View Story | 1294 comments
Comments: Expand Shrink Hide (Always) | Indented Flat (Always)
So, your answer -- at last -- is that the "reasonable" Republicans were nowhere, because no compromise is possible right now.
a.) Obama runs on right wing talking points, sucessfully concealing his intent to govern from the left. (Just like Bush ran as a compassionate conservative.)
b.) Even though the OFB has repeated that this is Obama's strategy over and over on the blogs, nobody will pick up on it, so the concealment succeeds (because Obama is teh awsum)
b.) Having won the supermajority, Obama will nonetheless be able to enact progressive legislation, even though his mandate was to govern from the right (because Obama is teh awsum)
c.) Our famously free press will not call attention to this inconsistency (because Obama is teh awsum)
d.) The Republicans will not call attention to this inconsistency (because Obama is teh awsum).
Does that sum your clever plan up with enough nuance for you?
[x] Any (D) in the general. [ ] Any mullah-sucking billionaire-teabagging torture-loving pus-encrusted spawn of Cthulhu, bless his (R) heart.
by lambertstrether on Mon Jan 28, 2008 at 05:57:36 PM PDT
[ Parent ]
I'm still waiting on you to respond to my 3 inquiries.
I'm not holding my breath, coward.
by Greuben on Mon Jan 28, 2008 at 06:05:47 PM PDT
You kids behave or I'm turning this universe around RIGHT NOW! - god
by Clem Yeobright on Mon Jan 28, 2008 at 06:09:41 PM PDT
But have fun supporting your non-candidate!
by Greuben on Mon Jan 28, 2008 at 06:11:06 PM PDT
This is the tendency to see political discourse as a first person shooter video game.
I knew it would turn out this way, because they run out of analytical resources very quickly, but sometimes it's fun to demonstrate it, especially to get the record in place for when the Unity pony gets sent to the glue factory. We learned that in the runup to the Iraq war...
by lambertstrether on Mon Jan 28, 2008 at 06:13:46 PM PDT
That and the extraordinarily bloated ego with zero evidence that it is in any way justified.
I'm very impressed with your arguments, ls. It's been fun.
by Clem Yeobright on Mon Jan 28, 2008 at 06:17:50 PM PDT
Where's your Fight? Where's your gumption?
You make a challenge, claim I have no evidence, and yet when I answer your challenge and show you the evidence, you run away?
This isn't the first time, you know. This happens every time, you just run away! It's getting to be a bit annoying, Clemmy.
by Greuben on Mon Jan 28, 2008 at 06:23:39 PM PDT
I love these premature declarations of victory by Edwardites! It's so pompous it's cute.
by Greuben on Mon Jan 28, 2008 at 06:19:27 PM PDT
They are:
What is OFB?
In the plural: Obama Fan Base. In the singular, just for you, invented tonight: Obama Fan Bunny.
And how does Edwards govern if he automatically demonizes 70% of the American public?
Lot of assumptions there: What do you mean, "automatically"? Who is being demonized? What 70% of the American public are you talking about?
Since you don't engage with the rest of my comment, I assume that you agree:
All good to know.
by lambertstrether on Mon Jan 28, 2008 at 06:11:28 PM PDT
in the related comment thread, but here they are again:
(1) How does Edwards govern when he alienates 70% of the electorate wand 100% of all Republicans and Moderate Democrats? (2) Why isn't Eliot Spitzer's experience as Governor of New York simply a foreshadowing of the ineffectiveness of an Edwards Administration? (3) How does Edwards WIN, since he's lost the two best chances of winning - Iowa and South Carolina - and lacks the money, media, or momentum to carry him to viability on 2/5. [I'll grant you that if you admit that Edwards cannot win, that it's pointless for you to answer qusetions #1 and 2.]
(1) How does Edwards govern when he alienates 70% of the electorate wand 100% of all Republicans and Moderate Democrats?
(2) Why isn't Eliot Spitzer's experience as Governor of New York simply a foreshadowing of the ineffectiveness of an Edwards Administration?
(3) How does Edwards WIN, since he's lost the two best chances of winning - Iowa and South Carolina - and lacks the money, media, or momentum to carry him to viability on 2/5.
[I'll grant you that if you admit that Edwards cannot win, that it's pointless for you to answer qusetions #1 and 2.]
Now, I guarantee I know how you will respond to #3. First, you'll say there are multiple levels of losing (or winning, however you want to look at it), and Edwards can keep the good word alive just by staying in. That's not a legitimate reason to run a vanity candidacy, but okay, whatever, if that's your reason so be it. Second, you'll say that he can play "kingmaker." Of course, you assume that he can get approximately 200 delegates, but there is no evidence that he's going to be anywhere near that number. Third, you'll say that "he gets the most votes," which is a typical Edwardite non-answer. No shit, the candidate who wins will have gotten "the most votes" (or delegates). The question was "how" he does that.
by Greuben on Mon Jan 28, 2008 at 06:15:45 PM PDT
But fundamentally I'm about shoving the Overton Window left, not candidates. That Obama, and the OFB, embrace right wing talking points is not only deeply repugnant to me personally, it goes against my work. Some of the pushback is analytical; other pushback is meme-based.
by lambertstrether on Mon Jan 28, 2008 at 06:24:58 PM PDT
I knew you would.
Exactly what kind of governing philosophy is that?
Both Edwards and Spitzer ran for office as "Fighters." Spitzer has been sent back, bloodied and humbled, because he learned you cannot govern by simply punching the opposition in the mouth. The similarity to Edwards and the lesson to be learned is quite obvious.
My question has to do with Edwards' viability. I see you refuse to answer. Typical.
by Greuben on Mon Jan 28, 2008 at 06:30:23 PM PDT
Good to know.
Let me take your questions in reverse order.
What I admire about Edwards is that he has a clear understanding of the fundamental drivers of today's political economy. If you think that the disparity between the extremely wealthy and the rest of is is a positive good, then there's really no more basis for discussion between us. I would prefer to see it return to a more FDR-ish disparity -- the extremes are so great today that we're verging on oligarchy.
If you want to call that class warfare, good for you. The Republicans called it class warfare in FDR's day, too. It wasn't then, and it isn't now.
What's with the ALL CAPS? Guilty conscience about something?
by lambertstrether on Mon Jan 28, 2008 at 06:38:49 PM PDT
There I said it. Do you?
by Greuben on Mon Jan 28, 2008 at 06:45:26 PM PDT
There I said it.
To answer your question: No. Unless you're the kind of lunatic Conservative who thinks the New Deal was socialism, in which case I do.
by lambertstrether on Mon Jan 28, 2008 at 06:47:16 PM PDT
So what's Edwards' plan to get rid of the Oligarchy?
by Greuben on Mon Jan 28, 2008 at 07:06:08 PM PDT
... is a distraction? (And "socialism" wasn't? Come on.)
Actually, it's late, and I mixed my words. My bad. I meant plutocracy, rule by the rich (as opposed to rule by the few, although the rich are few).
Let's establish a common basis of understanding:
by lambertstrether on Mon Jan 28, 2008 at 07:18:58 PM PDT
I'm not sure it's helpful to even discuss these labels - Plutocracy, Oligarchy, etc.
We have a system where money talks. You could argue that it is undemocratic, from a one-person one-vote perspective. You could take a contrary view and say, monied interests are stakeholders in a way that average citizens are not.
It's easy to spout off about how we should tax the rich and regulate industry. Nobody says we shouldn't tax the rich or regulate industry. It's all a question of degree.
There's no getting rid of a plutocracy, or whatever it is you want to call it, without some sort of massive economic depression (which was the only reason we could achieve New Deal era policies), massive social upheaval (the Great Society was a response to the Watts Riots and Vietnam-era protests), or some other type of mass movement.
Name one other candidate who is leading a mass movement. John Edwards? Not according to the polls, he isn't.
Barack Obama is the only one. So, if you want to change those interests, and change the balance of play, you need to back a winner, someone who actually is leading a movement that can give him a mandate.
by Greuben on Mon Jan 28, 2008 at 08:26:44 PM PDT
by Greuben on Mon Jan 28, 2008 at 06:18:14 PM PDT
by lambertstrether on Mon Jan 28, 2008 at 06:32:08 PM PDT
If you forgive Edwards for shifting his positions so blatantly within a matter of a couple years, and after he is out of the Senate, and conveniently when he is positioning to run for President in 2008 as the angry populist.
As for FISA - you do realize that, at the end of the day, there is no deterrent effect to granting telecoms immunity. They have immunity going forward. At best, you are enriching trial attorneys who are going to sue the bejezus out of telecoms. We, the public, will get coupons for free long distance (and our phone bills will go up 10%).
2010 has nothing to do with Spitzer, but has everything to do with a 60+ Senate. Pay attention.
by Greuben on Mon Jan 28, 2008 at 06:35:49 PM PDT
Here it is. Funny you take up the "trial lawyers" right wing talking point. I guess you're one of the Republicans Obama wants to attract? Maybe, with your $200,000 year, Spitzer sued your firm and won? Hey, only kidding! Where's your sense of humor?
And speaking of humor, here's the Unity Pony! Enjoy! (It's actually a Ponuppy, for extra cuteness.)
by lambertstrether on Mon Jan 28, 2008 at 06:42:03 PM PDT
wide narrow
View Story | 1294 comments