Skip to main content

View Diary: WaPo/ABC poll: Growing wariness on the left (213 comments)

Comment Preferences

    •  I guess your right. We will likely retain both. (3+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      RFK Lives, BenGoshi, rubine

      But it will get ugly. Especially if the econmy stays in the toilet and Obama caves and gives the insurance industry the gift of our money.

      Sarah Palin knows the only reason the left is fighting global warming is because we need the ice floes to put all them senior citizens on.

      by kitebro on Sat Aug 22, 2009 at 02:12:14 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  Rahmbo is proving to be a disaster (12+ / 0-)

        Glenn Greenwald pretty well nails it here:

        If one were to analyze matters from a purely utilitarian perspective, one could find ways to justify the White House's attempt to write a health care plan that accommodates the desires of the pharmaceutical and drug industries [mandates (i.e., 50 million forced new customers) plus government subsidies to pay their premiums plus no meaningful cost controls (i.e., no public option)].  All other things being equal, it's better -- from the White House's political perspective -- that those industries not spend vast sums of money trying to defeat Obama's health care proposal, that they not pour their resources into the GOP's 2010 midterm effort, that they not unleash their fully army of lobbyists and strategists to sabotage the Democratic Party.  That's the same calculating mindset that leads the White House to loyally serve the interests of the banking industry that caused the financial crisis (we don't want to make enemies out of of Goldman Sachs or turn investment bankers into GOP funders).  Indeed, that's the same mindset that leads the White House to avoid any fights with the Right -- and/or with the intelligence community and permanent military establishment -- over Terrorism policies (there's no political benefit to subjecting ourselves to accusations of being Soft on Terror and there's plenty of reasons to cling to those executive powers of secrecy, detention and war-making).

        In essence, this is the mindset of Rahm Emanuel, and its precepts are as toxic as they are familiar:  The only calculation that matters is maximizing political power.  The only "change" that's meaningful is converting more Republican seats into Democratic ones.  A legislative "win" is determined by whether Democrats can claim victory, not by whether anything constructive was achieved.  The smart approach is to serve and thus curry favor with the most powerful corporate factions, not change the rules to make them less powerful.  The primary tactic of Democrats should be to be more indispensable to corporate interests so as to deny the GOP that money and instead direct it to Democrats.  The overriding strategy is to scorn progressives while keeping them in their place and then expand the party by making it more conservative and more reliant on Blue Dogs.  Democrats should replicate Republican policies on Terrorism and national security -- not abandon them -- in order to remove that issue as a political weapon.

        Given his approach w/ the DCCC in 2006, I had my doubts about Rahmbo as COS when he was chosen.  I have no doubts about the choice now.  Why would any POTUS who was elected by a broad-based popular movement choose a Beltway corporatist hack who has no interest in sustaining that popular support?

        Some men see things as they are and ask why. I see things that never were and ask why not?

        by RFK Lives on Sat Aug 22, 2009 at 02:20:40 PM PDT

        [ Parent ]

        •  One of my problems also (2+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          xerico, Dallasdoc

          I geve a record, for me, amount of money to Obama in the election, voted for him and am still in the appproval column.
          but some of the  things he's done I see no reason for other tham rank politiics. And first off  would be having Rahm around. I don't know what Obama sees positive in the guy but if I was looking for someone to represent me in anything I would loook a lot farther than Rahm. he's abrasive and nothing but a political hack, no kind of real leader at all.
          I have other problems with Obama's style of leadership also. He's certainly not as "hands on" as I was hoping for.

          Happy just to be alive

          by exlrrp on Sat Aug 22, 2009 at 04:09:17 PM PDT

          [ Parent ]

        •  Your final question (0+ / 0-)

          answers itself, does it not?

      •  Why is it (1+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        My Stupid Opinion

        that a passing awkward comment from Kathleen Sibelius provokes mass despair, but Obama clearly stating to almost 300,000 people on a telephone forum Thursday that the public option is a must is completely ignored. We are all hearing only what we wqant to hewar and for some bizarre, twisted reason, we want to hear that Obama is a failure. Why?

        Rob Portman: He sent your job to China.

        by anastasia p on Sat Aug 22, 2009 at 04:48:40 PM PDT

        [ Parent ]

        •  Could it be, Anastasia, because 1) Obama has (2+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          Four of Nine, quagmiremonkey

          broken promises left and right and can no longer be trusted, and 2) Obama's "position" on health "insurance reform" changes daily, sometimes hourly?

          "Tyranny & oppression are just as possible under democratic forms as under any other...democracy is a life & involves continual struggle." Robert LaFoll

          by fflambeau on Sat Aug 22, 2009 at 09:09:30 PM PDT

          [ Parent ]

    •  Not going to happen...... (0+ / 0-)

      The GOP is way more vulnerable in '10 as regards the Senate.

      it tastes like burning...

      by eastvan on Sat Aug 22, 2009 at 02:39:27 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

Click here for the mobile view of the site