Republicans Are Too Much Of A Threat

by: Chris Bowers

Thu Oct 16, 2008 at 00:37


Yet more-post-debate thoughts in the extended entry.
Chris Bowers :: Republicans Are Too Much Of A Threat
Even though they have been bowed by the polls into thinking that Obama won, the punditry still seems to be obsessed with John McCain's declaration that he isn't Bush, and Obama should have run four years ago if he wanted to run against Bush. The problem McCain faces, however, is that there is no way he can't disassociate himself with Bush. At this point, Republicans have simply proven themselves too much of a direct threat to the modernist institutions that make our civilization possible for any Republican to disassociate him or herself from Bush.

There was a time, not long ago, when Americans were willing to consider Republicans. In fact, they were even willing to turn to Republicans after the 1990's, during which time Democratic leadership had resulted in vast peace and prosperity for the country.  However, this was before they were revealed to be a direct threat to the economic, military, media and educational institutions that most Americans always assumed were off-limits and generally indestructible by either party. Now, however, the direct threat has been revealed, and McCain's attempt to distance himself from Bush is futile. In fact, it is more than futile: he claims to hate Bush, but his attempts to distance himself Bush will only make people want something even further from Bush. McCain's statements actually make the perfect case for Obama's candidacy. Bush sucks and is a direct threat to us, but he also claimed he wasn't a threat. As such, McCain's claims to be different from Bush actually sound like Bush. We have heard these lies before. You claim not to threaten the things that make our country great, but you actually do. So, we will vote for someone who is actually different, not someone who simply claims to be.

Obama is obviously different from Bush. McCain, not so obvious. It all makes me think of the Canadian elections last night, where the left was incredibly divided. 26% for the Liberals, 17% for the New Democrats, and 7% for the Greens. A split like that only happens when the conservatives don't prove themselves to be a direct threat to the modernist institutions that allow a G7 nation to function. In Canada, clearly the conservatives haven't proven to be that threat to enough people yet. In America, they clearly have proven to be that threat. As such, Canadian conservatives can still govern, but American conservatives simply cannot. Republicans have simply proven themselves to be too much of a threat. They grew so powerful, they could actually threaten the powerful institutions that most people would think transcend partisan government. That threat looms over this election, and will lead to a huge Democratic landslide.

I wonder, once the Democratic landslide has removed that threat, if support for Democrats will continue at such a high level. The country isn't pro-Democratic so much as it is reacting to the destruction of its middle class, military and media. Failure to restore those institutions could result in severe political consequences for Democrats. Our country--and yes, our civilization--are under direct threat. McCain can't prove he is different, but Democrats better do so when they govern.


Tags: , , , , , (All Tags)
Print Friendly View Send As Email
You, Good Sir (4.00 / 6)
Have tapped into the only real fear I have right now. For about the last week, I have had no fears that Obama will win, and we will have a good sized majority in the Legislative branch. Please, oh please don't let the damn Democrats do what they have done with this current congress, getting a few good things done, and then flopping on the rest at the slightest hint of fear. I wish I wasn't too agnostic a Jew to pray, because I am truly afraid our leadership, mainly as a result of Bush Dogs and their leader Steny (I don't blame Pelosi as much, as she is kind of stuck with one of them as her main Party Whip, although I wish she wouldn't roll over to Hoyer so easily), and the power they have, as pointed out numerous times by the proprietors of this blog. Come on Democrats, recognize the power you have and do something with it!  

Former Edwards Supporter, Obama Supporter since January 30, 2008

Hopefully they'll respond to good leadership (4.00 / 4)
And, of course, hopefully Obama will provide it.

Congressional Dems have certainly fallen down on the job when faced with an unpopular opposition president who just didn't give a shit about the political fortunes of himself or his own party.  They've obviously proven to be incapable of leading on their own, but maybe some real leadership from the White House will prompt them to follow someone else who's pointing in a better direction.


[ Parent ]
Senate filibusters haven't helped (4.00 / 8)
The House actually passed a lot of great stuff that was simply shut down by the Senate. Lily Ledbetter Act, higher taxes on oil companies, restoring habeus corpus, the list goes on and on.

The Republicans set an all-time record for filibusters this last session of Congress. That is all legislation that made it past the Blue Dogs but simply couldn't overcome the 49 Republicans in the Senate. If we can push the Republicans down to 43 or less, we will have a much better chance of getting popular shit done.

At that point, it will be up to Obama to think big, act big, and deliver the goods. Oh yeah, and bring our troops home.


[ Parent ]
it's up the Republicans (4.00 / 2)
The Democrats will remain dominant as long as the Republicans don't present a reasonable alternative. It will take 8-12 years before the Republican coalition collapses and a true realignment occurs. McCain's anti-Republican stance will only serve to extend the Democrats' reign. Watch conservatives eat him alive this November and nominate an extremist in 2012, only to receive the smack-down.

The truth about Saxby Chambliss

Not exactly (4.00 / 1)
"The Democrats will remain dominant as long as the Republicans don't present a reasonable alternative."

Truthfully, the fact that our political system operates under a "2 party cap" (AKA two party tyranny) means that the "out" party (GOP in this case) only needs to convince 50.001% of the voters that they are slightly more reasonable than the "in" party as depicted by the M$M and in well-crafted negative campaign ads.


"It sounds wrong...
     ...but its right."


[ Parent ]
Media (4.00 / 5)
I've said this for years. If we don't destroy Fox News, Limbaugh and the conservative media, they will destroy Obama and the Democratic Party just like they did with Clinton.

Look at how this ACORN crap is being bought hook, line and sinker by the corporate media. They will spend the next four years associating Obama with everything bad AND MASSIVE NUMBERS OF VOTERS WILL BELIEVE IT.

They control the press. We have to take them down. Either thru a Fairness Doctrine, or at least a truth-in-labeling law. Entities like Fox News should be forced to constantly run notices that they represent the conservative Republican viewpoint. They would be legally barred from claiming fair and balanced coverage. All guests would have to be properly labeled as to who they are and who funds them. Licenses would be revoked if they don't do this.


The FTC can sue for false advertising... (4.00 / 2)
...but, there is no reason to worry about Fox anymore... they are irrelevant in this election.... they speak to 27% of the country... enough to be annoying, but no longer influential.

We also have a chance to get more progressive media, like Maddow and Olbermann...

REID: Voting against us was never part of our arrangement!
SPECTER: I am altering the deal! Pray I don't alter it any further!
REID: This deal keeps getting worse all the time!


[ Parent ]
Bring back the fairness doctrine, and you (0.00 / 0)
cut them off at the knees.

If a owner of a public airwave license has to give equal time to Rush Limbaugh for rebuttal, what difference do YOU think that will make.


[ Parent ]
laws won't do it (4.00 / 2)
We can't legislate away our enemies in the media, through a fairness doctrine, truth-in-labeling law, or any other means. We shouldn't be looking to the legal system or regulatory system to solve what is a political problem.

What we need to do is convince the public at large that certain types of discourse are no longer acceptable and the public will tune them out. The same way we were able to make blatant racism and sexism unacceptable, and the same way the right was able to make the extremes of political correctness unacceptable and made liberal an insult. If we thoroughly discredit their ideas and expose their lies and methods, then gradually the general public will see them for what they are. This has already been happening for years and this web site is one small contributor toward the change.

But we can't entertain the fantasy that if we simply pass the right law, all the wingnuts will shut up and go away. It won't happen, and that sort of thinking simply leads to overreach and backlash. It's a war of ideas, and we're winning, but it will never entirely end. We simply need to keep working hard, forever.


[ Parent ]
Yes. (4.00 / 1)
And we also have to demonstrate that there is a market for something different, better. Above all, the media is a capitalist institution. They'll go where the profits are.

Can it happen here?

[ Parent ]
And let's not forget (4.00 / 6)
Bush also didn't run as Bush. He ran as Mr. Compassionate Conservative and Mr. Humble Foreign Policy.  You can't fool all the people all the time.

sTiVo's rule: Just because YOU "wouldn't put it past 'em" doesn't prove that THEY did it.

Hit it on the head (4.00 / 4)
It's like when Democrats try to talk all tough and hawkish on national defense. Maybe it makes voters trust them more on that issue, but mostly, it just validates the idea that they should be scared on national security. It's not going to cause them to gravitate to the Democrats, who are sorta-tough, it's going to make them gravitate toward the super-tough Republicans.

When McCain says he's not Bush, and says that Washington needs change, maybe he convinces some people that he's different from Bush, maybe he convinces some that he's in favor of change. But mostly, he validates the idea that they need a not-Bush and they need change. And they're going to gravitate to the guy who's the most not-Bush and who is the most likely to bring change, not the guy who's sorta not-Bush and sorta gonna bring change.

The solution for Democrats in the first instance is to try to convince people not to be afraid. McCain is in a corner, because he's never going to convince anybody that they need more Bush.

Conduct your own interview of Sarah Palin!


Just like the DLC failed for being... (4.00 / 4)
...republican lite, McCain is failing for being Republican-lite.

REID: Voting against us was never part of our arrangement!
SPECTER: I am altering the deal! Pray I don't alter it any further!
REID: This deal keeps getting worse all the time!


[ Parent ]
The Economic Crash is an Opportunity (4.00 / 5)
- To reset priorities in this country
- To establish new patterns of governing
-To establish a new theory of politics and governance

I'm not afraid of that. That's what democracy is. FDR inherited the worse mess in American history and used it to transform the social ethos. We can do likewise.


FDR was dealt a bad hand, but... (4.00 / 1)
I think the 'War of Southern Treason' represents the worst mess in American history. That said, I agree with you on the moment of opportunity and I am hopeful we will come out the other side with something more like the New Deal than Reconstruction.

[ Parent ]
Well, he would say that (He's not Bush), wouldn't he? (4.00 / 2)
I'm always amazed not to hear Americans use a very common saying in Britain, NZ and maybe Australia and Canada which fits this situation prefectly.

Mandy Rice-Davies, the call-girl (you would say) in the Profumo scandal of 1963 famously responded to the prosecuting counsel who quoted Lord Astor (in whose house she met Profumo) as having denied an affair or having even met her, "Well, he would, wouldn't he?"

Obama only needed to turn to McCain after he proclaimed that and say, "Well, you would say that, wouldn't you."  


Christine Keeler (4.00 / 2)
Actually, Christine Keeler was "the" call-girl in the scandal, as I recall it. Mandy Rice-Davies was a secondary figure, who didn't know Profumo, but the scandal blew up out of an incident that happened at her flat.  (I just double-checked at here Wikipedia page, and my recollection is correct.)

She did get the most famous line, though, for which she is justly remembered.

Wikipedia gives another good line from her:

Once in an interview she once described her life as " one slow descent into respectability".


"You know what they say -- those of us who fail history... doomed to repeat it in summer school." -- Buffy The Vampire Slayer, Season 6, Episode 3

[ Parent ]
I use that phrase (0.00 / 0)
but then, I would, wouldn't I?

"It sounds wrong...
     ...but its right."


[ Parent ]
This Is What Made The Last Two Party Systems Different (4.00 / 6)
The four party systems before 1932 were all relatively dissociated from the rest of the modern world.  We were largely a nation unto ourselves.  We certainly had plenty of contact with the outside world, but our own land was so vast that our primary focus was always relatively impervious to the rest of the world.  The Great Depression changed all that.  It was a worldwide depression, and we emerged from it via the welfare state, which was a worldwide phenomena in the industrial world.

That's why the next "realigning" election wasn't really realigning so much as de-aligning, and it's why the GOP could only slowly chip away at the welfare state--because destroying it utterly was a structural impossibility.  But they tried their damnedest anyway, and we got nearly destroyed as a result.

American conservative never accepted the New Deal, never accepted Keynes, never accepted anything that happened after 1932, to them it was all an abberation. European conservatives were far more sensible.  They realized the inevitability of such changes, and decided to make them themselves, so that they could shape them to their needs as much as possible.  Thus, Bismark created Germany's health care system to stabilize and strengthen German industry, while stealing the most powerful issue that the Social Democrats had.

The only American conservative leader who had this kind of savvy was Nixon, and he's largely mis-remembered as closet liberal on domestic policy as a result.  Which is a complete misreading. Like Bismark, he simply realized, "Hey, I can't win this one, so instead, I'll work on defining what 'winning' looks like for everyone as a whole.'"

Well, American conservatives after Nixon took after Agnew instead, and they couldn't lead anything but a parasitical criminal enterprise.

"You know what they say -- those of us who fail history... doomed to repeat it in summer school." -- Buffy The Vampire Slayer, Season 6, Episode 3


Bismark? (4.00 / 5)
My German political history is pretty bad, but who are you talking about?

Regarding the New Deal, I was amused to see an article a few days ago from David Yepsen, generally considered an astute political reporter, where he gave advice to McCain that included "talk to the electorate about your vision for another New Deal," or something close to that.  Mmm, yeah...kind of tough to do for a Republican, considering that their party HAS BEEN RUNNING AGAINST THE NEW DEAL FOR THE LAST SEVENTY-FIVE FREAKIN' YEARS.


[ Parent ]
Bismarck (4.00 / 2)
Otto Van Bismarck was arguably the leading conservative figure of Europe in the late 19th Century:

Otto Eduard Leopold von Bismarck, Count of Bismarck-Schönhausen, Duke of Lauenburg, Prince of Bismarck, (April 1, 1815 - July 30, 1898), was a Prussian and German statesman of the 19th century. As Minister-President of Prussia from 1862-90, he oversaw the unification of Germany. From 1867 on, he was Chancellor of the North German Confederation. When the second German Empire was formed in 1871, he served as its first Chancellor and practiced Realpolitik which gained him the nickname "Iron Chancellor". As Chancellor, Bismarck held an important role in German government and greatly influenced German and international politics both during and after his time of service.

Regarding his role in establishing the German welfare state:

The 1880s were a period when Germany started on its long road towards the welfare state it is today. The Social Democratic, National Liberal and Center parties were all involved in the beginnings of social legislation, but it was Bismarck who established the first practical aspects of this program. The program of the Social Democrats included all of the programs that Bismarck eventually implemented, but also included programs designed to preempt the programs championed by Karl Marx and Friedrich Engels. Bismarck's idea was to implement the minimum aspects of these programs that were acceptable to the German government without any of the overtly Socialistic aspects.

Bismarck opened debate on the subject on 17 November 1881 in the Imperial Message to the Reichstag, using the term applied Christianity to describe his program. In 1881 Bismarck had also referred to this program as Staatssozialismus, when he made the following accurate prediction to a colleague:

   "It is possible that all our politics will come to nothing when I am dead but state socialism will drub itself in. (Der Staatssozialismus paukt sich durch.)"[11]

Bismarck's program centered squarely on insurance programs designed to increase productivity, and focus the political attentions of German workers on supporting the Junker's government. The program included Health Insurance; Accident Insurance (Workman's Compensation); Disability Insurance; and an Old-age Retirement Pension, none of which were then currently in existence to any great degree.

Based on Bismarck's message, The Reichstag filed three bills designed to deal with the concept of Accident insurance, and one for Health Insurance. The subjects of Retirement pensions and Disability Insurance were placed on the back burner for the time being.[12]



"You know what they say -- those of us who fail history... doomed to repeat it in summer school." -- Buffy The Vampire Slayer, Season 6, Episode 3

[ Parent ]
Oh, so you did mean THAT Bismarck (0.00 / 0)
I was confused because I thought you were contrasting the way American and European conservatives dealt with things post-1932, but obviously you were going back much further than that.

Interesting stuff there about Germany in the 1880s.  


[ Parent ]
Well, Europe Was A Good Deal Ahead Of Us (4.00 / 1)
That was when the conservatives first really perfected their hatred of Europe.  Progressives spent decades trying to introduce enlightened European social policies--partly, ala Bismarck, as a way of stealing the socialists' thunder.  Conservatives fought them tooth and nail, for the most part.

"You know what they say -- those of us who fail history... doomed to repeat it in summer school." -- Buffy The Vampire Slayer, Season 6, Episode 3

[ Parent ]
Nixon invented triangulation (4.00 / 2)
He made a career out of opportunism. If he had any real ideological principles, it's not in the least bit clear what they were. He tacked right then far left. His reputation as a loser seemed to impart a desperate need to define a win, any win he could. And existing in a very liberal political era it was inevitable many of those victories would have to be on the left's terms. He made promises to the right-wing, then so frustrated Pat Buchanan that he was quoted as saying "conservatives are the n-gg-rs of the Nixon administration." Watching Nixon must have inspired something in a young Bill Clinton, because he'd do largely the same thing twenty-years later, declaring victories by usurping his opponent's political agenda. But in Clinton's case, I think he genuinely believed the crap he was pushing, which in my cynical estimation makes him worse.  

[ Parent ]
I Can Only Guess You Weren't Politically Aware During Nixon's Career (4.00 / 1)
Because all this "liberal Nixon" BS was purely after the fact.  No one mistook Nixon for a liberal when he was in office.  He was the fricken prototype for Joe McCarthy, for cryin' out loud!

The right wing in his day was (a) powerless and (b) almost invariably tactically and strategically stupid.  He didn't treat them like shit out of ideological disdain.  He treated them like shit ourt of politicaldisdain.  (Not to meniton self-preservation.)

"You know what they say -- those of us who fail history... doomed to repeat it in summer school." -- Buffy The Vampire Slayer, Season 6, Episode 3


[ Parent ]
Paul, I was reiterating what you were saying with (0.00 / 0)
the only caveat that he was without a guiding principle. He was an opportunist who wanted power. No one believed Nixon was a liberal, but no one believed he was a conservative either. The conservatives certainly didn't. They loathed him, they didn't trust him. This is a guy that had to crawl on his knees to Strom Thurmond's delegates at the 1968 convention, without his advisers being present, and make some humiliating assurances to them in order to lock up their support when he thought he already had it. Sure Nixon was a red-baiter, but Kennedy sat on that committee too, and his brother served on its staff. Red baiting was chic at the time, Democrats were doing it too.

Ultimately a president is judged after the fact. I don't care why Nixon signed a bill, or why he proposed one, any more than we should care why Clinton pushed NAFTA and deregulation. The fact is Nixon was the first president to establish an affirmative action program, he created EPA by executive fiat, he signed an expansion of the Endangered Species Act, Marine Mammal Protection Act, signed Clean Air, established OSHA, NOAA, Consumer Product Safety Commission, signed the toughest mine safety law the world has ever known, used price controls, signed the ABM Treaty, tried to replace welfare with the more radical national minimum income. Most of this was triangulation, like the national minimum income to undercut any left-wing presidential candidate in his reelection bid. He thought environmentalism a fad, but a politically potent one, and he jumped on the bandwagon. Most of the stuff he was signing was originally part of the Great Society, not his own ideas, but who cares, he supported it, and often expanded it. He was certainly no friend of minorities, as any listen to his tapes will tell, but he did establish affirmative action for political purposes. Does anyone care what's in a leader's heart? I only care what he does.  


[ Parent ]
Ike (0.00 / 0)
The only American conservative leader who had this kind of savvy was Nixon, and he's largely mis-remembered as closet liberal on domestic policy as a result.  Which is a complete misreading. Like Bismark, he simply realized, "Hey, I can't win this one, so instead, I'll work on defining what 'winning' looks like for everyone as a whole.'"

I'd say you need to add Eisenhower to this list, but I'm not sure you could consider him a conservative by any modern definition.  


[ Parent ]
Nixon was a neocon (0.00 / 0)
Ike was a conservative.

His farewell address was a pointed warning about the Nixonians.


[ Parent ]
Eisenhower gets a lot of cred for that "military-industrial complex" (0.00 / 0)
speech, but didn't do much about it when he was president.  

[ Parent ]
This was the most annoying thing of the night... (4.00 / 6)
So, the country was just waiting for McCain to say "I'm not George Bush?"

What the fuck... who cares what he says.  George Bush can say "I'm not a shitty president", and that would suddenly be true? Give me a break.

Obama had the right retort... (Paraphrasing) If you're not George Bush, why do you agree with him all the time?  But the pundits seem to think that McCain did all he needed to do just by saying he wasn't George Bush?  Big fuckin deal.


Yes, And George Bush Assured Us He Was Not Newt Gingrich (4.00 / 1)
A "compassionate conservative", dont'cha know!

Some of the people all of the time, yadda-yadda-yadda.

"You know what they say -- those of us who fail history... doomed to repeat it in summer school." -- Buffy The Vampire Slayer, Season 6, Episode 3


[ Parent ]
While the "expert" pundits are fascinated by (4.00 / 3)
the one shiny object McCain dangled in front of their faces tonight, the lowly masses seem to be showing a more sophisticated interpretation of events.

Go figure.


[ Parent ]
The masses aren't making 6 figures (0.00 / 0)
or sitting on multi-million dollar bank accounts.

Need tends to clarify what is important.


[ Parent ]
the focus group I saw (4.00 / 1)
hammered McCain on the line.  They saw it as just a quip, not a serious matter.

And it doesn't even make sense.  Who thinks Obama should have run for President 4 years ago?  Who doesn't know Obama was for Kerry and McCain was for Bush in 2004? It's rightly seen as childish.


New Jersey politics at Blue Jersey.


[ Parent ]
not quite correct (4.00 / 5)
In fact, they were even willing to turn to Republicans after the 1990's, during which time Democratic leadership had resulted in vast peace and prosperity for the country.

The people actually were not willing to turn to the Republicans. Gore won half a million more votes than Bush, and won Florida and thus the electoral college as well. An open coup performed by the Supreme Court was necessary to throw the presidency to Bush.

Even with the entire media establishment in his pocket, a huge advantage in fundraising, Nader's third party spoiler candidacy, and Bill Clinton's scandals to aid him, this prince of a wealthy, powerful, generations-old GOP political dynasty with deep and long-standing connections to big business could not legitimately win election, but had to resort to blatant theft to get what he wanted.

Now, of course, no one believes there's anything "compassionate" about conservatism, and the religious right and the Wall Street conservatives have split wide open. Still, I don't expect it will be a 55%+ landslide for the Democrats.



I dunno what thread to post this in (4.00 / 5)
It seems like all the pundits-- and even some progressive bloggers of the more wonkish type-- are looking at this debate in terms of "points", like this is high school debate team and some referee is going to come along and grade debating prowess. Some of the pundit type people I'm hearing from are even saying that based on "points" you can argue McCain tied or won.

I think this is looking at things very, very wrong, and the way in which this is wrong is the reason why the initial responses by pundits to this debate were all things like "McCain did better this time whereas the polls were a blowout for Obama (and I think in the long run this debate will turn out to have been better for Obama and worse for McCain than either of the other debates). The way in which this is wrong is this: Points don't matter.

The purpose of this debate wasn't to go out and win "points". The purpose of this debate was to go out on television and convince the American people you are a good choice for President.

Obama did that. McCain didn't.

Tonight Barack Obama went out there and simply explained, this is what I'd do as President. He articulated several of his plans more clearly and accurately than I've ever seen him do so in public. He laid out the rationale for those plans and the governing philosophy those plans fit into in a way that could stay with people and leave them able to reconstruct why the plans are necessary even after the debate is over. He wasn't very interested in doing anything except these things, I don't think, but he did these things well.

McCain wasn't interested in doing any of these things. McCain was clearly out to score "points". McCain thought he was playing some sort of game. He felt like his job was to go out there and defeat Obama, to at any given moment be a better debater. And for all I know he may have succeeded at that. But that's not what John McCain needed to do tonight. He needed to establish himself as a superior alternative to Obama, and at that he failed miserably-- whatever his debating tactics were like, his ideas were scattered and incoherently presented (it seems like half the time he'd come up with a complicated response in his head and then say exactly half of it out loud, leading to things like that baffling "JOE, YOU'RE RICH!" outbursts) and any attempt to pick at Obama's ideas was made totally useless by McCain's failure to outline or justify an alternative. John McCain was more interested in scoring tactical points in a 90-minute debate than establishing himself as a good choice for President, and as a result I think he just hurt himself very badly. And before this debate I hadn't thought it was possible for McCain to hurt himself worse than he already had.

Really I'd even say that the greatest moments of this debate to me were things that in retrospect seem like Obama in some way surrendering "points" in order to achieve some broader goal. Like when the "say it to each other's face" question came up, and Obama completely held back on hitting McCain on anything unless McCain hit first-- leading to a moment where Obama spends two minutes talking about how it would make more sense to talk about health care or substantive issues than random mudslinging, followed by McCain suddenly ranting (bringing these things up for the first time, after passing up a couple golden opportunities) about William Ayers and "ACORN" for two minutes. WTF? Or the bit when McCain saw a tactical opening and decided to try to go in for a kill on NAFTA whereas Obama just passively explained his own stance-- McCain probably drew blood in a way but had the high-school debate coaches in the media nodding their heads, but in the process he boxed himself into taking a hard-line pro-NAFTA line, and Obama was able to establish himself as reasoned and willing to sully free trade principles in order to represent America's interests on same. Some people might have liked McCain's fencing routine there, but the thing is, nobody likes NAFTA! And nobody in two weeks is going to remember whether McCain got in a killer zinger about NAFTA at minute 73 of the debate, but everybody is going to remember that Obama's opinion on free trade is closer to theirs than McCain's was.


people will remember Obama thinks assassinating labor leaders (4.00 / 2)
is important when you're talking about fair trade. I will remember that.  

[ Parent ]
McCain's look of surprise (4.00 / 3)
was the exclamation point on that statement. As if John has forgotten that workers rights are something for which actual people fight.

Strange response for a military guy, no?

"It sounds wrong...
     ...but its right."


[ Parent ]
Obama has a mandate to not be Bush, (4.00 / 2)
is how I put it.

His platform is not significantly different from Bill Clinton's: help the middle class, take better care of the environment, and do something about the cost of health care. Aside from promising to start withdrawing troops from Iraq, I can't see anything really novel there.

All we've seen is pandering so far. We don't know how the country would react to having an actual discussion of its problems, because Obama has chosen, for reasons of electability, not to have such a discussion with the American people.

If, say, single-payer universal health care was proposed, who knows how the country would react? Maybe a third of the populace would call it socialism and oppose it to the death while raging about how it was just a scheme for the government to raise taxes, and the insurance companies would take advantage of the confusion to crush the legislation in Congress.

So how would people respond to honesty? If what happened to Jimmy Carter is any example: not well at all.


pushing left in 2009 (4.00 / 2)
     I heard this point before on Open Left, and it bears repeating: it is not enough to get "our" candidate elected; we also have to remind "our" candidate of who he works for.
    Some people here dislike Bill Cinton, and call him "Republican-lite". I disagree. I think that Clinton was very shrewd, and he pushed things as far to the left as he could get away with. Any further left in his first term, and he would not have had a second. Any further left in his second term, and he would have given Gore a fatal handicap. And don't forget that after Gingrich took over Congress, Clinton had much less chance to get things done.
    In the current election, Obama will win. In these last few weeks, we progressive activists need to focus on giving Obama as many Senate allies as possible.
    After the election, we will have to push our agenda in the media. The Right will condemn our health care plan as "socialized medicine" and fight it tooth and nail. We need to be ready to support Obama and the Democrats in Congress to get it passed. Our phone calls, emails, and letters to the editor will have to encourage Blue Dogs to side with Obama, and will have to send the message to Republicans that they need to cooperate with Obama or else be voted out.
    Obama will be our next President. But will he govern more from the left, or more from the middle? That part is up to us.

1 Corinthians 13:1 (KJV) - "Though I speak with the tongues of men and of angels, and have not charity, I am become as sounding brass, or a tinkling cymbal."/ GOP = Greedy Old Privatizers or Greedy Old Privateers?

[ Parent ]
energy energy energy (4.00 / 2)
That is what is new this year.  Obama has made the following connection -- "We need to get our country off imported oil that is crippling us with debt and sending money to the Middle East, by engaging in major innovation and implementation of alternative and renewable energies here at home.  That will revive our economy, solve our long-term debt crisis, cut off the flow of funds to our enemies, reduce the need for draining overseas wars in places like Iraq, and solve climate change." -- a very central part of his campaign from the very beginning of the primary.  That is new.  Clinton had nothing like that in 92.  I'm not even sure Clinton had much like that in 2008.

And Obama has been all over it both in the primary and the general.  That is the only reason I like him.  

Even when he gets asked "what will you cut due to the financial crisis", he goes out of his way to say that his energy program is something that cannot be cut because it must be done right away, as an investment in the future.  

This really is the only addition to the Democratic platform that I can see since 1992.  But it's a huge one, because it draws national security, the economy, the trade deficit and associated debt, job security, climate change, and the Islamic wars all into one system, all in orbit around oil/not-oil.  That's what I want.


[ Parent ]
that is sort of a new addition (0.00 / 0)
but it's simply because all the candidates were afraid Al Gore would run for president after the success of An Inconvenient Truth.

Obama has a mixed record on the environment. For instance, in the Senate he introduced a bill to fund research into coal-to-liquid fuels--a horribly expensive and very dirty boondoggle that will only make our greenhouse gas problem worse. He also watered down a nuclear safety bill he presented in the Senate, after the industry protested.

If Gore's movie hadn't proven so popular (after his thirty years of tireless work on the climate crisis) Obama would not be saying anything more about energy or the environment than Bill Clinton did.

So no, it's not really a new addition, just an old issue that became newly popular. Obama, being a smart politician, saw that a lot of people cared about this issue and realized he would have to try to win their votes by promising to deal with it. What he actually will do about the problem, in the face of huge pressure from the oil and coal and auto companies, is a different matter. But his record doesn't give much indication that he will vehemently resist industry pressure.


[ Parent ]
Don't agree that's it all about Gore, or even climate change, (0.00 / 0)
and my first piece of evidence is that most of Obama's rhetoric on energy has very little to do with climate change.  Mostly he centers it as an economic, national security, and jobs issue.  The problem is framed as "foreign oil", which bankrupts the country, empowers enemies, etc, rather than being framed around "fossil fuels" that damage the environment.

Fortunately you can tackle both at once, depending on what exactly you choose to substitute for "foreign oil" (tar sands?  natural gas?  "clean coal"?  wind and solar?  nuclear?).  But Obama has been using energy as an economic, trade, and national security argument far more than as an environmental imperative.  Which is good, because all are true and much of the center-left has been missing the potential of the very significant other-than-environmental angles here.  We are finally replaying the Carter vs oil war, and we're going to win this time.


[ Parent ]
Nixon not a crook and McCain not a Bush. (4.00 / 4)
When confronted with a fake Democrat and a real Democrat people will vote for the real one. Same goes for change agents.

These are all left over aphorisms but aphorisms still.

Sure McCain made a lot of points. But they were Democratic points. When the debate is on your terms you win by default not by points.

Jeff Wegerson


Donate to Open Left








Friends of the Earth thanks the OpenLeft community for the ideas you generate and your contributions to the progressive movement.

As an anti-spam measure, there is a 24-hour waiting period after registering before new users can comment.
blog advertising is good for you
blog advertising is good for you
SEARCH

   

Advanced Search