StrangeSox

QUOTE (BigSqwert @ Aug 2, 2011 -> 04:11 PM) Perhaps he feels that if he immediately caves on everything for 3 and a half years, his opposition will be likely to help pass his progressive agenda right before the next election. I'm past the point of thinking that Obama is just weak and ineffective. I don't believe he has anything close to a progressive agenda.

QUOTE (bmags @ Aug 2, 2011 -> 04:05 PM) "she all of the sudden became the world's biggest derivative regulation backer" "she said she would have voted to repeal DADT, but darn it, she just missed it" Obama campaigned on all sorts of stuff he immediately backed away from as his opening move. edit: What Balta said.

QUOTE (bmags @ Aug 2, 2011 -> 04:01 PM) Did you miss what happened when Lincoln was primaried? She all of the sudden become the world's biggest derivative regulation backer. Lincoln also helped form the Moderate Dems Working Group, a coalition of moderate Senate Democrats whose stated goal is to work with Senate leadership and the administration toward finding bipartisan solutions to controversial political issues. In addition, she co-founded and currently co-chairs Third Way, a moderate think-tank whose self-described goals are "an economic agenda that is focused on growth and middle class success; a culture of shared values; a national security approach that is both tough and smart; and a clean energy revolution." [10] In September 2009, Lincoln pledged to filibuster any legislation containing a Public health insurance option, such as the Affordable Health Care for America Act, the House of Representatives' proposed health care reform bill.[11] Lincoln voted in favor of the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act, the Senate bill which eventually became the Barack Obama administration's health care reform bill. However, she voted against the Health Care and Education Reconciliation Act of 2010, an package of amendments to the former bill passed by the reconciliation process in the Senate. She also spoke out in opposition to the Employee Free Choice Act, garnering her the praise of Americans for Tax Reform.[12] On December 9, 2010 Lincoln missed a critical vote to repeal Don't ask, don't tell after a dental appointment and missed voting by three minutes. A supporter of the bill, Sen. Joe Lieberman (I-CT), told reporters: "She was very frustrated and apologized to both of us." She claims she would have voted for repeal had she made the vote.[13] Lincoln opposes bringing Guantanamo Bay prisoners to the United States for trial.[14]

QUOTE (Balta1701 @ Aug 2, 2011 -> 04:00 PM) Especially in the Senate though where it actually mattered...how many of them could win if they were legit liberals? Nelson in Nebraska? Lincoln in Arkansas? Are those seats going to be won by Russ Feingold? You know what makes it really hard to legitimize liberal policy? Not having either party in a two-party system ever advocate for it.

QUOTE (BigSqwert @ Aug 2, 2011 -> 03:57 PM) Plus the Congressional GOP's approval ratings are even worse than the Dems' or Obama's. So basically a small minority of the population is running the show while the Dems bend over. Right. There's wide support for increasing revenues as part of a deficit reduction plan. There's more concern about jobs than about deficits. But the Democrats immediately caved to the Republican talking points of deficits, deficits, deficits, never once fighting them on it. And once Obama inexplicably takes Constitutional back doors off the table, he's lost any negotiating power he might have had. He's so damn eager to be perceived as some great post-partisan President that he'll sell out his progressive base as his opening move.

QUOTE (Balta1701 @ Aug 2, 2011 -> 03:52 PM) You know, I think they did a fairly decent job in 2009-2011 of getting passed what they could given the Filibuster constraint. That was probably the most productive Congress since the 60's. My problem now is I'm watching it all get thrown out the window. Part of the problem here is that the reason Democrats had such strong majorities is that they had conservative candidates win seats. My objection here isn't against voting for or campaigning for liberal Democrats; it's against voting for someone just because they've got a (D) next to their name, even though they might be a terrible politician with what would have been considered strongly conservative positions a decade or two ago.

QUOTE (bmags @ Aug 2, 2011 -> 03:50 PM) You guys just think someone going in swinging a big dick can get things done right now. But with a s***ty economy, 100% debt and an opposition party acting like a parliamentary opposition party in a system not set up to deal with that, nothing gets done. But, liberals, who blame environment and structure for everything except politics, just sit and whine and pout when daddy doesn't fix everything. The Republicans took one part of one branch of government and forced serious policy changes within 7 months. Largely because Obama was afraid of their big, swinging dick. He immediately adopted their narratives and immediately took legitimate options to get around their obstructionism off the table. He fought for nothing and capitulated to everything while getting nothing in return. Somehow this is liberals' faults. Dumb, whiny liberals who are stupid for expecting Democrat supermajorities in Congress and a Democrat President to make equivalently substantial changes in the two years they controlled government.

I do need to get around to writing Durbin a letter though.

QUOTE (Alpha Dog @ Aug 1, 2011 -> 07:09 PM) Tex, liberals will let you know who they are scared of most, because they are usually trying to convince everyone else that they are bad for the job. For some reason this just popped into my head: every Democrat who runs for President is somehow analytically determined to be "The Most Liberal Congressman/Gov EVER!"

QUOTE (bmags @ Aug 2, 2011 -> 03:38 PM) That's because they continue to raise hell and their members know they will be primaried if they dont' vote their way. The left never does this. They vote someone in, sit and wait, then when they don't vote like they want, they just don't show up and he loses. The left's been pretty pissed and pretty vocal about Obama's administration since damn near the start. His response has been to s*** all over them and delegitimize progressive viewpoints in important political discussions by adopting conservative viewpoints from the start.

QUOTE (bmags @ Aug 2, 2011 -> 03:38 PM) You know why? Because the democratic base considers themselves moderate. And moderates love compromise. And in a system that favors smaller populations instead of larger more liberal ones you need moderate-conservative dems to make a majority. And they will be needed to vote. So, either fight to change the structure, or put pressure on the moderate candidates by running a candidate to their left (see: lincoln, ark.). It works remarkably well, but also requires work to be done, soooo...better just let the tea party take over. I'm not advocating apathy. I'm rejecting the "keep voting Dem presidents because at least they're not Republicans" ideology. Unfortunately that obviously won't change in 2012, but I still won't be voting for Obama. But you know what makes it hard to run liberal candidates? When the top Democrats immediately cave to conservative fiscal narratives and don't even bother advocating for another position or viewpoint. When they instantly come into the conversation from the same perspective as Boehner, it only strengthens the legitimacy of their claims and prevents any liberal positions from being advocated. Single-payer, instantly off the table. Large-scale stimulus of actual spending, instantly off the table. Refusing to tie the debt ceiling and deficits together and instead focusing on jobs jobs jobs, instantly off the table.

QUOTE (Balta1701 @ Aug 2, 2011 -> 03:36 PM) bmags, I used to be the guy saying exactly what you're saying. Now we're at our 2nd budget cut debacle in the past what, 4 months? And whether we like it or not, there'll be another one with another shutdown deadline in September. Yes, the PPACA was good policy, and the Dodd Frank act as written was at least decent policy, and there are other victories (lilly ledbedder, etc.) But how much of that matters if it gets rolled back in the next deal? How much does a health care coverage expansion matter if 12 months later you get rolled to the point that you're taking on significant health care coverage cuts? How much does extending one type of protection gain if simultaneously you're doing things like dramatically slashing student loans? Maybe I'll be back saying what you're saying again once there's a Republican nominee...but this budget debacle really has me down. Right, and that's what BS and I were stressing to you recently. I can't imagine when the Democrats will have as strong of a position as they did 2009-2011. This is the best they can do? And 7 months later, after one measly election in which they lost the House, they're not only begrudgingly voting for but actually proposing far-right, far-reaching fiscal reform/austerity in the middle of a prolonged recession?

QUOTE (bmags @ Aug 2, 2011 -> 03:28 PM) we have principles to only get everything we want and nothing less. It worked for the Republicans after winning one house of Congress in one election. Eight months later and we've got serious entitlement cuts on the table and a mandated vote on a balanced budget amendment. I've never advocated not voting, though. I've simply advocated against voting for politicians like Obama.

QUOTE (bmags @ Aug 2, 2011 -> 03:23 PM) Politics is hard work, you don't win it with one election. Democrats got a lot passed during that time they just didn't get everything passed during that time. They'd have gotten a lot more passed during that time if their base decided to still care about what happened after the 2008 election and didn't mail in their responsibilities while the older conservative base wrote letters and raised hell. But, you all seem to think the past 4 years would have been the same with a republican. I just want you to realize all the social reforms that you forget about when you have the majority will come roaring back. And enjoy getting an even more conservative court. And enjoy archaic reproductive right fights coming back. Enjoy all that, seriously. No, I'm saying it wouldn't have been all that much different because no one in Washington really represents progressives, liberals or leftists. Obama's staff has s*** on his progressive base openly and often. Continuing to vote for people who are either terrible leaders and negotiators or represent a center-right policy perspective at best keeps us moving more and more to the right as a country. We got a band-aid fix for health care with zero fight for a real progressive position and token financial regulation reforms. Woo.

Kinda easy to become disaffected when two years of supermajorities and the white house and another 8 months of strong Senate majorities and the white house results in a huge policy shift to the right.

Gotta vote Democrats to keep Republicans out! That way at least it's Democrats passing conservative bills!

QUOTE (Jordan4life @ Aug 2, 2011 -> 02:27 PM) I demand you be suspended for at least 3 days for excessive hyperbole. facts not in evidence

Remember when Obama was lambasted for restating the long-standing US position on a two-state solution and bringing up the 1967 borders? Remember when Netanyahu was loudly cheered by the US Congress for attacking the US President over that position? Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu is prepared to base talks for a Palestinian state on the 1967 truce lines in what appears to be a major policy retreat, an Israeli television channel has claimed.

QUOTE (Jenksismyb**** @ Aug 2, 2011 -> 12:11 PM) So you mean to say a weak economy coupled with lowered demand causes gas prices to drop, not just a weak economy. Since we're still in a weak economy despite an increase in demand. that's what he said. The price of oil moves a lot more based on expected demand than on the dollar.

I've posted surveys of what people imagine the federal budget to be recently. People think it can be cut back easily because they imagine huge percentages are foreign aid and food and housing assistance. Even with that, we still had strong majorities calling for at least some tax increases as part of the deal to balance the budget.

Well as mike said, not sure how many people on welfare vote, anyway. It's only a few million total. A study found significantly lower civic participation rates among welfare recipients

QUOTE (Y2HH @ Aug 2, 2011 -> 10:58 AM) I openly admitted some of what I'm saying is harsh and even absurd. I just think we need higher standards in this country. Voting standards shouldn't be much above "has a pulse" since everyone deserves a say in their own government. Again, completely different from advocating for a more informed electorate. Not true. Also are you specifically referring to welfare or social programs more broadly?

QUOTE (Y2HH @ Aug 2, 2011 -> 10:56 AM) There is a big difference when talking about those who pay the most taxes vs those that pay almost none, while collecting free money from the government. Go back a few pages. The actual tax rate on the poor is still significant when all taxes are taken into account, though we obviously still have a progressive taxation system. Because they control a majority of the wealth and income and have taken something like 90% of the gains in the past few decades. The wealth of the bottom 50% has actually decreased in that time period. Hard to get out of poverty when the wealthy control government and keep getting trickle-up policies enacted. I'm not ignoring anything. Even if I accept all of your premises, I still don't come to the conclusion that accepting welfare should come with giving up your right to vote. Not sure how "people on welfare should be allowed to vote" is a utopian position...