Skip to main content

Reacting to Wall Street's delusional rage against the President which I highlighted earlier, diarist David Mizner asks the pertinent question: why doesn't the President simply welcome their hatred? After all, Wall Street is deeply unpopular and Dems would stand to gain, right?

Well, the outrage is easy. I myself have shared in it. But honestly, the answer to this question isn't that hard. No need to resort to the comfortable, easy, self-righteous retreats of corruption or fecklessness. It's a function of two simple factors: money and votes.

Reacting to Wall Street's delusional rage against the President which I highlighted earlier, diarist David Mizner asks the pertinent question: why doesn't the President simply welcome their hatred? After all, Wall Street is deeply unpopular and Dems would stand to gain, right?

Well, the outrage is easy. I myself have shared in it. But honestly, the answer to this question isn't that hard. No need to resort to the comfortable, easy, self-righteous retreats of corruption or fecklessness. It's a function of two simple factors: money and votes.

Plainly speaking, FDR didn't need the bankers' money. Campaigning wasn't nearly as expensive in those days. Lack of effective mass communications made it harder to purchase persuasion. And the Powell Memo that led to the coordination of big business spending on elections was over 30 years away. Wall Street had money, but it wasn't as coordinated and it didn't go as far.

But that's not all. FDR also had the votes of the racist South. He couldn't afford to lose them. FDR had the opportunity to pass an anti-lynching bill, but he couldn't afford to do it and still get the New Deal passed:

The harsh logic of Roosevelt's racial stance was expressed most clearly in 1938, when liberal congressmen attempted to pass federal anti-lynching legislation to halt the most horrific type of anti-black terrorism. (Several thousand blacks were killed by lynching in the United States between the 1880s and 1960s.) Southern Senators angrily filibustered, and FDR defied black leaders and his own wife by refusing to throw his support behind the measure. "I did not choose the tools with which I must work," he explained. "Had I been permitted to choose them I would have selected quite different ones. But I've got to get legislation passed by Congress to save America. The Southerners... occupy strategic places on most of the Senate and House committees. If I come out for the antilynching bill now, they will block every bill I ask Congress to pass to keep America from collapsing. I just can't take that risk."

Roosevelt's need to accommodate southern racists often complicated the implementation of his programs. Distribution of relief in the South, for example, slowed to a trickle because Southern relief administrators didn't want to distribute money to blacks. One Georgia relief agent told Roosevelt's emissary Lorena Hickok that "any N----- who gets over $8 a week is a spoiled N-----, that's all... The Negroes regard the President as the Messiah, and they think that... they'll all be getting $12 a week for the rest of their lives." Domestic workers and agricultural laborers—the leading employment sectors for black women and men, respectively—were excluded from many of the benefits of labor legislation and social security.

The cold truth is that Democrats' decision to support working families and organized labor from 1930-1970 led to an intense and furious backlash by moneyed interests, without which the Movement Conservative revolution would not have been possible. Republicans outraised Democrats in presidential elections during the late 1970s and throughout the 1980s by a factor of 7-1 and higher. That in turn led to the creation of the DLC and the rise of the neoliberal elite to raise enough funds to be remotely competitive.

The cold truth is that Democrats' decision to support women's rights and especially minority rights in the 1960s led to the loss of the Deep South and much of the Rust Belt.

The cold truth is that adding the full force of Wall Street's money and the medical industry's money to the entirety of the racist and misogynist vote in the Deep South and Rust Belt would disable Democrats from winning a single Presidential election until most of the racists and misogynists are dead and buried. Which will happen, but not for quite some time.

Welcoming their hatred sounds great. But to do it without committing electoral suicide would require major campaign finance reform, and actively marginalizing states and populations where racism holds sway. Both of those things can be accomplished. They're not as easy as simply demanding a more forceful rhetorician, but they're more realistic. And that's the cold truth.

Cross-posted from Digby's Hullabaloo

Originally posted to thereisnospoon (David Atkins) on Fri May 04, 2012 at 08:00 AM PDT.

Also republished by Realistrati.

EMAIL TO A FRIEND X
Your Email has been sent.
You must add at least one tag to this diary before publishing it.

Add keywords that describe this diary. Separate multiple keywords with commas.
Tagging tips - Search For Tags - Browse For Tags

?

More Tagging tips:

A tag is a way to search for this diary. If someone is searching for "Barack Obama," is this a diary they'd be trying to find?

Use a person's full name, without any title. Senator Obama may become President Obama, and Michelle Obama might run for office.

If your diary covers an election or elected official, use election tags, which are generally the state abbreviation followed by the office. CA-01 is the first district House seat. CA-Sen covers both senate races. NY-GOV covers the New York governor's race.

Tags do not compound: that is, "education reform" is a completely different tag from "education". A tag like "reform" alone is probably not meaningful.

Consider if one or more of these tags fits your diary: Civil Rights, Community, Congress, Culture, Economy, Education, Elections, Energy, Environment, Health Care, International, Labor, Law, Media, Meta, National Security, Science, Transportation, or White House. If your diary is specific to a state, consider adding the state (California, Texas, etc). Keep in mind, though, that there are many wonderful and important diaries that don't fit in any of these tags. Don't worry if yours doesn't.

You can add a private note to this diary when hotlisting it:
Are you sure you want to remove this diary from your hotlist?
Are you sure you want to remove your recommendation? You can only recommend a diary once, so you will not be able to re-recommend it afterwards.
Rescue this diary, and add a note:
Are you sure you want to remove this diary from Rescue?
Choose where to republish this diary. The diary will be added to the queue for that group. Publish it from the queue to make it appear.

You must be a member of a group to use this feature.

Add a quick update to your diary without changing the diary itself:
Are you sure you want to remove this diary?
(The diary will be removed from the site and returned to your drafts for further editing.)
(The diary will be removed.)
Are you sure you want to save these changes to the published diary?

Comment Preferences

  •  Tip Jar (250+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    FG, TomP, commonmass, Deep Texan, where4art, tardis10, Geekesque, Livvy5, Zacapoet, raptavio, gulfgal98, Catte Nappe, TooFolkGR, Sun Tzu, markthshark, OnlyWords, begone, SoCalSal, puakev, Trendar, SaintC, chicago minx, Quicklund, sturunner, oman88, latts, PsychoSavannah, Aspe4, kitebro, jgnyc, MKinTN, Supavash, bubbanomics, buckstop, Leftcandid, confitesprit, some other george, Urizen, Thomasina, BasharH, JTinDC, Inventor, tytalus, Bluesee, JeffW, claytonben, LiberalCanuck, virginwoolf, hooper, wasatch, Happy Days, DaveV, happy camper, DSC on the Plateau, basquebob, Shahryar, Imhotepsings, democracy inaction, CrissieP, Lost and Found, JayBat, coral, ultraviolet uk, Gowrie Gal, leftykook, Angie in WA State, jan4insight, Bule Betawi, northsylvania, high uintas, xanthippe2, Denver11, stormicats, Little Lulu, devtob, kevinpdx, Boston to Salem, Its a New Day, hillbrook green, NM Ray, Crabby Abbey, Unit Zero, Vita Brevis, tonyahky, Ed in Montana, cloudbustingkid, onanyes, Tool, camlbacker, GoGoGoEverton, oortdust, cwsmoke, Shelley99, elwior, gatorcog, geebeebee, Julie Gulden, gramofsam1, rockhound, CDH in Brooklyn, tapestry, Dr Squid, jennylind, TexasTom, princess Kes, Stuart Heady, lineatus, CarbonFiberBoy, NYFM, ColoTim, fcvaguy, We Won, redlum jak, No one gets out alive, nickrud, bfitzinAR, smoothnmellow, northerntier, maggiejean, Reality Bites Back, Lawdog, Carolina On My Mind, prettygirlxoxoxo, virginislandsguy, on board 47, roadbear, TFinSF, rapala, Sean X, DeminNewJ, Sybil Liberty, brentut5, wxorknot, luckydog, Gary Norton, frankzappatista, Haf2Read, Bailey Savings and Loan, Mislead, dzog, FiredUpInCA, MartyM, fumie, Tam in CA, LeftOfYou, jestbill, Rooe, musicsleuth, fhcec, fiddlingnero, sfarkash, legendmn, eyesoars, CS in AZ, AllanTBG, Cedwyn, kaleidescope, pvlb, ParkRanger, Onomastic, ChemBob, dotdash2u, porchdog1961, leonard145b, Karl Rover, ogre, IreGyre, nyceve, ozsea1, Buckeye Nut Schell, LSmith, progreen, SarekOfVulcan, RLF, weatherdude, MidwestTreeHugger, Mathazar, litoralis, occams hatchet, dmhlt 66, peteri2, marina, dwahzon, helpImdrowning, blueyedace2, Susan from 29, princesspat, Glen The Plumber, kerflooey, sydneyluv, owlbear1, SueM1121, BoxNDox, pyegar, Little Flower, Joieau, Andrew F Cockburn, MJ via Chicago, CanadaGoose, uciguy30, fladem, Diogenes2008, RLMiller, Ice Blue, Miss Jones, jazzmaniac, apip0115, Jim R, OregonOak, nomandates, hypertexas, averybird, Amayi, Matt Z, profh, eeff, SanFernandoValleyMom, Ooooh, cynndara, The Angry Architect, Dragon5616, Gorette, CTLiberal, Thinking Fella, blueoregon, historys mysteries, bluedust, terabytes, psnyder, Crashing Vor, Empty Vessel, be the change you seek, hardart, dotsright, drawingporno, Nisi Prius, Shockwave, itsbenj, wader, sockpuppet, coolbreeze, outragedinSF, mamamorgaine, kaliope, BruinKid, Egalitare, skohayes, samddobermann, liberaldeminpittsburgh, TLS66
    •  There is a war even if only one side is waging (28+ / 0-)

      it. Waiting for the other side to come around isn't a solution. Even if all the "racists and misogynists" died off, the concentration of wealth & power in the hands of a few would not die off. Without political confrontation, the income inequality trends of the last few decades will only  continue to sharpen....

      I think they know there's a war going on, but that doesn't mean they want to stand in front of it & gamble. Sadly.

      Atlatl Cauac...Jatz'om K'uh.

      by catilinus on Fri May 04, 2012 at 08:59:03 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  I think this about who's in the best tactical (26+ / 0-)

        position to take this on.

        Mainstream politicians could address this directly and lose what little power they have to improve or daily lives.

        OWS can take this on directly and change the culture of our country's discourse without running any risk (besides getting their heads bashed by cops).

        We (the people) have to take these things on before the politicians do.  That's been true throughout the history of humanity, why would it be any different now?

        Supporting anything that makes even a moderate improvement in the lives of our fellow citizens doesn't automatically imply that we are supporting the limitations of those moderate improvements.

        If we want our "leaders" (I basically reject that entire concept) to stand up for things we'll have to stand up first.  We won't be "led" out of this, we'll have to push our way out, using whatever tools are available.

        •  uh huh (9+ / 0-)
          "...why would it be any different now?"
          in a nutshell, you nailed it

          "Show up. Pay attention. Tell the truth. And don't be attached to the results." -- Angeles Arrien

          by Sybil Liberty on Fri May 04, 2012 at 11:26:37 AM PDT

          [ Parent ]

          •  This diary looks familiar (4+ / 0-)

            maybe because I also diaried FDR and the Wagner Act, controversially, a couple years ago.

            I think my diary also implied that the same forces that constrain Obama today (money and votes) constrained FDR, just in a different form.  FDR didn't want to kowtow to racists, but racism was the third rail of the Democratic Party at the time.  His blatant neglect and numerous betrayals of African-Americans reveal, on closer inspection, many incremental and plentiful symbolic actions for racial progress.

            No president was going to have Wall Street straightened out, even remotely, by 2012.  We're in for a long decade, we were destined that way after decades of festering rot.

            Thank you to jayden, Dr Erich Bloodaxe RN, Aji and everyone in the Daily Kos community involved in gifting my subscription and gifting others!

            by Nulwee on Sat May 05, 2012 at 02:08:30 AM PDT

            [ Parent ]

            •  Nice straw man you've got there. (0+ / 0-)
              No president was going to have Wall Street straightened out, even remotely, by 2012.
              There is a big difference between getting Wall Street straightened out and enforcing the laws on the books. As you well know.

              Barack Obama: So morally bankrupt that he thinks people who tortured other people to death should get a pass. Likes to prosecute whistleblowers and pot smokers, though.

              by expatjourno on Sat May 05, 2012 at 04:12:09 AM PDT

              [ Parent ]

        •  Absolutely true. (10+ / 0-)

          Public opinion and activism does lead the leaders - which is why the wealthy few spend so much lucre to influence it.

          We should reflect upon the fact that, of the three branches of government, the legislative - which is a nearly entirely elected body - is the only one that has willingly ceded power to the other branches over the last fifty years. Basically, it's difficult to be both a career politician and an effective leader in modern America. While the Executive branch continues to extend its power, the executive himself is subject to most of the same constraints of behavior as congressional office holders, at least for the first four years.

          The branch of government that has arguably grabbed the most influence for itself since the signing of the Constitution? The judiciary, particularly the SCOTUS. The dynamics there, in contrast to the branches just mentioned, should be obvious.

          ---

        •  the piece that has been forgotten by those (3+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          Onomastic, Urizen, jm214

          who concentrate only on electoral politics.

          We (the people) have to take these things on before the politicians do.  That's been true throughout the history of humanity, why would it be any different now?
          But there is a strategy and as always there are tactics as to how to do this, with pressures about how radical to be always needing a hearing and the tension worked out in the practice of the thing.

          Words can sometimes, in moments of grace, attain the quality of deeds. --Elie Wiesel

          by a gilas girl on Fri May 04, 2012 at 12:24:10 PM PDT

          [ Parent ]

          •  To me the either/or that comes up in this (1+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            The Angry Architect

            all the time doesn't make any sense.

            Do what you can to change the culture and vote for the best you can get at any given time

            I can support the abolition of private property (I do) and still vote for someone who can help make it so my niece can stay my sister's health insurance.  These two things don't exclude each other.

            I suspect it will take a long time for a politician who advocates the abolition of private property to be in a position to win.

            •  I've always suspected (8+ / 0-)

              that it has to do with a profound misunderstanding about how social change actually comes about.

              Sometimes folks who are very pointedly "action oriented" tend to have a focus, which, while useful in accomplishing one strategic action, doesn't always adjust so well to see a bigger picture of long term change.

              And then everyone gets all "faction-y" and personally identified with the "one true action" (kind of like the Catholics during the Inquisition and thru to the Reformation), and stuff just falls apart from there.

              The "divide and conquer" strategy from the inside, if you will.

               

              Words can sometimes, in moments of grace, attain the quality of deeds. --Elie Wiesel

              by a gilas girl on Fri May 04, 2012 at 01:23:22 PM PDT

              [ Parent ]

              •  The bigger picture is that constant cave-ins... (0+ / 0-)

                ...simply move the so-called "center" to the right. The utter absurdity of spoon's diary is shown by how the so-called center has been moving to the right since 1968, 40 years before Citizens United.

                Moreover, where is the evidence that business interests have been won over by Democratic cave-ins?

                In fact, as a practical matter, Democratic cave-ins just let Republicans up the ante. As a practical matter, it would be better to create strong contrasts in the minds of voters, rather than blur the distinctions by caving in.

                In fact, an astute politician had this to say:

                You go into these small towns in Pennsylvania and, like a lot of small towns in the Midwest, the jobs have been gone now for 25 years and nothing's replaced them. And they fell through the Clinton administration, and the Bush administration, and each successive administration has said that somehow these communities are gonna regenerate and they have not.

                And it's not surprising then they get bitter, they cling to guns or religion or antipathy toward people who aren't like them or anti-immigrant sentiment or anti-trade sentiment as a way to explain their frustrations.

                I wonder what ever happened to him.

                Barack Obama: So morally bankrupt that he thinks people who tortured other people to death should get a pass. Likes to prosecute whistleblowers and pot smokers, though.

                by expatjourno on Sat May 05, 2012 at 11:13:10 AM PDT

                [ Parent ]

        •  Right... (0+ / 0-)

          as the old saying goes ~

          "If the people lead, the leaders will follow."

          The important and difficult job is never to find the right answers, it is to find the right question. For there are few things as useless–if not dangerous–as the right answer to the wrong question. -- P. Drucker

          by The Angry Architect on Fri May 04, 2012 at 06:40:46 PM PDT

          [ Parent ]

      •  And if the racists were (4+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        Urizen, Saint Jimmy, kaliope, Chi

        to 'win' and exclude-unto-death entire segments of our population, the power would then turn against the "not-haves" among their own race. Racism is a cover. They hate all of us, don't care what color or creed or ethnic identity.

    •  The argument in this post: dig a deeper hole? (63+ / 0-)

      Sorry, I find it to be a bit tiresome, if not an outright copout.

      Wall Street and Big Pharma are the primary causes of our nation's financial downfall. To get out of this hole the answer is NOT to do more digging.

      Exactly how does providing Wall Street and Big Pharma with even more resources and power enable us to put a saddle on them at any point in the foreseeable future?

      It does NOT accomplish that. In fact, it is the very antithesis of what would bear any semblance of a solution.

      If we had generations to address this isssue, it would be a different story. We have a few more years, at best, to do something about this...and THAT's the OPTIMISTIC view, IMHO.

      We're talking converging emergencies. There's an urgency at play here that many simply just DO NOT GET...incrementalism? The time for accepting that is long past...especially when very little is being accomplished to effectively put a saddle on this insanity. Matters grow worse and tilt more to the neofeudal extreme with EVERY PASSING DAY.

      "I always thought if you worked hard enough and tried hard enough, things would work out. I was wrong." --Katharine Graham

      by bobswern on Fri May 04, 2012 at 09:12:11 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  asdf (22+ / 0-)

        I don't think the diarist is advocating incrementalism, I think he/she is pointing out how difficult an uphill climb we face. I agree with you that a number of problems, both environmental and societal, are evident and at the same time roundly ignored in our political discourse. However, until the common sense of the majority of the population comes to include perception of these problems, basing an election on them is next to impossible.
        The presidency is a bully pulpit, but in these days it competes with all the other bully pulpits on FOX (and in these cases the word bully could be used in the other sense of the term). These people are bought and paid for by the 1%. Unfortunately, so far, about half of the 99% believe them. This is what thereisnospoon is complaining about.

        "There's a crack in everything; that's how the light gets in". Leonard Cohen

        by northsylvania on Fri May 04, 2012 at 10:10:23 AM PDT

        [ Parent ]

        •  My bad (4+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          elwior, Cedwyn, Onomastic, Joieau

          didn't notice the (David Atkins) next to thereisnospoon. Definitely a he then.

          "There's a crack in everything; that's how the light gets in". Leonard Cohen

          by northsylvania on Fri May 04, 2012 at 10:25:38 AM PDT

          [ Parent ]

        •  right, i'm suggesting a tactical change (3+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          Urizen, Matt Z, kaliope

          progressives keep trying to elect more aggressive progressives. Which is fine, but that's not the biggest problem.

          There was a time when Obama was an aggressive, single-payer-supporting, Iraq-War-opposing politician. But things change when you face up to having to raise money from Rubin's crowd, and having to win in states where people don't look favorably on progressivism.

        •  My impression is... (3+ / 0-)

          that the Diarist has picked up a previous discussion suggesting that Obama welcome the hatred that Wall Street institutions express towards him and that he harness that hatred perhaps to resonate with the sentiment of a portion of the "99%" who hate Wall Street in return. I believe that this diary is specifically a response to that question...

          The Diarist shows by (a fascinating) historical comparison to FDR's presidency, why this is impractical - principally, because of the cost of running a modern election compared to the cost in the 1930s.

          Despite not being faced with limitations of campaign finance, FDR, nonetheless, faced the need to be pragmatic in choosing his battles: (New Deal or anti-lynching laws.)

          Obama needs Wall Street money (at least in as much as it not be used entirely against him,) and yet faces the electoral implications of racism and misogyny.

          This challenge is faced by Obama, and by the Democratic Party in general. I don't think that the Diarist is directly advocating incrementalism, either. He points out what he calls "the cold truth." of electoral pragmatism.

          And cold it is indeed. For I agree with bobswern, the need for urgent action is upon us as we are in eminent danger of loosing our democracy entirely.

          For me, regardless of the outcome of the next presidential election, the battle to remove the influence of money from politics must continue.

          It is my hope that Obama is reelected, and that he will focus on that battle, and others, that might prove challenging as campaign platforms.

          Our job is incremental. Reelect Obama, try to give him a workable Congress, and continue to fight corporate fascism.

          Yeah, an uphill climb indeed.

          The important and difficult job is never to find the right answers, it is to find the right question. For there are few things as useless–if not dangerous–as the right answer to the wrong question. -- P. Drucker

          by The Angry Architect on Fri May 04, 2012 at 07:42:35 PM PDT

          [ Parent ]

      •  It's not that anybody needs to be thrilled (24+ / 0-)

        with incrementalism (I know I'm not), but, as horrendous as things have gotten, it doesn't make any sense to refuse the increments.  Take them, then take some more.

        Discontent is good as long as it contributes to something (anything) improving (even a little bit).

        Accepting increments doesn't mean being satisfied by them.  It would be cool to be able to leap up a mountain, but, absent that ability, the only way to get up it is to take each step as it presents itself.

        Not good enough?  Make the next one better instead of mourning the insufficiency of the one before.

        I'm a construction worker by trade and that teaches me on a daily basis that everything humans do is an accumulation of small accomplishments.

        •  Your argument makes sense, except for the... (35+ / 0-)

          ...basic/following truths...

          1.) The TBTF banks are 30% larger than they were before the Great Recession began

          2.) Income inequality continues to go downhill

          3.) The "healthcare complex," and healthcare costs, in general, continue to escalate

          4.) Millions are going off of Emergency Unemployment benefits in coming months

          5.) The housing/mortgage crisis--at best--is going to be flatlining, if not dropping some more, for the foreseeable future

          6.) Efforts to truly curtail Military-Industrial complex spending are a downright travesty in excess spending

          7.) And, we're all walking off a FISCAL CLIFF come January 1st

          8.) Before that we're going to be hitting a federal budget ceiling; and, god only knows what we're going to bargain away to get through that

          9.) Meanwhile, as far as the economy's concerned--there are a variety of factors that could adversely affect it over which we maintain little control...Europe ongoing implosion, oil prices, etc.--and the numbers are already heading south...

          ...I haven't even ventured into the global warming/climaticide issues, nuclear energy, big oil, the Mideast, North Korea, loss of dollar hegemony over the next few years, not to mention a myriad of other issues that aren't on the top of my head at the moment.

          So...WHERE, exactly, is there room for Main Street to "negotiate" here?

          It looks to be all downhill, and picking up speed by the day, IMHO...

          "I always thought if you worked hard enough and tried hard enough, things would work out. I was wrong." --Katharine Graham

          by bobswern on Fri May 04, 2012 at 10:37:20 AM PDT

          [ Parent ]

          •  yes bob (5+ / 0-)

            ...the sky is always falling with you.

            ALWAYS.

            if we're are permanently doomed with no way out as every diary and post you've made since 2006 claims, why are you even bothering any more?

            We have no desire to offend you -- unless you are a twit!

            by ScrewySquirrel on Fri May 04, 2012 at 11:06:30 AM PDT

            [ Parent ]

            •  but the sky is falling. (16+ / 0-)

              what you don't understand is this: the facade is still in place and that is it. kinda like the matrix. but it will not withstand too many more attacks...

              value, things of value, have been so depleted and raped that even if we were to hold the 1% accountable... what then would their assets be worth?

              it's like so deep and far gone it's hard to bring it in, or align to anything we understand.

            •  Personal attacks are waaay out of place... n/t (19+ / 0-)

              "I always thought if you worked hard enough and tried hard enough, things would work out. I was wrong." --Katharine Graham

              by bobswern on Fri May 04, 2012 at 11:18:54 AM PDT

              [ Parent ]

              •  LOL! ...coming from you. (0+ / 0-)

                Koch Industries, Inc: Quilted Northern, Angel Soft, Brawny, Sparkle, Soft 'n Gentle, Mardi Gras, Vanity Fair, Dixie

                by ChiTownDenny on Fri May 04, 2012 at 11:33:02 AM PDT

                [ Parent ]

              •  To be fair... (1+ / 0-)
                Recommended by:
                kaliope

                I didn't see it as a personal attack, but re-reading the comment, I see what you mean.

                Look, I've been here, read your stuff, and get the point of the comment...Kind of.

                I mean it comes down to point of view and what one needs to get through the day, as Urizen and p8 discuss subsequently.

                I agree with you, things are really f'ed up, in a HUGE way. We need to think about that everyday to know what we are fighting against. Your purpose may be to sound that alarm loudly and often.

                BUT, "we" need to maintain morale so that we have the strength to push back at the sky.

                AND "we" need a plan of attack.

                Breaking down the problem into smaller pieces is the only thing that makes sense to me...

                The important and difficult job is never to find the right answers, it is to find the right question. For there are few things as useless–if not dangerous–as the right answer to the wrong question. -- P. Drucker

                by The Angry Architect on Fri May 04, 2012 at 07:53:56 PM PDT

                [ Parent ]

              •  When someone doesn't have (2+ / 0-)
                Recommended by:
                Chi, bobswern

                a well thought out, intelligent response, only a knee jerk "you're on the other side" reaction, personal attacks are what you wind up with. It's the reason why  intelligent discussion so often fails around here.

                There is a critical difference between feeling discriminated against because you're disagreed with and being discriminated against because of who you are.

                by EdSF on Fri May 04, 2012 at 09:35:30 PM PDT

                [ Parent ]

            •  The more accurate U6 remains 14.5%, it has been (18+ / 0-)

              as high as 17.2% and generally >16% during Obama's presidency.  The SF Fed President says U3 of 6.5% should be the new normal.   One party responds to this crisis by wanting to further bleed the anemic patient like Theodoric of York while the other keeps trying to meet Theodoric Ryan halfway.  What do you call this sorry state of affairs?

              As I noted yesterday Obama expressly adopted the (Sen.) Paul Simon mantle when he ran in 2004, and, in office, he fit comfortably into the Paul Douglas/Adlai III/Simon/Durbin lineage of IL reform Dem senators.  Simon ran for POTUS (in a campaign where I worked like a dog) on a govt. jobs program.  As per Jared Bernstein Obama rejected the very concept from day one:

              There will be no WPA-type programs in our near future.  There was no appetite for them in the Obama admin in the midst of the worst recession since the Great Depression and there’s a lot less now.  
              That's just one tangible illustration of the problem.  The fact that EFCA, which had suppport of a House majority and something approaching a Senate majority in 2007-08 disappeared in 2009-10 is another*.  This WH (and much of the party) consciously chose Wall Street over Main Street.

              Bobswern can speak for himself, but I think he has a point.

              *In 8/10, Obama told the AFL-CIO that he'd "continue to fight" for EFCA when it was visibly dead by that point and when neither he nor Reid had done anything to help pass it.

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

              by RFK Lives on Fri May 04, 2012 at 11:43:39 AM PDT

              [ Parent ]

              •  Stiglitz: the "new normal" U.3 rate may be 7% n/t (8+ / 0-)

                "I always thought if you worked hard enough and tried hard enough, things would work out. I was wrong." --Katharine Graham

                by bobswern on Fri May 04, 2012 at 11:47:32 AM PDT

                [ Parent ]

                •  Charles Pierce, as usual, is on point today (12+ / 0-)

                  In this commentary on the WJC/Obama love of "free trade" agreements:

                  Since the 1930s, the American government has offered preferential treatment to American producers in the awarding of federal contracts. If a domestic producer offers the government a more expensive bid than a foreign producer, it can still be awarded the contract under certain circumstances, but more recent free trade agreements have granted other nations the same negotiating status as domestic firms. The Obama administration is currently pushing to grant the several nations involved in the Trans-Pacific deal the same privileged status, according to the Thursday letter.

                  Just today, it was announced that unemployment ticked back down a little toward the eight-percent threshold. (If, somehow, it drops below eight percent before the election, the Romneybot 2.0 may throw a rod.) At the same time, job creation hit a snag, although there are 115,000-odd Americans who might disagree. In any event, at best, the administration is going to have to run on a platform of how deep a ditch it was in which the Avignon Presidency and the Wall Street pirates left the economy. This is a strategy that has, at its heart, an appeal to patience. To be negotiating this kind of trade deal at the same time is, at best, politically dissonant and, at worst politically disingenuous. Can they seriously ask American workers to bide their time in a slow-growth forest of an economy while you simultaneously take a chain-saw to worker protections that have been in place for almost 80 years? Do they believe that the average American worker still takes seriously the golden fantastical promises of the globalized economy that the Democrats swallowed whole during the Clinton years? At best, the argument for these trade deals is simply to say, "This is the way the world works now. Tough." "Free trade" is a mirage with poison at its heart.

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

                  by RFK Lives on Fri May 04, 2012 at 01:37:18 PM PDT

                  [ Parent ]

            •  Yes, ScrewySquirrel... (0+ / 0-)

              ...and you love yourself some shit sandwiches.

              Do you find my comment helpful? If not, why did you write this:

              yes bob (5+ / 0-)
              ...the sky is always falling with you.

              ALWAYS.

              Barack Obama: So morally bankrupt that he thinks people who tortured other people to death should get a pass. Likes to prosecute whistleblowers and pot smokers, though.

              by expatjourno on Sat May 05, 2012 at 11:30:38 AM PDT

              [ Parent ]

          •  So what? Do nothing? Await doom? (6+ / 0-)

            I don't disagree with any of those points, but I don't see the point as a whole.  Sounds like defeatism, y'know?  Can't see what's fun in that (no accounting for taste).

            Struggle is the primary constant of all animal life (human or otherwise).  So why not keep struggling whether it does any good or not?

          •  Simple minded observation-- (3+ / 0-)

            There's always the question as to whether it makes sense to "conserve" the present state of affairs, "progress" to a better state.

            Failing those two there are the options of despair: reaction and revolution.  If you are in desperation, you will be moved to throw wrenches into the machinery to make the system fail, HOPING for a future more to your liking.

            Where, exactly, is the basis for hope if you are already in desperation?

            -6.12 -4.87 I don’t need insurance I need health care. You have sick people and doctors. Any third parties looking to profit from disease should go to hell. (Stolen from a comment somewhere on the Internet.)

            by jestbill on Fri May 04, 2012 at 11:52:57 AM PDT

            [ Parent ]

          •  It is all very well to point out the many (2+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            Urizen, The Angry Architect

            difficulties, injustices, inequalities, emergencies, etc, etc, we face, human civilization have faced most of them (in one form or another) for thousands of years.  Perhaps it would be more helpful to lay out what are your proposed solutions to our problems that can be accomplished in one great leap of action versus incrementally attacking each and every one?  I wish you well.

            "Too often we enjoy the comfort of opinion without the discomfort of thought." - John F. Kennedy

            by helpImdrowning on Fri May 04, 2012 at 02:25:19 PM PDT

            [ Parent ]

      •  You missed the argument. (4+ / 0-)

        The argument was for a change in target and emphasis.  

        •  that's sort of ironic given that such a change (2+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          Chi, The Angry Architect

          means we should forget about who is the POTUS (Obama v. FDR), forget about the upcoming election (Obama v. Romney) and focus on doing what working people did in the 1930s: general strikes, sit-down strikes, raising hell.

          But I doubt the diarist buys into that analysis.

          I'd get more riled up about this point around here but I don't want to be banned for failing to support the all-important goal of more-and-better plutarchs Democrats.

          •  Only if you believe campaign finance reform (1+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            The Angry Architect

            can't be changed incrementally, because I think it can, as it would lend itself to change in a snowball type of fashion.

            •  That is the single most important battle... (1+ / 0-)
              Recommended by:
              hardart

              and one that should be salable across all political demographics if presented clearly.

              It will take boots on the ground, hand to hand combat, though to get the message out since the MSM is the primary beneficiary of all that money sloshing around the system.

              Overturn Citizens United.

              Eviscerate ALEC and be vigilant against like organizations.

              Activist consumerism - boycott offenders, even at the expense of convenience.

              Public campaign financing.

              Shorter election cycles.

              It will take real focus and commitment, but doable, I hope.
               

              The important and difficult job is never to find the right answers, it is to find the right question. For there are few things as useless–if not dangerous–as the right answer to the wrong question. -- P. Drucker

              by The Angry Architect on Fri May 04, 2012 at 08:03:13 PM PDT

              [ Parent ]

      •  besides, winning is losing. (9+ / 0-)

        winning is a one-off.

        i know it's tiring, but once elected, pols start thinking about the next round of WINNING.

        there is no governing. only winning.

        and we lose.

    •  It's also like there's a war going on and (11+ / 0-)

      we don't know it.

      I'm speaking of those progressives who keep the "Obama betrayed us" meme going.  Despite the fact that the President has stood up to some Very Big Interests, and is going to be slammed all year by their superpacs, propaganda, and media outlets.

      Wall St knows it, and they're funding Romney because Obama stood up to them.

      The Oil Billionaires know it, and (same thing).

      The Medical Pirates and Pharma know it, and (same thing).

      The RW media knows it, and they're working hard for Romney every day.

      Talk to people who actually work on Wall St, and you won't hear how "weak" Dodd-Frank is, you'll hear about all the layoffs they blame on it, and how much their incomes have dropped, and how badly they want to kill the CFPB.

      Great diary!

        •  I guess that depends on what one considers humor. (3+ / 0-)
          President Barack Obama blasted his Republican foes and Wall Street on Tuesday as he portrayed himself as a champion of the middle class and laid out in the starkest terms yet the populist themes of his 2012 re-election bid.
          Link.

          Plenty more of this on teh google.

          Koch Industries, Inc: Quilted Northern, Angel Soft, Brawny, Sparkle, Soft 'n Gentle, Mardi Gras, Vanity Fair, Dixie

          by ChiTownDenny on Fri May 04, 2012 at 10:32:55 AM PDT

          [ Parent ]

          •  What he said on Tuesday (12+ / 0-)

            means much less to me than the critical financial/economic appointments he made.  Foxes invited into the henhouse.

            •  Ah! That damn Treasury appt! (8+ / 0-)

              There isn't a rational, economically savvy person who thinks Volker, Stiglitz, or Krugman could have stepped into the role and addressed the financial collapse.  They were all advising the president yet, no one who was intimately familiar with the financial community proposed intervening in a way that would stem the collapse.  Even after picking Geitner, finance was still collapsing, worldwide.
              I won't fault those who complain that Geitner gave away too much to stem the collapse.  But I think it is naive to think there was a pool to choose from in the  finance/economic braintrust who could step in at that moment when confidence and stability was paramount.  In that Geitner prevented the Great Recession from becoming the Great World Depression, I credit him.  For those of you who don't get this, well, if Obama is re-elected, Geitner will be replaced.

              Koch Industries, Inc: Quilted Northern, Angel Soft, Brawny, Sparkle, Soft 'n Gentle, Mardi Gras, Vanity Fair, Dixie

              by ChiTownDenny on Fri May 04, 2012 at 11:24:20 AM PDT

              [ Parent ]

              •  CFPB (1+ / 0-)
                Recommended by:
                ChiTownDenny

                that, in and of itself, is standing up to wall street.

                If you're gonna die, die with your boots on. If you're gonna try, well stick around. Gonna cry? Just move along. The truth of all predictions is always in your hands. - Iron Maiden

                by Cedwyn on Fri May 04, 2012 at 12:26:33 PM PDT

                [ Parent ]

              •  ChiTownDenny, that's why I joined ... (3+ / 0-)
                Recommended by:
                ChiTownDenny, helpImdrowning, Fogiv

                ... the Realistrati group. A practical, sober and reasonable person would not pick the wild-eyed medical school professor to perform the operation on the sick patient. That kind of person would pick the board certified specialist who is out in the field actually saving patients with that type of operation. Timothy Geitner has turned out to have been an excellent pick for that reason, and it goes against the meme that some people have long vocalized on a daily basis.

                A sports analogy would be that you wouldn't send in the ESPN analyst to win the game in the last few seconds, you'd use the player who has been in the game, who is in shape, who knows how the game is played because they kinow the players, and who is, therefore, much better prepared to make a game-winning shot.

                And that naturally leads to another issue: The vociferous complaints that some Presidential critics have endlessly raised about the financial stimulus. For example, if you search bobswern's diaries for the phrase "too big to fail" you come up with 129 separate diaries using that phrase. How can a person use that phrase 129 times since September 2008 and not realize that, whether we like it or not, and we don't, the American economy has been inextricably intertwined with Wall Street since at least the early part of the 20th Century, and allowing it to fail would have sent the country and world into the Greatest Depression of All.    

                Do people really root for such an outcome -- with hundreds of millions of Americans in soup or Soylent Green lines? We need sharp, real and sticky financial regulation going forward, and not wild-eyed, unrealistic complaints about what happened in the past. Realistically, President Obama offers the best short-term approach and there's no argument about that.  

                "I'm Mitt Romney, and I'm the real Mitt Romney. All the other Mitt Romneys are just mass-debating." -- Mittbot ver.12.0

                by Tortmaster on Fri May 04, 2012 at 01:38:55 PM PDT

                [ Parent ]

                •  Would you send in a top Exxon official (2+ / 0-)

                  to oversee deep offshore oil drilling because they are so experienced?

                  •  Wasn't Wendell Potter an exec at Cigna? (0+ / 0-)

                    Strawman argument.

                    Koch Industries, Inc: Quilted Northern, Angel Soft, Brawny, Sparkle, Soft 'n Gentle, Mardi Gras, Vanity Fair, Dixie

                    by ChiTownDenny on Fri May 04, 2012 at 03:02:26 PM PDT

                    [ Parent ]

                  •  Would you send in somebody who ... (2+ / 0-)
                    Recommended by:
                    The Angry Architect, hooper

                    ... has no experience but the right ideological pedigree? I'm glad that wasn't the response to the Deepwater Horizon spill. If that were the case, we'd have had a protestor and not a fixer on site, and what we needed, and what we eventually got, was a fix.

                    Who do you send in to stop a deepwater oil spill? Who has experience with the science of the gases released, the pressure involved, metalurgical properties a mile below the surface of the ocean and deepwater metal-bonding processes and capabilities?

                    With majorites in both houses and a Democratic President like Barack Obama, we can put into place important and necessary regulations on the financial sector (and with regard to oil and gas for that matter). Once we have that, we can train people to have the necessary knowledge, but if you expect that those people will not seek out the help of industry experts, then I think you are being very naive.  

                    Sometimes you need people who are capable of sovling problems and not just protesting them.  

                    "I'm Mitt Romney, and I'm the real Mitt Romney. All the other Mitt Romneys are just mass-debating." -- Mittbot ver.12.0

                    by Tortmaster on Fri May 04, 2012 at 03:36:36 PM PDT

                    [ Parent ]

                    •  Either or arguments are irrational n/t (0+ / 0-)
                    •  Right: (3+ / 0-)
                      Recommended by:
                      be the change you seek, melo, hooper

                      The key challenge of a very complex, technical, and specialized world.

                      Industry (finance, energy, medicine, whatever) develops knowledge, technique and process faster and with greater depth than "outside" regulators can comprehend.

                      The interest of "regulators" who truly understand an industry because they have apprenticed in said industry, is naturally conflicted, and biased toward their previous relationship to that industry.

                      REGULATORY CAPTURE. A huge challenge!

                       

                      The important and difficult job is never to find the right answers, it is to find the right question. For there are few things as useless–if not dangerous–as the right answer to the wrong question. -- P. Drucker

                      by The Angry Architect on Fri May 04, 2012 at 08:18:50 PM PDT

                      [ Parent ]

                  •  Very good! n/t (0+ / 0-)

                    The important and difficult job is never to find the right answers, it is to find the right question. For there are few things as useless–if not dangerous–as the right answer to the wrong question. -- P. Drucker

                    by The Angry Architect on Fri May 04, 2012 at 08:13:18 PM PDT

                    [ Parent ]

                •  Might have been that bad... (0+ / 0-)

                  or might not have been. Who were the ones making that prediction? Wall St. guys? Hmmm....

                  I do tend to think that radical action was necessary and appropriate.

                  But, we haven't done anything to fix the problem. TBTF / SIFI now bigger than before crisis. Moral hazard not discouraged...Derivative time bomb still ticking...

                  And what IF it would have gone the other way. Would have certainly been worse for Wall Street, but really, I wonder, how much worse for everyone else?

                  The important and difficult job is never to find the right answers, it is to find the right question. For there are few things as useless–if not dangerous–as the right answer to the wrong question. -- P. Drucker

                  by The Angry Architect on Fri May 04, 2012 at 08:12:53 PM PDT

                  [ Parent ]

              •  Sure hope so, as I don't buy his... (1+ / 0-)
                Recommended by:
                Chi

                theory of financial crisis as caused by stupidity (as opposed to criminality.)

                Seems a classic case of willful ignorance and narrow perspective to me.

                The important and difficult job is never to find the right answers, it is to find the right question. For there are few things as useless–if not dangerous–as the right answer to the wrong question. -- P. Drucker

                by The Angry Architect on Fri May 04, 2012 at 08:06:44 PM PDT

                [ Parent ]

          •  Words are cheap. Geithner and Bernanke (19+ / 0-)

            and a "banking reform" which every single economist not in government or dependent on Wall Street says leaves us in the same position, and worse, than in 2008 is a hard fact of life.

            Wall Street's power position wasn't hurt, it was increased by every measure; their feelings were hurt.  That's all, nothing else.


            The Internet is just the tail of the Corporate Media dog.

            by Jim P on Fri May 04, 2012 at 11:03:05 AM PDT

            [ Parent ]

          •  yes (6+ / 0-)

            as i've written many times, his rhetoric has improved since occupy. not much yet on the policy front, but we'll see.

            The cold passion for truth hunts in no pack. -Robinson Jeffers

            by Laurence Lewis on Fri May 04, 2012 at 12:47:25 PM PDT

            [ Parent ]

            •  That seems to me to be a significant (3+ / 0-)

              acknowledgement of the necessecity of "the people" to move politicos in the direction they deem important to their lives.  The 2010 election would prove this out.  So the question remains; whose voice wll be heard -- whose voice is loudest?

              Koch Industries, Inc: Quilted Northern, Angel Soft, Brawny, Sparkle, Soft 'n Gentle, Mardi Gras, Vanity Fair, Dixie

              by ChiTownDenny on Fri May 04, 2012 at 01:02:47 PM PDT

              [ Parent ]

              •  which is why (4+ / 0-)

                occupy has been so important. and the backlash in europe is more proof. in many ways, 2010 created occupy. now can occupy and its parallel movements create 2012?

                The cold passion for truth hunts in no pack. -Robinson Jeffers

                by Laurence Lewis on Fri May 04, 2012 at 01:10:39 PM PDT

                [ Parent ]

              •  Cheerleaders (1+ / 0-)
                Recommended by:
                The Angry Architect

                Are the loudest, but the least effective strategy for change.  

                If you haven't earned my vote when the time comes, don't blame me when you lose.

                by Nada Lemming on Fri May 04, 2012 at 04:06:06 PM PDT

                [ Parent ]

                •  Not sure what you mean... (2+ / 0-)
                  Recommended by:
                  Chi, hooper

                  OWS as the cheerleaders?

                  When humans see other humans actively taking a stand, they realize that is a real option. Without that example, many will feel powerless and voiceless.

                  I think OWS sets a valuable, powerful example of an active citizenry.

                  (But maybe I have misunderstood your point.)

                  The important and difficult job is never to find the right answers, it is to find the right question. For there are few things as useless–if not dangerous–as the right answer to the wrong question. -- P. Drucker

                  by The Angry Architect on Fri May 04, 2012 at 08:22:56 PM PDT

                  [ Parent ]

                  •  Yes (1+ / 0-)
                    Recommended by:
                    hooper

                    It was snark, as in cheer leading is loud but ineffective, therefore the loudest voices are not necessarily the most effective.  

                    There ARE too many people getting splinters in their ass.

                    If you haven't earned my vote when the time comes, don't blame me when you lose.

                    by Nada Lemming on Fri May 04, 2012 at 09:12:21 PM PDT

                    [ Parent ]

          •  Campaign Obama isn't President Obama (4+ / 0-)

            Judge by deeds, not words.

            NOW SHOWING
            Progressive Candidate Obama (now - Nov 6, 2012)
            Bipartisan Obama returns (Nov 7, 2012)

            by The Dead Man on Fri May 04, 2012 at 03:39:38 PM PDT

            [ Parent ]

        •  But you know, I think these guys are making (4+ / 0-)

          a mistake, backing the wrong horse in this race (Romoney) because he's going to lose, and they'll come up empty.
             There's an old saying about not harming your enemy unless you can kill him or he'll come back to settle the score.

          "We the People of the United States...." -U.S. Constitution

          by elwior on Fri May 04, 2012 at 11:31:30 AM PDT

          [ Parent ]

          •  as i've written (4+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            ozsea1, elwior, The Angry Architect, Chi

            the entire austerity agenda is ultimately self-defeating, so even if they won they'd end up losing.

            the financial industry can't be killed. it can be contained and adequately regulated. it will never cease fighting being regulated, so they effort to keep it contained and regulated must never cease.

            The cold passion for truth hunts in no pack. -Robinson Jeffers

            by Laurence Lewis on Fri May 04, 2012 at 12:50:20 PM PDT

            [ Parent ]

          •  Good... (1+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            elwior

            let 'em throw away a lot of cash on the deal while they are at it!

            The important and difficult job is never to find the right answers, it is to find the right question. For there are few things as useless–if not dangerous–as the right answer to the wrong question. -- P. Drucker

            by The Angry Architect on Fri May 04, 2012 at 08:24:15 PM PDT

            [ Parent ]

        •  I agree (0+ / 0-)

          with half of your statement.  

          If you haven't earned my vote when the time comes, don't blame me when you lose.

          by Nada Lemming on Fri May 04, 2012 at 02:53:49 PM PDT

          [ Parent ]

    •  believe it or not the medical community is no (4+ / 0-)

      longer in lockstep with the GOP

      Obama has given me a stomach full of empty with a pocket full of dreams

      by Lawdog on Fri May 04, 2012 at 11:11:01 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  the insurance industry (2+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        mightymouse, zedaker

        and the hospital industry. which aren't necessarily the medical community...

        The cold passion for truth hunts in no pack. -Robinson Jeffers

        by Laurence Lewis on Fri May 04, 2012 at 11:25:08 AM PDT

        [ Parent ]

        •  hospital industry... (1+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          Laurence Lewis

          depends upon the constituency, I'd say.

          This is less monolithic than it used to be, as the ACA starts to break down different types of care and shake up some of the traditional relationships in the medical and health care industries.

          There IS something of a reorganization going on, glacial though it may appear to be.  Sometimes its more progressive-leaning (look to rural health, here) other times it's a Davos-esque kind of gathering of the industry.

          The place to worry is when insurance industries and hospital industries and pharmaceutical industries start to merge into gigantic conglomerations of health care entities that swallow up everything (happening in some places).  

          Words can sometimes, in moments of grace, attain the quality of deeds. --Elie Wiesel

          by a gilas girl on Fri May 04, 2012 at 12:33:59 PM PDT

          [ Parent ]

          •  extremely glacial (1+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            blueoasis

            i would say the consolidations are happening faster.

            The cold passion for truth hunts in no pack. -Robinson Jeffers

            by Laurence Lewis on Fri May 04, 2012 at 12:45:00 PM PDT

            [ Parent ]

            •  well, the rural health circles I've been (1+ / 0-)
              Recommended by:
              Laurence Lewis

              traveling in and working across offer moments and glimpses of progressive-leaning alternatives, but these are decidedly not the norm, I'd agree.  Those are the folks with very little power and even less of a sense of how to capture the national imaginary.

              Still, it is one of those places where possibilities sprout, if you have an eye for them.  While I have the eye, I'm less of a gardener than what's needed to help those sprouts blossom.

              And while fighting the consolidations is vital work, a little bit of energy and resources invested in those sprouts to offer alternatives would advance the fight as well.

              Words can sometimes, in moments of grace, attain the quality of deeds. --Elie Wiesel

              by a gilas girl on Fri May 04, 2012 at 01:30:38 PM PDT

              [ Parent ]

        •  i agree. (4+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          Laurence Lewis, ozsea1, blueoasis, Chi

          the divide between workers and money exists in the medical community as well as the general community and medical money IS still in lockstep with the GOP.

          blink-- pale cold

          by zedaker on Fri May 04, 2012 at 12:38:53 PM PDT

          [ Parent ]

    •  It's Not a War (3+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      ozsea1, The Dead Man, orestes1963

      It's a basketball game -- the Harlem Globetrotters vs. the Washington Generals.  And Obama is the captain of the Washington Generals.

      This aggression will not stand, man.

      by kaleidescope on Fri May 04, 2012 at 12:24:05 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

    •  Wall Street and Big Pharma (5+ / 0-)

      are not aligned against the Democrats. Look at the sources of Obama's large campaign contributors.  They can't really definitively take sides, the risks of doing so are simply too large.  People with a lot to lose, and few have more to lose than these players, cannot risk not having any likely winning party unbought. What they will do is play one side of the duopoly against the other and adjust the bribe ratios to apply pressure, but they would absolutely, positively never go all in on one party against the other. Doing so would invite the real danger of leaving themselves dangerously exposed. They understandably don't want to play a game they haven't completely rigged in advance and the corporate world is above almost everything else risk averse.

      Obama could go populist, promise in no uncertain terms to clean up the den of thieves that is both Wall St. and big pharma- and they'd still give the his campaign and the Democrats billions in bribes.  They don't spend on lobbyists and fund campaigns for purely political or ideological reasons, they shovel money at the electoral and legislative systems to protect themselves; it's strictly a business investment.

      The notion here that there is any risk corporate America will sever its close relationship with the Democratic Party is thus naive.  They will not, because they cannot.  Imagine if they went all in on the Republicans, quit funding Democrats thus freeing the Dems to in turn go all in to exploit overwhelming populist sentiment against them and the gamble failed and they were faced with a ruling party they no longer could influence! It isn't a completely unlikely scenario.

      I'd be surprised if Obama going hard rhetorically against Wall St., big pharma and the rest of the mega-corporate grifters didn't actually increase the amount of money the panicked plutocrats threw at him to try to steer him back to their side.  The further you are away from their positions on policy, the more they need to buy your influence. Think about it.

       

      Advisors for President-Elect Barack Obama feared the new administration would face a coup if it prosecuted Bush-era war crimes, according to a new report out this morning.

      by Kurt Sperry on Fri May 04, 2012 at 01:52:43 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  exactly. they aren't (2+ / 0-)

        if they were, we'd be screwed. That's sick, sorry joke of it all. It's not that we elected a bunch of bad people. The realities of the situation are inherently corrupting.

        We need publicly funded elections, and badly. We also could use some demographic fast forward. Sadly, climate change is pressing down upon us, so we don't have that much time.

      •  Hmmmm..... (0+ / 0-)

        But if he would have spanked them hard in the first half, he almost certainly would have jeopardized contributions for the second...

        The important and difficult job is never to find the right answers, it is to find the right question. For there are few things as useless–if not dangerous–as the right answer to the wrong question. -- P. Drucker

        by The Angry Architect on Fri May 04, 2012 at 08:26:19 PM PDT

        [ Parent ]

    •  How do you know that? (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      Chi

      There is no way to know how much these industries are donating to Super PACs.

      Look at that mortgage fraud settlement and the size of the task force (not even staffed yet) and tell me that Wall Street and the Dems are at war.  Look at the shredding of the Dodd-Frank Act in the regulations and tell me that there is a war between Obama and Wall Street.

      Please. The words don't mean a thing from either side.  The actions speak volumes.


      "Justice is a commodity"

      by joanneleon on Fri May 04, 2012 at 04:32:28 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

  •  It's a good post, especially (50+ / 0-)

    on FDR and his compromises with evil for what he saw as a greater good, but David's point seems to be that we already are bearing the full brunt of Wall Street opposition.  Obama has little to lose and re-eelction to be gained.

    I'm from the Elizabeth Warren and Darcy Burner Wing of the Democratic Party!

    by TomP on Fri May 04, 2012 at 08:10:52 AM PDT

  •  great insights in your diary (15+ / 0-)

    tipped and recommended.

    could become a series.

    -You want to change the system, run for office.

    by Deep Texan on Fri May 04, 2012 at 08:13:06 AM PDT

  •  Well, if the guy with the most campaign money (18+ / 0-)

    always wins, no matter what, we're pretty much screwed as a nation anyway.

  •  I think that's (30+ / 0-)

    a big part the reason, surely, in addition to:

    -- Obama's ideological comfort with Rubinism
    -- the anti-"socialist" backlash from the corporate media that would ensue were he to go populist

    The fundraising fears are legit, esp. given Citizens United -- that's why Clinton, Rubin, Mccauliffe though they were so clever when they merged the party with Wall Street -- but it's a date with the devil.

    What you're missing is that 1) the policies that grow out of the alliance with Wall Street are preventing the Democratic Party from becoming a super-majority party. Right now Obama's reelection is in jeopardy partly because he had a pro-bank housing policy. And the alliance with Wall Street precludes an embrace of fair trade, which would win the Democratic Party votes across the Rust Belt and the south. Even a majority of Republicans oppose "free" trade. 2) enormous political (and financial) benefits would flow to a party that was seen an champion of working people against concentrated wealth 3) Since the the Democratic Party got in bed with Wall Street, neither the party nor the country has done well. Both Wall Street parties are losing people to the unaligned.

     

    •  Actually, There Is Only One Thing Preventing The (15+ / 0-)

      Democratic Party from becoming a Super-majority:

      As long as the majority of White People continue to vote against their own best interest RepubliKlan, it's going to take quite some time before the Democratic party becomes a super-majority.

      The "bottom line" in the above graph is the reason why RepubliKlan-controlled state legislatures thru-out America are passing VoterID laws. The only hope for the RepubliKlans are to supress the non-White vote, which worked so well for them in Florida in 2000; otherwise, they're a doomed party.

      But with 60% of White people voting RepubliKlan, and another 15% of White people attacking the Dems from the Left, it is a wonder that the Democratic party can win any elections at all.

      I am not now, nor have I ever been, a member of the Republican Party.

      by OnlyWords on Fri May 04, 2012 at 08:49:19 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  Well (11+ / 0-)

        the best way to win people of all colors is with progressive populist, anti-Wall Street policies, which appeal to a multi-colored majority. Conversely, to adopt GOP-lite policies is to lose many working class white voters and strengthen the capacity of the GOP to appeal to them with race-based and culture war issues. Before complaining the non-rich whites are voting against their interests, perhaps we should give them a chance to vote for their interests.

        •  yes and no (2+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          cacamp, Egalitare

          you'll still lose all those white people. Even if they want to take it from Wall Street, you lose them if you spend a dime of it on "those" people.

        •  I don't think you really have a handle on the (2+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          Matt Z, Egalitare

          beliefs of many working class white voters.  I grew up with these folks (many in my own family), in California no less, but from a very red county.    They have very mid-western and southern attitudes because this is where their "people" hail from.  They are afraid of the "other"; they believe in individual responsibility period - no helping the least among us from a government standpoint, ever, because it is a person's own fault whatever situation they find themselves in; they think education is overrated and suspect and they have very little use for science; they may or may not go to church every Sunday, but they support conservative social values; they believe in low taxes for everybody; they believe that someday they may be in the 1%; they have no sense of reality when it comes to how (from a funding standpoint) all those roads and bridges get built or maintained; they are strongly for the death penalty and law and order; they believe that the government wastes their tax dollars without exception;  oh, and did I say they were afraid of the "other", because this is one of their overriding fears and where they place blame for any backsliding in the world as they see it.  There is no "discussing" anything with them with regard to their worldview, as far as they are concerned, they are RIGHT and any other viewpoint is invalid, stupid, ignorant, and just plain wrong.  They have no concept of "voting against their interests" and your suggestion to "give them a chance to vote for their interests" would be scoffed and laughed at.  But I wish you well in trying to educate these folks.

          "Too often we enjoy the comfort of opinion without the discomfort of thought." - John F. Kennedy

          by helpImdrowning on Fri May 04, 2012 at 04:19:06 PM PDT

          [ Parent ]

          •  I left out their disbelief in climate science or (1+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            Matt Z

            any concept that the Earth has finite resources.

            "Too often we enjoy the comfort of opinion without the discomfort of thought." - John F. Kennedy

            by helpImdrowning on Fri May 04, 2012 at 04:31:54 PM PDT

            [ Parent ]

          •  but underlying it is racism (2+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            helpImdrowning, Chi

            you discribe them pretty well except this...

            they believe in individual responsibility period - no helping the least among us from a government standpoint, ever, because it is a person's own fault whatever situation they find themselves in
            they accept Social Security and Medicare but the real reason they reject other safty net programs is because they think it goes to racial minorities. Racism is the glue which holds their coalition together. The GOP has become the white peoples party by playing on racism.

            America could have chosen to be the worlds doctor, or grocer. We choose instead to be her policeman. pity

            by cacamp on Fri May 04, 2012 at 05:54:27 PM PDT

            [ Parent ]

            •  I left out "unless something serves them directly" (1+ / 0-)
              Recommended by:
              cacamp

              such as SS and Medicare, although they seem to brush over the fact that these are government programs, cognitive dissonance perhaps.  I agree with you on the underlying racism (although in many cases I know personally, it is overt) but did not want to make that my main point and have some people scream at me that I was drawing unfair conclusions as to their motivations.  Anyway thanks for pointing these issues out.

              "Too often we enjoy the comfort of opinion without the discomfort of thought." - John F. Kennedy

              by helpImdrowning on Fri May 04, 2012 at 08:00:08 PM PDT

              [ Parent ]

      •  I was with you till that last paragraph because... (0+ / 0-)

        The Democratic Party is supposed to represent "the Left".

        Sheesh. Where've you been?

        Romney - his fingernails have never been anything but manicured.

        by Pescadero Bill on Fri May 04, 2012 at 09:45:44 AM PDT

        [ Parent ]

    •  Excellent points, David. (7+ / 0-)

      And the alliance with Wall Street has been bad for America and Americans.

      I'm from the Elizabeth Warren and Darcy Burner Wing of the Democratic Party!

      by TomP on Fri May 04, 2012 at 08:59:25 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

  •  Add to that the factor of polarization of the (20+ / 0-)

    electorate, where 90% of the electorate has already made up their mind, and will not change their mind.

    So, the battle becomes how to win 5.1% of the remaining 10%--the perpetually fickle and indecisive squishies who say crap like "yes the Republicans have refused to act reasonably or in good faith, but the President should still do more to work with them."

    Poking Wall Street in the eye will make a lot of people happy.  But, how many votes will it actually swing over?  Some of the squishies may like it, but a lot of them don't like that 'divisive' talk.

    All of the stuff that drives us nuts about Obama appeals to those people, and a lot of the stuff that appeals to us turns them off.

    "[R]ather high-minded, if not a bit self-referential"--The Washington Post.

    by Geekesque on Fri May 04, 2012 at 08:20:46 AM PDT

    •  I don't think it's that simple. If you consider (2+ / 0-)

      that of the 90% that have already made up their mind, a majority will likely vote to reelect the president. Then the question becomes, "What is it about the president that people are voting for?"

      If it turns out his apparent willingness to stand up to Wall Street, then wouldn't it make sense to push harder with that line?

      Romney - his fingernails have never been anything but manicured.

      by Pescadero Bill on Fri May 04, 2012 at 09:51:12 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

    •  "Poking Wall Street in the eye" (0+ / 0-)

      Why can't we actually do things that will help people?  Why is this about marketing?

      ♥ Medicare For All. ♥
      "Our health care system is like a casino. The insurance industry is the House... The House always wins." -- UnaSpenser

      by Chi on Fri May 04, 2012 at 05:00:25 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

  •  Just goes to show (14+ / 0-)

    there are no saints in politics. Progressives should not put FDR on a pedestal anymore than, uh, pragmatists should put Obama on a pedestal.

    Both have, and had, their strengths and flaws.

    You never trust a millionaire/Quoting the sermon on the mount/I used to think I was not like them/But I'm beginning to have my doubts -- The Arcade Fire

    by tomjones on Fri May 04, 2012 at 08:21:07 AM PDT

    •  actually, it should tell us (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      auron renouille

      that progressives don't need 100% perfect to support a president's actions overall (far from it!)

      •  As I've said.... (4+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        mightymouse, blueoasis, Chi, Matt Z

        ....I will cheer for Obama when he is right and criticize him when he is wrong. He gains nothing and I gain nothing by cheerleading for him.

        •  The same can be said imho (1+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          Matt Z

          of condemning him as a corporatist, rightwing bankster sell out when he is wrong and "yes, but-ing" when he is right.

          He gains nothing and progressives gain nothing by the scorched earth approach.

          You never trust a millionaire/Quoting the sermon on the mount/I used to think I was not like them/But I'm beginning to have my doubts -- The Arcade Fire

          by tomjones on Fri May 04, 2012 at 12:32:44 PM PDT

          [ Parent ]

          •  I don't disagree (0+ / 0-)

            I think it's important to be fair towards Obama. He's not a big progressive savior, I don't think he ever claimed to be. He's a middle of the road Democrat and he's been through the same fights Democrats have been through which made them (overly) cautious on a number of issues. He's got a situation where you have big money interests who could literally collapse the economy if they wanted to. He's got a lot to balance. So, I think that even if he wanted to be a big progressive, he's handcuffed in a lot of ways. I am realistic about that. I think he can do more, at least in some ways, but I don't expect him to deliver the moon. Especially not with this Congress. And I have praised Obama for his stronger anti-corporate tone; it will only win him votes. Corporate malfeasance is pretty unpopular with both parties, you know?

    •  Now there's a compelling argument (0+ / 0-)

      I see you made it through your first semester of liberal arts school.  Hopefully, you will soon learn that analysis can be much more detailed and nuanced than, no one is perfect, which, I am sure you realize, is not terribly insightful.

  •  Good analysis... (6+ / 0-)

    I think things could have been different had Obama stepped into the Oval Office under different circumstances -- like the economy not being in total free fall -- and he could count on at least a modicum of support from the political opposition.

    And then there's the fact that we have to accept the concept; Obama is just not as liberal as we would like. At his core, he's moderately socially liberal and fiscally conservative. I think he really wants to be the POTUS of the whole country. (even if that means supporting more centrist policies, and occasionally pissing off his base)

    That said, ultimately, he sure the hell beats the alternative.

    Thanks for the diary.  

    "That men do not learn very much from the lessons of history is the most important of all the lessons of history." ~ Aldous Huxley

    by markthshark on Fri May 04, 2012 at 08:29:59 AM PDT

  •  Sounds to me like the moneymakers have us (13+ / 0-)

    right where they want us.

  •  Life rarely offers shortcuts (27+ / 0-)

    It is a long slog. The realistic aim for these first twenty years of the 21st Century is pretty much to blunt and then stop the rightward swing of the pendulum. If we can hand the next generation a bit of positive momentum we'll have done our job.

  •  if money can buy every election we're doomed (4+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    Urizen, wasatch, FiredUpInCA, mightymouse

    but there are indications it can't. I was disappointed by the compromise with big pharma and the beginning of the 2009 HCR fiasco / bill but, tactically, Obama didn't want them as an enemy knowing that he had many other enemies in the field. They'll always have more money, the issue is making sure the progressives have (just) enough or, this year, holding the line against the insane armies of far right populism over financed by far right wealth.

    We can only effectively move this country in the right direction from the ground up and with a street level vision of where we're supposed to be going. Let's work on that starting Dec 2012.

    If you didn't like the news today, go out and make some of your own.

    by jgnyc on Fri May 04, 2012 at 08:48:57 AM PDT

  •  FDR had huge majorities and a militant left (17+ / 0-)

    breathing down his neck.  

    Since nobody else has mentioned it (if they did, I missed it, sorry.)

    Though in the end that's just a way of putting numbers to what thereisnospoon is talking about here: FDR wasn't dealing with the predominance of white backlash for the previous 40 years.

  •  Definitely a place for incrementalist policy (3+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    Urizen, Deep Texan, mightymouse

    I will say that FDR appears to have had a better understanding of the damage unchecked private power can do, than Obama does.

    That said, there are times when changing things in a more incremental fashion works. I do think that Obama is the right President for our times, and will leave the country better than many realize and certainly better than any other current Democratic or Independent alternative. Let alone any Republican one of course.

    "Think. It ain't illegal yet." - George Clinton | http://ideaddicted.blogspot.com

    by jbeach on Fri May 04, 2012 at 08:56:33 AM PDT

    •  i agree (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      jbeach

      an approach that was all about ramming our liberal agenda through congress would be destined to fail.  

      they were going to vote against anything we put forward, even their own legislation.  we had to get them to vote against their own legislation, against tax cuts.  that was key to this strategy and it finally paid off.  what we got was always going to be a compromise or else nothing at all.

      i think the strategy was the right one with maybe a few mistakes here and there.  

      -You want to change the system, run for office.

      by Deep Texan on Fri May 04, 2012 at 10:58:04 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

  •  Purists won't like it but it's a tough world when (6+ / 0-)

    appx half are assholes.

    Assholes vote, have money, etc.

  •  What's frustrating is that money CAN lose, when (5+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    Urizen, saluda, wasatch, blueoasis, Chi

    the candidate has integrity on record, and knows how to self-promote--often something that feels like diminishing one's integrity, but isn't.

    Even with all the major advantages the Republicans enjoy in terms of money, and all that money has provided--think tanks, corrupt media, a racially divided nation--people are still more supportive of Democratic policy, even when those people describe themselves as conservative in some respect.

    That Dems generally fear the money advantage of Republicans as more powerful than the basic support they'd get from the voters if they showed courage isn't something we can forseeably cure in a short time.  But the best way to do it is to maintain a relentless pressure on Wall Street as well as the Republicans, so that they lose confidence that they can continue to operate in secret.  There will come a moment when a critical mass of Democrats stops believing that campaign funds are more important to their prospects than simply doing the right thing & ensuring their constituents know about it, & will be willing to risk losing to prove it.

    With the office of President, this is much harder, so we should be prepared for that office to transition last.   As the other diary sez, go local.  Like economics, politics trickles up.

    Before elections have their consequences, Activism has consequences for elections.

    by Leftcandid on Fri May 04, 2012 at 09:06:35 AM PDT

  •  Cold truth sucks, but it's still the truth. (6+ / 0-)

    Demonizing the truth doesn't change it. Thanks for telling us what we need to hear, thereisnospoon.

    Ds see human suffering and wonder what they can do to relieve it. Rs see human suffering and wonder how they can profit from it.

    by JTinDC on Fri May 04, 2012 at 09:10:29 AM PDT

  •  Good points. We have to keep in mind that Obama (8+ / 0-)

    can't just do everything that we might want him to. Or everything that he might want to do. It's a complicated game of picking and choosing your battles that no one can ever fully understand unless they have been closely involved. There are painful choices to be made.
    Campaign finance reform and defeating Citizens United are
    absolutely necessary which means re-electing Obama. Because Romney sure won't take those steps.
    I have read several biographies of both FDR and Eleanor and there were times when she wanted him to enact certain policies that would have been good but he just couldn't.
    He had to look at the big picture and do what had to be done to move the agenda forward. Just as Obama has to now.

  •  Pretty much (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    Imhotepsings
    The cold truth is that Democrats' decision to support women's rights and especially minority rights in the 1960s led to the loss of the Deep South and much of the Rust Belt.
    That's  true.  But what happened in the larger picture in the 1960s is that the two Parties began to evolve.  Before then they were largely agglomerations of ethnic/religious and socioeconomic interest groups with both liberals and conservatives in them.  The Dixiecrat and Rockefeller Republican defections/purges respectively set both on the path to being ideological alliances.

    Nixon saw the opportunity to make Republicans the majority Party; he and his successors pursued the ideologically based 'realignment'(s) perfectly deliberately.  

    The only two non-fringe ethnic/religious and socioeconomic blocs of voters left in the country that haven't undergone the harsh internal breakup and ideological "realignment" at the ballot box are, I believe, Mormons and black Americans.  

    Just about everyone else- Latinos, Asian-Americans, Irish-Americans, WASPs, Southern Baptists, Jews, union workers, women, LGBT people, middle class, upper class, the poor, farmers, German-Americans, Polish-Americans, Cuban-Americans, Native Americans, etc- has.

    Having said that, I think the particular quandry of the moment- Obama and Wall Street- is more or less a one time event.  This election is about the benefit of the doubt The People gives the right wing superwealthy as leaders and the right wing critiques- reactionary and libertarian- of social democratic government.  A Romney Presidency would put these things front and center, subjecting them fully to the test of reality.  As painful as that would be, the 2016 election would probably see the matter decided and the argument move on to the credibility of liberal positions and policies.  A second Obama term would squelch part and defer much of the argument to the 2016 elections and the subsequent Presidency.  

  •  David is talking populist rhetoric (10+ / 0-)

    You're talking practical strategy.

    They're both important, but we shouldn't confuse the two, nor ignore one or the other.

    Congrats to both of you for creating the kind of substantive discussion we used to get on a regular basis around here.

    You can call it "class warfare" -- we call it "common sense"

    by kenlac on Fri May 04, 2012 at 09:23:34 AM PDT

  •  Translation: You can't start fighting the people's (4+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    JTinDC, Deep Texan, Roger Fox, TimmyB

    battles until you empower the people.

    The first steps are campaign finance reform, return of the Fairness Doctrine, and vigorous defence of the right to vote.  

    As long as the peole can be outspent, told lies with impunity and prevented from voting, it won't matter how many speeches any President makes.

    Tax and Spend I can understand. I can even understand Borrow and Spend. But Borrow and give Billionaires tax cuts? That I have a problem with.

    by LiberalCanuck on Fri May 04, 2012 at 09:25:08 AM PDT

    •  exactly (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      Roger Fox

      as long as republicans have an option to block or stall legislation, relying on the President is a fools errand.

      taking the president, calling him names and even sending him letters is literally a waste of time.

      -You want to change the system, run for office.

      by Deep Texan on Fri May 04, 2012 at 11:01:21 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

  •  sorry, but (3+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    badger, aliasalias, Chi

    if the Dems can't stand up to wall street because they would lose elections, then what good are they?

    I do not find this "if you can't beat them, join them" idea to be any sort of solution to our problems.

    •  Ex-presidents don't get to sign legislation (2+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      Deep Texan, Urizen

      Like this.
      That's why.

      Unfortunately, President Obama doesn't have time to read DK, so contact him here: The White House, 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue NW, Washington, DC 20500 (Postcards, not letters! Please give your email address.) -- 202-456-1111 -- FAX: 202-456-2461

      by My Left Behind on Fri May 04, 2012 at 10:10:16 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

    •  I would be thrilled if Obama were in a position to (3+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      Deep Texan, FiredUpInCA, Egalitare

      tell Wallstreet to fuck right the hell off, don't need nor want one thin dime from you bastards. I wish that's what he could/would do. But then, IMO, in this first post-CU presidential election, what will be the nastiest campaign we've ever seen, that cash has to come from somewhere else.

      Who on the left can and will step up and make up the difference? I'm asking you seriously, jeopardydd. Who could we get to do that? I'm serious about making it a more vialbe option for Obama to not accept Wallstreet donations at all.

      Can the Hollywood elite come up with the big bucks like never before? Is this something Buffett and Soros could/would do? I'd sincerely appreciate your thoughts on that idea?

      I suppose Obama could tell WS, "Look, you can support my re-election and accept reasonable reforms or you can work against my re-election. And when I win even without your support, you are going to dearly regret it. Just wait and see how you'll feel about the sweeping reforms that will be enacted in my second term. There's not enough money on the planet to save you if I go nuclear on your greedy asses."

      Not that he'd ever do it, but I'd love to see the looks on their faces if he did.

      Ds see human suffering and wonder what they can do to relieve it. Rs see human suffering and wonder how they can profit from it.

      by JTinDC on Fri May 04, 2012 at 10:16:57 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  Obama could (4+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        4kedtongue, mightymouse, aliasalias, Chi

        "step up", for one example. I'm sorry doing the best thing for the country isn't always financially helpful. but sometimes great leaders need to do the correct things anyways.

        we need the overton window moved to the left, and every time Obama says "govenment needs to tighten its belt" is harmful to the cause.

        •  No question, the overton window needs moved, (4+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          Deep Texan, FiredUpInCA, Urizen, Egalitare

          but it's going to take more than rhetoric to move it.

          It's going to take cash, not that we have to match the GOP ad for ad, but we better try, cuz there are far too many voters who are going to walk in those booths and cast their ballots based the ad they either heard the most or the last ad they heard before voting.

          If the GOP is running ads 3 or 4 or 5 to our one, then odds will be the last ad they hear before voting will be a GOP lie that they don't know is a lie.

          Money isn't everything, but it's far from being unimportant.

          So I'll take one more crack at it and ask again, to whom do you think we might be able to look to make up the funds that would be lost if Obama turned down all WS money? It's a sincerely asked question to which I'd genuinely appreciate your response.

          Ds see human suffering and wonder what they can do to relieve it. Rs see human suffering and wonder how they can profit from it.

          by JTinDC on Fri May 04, 2012 at 10:50:39 AM PDT

          [ Parent ]

        •  Do the right thing (5+ / 0-)

          First, throw caution to the wind. Assume for a moment that as President Obama can enact real change by himself and he goes ahead the tells WS to fuck off and then->->->?? Profit? who knows? But, like Johnson he could easily sentence the Dems to wander the wilderness for decades.

          Or he could take the incremental approach and hope that circumstances allow him to stretch out more and more as time goes on in his next term. It isn't as satisfying as just going for it, but sometimes it works.

          What he and we all need is a strong non-governmental left that pushes us further in that direction. Non-elected leaders don't need to worry about votes and campaigns. But like MLK sadly they need to worry about the bullet, never forget it is dangerous. However they can do what elected officials can't and that is sway the people and open the dialog.

          Politics are ugly, dirty, sticky, and difficult. It requires a strategic mind and I don't think it's your calling, I'm sorry. I don't mean that as a bad thing, I didn't have the patience for it for a long time either.

          When I was much younger I was marching around yelling at LBJ while he was doing some of the heaviest lifting for progressives ever done. You can protest and be part of that movement on the left that I spoke of, but our President has to take a more delicate path.

          "But much to my surprise when I opened my eyes I was the victim of the great compromise." John Prine

          by high uintas on Fri May 04, 2012 at 11:28:24 AM PDT

          [ Parent ]

          •  having fun (1+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            Chi

            beating that strawman?

            can you find a single instance of me saying that Obama can effect real change all by himself?

            No? then don't argue against that falsified view of my position.

          •  Gee, thank you for so gently (1+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            melo

            attempting to delegitimize my POV.

            What is it about Obama refusing WS money that a majority of  the electorate would find unappealing? Leave the threat of uberleftist policy out of it, that was just for laughs. Apparently I have a singular sense of humor.

            If, and I've yet to get anwer from anyone as to from whom, but if WS funds could largely be made up from somwwhere else is it your contention that Obama can't refuse their money and win? That that would be a big turn off to voters? He doesn't need to trash WS, just not accept their money. How does that work against him? Are politics so twisted that he has to take their money even if he didn't need it? Or would refusing their money result in WS winning a nuclear attack on Obama and deny him a second term?

            I know damn well the guy can't veer hard left and win. I don't see sending a message that he aims to end the days where elections can be bought as being anything close to hard left. Sounds pretty centrist to me.

            I do see your point in the need for a strong non-governmental left. Who would you consider today's MLK or to have that potential?

            I am fine with incremental pragmatism or pragmatic incrementalism or however a person wished to getting what we can get, when we can get it, and without losing what we already got. In the last three years there's been much we've gotten, but also some we've lost.

            There are times when even ardent supports such as I cannot help but question if we've won less and/or lost more than we should have if our team's leaders would have fought just little harder. We could go further left and still be in the center and the country would be better for it.

            There are some who have the president's ear and not just a few in this community who don't want to see that overton window budge one inch back to the left. I got a problem with that. I know I've spoke recently about working to strike a better tone with those with whom I disagree, but I won't suffer conservaDems for a second.

            It'd be nice if there were more moments when Obama would tell these third way voices they are getting it wrong, that he recognizes they are advising him out of their own selfinterest, not in the interest of the People, and pushes what he knows in his heart is good policy and good politics.

            Ds see human suffering and wonder what they can do to relieve it. Rs see human suffering and wonder how they can profit from it.

            by JTinDC on Fri May 04, 2012 at 12:46:27 PM PDT

            [ Parent ]

          •  Uhhhmm, oops? misread who your comment was (1+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            high uintas

            directed at so please excuse at the very least the first sentence of my response. Sorry about that.

            Ds see human suffering and wonder what they can do to relieve it. Rs see human suffering and wonder how they can profit from it.

            by JTinDC on Fri May 04, 2012 at 12:49:09 PM PDT

            [ Parent ]

    •  or you can change the system that produces (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      high uintas

      the outcomes. We need to use Citizens United as a foil for broader campaign finance reform.

  •  More cold truth: (8+ / 0-)

    According to a January Gallup poll, conservatives outnumber liberals 2 to 1.
    And 55% of likely voters still think Obama is a socialist.
    And now that Citizens United will unleash an avalanche of Super PAC cash for Mitt, I would venture that the best way for Obama to lose this election is to come out as the fire-breathing socialist dictator that many Americans already perceive him to be.  
    I'm glad that we're beginning to embrace political reality here, because ex-presidents don't get to sign any progressive legislation.  I am reminded of Mark Twain's famous quote:

    “When I was a boy of fourteen, my father was so ignorant I could hardly stand to have the old man around. But when I got to be twenty-one, I was astonished by how much he'd learned in seven years.”
    We've got to face facts: the progressive contingent is just not big enough to carry a presidential election.  President Obama needs the moderates and independents, and yes, at least some support from Wall Street, in order to have a second term.
    Whatever it takes to win, because I want four more years of this.

    Unfortunately, President Obama doesn't have time to read DK, so contact him here: The White House, 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue NW, Washington, DC 20500 (Postcards, not letters! Please give your email address.) -- 202-456-1111 -- FAX: 202-456-2461

    by My Left Behind on Fri May 04, 2012 at 09:27:37 AM PDT

    •  no (10+ / 0-)

      this is a right-wing mistruth and I'm sad to see it repeated here.

      people who call themselves "conservatives" outnumber people who call themselves "liberals".

      but conservatives do not outnumber liberals by any significant number. "liberal" policies are generally far more popular than "conservative" policies, for example.

      •  Yes, actually (4+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        Deep Texan, FiredUpInCA, Matt Z, Egalitare

        Sure, you can poll people issue by issue and they might be in line with progressive policies, but when it comes to voting for a candidate, I seriously doubt if voters who for whatever reason call themselves "conservatives" would be inclined to vote for Obama, or anyone who is perceived--thanks to media labeling--as a liberal.
        (I rec'd your comment by mistake, btw.)

        Unfortunately, President Obama doesn't have time to read DK, so contact him here: The White House, 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue NW, Washington, DC 20500 (Postcards, not letters! Please give your email address.) -- 202-456-1111 -- FAX: 202-456-2461

        by My Left Behind on Fri May 04, 2012 at 09:54:04 AM PDT

        [ Parent ]

        •  well (2+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          zedaker, blueoasis

          some of the "independents" who call themselves "conservatives" will in fact vote for Obama.

          and "liberal" has become a dirty word, so many people who hold "liberal" views will not call themeselves "liberal".

          And I still don't understand why you insist on using a right-wing meme rather than using what people actually believe to determine what people actually beleive.

    •  And 56% dont want socialized healthcare (6+ / 0-)

      while as much as 70% wanted the PO, and 60% wanted single payer.

      Without the dog whistle Americans will sometimes show some savvy.

      FDR 9-23-33, "If we cannot do this one way, we will do it another way. But do it we will.

      by Roger Fox on Fri May 04, 2012 at 11:35:47 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

    •  self-ID on these things is notoriously unreliable (0+ / 0-)
      •  But candidate ID is reliable? (0+ / 0-)

        I would venture that those voters who label themselves "conservative"--"accurately" or "inaccurately"-- might also be inclined to label Obama as a "socialist," since 55% of likely voters regard him as such.  And those who label themselves conservative are probably not likely to vote for a liberal or a socialist.  It's all about perception, whether of self or candidate.

        Unfortunately, President Obama doesn't have time to read DK, so contact him here: The White House, 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue NW, Washington, DC 20500 (Postcards, not letters! Please give your email address.) -- 202-456-1111 -- FAX: 202-456-2461

        by My Left Behind on Sat May 05, 2012 at 08:52:42 AM PDT

        [ Parent ]

  •  I'm with Jess Unruh on this one... (7+ / 0-)

    From Mark Shields:

    The late and legendary speaker of the California State Assembly, Jess Unruh, laid down to his legislative colleagues tough rules for their dealings with the free-spending lobbyists then much in vogue in Sacramento:

    "If you can't drink their booze, take their money, sleep with their women and then vote against 'em, you don't belong in politics."

    http://www.creators.com/...
  •  Or we could work to ditch the anachronistic (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    zedaker

    Electoral College and move our single true National Office (the Presidency) to a real democratic vote basis - one vote for each citizen and the winner is a simple majority.

    Which the Republicans (as a Party with an old and aging membership) fight tooth and nail every time it's brought up because they know that without the EC the Republicans would never win another Presidency.

    Just look at the historical voting trends of the past thirty years.

    Democratic registration has been at least 20 million higher than Republican since 2004. Voting trends from sources such as Rutgers University, show that more women than men are and have been voting since 1964. Women are more likely to be Democratic than Republican and there are more of us and we are voting more than men, election after election!

    * * *
    I like paying taxes...with them, I buy Civilization
    -- SCOTUS Justice O.W. Holmes Jr.
    * * *
    "A Better World is Possible"
    -- #Occupy

    by Angie in WA State on Fri May 04, 2012 at 09:51:43 AM PDT

  •  Excellent analysis (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    Deep Texan

    I thought of putting something cute like "Caution, Adult post above" but decided against it.

    You point to a lot of the realities of American politics in the middle part of the 20th century(and probably before).

    Caro discusses a lot of the same points in some of his earlier works about LBJs time in the Senate and House.

    That said, where do we go from here?

    I have never been able to figure out if Fox is the propaganda arm of the Republican party or is the Republican Party the political subsidiary of Fox.

    by Dave from Oregon on Fri May 04, 2012 at 10:01:55 AM PDT

  •  Wow. I had no idea FDR refused to sign an (10+ / 0-)

    anti-lynching bill from his own party.  That's an eye-opener.  So, even the sainted FDR had some flaws, just like the newest human occupying the White House.  Fancy that.  Of course, President Obama isn't refusing to sign laws that actually protect people from being murdered.  I noticed last night on Brian Williams, he took some time before he answered the question if killing Bin Laden was the most important day of his presidency and I thought he was contemplating signing ACA before he responded that yes, for one day, it was.  Very specific.  It took him an entire year to get ACA through Congress.

    Wow.  Nothing like the cold truth.  Thanks for this.

    Best. President. Ever.

    by Little Lulu on Fri May 04, 2012 at 10:02:20 AM PDT

  •  This is yet... (0+ / 0-)

    Another 'political reality' vs. 'reality reality' diary.  Yes, politically speaking, Wall Street has a stranglehold on elections in this country.  And with Citizens United, it is going to get even worse.  But we have already seen that unlimited greed and total deregulation are extremely bad for a functioning economy.  Obama's ass-kissing of Wall Street may be politically expedient - I will concede the point.  But I think it is disastrous for the long term health of the economy and  for this nation.  Unfortunately, I'm not sure 'welcoming their hatred' is a viable alternative politically, but it is probably the only thing that will save the economy in the long run.

    'Osama Bin Ladien is still dead and GM is still alive' - Joe Biden "Dems kill terrorist. The GOP keeps them around as a boogeyman - so they can continue to steel."

    by RichM on Fri May 04, 2012 at 10:07:05 AM PDT

  •  So we need corrupt Wall St money? (5+ / 0-)

    Your premise is that without Wall Street's money, Obama can't win. This despite the evidence of 2008's election.

    From the false premise you conclude that the Democratic president must therefore accept Wall Street's campaign contributions and not "welcome their hatred."

    So in order to get the influence of money out of the system, you advise that we accept the influence of money.

    In order to save the village ...

    •  It is either Wall Street or... (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      Deep Texan

      find ways to create and foster movements within society that are willing to push against Wall Street.

      If  anyone in Washington wants to push against Wall Street and there is no popular sentiment behind doing so, they become people who are no longer in Washington.  

      It is a careful balancing act.  Stay in power so as to be able to deal with these people.  Move too quickly and fall off the tightrope.  

      The public by and large is selfish.  Wall Street is also the suburbs where a lot of retired folks spend a lot of time looking at the stock market, playing with penny stocks and being drummed by a host of investor newsletter that drive them through fear to buy this or that stock.  

      What they are telling their investors is roughly what the conservative pundits are echoing.  

      To reform Wall Street, it is necessary to provide a steady drumbeat of information and argument as to why it is a good idea - for the average person who might think they stand to gain if Wall Street gains.

      hope that the idiots who have no constructive and creative solutions but only look to tear down will not win the day.

      by Stuart Heady on Fri May 04, 2012 at 11:07:30 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  Wall Street indirectly can affect (0+ / 0-)

        all of our lives.  

        do you like having a job?  they can make you pay for supporting attacks against them.

        -You want to change the system, run for office.

        by Deep Texan on Fri May 04, 2012 at 11:25:54 AM PDT

        [ Parent ]

        •  Certainly used to see a lot of this in Texas (0+ / 0-)

          This is very true for everyone in the economy, including the President.  We can, however, have an impact.  It will require a lot of persistent effort all up and down the line for a long time.

          hope that the idiots who have no constructive and creative solutions but only look to tear down will not win the day.

          by Stuart Heady on Fri May 04, 2012 at 06:14:26 PM PDT

          [ Parent ]

    •  Obama Raised MORE From Wall Street in 2008 Than (0+ / 0-)

      any other candidate.  Your entire post is based upon a false premise.  

    •  you do know where most of Obama's 2008 money (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      TimmyB

      came from, right? Look it up.

  •  Wow! I am impressed! (7+ / 0-)

    A very impressive political analysis! The cold truth indeed.

    Politics is a dirty, nasty business. But it is the only game in town.

    Compromise is often cruel, but necessary. Choices are not simple, but they have to be made.

    Reality! How refreshing to have someone acknowledge the reality of politics!

    OK. And now we begin the part of the show where we pull out individual words and phrases of the commenter to try to determine the "real" meaning of the comment.... let the games begin.

    by hillbrook green on Fri May 04, 2012 at 10:11:48 AM PDT

  •  it's funny that this is still news (3+ / 0-)

    to so many people on the left.

    They do not understand that economic 'progressivism' is  right wing if it came at a social cost, not left wing.

    There is such a thing as exclusive, non-egalitarian, racist, right wing 'progressivism'. See Nazi Germany's form of socialism.

    If you are willing to be economically progressive at the cost of denying benefits those outside your race and gender, and are against it otherwise - you are not a leftist or a liberal.

    Your whole economically progressive foundation is built on your bigoted social outlook. You would not support it otherwise.

    •  bingo (0+ / 0-)

      the modern experiment of multiethnic social and fiscal progressivism is a fairly new one. It's working--haltingly--in Europe, though there are serious issues with Muslim minority communities that lead to rightwing backlashes. In countries with small minority populations (Japan, Sweden, etc.) there's no problem at all.

      But fiscal progressivism has usually gone hand in hand with regressive social policy. And for obvious reasons: it's hard to convince people to share with people who don't look and act like them. People often forget that.

  •  FDR (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    Chi, The Wizard

    Sorry but this is not a very good comment.  Even without an anti-lynching bill passed, lynchings greatly declined in the 20 years 1935-55.  Also, what about the presence of large numbers of minorities in the South, where they act as a sort of fifth column?  And the fact that LBJ, campaigning on an explicitly civil rights program, one over half the South in 1964?  And that the South takes up 1/4 of the country while the rest of the country takes up the other 3/4?  And that women and minorities take up over half the population, yet Democrats keep on losing elections, which seems to imply that many women and minorities are not thriled by pro-Wall Street Democrats, either?
    The excessive conservatism of recent Democrats, such as Clinton and Obama, on all matters except rights issues, is what is really causing the Democrats all their problems.    

  •  Lesser evil thinking drives me crazy (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    blueoasis

    Our political system is rigged to keep power in the hands of the already powerful.

    If cats could blog, they wouldn't

    by crystal eyes on Fri May 04, 2012 at 10:58:43 AM PDT

  •  Change the culture, change the politics (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    Deep Texan, Urizen

    Because we all watch this stuff unfold on TV and in the news media in general we are struck by the idea that the actors we see are really able to make bolder decisions than they seem to be able to make, by and large.

    What we generally miss is that society as a whole is not a monolith and the actors we see are only able to work with what they are given to work with by a public that can demand and support what they do - or not.

    It is easily demonstrated that if someone gets elected and then is too far ahead of the general consensus, they lose the next election.  

    The problem is to focus on ways to mobilize sufficient segments of the public so as to move the political system.

    That is the theory that the evangelical right has been operating on for forty years.

    We can see this working because we are dealing with it at the state legislative level in many states and in terms of the extreme right wing agenda being pushed in Congress by a Republican Party with a majority.  

    What needs to occur is an analysis of the difference between the sphere of elected representation, and the sphere of influence that is comprised of society and culture.  

    The political sphere always moves slower than it might, because it takes a long time for consensus to build most of the time.  

    Speeding up the process of creating a consensus in the culture is a huge problem.  I suspect we are doing it, but that the process is so vast and cumbersome it is hard to be satisfied with the rate of increase.  

    Indeed we should not be.

    We should be thinking of every possible way that we might be able to contribute to pushing forward to speed progress up, against the antagonism of those more comfortable with moving backward.  

    Politics is not "a seen on TV."  

    hope that the idiots who have no constructive and creative solutions but only look to tear down will not win the day.

    by Stuart Heady on Fri May 04, 2012 at 11:00:07 AM PDT

    •  my theory is simply that liberal politics is (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      Deep Texan

      a losing game by nature.Battles will always be lost, and the war is always won eventually in the long run.

      When the war is finally won, it is never because people proactively listened to us. It will be because people generally are stupid, selfish, tribal and reactive and on a path of self destruction by nature.

      People only react to liberal warnings of existential threats en masse when it becomes undeniable and often too late.

      The role of a liberal is simply to be the voice of reason that guides society in the right direction whenever society crashes and burns or comes near to crashing and burning.

       Humans are like 3 year old toddlers. Yelling at them to stop playing rough in the house else they'll hurt themselves never works... you have to let them learn the hard way. Only when they get hurt do they start listening to you.

      •  Interesting point. But maybe (0+ / 0-)

        that two year old full of selfish need and total Id can be reached.  What it may require is more inventiveness and persistence.  

        hope that the idiots who have no constructive and creative solutions but only look to tear down will not win the day.

        by Stuart Heady on Fri May 04, 2012 at 06:10:23 PM PDT

        [ Parent ]

  •  Well I'll be damned. (11+ / 0-)

    Someone told the cold hard truth to Kossacks. Welcome to reality.

    Of course a lot of folks would rather perish in their bunker, knowing that they were and are staying true to their principles.

    Anyway, props to the diarist. This has been a long time coming.

    Where we go from here is we work our butts off to elect Obama and as many Democrats as possible. We can only turn this thing around by enlisting the help of a majority of Americans.

    I've always said that we can't have campaign finance reform without campaign finance reform. But maybe we can do an end run preceded by a little hip fake. That's all we got.

    People wish to be settled, only as far as they are unsettled is there any hope for them. - Emerson

    by CarbonFiberBoy on Fri May 04, 2012 at 11:02:03 AM PDT

  •  I love the spell of reality in the morning. (7+ / 0-)

    Thanks for this.

  •  thanks, tins (8+ / 0-)

    for the un-romanticized version of FDR

    (still the greatest president in my lifetime)

    "Show up. Pay attention. Tell the truth. And don't be attached to the results." -- Angeles Arrien

    by Sybil Liberty on Fri May 04, 2012 at 11:29:06 AM PDT

  •  Cold Truth (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    Deep Texan, Thomasina

    This needed to be said. There are no miracles here.

  •  The Republicans are the stepfather who rapes (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    Chi

    his stepdaughters and beats his stepsons.

    The Democrats are the helpless birth mother who "just doesn't know what to do about it" .

    Co-victim, enabler or collaborator ?

    Ask a social worker.

  •  We have paid a price for not taking FDRs path (4+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    Urizen, jjohnjj, Geekesque, puakev

    I loved this diary and it shed new light for me on FDR and Obama, but also on every Democrat since Johnson. This notion that to pass economic reform we need the support of bigots is a sad but true picture of the US.  When we as Drmocrats chose to side with minorities and minority rights, we didn't just lose the South for a generation (going on three generations now) but the efforts to take up economic reform took a hit.  The thing the is the matter with Kansas is that backlash against standing for minority rights.

    I can see this unwinding as this next generation comes of age and people move around (see eg our electoral map that includes Virginia and N Carolina and some day Texas).  In the meantime we have to deal with the fall out of that decision.    

    Totally the right decision, but this is a great reminder of the great strains of history that have been with us from that day to this.  
    Fantastic diary!

  •  so then what do we do? (0+ / 0-)

    it's possible to raise a lot of money without them, it's been shown.

    An ambulance can only go so fast - Neil Young

    by mightymouse on Fri May 04, 2012 at 12:19:05 PM PDT

  •  Can't thank you enough for this. (3+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    Thomasina, puakev, Matt Z

    Dear Republicans, the United States is a Representative Democracy, not your church.

    by Onomastic on Fri May 04, 2012 at 12:33:32 PM PDT

  •  Another difference (4+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    thereisnospoon, Geekesque, puakev, Matt Z

    In 1932, FDR won a huge landslide. In 2008, Obama did not.

    More precisely:
    FDR 57% - Hoover 40%
    Obama 53% - McCain 46%

    FDR took every state outside New England and Pennsylvania.

    McCain took (if I'm counting right) 22 states.

  •  Well said..... (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    puakev, Chi

    Spoon, that is a balanced and intelligent recital of the brief
    history of Dems/Reps and liberal positioniing. You are for the
    most part quite right. But, did you omit any reference to the net gain to Dems of the more enlightened and free-to-vote
    minorities of the South and elsewhere, after 1960, due to
    Truman-Johnson-REKennedy civil rights successes.  Yes, the
    Dems lost the South, forever,  But they picked up millions of black, and now hispanic, votes that will facilitate much further change as a result.
       The REAL change will occur if and when the Electoral College is dissolved, and that needs to happen before too long.  Will it?

  •  So your argument is that (4+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    Indiana Bob, jbou, Chi, SpecialKinFlag

    we Democrats need to implement Wall Street-friendly, corporatist policy, or the Republicans will get in and... implement Wall Street-friendly, corporatist policy.

    Right. Makes perfect sense. I'm voting D because I want to see Wall Street-friendly, corporatist policy implemented by a Democrat. It would be an absolute travesty if that exact same policy was implemented by a Republican.

    •  no, i'm explaining WHY Dems pass neoliberal (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      Geekesque

      policies. Do keep in mind that while Dodd-Frank is inadequate, it's an improvement--and a hell of a lot better than Republicans would have done. Dems aren't perfect on these issues, but we're still a damn sight better.

      Saying that Dems and GOPs are exactly the same on this stuff is silly.

      That said, if you want to make serious change, you have to change the system that allows Wall Street and other industries to buy off big parts of both parties.

      •  That's one argument. (3+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        SpecialKinFlag, chuckvw, Chi
        Do keep in mind that while Dodd-Frank is inadequate, it's an improvement--and a hell of a lot better than Republicans would have done.
        That's one argument. Another argument is that Dodd-Frank isn't really an improvement at all (it does absolutely nothing about "too big to fail"), and that passing it is actually worse than doing nothing, because it makes people think real reform has happened when it actually hasn't, and it ensures that when the next financial crisis hits, progressives will get blamed.
        That said, if you want to make serious change, you have to change the system that allows Wall Street and other industries to buy off big parts of both parties.
        And since neither party is interested in doing this, where does that leave us?
  •  That's why (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    chuckvw, Chi

    Electoral solutions are irrelevant.  The only thing that we should be working on is getting citizens united overturned.  Until that  happens, we get Obama, Klobuchar, Tim Kaine as the best and brightest, and they are not progressives.  At least not in their actions, as they are bought by monied interests.  

    If you haven't earned my vote when the time comes, don't blame me when you lose.

    by Nada Lemming on Fri May 04, 2012 at 02:48:39 PM PDT

  •  you're wrong (4+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    Chi, priceman, Cassiodorus, chuckvw

    Wall Street and the hedge fund folks are gamblers. They make their money gambling. These folks rig the system, play both sides and make money off people who are desperate to save for retirement. Basically they are bookies with a whole lot of inside information. We should not fear them.

    What our leaders need to do and say is this. we are done bailing out the gamblers after they make bad bets. We are done with them costing us fifty cents a gallon on gas because they like to gamble on oil prices. We are done with them using their computer programs to game the stock market.

    Then Harry Reid and President Obama introduce extensive reform measures that go way beyond anything that has a chance to actually turn into law and then we have the fight.

    Sounds like you are scared to have the fight.

    As a nation, the U.S. consumes the most hot dogs per capita. So you'd be wise to never underestimate our powers of denial.

    by jbou on Fri May 04, 2012 at 03:22:21 PM PDT

  •  America's First Black President (0+ / 0-)

    Barrack Hussein Obama is America's First Black President.

    Did anyone vote for him without stopping to think that he might subject to some handicaps unique to his position as America's First Black President?

    Have you noticed?
    Politicians who promise LESS government
    only deliver BAD government.

    by jjohnjj on Fri May 04, 2012 at 03:29:49 PM PDT

  •  Good diary, but a little confused: (3+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    WisePiper, SpecialKinFlag, chuckvw
    The cold truth is that adding the full force of Wall Street's money and the medical industry's money to the entirety of the racist and misogynist vote in the Deep South and Rust Belt would disable Democrats from winning a single Presidential election until most of the racists and misogynists are dead and buried.
    Okay, so what would they be winning for, if they would be beholden to moneyed interests and therefore do what those interests ask?  
    Asking for clarification.  I think david mizner was saying that if you scream the populism loud and proud then that will win votes too.  Why is money the only way to win?  Why not do things to help people, and do so loudly and proudly?  

    ♥ Medicare For All. ♥
    "Our health care system is like a casino. The insurance industry is the House... The House always wins." -- UnaSpenser

    by Chi on Fri May 04, 2012 at 04:03:28 PM PDT

  •  The incumbent president (5+ / 0-)

    has a huge, huge advantage and does not need nearly as much money as the challenger.

    He can get on tv whenever he wants.  He has the ability to make policy with the powers of the executive branch in a timely manner for elections.  He has a press gaggle following his every word.

    He can schedule speeches and other events in cities where he wants to do campaign events and fundraisers.

    Please, this is a cop out. At this point in time, if this president said he was not taking a dime from Wall Street, it would win him votes.


    "Justice is a commodity"

    by joanneleon on Fri May 04, 2012 at 04:29:37 PM PDT

  •  oh gawd ... ANOTHER dose of pathetic 'realism' (3+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    Cassiodorus, chuckvw, Chi

    - funny how raygun and bush sr. and cheney and bush jr. and rove ... can all DEFINE reality of lies so rich pigs can steal,

    and all our side can do is wag our little edumacated fingers at a 'reality' the 'smart' people accept -

    instead of hiring the messaging talent to sell sound policy for the bottom 80% -

    yeah, we'd lose the racists, misogynist, flat earth rich pig dick lickers, AND, the DLC Third Way non rascist non flat earth rich pig ass kissers, AND their rich pig paymasters  

    that would still leave 75 or 80% of us.

    guess it is easier to concoct the May 2012 excuses for getting our asses kicked, again, instead of figuring how to hire fighters who kick THEIR asses.

    have fun with your sell outs. After decades of voting Lessor Of Two Evil, except when I got sold out by "HOPE", I got better ways to waste my time, money and vote than on more DLC sell outs.

    like Darcy Burner.

    rmm.

    Yond Cassius has a lean and hungry look; He thinks too much: such men are dangerous

    by seabos84 on Fri May 04, 2012 at 05:16:37 PM PDT

  •  No. Smedley Butler & the Business plot anyone? (4+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    SpecialKinFlag, Cassiodorus, chuckvw, Chi

    http://en.wikipedia.org/...

    The Business Plot (also known as the Plot Against FDR, the White House Putsch) was an alleged political conspiracy in 1933. Retired Marine Corps Major General Smedley Butler claimed that wealthy businessmen were plotting to create a fascist veterans' organization and use it in a coup d'état to overthrow United States President Franklin D. Roosevelt, with Butler as leader of that organization. In 1934, Butler testified to the Special Committee on Un-American Activities Congressional committee (the "McCormack-Dickstein Committee") on these claims.[1] In the opinion of the committee, these allegations were credible.[2] No one was prosecuted.
    Yes serious coups by Wall St meant FDR was on easy street compared to Obama. This would happen before the 1933 reforms(what should have been done in 2008 including the bank holiday) that stopped financial panics for 50 years.

    Sure corporations might have more money now, but they certainly weren't broke then, plus they didn't have to disclose it to the FCC at all.

    It helps no one to make these revisionist excuses, spoon.

    Pro Life??? Conservatives want live babies so they can raise them to be dead soldiers! - George Carlin - ROUND 3: Vote! Send me to Netroots Nation!

    by priceman on Fri May 04, 2012 at 05:23:07 PM PDT

  •  You begin by saying it's not about (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    chuckvw, Chi

    fecklessness or corruption, but then explain that it's about money and not being able to get things done.

    Which would be... fecklessness and corruption.

    And other than that, yes, we enjoyed the show.

    No longer rating comments, thanks to a cowardly fucktard moderator whose ass I will not kiss.

    by khereva on Fri May 04, 2012 at 05:49:15 PM PDT

  •  Feh! (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    priceman, chuckvw

    Obama was pro-business from the moment he entered politics.

    http://www.nakedcapitalism.com/...

    http://www.zcommunications.org/...

    But you can pretend anything you want.

    "I've seen the flame of hope among the hopeless/ And that was truly the biggest heartbreak of all" -- Bruce Cockburn

    by Cassiodorus on Fri May 04, 2012 at 06:00:20 PM PDT

  •  You parade Obama's cave-ins as practicality. (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    Chi, Musial

    They are not.

    The cold truth is that adding the full force of Wall Street's money and the medical industry's money to the entirety of the racist and misogynist vote in the Deep South and Rust Belt would disable Democrats from winning a single Presidential election until most of the racists and misogynists are dead and buried.
    Bullshit. You are young, so you have an excuse.

    However, the cold truth is that the full force of Wall Street's money and the medical industry's money will go to Republicans anyway, since they will ALWAYS outbid Democrats.

    Moreover, accommodating Wall Street by letting the banks get away with their crimes just puts more money in their pockets to use to defeat Democrats. At the same time, it impoverishes ordinary Americans and makes them less able to make up the difference. It is a direct transfer from potential Obama supporters to his ostensible enemies.

    Giving banks retroactive amnesty for their financial crimes also undermines the rule of law and takes us further into tyranny, which is to the Republicans' advantage.

    Barack Obama: So morally bankrupt that he thinks people who tortured other people to death should get a pass. Likes to prosecute whistleblowers and pot smokers, though.

    by expatjourno on Sat May 05, 2012 at 04:04:06 AM PDT

  •  then change the name. it's no longer (0+ / 0-)

    the Democratic Party and let a different party call itself that and resume the party's founding principle of defending democracy from "lending institutions and moneyed corporations."(Jefferson)

Meteor Blades, Ed in Montana, Angie in WA State, DeminNewJ, coral, northsylvania, fcvaguy, jazzmaniac, Lawdog, itsbenj, ogre, slinkerwink, Trendar, Jeff Simpson, kaleidescope, wytcld, Shockwave, Sherri in TX, SanJoseLady, Aspe4, eeff, devtob, Carolina On My Mind, musicsleuth, expat germany, DaveV, CanadaGoose, Wee Mama, nyceve, whenwego, KMc, mkfarkus, JuliaAnn, ovals49, Boston to Salem, jbeach, fumie, kitebro, Cedwyn, high uintas, Alna Dem, Cardinal96, wader, RLF, psnyder, sockpuppet, Miss Jones, Urizen, virginislandsguy, CarbonFiberBoy, DSC on the Plateau, Catte Nappe, Timbuk3, outragedinSF, JayBat, tomjones, Sybil Liberty, Gowrie Gal, Julie Gulden, rapala, historys mysteries, Bluesee, marina, TexasTom, Unit Zero, blueyedace2, SherwoodB, democracy inaction, Dave from Oregon, JohnB47, Gary Norton, owlbear1, Dr Squid, Sun Tzu, where4art, Kayakbiker, Ice Blue, peteri2, Little Lulu, gerardbellavita, onanyes, kaliope, Tool, brentut5, SBandini, Floja Roja, coolbreeze, JanF, mightymouse, Jim R, Reality Bites Back, martini, occams hatchet, poco, edwardssl, Gorette, Yellow Canary, raptavio, luckydog, SarekOfVulcan, Conceptual Guerilla, MJ via Chicago, bubbanomics, Ooooh, Crashing Vor, JVolvo, happy camper, CTLiberal, el cid, Dinclusin, profh, fiddlingnero, blueoregon, AllanTBG, markthshark, Quicklund, Babylon, Thinking Fella, ammasdarling, hooper, oklacoma dem, tgypsy, camlbacker, Deadicated Marxist, Dartagnan, ColoTim, puakev, Inventor, Matt Z, terabytes, Seneca Doane, uciguy30, leonard145b, BasharH, cloudbustingkid, chicago minx, Zacapoet, MKinTN, cynndara, JeffW, Shahryar, Fe Bongolan, FG, skohayes, Buckeye Nut Schell, lineatus, Happy Days, Tam in CA, elpacifico66, jjohnjj, Karl Rover, dzog, watercarrier4diogenes, Diogenes2008, lissablack, legendmn, maggiejean, prettygirlxoxoxo, DontTaseMeBro, litoralis, be the change you seek, Mislead, LeftOfYou, Methinks They Lie, jennylind, kat68, virginwoolf, petral, geebeebee, bfitzinAR, kevinpdx, Shelley99, sfarkash, 57andFemale, Little Flower, Tortmaster, Dragon5616, Livvy5, Leftcandid, commonmass, mamamorgaine, confitesprit, TFinSF, roadbear, gramofsam1, Susan Grigsby, Observerinvancouver, on board 47, CS in AZ, Crabby Abbey, Lost and Found, CrissieP, My Left Behind, NM Ray, BoxNDox, gulfgal98, OnlyWords, anonevent, Egalitare, nickrud, LiberalCanuck, dalkman, Wisdumb, Onomastic, MidwestTreeHugger, Bluefin, princess Kes, I love OCD, ozsea1, Liberal Capitalist, Bob Duck, ultraviolet uk, jardin32, kiwiheart, Teenom, princesspat, YallaDog, Haf2Read, Cinnamon Rollover, smoothnmellow, SueM1121, floridablue, tardis10, LSmith, jgnyc, Empty Vessel, JayFromPA, bluedust, Imhotepsings, Andrew F Cockburn, Mets102, SoCalSal, RLMiller, leftykook, ChiTownDenny, ParkRanger, No one gets out alive, weatherdude, chmood, stormicats, JTinDC, cwsmoke, Mindful Nature, We Won, Philosoraptor, Joieau, Lovepolitics2008, devinmcconnell, Halandri, jan4insight, Syoho, radical simplicity, MartyM, wxorknot, Denver11, Glen The Plumber, dotdash2u, wasatch, katiec, lastlegslaststand, GoGoGoEverton, Blue Dream, Jonathan Hoag, blueoldlady, nomandates, hillbrook green, Thomasina, SanFernandoValleyMom, paccoli, helpImdrowning, The Angry Architect, gracielove, JKTownsend

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

Click here for the mobile view of the site