• Don't be done. The problem is that we have one group of people who are committed navel gazers, on any given day they will be complaining about nutty tea-baggers, while they clearly gloss over the cause of their ascendency. Whereas on the other hand you have another group, exemplified by this diarist, who are like drive-by shooters. Plenty of flowery language, but misses the mark by a very wide margin. Here we are stuck in the middle, defenders of an administration unwilling to defend itself and asking its supporters to be enthusiastic of half-measures and pablums. Frankly, I am getting really tired of writing "I told you so" diaries about the half-hearted legislations that this administration is considering significant victories. Watching this administration in action in Congress is like watching Charlie Brown kick the ball, over and over again. I just don't find the enthusiasm to join in their silly sport unless they start getting serious.

  • on a comment on The Charlie Brown presidency over 3 years ago

    The only problem here is who is the viable alternative now? We either have a replay of the 2008 battles, or we get someone who is willing to take the mantle of progressive leadership. I don't see anyone from that end. Is Howard Dean considering another run?

  • It will be the best case scenario for consumers if she has real powers. However, if her appointment is just another symbolic gesture like that of Paul Vocker, who is used more as a stage prop than anything else, then it will be a big disappointment. The jury is still out on that.

  • An agency without tooth is completely useless. It will just fit into the narrative of yet another useless bureaucratic division.

  • Then it means that the President was more than willing to accomdate the business lobby. That's the problem. One cannot have it both ways. A temporary advisory position is well and good, but then again Paul Vocker is also an advisor who became more of stage prop.

  • So your idea of a Democratic strategy is to capitulate without a fight? Because whatever this administration is doing, it is not fighting the Republicans or conservatives. They spend more time berating the base than fighting the fights that matter, and this is reflected in the state of the Democratic party now.

  • This something many Democrats, who are non-activist, do not understand, but Republicans do. When you are in tough spot, you shore up the base, and the best way to do that is offer them a good fight. Two elections during the Bush presidency the Republicans did that, whether it be some nut like John Bolton, or a supreme court justice, otherwise some contentious social or economic issue that they knew was bound to receive organized opposition from Democrats.

    Unfortunately this president has staked his presidency on bipartisanship, and he would rather deride his supporters at posh fundraisers than actually pick a meaningful fight with the Republicans.

  • I see this going both ways. She can either be effective in this position, but since this position is largely titular, she can get sidelined like Paul Vocker and only get trotted out as a stage prop on certain occasions.

    But I agree with the overall sentiment of this diarist. The President should have proposed her to head the new agency, and if there was a hold on her, be it by Republicans or dodgy democrats like Chris Dodd, he should have sidestepped the Senate and appointed her during the recess. All this could have been accomplished long ago and would have sent a message to the base that the President stands with them. Instead, like everything else, we have yet another questionable half-measure.

  • Absolutely, but you know what without this "small group of people" walking and canvassing door to door, this President never had a chance in 2008 and will not have a chance in 2012, unless some of those people who can pay 30000/plate decide to get out of their cushy lives and do the dirty work. It's attitude like this (reflective of course of the administration's disdain for the base) that is keeping the progressive base at home and the union members far less enthusiastic to help any Democrats this election cycle. So keep it up.

  • This administration has just insulated itself in a bubble far worse than any of its predecessors. All they want to hear is from their supporters, like Jonathan Alter, who buy and sell in the official spin. The incompetence of this administration is staggering and somewhat ironic given the fact that their point man Rahm had called progressive groups "f-ing retards" for running ads against conserva-dems who were scuttling the health care bill. Right now, not only are those Dems facing defeat, but Dem majorities in both houses are sure to be annihilated by people who are running on a platform of repeal. Rahm himself is so unpopular that he will never get elected mayor, or even head-janitor, of Chicago, unless he buys the votes and rigs the elections.

    The present political climate is not the fallout of liberal disenchantment, but the incompetence of the administration who refused to see the world outside it's own home-spun web. Other than the usual idiots who are the stead-fast supporters of this administration, no one in their right state of mind can see anything good coming out of this election cycle, except a bloodbath at the hands of a party of kooks and nuts!!

  • He wanted to be the President of not red America or blue America ut United States, he said he can reach across the aisle and get even the most vocal opponents to come to some consensus (consensus builder), he said he can heal Washington and pass legislation routinely on a bipartisan basis. He worked for that, he turned his back on his base and now he is getting his work cut out for him. He got historical majorities and squandered it, instead he will get these nutjobs in a majority. Happy, happy, joy, joy. Now let's all donate money to DNC so that they can blow it on people like Ben Nelson and Blanche Lincoln.

  • We elected this president and he turned his back on his base, embracing the people in Wall street and even Republicans. I don't know what this administration was thinking putting up his image over and above the Democratic party, decimating the grassroots and promoting bipartisanship instead of good governance. Now the progressives are to blame for not being enthusiastic and dousing this fire whose flames have been fanned by this administration. We are heading for a bloodbath and it the fault of this administration for not rallying the troops early on but disappointing them with mealy-mouthed triangulations.

  • on a comment on It's the Democracy, Stupid? over 3 years ago

    I am noticing something very strange here, a continuous talk of a primary challenger to a sitting President. Fine by me, because that's what's democracy is all about. However, who will be the challenger? Who has a high enough profile to challenge a sitting president? But I agree with you, much of this diary is a free-form rant without saying anything specific.

  • I don't see that happening, but I can envision a Bloomberg run for President and I don't mind saying so, that as person who stands up for his beliefs, he will get my vote.

  • You talk about the lack of a liberal message machine, I would argue that this administration has been responsible for stifling it. Look at the conservatives, they have Freedom Works and multiple other groups working independently and in concert to deliver different versions of the same message. What have we? Nothing. And you know why because this administration took OFA, DNC and combined them and told all the big donors that everyone they donate to has to be approved by the DNC/WH. So for the longest time progressive groups could not get their message out without the approval of the WH (remember Rahm yelling "F-ing retarded" because some liberals had the sheer gall to target Blue Dogs on their resistance on the healthcare reform?).

    Also in an administration that is perpetually in an identity crisis who exactly is the message manager? Joe Biden is no Dick Cheney, he has limited say in the WH and he is less of an attack dog. So what we have is bipartisanship taken to extremes to the detriment of this administration, and now the Democratic party is paying the price.


Advertise Blogads