Skip to main content

View Diary: No Summers for the Fed? Sen. Warren, Brown and Merkley Are No Votes (134 comments)

Comment Preferences

  •  What an odd bed: (3+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    Nailbanger, Betty Pinson, Mr Robert

    That progressives have to hold out hope that Republican obstructionism, as a minority party in the Senate, will prevent a Democratic Administration from selecting a pro-1% Predator as Fed Chairman.

    Waking Up Yet?

    The excuses for Obama's behavior have long since passed the point of predictability neccessary to qualify as an absurd production of Kabuki Theater.

    by Johnathan Ivan on Fri Sep 06, 2013 at 08:11:13 AM PDT

    •  I'm still glad I voted for Barack Obama and (21+ / 0-)

      if Hillary Clinton is nominated in 20116, I'll vote for her.  

      I woke up long ago.   My work and vote for Nader in 2000 helped no one.   Although it did not effect my state's outcome, I concluded it was the wrong road.  

      I first voted for a Dem president in 1976.  Other than the Nader vote, I'd vote the same knowing everything I know now with hindsight.

       

      Join us on the Black Kos front porch to review news and views written from a black pov—everyone is welcome.

      by TomP on Fri Sep 06, 2013 at 08:16:13 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  Agreed (though I never worked for (4+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        TomP, tytalus, Nulwee, doroma

        Nader).  I have been politically engaged since 1970, and have never once bought into the belief that both parties are the same.  It's true that the wealthy have a disproportionate influence in the policies followed by both parties, but the fundamental moral and ideological underpinnings of the two parties are opposites.  This is a large country with a huge range of beliefs.  We need to elect the best leaders we can realistically get.  The only way to get better representation is to take the money out of the political process. We need a constitutional amendment that deals with elections, including voting rights, and severe limits on political expenditures, at the national level.  Absent that, we will always be disappointed.

        Visceral loathing for this particular President runs pretty deep in these parts.  I believe this is the result of the deep, deep personal disappointment people felt, when they had rested their hopes so strongly on one man's shoulders, and he turned out, in some ways, to be an ordinary politician.  We need to spend our energy pushing him constantly in the right (left) direction.  It does no good to spit at him from our laptops.  How does that make the country's policies better?

        "It ain't right, Atticus," said Jem. "No, son, it ain't right." --Harper Lee, To Kill a Mockingbird

        by SottoVoce on Fri Sep 06, 2013 at 08:52:35 AM PDT

        [ Parent ]

        •  My "work" was that of a volunteer gathering (7+ / 0-)

          petitions.  Just wanted to be clear.  :-)  Not an important person.  

          I agree some have "[v]isceral loathing for this particular President."  I;m not sure why.   I suspect those folks will not like any Democratic president.  Their political views will compel them to oppose Clinton also when of if she is nominated.  I suspecect the flame wars will be worse in 2016.  But there also are many left-wing critics who don't over-personalize.  

          I do agree with this:

          We need to spend our energy pushing him constantly in the right (left) direction.  

          Join us on the Black Kos front porch to review news and views written from a black pov—everyone is welcome.

          by TomP on Fri Sep 06, 2013 at 09:06:58 AM PDT

          [ Parent ]

          •  re: Nader (4+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            TomP, tytalus, FiredUpInCA, earicicle

            Mr. SV is a photographer, and he covered Nader a few times.  He found him to be incredibly egotistical, tyrannical, self-absorbed and deeply strange.  I recoiled when he bragged about getting Republican money for his race, since he clearly knew that it was being spent not for him but only to weaken support for the Democratic candidate.  I still believe that he understood the differences between the candidates and the parties they represented, and he should have withdrawn at the end and thrown his support to Gore.  But his involvement in the race seemed to be more about him than about the country.  

            As for Hillary: When I joined DKos in 2007, there were terrible flame wars going on.  My very first diary was an attempt to cool down the viciousness of the anti-Hillary rhetoric.  Like some of the accusations we hear against Obama (he loves killing Muslim children, his goal is to be the wealthiest former President, his total devotion is to his banker BFFs, he wants to get rid of Social Security, etc.) the poison thrown at Hillary was ridiculous.  I have reservations about her, though I think she was an excellent SOS, and wish she were in that position now in place of a deeply disappointing, un-diplomatic Kerry.  And when you look at the terrifying array of GOP hopefuls, can there be any doubt that she should prevail should she run?

            "It ain't right, Atticus," said Jem. "No, son, it ain't right." --Harper Lee, To Kill a Mockingbird

            by SottoVoce on Fri Sep 06, 2013 at 09:28:56 AM PDT

            [ Parent ]

            •  I met him a couple times. Drove him to a speech (3+ / 0-)
              Recommended by:
              SottoVoce, tytalus, earicicle

              in sumemr 2000.  I had a nice conversation with him.   he understood there were differences in 2000, but that on corporate control, the differences were not major.  In retrospect, I think he was very wrong (Bush invaded Iraq and the Bush tax cuts, among other things).  

              But it also could be true that he was "incredibly egotistical, tyrannical, self-absorbed and deeply strange."  he is very docused on politics and appears to have little personal life (no family, etc.).

              I think he was wrong in 2000, and he may understand that in some ways, leading to "incredibly egotistical, tyrannical, self-absorbed and deeply strange."

              Hard to know.  A 15 minuted conversation about politics while driving a car gioves little real insight into the man.

              He did much good in the 1960s and 70s.  A lot of hios life work, however, was undermined in later years by the conservative reaction starting with Reagan (and even Carter to a degree).  Most folks have families and interests beyond the struggle for change, so in times of defeat they can fall back on them.  He seemed to only have politics and struggle, but I don't really know him at all.  

               

              Join us on the Black Kos front porch to review news and views written from a black pov—everyone is welcome.

              by TomP on Fri Sep 06, 2013 at 09:35:52 AM PDT

              [ Parent ]

              •  Nader is not alone in this (1+ / 0-)
                Recommended by:
                TomP

                Ross Perot made this whole discussion of Ralph Nader possible.  If incredibly egotistical, tyrannical, self-absorbed and deeply strange Ross Perot hadn't gone on a personal mission from God to deny George H. W. Bush a second term in 1992, Bush would have won.  Bill Clinton, and his wife, would have been a footnote in history, and Al Gore would still be the nobody Senator from Tennessee,... maybe.

                Of course, George W, Bush would never have been president, either.  And, without the backlash to the GW Bush presidency, we're still waiting for our first black president.

                Ralph Nader was just nature balancing itself out.    

        •  Disappointment rather than loathing (0+ / 0-)

          I supported Obama over Hillary because I thought that the Clintons were too much like Republicans. GATT and NAFTA and the Welfare reforms were the most obvious. The Glass Steagall repeal and the trade deal with China, I wasn't aware of till Obama was president.  

          I fell for his rhetoric. I wrongly supposed that he wasn't tainted the way many politicians are. After reading Greg Palast's article, it makes sense why Obama put Geithner and Summers in his administration, as pay back for the support of Robert Rubin. I was upset with Obama in January 2009 when he didn't use his leverage against the big banks and Wall Street. I didn't understand it because I thought that we had elected a Democrat along the lines of FDR. Then there is his grand bargain, that by this time I knew was being pushed by his Wall Street pals. I realize now I was just deluding myself. I thought that Clinton was an anomaly, but I guess it is FDR who is the anomaly. Obama is just more of the same.  There is, of course LBJ's Great Society programs, about which I am in agreement with my late significant other who pointed out to me that the programs were actually a success. These programs lifted a lot of people out of poverty, and the Republicans are still trying to pull what's left of those programs down with help from Obama.

      •  Yeah I'm putting off voting for Hillary (0+ / 0-)

        until 20116, myself.

      •  That, in a nutshell, is the problem: (0+ / 0-)

        A political party cannot be pushed except by two things:

        1 -- Votes
        2 -- Money

        The only way to influence a political party is if you are able to affect delivery of the items above.

        Obama / Pelosi / Reid / Feinstein and other illuminaries of the Democratic Party understand this equation.  As long as they can count on votes no matter what, why would they change their behavior?  It would be ludicrous for them to do so.

        The money part?  Corporations & the 1%?  They will withold support if they don't get what they want.

        Guess which constituency gets its agenda pushed?

        The 1%.

        Why?

        Because they are willing to hold elected officials accountable by withholding support.

        There will be no Change until there is accountability.  And that won't happen until votes must be earned, not simply acquired by default.

        The excuses for Obama's behavior have long since passed the point of predictability neccessary to qualify as an absurd production of Kabuki Theater.

        by Johnathan Ivan on Fri Sep 06, 2013 at 10:58:17 AM PDT

        [ Parent ]

    •  It worked on Social Security (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      Mr Robert

      Remember that the only thing that took SS off the table after Obama put it on was Republican insanity?

      The thing is, every once in a while when an idiot swings, he hits something useful.

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

Click here for the mobile view of the site