that Clinton administration was a great one for the democratic party as a whole and for the middle and working class and economy. The last of the New Deal banking regs repealed which lead directly to the current problems, NAFTA and GATT and welfare reform (very much with quotations around that last bit).

Incidentally, the democrats lost congress and didn’t get it back until 2006, if I recall correctly.

Actually, you were saying that “Economic times were very different” when they’re really remarkably similar, as are the Democratic leaders facing them.

In fact, Obama has turned out to be indistinguishable from Bill or Hillary Clinton when it comes to his policies and governance style, which is why people who think that Hillary would have oh so much different/better need to think again — Rahm Emanuel would never have been a top adviser for both Obama and the Clintons, and Hillary wouldn’t be Obama’s SoS right now, if there was much daylight between Obama and the Clintons where it counted.

There is a strong temptation (one the GOP likes to feed by throwing money at lefty third-party groups pushing this line) to just say “screw it, let the idiot sheep suffer under Republicans — maybe they’ll learn their lesson and rise up to overthrow them and the system”. Except that it was tried in 2000, and it didn’t work.

I’ve said this a number of times, all the economy really needs are help wanted signs

if the oilbama puts those out then he will get re-elected, if he continues trying the rediculous trickle down policies to put those help wanted signs out he will fail

if he puts together some public infrastructure programs that put people to work this economy turns around and he gets re-elected

That’s part of my point. Third-way-ism done to make sure the corporate Republican donors don’t wind up outspending you 20-to-1 may seem attractive, but it’s a losing strategy in the long run. We saw it in the 1990s and we’re seeing it again now. But the Hillary and Obama partisans were/are so convinced that their candidates were/are so different when they’re virtually identical as far as far lefties or righties are concerned.

I really don’t think we disagree. My comment that economic times were different was in response to the following comment:

I seem to remember clinton was toast the first half of his term and managed to turn it around before the election.

That is, it was with respect to his winning a second term that I stated that economic times were different. I don’t disagree with your comparison of Clinton and Obama.

Spot on about what ocurred under Clinton’s watch. The ability of states to regulate fraud by corporations was also gutted.

‘last of the New Deal banking regs repealed’

watching rightwingers try to attribute this to Clinton is pretty amazing. It was part of a mammoth financial bill which he would have had to send back for a really major overhaul, and leave the government on hold. That it seemed so minor is now seen to be a wrong reading, but hardly remarked on at the time, since it related to those obscure futures traders – and of course it was Phil Gramm who engineered it in.

Comparisons between the economy in the 1990s and the economy today are really unproductive. We were never in really scary conditions in the 1990s. Today we are.

Hey, I’m with you. Unfortunately I can’t see a way to do it so it will be fair. These days though, I think more teabaggers, (Koch heads), will be prevented from voting than minority voters though, what with their ridiculous ideas about the Constitution.

Clinton was DLC through and through. Just like Obama.

Off to swim in the great capitalist cesspool.

US KIA Afghanistan: 1,355

US KIA Irak: 4,427

Iraki, Afghan and Pakistani casualties: estimates vary to over 1.5M

US MBS 2010: 37,324 and counting

Hurdy Gurdy Man

Be good to yourselves, and all other living things

Namaste

That’s a very rosy scenario. If the Republicans do win back the House the threat of impeachment will hang over O’s head like the sword of Damocles allowing him to push the country further to the right. The economy will continue to sputter and limp along as more and more working and middle class Americans continue their descent into serfdom. Obama will be so unpopular that he will be vulnerable to a primary challenge. The rich of course will continue to live in a paradise that they will promote to the masses as the “land of opportunity. The Democrats divided in 2012 pave the way for the Republicans retaking the WH. The U.S. public has a very short memory and have demonstrated they are easily manipulated.

And Phil Gramm and his cohorts would have filibustered the bill had it not included repeal of Glass-Steagle. That doesn’t wash Clinton’s hands but it’s important to recognize that.

Yep. I managed to work all the way through the 1990s with no problems.

That’s a very rosy scenario. If the Republicans do win back the House the threat of impeachment will hang over O’s head like the sword of Damocles allowing him to push the country further to the right.

No it won’t. They’ll impeach him for something trumped up almost immediately. I’m not saying that won’t push further to the right, just that the current conservative doesn’t have the patience to wait for something more substantial than the vague Obama is a Muslim Kenyan theory. I rather though Fineman was near spot on when he said that the conservatives are going to overplay their hand. Things are still going to get much worse before the people wake up though.

The public is easily manipulated when uniformly they are told by all the media what the rightwingers invent. Hopefully, the internet can change that and give good information, but it’s not there yet.

And, whatever his faults, Bill Clinton deserves some credit for that.

My point above was merely that, if we start coming out of this by 2012, that will not be attributed to Obama by most folks. Over the coming months, the theme will be driven home by the Rs and MSM that the stimulus (and Keynesian economics) failed, and it was the Rs stopping Barry dead in his tracks that brought the economy around — by improving confidence /s.

Clinton was no better judge of the extent that self-preservation would guide the market – Not – than Greenspan. He did much that was good, but like LBJ, his failings were pretty large.

Economic fundamentals are much worse this time around IMHO. If anything, the economy will be worse in 2011-2012 than it is now, at best it will be the same–dismal. I don’t think we’ll see the same outcome we saw for Clinton. Housing price deflation and abysmal job market are things that will drag the country down for years–maybe a decade or more.

I wish they’d [edited by moderator] before they set America on fire.

[Mod Note: Please do not wish or suggest violence or harm on anyone. Thanks]

Yes, I see them laying the ground work for that mantra already.

Hope your right about the internet but it does seem that the role of the corporate media today is merely one of manipulation and they are very good at it.

Kochheads is good, and I’d always add “Republican” to it. Republican Kochheads, Republican Tea Partiers, always tie the crazies around their necks.

With great responsibility comes correspondingly great faults, if nothing else than because they are hugely magnified by the position of great responsibility.

Thoroughly agree. Disparity should not be implied when there is none.

Love that song…always think of Obama when I sing it…..

I know a lot of Americans are struggling and I know some here are as well. But in my household, things are looking up. Is anyone else experiencing that?

What basic requirements? If you’re speaking about knowledge, all you’d see is the lunatic fringe getting crash courses in basic civics funded by the Koch brothers–indifferent ignorant voters would be untouched and remain blinded to reality while the crazies took over that much faster. Besides, how can you compromise democracy in order to save it?

Actually according to the election in 2006 into 2008 it was:

~257 + ~ 60/100 + 1/1

Seems like it worked well.

How many investigations of Bush crimes will stop when the Dems lose the house…. oh… none. But the Obama impeachment will start.

Who is Obama’s SecDef… ohhh the same guy.

Who is Obama’s econ team… ohh the same ones who caused the problem

Who is on Obama’s catfood commish & how many Dem’s (like in the Senate debate I saw last night) are on board with screwing anyone < 55 on Social Security… ohhh same difference.

I am going to vote for the scumbag Dem's this year, and this is going to be one more time than I should.

The teabaggers are so far right just so their is a difference between them and Dems. They have to make the R's so stupid just so their is a reason to vote for D's. I hate to break this news to D's pols… but they will never do R better than R's can (think D's can satisfy corporate desire when R's will do it and swallow?)

Hell D's can't even get the politics right, never mind the policy. Can't we at least have someone stand up and make a fight for our ideology?

Obama on "the gay"… I am "evolving" on gay marriage & I am strong supporter of civil unions. Let me guess, he will support it the after his last day in office – so the next D nominee can say they will have a crack at it and do what Obama could/would not do.

deflation, not inflation, is the clear and present danger. And it’s not at all clear that the Fed has the tools to head off this danger

just as with the Fraudclosure tsunami – where the good Professor couldn’t bring himself to say “Fraud” until this just week, here he is dancing around the obvious again – “not at all clear” my ass – say it: ZIRP/QE could crash us all

Oh, and my vote won’t mean shit in the Senate race. The R is up by 8 points.

I knew the R was going to take this seat in SEP-2009… when Obama finally got off his ass to at least do some nominal political speech work on HIR. I knew it then since it was to little to late.

He wanted the support for the PO to go from ~ 58 – 68% down to 50% before he made his case. And even then he still had to lie since he had already dealt away stuff that was still “on the table”

If they do decide to screw everybody under 55 on SSI, look for riots. Many of those people are older Americans who have lost their jobs and are too old to get hired and too young to retire. People like me. Ever see a one woman riot? You may yet.

It’s a conundrum that democracy is based on the founder’s belief in education and responsible attitudes, that at the moment are not part of our national persona. Trying to find a way to adjust for that wrinkle is not something I can achieve, yet.

And it’s not at all clear that the Fed has the tools to head off this danger

Oh it’s clear. Clear that they have not the tools or the will to head it off. After all, they’re going to keep their homes. Their kids’ college funds are safe. Their health insurance will always be affordable.

Morning BT, Firepups:

I’m late to the party. Lotsa meat in Olbermann’s comment. Anyone know where I can find a transcript?

Here:
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/39875964/ns/msnbc_tv-countdown_with_keith_olbermann/#slice-2

Read it and weep.

Meanwhile:
South Korea: North Korea Opens Fire At Border

SEOUL, South Korea — North Korea fired two rounds toward South Korea at their tense border Friday and South Korean troops immediately fired back, highlighting the security problems faced by Seoul as it prepares to host Barack Obama and other world leaders at the Group of 20 economic summit next month.

And Obama wants a “free trade” agreement with SK after the election. I suppose we’ll have to send troops

it is also important to recognize that Rubin, Greenspan, and Summers strongly advocated for the repeal of Glass Steagall

…and, every Dem in the Senate save 4, voted for it, horsetrading for inclusion of Community Reinvestment Act, not Gramm’s obstruction

Excellent. Thanks.

I am much encouraged by the thought that those folks here who talk about “Barry” or don’t think that there is a dime’s worth of difference between the Republicans and Democrats live in areas that are not essential to this election, areas that are “safe districts” in which their absence in voting will not be noticed.

A lot of us here don’t have that luxury of ideological purity. We have for thirty years not voted to get something done but to avert absolute disaster. And we envy those of you in your isolated havens, untroubled by friends, relatives, neighbors and co-workers who have swallowed Rush Limbaugh hook, line, and sinker and march to the beat of Glenn Beck and by moderates who’s attention has been so diverted by this economy and its demands that they have no idea what is going on. Those areas in which you can argue the finer points of the difference between Greens and progressive Democrats and share your Marxian analysis or respect for Noam Chomsky or disagree about whether the revolution is coming (it is but it’s not the one you want).

It must be ideal to live in a world without compromise, without settling for the lesser of two evils. Even outside politics, that must be a wonderful world. Glad you enjoy it. Hope you have your passports. I understand that Spain is wonderful when the US goes to hell.

It does seem to me that our Presidents have a number of flaws, at least from our perspective. Neither have taken up the progressive mantle, as we wanted. I see here general agreement on that point with Clinton and Obama. Maybe that is something we should think about. Do we really think we will ever get a President to do everything or even most of what we want? This country seems to be pretty far right from where we are anyway. It always has been. I doubt that is going to change. So a left leaning person like Kucinich has almost no chance of being elected.

Well said, my friend.

Related note:
If the public school system is dismantled, then the only no-cost school available to a very large number of parents will be the hyper-religious bible schools. Down with Sharia Law, but up with Baptist Law?

The vote was for a comprehensive financial bill, not one small provision in it, and characterizing anyone, even Gramm as voting for repeal of Glass-Steagall is deceptive. It was a failure of foresight but not crass betrayal of investors, which occurred later when financial businesses found a few new tricks to play.

Take a look at the debates and pundits, this is clearly what is being pushed.

Vote for me seniors, and you are safe. Everyone else not paying attendion, or where some people think of it more theoretically (they are not getting a check now) – you will get screwed.

I agree that they may overstep, and they are fools if they think they can give trillions to bankers and rich on the backs of making people work longer.

The same is true in this area, and of course, those office holders who are strong enough in their beliefs to run as Democrats are the exception. When no rewards are involved, espousing the principles of Democrats is a mark of honor.

The answer is no.

There have not been, there are not now and there will not be in the forseeable future enough liberals to elect a President that would suit you.

Like it or not, on the political spectrum Obama is about as far to the left as a pol coulds be to be elected President.

That is why I think that much of the complaining, but not all, the Afghanistan policy and the size of the stimulus being examples of valid criticism, are off-base.

It must be ideal to live in a world without compromise, without settling for the lesser of two evils

and it must be ideal to live in a world where demanding Accountability for

giving aid and selling arms to countries using Child Soldiers, continuing torture at Bagram, the horror that is Gitmo, codifying Hyde, allowing XE to program drones to hit Pakistan schoolhouses, allowing Bernanke to run the presses hot, bearding for those who killed the Gulf, denying our LGBT sisters and brothers Equality, and strongly advocating the criminal, fraudulent, deceitful theft of over 2 million american family homes, in what is becoming abundantly clear as the largest Fraud ever perpetrated continue apace

can be reduced to “ideological purity” and too much Chomsky

i’m not voting for the republican fuckheads, but I’m not voting for democrats either until they get their heads out of their asses and start being liberal again. the lesser-of-two evils thinking has dragged the country rightward for four decades, and now we have the ultimate uncle tom president. i’m writing in real progressives on my ballots

Oh shit, I might as well say this. What upsets me about the left is when we don’t get what we want, almost exactly as specified, we disengage and stomp off. Won’t vote or vote for a third party. that’s wonderful, if you can afford it. Do you think, even for a minute, that the right wing does that? Just stomps off and disengages? that seems to be what we do. I’m just having a bad day thinking about next Tuesday. There is no way we should have allowed this to happen. But we did.

I agree. there are reasons for criticism, but I think we need to engage on that basis and work to change it, not simply complain.

I can understand your displeasure but you should work for fixing those problems. Do you think for even a minute the next republican president is going to do ANYTHING about ANY of those things? Obama might address some of them but less so if all he has to work with are Kochheads in congress.

This country seems to be pretty far right from where we are anyway. It always has been. I doubt that is going to change.

Sorry, but this is just bullshit. The reason folks on this blog are down on Barry (Obama, if you prefer) is that he failed to even try to deliver on promises that the MAJORITY of Americans supported. This bullshit that the nation is too far right and he’s as left as we can get is getting really tiring.

He failed to try to get what he promised and that MOST Americans support. What about this do you Obama-ass-kissers not understand.

No. SASQ.

PMJI I also live in 95-98% hard right voting country. I have come to believe the strategy of recruiting and supporting conservatives Democratic candidates is counterproductive. I feel we have nothing to lose and lots to gain by taking the opportunity to gain voice traditional Democratic through candidates.

I see this Blue dog corruption of our southern parties expanding and really overwhelming democracy.

It is shameful that in three Senate races the Obama political machine is not supporting, actively dissing, the Democratic candidate.

So I am for more purity, especially in the areas where the GOP dominates. The GOP didn’t gain the power of their message by softening it.

Its not abstract. A slow boil still kills the frog over time, say 30 years… or perhaps 50.

‘The GOP didn’t gain the power of their message by softening it.’

No, they lie about it instead. I agree, electability substituting for principle has been too much part of our electoral process. Still working on solutions. and must be off now, too.

I give…what’s SASQ?

Maybe you have read Howard Zinn’s A People’s History of the United States. A society in which all of those things can happen is the default condition for the United States.

I don’t see how sandbagging Democrats and allowing a Republican victory in Congress demands accountability of the President. In fact, it makes getting accountability for and change of all those things more difficult. And yes, if you are blinded to the fact that Obama is not the name on the ballot and not among the names folks will be marking on ballots, it in some cases is reduced to ideological purity and too much Chomsky because those folks have not thought through the practical steps of what it takes to get accountability in the US political system. Just writing a blog comment demanding it is necessary but not sufficient.

First it was an urgent appeal from Rep Raul Grijava’s wife for help…

Now, it’s Dennis Kucinich. “We need immediate help…”

Just how big IS this coming wave, anyway…?

Just writing a blog comment demanding it is necessary but not sufficient.

I would remind you that many of those “blog comments” were written by folks who donated time and money to this poseur in the WH.

“Simple Answer to a Simple Question”. *g* I apologize for being a clown, I’m glad things are looking better out your way.

You are projecting. This is patently not the case.

The reason folks on this blog are down on Barry (Obama, if you prefer) is that he failed to even try to deliver on promises that the MAJORITY of Americans supported.

He got the majority of the votes because the GOP immolated itself with George W. Bush. The current situation is that a lot of the GOP voters who sat out in 2008 or voted for Obama are fired up by the GOP propagandizing. That gets translated into polls, the Village media picks up a narrative about Obama moving too far to the left, and independents get confused. Only in progressive strongholds are people of the opinion that Obama failed to even try to deliver on the promises of his platform. The Democrats in the House and the Senate (who raise their own campaign funds and contribute the largest portion to the DNC, DSCC, and DCCC) failed to unify in support of this platform. That is something that neither Obama, Harry Reid, or Nancy Pelosi could undo. But to argue that they didn’t try is not true and merely repeating a propaganda point.

African-Americans nationwide are turning out to vote even for Blue Dogs because Obama did try, and they understand the racist campaign to shut Obama’s agenda completely down so that nothing would pass.

The heavy and open involvement of the Koch brothers indicates that they are worried that Obama will succeed in passing a climate change bill and an infrastructure bill that changes the incentives from an oil economy to a sustainable economy. And that even if it is compromised as much as the healthcare reform bill and the financial industry reform bill, it will affect Koch Industries’s bottom line.

I read anything by Zinn I can get my hands on! A People’s History is fabulous, I intend to buy a case and distribute them among acquaintances. I’ve given so many away that I was forced to buy a First Edition, First Printing to finally have a copy I would hold onto!

I would remind you that the “poseur in the White House” (my Republican Tea Party friends also use that phrase but for different reasons) is not on the ballot and that those Democrats who are (especially in districts with Republican incumbents) are decided more progressive than the current bunch in Congress.

There is a Black Leadership Forum on the AA Vote being aired Live right now on C-span 3.

A similar book that deals with the developing modern economic system is Chris D. Connor’s A People’s History of Science: Miners, Midwives, and “Low Mechanicks”.

First are the current batch of democrats in congress, representing their base? No

The current batch of democrats and republicans, only care about the super rich.

What progressives need to do is campaign like Obama, just lie your way into congress, Obama lied all the way to white house.

The only people who don’t know that the day of the honest politicians is over is progressive democrats.

We can only hope that progressive candidate learn to lie, their way into offices all across the USA.

I really hate to read the comments here anymore. Some of these sound like so many trolls. But I think you just don’t have your heads on straight. There is only one way to change anything and that is to get liberals and progressives elected and you are not going to get them elected as Republicans. So criticism may be in order but damning the whole Democratic Party and Obama is a bit short sited.

They are. Not just for me but for a lot of people I know. Mind you, this is CNY so we’ve been hurting for awhile. Our biggest factory just got a govt. contract so they’ve been hiring and adding overtime, no teachers were laid off etc. I just wondered if anyone else was seeing this.

The question is should a person vote for a Blue Dog because they have a D next to their name – when in reality they are conservative.

And in fact we know from the last election that they are assholes who would have put an R next to their name if it was going to be a wave for the R’s.

You have HUMAN BEINGS who are greedy and don’t give a shit what letter is next to their name as long as they get the cash and power….

SO WHAT IS THE DIFFERENCE?

But I think you just don’t have your heads on straight.

Right. We are on the verge of a MASSIVE fail and we don’t have our heads on straight. We need more of the same — to get our heads on straight. Stop digging.

That’s exactly what I intend to do. At first I wasn’t going to vote for my blue dog thinking that it would be better for him to lose now before he became entrenched in the office. But, fear of a repub house led by Boehner has caused me to re-think that.

I would remind you that the “poseur in the White House” … is not on the ballot

Whether you admit or not, the election is a referendum on Obama and his policies. That may be unfair because he inherited his biggest problems. But it is a referendum on him nonetheless. HE and HIS policies are responsible for turn out in every election.

Oh, and by the way, I never wrote that I wasn’t going to vote — or vote differently than I always have: D up and down the line. Conflate much?

There was a moral choice taken back when President Obama was elected .

First order of business a clean break with the Torture/ Murder/ Treason that was the M.O. of the last administration. Would have destroyed the republician party for years and years.

Could have chose to clean out the leftover bush inbeds in Justice Department.

Could have gone after the fraud of derivative Traders and the asset-less insurance.

Could have gone after the republican owned and operated voting machines.

But our president would rather go along to get along, looking forward to an undreamed of retirement awash in riches for his non-choices.

This is utter, and complete bullshit.

More of the “this country is center right and not at all progressive” bullshit.

Pick an issue TD, any issue. And let’s discuss the conservative side of the issue, and the progressive side of the issue. And then lets take a look at which side is more popular among the people.

Taxes? Conservatives, CUT TAXES FOR TEH RICH! Progressive? Raise taxes on the rich. Do I really need to link to polls?

The wars. Conservative, MORE MORE WAR! FOUR MORE YEARS FOUR MORE YEARS! Progressive, BRING THEM HOME. NOW! Again, do I have to link to polls?

Healthcare? Conservatives, LET THE FREE MARKET REIGN BABY! Get the gubmint outta my healthcare! Progressive? health care is right, not a privilage. Polls consistently show majority support for SINGLE PAYER, one of the most “liberal” stances on health care, and showed 2/3 support for Single payer. So why couldn’t the Dems pass at least single payer again?? Because this country is really NOT interested in them doing more?

BULSHIT BULLSHIT BULLSHIT.

What is up with this BS?

Do those of you peddling it really want us as progressives and us as Americans to settle for right wing solutions so long as they’re not batshit crazy right wing solutions? Is that your message?

Because if that was the message we’d been heeding over the last century, then women and blacks would likely still not have the vote, there surely would be no such thing as Social Security, Medicare, and Unemployment insurance.

But that’s the message if we must ALWAYS vote for the D’s because they’re less worse than the R’s. Well guess what, they’re ALWAYS going to be less worse than the R’s. Why? Because everytime the D’s move right, the R’s simply move further right. Do you really want to argue that point?

So no matter how far right they go, as long as they are “better” than the Republicans, we should vote for them, right? RIGHT? NO MATTER HOW FAR RIGHT THE GO?

Bullshit.

More of the “this country is center right and not at all progressive” bullshit.

That is not what I said at all. The candidates running against Republican incumbents are to the left of current Blue Dogs. And the Blue Dog incumbents are in most cases to the left of their challengers. Tell me how letting Republicans win moves the conversation leftward. I will argue the point that it is the D’s moving rightward that drives the R’s rightward; in fact, it is the opposite, the R’s winning after moving rightward has driven the D’s rightward in order to continue to win.

You don’t win policy arguments without winning the voters over. Progressives have done a piss-poor job of winning voters over for three reasons: (1) the conservative capture of and the consolidation of the corporate media, taking away local control of the media; (2) the propensity of progressives not to engage moderate voters in ways that acknowledge moderate voters’ intelligence (regardless of whether you believe they have any); contempt gets a response of contempt; (3) progressives have self-segregated into progressive strongholds. Until you effectively deal with these three things, progressives cannot become a large enough minority in enough places to shape public opinion enough to drive an election. The fact that the Tea Party is vocal in Massachusetts and New York and Illinois and California and that progressives are not numerous enough to be safely vocal in Mississippi, Alabama, and even south Georgia and north Florida is a major issue. Because most of the Blue Dogs come from the areas where progressives aren’t.

It still takes approximately 150,000 votes to win a House election. If progressives cannot or will not put up a candidate who can command 150,000 votes, they have to choose between the lesser of two evils. Don’t give me your message, tell the moderate independents and reasonable conservatives your point. There is where the swing is going to be, when they recognize and advocate progressive principles and policies as they did in the 1930s-1970s.

It’s not a matter of philosophy. Winning elections is a matter of math. If the philosophy is not accepted by the electorate, no amount of messaging can turn an election around.

It ain’t pretty. It ain’t convenient. It ain’t easy. But unfortunately that’s what folks other than progressives have allowed to happen to the country over the past 30 years. We are back where progressives were in the 1920s and we need to study all of the strategies that were carried on that allowed FDR the space to do what he did and provided the coattails that brought in the Congress that he could persuade to do it. It is going to take smart electoral politics, smart legislative politics, lots of public persuasion, and some amount of strategic confrontation to get this done. And it will require folks to actually put their lives on the line instead of talking about how we should put our lives on the line. Where are the progressives monitoring polling places in Mississippi, for example, to make sure that there is no voter suppression? There no doubt are some progressives doing that. Where is their outside support? Or turning out the votes for a Democratic governor and legislature in Texas, which will have a key role in redistricting. There no doubt lots of progressives working on that. Where is their outside support? Where are the reporters in the corporate media who are bucking the progressive nonsense? There no doubt are more of those than we know.

It takes more than elections to change a country’s direction. To wait until the weekend before an election to complain about your choices (and I have no idea whether you really face the “lesser of two evils” choice yourself) is waiting until you have no other options.

I will argue the point that it is the D’s moving rightward that drives the R’s rightward; in fact, it is the opposite, the R’s winning after moving rightward has driven the D’s rightward in order to continue to win.

I would say the D’s moving rightward drives the Ri rightward after your analysis. I agree with your assessment. My point is that AFTER the D’s then move right, in an attempt to win, the R’s move further right, in an attempt to distinguish themselves. And thank you for admitting it.

Now answer me this if you will. HOW FAR RIGHT can they go before they’re no longer worth supporting? Because no matter how many times that scenario plays out (the R’s win, the D’s move right, the R’s move further right, the R’s win, the D’s move right, the R’s move further right, etc.) the R’s WILL ALWAYS be to the right of the D’s. Always.

So, the answer then is that we ALWAYS support them? Since they’ll ALWAYS be to the left of the R’s?

That’s a philosophical point. The real point is that you’re still selling the narrative that the people are somehow right wing and the D’s must therefore move right in order to win. That’s the part that’s bullshit on a national scale, and it’s bullshit on a congressional level scale enough to not matter. What I mean by that is yes, there are maybe 100-150 CD’s that are so far right the only way to win them is to out R the R’s.

But that’s just NOT the case in all, or even a majority, or even a large majority. Obama ran as a progressive. Campaigned as a progressive. How many CD’s did he win? How many states did he win?

I reject your whole we have to accept this reality bullshit because it’s not reality. It seems to be the reality that you want, you seem to be able to want that reality in order to excuse the D’s, but it’s just not the reality.

Alan Grayson won in a district that’s been considered very right wing. Alan Grayson. A progressive’s progressive. He didn’t apologize for being liberal, nor back away from the R’s. And he won.

And he’ll likely lose Tuesday. Not because that district suddenly changed back into it’s right wing self because Grayson’s victory proves it never was that way or not progressive like that would win. He will lose Tuesday because the turnout will be as low as possibly half of what it was in 2008.

If you insist your view is “reality” then you’re insisting we must be happy with all the right wing policies we have. Well, even if you’re “reality” is correct, then my answer is I refuse to support either party since neither represents me. And that is valid, and I would argue, better, choice than choosing the “lesser of two evils.”

No democracy that I’m aware of has ever mandated that people vote for pols with whom they disagree with. If that were the case, then it wouldn’t be a democracy.

It is an unfair referendum on Obama as he knew it would be… but with one important point – only the things he and the Dems have done can save them.

So yes, they were in a tough position and would lose some seats. But what have they done, or even said to prevent it being 50 seats and have it be only 20 seats.

That is where the problem is. They did not do enough or say enough – and now will lost many more seats than they have to – because sadly they did not do a good enough job.

I would like to see someone argue that they could not have put us in a better place, and at least swung the bat on politics and more policy.

Now as millions lose their jobs, beacuse pols did not do their jobs, we should be worried about their jobs?

progressives cannot become a large enough minority in enough places to shape public opinion enough

See, you continue this meme. Progressives are such a small minority that they have to make gains JUST TO BE ENOUGH OF A MINORITY in enough places to shape public opinion.

THAT’S WHAT I’M SAYING IS BULLSHIT.

True, people don’t self-identify as progressive, or liberal, or even conservative. Most folks don’t like to self-identify. But on the issues, the country is MOSTLY PROGRESSIVE. MOSTLY LIBERAL.

That’s my point. All the other is BULLSHIT.

But, fear of a repub house led by Boehner has caused me to re-think that.

From what I understand, the odds of the Dems hanging onto the House are SO remote, that your vote for your Blue Dog — or his/her retaining his/her seat — will make little difference.

Vote for someone good — someone whose opinions you respect, just to demonstrate “you could have had my vote if you’d been more like [socialist, Peace & Freedom, Working Families or whatever] party.”

Isn’t this all textbook? The Dems are always big wussies and never take principled stands and stick with them to the end. They caved in to Bush and they should have rebelled against Obama during the first lost year of his presidency when all he did was sit and wait for health care to pass. Our side could use someone with a spine, someone who is willing to give it back just like the Repubs give it out…someone who would be sending the feds into these tea party bash the heads sessions. No, there is no one. Obama’s incompetence and the Dems blind mice strategy – which they have always had – led us off the cliff. Krugman is right on today.

Blue Texan,

TIME FOR THE DEMOCRATS TO GET CRUSHED AS THEY RIGHTFULLY DESERVE:

The leader of the Abused Husbands and wet-noodle-men of the Democratic Party essentially got on his knees that night begging people to vote for the Democratic Party on November 2. Sad and pathetic when you think about it. If the Democrats had stood for the middle class and working families of this country as they claim they do but really don’t, then the GOP would have never stood a chance in this election…………..

Dead Wrong are you:

TIME FOR THE DEMOCRATS TO GET CRUSHED AS THEY RIGHTFULLY DESERVE:

The leader of the Abused Husbands and wet-noodle-men of the Democratic Party essentially got on his knees that night begging people to vote for the Democratic Party on November 2. Sad and pathetic when you think about it. If the Democrats had stood for the middle class and working families of this country as they claim they do but really don’t, then the GOP would have never stood a chance in this election…………..

Agreed. In the early 90′s we werent in a liquidity trap as we are now. And the political understanding, or will, of the elites will not allow any policy options to combat the liquidity trap. It’s all monetarism all the time.

You miss the point. The Blue Dogs don’t try to out-Republican the Republicans. They position themselves to they can peel off the more moderate of Republicans and a majority of the independents in a particular election based on the sentiment that they experience through conversations, town hall meetings, phone calls, letters, and emails from their district. They are always to the left of the Republicans they are running against but not so far as to lose, or the result is they lose.

All it took to derail legislation in the House was 39 Democratic districts and 178 Republican districts. Not 100-150, but 39. That also is the number of seats that Democrats better not lose in the election. Having a block of 39 could stop legislation because the GOP had their entire caucus unified to a person, except for Joseph Cao on the healthcare bill.

Progressives are small minority because progressive activists haven’t encouraged progressive candidates to run and delivered the votes for progressive candidates to win primaries and then win general elections. Don’t want your representative to be a Blue Dog? Then find a progressive candidate, primary the sucker and make sure you win both the primary and the general election. Hint: It takes 150,000 votes in a midterm and probably 170,000 votes in 2012. Until that starts happening, there is no incentive for Democrats in swing or Republican districts to do other than what they are doing.

Obama ran as a progressive. Campaigned as a progressive. How many CD’s did he win? How many states did he win?

Obama won 29 states. Click “County bubbles” on this map to get a rough idea of how many Congressional Districts.

Grayson won because progressive activists motivated the vote and progressive donations enabled him to be competitive. That is why his campaign this year has such incredible Republican cash directed against it. They are trying to overwhelm the active progressive support in his district for Grayson. In short, grassroots progressives in 2008 persuaded folks in his district to vote for him. His is a test case for whether people power can still beat money power. I would not place money on Grayson losing Tuesday. As long as those progressives who supported him in 2008 can do the same job this year against Taliban Dan.

Democracy demands that one work their tail off for candidates that they agree with. If that fails to get a candidate in the general election, then you work your tail off for the lesser of two evils and hope that you can win with your preferred candidate or another preferred candidate in the next election. Democracy degenerates when it becomes a spectator sport. If you’re persuasive enough, you get what you work for. If you can’t do that, you will forever be in the minority and have little control on policy. I’m not asking that you be happy with the policy that makes it through Congress; it will always be dreadfully compromised, sometimes minimally, sometimes fundamentally. I am never happy with what comes out of Congress. At best, it’s middling. At worst, it’s destructive.

How far right can they go before they are no longer worth supporting? That is a question of ideology and belief. I don’t care what they believe. I care what policies they will fight for. And here is a litmus test question. Was a Democrat who voted for the healthcare reform act to the right of or to the left of a Democrat who voted against it? Ideology really didn’t matter on that one, did it? What mattered was Mike Ross was representing the pharmaceutical industry instead of his district. That would cause me not to vote for him if the Republican opposition was a business-oriented Republican and not a Tea Party crazy like Virginia Foxx. But if the choice were between Ben Nelson and Barry Goldwater, I would vote for Barry Goldwater. The problem is that there’s a litmus test on everything a representative votes on. Which ones do you chose as most important? And why?

I also care what policies they fight for, and don’t much care for anything else. I’m not the one that’s saying we need to support Democrats just because they’re Democrats, remember??? Who’s really worried about labels or beliefs here?

So, if you believe the Democratic candidate will fight for a policy of genocide against blacks and the Republican candidate will fight for the policy of genocide against blacks and latinos, should we support the Democrat?

Right wing/left wing terms have been used to define where some stand on policy, so that’s why I used the terminology. If you’d rather discuss individual issues instead, I can do that. Do you like the first example of genocide? A bit far out there, right? OK, here’s one for you. The Democrat says he’s going to fight for a comprehensive health care bill that leaves the predatory health insurance industry in place, still raking in their obscene profits off of every health care dollar, and the Republican says he’s going to fight for a comprehensive health care bill that does the same thing but also shifts the entire burden of paying for it onto the individual.

Support the Democrat because he’s not as far right on the issue even if you feel the only way to fix healthcare is to get the for profit motive COMPLETELY OUT OF IT.

And here’s a fun thought experiment. Obama (and the Democrats) rand in 2008 on a platform of fixing health care. Had they ran on a platform of fixing it IN THE EXACT MANNER THAT THEY ‘FIXED’ IT, do you really think Obama would’ve won and the D’s would’ve won huge majorities? If so, why didn’t they do just that since apparently this was the plan since early 2008.

My whole point is to not support anyone that goes against the policies you believe in. And right now, the Democratic Party, AS A PARTY, represent policies that are so not-progressive as for me being unable to comprehend supporting them other than out of the “The they’re not as bad as the Republicans are. Presidential assassinations, (approved by the Congressional Democrats when the failed to use their Constitutional powers to stop it), torture, wiretapping, bank “reform” written by banks, health care reform written by insurance companies, etc. etc. etc. I don’t see how any progressive supports those policies, and the Democratic Party (not just Obama) THE WHOLE PARTY owns all of those.

So, again, if your answer is I will always vote for the person who will fight for the best policies, and the Demcrat will always fight for better policies than the Republican, are we supposed to always support the Democrat then no matter the policies? What about the genecide example? Is that how far is has to go before you take your partisan blinders off and realize this Democratic Party is not worth defending, or voting for?

And again, I’m not going to play this “I have to do this or that” game with you just because I advocate not voting for the Democratic Party. I most certainly do not have to do anything of the sort. It is my firm belief in this great country of ours that when a power vacuum opens up, someone is there to walk in. That someone does not have to be me. I can advocate for what I believe because I believe the result of that will be either a reformed Democratic Party that moves back to it’s left (or it’s New Deal policies if you’d still prefer that), OR, it will result in a vacuum of power on the left so large that someone other than I will have the money and plan on how take advantage of it.

And this is funny indeed.

Hint: It takes 150,000 votes in a midterm and probably 170,000 votes in 2012. Until that starts happening, there is no incentive for Democrats in swing or Republican districts to do other than what they are doing.

And then within two sentences you start talking about the example THAT HAS ALREADY HAPPENED. So the incentive is, or rather, should be, already there. It’s because folks all throughout the party apparatus beleive like you do, that the country won’t vote for candidates espousing progressive ideas. You, and they, are wrong. Grayson proves it. Obama proved it. 60 seats in the Senate proved it. And for further proof, watch how badly they lose Tuesday because they DIDN’T DELIVER.

BWAAAHAHAHAAHAHAH!

mf’n awesome

difference is i don’t think innovation will be timely enough to throw us into another bubble (general economic boom), that encourages boomers, gen x or otherwise to exhaust their retirements. it took 60 years to forget the lessons of the depression. (i also don’t think the current “recovery” will stick in time to make these periods comparable.) as such, it’s too soon to forget. and banks (as well as pensioners) aren’t in any position to pick up where they left off over-leveraged on full tilt boogie.

So, if you believe the Democratic candidate will fight for a policy of genocide against blacks and the Republican candidate will fight for the policy of genocide against blacks and latinos, should we support the Democrat?

Do you know of any such Democratic candidates? I can identify Republican candidates I have my suspicions about (like Iott).

It is only this election next Tuesday that it is preferable to vote for Democrats instead of Republicans, not a general principle.

And for the long term, your only choices are what they always are: (1) make sure there is a progressive you can vote for in the Democratic party who will win; (2) make sure there is a progressive you can vote for in the Republican party who will win; (3) make sure there is a progressive you can vote for who can win; (4) sit back and face the lesser of two evils; (5) not vote and gripe about the results. That is all you can do for the Presidential race, one house race and two Senate races over six years. Unless a strategic change of residency allows you to vote in a third Senate race.

At that point your problem is with voters in the other 49 states and the other 434 Congressional districts. And those other folks, especially the ones in swing districts can be fickle and inconstant as hell. So you better have a pretty broad network of folks working together. At this point, OFA, DFA, and MoveOn.org have the broadest networks that are left or center-left. Or you can build your own.

Grayson proves it if you turn out the vote. Obama proves it if you turn out the vote. Once they are sworn in, it’s making sure that those elected officials understand you can turn out the vote again. Union members have returned understanding that after dallying around with social conservatism. African-Americans have understood that for 90 years. Latinos understand that. Why is is so difficult for progressives to understand that?

Thanks TarheelDem for being kind and responding. I thought after that last comment that I deserved to either be ignored or ridiculed, or both.

Whatever happens Tuesday, I’m pretty sure you’re still going to be on the right side of the issues, and that’s the bottom line that counts.

Good luck, Happy Holloween, and have a great weekend.

You have a great weekend as well. And the word for the election night drinking game is “too far left”. That should put you under the table before the night is out. Cheers.