Skip to main content

View Diary: Fallows changes a headline. Good move? (105 comments)

Comment Preferences

  •  Good long comment, with good sharp takeaway: (40+ / 0-)
    GOTV like your life depends on it, because it does.
    We could "muddle through" right down to a feudal society ruled by warlords, with the natural world devastated, regional corporate armies, system breakdowns all over the world, etc.  

    This election is the Big One.  

    The Repubs know it and are fighting accordingly, determined to put their 1000-yr Reich back in power before the changing demographics wash them away.  If they win we can expect the Bush-Cheney coup to be extended via all sorts of electoral corruption & disenfrancisement.

    They never expected to lose in '08, but Bush lost control of the economy and Obama came out of nowhere to take them by surprise.  Thus their sense of being robbed.  But they're ready now.

    GOTV like your life depends on it, because it does!!

    •  how Bush lost the economy: (36+ / 0-)

      Financialistas knew the shit was going to hit the fan.  A friend of mine was pulling fire alarms like the CIA about 9/11, as far back as 2007 that I can recall, including all of the stuff that went crash, including mortgages and AIG, and some obscure stuff I don't recall the names of but came crashing down in 2008.  

      So from there it's not a stretch to believe that there was an "informal consensus" among the TBTF banksters, that they were going to hold on until after the election, on the belief that McCain would get in.  Then they could bail, let the system crash, and get ready to cash in even more under McCain.  

      However, what happened instead was that someone got cold feet and decided to bail in September, to get out with the biggest profit they could by being first.  After that the informal consensus broke, the floodgates were open, and the whole herd stampeded out of the barn at once.  Causing the barn to collapse.  

      This led directly to the Obama victory in 2008, with even racists holding their noses and voting Democratic, because their net worth had just gone down the drain, and the green mattered more to them than black and white.  

      Now the Rs are about to hand us another one with the Supreme Court decision on ACA.  Whatever the court decides, we win on this one and Obama has a blockbuster of an issue for the election.  But that will only happen if we work our butts off for it.  We have four months.  Let's make every day count.

      "Minus two votes for the Democrat" equals "plus one vote for the Republican." Arithmetic doesn't care about your feelings.

      by G2geek on Mon Jun 25, 2012 at 07:23:56 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  And yet... (20+ / 0-)

        ...President Obama spent the first three years of his term declaring how reasonable these Republicans were and how the most important thing was to reach bipartisan agreement with them. He chose that course rather than to respectfully yet unequivocally explain to the American public how off the rails and extreme the GOP has become and how its policies and ideology has led to such a fraught time for our country.

        FDR pinned the blame for the Depression squarely on the Republicans and the predator financial class for which they worked. But Obama too often refers to problems as emanating from "Congress" rather than a particular party in Congress. As for nailing the corporate super-predator class, fat chance.

        Is he even capable of defining the terms of the election properly since he has so misconstrued the GOP's character and intentions to date?

        •  No (5+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          CT Hank, albrt, joe wobblie, artisan, mollyd

          Because his funding from the Financial "industry" will dry up.

          Which is good news for John McCain.

          by AppleP on Mon Jun 25, 2012 at 09:20:59 AM PDT

          [ Parent ]

        •  Obama had a completely different political (15+ / 0-)

          environment than FDR, the result of 40 years of GOP strategy to get them to the point of being able to pull of the coup.

          Too many Americans simply would not have believed the explanation because, as knowledge about how the mind works (and doesn't) has increased, more on the left now understand that to

          respectfully yet unequivocally explain to the American public how off the rails and extreme the GOP has become and how its policies and ideology has led to such a fraught time for our country.
          would fall into an abyss. What Obama has done is SHOW America that no matter how hard you play by the rules and follow what used to be effective, it produces even more illogical and destructive behavior by the GOP.

          This campaign is about the explanation, which more Americans are in a mood to listen to and understand.

          "People, even more than things, have to be restored, renewed, revived, reclaimed and redeemed; never throw out anyone. " Audrey Hepburn "A Beautiful Woman"

          by Ginny in CO on Mon Jun 25, 2012 at 09:33:32 AM PDT

          [ Parent ]

          •  setting aside the FDR comparison (7+ / 0-)

            You write:

            Too many Americans simply would not have believed the explanation because, as knowledge about how the mind works (and doesn't) has increased, more on the left now understand that to

               

            respectfully yet unequivocally explain to the American public how off the rails and extreme the GOP has become and how its policies and ideology has led to such a fraught time for our country.
            would fall into an abyss.
            But in the space of a month, Occupy Wall Street managed to get income inequality discussed, without the President's bully pulpit. What matters to me is that Obama--both in his appointments and his rhetoric--made no effort to seriously question the premises of Reaganomics and Reaganism.

            Contrast how Democrats like Obama deal with power versus Republicans. Republicans are always pushing their agenda, making their argument, striving to have the political discussion take place on their terms. During the 2006 and 2008 election cycles, the Democrats actually started to take the initiative and go on the offense. But once Obama was elected they went back into a defensive crouch--even though they had just won two successive wave elections and the GOP handling of both the economy and national security had been shown to be disastrous.

            Yes, this isn't the 1930's. But if Democrats aren't making potent, values-based arguments to the American people--if they are only reacting to GOP ideas--then we are going to keep moving to the fascist Right.

            •  Ows was the populist force Obama needed to (2+ / 0-)
              Recommended by:
              mooshter, G2geek

              be able to change the focus of his comments, which he did. An attempt to do so before ows had turned the national discussion, in the corporate media, to income inequality - would have fallen flat.

              Don't forget, Obama's masthead and refrain in '08 was that the election was not about what he would do, it was what the voters for change would do. Has he played the situation perfectly? Taking on the most powerful job in the world - in its entire history, has a hell of a learning curve. He has a lot to do and I suspect he is very aware of his place and opportunity to make changes that will truly define the next period of history. And how much help he needs to pull it off.

              There is no question in my mind that there are too many Dems in Congress that have moved too far right out of convictions, rather than just fear of not getting reelected. Some of the ones who were afraid of that were unnecessarily so.

              The goal of the GOP carefully a planned and executed strategy since Goldwater lost, was a successful coup. Not well anticipated, minimal resistance, and barely recognized as a takeover by the majority.

              That has been blown, and they are going to fight with every dirty, ugly tactic they can devise. Obama, other Dem candidates, their supporters and anyone else who can raise their voice must be focused on developing and

              making potent, values-based arguments to the American people
              Too many still don't understand how to open the discussion, listen to the arguments and fears of the people they are talking to, and phrase the message in replying, that will overcome the mental/emotional defenses they are up against.  Have you seen this one?
              Women create the entire workforce.
              50% of pregnancies in America are unplanned. The GOP war on women controlling their reproduction has been framed as a religious battle. Is it?

              I was wondering the other day how hard it would become to get birth control - even condoms- if there was a national movement for ~ a year in the form of a pregnancy strike .

              I expect the strategy is to build the explanation over time. Keep on top of what is happening nationally and add strong moves as opportunities come up. The convention will be a chance to create expectations, talk about the destination without bringing in the route clearly. As the larger bunch of American voters start paying attention to the campaign, debates, etc. I would like to hear the rest of the explanation unfold steadily, until the last weeks are like the thunderstorm that you heard coming, and is now above you, sending thunder booms and lightening bolt cracks nanoseconds apart.

              GOTV depends on GOTM  

              Get Out The Message.

              "People, even more than things, have to be restored, renewed, revived, reclaimed and redeemed; never throw out anyone. " Audrey Hepburn "A Beautiful Woman"

              by Ginny in CO on Mon Jun 25, 2012 at 02:47:23 PM PDT

              [ Parent ]

              •  the systemic impediment (4+ / 0-)

                Paul Krugman and Robin Wells have a new essay out in the New York Review of Books that deals with Obama's early political and policy response to the crisis. Very worth reading. But one of the main problems we face, according to Krugman and Wells, is that the heights of the Democratic Party has been captured by the Big Banks.

                This is the Democratic Party's problem: the party is torn between its need for the votes of working people, poor people, the broad middle class and its addiction to Wall Street money. How can it articulate a coherent, values-based agenda when it needs the votes of people adversely affected by the actions of its Big Money contributors?

                •  How about an honest admission? (0+ / 0-)

                  Yup, we took that money because getting elected in this country has been all about money for a long time. CU is going to make it at least 10 times worse. Because the economic collapse has hurt so much of the middle class, we have far fewer contributors than we had in '08. Those contributors donations to the GOP are usually bigger than the Dems, just classically covering both bases. Reforming election campaign financing would likely be a BIG plus. No private funding of any kind.

                  If they follow up by seriously re-regulating the financial sector, breaking up the TBTF institutions and prosecuting any of the banksters they can, they can reestablish credibility and trust with voters. If they don't, we will probably get handed over to the pubs for the foreseeable future.

                  Personally, I have a somewhat different view of Obama's financial advisers selection which I won't go into at this point. The word was that Geithner will not return for the second term. If so, his replacement, and any others on the finance team, will be a chance to change the strategy.

                  The Dems have a better long term record on everything that involves US financial records. Many of the voters affected by the collapse are likely among the majority who still blame Bush for a fiasco so big it could not be solved in one term.

                  Obama has to keep pushing how completely the GOP has obstructed every thing - even in the Senate where the Dems have a technical majority. The head of the GOP Bar Assoc sent McConnell a letter telling him to get the judge appointments they are holding up approved - it is really backing up the system and creating legal and other problems. He even talks about how all the candidates had bipartisan approval in committee and high recs from independent, GOP and Dem legal eagles.

                  Barney Frank might turn off some voters, a revision of 'We aren't perfect, but they're crazy.' could help some.

                  Whatever impediments there are, we have to go around, under or over to get past them. The only other option is to give up.

                  "People, even more than things, have to be restored, renewed, revived, reclaimed and redeemed; never throw out anyone. " Audrey Hepburn "A Beautiful Woman"

                  by Ginny in CO on Tue Jun 26, 2012 at 01:52:01 AM PDT

                  [ Parent ]

          •  YES. He let the nuts show themselves clearly. (0+ / 0-)

            But now the task is to use that not to explain but to attack.  

            Explaining loses, it's playing defense.  Attacking wins.  He did a damn good job of it in 2008, he can do it again.

            "Minus two votes for the Democrat" equals "plus one vote for the Republican." Arithmetic doesn't care about your feelings.

            by G2geek on Mon Jun 25, 2012 at 11:47:23 PM PDT

            [ Parent ]

            •  But the question is... (0+ / 0-)

              ...Who will believe it this time?

              I'll vote for Obama because of the courts. But if he doesn't take any actions between now and the election that show he has learned something about the nature of the GOP and the corporate class they serve so fanatically, then I won't believe a word he says.

        •  Beware of FDR and Obama comparisons (20+ / 0-)

          FDR had huge Democratic majorities in both the Senate and the House. I mean really huge, like 2-to-1, 3-to-1 or even 4-to-1 at times. D/R/other splits in the Senate for the first four congresses of his presidency were:  59/36/1, 69/25/2, 75/17/4, 69/23/4. Similar for the House: 313/117/5, 322/103/10, 333/89/13, 262/169/4 (Wikipedia). These are the congresses that passed most of the New Deal legislation.

          One can certainly quibble and second-guess the way Obama has dealt with Congress, but the plain fact is that the Dem majorities he has had to work with were slim and none. FDR did not create his majorities, and Obama is not responsible for the timid, corporate-owned and/or obstructionist congresses he has had to deal with.

          A few other salient comparisons...

          FDR: labor movement on the rise
          Obama: labor movement in retreat

          FDR: Soviet Union an existential challenge on the left
          Obama: No Soviet Union, no strategic challenge on the left

          FDR: Lobbying industry nearly non-existent
          Obama: DC drowning in lobbyists

          etc...

          My point is, we can't compare the men without comparing the times.

        •  Oh Boy and What Fun! My little comment... (0+ / 0-)

          ... started a whole long thread:-)  

          Back in a few minutes...

          "Minus two votes for the Democrat" equals "plus one vote for the Republican." Arithmetic doesn't care about your feelings.

          by G2geek on Mon Jun 25, 2012 at 06:50:21 PM PDT

          [ Parent ]

      •  Washington Post today (14+ / 0-)

        Insider trading, but that's not what the political class calls it. Fucking, plain as the nose on your face insider trading.

        Lawmakers reworked financial portfolios after talks with Fed, Treasury officials

      •  The political angle analysis of the inevitable (4+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        3goldens, dksbook, Jane Lew, G2geek

        crash I thought made perfect sense was that the 1% and GOP were planning for it to occur in late 2009, when a Democrat would be in office - setting up the capacity to blame it on the Dems enough to make them a permanent minority party with no political power. Keeping the illusion of a democracy without the reality.

        To accomplish that they were willing to sacrifice the '08 election (less voter suppression and election fraud) in anticipation of a '10 and '12 sweep. Fortunately they were too greedy and stupid to keep it from collapsing well ahead of the inauguration, let alone getting well into the first term. Ideally for the GOP and 1%, it would have happened at least a year later, or in early '10, to seal the mid term results.

        If we don't already have the evidence that CU was planned to add to the inevitability, it will likely come out in time.

        What all the writers and forecasters have had to deal with is the deep American conviction that a coup was not possible here. True for the well known military version. The GOP was quite well aware of that and went very long term and below the radar in the plan. Not quite as long term, and far more subtle than Al Qaeda.

        In the light of values and morals being embedded in specific terms that can set off the fight response, 'American coup' would easily be as good as a molotov cocktail. I think it was a good thing Fallows changed the headline, even if he had (or gave) the wrong reason.

        "People, even more than things, have to be restored, renewed, revived, reclaimed and redeemed; never throw out anyone. " Audrey Hepburn "A Beautiful Woman"

        by Ginny in CO on Mon Jun 25, 2012 at 10:03:07 AM PDT

        [ Parent ]

        •  I thought that conspiracy theories were off-limits (0+ / 0-)

          here on dKos. I aways follow the rule to assume incompetence before malice. There was no shortage of either, of course, but I don't buy that Wall Street could execute such a precise strategy.

          But see also The Big Short: Inside the Doomsday Machine, by Michael Lewis for an account of how things unraveled.

          Busting the Dog Whistle code.

          by Mokurai on Mon Jun 25, 2012 at 04:22:01 PM PDT

          [ Parent ]

          •  that hardly rates as CT. It's more like.... (0+ / 0-)

            ... a "herd theory."  The plutocrats were behaving like a herd ("emergent behavior") but a few of 'em broke ranks early and the stampede followed (Sept 2008).  

            "Minus two votes for the Democrat" equals "plus one vote for the Republican." Arithmetic doesn't care about your feelings.

            by G2geek on Mon Jun 25, 2012 at 11:55:44 PM PDT

            [ Parent ]

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

Click here for the mobile view of the site