Welcome to European Tribune. It's gone a bit quiet around here these days, but it's still going.

US Mid Term Election - Aftermath

by ATinNM Thu Nov 4th, 2010 at 02:54:56 PM EST

41.5% of the US electorate have spoken and the Democratic Party went down to a historic defeat.

E.J. Dionne sums up:

Voters under 30 dropped from 18 percent of the electorate to 11 percent; African Americans from 13 percent to 10 percent, and Hispanics from 9 percent to 8 percent. Meanwhile, voters over 65, the one age category carried by John McCain, increased from 16 percent of the electorate to 23 percent.

If the numbers for the 2010 Mid Term had held in '08 we'd be talking about President McCain.


Simply put:

The GOP got their supporters to the polls, the Dems didn't, and most of the country sat on their asses.

This election has put the Conservative Faction of the GOP - most of it - in charge of the House.  While predicting the future is a mug's game I think it is safe to say addressing the various crisis' and problems of the US will take a seat next to Conservative attacks on the Obama administration, the Senate, and fellow Democratic House members.

Gridlock, in a word.

Unless there is a change to the Senate Rules, there is little doubt the GOP will continue their obstructionism in the Senate.

Gridlock, there too.

Without changing the various economic trajectories and circumstances, e.g., the housing debacle, now pushing the US to economic collapse the US will enter a "double dip" recession and, I'm thinking, establishing the necessary conditions for another Depression.  The closer economic policy comes to the GOP's professed policies the faster the US will enter the Depression and the worse it will be.  

The world will follow within a year or two.

shrug

It's an unanswerable question how long the US economic can essentially "tread water" before the collapse comes.  That depends on a Black Swan Event or the existing conditions moving the US economy to a Tipping Point.  Both of which are unpredictable as to when they will happen but predictable that either one, or both, will happen.

If China and the EU had the brains of a retarded moose in Finland¹ they'd get their shit together NOW, before it happens and start knocking a mutual response together to limit damage for their respective countries.  

And pigs have wings.

¹ Hi Sven!

Poll
The US will slip into Depression ...
. Within a year 47%
. Within two years 19%
. Within the next five years 9%
. Look! ANOTHER tree! (runs away) 23%

Votes: 21
Results | Other Polls
Display:
I'm flat out disgusted with the US electorate, at this point, so I may have swung too far in towards pessimism.  

Any corrections or hope gratefully received.

:-)


She believed in nothing; only her skepticism kept her from being an atheist. -- Jean-Paul Sartre

by ATinNM on Thu Nov 4th, 2010 at 03:24:23 PM EST
I thought you were moving to Finland?

Of all the ways of organizing banking, the worst is the one we have today — Mervyn King, 25 October 2010
by Migeru (migeru at eurotrib dot com) on Thu Nov 4th, 2010 at 03:48:13 PM EST
[ Parent ]
Sven has yet to confirm shelf space for 10,000 books.  :-)

She believed in nothing; only her skepticism kept her from being an atheist. -- Jean-Paul Sartre
by ATinNM on Thu Nov 4th, 2010 at 04:06:05 PM EST
[ Parent ]
Just buy, not rent, a standarised container, weatherproof the inside, and find a plot of land to park it on somewhere in Finland.

Of all the ways of organizing banking, the worst is the one we have today — Mervyn King, 25 October 2010
by Migeru (migeru at eurotrib dot com) on Thu Nov 4th, 2010 at 04:17:54 PM EST
[ Parent ]
Or get eVersions. That way you can keep them all on a USB stick.
by ThatBritGuy (thatbritguy (at) googlemail.com) on Thu Nov 4th, 2010 at 04:20:17 PM EST
[ Parent ]
You're obviously not a book lover.

Of all the ways of organizing banking, the worst is the one we have today — Mervyn King, 25 October 2010
by Migeru (migeru at eurotrib dot com) on Thu Nov 4th, 2010 at 04:23:48 PM EST
[ Parent ]
There are people who will tell you it's impossible to have too many books.

From experience, those people are wrong.

by ThatBritGuy (thatbritguy (at) googlemail.com) on Thu Nov 4th, 2010 at 04:33:19 PM EST
[ Parent ]
I know, I have too many books.

That is why I no longer buy more than one book on any given visit to a bookstore, and I hardly ever visit bookstores any longer.

Of all the ways of organizing banking, the worst is the one we have today — Mervyn King, 25 October 2010

by Migeru (migeru at eurotrib dot com) on Thu Nov 4th, 2010 at 06:30:54 PM EST
[ Parent ]
I've been selling my surplus on Amazon.

Likewise with the CDs, which have all been copied to a couple of USB drives.

by ThatBritGuy (thatbritguy (at) googlemail.com) on Thu Nov 4th, 2010 at 06:46:08 PM EST
[ Parent ]
I gave most of mine away to the local library a few years ago, but lately the remaining ones have been somehow reproducing.

I can swear there ain't no heaven but I pray there ain't no hell. _ Blood Sweat & Tears
by Gringo (stargazing camel at aoldotcom) on Thu Nov 4th, 2010 at 09:27:31 PM EST
[ Parent ]
Same here, minus the reproduction.  Aside from the new Taibbi book, which I got as an actual book so I could loan it to friends and family, I just use my iPad.

Be nice to America. Or we'll bring democracy to your country.
by Drew J Jones (pedobear@pennstatefootball.com) on Fri Nov 5th, 2010 at 07:29:04 PM EST
[ Parent ]
I quit smoking but I can't see giving up bookstores.

"I said, 'Wait a minute, Chester, You know I'm a peaceful man...'" Robbie Robertson
by NearlyNormal on Thu Nov 4th, 2010 at 07:05:52 PM EST
[ Parent ]
The big chain superstores are slowly disappearing here and have been declining in quality for even longer. Unlike many over-educated compulsive readers, I was pretty damn happy with the initial wave. In the big cities the best ones were as good or better than the best indies, and everywhere else they were better than the little two bit indies and crap chains that had existed before.  On the plus side some really good indies have been popping up. Unlike the old timers they have figured out that interior design matters if you want to attract the 'I'm just going in to blow ten minutes browsing' crowd who then walk out with books. (See the pre-opening photospread from the one down the street from me.) Well thought out selection too. I really hope mine survives.  I've been making it a point to shift some of my book money to them.
by MarekNYC on Thu Nov 4th, 2010 at 07:34:01 PM EST
[ Parent ]
Habits die hard, I know. But I also have a busy lifestyle and I don't have the time to loiter in bookstores since I'm not a full-time student...

Of all the ways of organizing banking, the worst is the one we have today — Mervyn King, 25 October 2010
by Migeru (migeru at eurotrib dot com) on Fri Nov 5th, 2010 at 07:01:06 AM EST
[ Parent ]
I buy and sell regularly on Amazon. I occasionally scoot around the local bookstores to see what's hot on the shelves, but it's a long time since I bought anything from a store.
by ThatBritGuy (thatbritguy (at) googlemail.com) on Fri Nov 5th, 2010 at 07:21:00 AM EST
[ Parent ]
Do you find the look inside feature valuable? I usually find it insufficient.

Of all the ways of organizing banking, the worst is the one we have today — Mervyn King, 25 October 2010
by Migeru (migeru at eurotrib dot com) on Fri Nov 5th, 2010 at 07:37:41 AM EST
[ Parent ]
I don't usually need it. I'm not buying much fiction, and the decision to buy non-fiction is usually made by recommendation and/or subject.
by ThatBritGuy (thatbritguy (at) googlemail.com) on Fri Nov 5th, 2010 at 07:47:30 AM EST
[ Parent ]
Huh, we have exactly opposite approaches to fiction and nonfiction.

Of all the ways of organizing banking, the worst is the one we have today — Mervyn King, 25 October 2010
by Migeru (migeru at eurotrib dot com) on Fri Nov 5th, 2010 at 07:58:39 AM EST
[ Parent ]
You just need to get to the point that you realize that rather than worrying about where to put more bookcases, just use books to substitute for furniture.
by MarekNYC on Thu Nov 4th, 2010 at 07:16:16 PM EST
[ Parent ]
i once gave away a cubic metre of books, and a 4' square sheet of wood between them  as a table. It didn't really work, as people kept taking the books out from underneath.

Any idiot can face a crisis - it's day to day living that wears you out.
by ceebs (ceebs (at) eurotrib (dot) com) on Sat Nov 6th, 2010 at 02:51:43 PM EST
[ Parent ]
Troll.

:-)

She believed in nothing; only her skepticism kept her from being an atheist. -- Jean-Paul Sartre

by ATinNM on Thu Nov 4th, 2010 at 04:34:32 PM EST
[ Parent ]
Moomin?

Of all the ways of organizing banking, the worst is the one we have today — Mervyn King, 25 October 2010
by Migeru (migeru at eurotrib dot com) on Thu Nov 4th, 2010 at 06:26:16 PM EST
[ Parent ]
Hiisi, more like

She believed in nothing; only her skepticism kept her from being an atheist. -- Jean-Paul Sartre
by ATinNM on Thu Nov 4th, 2010 at 09:20:10 PM EST
[ Parent ]
I'm pretty sure you'd like Finland just fine, AT!

Being fed up with the political situation in the US and the fact that it didn't appear likely it was going to be getting better any time soon was surely a motivating factor in deciding to move. No regrets whatsoever though.

When you try your damnest to move things in a positive direction (through political action) and you see it going nowhere time after time, it's like beating your head against a wall. It doesn't feel good and after awhile you just give up. Wasn't it Einstein who described an idiot as someone who does the same thing over and over expecting a different result? I just grew weary of being that idiot I suppose.

by sgr2 on Fri Nov 5th, 2010 at 03:05:15 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Do I have to learn to tango?

She believed in nothing; only her skepticism kept her from being an atheist. -- Jean-Paul Sartre

by ATinNM on Sat Nov 6th, 2010 at 01:23:05 AM EST
[ Parent ]
Tango nice, but not mandatory.

So now I know why my opening line of 'hello, nice to meet you, i think i love you' isn't working out so well.

60 Minutes really nailed it. Thanks, Morley; thanks, AT!

by sgr2 on Sun Nov 7th, 2010 at 09:31:10 AM EST
[ Parent ]
When you try your damnest to move things in a positive direction (through political action) and you see it going nowhere time after time, it's like beating your head against a wall. It doesn't feel good and after awhile you just give up.
------------
That's how we ended up in Australia...
All though this is a nice country and our life here was pretty much OK up until now I am having my doubts if we did right thing...


Science without religion is lame, religion without science is blind...Albert Einstein
by vbo on Sat Nov 6th, 2010 at 10:54:51 PM EST
[ Parent ]
Please forgive me but weren't you the one commenting on the stupidity of the Californian electorate not long ago?

They tried to assimilate me. They failed.
by THE Twank (yatta blah blah @ blah.com) on Thu Nov 4th, 2010 at 03:53:17 PM EST
[ Parent ]
Ronald Reagan. Schwarzenegger. Proposition 13. It takes more than a brief attack of sanity to compensate for all these.
by gk (gk (gk quattro due due sette @gmail.com)) on Thu Nov 4th, 2010 at 04:00:38 PM EST
[ Parent ]
Not to sound Obama-ish but ... since the past is done and I left my time-travelling ability behind when I came to this planet, let's concentrate on the future and see who/what survives. Howzat?

They tried to assimilate me. They failed.
by THE Twank (yatta blah blah @ blah.com) on Thu Nov 4th, 2010 at 04:04:57 PM EST
[ Parent ]
That is something I could have said.  So I'll 'fess up to saying it.

My real concern is the massive political apathy by Americans as exhibited by the 13% (?) turn-out for the last LA mayoral election.

She believed in nothing; only her skepticism kept her from being an atheist. -- Jean-Paul Sartre

by ATinNM on Thu Nov 4th, 2010 at 04:08:38 PM EST
[ Parent ]
Watch what happens to "political apathy" when the genuine Depression sets in. Put your feet up. Pop some corn. This gonna be fun.

They tried to assimilate me. They failed.
by THE Twank (yatta blah blah @ blah.com) on Thu Nov 4th, 2010 at 04:11:18 PM EST
[ Parent ]
America wanted jobs and they'll get tax cuts for the wealthy and corporations, endless investigations of nothing, a constant drumbeat against Obama ... in other words, exactly what they deserve. It's called justice, me boy. Don't you love it?

They tried to assimilate me. They failed.
by THE Twank (yatta blah blah @ blah.com) on Thu Nov 4th, 2010 at 03:57:19 PM EST
[ Parent ]
You forgot, more deregulation, accelerated cuts in social services, social security, medical care programs, food and drug inspection programs (if possible) and other first world minimal services, some of which we have come to take for granted, that we were already slowly losing.

Yes, the American people have spoken, Mr Boehner, but remember that those who facilitated a win for your party by giving their vote represent only a small percentage of the electorate and getting them out required a monumental effort and a ton of corporate money. Watch your step, even fools eventually get it.

I can swear there ain't no heaven but I pray there ain't no hell. _ Blood Sweat & Tears

by Gringo (stargazing camel at aoldotcom) on Thu Nov 4th, 2010 at 09:47:59 PM EST
[ Parent ]
Well, that will be the case if Obama continues to embrace his inner bi-partisan nature and refuses to veto nonsense and harmful legislation. Plenty of that is sure to get through the new Senate and a flood of that will be originating from the house.

"It is not necessary to have hope in order to persevere."
by ARGeezer (ARGeezer a in a circle eurotrib daught com) on Fri Nov 5th, 2010 at 10:44:28 AM EST
[ Parent ]
California and the West Coast in general did okay.  We now have Jerry Brown, the best governor in the nation again, just like we did when we had.......Jerry Brown in the mid-70's.

"I said, 'Wait a minute, Chester, You know I'm a peaceful man...'" Robbie Robertson
by NearlyNormal on Thu Nov 4th, 2010 at 04:16:01 PM EST
[ Parent ]
Yup. I was in Grad School at UC Davis at the time. Truly the good-old-days.

Question: Where is Izzy on all this? What does she think of Obama now?

Oh Izzzzzzzy!

They tried to assimilate me. They failed.

by THE Twank (yatta blah blah @ blah.com) on Thu Nov 4th, 2010 at 04:19:13 PM EST
[ Parent ]
I'd come from the midwest and was stationed at Marysville.  I thought I'd died and gone to heaven.  Not only was it beautiful, but the economy was booming.  I got to go to Winterland and see The Last Waltz, something that wasn't likely to happen in Indiana.

"I said, 'Wait a minute, Chester, You know I'm a peaceful man...'" Robbie Robertson
by NearlyNormal on Thu Nov 4th, 2010 at 04:21:50 PM EST
[ Parent ]
I hear ya. I was from Rotterdam NY (outside Schenectady). Couldn't wait to get out of that hole.

They tried to assimilate me. They failed.
by THE Twank (yatta blah blah @ blah.com) on Thu Nov 4th, 2010 at 04:30:03 PM EST
[ Parent ]
What about turnout among the young? Was it higher than the national average? If so, that might be a sign that having a legalize marijuana proposition on the ballot would be a good Democratic strategy.
by gk (gk (gk quattro due due sette @gmail.com)) on Thu Nov 4th, 2010 at 04:33:50 PM EST
[ Parent ]
This

The youth voter turnout in Tuesday's election was about one million votes fewer than the previous midterm elections in 2006, when 23.5 percent of youth voted, according to the Center for Information and Research on Civic Learning and Engagement.



She believed in nothing; only her skepticism kept her from being an atheist. -- Jean-Paul Sartre
by ATinNM on Thu Nov 4th, 2010 at 04:41:59 PM EST
[ Parent ]
The bad news is that humans minds can be manipulated to believe anything. The good news is that human minds can be manipulated to believe anything.

you are the media you consume.

by MillMan (millguy at gmail) on Thu Nov 4th, 2010 at 04:52:15 PM EST
[ Parent ]
Remember that McCain got 45.7% of the vote in 2008? And Obama got 52.9%?

Only 47% of the 2010 electorate had voted for Obama in 2008. The share of voters 18-30 dropped like this:

And if 40% of that 18-30 demographic supported the Republicans at their craziest, 57% opposed them.

This midterm electorate is the US that looks back. The radical right wing showed up in (for recent history) record numbers for a midterm. They'll show up again in the same numbers in 2012, but it won't be record numbers anymore, because it'll be a Presidential election year.

Now, the next two years will be a train wreck, but the odds are at least 50:50 that its the craziest wing of the Republican party that will be at the bottom of the pile.

I've been accused of being a Marxist, yet while Harpo's my favourite, it's Groucho I'm always quoting. Odd, that.

by BruceMcF (agila61 at netscape dot net) on Thu Nov 4th, 2010 at 10:15:32 PM EST
[ Parent ]
Unless Obama enables them and then it will be the economy and the bottom 50% of the population that ends up on the bottom of the pile.

"It is not necessary to have hope in order to persevere."
by ARGeezer (ARGeezer a in a circle eurotrib daught com) on Fri Nov 5th, 2010 at 10:48:06 AM EST
[ Parent ]
Except unless for your except unless if the Tea Party disables the Republicans and gives them a candidate that not even Obama can lose to.

Its like a game of scissors: unless the Obama administration has a stroke of brilliance in the lame duck session, the economy still sucks in 2012. Under those conditions, Romney beats Obama, Obama beats Palin, and Palin beats Romney. Except they are not randomly sequenced: Palin faces Romney first, then the winner goes on to face Obama.


I've been accused of being a Marxist, yet while Harpo's my favourite, it's Groucho I'm always quoting. Odd, that.

by BruceMcF (agila61 at netscape dot net) on Fri Nov 5th, 2010 at 12:07:09 PM EST
[ Parent ]
then the winner goes on to face Obama.

And it doesn't really matter who wins as far as dealing with the core problem, the financial sector. That is the nightmare.


"It is not necessary to have hope in order to persevere."
by ARGeezer (ARGeezer a in a circle eurotrib daught com) on Fri Nov 5th, 2010 at 12:35:54 PM EST
[ Parent ]
It matters on the margin. The main contest is of course the contest to take back the House while retaining a Progressive Caucus House Majority and reforming filibuster rules in the Senate.

A progressive populist revolt against the corporate masters can be staged. It won't be a permanent majority, but Obama will try to nibble away at the revolt at the edges, while Palin will just take her marching orders from the American Petroleum Institute and the Business Chamber.

I've been accused of being a Marxist, yet while Harpo's my favourite, it's Groucho I'm always quoting. Odd, that.

by BruceMcF (agila61 at netscape dot net) on Sat Nov 6th, 2010 at 12:17:17 PM EST
[ Parent ]
I understand your frustation.. but think about it in these terms.. everything Obama can do for the planet and the US he can do it without Congress....as long as he gets money for funding..

So basically you will have a government shut-down because Rep know it.. from there on.. you never know.
In other words:

Enviromental regulation : EPA by force
Health care implementation: the government Health and Services Dept.
Inflation expecations: FED
Foreclosure crisis: Banking regulation
DADT: Pentagon regulaion and practices

And of course, you would like a public works program... indeed.. of around 500 billion... but seriously.. do you think the democrats would have delivered on the 50+150 billion Obama infraestrcuture project?

All in all that's the outcome I prefered because I care more about the world and just want Obama and another democrat to be president so that the transition to a multipolar world is finished without nuclear nonsene (but I still feel your pain)

Now the question, will Obama be smart enough and paint the Republicans as the crazy people they are creating the propaganda infraestructure necessary?... and would he crack on the banks to finish the foreclosure crisis.. and would the FED deliver on inflation expectations for the rich?

everything outside congress... what you will have there is theater... fun to watch but theater.

A pleasure

I therefore claim to show, not how men think in myths, but how myths operate in men's minds without their being aware of the fact. Levi-Strauss, Claude

by kcurie on Fri Nov 5th, 2010 at 12:07:35 PM EST
[ Parent ]
Except that Obama will move towards the Republicans in a failed attempt to appease them. I see no indication that he has confrontation in his character. He is no Clinton.

"It is not necessary to have hope in order to persevere."
by ARGeezer (ARGeezer a in a circle eurotrib daught com) on Fri Nov 5th, 2010 at 12:37:32 PM EST
[ Parent ]
A real possibility. The US will be screwed....in 2 years time.

A pleasure

I therefore claim to show, not how men think in myths, but how myths operate in men's minds without their being aware of the fact. Levi-Strauss, Claude

by kcurie on Fri Nov 5th, 2010 at 04:14:02 PM EST
[ Parent ]
Not to quarrel with your analysis of Obama, but "move towards the Republicans in a failed attempt to appease them" is precisely what Clinton did.

And I don't see any evidence that he's learned from that mistake.

- Jake

Friends come and go. Enemies accumulate.

by JakeS (JangoSierra 'at' gmail 'dot' com) on Fri Nov 5th, 2010 at 04:17:20 PM EST
[ Parent ]
Rightly or wrongly, (I believe wrongly), Clinton believed that some of the social problems facing the US could be addressed by compromising with the Republicans.

Some.

But he was quite willing to raise taxes on the top tier with only Democratic votes. Obama doesn't have that kind of grit, in my read. In '96, after the grotesque overreach by Gingrich and the attempt to shut down the government Clinton gleefully took it to them in 96. It took the Whitewater and Monica Lewinski circuses to stop him from doing more. We will see how Obama responds to what will be coming his way now. I suspect Clinton nostalgia will grow.

Obama has great personal gifts but seems singularly inept at the art of governing. He got his health care bill at the cost of having a bill that is so bad that it is just barely worth having and that, unless reformed, will strangle the country. What needs to change -- reining in the insurance companies and big pharma -- is going to be impossible to approach in any way that will help for at least the next two years. I am certain others can identify his other signal accomplishments in his first two years, during one of which he had 60 Democrats and independents in the Senate. To me it seems like his focus was on keeping Congress from doing any more than it did.

I can give Clinton some slack on the financial deregulation issues, as the dangers were still prospective at the time and as Clinton was going through his own learning curve about the power of the financial sector, as witnessed by his famous alleged quote, in response to Robert Rubin: "Do you mean to tell me that whether I am re-elected and whether my agenda passes depends on a bunch of fucking bond traders!" The dangers of that path were all too clear even prior to the '08 election -- for those with eyes to see.

"It is not necessary to have hope in order to persevere."

by ARGeezer (ARGeezer a in a circle eurotrib daught com) on Fri Nov 5th, 2010 at 08:03:28 PM EST
[ Parent ]
... a thoroughly corrupted government can be hard to govern.

If Obama was a moderate liberal rather than a moderate authoritarian, the Justice Department could have got a whole hell of a lot done, but that was a fight that was lost in the early Democratic presidential primaries. A moderate authoritarian as President was a best case scenario once it came down to Obama versus Clinton.

I've been accused of being a Marxist, yet while Harpo's my favourite, it's Groucho I'm always quoting. Odd, that.

by BruceMcF (agila61 at netscape dot net) on Sat Nov 6th, 2010 at 12:20:53 PM EST
[ Parent ]
If ... the EU had the brains of a retarded moose in Finland¹ they'd get their shit together NOW

Bwahahahahahahaaaaah

Of all the ways of organizing banking, the worst is the one we have today — Mervyn King, 25 October 2010

by Migeru (migeru at eurotrib dot com) on Thu Nov 4th, 2010 at 03:57:00 PM EST
Don't worry, Obama's attempt to save capitalism from itself through marginal reforms just got kicked to the curb.

In all likelihood we will be in the same economic funk, or worse, in 2012 as we are now.

Which means that the Republicans will suffer a crushing defeat like 2006.

The simple truth is that until there is deep, structural change in the United States to limit the power of the financial sector over the economic and political system, we are going to suffer from this sort of political whiplash every 2-4 years.

The bottom line is that the status quo doesn't work, but we have two parties basically dedicated to perpetuating it.

I give it six months before the the honeymoon is over for the Tea Party.

Remember that many people in the Obama White House wanted Democrats to loose the House of Representatives, because they thought that it would allow Obama to look "progressive" compared to the guys trying to privatize social security and repeal the half ass healthcare law.

And I'll give my consent to any government that does not deny a man a living wage-Billy Bragg

by ManfromMiddletown (manfrommiddletown at lycos dot com) on Thu Nov 4th, 2010 at 04:03:06 PM EST
America is going to love the austerity that's just down the road.

They tried to assimilate me. They failed.
by THE Twank (yatta blah blah @ blah.com) on Thu Nov 4th, 2010 at 04:07:02 PM EST
[ Parent ]
Exactly.

I can't wait until they try to cut Social Security and Medicare.

The thing about lynchings is that it all seems in good fun until you realize that the rope is meant for you.

And I'll give my consent to any government that does not deny a man a living wage-Billy Bragg

by ManfromMiddletown (manfrommiddletown at lycos dot com) on Thu Nov 4th, 2010 at 04:48:03 PM EST
[ Parent ]
The left will blame Obama. And the right will...blame Obama.

Remember, voters understand angry and angry at. But they don't understand angry because.

Obama has two years to get his shit together, or Mr Kooky Nutjob takes over in 2012.

by ThatBritGuy (thatbritguy (at) googlemail.com) on Thu Nov 4th, 2010 at 04:28:51 PM EST
[ Parent ]
Here's a thought. Obama goes along with invading Iran. That'll get him his second term. <snicker>

They tried to assimilate me. They failed.
by THE Twank (yatta blah blah @ blah.com) on Thu Nov 4th, 2010 at 04:31:40 PM EST
[ Parent ]
Unless he gets impeached for not getting approval from Congress. The Tea Party may be so desperate to impeach him that they just might do it for the right reason...
by gk (gk (gk quattro due due sette @gmail.com)) on Thu Nov 4th, 2010 at 04:38:48 PM EST
[ Parent ]
With a Teabagger Congress all he has to do is not veto a bill introduced by them declaring war on Iran.

Of all the ways of organizing banking, the worst is the one we have today — Mervyn King, 25 October 2010
by Migeru (migeru at eurotrib dot com) on Thu Nov 4th, 2010 at 06:28:45 PM EST
[ Parent ]
Well, he has to do a bit more than that. After all he is the Commander In Chief. If there is war with Iran, he will have to preside over it. He may find that even more horrifying than standing up to the nut jobs.

"It is not necessary to have hope in order to persevere."
by ARGeezer (ARGeezer a in a circle eurotrib daught com) on Fri Nov 5th, 2010 at 12:45:10 PM EST
[ Parent ]
Perhaps I have found the proper role for Obama: Hamlet, Prince of Denmark. He always seems to be eloquently agonizing over "To be or not to be (anything at all)"

"It is not necessary to have hope in order to persevere."
by ARGeezer (ARGeezer a in a circle eurotrib daught com) on Fri Nov 5th, 2010 at 01:01:22 PM EST
[ Parent ]
Including the ending - the Norwegians take over?
by gk (gk (gk quattro due due sette @gmail.com)) on Fri Nov 5th, 2010 at 01:26:03 PM EST
[ Parent ]
We can dream!

"It is not necessary to have hope in order to persevere."
by ARGeezer (ARGeezer a in a circle eurotrib daught com) on Fri Nov 5th, 2010 at 01:58:56 PM EST
[ Parent ]
The day after the election I heard a group of pundits making serious noise about it becoming critical that something be done about a nuclear Iran. Sounded like the next war was what they had in mind.  Not on my dime.

I can swear there ain't no heaven but I pray there ain't no hell. _ Blood Sweat & Tears
by Gringo (stargazing camel at aoldotcom) on Thu Nov 4th, 2010 at 09:59:18 PM EST
[ Parent ]
Obama has two years to get his shit together ...

How? The public wants jobs. The factories are gone and won't come back till we're willing to work for China level wages. That's the kicker! The jobs are gone! We need to produce/sell things others don't.

(Truffles anyone? A new baseball bat which doesn't explode?)

They tried to assimilate me. They failed.

by THE Twank (yatta blah blah @ blah.com) on Thu Nov 4th, 2010 at 04:36:48 PM EST
[ Parent ]
and the only pols likely to point this out, grayson and Feingold have just been given the push.

keep to the Fen Causeway
by Helen (lareinagal at yahoo dot co dot uk) on Thu Nov 4th, 2010 at 06:07:08 PM EST
[ Parent ]
Voters under 30 dropped from 18 percent of the electorate to 11 percent; African Americans from 13 percent to 10 percent, and Hispanics from 9 percent to 8 percent. Meanwhile, voters over 65, the one age category carried by John McCain, increased from 16 percent of the electorate to 23 percent.

This is just a rehash of the ancient "voting doesn't influence the political process" vs. "no, really, it has actual implications," but I will go there anyway.

The Obama Brandtm is so 2008, and those are the demographics within which he was able to evoke a strong, positive emotional reaction and "connection." The way we conceptualize politics on this site has no connection to how it works in practice, even as everyone here understands what the article I linked to means.

you are the media you consume.

by MillMan (millguy at gmail) on Thu Nov 4th, 2010 at 05:14:42 PM EST
The ad/branding angle is interesting. It's not just about the cash, as Whitman found.

Obama's packaging suggested he was progressive, concerned, Not Bush™, fair, dynamic and thoughtful.

In practice he's been none of these things. But the reality seems to be that given the choice, this is what voters will get excited about.

The media experiments with Palin and that other kook who's already forgotten prove that while you can get a minority to like them, there's still a solid majority which sees them as the idiots and placeholders they are.

The Tea Baggers don't win through their attractiveness or persuasiveness. They win because their base is so easily manipulated that it's active, which gives them the ability to swing marginals.

What I'd like to know more about are the campaigns that pushed out Grayson and Feingold. What did they do badly, and what did their opponents get right? Were they targeted specifically with external funding and media support?

by ThatBritGuy (thatbritguy (at) googlemail.com) on Thu Nov 4th, 2010 at 06:59:11 PM EST
[ Parent ]
I suspect both were drowned in RW Corporate money.

"It is not necessary to have hope in order to persevere."
by ARGeezer (ARGeezer a in a circle eurotrib daught com) on Fri Nov 5th, 2010 at 10:53:38 AM EST
[ Parent ]
... in an even money election, Strickland wins the Governor's race in Ohio against a former Wall Street investment banker at Lehman Brothers, Feingold has a tough fight but likely wins in Wisconsin, and AFAIU, Grayson probably loses in his district in Florida. Independently of the money of the campaigns and the private interest groups, the share of Fox viewers in a midterm election in Grayson's district puts him behind the eight ball.

Grayson though should move: there are a number of districts in Florida that he could carry in a Presidential year.

I've been accused of being a Marxist, yet while Harpo's my favourite, it's Groucho I'm always quoting. Odd, that.

by BruceMcF (agila61 at netscape dot net) on Fri Nov 5th, 2010 at 12:12:40 PM EST
[ Parent ]
Kneejerk comment.

"Obama's packaging suggested he was progressive, concerned, Not BushTM, fair, dynamic and thoughtful.

In practice he's been none of these things."

Align culture with our nature. Ot else!

by ormondotvos (ormond.otvosnospamgmialcon) on Sat Nov 6th, 2010 at 08:51:49 PM EST
[ Parent ]
I got your branding in the chorus of this song ...

I get knocked down, but I get up again.
You're never going to keep me down.

Obviously not tubthumping itself, but lots of 18-30 demo punch in that attitude.

I've been accused of being a Marxist, yet while Harpo's my favourite, it's Groucho I'm always quoting. Odd, that.

by BruceMcF (agila61 at netscape dot net) on Sat Nov 6th, 2010 at 01:13:09 AM EST
[ Parent ]
As long as they don't look further at some of the other things theyve done



Any idiot can face a crisis - it's day to day living that wears you out.

by ceebs (ceebs (at) eurotrib (dot) com) on Sat Nov 6th, 2010 at 04:01:52 PM EST
[ Parent ]
Sad only a little over 5,000 people have viewed this.

good song


She believed in nothing; only her skepticism kept her from being an atheist. -- Jean-Paul Sartre

by ATinNM on Sat Nov 6th, 2010 at 04:54:19 PM EST
[ Parent ]
Well it's the first part of 3 or 4 of an entire album.

Any idiot can face a crisis - it's day to day living that wears you out.
by ceebs (ceebs (at) eurotrib (dot) com) on Sat Nov 6th, 2010 at 05:44:04 PM EST
[ Parent ]
My ignorance of Popular Culture is underlined again, squashing my self-esteem, leading me to wander the hallways of my home crying, "Alas!  Alas!  I know not whereof I speak!"

:-D
 

She believed in nothing; only her skepticism kept her from being an atheist. -- Jean-Paul Sartre

by ATinNM on Sun Nov 7th, 2010 at 12:32:02 PM EST
[ Parent ]
Wonderful thing about business cycle theory, you can only see complete business cycles in the rear view mirror.

IOW, the US slipping into a Depression is the wrong verb tense. IF the US allows a double dip recession to occur, then given that the best that broad unemployment will have reached before rising again will have been 16%+, we will have been in a Depression since the Panic of 2008.

The reason this was not a New Deal style Roosevelt first midterm election is because we did not have sufficient New Deal style effective policies to drag the real unemployment rate down toward 10%. We've got the headline rate down below 10%, but only at the functional equivalent of counting the hobos riding the rails as if they were fully employed ... counting people getting any number of hours down to 1 hour a week in low paid, uncertain, week to week or day to day temp work as fully employed.


I've been accused of being a Marxist, yet while Harpo's my favourite, it's Groucho I'm always quoting. Odd, that.

by BruceMcF (agila61 at netscape dot net) on Thu Nov 4th, 2010 at 07:07:05 PM EST
Had Barack Putz Obama somehow found the courage and wisdom to prosecute and take down Wall Street while pushing through a 2X stimulus the Republicans would be worried about staving off a new movement to repeal the 22nd amendment. But that would be a very alternate reality with a very alternate Obama.

"It is not necessary to have hope in order to persevere."
by ARGeezer (ARGeezer a in a circle eurotrib daught com) on Fri Nov 5th, 2010 at 10:58:56 AM EST
[ Parent ]
 You're saying the economy would be going all 1999 by now if he'd done that?  Because if it wasn't, we still would have at absolute best a crappy economy and be looking at a knife edge House and saying goodbye to a couple Senate seats.  As has been pointed out, the Tea Party movement got kicked off by a bunch of commodities traders ranting about evil Obama's plans to take over the financial industry rather than sticking it to the average American. All live on Fox of course.  Even with the best sustained economic boom since the first oil crisis George W managed to get very close to Al Gore in 2000. And for all the talk about how the Gingrich radicalism failed, it took six years of W for the Dems to win back the House.  
by MarekNYC on Fri Nov 5th, 2010 at 11:09:04 AM EST
[ Parent ]
... actual unemployment would have been much lower, youth unemployment would have been much lower, and the non-college 18-30 vote would have had something to turn out to protect, as the over 65 vote turns out to protect Medicare and Social Security.

I've been accused of being a Marxist, yet while Harpo's my favourite, it's Groucho I'm always quoting. Odd, that.
by BruceMcF (agila61 at netscape dot net) on Fri Nov 5th, 2010 at 12:14:58 PM EST
[ Parent ]
Obama and the Dems didn't have to actually have brought down unemployment to 2007 levels. What they needed to do was make the effort. Showed people that they were governing for the working people and not for the bankers.

Instead Obama didn't fight very hard for a second stimulus or a jobs bill, cut deals with big corporations and moderate Dem Senators to get a health care bill done that doesn't help anyone until 2014, and yet moved heaven and earth to help the banks.

Even now, polls show that a plurality of Americans blames Wall Street and Bush, ahead of Obama, for the dire economic straits we're in. Obama had a chance to use that, but because he is someone who very deeply believes that the elite is right and that Wall Street knows best, he passed up that chance and now faces a very difficult re-election bid.

And the world will live as one

by Montereyan (robert at calitics dot com) on Sat Nov 6th, 2010 at 01:52:10 AM EST
[ Parent ]
... but also be seen making the effort. That is what the direct employment bill would have been for the majority of non-college-attending 18-30 voters: real world face to face contact knowledge that he made the effort, which trumps noise on the TV.

I've been accused of being a Marxist, yet while Harpo's my favourite, it's Groucho I'm always quoting. Odd, that.
by BruceMcF (agila61 at netscape dot net) on Sat Nov 6th, 2010 at 12:14:08 PM EST
[ Parent ]
I'm getting pretty bored with armchair pundits who seem to have no idea of the immensity and complexity of the problems with the economy AND a middle class quivering with fear and rage at the prospects of a total crash of the economy that presented to Obama in Jan 2009.

Obama made some damn clever and gutsy moves WHEN HE COULD. What impresses me is how few errors he made.

OBAMA DIDN'T HAVE A VOTING MAJORITY IN EITHER HOUSE.

Pelosi worked wonders, although I got little I wanted. At least I got a health care foundation, some financial regulation, some military muzzling. I also got Citizens United, which is death to democracy.

Learn to distinguish someone elected on the Democratic ticket from someone who's just running as a Democrat to get elected, and has ... other ... agendas. This isn't party politics, it's corporate infighting. Perhaps we should label them by industry and company rather than by party labels.

Align culture with our nature. Ot else!

by ormondotvos (ormond.otvosnospamgmialcon) on Sat Nov 6th, 2010 at 09:04:39 PM EST
[ Parent ]
You're easily pleased.

What did Bush and Cheney stand for? You can say they stood for all the wrong things - and I'd agree with that.

But they stood for something, even if it was inherently damaging and evil.

What does Obama stand for? Something? Anything?

The point of leadership is to lead. Policy and legislation come after to strategy, which comes after a sharply-defined moral position.

Obama campaigned as if he had a sharply-defined moral position, but he has acted like a leader completely lacking same - like someone who furtively might want to clip the tentacles of the banks, as long as they don't mind too much, and who might want to do something about unemployment, proving the banks don't mind.

There are many possible reasons for this, from death threats to lack of insight to bribery to innate dweebery. We'll never know. All we have to go on are his actions.

And 'sort of heading more to the centre than Bush' isn't much of a score card, considering where he was after election night 2008.

As for the majority argument - the Repubs have never been bothered by it. The Dems are only bothered by it because only a minority of Dems are actually progressive. The rest are DINOs. And some of those DINOs are the party leaders.

by ThatBritGuy (thatbritguy (at) googlemail.com) on Sat Nov 6th, 2010 at 10:20:45 PM EST
[ Parent ]
I only get my news from a few sources, and none of them are from the US. But the impression that I have is that he didn't reach his audience with any coherence of message, so the best he got was a sound bite here and there.

Perhaps he is pulling a Jerry Brown, staying low for the first 70% of his time, getting what he can (which hasn't been insignificant), and let the wave of fools break early.

Never underestimate their intelligence, always underestimate their knowledge.

Frank Delaney ~ Ireland

by siegestate (siegestate or beyondwarispeace.com) on Mon Nov 8th, 2010 at 09:03:04 AM EST
[ Parent ]
There is a large portion of the electorate that is furious at the abuses of the banking sector and the impunity which they have enjoyed. This is not very evident in NYC because of because of, but it is very true even among the Tea Party, it is just that the Tea Party doesn't address it in any way that could conceivably lead to a solution.

Had Obama merely exercised the power he has as President to order the investigation and prosecution of fraud that would have taken down the whole house of cards. In the situation that would have resulted it would have been possible to push through reforms. The big contributors to the Tea Party and the Republicans would have been busy defending themselves or be in jail. Lots of people would feel vindicated and would show their appreciation at the polls.

Instead, Obama became the public champion of the financial sector and has united in disdain for him and his policies the libertarians, such as Ron Paul admirers, and the progressives, such as the admirers of Feingold and Grayson. He has also demoralized his former supporters, and as a result they stayed home. This would not be so bad were his embrace of the financial sector viable over the long term, but it is not. Whether they get taken down or consolidate their power, he will be gone. I only hope it is before the 2012 elections cycle is too far along.    

"It is not necessary to have hope in order to persevere."

by ARGeezer (ARGeezer a in a circle eurotrib daught com) on Fri Nov 5th, 2010 at 12:33:21 PM EST
[ Parent ]
You are, not for the first time, hoping Obama resigns. I can't see why he would. And, will you then be cheering as the teabaggers impeach him?

Of all the ways of organizing banking, the worst is the one we have today — Mervyn King, 25 October 2010
by Migeru (migeru at eurotrib dot com) on Fri Nov 5th, 2010 at 12:54:54 PM EST
[ Parent ]
No, and he seems in disgustingly good health. I just consider him an obstacle and possibly the least likely of any of the '08 primary candidates to do what is needed in this situation. So it is hard not to wish he would leave in a timely fashion. It would be great if he would accept the position of UN General Secretary, President of the World Bank, etc. and so build an even more fabulous resume.

"It is not necessary to have hope in order to persevere."
by ARGeezer (ARGeezer a in a circle eurotrib daught com) on Fri Nov 5th, 2010 at 02:06:10 PM EST
[ Parent ]
he seems in disgustingly good health

Dude...

Of all the ways of organizing banking, the worst is the one we have today — Mervyn King, 25 October 2010

by Migeru (migeru at eurotrib dot com) on Fri Nov 5th, 2010 at 02:11:35 PM EST
[ Parent ]
You can say I am soured.

"It is not necessary to have hope in order to persevere."
by ARGeezer (ARGeezer a in a circle eurotrib daught com) on Fri Nov 5th, 2010 at 02:23:20 PM EST
[ Parent ]
The most incredible thing is the list of missed opportunities, misguided efforts, half-baked programs and out-and-out failures that clutter up the alley behind the Obama white house.
It's easy to brush off such comments as cheap post-game quarterbacking, but there are just so many of them. And so obvious.
One is tempted to see "The Manchurian Candidate", and/or get good and drunk.

Capitalism searches out the darkest corners of human potential, and mainlines them.
by geezer in Paris (risico at wanadoo(flypoop)fr) on Fri Nov 5th, 2010 at 12:56:12 PM EST
[ Parent ]
Original or remake?

You can't be me, I'm taken
by Sven Triloqvist on Fri Nov 5th, 2010 at 01:20:23 PM EST
[ Parent ]
Both.

Capitalism searches out the darkest corners of human potential, and mainlines them.
by geezer in Paris (risico at wanadoo(flypoop)fr) on Mon Nov 8th, 2010 at 08:42:01 AM EST
[ Parent ]
I found lots of wine, roast chicken with a nice thick reduced red wine, giblet, mustard sauce, and bursts of online profanity on progressive forums a decent way of dealing with despair on Tuesday night.
by MarekNYC on Fri Nov 5th, 2010 at 01:48:16 PM EST
[ Parent ]
Let me guess which of those was the key ingredient...

Of all the ways of organizing banking, the worst is the one we have today — Mervyn King, 25 October 2010
by Migeru (migeru at eurotrib dot com) on Fri Nov 5th, 2010 at 01:50:50 PM EST
[ Parent ]
... goals that its not likely that the Obama White House had. The "New Dem" Hedge Fund Democrat wing of the party views Wall Street reform as a matter of the minimum regulations that need to be put in place to prevent the system from self-destructing: the prospect of taming the beast is not an opportunity missed but rather a threat averted.

I've been accused of being a Marxist, yet while Harpo's my favourite, it's Groucho I'm always quoting. Odd, that.
by BruceMcF (agila61 at netscape dot net) on Sat Nov 6th, 2010 at 12:24:20 PM EST
[ Parent ]
What libertarians? They're an actually existing species? Other than that I see three sorts of demoralized supporters:

a) Politically engaged people who for various reasons hated him from the start, but some of whom voted for him anyways e.g. the hard core Hilary types.  

b) Politically engaged progressives who were a bit cynical, but genuinely expected him to be better than he was.

c)Non-engaged voters turned off by the enduring godawful mess that is the American economy.

The first two groups are numerically small and I don't think he could have done anything about a and most of b turned out for him anyways, at least judging by my anecdata.  The same highly scientific evidence does suggest a significantly lower rate of volunteering and donating among the second group.

The third group is the big one. Some of it is in the nature of turnout differences between presidential and midterm elections, some would have deserted due to the lack of an economic miracle, and some he lost through his own lacklustre performance.  That was decisive in the PA and IL Senate races and a handful of other statehouse and House ones. Feingold and a bunch of non Senate candidates would have been tossups, some of which would have fallen the right way.  

On NYC, maybe.  All progressives here with a higher education know people who work in the financial industry. They can be nice people, strongly progressive ones have actually been sighted.  There's also probably a corner of our mind that thinks that the amounts of cash Wall St rakes in sucks for the country, but is so huge that it's enough for a genuine trickle down effect on a local level.

by MarekNYC on Fri Nov 5th, 2010 at 01:31:43 PM EST
[ Parent ]
... in that set of categories, since its easy to lump progressives who voted for him as a better opponent to reform to have in the White House than McCain as "hated him from the beginning", even if they don't harbor any animus toward Obama.

He never gave any indication of being any more progressive than absolutely necessary to establish his brand image, and whenever moving to match the bids of his main pre-primary rivals, consistently picked a spot on the right hand side of the scrum. It was obvious that he would govern from well right of his primary positions.

I mean, good lord, if I saw it, and said so before the 2008 election, it had to be pretty damn clear to anyone who focused on the actual tinkering little policy positions rather than the soaring rhetoric about the magnitude of the challenges we face.


I've been accused of being a Marxist, yet while Harpo's my favourite, it's Groucho I'm always quoting. Odd, that.

by BruceMcF (agila61 at netscape dot net) on Sat Nov 6th, 2010 at 12:30:24 PM EST
[ Parent ]
Nah. You just thought the Executive branch was the monarchy.

A blisteringly common mistake.

The flaw is in democracy itself. It demands too much of the average citizen.

Align culture with our nature. Ot else!

by ormondotvos (ormond.otvosnospamgmialcon) on Sat Nov 6th, 2010 at 09:12:28 PM EST
[ Parent ]
That's what it was designed to be, a 18th century elector selected Constitutional monarchy. And the Senate was supposed to be an 18th century selected House of Lords. Only the House of Representatives was supposed to be directly elected, with two year terms to keep it weak, and without the powers that the House of Commons accumulated during the Napoleonic Wars, aka World War Number One.

Its an awfully old governmental system we have in the US. Yurpeans tend to have more modern 19th century institutions, either by evolution or tearing down and reconstruction of Republics.

I've been accused of being a Marxist, yet while Harpo's my favourite, it's Groucho I'm always quoting. Odd, that.

by BruceMcF (agila61 at netscape dot net) on Sun Nov 7th, 2010 at 11:26:04 AM EST
[ Parent ]
if I saw it, and said so before the 2008 election,

Exactly! He was my least preferred of all of the Democratic primary challengers and Hillary was down there a ways also. The reason was that I was disturbed by the artful way in which he and his campaign dodged specifics that were the essence of my real concerns. And, rightly or wrongly, I thought that, in part due to personal history, Hilary would get a better Health Care bill through Congress. But I certainly was not going to support McCain and I could at least hope that Obama would have the wisdom to see the necessity of serious financial reform and the political skills to do so.

"It is not necessary to have hope in order to persevere."
by ARGeezer (ARGeezer a in a circle eurotrib daught com) on Sun Nov 7th, 2010 at 10:39:19 AM EST
[ Parent ]
... in the pockets of Wall Street, its just that so would McCain and he would be shared with the Oil Industry, which would be even worse.

Since I never hoped that a Hedge Fund Democrat would be anything else, while unhappy with his economic decisions, I was never really disappointed in them.

It is the moderate authoritarianism of the Justice Department that is disappointing to me, since the Democratic supporting Hedge Fund managers tend to be socially liberal. The Obama administration talks a moderate socially liberal game plan, but regularly delivers moderate authoritarian plays.

Since those are things that can not be blocked by Senate Filibuster, all of the "Senate did not let me" excuses fall away for those. If it was a political calculation to avoid sparking culture ways, it was a foolish one: culture wars are not caused by the talking points, they are caused by something else and the talking points are to mobilize the ground troops.

But since the Health Care debate and efforts to protect Wall Street from destroying itself were always bound to attract massive money to mobilize those ground troops, there was nothing to be lost in doing things to make socially liberal types happy.

So that is the disappointment. I knew he was a economic neoliberal, but its been disappointing to see that he was not a socially liberal economic neoliberal

Its like keeping the large number of bad bits of a European Liberal Party platform and tossing the smaller number of good bits to the side.

I've been accused of being a Marxist, yet while Harpo's my favourite, it's Groucho I'm always quoting. Odd, that.

by BruceMcF (agila61 at netscape dot net) on Sun Nov 7th, 2010 at 11:35:08 AM EST
[ Parent ]
Doing what needed to be done would have been heroic and, possibly, politically suicidal. But such leadership is not without precedent in our country, vis. Lincoln and FDR. So a guarded hope that he could rise to the occasion didn't seem too laughable at the time. I strongly suspect that, in two more years, his failure to have dealt with the financial sector will be widely seen as his and the country's undoing. Widely, but not too widely. There will still be a large segment of the country that will think it was all part of his black muslim socialist plan all along. But it appears that, along with the poor, the delusional we shall always have with us.

"It is not necessary to have hope in order to persevere."
by ARGeezer (ARGeezer a in a circle eurotrib daught com) on Sun Nov 7th, 2010 at 12:33:43 PM EST
[ Parent ]
Also, I think a resignation is a pipe dream, I don't see Biden, formed in the very corporate friendly DE political environment, being any better, nor do I see a full on vocal across the board progressive having a chance in the general.  And if there's even the slightest hint of Obama being pushed, or if he got defeated in a primary, the Dems would have essentially thrown away a couple points of their diehard minimal vote.  If you don't believe me, try posting that suggestion over and Jack and Jill Politics and bring armor. I suspect the suggestion would play even worse among working class African Americans.
by MarekNYC on Fri Nov 5th, 2010 at 01:40:27 PM EST
[ Parent ]
You may be right and, if so, re-electing Obama might be the least damaging thing to do and I may end up voting for him again, if it would affect whether he carries Arkansas, which is highly doubtful. But this does nothing towards making progress on vital yet deteriorating conditions such as the economy, which will not recover until and unless the financial sector is prosecuted and reformed, moving to renewable energy, which is vital for preparing for the end of available, affordable petroleum or moving effectively on global warming, which is already impacting us.

It is hard to know whether six more years of Obama would be worse than two more and then a Republican. That would depend on whether there will be future elections, on whether there will be an economy and on whether there will be a livable climate. It is beginning to appear that the country might have been better off with McCain, presuming he lives until 2012. He might not have been much worse than Obama has been and the blame for the economy would be firmly on the Republicans.

But from what I have seen of Obama, were he to be elected to a first term in 2012 he may well have done nothing different. I believe he thinks he has done the best that could be done, even as I strongly disagree.

"It is not necessary to have hope in order to persevere."

by ARGeezer (ARGeezer a in a circle eurotrib daught com) on Fri Nov 5th, 2010 at 02:21:26 PM EST
[ Parent ]
" I believe he thinks he has done the best that could be done, even as I strongly disagree."

What does Obama know that you can't?

Why elect and then snipe?


Align culture with our nature. Ot else!

by ormondotvos (ormond.otvosnospamgmialcon) on Sat Nov 6th, 2010 at 09:34:22 PM EST
[ Parent ]
Because if democracy- if the social ethic of at least minimal integrity that underlies all government means anything, we have been betrayed. Sold out. Including those who don't see it.

And as to what Obama really believes, --we will never know. There's the rub. But we can say there is a gigantic dissonance between the song he sings and the acts he does.

Capitalism searches out the darkest corners of human potential, and mainlines them.

by geezer in Paris (risico at wanadoo(flypoop)fr) on Mon Nov 8th, 2010 at 08:53:18 AM EST
[ Parent ]
Also, Obama could be Vlad Tepes of Wallachia, and he'd still be the preference of most people on this site if the alternative was a McCain/Palin ticket. As the case happened to be. That's the "wonderful" thing about having a two-party system: You can experience the joy and pleasure of rooting for people you despise, because the other ticket has elevated psychosis to the status of party platform.

Two-party systems: Twice as democratic as one-party systems.

- Jake

Friends come and go. Enemies accumulate.

by JakeS (JangoSierra 'at' gmail 'dot' com) on Mon Nov 8th, 2010 at 02:44:35 PM EST
[ Parent ]
One thing missing from the discussion so far is another terrorist attack on US soil or our invasion of Iran. If either event occurs the MSM scares the American public to death (doesn't really take much), the bad economy goes away like the Wars did during this last election, and on we go to Authoritarianism, and the current environment becomes the good-old-days.

They tried to assimilate me. They failed.
by THE Twank (yatta blah blah @ blah.com) on Sun Nov 7th, 2010 at 09:44:21 AM EST
[ Parent ]
... Hedge Funds Democrats rely on socially liberal Hedge Fund money to run campaigns.

I mean, its great to collect $5 and $10 contributions from millions of people and all, but first you have to build the marketing machine to have the brand that the $5 and $10 contributors want to identify with.


I've been accused of being a Marxist, yet while Harpo's my favourite, it's Groucho I'm always quoting. Odd, that.

by BruceMcF (agila61 at netscape dot net) on Sat Nov 6th, 2010 at 01:05:53 AM EST
[ Parent ]
How did Dean do it? Did he also have hedgefund money to start with?

Sweden's finest (and perhaps only) collaborative, leftist e-newspaper Synapze.se
by A swedish kind of death on Sat Nov 6th, 2010 at 04:30:29 PM EST
[ Parent ]
Dean's early moneyh base was in progressive medical doctors, among others (remember, a majority can oppose you, but in the early money $2,400 check game, its the numbers who can write a $2,400 check at the drop of a hat who support you who matter), Edwards in 2004 had the plaintiff's bar (and LZS: loose zipper syndrome), and he tried to top it up off Hedge Fund money in '08. From 2004, Kerry was Hedge Funds, Wesley Clark ??? I'm not sure, but he only won his home state.

Indeed, according to the map (just winners, not delegate break down):

... only Kerry won any state other than their home state (Edwards born in SC, went to University and made his career in NC).

2008, Clinton, Obama, Hedge Fund; Edwards*, Plaintiff's Bar, Hedge Fund (forced to withdraw before rust belt due to LZS_TM).


I've been accused of being a Marxist, yet while Harpo's my favourite, it's Groucho I'm always quoting. Odd, that.

by BruceMcF (agila61 at netscape dot net) on Sat Nov 6th, 2010 at 08:00:56 PM EST
[ Parent ]
It's the Department of Justice, not the president that investigates those types of crimes. The president does not have those powers.
Also, there must be a law in place that is broken for finacial crimes to take place. Deregulation allowed the financial sector to get away with a lot.
I see you don't like Obama, but try to stick to facts.
by Maude on Sat Nov 6th, 2010 at 11:22:47 PM EST
[ Parent ]
But it's the president who appoints the attorney general. It's not like there isn't plenty of out-and-out fraud, even after taking deregulation. A half-way aggressive attorney could easily have perp-walked half a dozen Wall Street bigwigs. And that's not even going into whether some of the deregulation was affected through actionable bribery.

Now, I'm inclined to cut Obama some slack - he did get a health care bill through that the Republicans seem to hate for genuine ideological reasons rather than because it's drafted by people with a D after their names. Since the Republicans are simply evil and their ideology is little more than distilled mean-spiritedness, that must mean that the health care bill can't be all bad.

But that does not mean that Obama did not have it within his formal powers to go after Wall Street. He may have had excellent reasons to not go after Wall Street, but please don't bullshit us with the argument that he was powerless to do so.

- Jake

Friends come and go. Enemies accumulate.

by JakeS (JangoSierra 'at' gmail 'dot' com) on Sun Nov 7th, 2010 at 06:25:03 AM EST
[ Parent ]
The Attorney General serves at the pleasure of the President. If the President wants something done, especially if it is legal and involves enforcing existing laws, he can certainly incentivise Justice to move on it. It has happened over and over.

"It is not necessary to have hope in order to persevere."
by ARGeezer (ARGeezer a in a circle eurotrib daught com) on Sun Nov 7th, 2010 at 10:46:48 AM EST
[ Parent ]
... like a directly elected State Attorney General, where the Governor and Attorney General can easily be at loggerheads. The Attorney General can and should refuse to take actions that are illegal or improper, and Congressional oversight should encourage that, but if the President and the Attorney General are consistently in disagreement over what legal and proper actions to take, the resolution to that is a letter of resignation and appointment of a new Attorney General.

While each and every Justice Department action does not always represent the first wishes of an administration, its regular pattern of behavior reflects administration policy.

I've been accused of being a Marxist, yet while Harpo's my favourite, it's Groucho I'm always quoting. Odd, that.

by BruceMcF (agila61 at netscape dot net) on Sun Nov 7th, 2010 at 11:40:37 AM EST
[ Parent ]
The Attorney General can and should refuse to take actions that are illegal or improper, and Congressional oversight should encourage that

Heheheh. Haha. Hahahaha! BWA-HA-HA!

Thank you for making me smile on this dreary day. Apparently satire is not quite dead yet.

- Jake

Friends come and go. Enemies accumulate.

by JakeS (JangoSierra 'at' gmail 'dot' com) on Sun Nov 7th, 2010 at 11:45:12 AM EST
[ Parent ]
We are not in Kansas anymore.

"It is not necessary to have hope in order to persevere."
by ARGeezer (ARGeezer a in a circle eurotrib daught com) on Sun Nov 7th, 2010 at 12:24:16 PM EST
[ Parent ]
Some random and disconnected thoughts after finally recovering from the election season:

  • The results should be seen as variation within a narrow band. There's a floor of about 50 Democratic Senate seats and about 200 House seats, and a ceiling of 60 Dem Senate seats and maybe 250 House seats. The swing is determined by what extent the Democratic majority in the electorate actually shows up. When they showed up in 2006 and 2008, Dems hit the upper end of the band; when they didn't show up to the same extent in 2002 and 2010, Dems hit the lower end.

  • The above is a function of deeper economic and demographic trends. Those parts of the country most deeply linked to the 20th century industries of real estate and oil are still voting Republican; those parts more linked to a 21st century "creative" economy are more willing to vote for Democrats. And states where the Latino vote is decisive, like California and Nevada, are much more Democratic than those that aren't (Florida being an exception because of the Cuban exiles).

  • Obama's presidency is a failure, and voters know it. He's clearly revealed his stripes as a centrist agent of the bankster/corporate elite, and voters are coming to the depressing realization that he isn't going to provide change, whether they believe he was ever sincere or not.

  • Republicans are absolutely going to crash the economy, because they realize Obama will lose if things get worse between now and then - and that with Democratic Senate and a Democratic White House, they can get away with pinning the blame on Obama. An outright Depression is probably already here, but if not, it will be by 2012.

  • The American political system will become increasingly sclerotic. At best we're witnessing a replay of the 1850s, where a similar situation ended in a civil war between two political parties. At worst we're witnessing a replay of the early 1930s in Germany, where a similar situation ended in an authoritarian coup.


And the world will live as one
by Montereyan (robert at calitics dot com) on Thu Nov 4th, 2010 at 10:12:24 PM EST
... what Obama was calling change was tinkering around the edges, and so when he called it Change You Can Believe In, that was not actually the kind of change that many of his 2008 voters actually believe in.

I've been accused of being a Marxist, yet while Harpo's my favourite, it's Groucho I'm always quoting. Odd, that.
by BruceMcF (agila61 at netscape dot net) on Fri Nov 5th, 2010 at 12:17:12 PM EST
[ Parent ]
Neither. Much is not known that must be known to make such determinations.

"Obama's presidency is a failure, and voters know it. He's clearly revealed his stripes as a centrist agent of the bankster/corporate elite, and voters are coming to the depressing realization that he isn't going to provide change, whether they believe he was ever sincere or not."

Align culture with our nature. Ot else!

by ormondotvos (ormond.otvosnospamgmialcon) on Sat Nov 6th, 2010 at 10:04:06 PM EST
[ Parent ]
Neither. Much is not known that must be known to make such determinations.

"Obama's presidency is a failure, and voters know it. He's clearly revealed his stripes as a centrist agent of the bankster/corporate elite, and voters are coming to the depressing realization that he isn't going to provide change, whether they believe he was ever sincere or not."

Align culture with our nature. Ot else!

by ormondotvos (ormond.otvosnospamgmialcon) on Sat Nov 6th, 2010 at 10:04:17 PM EST
[ Parent ]
A few disjointed, think positive thoughts, if only not to get too depressed.

The Dem party has overall been steadily moving to the left over the past half dozen years.  For the previous twenty (at least) it was moving to the right.  This can be obscured by the continued presence of a powerful minority right wing faction that needs to be cajoled and bribed into voting with the majority of the party through watered down legislation, pork and endless begging. Still, back in 2004 not a single non token protest run Dem candidate in the primaries was willing to propose even the most watered down health care bill, not even as a throwaway primary promise to satisfy the much more progressive primary electorate. In 2000 the Dem elites were pretty universally on board with the full neo-lib Rubin-Summers package. Now you've got plenty of very vocal dissenters. (Think of the evolution of a Paul Krugman, try to imagine a Brad DeLong type calling for the nationalization of the energy industry ten years ago  Related, the emergence of outspoken voices in the media and the now actually somewhat important online sphere who clearly are aligned with the progressive wing. (compare CNN c. 2000 with MSNBC c. 2008).  Remember just how long the right has been working on turning the Repubs into a coherent, disciplined vehicle for their ideas while pushing a new ideological discourse to replace the one that emerged from the New Deal.

None of this applies to those of you who would like to kill off capitalism rather than tame it into a capitalism with a human face a la the vision of postwar European social democracy.

by MarekNYC on Fri Nov 5th, 2010 at 05:28:45 AM EST
None of this applies to those of you who would like to kill off capitalism rather than tame it into a capitalism with a human face a la the vision of postwar European social democracy.

This is somewhat misleading. What postwar Europe (and USA) had was not capitalism (as in: the owners of capital hold the commanding heights of the political economy). Postwar Europe (and USA) had a political economy that can perhaps best be described as technocracy - those with technical and organisational competence hold the commanding heights of the political economy.

The Anglo Disease does not signify a return to capitalism. Capital remains superabundant relative to requirements, and easily obtainable if you have money and organisation. The Anglo Disease shifted the political economy from technocracy to financialisation, where the holders of financial assets control the commanding heights of the political economy. Financial assets are not capital - they produce nothing. They are political promises - they give you command over a polity and/or the fruits of its labour.

The transition from capitalism (through a brief stint of financialisation that ended in the early 1930s) to technocracy and then to financialisation is not simply a quarrel over terminology, any more than the transition from constitutional monarchy to parliamentary democracy to managed democracy is: Understanding that these are radically different institutional setups is important if you want to build correct mental models of them.

- Jake

Friends come and go. Enemies accumulate.

by JakeS (JangoSierra 'at' gmail 'dot' com) on Fri Nov 5th, 2010 at 05:55:21 AM EST
[ Parent ]
When I say capitalism, I'm using it in a minimalist and non-political economy way.  That is, in my fantasy world there is still a very large private sector and most of the standard necessary institutions to a market economy, including a tamed by private financial sector.  I also have no problem with top level capitalists retaining outsized power relative to the average individual in the same way that top union leaders did in the America of the sixties.  Or perhaps to put it differently, I don't see any way around it so the question isn't how do you eliminate such inequalities, but rather to reduce them and render them less pernicious.
by MarekNYC on Fri Nov 5th, 2010 at 07:01:38 AM EST
[ Parent ]
Interesting commentary...

The big picture isn't about winning or keeping power. It's about using it. I've made this argument before, but David Frum, the former speechwriter to President Bush, has made it better. In March, when Democrats secured enough votes to pass the bill, he castigated fellow conservatives who looked forward to punishing Pelosi and President Obama "with a big win in the November 2010 elections." Frum observed:

"Legislative majorities come and go. This healthcare bill is forever. A win in November is very poor compensation for this debacle now. ... No illusions please: This bill will not be repealed. Even if Republicans scored a 1994 style landslide in November, how many votes could we muster to re-open the "doughnut hole" and charge seniors more for prescription drugs? How many votes to re-allow insurers to rescind policies when they discover a pre-existing condition? How many votes to banish 25 year olds from their parents' insurance coverage?"

Exactly. A party that loses a House seat can win it back two years later, as Republicans just proved. But a party that loses a legislative fight against a middle-class health-care entitlement never restores the old order. Pretty soon, Republicans will be claiming the program as their own. Indeed, one of their favorite arguments against this year's health-care bill was that it would cut funding for Medicare. Now they're pledging to rescind those cuts. In 30 years, they'll be accusing Democrats of defunding Obamacare.

http://www.slate.com/id/2273708/

by asdf on Fri Nov 5th, 2010 at 09:53:57 AM EST
That was precisely one of the arguments for continuing to suppoer the bill even in the absence of a public option. Any "middle-class entitlement" is there to stay...

Of all the ways of organizing banking, the worst is the one we have today — Mervyn King, 25 October 2010
by Migeru (migeru at eurotrib dot com) on Fri Nov 5th, 2010 at 09:58:51 AM EST
[ Parent ]
Without reopening what might have been a nasty debate (god knows it was ugly in the US liberal blogosphere), what was the Eurotribbers take on that controversy?
by MarekNYC on Fri Nov 5th, 2010 at 11:31:47 AM EST
[ Parent ]
See, for instance, Izzy's An overly-long rant about HCR from January 25th, 2010. Especially the comment thread where various American ETers state their positions.

This is not, obviously, the only debate had on the topic.

Of all the ways of organizing banking, the worst is the one we have today — Mervyn King, 25 October 2010

by Migeru (migeru at eurotrib dot com) on Fri Nov 5th, 2010 at 11:53:18 AM EST
[ Parent ]
thanks. And also a thanks to Izzy, if you're reading this, great diary.
by MarekNYC on Fri Nov 5th, 2010 at 12:07:30 PM EST
[ Parent ]
Did Controversial Roll Call Votes Doom the Democrats?

So I modeled Democratic vote share in contested House districts using this count of "yes" votes, plus campaign money in 2010 (from here and here) and each district's House and presidential vote in 2008 as controls (here).1 The model also estimates whether the effect of roll call votes depended on the partisanship of the district, as captured by the 2008 presidential vote. This model predicts a Republican majority of 242 seats, compared to the 244 it currently looks like they are going to win. So the model is pretty good, understating Republican performance only a little bit.

What does this model tell us about roll call votes on these four bills? Simple answer: they mattered. A lot. A Democratic incumbent in the average district represented by Democratic incumbents actually lost about 2/3 of a percentage point for every yes vote. That doesn't sound like a lot, but that's for incumbents in districts that voted 63% for Obama.

For Democrats in the least Democratic districts (Chet Edwards of TX or Gene Taylor of MS), the model suggests a loss of about 4% for every yes vote. Does that mean poor Chet lost 16 points on roll call votes alone? No, because he wasn't a big supporter of Obama's agenda. But he did vote for both TARP and the stimulus. In fact, virtually every Democratic incumbent on the ballot yesterday supported at least one of these four bills. That support was costly.

That just reinforces my feeling that the only thing that would have helped in any significant way is a better economy. Running hard on liberal base motivation themes wouldn't be that helpful.  That sort of messaging also motivates the opposing base, and in swing and right leaning districts motivating your opponents base is not an optimal strategy.  Nor does it tend to convince the small but significant for close races number of genuine swing voters.

by MarekNYC on Fri Nov 5th, 2010 at 11:30:21 AM EST
MarekNYC:
in swing and right leaning districts motivating your opponents base is not an optimal strategy
That is probably why Geayson lost. He was a first-term Representative in a historically Republican district, and was one of the most strident liberals in the House. He rode in on Obama's coattails, and went out for making it easy to mobilize the majority conservative base in his district.

Of all the ways of organizing banking, the worst is the one we have today — Mervyn King, 25 October 2010
by Migeru (migeru at eurotrib dot com) on Fri Nov 5th, 2010 at 12:01:38 PM EST
[ Parent ]
And Grayson's fate is why Obama's tactics had to be...

Of course, strategy didn't seem Grayson's strong point, and I think it IS Obama's.

He got a health care bill passed. Clinton didn't.

Align culture with our nature. Ot else!

by ormondotvos (ormond.otvosnospamgmialcon) on Sat Nov 6th, 2010 at 10:17:24 PM EST
[ Parent ]
While I'm closer to your view than TBG's, you are pushing it a bit far. Grayson was from a modestly R+ district, the nation as a whole is, by definition, not. And there's plenty of space between Grayson's deliberately provocative image and Obama.  I'd be deeply upset if Obama tried to act like Grayson - I like my politicians progressive, I don't like them to be incompetent.  But, as Obama's more moderate progressive critics say, he could have tried for more.  For example, it is probably true that he couldn't have gotten any even half way decent public option passed, and quite possibly none at all. However, he could have pushed harder for it and only conceded on it later.  This is also true on Wall St. though I think TBG and others here grossly overstate the potential popularity of such a stance after the right wing PR machine got through with it.
by MarekNYC on Sat Nov 6th, 2010 at 10:52:59 PM EST
[ Parent ]
... the individual mandate is less effective than a 4% employer mandate with half going to an employees health exchange account, and greater political damage for it.

And unlike the individual mandate, actually reduces the pace of the transition out of employer-provided comprehensive health insurance, which under the system as designed risks being far faster than the OMB and CBO imagined in their modeling.


I've been accused of being a Marxist, yet while Harpo's my favourite, it's Groucho I'm always quoting. Odd, that.

by BruceMcF (agila61 at netscape dot net) on Sun Nov 7th, 2010 at 11:46:30 AM EST
[ Parent ]
How do you have community rating, a ban on taking account of pre-existing conditions, and shall issue without a mandate while at the same time preventing either the whole system collapsing or prices skyrocketing?
by MarekNYC on Sun Nov 7th, 2010 at 12:00:30 PM EST
[ Parent ]
Well, an employer mandate is a mandate. But it's a mandate that apply to organisations who have the power to take the fight to the insurance companies.

- Jake

Friends come and go. Enemies accumulate.

by JakeS (JangoSierra 'at' gmail 'dot' com) on Sun Nov 7th, 2010 at 12:43:36 PM EST
[ Parent ]
What about those who are not employed, or self employed, or in the grey market, or freelancers, or who work for a small business?  That's a quite large part of the population, and, while being to lazy to look it up, I suspect an even larger percentage of the uninsured. None of them would have anymore leverage on pricing than they do now, but they would be confronted with higher prices. And four percent is much less than the cost of insurance for even a large organization right now, let alone a small business or individual after the various other provisions of the law kick in.
by MarekNYC on Sun Nov 7th, 2010 at 12:53:11 PM EST
[ Parent ]
... a 4% medium and large scale employer mandate with half of that going into the individual account if there is one, that would be substantially more effective than the fairly toothless individual mandate that presently exists in law.

I was not talking about "any mandate versus no mandate" in the abstract, but about a limp wristed but symbolically toxic mandate versus a more effective one that would be perceived by the individual as cutting their cost of health insurance.

I've been accused of being a Marxist, yet while Harpo's my favourite, it's Groucho I'm always quoting. Odd, that.

by BruceMcF (agila61 at netscape dot net) on Sun Nov 7th, 2010 at 03:54:45 PM EST
[ Parent ]
There is a causality problem in that test ~ if the likelihood that someone will vote for a particular piece of legislation is determined in part by poll numbers in their district, and then the race is successfully nationalized so that what vote they took did not matter, we would expect to see the Congressmen sitting in seats they were bound to lose if the race was nationalized to have made the fewest votes in line with the House leadership.

Correlation is not causation, and time sequencing alone only sorts it out definitively if there is no anticipatory modeling on the part of decision makers.

There's also the matter of outside money. The cost of a vote that buys more spending on outside group attack ads than the total campaign funds raised by all candidates in that race combined is likely to be higher than the cost of a vote that does not buy those attack ads.

I've been accused of being a Marxist, yet while Harpo's my favourite, it's Groucho I'm always quoting. Odd, that.

by BruceMcF (agila61 at netscape dot net) on Fri Nov 5th, 2010 at 12:27:03 PM EST
[ Parent ]
Democrats didn't lose the battle of 2010. They won it. - By William Saletan - Slate Magazine
emocrats have lost the House, and health care is getting the blame. Sen. Evan Bayh of Indiana, a retiring Democrat, says his party "overreached by focusing on health care rather than job creation" and by spending $1 trillion on "a major entitlement expansion." Sen. John McCain's economic adviser agrees. Pundits say the health care bill killed President Obama's approval ratings, cost congressional Democrats their jobs, and snuffed out the legacy of House Speaker Nancy Pelosi. "Virtually every House Democrat from a swing district who took a gamble by voting for the health law made a bad political bet," says the New York Times. The Los Angeles Times laments that "the measure of a leader in Washington isn't how much gets done, it's who holds power in the end. On that scale, Pelosi failed."

I'm not buying the autopsy or the obituary.



Any idiot can face a crisis - it's day to day living that wears you out.
by ceebs (ceebs (at) eurotrib (dot) com) on Sat Nov 6th, 2010 at 06:48:23 PM EST
Nice talk here...but anybody (not to mention that man has to be nominated for the position of president, that is impossible by itself) who would turn left in USA politic would be dead next day.
American presidents want to live...


Science without religion is lame, religion without science is blind...Albert Einstein
by vbo on Sun Nov 7th, 2010 at 01:21:21 AM EST
... is to restructure the caucus balance of power in the Democratic delegation on the House side and fix the filibuster in the Senate. A radical progressive Presidency to fix all our problems is a children's bedtime story.

I've been accused of being a Marxist, yet while Harpo's my favourite, it's Groucho I'm always quoting. Odd, that.
by BruceMcF (agila61 at netscape dot net) on Sun Nov 7th, 2010 at 11:48:10 AM EST
[ Parent ]
Odd you should say that--
Fixing the caucus may well require huge and fundamental change to the nominating process first of all, and some useful dreaming could come in handy there--
And the filibuster may just save our butt in the next couple years. It is unlikely that the not-so-big "O" will muster the ---er, Audacity to veto generously.

Capitalism searches out the darkest corners of human potential, and mainlines them.
by geezer in Paris (risico at wanadoo(flypoop)fr) on Mon Nov 8th, 2010 at 09:06:57 AM EST
[ Parent ]
Filibuster by whom? Are we waiting for the Dems to display a backbone in defense of mainstreet? I'm not holding my breath.

They tried to assimilate me. They failed.
by THE Twank (yatta blah blah @ blah.com) on Mon Nov 8th, 2010 at 09:16:32 AM EST
[ Parent ]
Politicians are totally clueless (and not just in USA).They are simply "following the money" while whole system is falling apart. Their logic is "once we have enough money again, we'll repair it" (no meter what they have to "kill" in a process).But it's not that simple. When the damage is too big and crucial parts of the system has to be "written off" system will not work anymore. We cannot go back (at least not literally) and new system will be needed to come to place. What it will be? I wonder...

Science without religion is lame, religion without science is blind...Albert Einstein
by vbo on Mon Nov 8th, 2010 at 06:44:03 PM EST
[ Parent ]
... Congressional district level primary process? I don't follow how fixing the Democratic delegation to kill off the Blue Dog Caucus and replace the New Dems with a more useful caucus for the CPC to work with requires any changes to the congressional candidate nominating process at all, let alone major ones.

I've been accused of being a Marxist, yet while Harpo's my favourite, it's Groucho I'm always quoting. Odd, that.
by BruceMcF (agila61 at netscape dot net) on Mon Nov 8th, 2010 at 11:17:31 PM EST
[ Parent ]
... is always the excuse used, but it never actually does. Its an argument that a bird in the bush is better than two in the hand.

Better to dispense with Aaron Burr's anti-democratic blunder entirely ~ supermajorities relieve the majority of responsibility as well as power, and are part of why California's state government is broken as well as why the Senate is where progressive reform goes to die.

I've been accused of being a Marxist, yet while Harpo's my favourite, it's Groucho I'm always quoting. Odd, that.

by BruceMcF (agila61 at netscape dot net) on Mon Nov 8th, 2010 at 11:22:03 PM EST
[ Parent ]
We always knew it would get worse before it gets better.

The Hun is always either at your throat or at your feet. Winston Churchill
by r------ on Tue Nov 9th, 2010 at 05:47:51 AM EST


Display:
Go to: [ European Tribune Homepage : Top of page : Top of comments ]