• comment on a post Is Obama Playing Rope-a-Dope? over 2 years ago

    just wondering

  • comment on a post Dump Obama: continued 5 over 3 years ago

    is ridiculous self-promotion.  You are being reasonable with the unreasonable.

  •  

    This is such bullshit.  No, it doesn't bother me that Obama didn't make an endorsement in this race and I can imagine him not endorsing Alvin Greene in South Carolina.   As for Obama Royalist Enforcer Thugs running everybody off from Mydd--I think it's Jerome Armstrong and posts like this that croaked the blog.  And just the kind of batshit crazy paranoia that would lead someone to postulate Obama Royalist Enforcer Thugs.  

    Thank you, Strummerson, for taking the time.  I wouldn't have bothered.

    As for being driven from this blog, I think Jerome and Obama-hating posters like ChangeAgain2012 (oh-oh!  Do I smell a PRIMARY CHALLENGE?!!) have had a lot more to do with the declining readership.  There is only so much paranoid bat-shit crazy that one can take in a day.

     

  • comment on a post Obama's re-elect a solid 39% over 3 years ago

    that it takes a candidate to beat a candidate.  And that the election is two years from now. To act as if THE way out is a third party candidate is either disingenuous or genuinely stupid.

  • comment on a post Cook, Sabato's latest over 3 years ago

    and learn lessons for the future?  I don't think so.  And generalizing about "people" won't help either.  In the last weeks it is important to mobilize the base to vote, first of all, and to win voters who haven't made up their minds.  Talking about how Republicans did nothing but obstruct is very important in some districts, and underlining the benefits of health care reform is important as well.  Members of Congress need to defend their votes, not run for cover.

  • on a comment on Cook, Sabato's latest over 3 years ago

    and I don't think they should "run on TARP," but I do think they need to explain why it was necessary to prevent a further collapse of the economy.

     

     

  • on a comment on Cook, Sabato's latest over 3 years ago

    I think Pelosi has been a great speaker.  She pushed for health care reform when Obama was ready to cave.  If you think that was a mistake, you are buying Republican bullshit claims about the effects.  This was a major victory.  Politicking around it has been awful and Obama has failed to make a case for many of his administration's policies.  But Pelosi kept the House caucus together under extraordinarily difficult circumstances.  She deserves credit and defense against those who attack her for her gender as much as anything else.

  • comment on a post Cook, Sabato's latest over 3 years ago

    I really don't get that.

    Why not offer more of a focused strategy for those who are making the case for Dem candidates?  If we're experiencing a "long partisan slog of nonsense claims," why not light a candle instead of cursing the darkness?

     

    Here's a non-nonsense claim.  Republicans don't support environmental health and safety.  The health care bill passed by the Dems and signed by Obama has a host of very positive features.  Extending the tax cuts for the wealthy is a Republican idea--it will increase the deficit and not help economic growth.  The Dow is over 11,000. It was at 6,600 not long ago.  TARP restored confidence in financial institutions, etc.

  • and part of the Bush administration--one could miss that in Jerome's post. Obama continued to engineer support for a crumbling financial sector.  If that hadn't been done, we would be in far worse economic crisis.  Is this not completely obvious? So to campaign against TARP is actually pretty irresponsible.

    How did the Dem trifecta fail to deliver more?  Well, HCRA did more than impose mandated insurance coverage, which by itself is not a bad idea--check auto insurance, for example.  HCRA addressed the problem of pre-existing conditions, excissions and many more existing problems, but you wouldn't get that from Jerome's post.  Of course, there are some who think that the financial reform legislation didn't go far enough, but the trifecta was limited, as we all know, by Blue Dog Dems and the intransigence of the Republican caucus.  And we got a lot more than we would get under Speaker Boehner.

    Obama has now committed to keeping the tax cuts for the middle class and eliminating those for the more affluent.  Certainly this is a position that should be supported by progressives, even as it is condemned by Republicans.  So why is Jerome not supporting that?

    We all know politics is the art of the possible.  How, exactly, could Obama and the Dem leadership have accomplished more when there was so much opposition to what they sought, and actually did accomplish?  

    I truly don't get it.  Why trash Obama and the Dems when they are confronting a completely irresponsible and intransigent opposition?  

  • comment on a post Whiners over 3 years ago

    Absolutely right, or "spot on."  And for Jerome to title a post "Whiners" at this point is too much.  To see him apparently delight in the struggles of Dems in this election year raises more questions, political and psychological, than I can even attempt to address.  Instead I suggest MyDD readers move on.

  • but it isn't his fault that the Dem Party in TN collapsed in the '90's, is it?  Wait, maybe we can pin this on Obama.

  • comment on a post The President on the Economy over 3 years ago

    I've been critical of Obama but I think this was an excellent statement.  He does call the Repubs out for obstructionism and for being motivated by partisan politics above the public interest.  To go further than he did would not sound presidential and might force the few possibly cooperative Republicans into caucus loyalty.

     

    Reagan was a disaster--just consider what his administration did to the deficit and debt--but many Americans don't think so or don't care.  The focus needs to be on the past ten years, which indicts Bush and the Republicans in Congress.

     

    Most of the dynamics of the economy are beyond the reach of the president.  In this sense, presidents are like rainmakers--they do something, and if the economy improves in some measurable way, they get credit.  But correlation does not establish causation.   Still, Obama's proposals make sense and they are succinct enough to give the media a focus for questioning Republican obstruction.

  • on a comment on Man In the Mirror over 3 years ago

    Fascism is authoritarian, nationalist and corporatist. The nationalism typically appeals to some imaginary pure past.  The political and economic analysis emphasizes the importance of major corporate economic interests and limited government controls on the actions of ruling class actors.   Sound familiar?  And yes, fascism is a right-wing phenomenon.  Anyone who doesn't understand that is remarkably ignorant or is feigning ignorance.  With you it's hard to tell.

    More intellectually curious readers may want to read about fascism.  The Fascism Reader (ed. Aristotle Kallis) Routledge Pub. is a serious read.  Those with less time might want to read the Wikipedia entry on fascism.  It's very well done and very clear about the political orientation of fascism.

  • comment on a post Man In the Mirror over 3 years ago

    and that you're a clown.  Or you're serious and actually can't tell the difference between a fascist movement and liberal Democrats who managed to prevent an economic collapse.  You might want to check out the history of the Weimar Republic and see if you can find a similar equivalence among all parties in that moment of history.   

  • comment on a post The Not-So-Swinging Obama over 3 years ago

    tarheel74 is exactly right.  Why is Obama (and team) unable to grasp this?  The enthusiasm gap is going to kill Democrats and the triangulation strategy won't work in a down economy.  Will someone please explain what their strategy is at this point?

Diaries

Advertise Blogads