Axelrod Certainly Stupid - But It's Not Exactly Clear How (wobbly)
David Axelrod said on "Face the Nation" that GOP gains in Congress could bring about more bipartisanship.

It's possible to read this in a number of ways - Republicans might be less obstructionist in the majority (no evidence exists to support this), Obama will cooperate more with Republicans (this is a distinct possibility), etc.

But a month out from a general election, it's completely stupid from a strategic standpoint for a Democrat to suggest the problem achieving bipartisanship in Congress owes to the lack of Republican legislators.  

The White House is throwing its hands in the air already, and this after having coddled the right throughout the first two years of Obama's presidency.  

Someone - besides the simpleminded types who think a third party represents a viable alternative given the state of movement politics - remind me why Obama deserves reelection.

Power-Down
If you thought you haven't been told enough that you have to vote for Democrats because Republicans are so crazy, just wait for 2012. It's going to be one of the biggest electoral power-downs in the history of the modern presidency.
I can't believe these
fucking cocksuckers still think what Americans want is bipartisanship for its own sake, and not good policy that concretely helps him in their everyday lives.

Well, I suppose they have to keep believing in "bipartisan" crap because otherwise they'd have to actually take a principled stand on something, and that's absolutely out of the question.

No he is saying, maybe Im wrong, who knows
If the republicans take control of either house, Obama will not move left.

This is not rocket science.

If the dems take both, we have a chance, not a big one, but a chance of moving left.

Of this I am sure.

[ Parent ]
But they already have both houses
You could make an argument that a more liberal Democratic party might emerge after the election, and, should they maintain control of both houses, a more liberal agenda might be possible.

But it's difficult to see how Axelrod's statement is about Obama, when he spoke in terms of the GOP acting as an obstructionist minority party versus a majority that is forced to govern.  Of course they'll control all the committees if they win, so "bipartisanship" here means Obama enacting an agenda that's explicitly set by the GOP.  

But the focus here is on bipartisanship as a positive good, so I think Oaktown Girl is right to criticize the DNC types who set the party agenda for failing to address questions of policy.  It's a bit more subtle than what we've heard from Obama, Emanuel and Gibbs, but it's still bashing the base, albeit in a different guise.  

[ Parent ]
It doesnt matter.
I am right.

If the republicans take control of either house, Obama will not move left.

This is not rocket science.

If the dems take both, we have a chance, not a big one, but a chance of moving left.

Of this I am sure.

If you want Obama to move right, let the Republicans win.

If you want the chance, a mere chance, to move left, stop the right.

I am more than a little surprised at how such an obvious thing needs debate.

But of course I am not a deep thinker.

[ Parent ]
The ideological makeup of the legislators in Congress
matters tremendously.

Who's letting the GOP win here anyhow? Axelrod is saying it might not be such a bad thing after all. Given the premises upon which the Obama administration has operated, Axelrod presents GOP control of Congress as a possibly healthy outcome. And he's someone with a bit of input into the politicization of contentious issues on a national level. This goes beyond irresponsibility, it's indefensibly stupid.  

I do agree that the agenda will move to the right with a GOP victory, but I don't understand how you could possibly think I sought to debate that.  

[ Parent ]
Not you sir.
The people who betray the fighht against the right by 'voting' for "none of the above" and try and keep progresives out of the voting booth because the candidtae isn't better than a "D" as they say, while true racists, unhidden racists, true nazi lovers, unashamed nazi lovers, while true anti-democracy activists have taken over the Republican party and we near the point that the American democracy itself is threatened.

There are people who pretend that letting, helping the democrats loose will help in some way. They are much more than mistaken. Its not a mistake, its a goal I'm afraid.

If one dosent understand this, one have not been paying attention.

I was continuing the discussion with you wobbly, not AT you.

[ Parent ]
Just think of the message to the voters!
His stupid shit boils down to "if you want bipartisanship, vote rethuglican".
Well, congratulations, Mr. Dreckselrod! THIS sure will helpg the Dem candidates in their campaigns now.
Grrrr.
Obama becomes even more centrists
he is gone.  he'll be impeached probably and this time no liberal will be dumb enough to waste time defending the damn centrists, like we(myself included) did with Bill.
The left will not impeach him.
It will be the right, and it will be ugly.

The left, such as it exists in poor America, has not enough power to do such things, just the right.

And that will be the end of democracy in America.

[ Parent ]
The GOP's impending impeachment of Obama
will be even more of a circus than Bill Clinton's was.

They will charge he's a Sekrit Muslim, a Terrurist, or that he has No Tru Berth Sertifikate. The filth that the teabaggers now spew on FOX and on righty blogs will be coming out of the mouths of elected representatives.

Not only will Congress and the president be paralyzed at a time when the economy continues to spiral out of control, what remains of public confidence in our governing institutions will be dragged through the mud by such a joke of an impeachment.

That is only of benefit to the GOP, who, in the end, want to replace our pluralistic democracy with an authoritarian theocratic regime.

Things get bad enough, people will beg for a strongman to crack down with a hard hand and away with democratic niceties like elections and separation of powers. That's the endgame.

[ Parent ]
Someone-
besides the simpleminded types who think they are doing anything useful by continuing to empower the corporate ruling parties - remind me why we have to listen to their endless whine when the leaders they elect support the ruling corporate power.
Yawn
You completely miss the point if you think a third party that isn't tied to an issue-oriented popular movement will succeed.  I won't vote for neoliberals, but I also won't waste my time building a political party when there isn't a sufficient movement base to support it.

Build the movement that effectively can contest for power, and the demand for a party will follow.  

[ Parent ]
whine on wobbles, whine on
you do it so well.
[ Parent ]
More information-free blathering
What you say is the equivalent of the MSM's use of "angry" - a way to dismiss a legitimate argument through a meaningless pseudo-aestheticized characterization of an individual: ad hominem via hyper-emotionalism.
[ Parent ]
ahhh wobbles
no one could ever accuse you of being simpleminded. You don't quite get up to that level. but if you do look up 'ad hominem" even a schmuck like you might realize that is exactly what you used. Then again maybe not.
[ Parent ]
To paraphrase Paul Simon
"still data-free after all these posts."

No where do you say why what I say is incorrect, only that I "whine," am a "schmuck," etc.

It is simpleminded to think that the solution to our problem is to spend effort building a party when we have dozens of them.  You fail to address why they have yet to alter in any way our national agenda despite the overtly liberal and radical agenda that many of them promote.  

You also fail to recognize that third parties, while always short lived, have been very effective sometimes, but only when the product of movements.  Parties don't create movements, movements create parties.  

Believe what you must, your in the minority and hardly a vanguard.  

[ Parent ]
Is he a vanguard?
Oh goody.

The vanguard are the people who remove themselves from public discourse in order to teach people how to run their affairs.

[ Parent ]
vanguard? how can I aspire to be in the vanguard?
I think you have that locked up. You accept the two-party frame (no, it is really more. you with infinite condescension and arrogance dismiss others trying other approaches. you are insulting and dismissive. I actually know a little about the IWW and if you use this in any homage to the historical "Wobblies" who actually fought for popular government and solutions, you disgrace their memory. maybe calling yourself wobbly has more to do with other things. i do hope it is not in memory of well-deserving heros)and then you give us the Great Whine because the two parties don't answer any of our problems or very few of the real ones. No shit, Sherlock. You frame the third-party approach simpleminded and dismiss it. Well I am not so dismissive. I have seen precious little of value from what you are selling. But remind me again how your "viable" approach leads to anything but what we've got.
But what you (and the vanguard) give us instead is the endless choice of more of the same with your insulting condescension.  I would answer an "argument" if you had given one...what you did was say the present is intolerable  let's continue.
[ Parent ]
I have rarely heard an argument.
Mostly just diatribes and insults.

Stop thew right in America folks, with every ounce of energy you have.

Or you we all will regret it for the rest of your lives.

[ Parent ]
You don't even know what a vanguard means
in political theory.  A lot of things must seem condescending to you, no doubt.  

You allege that you possess historical knowledge but consistently fail to demonstrate it.  You fail to realize that you won't be building a third party, but a forty-third party.  Enjoy your great work.  

[ Parent ]
4

[ Parent ]
The 4 is for "You don't even know what a vanguard means "
the threading solution doesn't work sometimes when it stops moving over.

Just so as no one thinks I am defending VLazlo.

Another feather in his cap I am sure.

[ Parent ]
aren't you Canadian?
seriously, what is your deal
[ Parent ]
Here is Axelrod
reassuring the banks that any actions on halting fraudulent foreclosures will not get in the way of business as usual:
"A top White House adviser questioned the need Sunday for a blanket stoppage of all home foreclosures, even as pressure grows on the Obama administration to do something about mounting evidence that banks have used inaccurate documents to evict homeowners.
"It is a serious problem," said David Axelrod, who contended that the flawed paperwork is hurting the nation's housing market as well as lending institutions."

Maybe, just maybe the problem hurts the victims of foreclosure fraud. Nah. Just ask our simpleminded crew that knows how to find "viable" answers. In fact if you listen real carefully...

We don't lack for a surplus of parties
Here is a list of political parties currently active in the U.S..  Ask yourself why they haven't broken through the neoliberal stranglehold on our political agenda and if it makes sense to spend valuable time, money, etc., etc. so we can add to this already lengthy list.  

There are no viable answers if your question is along the lines of "how many angels can dance on the head of a pin."


[ Parent ]
I dont think its evewr been answered either
how a well educated angry but not well funded gropup of people who "don't play well others" will be able to control a party they are forming, or want others to form, when they can't organize the badly disorganized Democratic Party.

Why would it be easier?

Or is it just sort of a cultural thing,

leave and form a new party,
get disappointed,
leave and form a new party,
get disappointed,
leave and form a new party,
get disappointed,
leave and form a new party,
get disappointed,
leave and form a new party,
get disappointed,
leave and form a new party,
get disappointed,
leave and form a new party,
get disappointed,
leave and form a new party,
get disappointed,
leave and form a new party,
get disappointed,
leave and form a new party,
get disappointed,
leave and form a new party,
get disappointed,
leave and form a new party,
get disappointed,
leave and form a new party,
get disappointed,
leave and form a new party,
get disappointed,
leave and form a new party,
get disappointed,
leave and form a new party,
get disappointed,
leave and form a new party,
get disappointed,
leave and form a new party,
get disappointed,
leave and form a new party,
get disappointed,
leave and form a new party,
get disappointed,
leave and form a new party,
get disappointed,
leave and form a new party,
get disappointed,
leave and form a new party,
get disappointed,

Or maybe we could stop whining and just get to work, with all the dirty fingernails that entails

or is it just breaking up parties that's the goal?

Stop the right, or go back to playing Wii.

[ Parent ]
I'm rather fond of the bowling game, actually
no need to drag Wii through the mud here.  
[ Parent ]
relaxing is for regaining perspective and easing tension
it shouldn't be goal

And I liked tennis that time...

[ Parent ]
so we should vote for axelrod types
even though they are fucking us? What are you some sort of demoralization troll?

At least house or progress holds the delusion that Obama MIGHT MOVE LEFT! LOL!

[ Parent ]
You need to read more carefully

[ Parent ]
you need to say less outlandishly milquetoast things
and maybe then people will stop reacting to you like this
[ Parent ]
I presented a set of specific points
you either disagree with them or don't understand the logic behind them.

But it's impossible to tell why you feel the way you do given the fact that both you and VLaszlo do not provide any substantive criticism.  Broad, overly aestheticized characterizations of a position don't count as an argument.  Sorry.  

The only 'people' who are 'reacting' as you say are those who think building yet another political party is a viable political option at this point.  Nowhere do you refute anything I say about the relationship between movements and parties or the fact that we have many parties already with factual evidence.

You want to substitute emotionalism for fact-based argumentation and call what I say terribly conventional, or milquetoasty. Yet you offer no positive critique of my position.  Nothing you say rises above the level of insipid.  

[ Parent ]




USER MENU


blog advertising is good for you
blog advertising is good for you

Donate to Open Left
QUICK HITS
SEARCH

   

Advanced Search

STATE BLOGS

Home | RSS/XML Feed | Register | Contact

  © OpenLeft 2007-2010, Powered by SoapBlox