Skip to main content

View Diary: When Your Base Reflects the Instincts of the Majority (29 comments)

Comment Preferences

  •  This is where Obama and FDR differ (8+ / 0-)

    FDR realized that the electorate had fundamentally shifted, and that bold action was the only avenue open to him.  Obama comes to power under somewhat similar circumstances, but seems to be misreading his mandate.  I'm glad that quick action seems to have held off an economic collapse, but he seems to have drawn the wrong lesson from both the election and the market stabilization.

    "The red is going out. It's getting more bluer."

    by ivorybill on Tue Nov 03, 2009 at 04:58:28 PM PST

    •  Sadly, it is not just Obama either - at all. (7+ / 0-)

      Aside from the idiots like Baucus, Ben Nelson et al who really hate liberalism, there are countless folks in our party leadership who are simply afraid of going left.  So afraid that they will discard the best ideas in order to fend off criticism for being "too liberal".

      That's really no way to run a country.  That's in its own way as bad as the ideologues on the right who can't abide a good, solid solution because it doesn't fit within their ideological parameters.

      •  Obama had committed to fighting real HCR (1+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        inclusiveheart

        from the beginning. A careful analysis of his words makes it clear. He also brought staff members on, like Blue Dog Jim Cooper, that made it crystal clear that he was against any kind of real health reform. That's when the really big donations started pouring in. And of course, when the primaries started, he got the crossover GOP voters in the states that allowed it.

        The powers that be were and are absolutely NEVER going to let real health reform happen, no matter how many of the little ant people wanted it. It was a matter of principle for them.

        Illness is Health! Negligence is Care! Fraud is Accuracy! Affordable Healthcare or Bush by 2084: A Progressive WH by 2016!

        by Andiamo on Wed Nov 04, 2009 at 10:26:49 AM PST

        [ Parent ]

        •  I suspect that you are generally right on (0+ / 0-)

          all that you said.  I still do not think that ignoring the "ant people" bodes well for the Democrats' prospects for holding onto power.  Whether or not they care about us, they do care about maintaining and expanding their scope of power.  The really 90's thing about the majority in this Congress is that they simply haven't figured out how much more clued in Americans are to politics and government policy now in the 2000's. I think a lot of these people really think that no one is going to really notice that they pass "reform" that isn't really real reform at all.

          The one exception in the top leadership of the party might be Harry Reid.  He may have figured out that this bait and switch that they were planning from the begining is going to take the party down fast - which may explain why he is now talking about delaying the vote on HCR into next year. Probably counting on people losing interest and thus avoiding intense public scrutiny of a sham bill or something along those lines.

          •  Delaying the vote is a good idea (1+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            inclusiveheart

            Because it gives people more time to see how expensive the path they have laid out for us has the potential of being for each of us.

            The difference over a single person's lifetime could easily end up being well into six, perhaps even seven figures when you count compounded interest,

            Its a life or death struggle, this money grab, that is killing a huge number of people. There is a reason many people in the rest of the world increasingly see the US as having lost whatever edge it once had, and this hubris is a big part of it. They see us as animals who eat their own children for sport.

            How the politicos can even consider Obama's experiment when 101,000 people are dying needlessly each year really scares me.

            Nobody has been listening to the experts telling them IT WONT WORK.

            Instead they have set up an echo chamber of yes-men.

            Illness is Health! Negligence is Care! Fraud is Accuracy! Affordable Healthcare or Bush by 2084: A Progressive WH by 2016!

            by Andiamo on Wed Nov 04, 2009 at 10:55:38 AM PST

            [ Parent ]

    •  I read him as Bill Clinton v. 2.0 (2+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      inclusiveheart, DarkestHour

      When Clinton first won office, he faced the unpleasant realization that corporate and GOP opposition would prevent him from governing in a bold and decisive fashion.

      So, for the sake of his own political survival, he was forced to "compromise" with them by giving them what they wanted. He did so reluctantly--and his reluctance infuriated the GOP and the media, which proceeded to tear into him mercilessly.

      Obama is a new, improved version of Clinton. Instead of "compromising" reluctantly, he does so instinctively and seamlessly. He doesn't put up a fight, doesn't pressure Congress, he just gives 'em what they want. Therefore his opponents won't attack into him--or so the "centrist, bipartisan" logic goes.

      If he had been around during the 1990s he'd have sailed through the presidency even more easily than Clinton. But he's out of step with the times, as you point out, so his approach proving to be disastrous.

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

      by limpidglass on Tue Nov 03, 2009 at 05:34:38 PM PST

      [ Parent ]

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

Click here for the mobile view of the site