Skip to main content

View Diary: Abbreviated pundit roundup: You can't negotiate with illogical people (116 comments)

Comment Preferences

  •  Bullshit. Check out FDR's first two years and (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    UntimelyRippd

    the beatdown he gave Republicans in the 1934 midterms.

    Also -- I'm sorry, but the "Contract with America" Congress wasn't any friendlier to Clinton than the current House.

    Obama doesn't know how to play politics or considers them beneath him or something.

    LG: You know what? You got spunk. MR: Well, Yes... LG: I hate spunk!

    by dinotrac on Tue Mar 05, 2013 at 05:46:11 AM PST

    [ Parent ]

    •  The only way to beat them would have been (2+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      dinotrac, tb mare

      to call them out in 2010, and hammer them in the polls.

      That, as we know, is not what happened, to devastating effect in the state houses, and 2 years later, in the House of Reps, when the people discovered that they had been gerrymandered out of the ability to get rid of these ogres.

      To put the torture behind us is, inevitably, to put it in front of us.

      by UntimelyRippd on Tue Mar 05, 2013 at 06:11:53 AM PST

      [ Parent ]

      •  That would have required understanding the (1+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        UntimelyRippd

        needs of the electorate and communicating to us that Democrats both understood and cared about those needs.

        That didn't happen.

        2010 was not an endorsement of the GOP, even with all of the Tea Party noise.  2010 was an expression of grave concern with our country's leadership.  Democrats just happened to be holding all the cards, so Democrats took the dive.

        LG: You know what? You got spunk. MR: Well, Yes... LG: I hate spunk!

        by dinotrac on Tue Mar 05, 2013 at 07:07:20 AM PST

        [ Parent ]

      •  The Democratic Party, all the way up to (1+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        Laconic Lib

        and including the President, was AWOL in the summer of 2010.  Why?  I have no good theories.  But they abandoned the field to the Tea Partiers, and we will all have to live with the results of those mid-term elections for a very long time.

        •  They abandoned the field (2+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          dinotrac, Laconic Lib

          because we have no true labor party in America, no party that represents the working people, the middle class.  We have an establishment party with two wings.

          The Dems know it.  They also probably knew that the tea party would flame out.  Or they did not want to get in the way of a deranged and enraged mob of angry white males in tri-cornered hats.

    •  The House gained 9 seats (3+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      dinotrac, askew, zizi

      in 1934. They also had the House majority of 313 seats from '32 to '34.
      We won 25 seats in 2012, for a net gain of 8.
      Please explain the "beatdown".

      “We are not a nation that says ‘don’t ask, don’t tell.’ We are a nation that says ‘out of many, we are one.’” -Barack Obama

      by skohayes on Tue Mar 05, 2013 at 06:40:20 AM PST

      [ Parent ]

      •  It's the Senate you need to look at. (0+ / 0-)

        Republicans kept filibustering his bills.
        FDR campaigned in 1934 on removing the obstables to helping ordinary Americans.

        16 Republicans stood for re-election as Republicans.
        9 of them lost.  That's a 56% defeat rate.
        1 additional Republican did win, but switched to the Progressive party to do it.  Even including him, that's a 53% kill rate.

        Not a single Democratic candidate lost.

        Democrats went from 60 to a filibuster-proof 69 seats.

        Compare that to 2010.

        LG: You know what? You got spunk. MR: Well, Yes... LG: I hate spunk!

        by dinotrac on Tue Mar 05, 2013 at 07:05:10 AM PST

        [ Parent ]

        •  You remember that FDR (2+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          dinotrac, zizi

          also promised to stack the Supreme Court, so he could get more of his programs passed without the Court interfering?
          Is that the kind of political atmosphere you like?

          “We are not a nation that says ‘don’t ask, don’t tell.’ We are a nation that says ‘out of many, we are one.’” -Barack Obama

          by skohayes on Tue Mar 05, 2013 at 07:11:54 AM PST

          [ Parent ]

          •  He never did it, did he? (0+ / 0-)

            FDR was a much tougher political animal than our current President.

            I'm sure Obama would be fine in kinder, gentler times.  The current political climate, however, demonstrates how far he really is from being one of our great Presidents.

            LG: You know what? You got spunk. MR: Well, Yes... LG: I hate spunk!

            by dinotrac on Tue Mar 05, 2013 at 07:21:58 AM PST

            [ Parent ]

        •  This is (2+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          dinotrac, Laconic Lib

          Worth reading when you have time.  It makes a good argument that the Senate’s modern decline began in 1978, with the election of a new wave of anti-government conservatives, and accelerated as Republicans became the majority in 1981.

          THE EMPTY CHAMBER
          Just how broken is the Senate?
          BY GEORGE PACKER

          http://www.newyorker.com/...

    •  FDR (2+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      dinotrac, Laconic Lib

      believed that the ends of liberalism — advancing democracy, expanding participation, protecting the environment and consumers (first promoted by a progressive Republican, Theodore Roosevelt), securing the vulnerable — were fixed, but that the timing and means of achieving them were highly negotiable

      Whatever F.D.R.’s advantages over President Obama in communicating with the public, they share an unsentimental emphasis on what’s possible and what works. Both men, for instance, rejected the urgent pleas of some liberals to nationalize the banks and tacked toward their goals rather than standing ostentatiously on principle. Roosevelt was criticized by New Deal liberals in 1935 for allowing Congress to water down the Social Security bill before passage. Sound familiar?

      Interesting read:
      http://www.nytimes.com/...

      •  Agreed. Roosevelt, however was ruthlessly (0+ / 0-)

        capable of achieving what he saw as essential and possible.

        That included a steady concerted effort to get the country into World War II on the right side before it was too late.

        LG: You know what? You got spunk. MR: Well, Yes... LG: I hate spunk!

        by dinotrac on Tue Mar 05, 2013 at 10:30:06 AM PST

        [ Parent ]

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

Click here for the mobile view of the site