Skip to main content

View Diary: First-time unemployment claims soar to 385,000, possibly reflecting early impact from the sequester (92 comments)

Comment Preferences

  •  How so? (3+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    MPociask, squarewheel, shaharazade

    In many respects they are quite similar.

    i.e., well meaning policy wonks who just don't get the urgency of the "human factor" of their policies.

    •  Obama may be a well-meaning, he may be a wonk (2+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      kefauver, jiffypop

      But it's very hard to be considered a "long game" President, as Obama is, and at the same time ignoring the human factor. The long game is entirely about the human factor.

      Another false comparison could be made between Obama and Hoover's successor based on a poor track record in civil liberties and abandonment of stimulative policy.

    •  You mean sabotaging Republicans don't get (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      NoFortunateSon

      the urgency of the "human factor"? I mean, it's not as if the President has not offered jobs bills after jobs bills. I might be mistaken, but I thought I saw him traveling the country asking the saboteurs to "pass this jobs bill!" But I get it, an arsonist burns down a house, but the owner gets blamed for living in the house in the first place.

      The Republicans are sabotaging the country in plain sight and the individual who has proposed jobs bills after jobs bills that Republicans obstruct, the individual who has passed a healthcare bill that Republicans are spending every waking hour to try and repeal, is the individual you're claiming don’t know the urgency of the “human factor"? Such a statement is so patently ridiculous that I reserve a heavy dose of criticism for myself for even responding.

      •  Meh, the president spent much of his first (3+ / 0-)

        term pandering to the false altar of bipartisanship.

        If you consider some recent rhetoric to the contrary to redeem all that, I guess that is a matter of opinion that we differ on.

        •  Kind of hard not too (2+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          jiffypop, NedSparks

          In a country where the GOP has a natural R+2 advantage in house districts no matter how you gerrymander or un-gerrymander.

          It's not 1932.

          •  And how do you think they get the advantage? (2+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            ActivistGuy, divineorder

            Could it be because if the average voter has the choice between an ersatz and real Republican, they'll go for the real one almost every time?

            •  Old sophisms (0+ / 0-)

              You're really trying very hard to cram a difficult problem into an easy solution (sounds of bully pulpit harder!), probably because you've never had a conversation with these people. Step outside the Digby bubble.

              •  A reference point is George W Bush (3+ / 0-)
                Recommended by:
                BradyB, NoFortunateSon, PorridgeGun

                who subscribed to some very unpopular positions, but was able to push them through by showing steadfast devotion to them.

                For one reason or another, people eat up that approach.

                Just saying, why can we on the left try it at least once?

                •  I'm not sure you want Obama to end up like W (0+ / 0-)

                  But let's recall that George W. Bush ended up with 27% approval rating.

                  I sympathize with your point. It would feel good, right?

                  But the truth is, George W.'s ability to cram through legislation was vastly overrated. Let's remember the collapse that began immediately after his reelection, and the supposed "capital" he earned for finally winning a vote.

                  SS privatization crashed and burned, and the remainder of his second term domestic legislation (Medicare Part E, No Child Left Behind) were anathema to most conservatives. Really, the only legislation he passed were his tax cuts and WoT related to September 11.

                  And that's with controlling all three branches of government for most of his term.

                  •  How does that possibly matter? (3+ / 0-)
                    Recommended by:
                    divineorder, maryabein, RJDixon74135
                    But let's recall that George W. Bush ended up with 27% approval rating.
                    Considering that all the big issues that he and his billionaire backers were cemented in stone.

                    For example, his tax cuts have almost entirely been made permanent.

                    His education policies have if anything been doubled down on by the Obama administration.

                    His torture, foreign policy, Gitmo, surveillence, etc policies have also been embraced and if "doubled down on" at least  extended enthusiastically by the Obama administration.

                    Similarly, Obama's energy policies are more or less exactly what a third term Bush Administration would have put forward.

                    I could go on, but there's really no point.

                    About the only issue that I see daylight between the Obama and Bush administrations is Supreme Court nominees - which of course is important.

                    But nevertheless, it is just a tad disappointing that that is the only thing to be pro-Obama about.

                •  Bush had total control for most of his term (0+ / 0-)

                  Obama has been stymied almost his whole term while Bush had total republican control his first 6 years. Until he overreached with SS he got everything he wanted.

                  •  No, not really (1+ / 0-)
                    Recommended by:
                    maryabein

                    once Jeffords defected from the GOP in 2001 that was not the case.

                    Although in reality it was, with a goodly number of Dems quite literally falling all over themselves to support W's fiscal and war policies.

                    The bottom line is that if the Dems had played hardball like the Repubs are now, they could have blocked every single Bush initiative because the GOP * never * had the veto-proof 60 seat majority in the senate.

        •  Meh, the President has accomplished many things (1+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          NoFortunateSon

          and was resoundingly re-elected because Americans didn't see him as a failure, but who cares? Any energy spent criticizing sabotaging Republicans and their wrecking of the nation due to political opportunism is energy that could be spent criticizing Obama, with winning arguments such as he don't get the urgency of the "human factor".  

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

  • Recommended (128)
  • Community (61)
  • 2016 (46)
  • Elections (38)
  • Environment (35)
  • Media (35)
  • Trans-Pacific Partnership (33)
  • Republicans (31)
  • Hillary Clinton (30)
  • Law (28)
  • Barack Obama (27)
  • Iraq (27)
  • Civil Rights (25)
  • Climate Change (24)
  • Culture (24)
  • Jeb Bush (24)
  • Economy (20)
  • Labor (19)
  • Bernie Sanders (18)
  • Senate (16)
  • Click here for the mobile view of the site