Skip to main content

View Diary: An oft-ignored lesson of 2012: The case for appeasing the base (145 comments)

Comment Preferences

  •  Appeasing the base (51+ / 0-)

    Would also include governing like a Liberal, and getting his teammates (I'm talking to you Harry Reid) to do the same. Winning an election is one thing, enacting the desires of the people who elected you is another, and Obama's second round has started off in a mixed fashion at best.

    "Political ends as sad remains will die." - YES 'And You and I' ; -8.88, -9.54

    by US Blues on Sun Jan 27, 2013 at 10:05:59 AM PST

    •  I thought Obama did govern as a liberal (21+ / 0-)

      After all, the legislation he passed was so alarming to the conservatives that they put on an all-out push to destroy him completely. And they failed.

      My question to all the naysayers re Obama is this: WHY did the populace become less identified with conservatives?

      You think Obama and his policies had nothing to do with it?

      •  because of demographic changes (43+ / 0-)

        that had been long in the making, and had nothing to do with him.

        The Southern Strategy of Nixon/Reagan/Bush II is failing because WASP males are becoming a smaller part of the electorate. The fastest-growing immigrant populations, Hispanics and Asian-Americans, tend to vote heavily Democratic.

        Obama did not cause those changes, he simply took advantage of them.

        In fact, they were so much of an advantage that he felt free to coddle the banks, ignore labor, step up drone warfare, and drag his feet on climate change, knowing that identity politics and the unpopularity of the Republicans would be enough to get him over the finish line.

        If he had not had that advantage, he would have had to fight harder and do more for his base, instead of simply floating through like he has.

        "In America, the law is king." --Thomas Paine

        by limpidglass on Sun Jan 27, 2013 at 10:19:17 AM PST

        [ Parent ]

        •  ^^^This^^^ (13+ / 0-)

          There already is class warfare in America. Unfortunately, the rich are winning.

          by Puddytat on Sun Jan 27, 2013 at 10:48:29 AM PST

          [ Parent ]

          •  Also voters are seeing results of liberal policies (4+ / 0-)

            It's only a taste but we avoided a depression and for all the hand-wringing Obamacare is demonstrating that it's helping people even in it's half formed phase. The stimulus did not slow down or stop the recovery as some claimed it would. And another after 2014 could seal the deal. Allowing ever greater fairness may be permanently altering the landscape. And at long last Obama is finally stating to explain to non -liberal voters the values and strategy behind liberalism.

            Perhaps someday he'll use the fully formed examples of strong Keynesian policies used through the 30's to the mid 60's or so before we got off track and remind everyone of the means we used to become the greatest nation in the world. Let the Neocon / Teabagger fascists explain away those 30-odd years of progress.

            •  My biggest beef with ObamaCare (11+ / 0-)

              is that Obama and the Dems didn't step up each and every time some new benefit came in to make a proud and public announcement like:

              Hey, folks!  Starting now anyone on Medicare or with health insurance will get a free annual physical without deductables or co-payments.  This includes routine testing that will uncover any diseases very early when they are the easiest and least expensive to treat.

              Women can also get a free annual gynecological examination with PAP testing, mammography, or other routine tests in addition to their annual physical.

              Enjoy your new health benefits from ObamaCare which will go far in reducing future costs of health care in this country.

              They didn't do that so most people think their health insurance company, out of the goodness of their hearts, gave them some new benefits.

              There already is class warfare in America. Unfortunately, the rich are winning.

              by Puddytat on Sun Jan 27, 2013 at 01:25:16 PM PST

              [ Parent ]

              •  You've just IDed the 2010 election debacle. (5+ / 0-)

                Democrats everywhere hunkered down, as if ACA was something we must avoid talking about. The Republicans came out swinging. Our Congresspeople didn't.

                Turnout was an issue. The young in particular do not tend to turn out in an off year election. Their votes might not have made that much difference (they didn't in most states in 2008) but their energy was missing in the 2010 campaigns. And the Obama vote-gathering team wasn't in place or cloned.

                That cannot be allowed to happen in 2014.

                2014 IS COMING. Build up the Senate. Win back the House : 17 seats. Plus!

                by TRPChicago on Sun Jan 27, 2013 at 05:28:23 PM PST

                [ Parent ]

              •  Excellent point. Where is the professor-in-chief? (3+ / 0-)
                Recommended by:
                Puddytat, Calamity Jean, MrJersey

                He needs to correct all the lies and misrepresentations about libralism. Actually he might be getting up behind that podium tho it's sill a bit early to tell. Hopefully he's learning to start the bidding high when proposing policy so that he has entry of room to come down and win what can be reasonably expected. Again too early to say.

                But for now I'm cautiously hopeful that he's learning and listening to our side this time. Don't forget, he's a moderate with a bit of a conservative streak. I doubt that he'll ever be another FDR. But he's generally standing behind liberal principles and may still move further left. We'll see.

            •  Explaning values is not enough. You've got to (2+ / 0-)
              Recommended by:
              MrJersey, Noodles

              follow-up with appropriate progressive legislation.

              Passing legislation that contains a Grand Bargain is not the way to go, if you're hoping for gains during the mid-terms.

              That's the first hurdle that progressives must negotiate.

              For now, we need to be sure to burn up the phone lines to the White House, our Senators, and our Congresspersons to make sure we avert a Bowles-Simpson type of austerity package or framework from passing.


              “If a dog won’t come to you after having looked you in the face, you should go home and examine your conscience.” -- Woodrow Wilson

              by musiccitymollie on Sun Jan 27, 2013 at 08:00:57 PM PST

              [ Parent ]

              •  Sure. But debunking lies gives us an easier path (0+ / 0-)

                towards getting policies in place by softening the opposition. Even to get conservatives to consider that what we are trying to do is credible may keep them from encouraging their side with phone calls and emails and petitions. It helps in polling too which can make politicians weak in the knees if they have poor support there. I want more conservative citizens in the undecided catagory at the very least if we can't bring them to our side on issues.

      •  What? (9+ / 0-)

        You are blaming the all-out push the destroy Obama, which started before he was even inaugurated, on his policies? Really? Sorry, no.

      •  Conservatives set out to destroy him (33+ / 0-)

        five minutes after he was inaugurated in 2009. Or maybe five minutes after the networks declared him the winner in Nov. 2008. They did not wait until any of his legislation had passed; they would have labelled as radical, extreme, unAmerican, etc. etc. anything the man did even if it was just proposing naming post offices after white male combat veterans.

        That's why their responses to his Second Inaugural Address were so inane: They wrote the response and the talking points before he opened his mouth.  

      •  as far as the "all-out push to destroy" Obama, (19+ / 0-)

        it's a red herring.

        Sure, the GOP base is sincere in its desire to get rid of Obama. Not because of his policies, but because they are racist. If he had done everything the teabaggers wanted him to do, they'd still hate him.

        But the GOP base is not really in charge of the Republican party at the moment. The 1% are, and they want Obama. If they didn't, he would never have made it to the Oval Office. They would have removed him, as SCOTUS did in 2000 when the candidate of the 1% failed to win the election. That's just the way it works.

        John Roberts' vote for the ACA was a vote for Obama by the 1%. It was not, as some people thought, an attempt to "secure the court's legacy" or whatever other silly explanations people suggest.

        They want him to keep sheltering and empowering the big banks, they want the individual mandate which will force people to buy a product from private corporations, and they want the austerity program he's pursuing. That's why the 1% support him. They don't want to destroy him--although it is useful for them to pretend that they do. If they really wanted to do him, he'd already be done.

        But the threat of "ZOMG! Obama's in trouble!" is useful to compel Democrats to fall in line behind Obama and to silence opposition to his policies. That is all.

        "In America, the law is king." --Thomas Paine

        by limpidglass on Sun Jan 27, 2013 at 10:42:18 AM PST

        [ Parent ]

        •  They're counting on him to (33+ / 0-)

          start the destruction of Social Security and Medicare for the 1%, too.  They realize that only a Democrat could do that and his proposal for Chained CPI, even though Social Security doesn't add a penny to the deficit, should make all of us very concerned.

          Unless Obama and the Dems start governing like real Democrats rather than caving to the RW, I fear that 2014 will be a repeat of 2010.  The voters are waiting.

          There already is class warfare in America. Unfortunately, the rich are winning.

          by Puddytat on Sun Jan 27, 2013 at 10:52:39 AM PST

          [ Parent ]

        •  The 1% are divided (9+ / 0-)

          They are not monolithic, except they are all very rich. Some care at least as much about liberal positions on social issues as about narrow class advantage.  Some realize that anti-science, anti-education positions are bad for their business in the long run.  Some probably think Obama and the Dems are easier to deal with because they are more rational.  Some are far-right nut jobs.  Some are protecting declining extractive industries.  They have differing motivations.  Many of them were ok with Romney but wouldn't be with someone like DeMint and obviously weren't with McCain.

          The "all-out push to destroy Obama" came from the GOP political class, some of whom like McConnell are overt racists and some of whom are just interested in power.  

          The scientific uncertainty doesn't mean that climate change isn't actually happening.

          by Mimikatz on Sun Jan 27, 2013 at 11:08:05 AM PST

          [ Parent ]

        •  Limp, are you seriously suggesting that Roberts' (2+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          ChurchofBruce, Joe Bacon

          ... vote and his opinion retaining ACA on tax, not commerce grounds, was directed "by the 1%"?

          What that suggests is collective action by your "they" to keep President Obama in office and being a leader. If that's a correct reading of your views - Why would they do that?

          If "they" are that powerful, that united and able to be that manipulative, why not just see to the nomination and election of a compliant Republican president? Who, again, constitutes the 1% They?

          And Tat, if you're right that "only a Democrat" could "destroy" SS and M&M because the GOP can't ... again, Why? Do you seriously believe that if Mitt Romney had been elected, he wouldn't or couldn't cut those programs back at least as much as you think Obama will? Are you sure adjusting the chained CPI will actually "destroy" SS? (I agree SS is not contributing to the deficit and its funding need not be changed in this term, but ... "destroy"?)

          As for those voters in 2014 you predict "are waiting," do you mean us liberals?

          Seriously, these views sound apocalyptic to me. I'm looking to understand why the 1% Right counts on Obama and how, why and which voters you think will react ... and in what way.

          2014 IS COMING. Build up the Senate. Win back the House : 17 seats. Plus!

          by TRPChicago on Sun Jan 27, 2013 at 11:44:24 AM PST

          [ Parent ]

          •  I realize that you've addressed this to someone (8+ / 0-)

            else, but I feel compelled to answer as to why would they do this?

            From all that I read and hear, the 1% have always wanted "the individual" to have the responsibility, NOT BUSINESS, for providing healthcare.

            Remember, the ACA put the main legal responsibility for having healthcare on the individual.  

            This is a MAJOR WIN for the 1% and the business community.  Again, the ACA came staight out of the Heritage Foundation (see my previous comment).  Not to mention the insurance industry, and other health care related industries.

            And the reason that only a Dem could eviscerate Social Security is being demonstrated right here.

            When George Bush tried to implement means testing (progressive price indexing), the progressive community went ballistic!

            But, tragically, many in the progressive community are now totally compliant in regard to cuts to Social Security and Medicare.

            I find it hard to believe, however, that progressives would not have found their voices to oppose Romney, had he been the one to propose the implementation of the Chained CPI.  (And rightfully so.)

            The implementation of the Chained CPI is the "lesser of the three evils" of the three likely cuts to Social Security which were recommended by the President's own Fiscal Commission (Bowles-Simpson).

            Once you "touch the third rail," coming back to it again, will be a piece of cake.  It's called "the slippery slope."

            Granted, for some folks (especially the top quintile) the loss of 9-10% of their monthly benefit check over years, wouldn't be critical.  Remember, though, this loss compounds.  Alone, it would be very damaging for low to moderate income folks.
            But, it's a drop in the bucket compared to the other two proposed cuts [proposed by the Fiscal Commission.]

            Raising the FRA two years will result in a almost 14% loss of benefit (6-1/2-7% for each year that the FRA is raised).

            And as Rep Schakowsky pointed out in her Reuters Op-Ed, all the cuts to Social Security will come to approximately 35% of their check, for many beneficiaries.

            Try telling all of this to a senior who has no other source of income.
            Lastly, according to the NASI (National Academy of Social Insurance), the BOTTOM FOUR quintiles depend "heavily" on Social Security.  That means that it is either their primary or only source of regular or steady retirement income.
            I have a video clip of Ms. Janice Gregory, then President of the NASI, saying this in 2010.  If I get a chance, I'll post the video clip here.


            “If a dog won’t come to you after having looked you in the face, you should go home and examine your conscience.” -- Woodrow Wilson

            by musiccitymollie on Sun Jan 27, 2013 at 01:05:33 PM PST

            [ Parent ]

          •  Nixon to China. Clinton passing nafta. Obama (3+ / 0-)

            passes Doles 20 yr old healthcare plan. That's how it seems to work.

          •  of course it was (5+ / 0-)

            the brilliance of Roberts' opinion was that it used the taxing power, which conservatives hate, rather than the commerce clause, to implement the mandate.

            They want commerce to be as unregulated as possible; therefore the ruling appealed to the taxing power to achieve the same goal.

            If the ACA had been passed under a Republican president, it would have been one of the "liberal" judges who had a sudden epiphany and cast their vote for it. They know what kind of ruling they want, and they simply invent some convoluted legal justification to get it. The rationale is (almost) nothing; the result, everything.

            Why did the 1% support Obama? As another poster explained, Bush's attempt to privatize SS failed miserably. It was an all-out frontal assault by a conservative Republican, and so it drew massive resistance. Even though he had just won reelection and had what he called "political capital," he was soundly thrashed. Perhaps not coincidentally, the Republicans lost the next Congressional election.

            Obama, however, stands a much better chance of beginning the assault on the New Deal programs. He's a Democrat--and African-American, too--ergo people don't think he would be capable of doing it.

            The first black president, a Democrat, to be the one who cuts SS? Absurd, impossible! everyone exclaims. Which is precisely the reason he's perfectly suited to do it. And he's spent his entire first term setting up how to do it, and during his second term he will do it.

            It also helps that Obama's style is to engage in a complicated, convoluted process of "negotiations" to cut SS, rather than a straightforward, head-on bull-rush like Bush tried. The "debt ceiling" crisis, the "fiscal cliff", all an elaborate charade intended to put the Democrats in a position where they are forced to cut the New Deal programs.

            Obama zigs and zags and twists and turns until everyone is too confused and disoriented to follow what's going on, let alone muster any resistance. He disarms, where Bush arouses opposition.

            That's one of the big reasons the 1% have allowed him to be president. Where a conservative Republican failed, maybe a centrist Democrat can get the job done. And they had a good idea of this since before he was running for president.

            It's Obama who is Reagan's true successor, not Bush. And we will know beyond any doubt once the Grand Bargain is finally consummated.

            They will lionize him just as they did Reagan. George Will will stop talking about Reagan the Great Communicator and start talking about Obama the Great Compromiser. The entire media will sing paeans to Obama's wisdom, courage and bipartisan statesmanship in slashing the safety net.

            It's just a matter of time now. Perhaps less than a year.

            "In America, the law is king." --Thomas Paine

            by limpidglass on Sun Jan 27, 2013 at 02:11:37 PM PST

            [ Parent ]

            •  Well, I see how strongly you feel Obama is a tool, (0+ / 0-)

              ... and this all-powerful 1% is responsible.

              As for ACA, Yes, I think Limp is right. Conservatives would have demolished ACA (they did, after all, excoriate Roberts for upholding it ... for a while). But if it is to be sustained, justifying that on the taxing powers is far preferable to them than the obviously correct rationale - the Commerce Clause. Ruth BG's opinion does a beautiful job of showing Roberts' "crabbed" reasoning and skewers the conservatives' Commerce Clause rationale.

              I don't agree the 1% loves the mandate, though. Heritage disavowed its proposals and Romney, of course, retreated completely. You might try to argue they're being disingenuous rather than hypocritical, or that the 1% believes things differently than the next, say, 4%, but I doubt it. I've talked to Republicans in the 4%; they hate Obamacare to the core. As for insurers, they do get a clientele, but they'd rather juggle the conditions of policies, have pricing to themselves and enjoy profiteering freedom. (Unlike Medicare, which they now pretty much love for taking the highest cost cohort out of the basic universe.)

              I think you're selling Progressives short when you say, "But, tragically, many in the progressive community are now totally compliant in regard to cuts to Social Security and Medicare." No one is "compliant" in any Progressive blog I read. And very few are willing even to think about Chained CPI. (The only way Progressives address the obvious M&M funding problems is to raise the roof on revenues to support Medicare. I agree that revenue is far preferable to cost cutting.)

              My biggest disagreement, however, is with the notions that "the 1% have allowed [Obama] to be president" and that they are capable of that much fine tuning and manipulation at that level. Regulatory intrusions and lobbying legislative matters, Yes. But I don't think it was or is in the power of the 1% to "allow" someone to be President.

              Conspiracists obviously disagree. And let's face it, the bigger the boogeymen, the more interesting the myths. But we don't need boogeymen to point to; the GOP base and its leaners are scary enough.

              2014 IS COMING. Build up the Senate. Win back the House : 17 seats. Plus!

              by TRPChicago on Sun Jan 27, 2013 at 02:45:08 PM PST

              [ Parent ]

              •  Well, thanks for your reply. Disagree on a couple (3+ / 0-)
                Recommended by:
                US Blues, TRPChicago, limpidglass


                Briefly, I'm from an insurance and securities brokerage "family."  My family members are quite happy with the status quo of the ACA.  And the soon to be mandated private retirement accounts that Senator Harkin's trying to get passed.  (Commented on them in a couple of blogs yesterday.  Won't repeat.)

                The rank and file Republicans HATE the ACA.  I know that.

                But, the 1% are one of the biggest beneficiaires of the ACA.  The much heralded "pre-existing condition" clause pertains to private individual health insurance policies, which makes up approximately 8% of the industry, and are obviously carried by mostly affluent and/or wealthy individuals.

                [Group health insurance policyholders are usually affected only by a 30-, 60- or 90-day 'exclusionary period' for pre-existing conditions.]

                Heritage did later disavowed Romneycare (as did Romney, at times--he took both positions, as I recall, LOL!), but that's mostly for partisan reasons, IMO.

                True, the 1% doesn't care about mandates in the sense that they "care if everyone has access to medical coverage."  But they DO care that their taxes will not be subsidizing a large number of Americans.  

                So, the way that the ACA is set up, putting the "responsibility" on the individual as opposed to the government for insuring most folks, is right down their alley, so to speak.

                It was not my intention to "sell anybody short."  I did qualify the statement, using the work "many."  If I recall correctly, you were questioning what was so bad about the implementation of the Chained CPI.

                That is discouraging to me.  But clearly you have every right to be in support of it, if you are.

                Regarding "My biggest disagreement, however, is with the notions that "the 1% have allowed [Obama] to be president" and that they are capable of that much fine tuning and manipulation at that level."

                I have no comment, since I never addressed the issue.

                Admittedly, my views are possibly influenced by several generations of brokers in my family, in regard to the ACA being a windfall to the insurance industry.  [That will also be true of the mandatory private accounts that Senator Harkin is working on getting passed.  The life insurance and annuity industries are both "foaming at the mouth" over the prospect of Harkin's legislation passing.]

                Look, "to each, their own."  Guess we'll just have to agree to disagree on a couple of issues.  :-)  

                Enjoyed the discussion.


                [Hope this is not too much of a mess.  Short of time.]



                “If a dog won’t come to you after having looked you in the face, you should go home and examine your conscience.” -- Woodrow Wilson

                by musiccitymollie on Sun Jan 27, 2013 at 04:11:27 PM PST

                [ Parent ]

                •  Progressive health care (2+ / 0-)
                  Recommended by:
                  musiccitymollie, Odysseus

                  Would look like the national plans the rest of the civilized world enjoys. The very fact that private companies are still in the insurance game is the first clue that the ACA is not a progressive policy.

                  "Political ends as sad remains will die." - YES 'And You and I' ; -8.88, -9.54

                  by US Blues on Sun Jan 27, 2013 at 04:15:54 PM PST

                  [ Parent ]

                  •  Agreed. We couldn't get single payer. You gotta... (1+ / 0-)
                    Recommended by:

                    ... live with that as a practical matter. The votes to do that were not in the House, thanks to the Blue Dog Democrats.

                    The best, most defensible program would have been Medicare without an age limit. It was not to be.

                    Obamacare will, over time, be a fine idea ... But it's a long time evolving already and it's only just begun!

                    2014 IS COMING. Build up the Senate. Win back the House : 17 seats. Plus!

                    by TRPChicago on Sun Jan 27, 2013 at 04:33:11 PM PST

                    [ Parent ]

                    •  TRPC, I'd rather have seen Medicare-For-All, (0+ / 0-)

                      in lieu of the ACA, but I truly hope that you're right that the ACA will evolve into a "fine" health care system.  :-)


                      “If a dog won’t come to you after having looked you in the face, you should go home and examine your conscience.” -- Woodrow Wilson

                      by musiccitymollie on Sun Jan 27, 2013 at 06:14:35 PM PST

                      [ Parent ]

                      •  I have hope. (1+ / 0-)
                        Recommended by:

                        Mostly because ObamaCare suggests more coherence will come to a system with so many moving parts, so many individual players each maximizing its own slice of the pie, that it has not been possible to grab ahold of the pressure points for change.

                        In a population of some 306 million or so people, we have 50 million uninsured, meaning more than 15% of us will to a certainty enter the health care system at some point. Ways to provide care targeted to their needs also offers hope for us all. Amazing - in my experience - how quickly lessons can be learned by example.

                        Specifically, I like the changes already in place, the Patient's Bill of rights and particularly coverage for pre-existing conditions and ending lifetime dollar limits on hospital care.

                        Going forward: (1) Emphasis on preventive care and "public health" programs for a broader range of the public. That alone is a significant societal value. Saying the poor and the uninsured have access to health care because they can get into to an ER is ignorant, callous and mean-spirited. (And refusing to fund parts of Medicare is vicious public policy.)

                        (2) Encouraging primary care physicians and health professionals like nurses and physicians assistants for the same reasons. Yes, now some physicians have been turning to "concierge practices" and opting out of treating Medicare patients. I put this largely to pique, to being wedded to a very lucrative system, to resistance to the kind of change that other businesses have been incented to undergo. This is mostly a generational problem; time will wound these heels.

                        (3) Funding community health centers. More clinics are desperately needed throughout urban and rural areas. They allow many forms of care at far lower cost than big central hospitals with large atriums and overcrowded ERs.

                        (4) Attention to reducing huge and growing administrative costs and "overheads." Simplification of systems will help everyone from patient to providers.

                        Bottom line: Making health care more available and more affordable. None of this was going to happen by itself under the current system.

                        Yes, I have hope.

                        2014 IS COMING. Build up the Senate. Win back the House : 17 seats. Plus!

                        by TRPChicago on Sun Jan 27, 2013 at 07:36:23 PM PST

                        [ Parent ]

                  •  Ditto. N/T (0+ / 0-)


                    “If a dog won’t come to you after having looked you in the face, you should go home and examine your conscience.” -- Woodrow Wilson

                    by musiccitymollie on Sun Jan 27, 2013 at 06:08:49 PM PST

                    [ Parent ]

      •  Democratic Presidents don't need to govern as (16+ / 0-)

        Liberals 24-7, they just need to make sure that everybody in the coalition gets something very important to them. Like say a Public Option. It makes hearing no on tough Wall St reform and other issues a little less disappointing and demoralizing.

        The Rahm playbook of telling Liberals to go fuck themselves, because he's not a Liberal, didn't work in 94 or 2010 and won't work in 2014.

        Somebody tell the party leaders.

      •  Respectfully, it is a "ruse" that conservatives (5+ / 0-)

        are alarmed by the President's legislation.

        The ACA is straight out of the Heritage Foundation, and essentially the same plan that was put forward by Republican Senators Dole and Chafee in 1993.  If anything, I believe that their plan was more liberal, because it included a public option.

        The "right" will always "yammer" about Dems being socialists, etc.  It's strategic--just a way to keep the Dems running to the right.

        And, from where I sit, seems to have been a very effective strategy.

        The MSM has all but villified the Tea Party, because they (the Tea Party) stand in the way of Pete Peterson getting his Grand Bargain.  It is his Foundation that is calling for cutting the social safety net in exchange for putting money into corporations pockets via increased "discretionary spending."

        Including everything from the ill-conceived public-private infrastructure bank, that even Robert Reich says will punish working class folks due to the the "tolls."  

        I will try find (and to post) the video of Peterson himself  touting that he wants increased spending on education.  

        I reside in the state that won the Race to the Top contest.  The "take" was 501 million dollars, which is mostly being funneled into charter schools and school vouchers.  Including a church school that adjoins a property of ours, built before the ink was dry to open up charters and school vouchers.

        IF the money for education were going to bolster our public schools, I would be in support of that.  But it isn't, at least not here.  Instead, the bulk of their efforts have gone to making it easier to 'let go of' teachers, and turn public schools into charter schools.

        I would also support infrastructure repairs/improvements if this project was slated to be carried out under the auspices of DOT, not a private infrastructure bank.

        Heck, at this pace, we may as well just continue the selling off of our interstate roads to multinational corporations.

        One other thing--the yammering and posturing by the Republicans that everything that the President does is "socialism," is intended to give him "cover" (with his base) to go more to the right.
        It's just more Kabuki Theater.


        “If a dog won’t come to you after having looked you in the face, you should go home and examine your conscience.” -- Woodrow Wilson

        by musiccitymollie on Sun Jan 27, 2013 at 12:25:16 PM PST

        [ Parent ]

        •  i don't think it's a ruse, actually (3+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          TRPChicago, Odysseus, svboston

          i think it's a signal of how far past the right the GOP has moved, that heritage foundation policies from the 90s are now anathema to them. there are hardly any regular old conservatives left in the elected GOP, it's all birchers and dominionists these days. the shift in the past decade is mind-boggling.

          •  Maybe "ruse" was not the best choice (1+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:

            of words, wu ming.  Sorry.

            What I'm saying is that the "move to the right" is a continuing and very deliberate effort.
            IMO, there's really only a relatively small faction of Republican "lawmakers" who find the Heritage Foundation policies "not right-wing enough."  

            Remember, John Boehner is a corporatist Republican, whose ideology is very similar to corporate Dems.  

            His only problem is the good-size number of Tea Partiers in the House.

            Notice, in the Senate, there's not that much difference between Democrats and Republicans on many issues.  Look at the Gang of Six (now either Eight or Ten, etc.) in the Senate.

            IOW, with the help of the MSM, the "yammering" about how the President is a socialist, or very liberal (surely you'd agree that this is beyond ridiculous) is done to propagandize the general American populace, and to mollify the Dem base.

            What it boils down to is a "redefining of the word liberal."  That's what it's all about.

            And it's worked.

            [I apologize for not expressing my position very cogently.  It is difficult sometimes to communicate when you don't know the age of the person you're "talking to."  Or, at least, it is for me.]


            “If a dog won’t come to you after having looked you in the face, you should go home and examine your conscience.” -- Woodrow Wilson

            by musiccitymollie on Sun Jan 27, 2013 at 01:46:16 PM PST

            [ Parent ]

            •  bohner is part of a dwindling rump (2+ / 0-)
              Recommended by:
              musiccitymollie, Odysseus

              of corporate GOP, for whom the crazy stuff is a lever to get at the stuff they care about, not an end in itself. i agree that his ilk are numbered more in the senate, but even then their star is waning.  crazy is on the ascendent.

              agreed that there's a lot of overlap, esp. in the senate, between corporate GOP and corporate dems.

              (why would the age matter for communication?)

              •  Good timing, LOL! Just got back to my computer. (0+ / 0-)

                About "age" mattering.  At one time I would try to engage in a number of specifics, but soon found out that it was often a waste of time, now that Civics is no longer taught in schools.  Discussing the union movement is one example.  So now, I just stick with generalities.  [BTW, nothing personal was meant by that, and certainly no offense is intended.]

                At any rate, I agree that the corporatist Repubs are diminishing somewhat, especially in the House.  But, they are for the most part representative of the 1%, so I'm not really alarmed by it.  

                IOW, there will NEVER BE a Tea Party take over.  Just look at how the press has savaged the Tea Party members when they wouldn't go along with the 1%'s desire to have a Grand Bargain.  The MSM will keep any outliers in line, if they get in the way of the corporatist agenda.  :-)

                Thanks for your reply.


                “If a dog won’t come to you after having looked you in the face, you should go home and examine your conscience.” -- Woodrow Wilson

                by musiccitymollie on Sun Jan 27, 2013 at 02:36:20 PM PST

                [ Parent ]

      •  Because they can't stand the GOP. (4+ / 0-)

        Voters were FAR more turned off by vouchers for Medicare, the 47%-57% meme, legitimate rape, and austerity, than they were turned on by Obamacare, drone wars, Dodd-Frank, and killing bin Laden.
        Democrats will win elections by landslides once they figure out that the very same demographics that apply to the Republicans, apply to the Democrats, too.  We need to quit running after conservative voters and concentrate on running toward the issues that the new voting demographics care about: equality for all, the green economy, healthcare for all, and equal justice for all.

    •  my thoughts exactly... (3+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      commonmass, Puddytat, US Blues

      A standing army is like a standing member. It's an excellent assurance of domestic tranquility, but a dangerous temptation to foreign adventure. Elbridge Gerry - Constitutional Convention (1787)

      by No Exit on Sun Jan 27, 2013 at 10:14:46 AM PST

      [ Parent ]

    •  Sorry, but it isn't about that. (3+ / 0-)

      At least it wasn't in Ohio. I know some people here love to insist that we've been betrayed by the Democrats in Washington and by Obama personally, and THAT caused our losses in 2010.

      Not in Ohio. Our losses were caused by in-state issues — the state party focusing too much on undecided and unmotivated voters, and also their cavalier unconcern with the importance of women's issues, which were not yet in the spotlight they are now, but which played a large part in our Ohio losses in 2010. And that had nothing to do with anything going on in Washington, and everything to do with what was happening with our state ticket.

      Jon Husted is a dick.

      by anastasia p on Sun Jan 27, 2013 at 11:28:04 AM PST

      [ Parent ]

    •  Can you say filibuster reform? (0+ / 0-)

      And it feels like I'm livin'in the wasteland of the free ~ Iris DeMent, 1996

      by MrJersey on Mon Jan 28, 2013 at 05:19:36 AM PST

      [ Parent ]

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

Click here for the mobile view of the site