Book of the Month

synchronicity's picture

Why I Asked President Obama To Withdraw From The Race

by synchronicity 8/3/2011 - 1:38 am

After I have said my piece you can all ignore me or tear me to shreds, it doesn't matter.  I have to say this so I'll just get it over with.

I was already really disappointed in how the debt ceiling has been handled and how it ended up.  Then I learned that because economists expect the cuts in this agreement to cost 1.8 million jobs our credit rating may still go down and stocks have gone down, even with this agreement.

We can't afford that job loss but there it is.

Oh, and for kickers the Senate majority leader made it clear that this is how the Republicans will handle the raising of the debt ceiling from now on.  Of course we already suspected that and we actually know they have already started more of the same with the fight over FAA funding trying to tie it to union busting, just today.  They won't even take a breath. 

 So, after so much mismanaged during these past few years and recognizing the viciousness and nastiness that has taken hold of our politics, I have come to the conclusion that as much as I appreciate many things about President Obama, he should withdraw from running again.  This would allow some fresh energy to invigorate the race and to allow us to select a candidate that can lead our nation that has a personality  more suitable for dealing with the current class of Republicans.

Since people have been telling me we can't primary him or we lose, I say we need to convince him not to run and to rally behind someone else. This might invigorate us and head us in the direction of actually winning in 2012. After all there is NO guarantee he could win for lots of reasons.

We have much to overcome in the next election with no more ACORN, voter suppression laws, union busting (has been a strong Democratic organizing arm), and a variety of levels of malaise to disillusionment to complete shock and disbelief regarding where we find our country right now.

A new, strong candidate feels like a new opportunity to change the course of things and could help to rally people to fight back against this insanity.

I actually see this as the best path forward for our future, for our country, and for each other.

 

  • Share this
  • Add new comment
  • 780 reads

I doubt you'll be ignored or ripped to shreds. There are many around here who feel just as you do.

It is hard to feel enthusiastic when we've been so disappointed.

What keeps me going is how ugly this country is going to be when they take over.

If I am given a better choice, I will take it. I just have a hard time imagining what that choice could be. A true liberal cannot get elected today. I really believe that. All you have to do is see that the dem party is as conservative as the repubs used to be, and the repubs are so conservative now, they have fallen off the charts. As much as I would love to believe that a Bernie Sanders could be elected President, I'm sorry, I just don't see it.

I think we would be better served encouraging our President to be all that we thought he could be, but that's just one woman's opinion, and God knows, I've been wrong before.

by stillidealistic 8/3/2011 - 3:01 am

I understand.

I think one thing we need to stop and consider is that sticking with this president will be more of the same.  He will not change his personality. 

Can we afford that?  What will things look like after his next term if 'more of the same' is what we get?

I feel strongly that we can't afford that and I have to at least try to fight for better than that.

by synchronicity 8/3/2011 - 11:23 am (re: stillidealistic)

I think it's good to fight for better, but many of us are concerned about people voting for worse. Although in this winter of our discontent* it might be hard to imagine worse, our memories should remind us that there is worse. More of the same, as bad as it is, is better than what most people on the other side would offer us. Like I've said elsewhere, I understand not getting excited about that particular "slogan".

*That's just for Doc Cleveland.

by Verified Atheist 8/3/2011 - 11:29 am (re: synchronicity)

I understand but considering what more of the same means... we could really lose too much.  So that may seem like the real choice.  But look at where we are and where more of the same might get us.  I don't think  we can afford it.  So I 'have' to fight for better. 

by synchronicity 8/3/2011 - 11:41 am (re: Verified Atheist)

So what was Obama's answer, synch? Or are you still in the process of backroom negotiations?

Frankly, I don't see any "new, strong candidate" emerging from the apparatchiks that make up the Democratic Party. I'd vote for Sanders in a heartbeat if I could legally vote. But he'd have to run one sizzling campaign to even come close to winning the primary. A Sanders-Franken ticket would have me sneaking across the border to commit repeated voter fraud.

by acanuck 8/3/2011 - 3:12 am

Repeated fraud. Wow, you're serious. Please go to swing states.

by Oxy Mora 8/3/2011 - 9:46 am (re: acanuck)

Alert Fox News: Left-wing international terrorist threatens to subvert American democracy

by Genghis 8/3/2011 - 10:52 am (re: acanuck)

There's a caveat: only if it's a Sanders-Franken ticket. Otherwise I'll stick to violating my own country's laws.

by acanuck 8/3/2011 - 1:56 pm (re: Genghis)

I guess what I would like people in my country to consider is 'what if another candidate is our only chance of winning?'

The premise is constantly being put forward that our 'only' chance of winning is to stick with president Obama which means we get more of the same.

But what if considering all of the factors, the only way we could win would be to find a new candidate.  Then I'm sure people would find and see options and we would find one.

by synchronicity 8/3/2011 - 11:29 am (re: acanuck)

New, strong candidates...hmm. The other day the following message ran across my little mental teleprompter and I haven't banished it yet:

Nancy Pelosi and Hillary Clinton...they hire Tina Fey and Amy Poehler to do publicity for them and run under the line "Bitch is the new black" from SNL a few years ago...they flip a coin at the end of the primary to decide which one is running for President and which for VP....they counter every objection to their candidacy by just laughing their butts off and saying "Nice try, loser"....

You have to admit that by the end of that primary everybody would know what it means to be a Democrat.

by erica20 8/3/2011 - 11:32 am (re: acanuck)

Nice. Lol.  Wouldn't that be something.

 

I appreciate any and all thinking outside the box.

I get that a lot of people believe in the 'this is better than the worst option' thing.  It's certainly comfortable thinking.

However, I encourage everyone to imagine the next four years of more of the same and where we will end up.  It may be so bad we can never recover.  I feel like we are losing this country and this president will not help us get it back... he will slowly cede his power every time and it will hurt and feel like this.  This is real.  We are really living this now.  Because people can still bear it now they think this is better than the worst option.  But after it gets even worse, will they feel the same way?

We are in some serious trouble here.

Nancy has been standing strong in all of this and I thank her a million times for that!:)

by synchronicity 8/3/2011 - 11:47 am (re: erica20)

I agree that Pelosi has done a good job--her "We get the sacrifice, they keep the money" really rang true.

by erica20 8/3/2011 - 12:28 pm (re: synchronicity)

People have noted that primarying LBJ cost the Democrats the presidency.

More likely Robert Kennedy's assassination did that - Kennedy would have been much stronger than Humphrey against a conservative field that included Nixon and George Wallace.

And it's amazing to remember that RFK got into the race on March 12 after New Hampshire and less than 3 months before the last primary. And 8 months before the general election. We're now 15 months away from the 2012 election.

by PeraclesPlease (not verified) 8/3/2011 - 4:53 am

People have noted that primarying LBJ cost the Democrats the presidency.

​With that and similar incidents in our history, I wonder if maybe cause and effect aren't being switched, or if a common cause is being ignored. Now, I'm not particularly inclined to primary Obama, even with as disappointed as I am in him, but I think that maybe LBJ's sagging popularity cost the Democrats the presidency and led to him being primaried. For those who point to other similar incidents, I think one can say this is a general trend - if a sitting president is primaried hard by his own party, it's a strong sign that he's lost a lot of popularity, and that he will most likely not be re-elected. So, rather than a strong primary being the cause of his loss, it was an early warning sign that he would lose. That said, it's also probably a contributing factor, which definitely muddies the water.

by Verified Atheist 8/3/2011 - 6:39 am (re: PeraclesPlease)

Horse Hocky ! It was the civil rights act and the anit-vietman war protests that cost the democrats the presidency.

by cmaukonen 8/3/2011 - 9:16 pm (re: Verified Atheist)

Those two factors get cited frequently as key.  Plus the Chicago Democratic convention was a disaster and that might also have had an impact contributing to a Nixon lead just a bit too large for Humphrey to overcome with his late charge, after HH finally began distancing himself from Johnson on the war issue.  You're right--no way Johnson lost because he was primaried.  

To argue close to the opposite of that--that he was primaried because he was seen as increasingly likely to lose (on account of him destroying his credibility with lies about the war and the domestic unrest/rioting that was triggering a backlash against his domestic initiatives)---looks a lot more plausible in hindsight than it did at the time Senator Gene McCarthy made the startling and, most thought, quixotic if not nutty, decision to enter the New Hampshire presidential primary.  

Even with all of Johnson's problems, no one early in 1968 thought there was any chance that Johnson would drop out, not be the nominee, or be challenged in any serious way for the nomination.  New Hampshire completely upset that applecart.  Kennedy got in after that and then Johnson dropped out, to the astonishment of everyone.

All that happened in the early months of 1968.  One moral of that history is that a few months in politics in turbulent times can be an eternity.  Johnson was considered a consummate politician, perhaps the most commanding and masterful of his day.  I'm sure he thought no one would dare challenge a sitting President for his party's nomination, least of all him.  But once someone did, and once the New Hampshire primary saw McCarthy get an astonishing 40% or so of the popular vote, this intimidating, formidable man seemed to collapse psychologically very quickly after that.  His unraveling and exit from the race occurred in remarkably short order.

by AmericanDreamer 8/3/2011 - 10:59 pm (re: cmaukonen)

Yeah I heard some pundits talking today about how the whole 'they lost because they were "primaried' was likely a myth if you look at the other circumstances.  Much like we could lose even putting everything behind president Obama because of all of the realities that exist.

That's why I am not buying into it.

by synchronicity 8/4/2011 - 12:33 am (re: AmericanDreamer)

Just to try to avoid being misunderstood, in offering these comments on the 1968 and 1948 history I was trying just to get that history right for its own sake, not to make a case for or against primarying Obama.  I certainly wasn't trying to make a general case that primarying an incumbent President has never, and cannot, hurt the re-election chances of that President. I am on record as of a while back saying that if Sanders registered as a Democrat that as of that date I'd vote for Sanders.  All that was before the debt ceiling fiasco. Circumstances can change very rapidly, and they have changed even since then.  It seems to me that, as a fairly natural and predictable response to events many people are thinking about, or rethinking,  their views and preferences.  

My point is a desire to get the history as close to right as possible, without having it (deliberately or not) revised so as to support a desired course of action today (either to primary Obama or not).  Different folks can and will argue the implications of it for today either way--or say it has no implications properly understood, distinguishing those circumstances from today's.  History gets manipulated and distorted frequently by those in the present wanting to use it to support a preferred course of action.  That is pretty much a given but that doesn't mean it is necessarily helpful.    

 

by AmericanDreamer 8/4/2011 - 7:03 am (re: synchronicity)

Also, I don't know if the pundits were talking about this, but if Sanders were to re-register as a Democrat and challenge Obama in New Hampshire that would trigger a huge amount of media discussion about LBJ-McCarthy in 1968.  

It could also provide perhaps as close to a test case to the scenario I wrote about in my blog on a potential Sanders challenge, where I asserted that if Obama and Sanders made their cases to a group of 20 somethings selected randomly from among that population, I believe a majority would favor Sanders' policies and direction for the present and future over Obama's.  That was not long after Obama's SOTU where he set forth his Win the Future concept. New Hampshire, as New Hampshirites like Dan knows, really scrutinize candidates up close and personal.  There is real opportunity for personal exchanges on issues with candidates where very well-informed citizens, and not just the media, get to pose questions to the candidates.

Some questions the debt ceiling matter raises, it seem to me are:

Is Obama really committed to austerity economic policy?  

Even if he had a different Congress?  

Will he seek a pro-Keynesian/pro stimulus Congress and mandate?

What, if anything, will he say on his intentions/desires on austerity vs. more stimulus during his re-election campaign?  

If the answer, effectively, is that it depends on what the makeup of Congress is, what does that say about whether he is leading or following, and would we want someone who is to that degree a follower of (conservative) Congressional opinion as our next President?  

But more directly to the point, if one believes further austerity economic policy is likely to make the economy worse rather than better, and if that is Obama's intention, then for those voters for whom the economy is a major issue, what is the case for voting to re-elect the President?  That we will, or may, get somewhat more equitable austerity under Obama than under his Republican opponent, whomever that turns out to be?  

Isn't there something terribly wrong with our republic if no one offering Keynesian/stimulus economic proposals ever even has a chance to go before the voters, argue that case, and offer them that choice?  

by AmericanDreamer 8/4/2011 - 7:38 am (re: synchronicity)

Given that first two-word sentence, I'm thinking that you're thinking you're disagreeing with me, but you're not. Re-read what I wrote. What you're providing are reasons for the loss in popularity that I referred to. (I.e., that led to him getting primaried and losing the election.)

by Verified Atheist 8/4/2011 - 5:55 am (re: cmaukonen)

People have noted that primarying LBJ cost the Democrats the presidency.  More likely Robert Kennedy's assassination did that -

I agree with you that it's almost surely not the case that primarying LBJ cost the Democrats the presidency in '68.  It's also not at all clear RFK would have won the nomination had he lived.  Schlesinger and other Kennedy family loyalists maintain he would have.  But even after winning California he had a steep hill to climb.  His best chance was to try to persuade Richard Daley, father of the current Chicago mayor and the person who controlled the single biggest bloc of delegates, that he/RFK had the best chance of winning.  Daley was partial to the Kennedys.  So who knows.

Primarying Johnson might have helped the Democrats by getting him out of the race before it was too late for the Democratic nominee to have any chance of winning.  Johnson had completely destroyed his credibility over Vietnam.  The backlash against the War on Poverty and the rioting associated with it was hurting him badly as well, which is why Nixon highlighted "law and order" and appealed to "the silent [law-abiding and desirous of reigning in the chaos and violence] majority" as two of his stock soundbite campaign phrases.  

Others have noted that Truman was primaried in 1948, by Henry Wallace from the left, and went on to win, in a 4-person race also featuring Strom Thurmond as the Dixiecrat nominee in addition to Dewey.  As Robert Kuttner among others has reminded folks as recently as a year or so ago, whether because of the primary challenge or due to other factors, Truman moved sharply and aggressively to the left, finding his voice and connecting with the public to pull out his come-from-behind upset victory.

by AmericanDreamer 8/3/2011 - 10:30 pm (re: PeraclesPlease)

FWIW, I was just invited to the Merrimack County Democrats Annual BBQ and Potluck Dinner.  The featured guest is Bernie Sanders.

by Dan Kervick 8/3/2011 - 6:32 am

It's just a ruse to keep you buying into the Democratic brand, Dan.

by brewmn 8/3/2011 - 9:10 am (re: Dan Kervick)

Of course, Bernie Sanders isn't technically a Democrat (although he caucuses with them), which makes it that much more interesting when he's a featured speaker at a Democratic picnic. I feel there are a lot of people who would be Socialists if it weren't for the label socialist (similar to Another Trope's point elsewhere).

by Verified Atheist 8/3/2011 - 9:17 am (re: brewmn)

Sure.  But right now there is obviously strong Democratic demand to hear Bernie Sanders.  Otherwise, he wouldn't be the featured attraction at a party fund-raising barbecue.  Given that Sanders is well-known for mixing stern criticism of the administration in with his attacks on the right, that's significant.

by Dan Kervick 8/3/2011 - 9:50 am (re: brewmn)

Sanders in N.H at a Democratic picnic is significant and I'm glad you're bringing it up. Frankly, I think if Sanders decided to run in opposition to Obama, he would repeat much of the sensation of Dean in 2004, nothing to do with Vermont itself, more capturing the buzz and getting an absolute ton of donations from the internet. What the outcome would be is absolutely unpredictable and includes the possible result that Perry would be elected and could texecute the remains of America left standing from Bush.  

I think the ball is in Bernie's, as he is known in Vermont, court. I'd be very, very interested to hear in detail what he says at the picnic. I actually think he has a heavy responsibility to make the right choice.

By the way if my memory serves me well, it was Al Lowenstein, then the hard left's brilliant spokesman and who had a grass roots army behind him of former Young Democrats, who started the "dump Johnson" movement. So it would be interesting to compare the two situations in detail--that is, from the inside of the Democratic party, and from outside employing a surrogate.   

by Oxy Mora 8/3/2011 - 10:16 am (re: Dan Kervick)

Let's just keep in mind that another real possibility here is that we stick with this president so many of us are so disappointed in and the republican wins anyway.

If we are going to hold one we certainly should hold the other. 

Yes, if we stick with Obama, we could lose.  Given that, I would like a different option instead of being told I MUST stick with this sole choice.

by synchronicity 8/3/2011 - 11:10 am (re: Oxy Mora)

I have a real problem deciding where to allocate my modest contributions. So far I've contributed to a Progressive PAc and I feel they are making an impact in the Wisconsin recall effort. I haven't responded to the flurry of emails from the Obama campaign. As we move along, not that my contributions amount to a hill of beans, but I think specific races, recalls, etc., in specific states will be my thing until the smoke clears with the economy and we know who the opposing candidate is(my guess is Perry). I think the 
Va. Senate race is very critical.  For now I think the Progressive Pacs is the way to go, try to influence things in Wis. and perhaps Ohio.

There is a drum beat of bad economic news today. Announcements of corporate layoffs. You almost wonder if corporate America has said, let's try to dump him with a bad economy, what the heck profits will be down for a year, but after that it will be nirvana.

 

by Oxy Mora 8/3/2011 - 1:19 pm (re: synchronicity)

If you're in Virginia, I'd argue the Virginia gubernatorial race is also very critical. It's arguably not of national consequence, but I think it's very critical to Virginia's future. (I happen to think it's also likely to be of national consequence, but that's not as obvious.)

by Verified Atheist 8/3/2011 - 1:24 pm (re: Oxy Mora)

Did you see that Ken Cuccinelli is the heir apparent for Rep Governor candidate?  Barf!  That guy is toxic!

by CVille Dem 8/3/2011 - 5:46 pm (re: Verified Atheist)

He has visited me in my nightmares.

by Verified Atheist 8/3/2011 - 8:39 pm (re: CVille Dem)

My wife calls him "Kookinelli".  He really is off the charts scary.

by AmericanDreamer 8/3/2011 - 10:31 pm (re: Verified Atheist)

Interesting. But why of national significance? By taking this particular springboard for Republicans away? 

by Oxy Mora 8/3/2011 - 11:02 pm (re: Verified Atheist)

Same question for VA.  That election is in fall 2013.  McConnell, the current GOP governor, has his name kicked around as a possible VP nominee on the GOP ticket next year.  VA, is it that you think the 2013 election sets the direction for Virginia's federal election pattern for awhile? That if Dems win the governorship VA can continue to vote Dem in presidential elections and elect Dem senators, whereas if the GOP wins back to back gubernatorial elections VA could go back to being GOP territory in presidential and senatorial elections going forward?

by AmericanDreamer 8/3/2011 - 11:09 pm (re: Oxy Mora)

To answer you and Oxy Mora, it's not that I think it's of immediate national importance, but rather that a lot of national leaders tend to come from Virginia. However, perhaps I'm giving Virginia more credit for its effect on the nation than it deserves (or can be blamed for).

by Verified Atheist 8/4/2011 - 5:58 am (re: AmericanDreamer)

As others have noted, there is no "strong" candidate to replace him among Democrats.  Any Democrat who could get nominated is likely too centrist for those on the left advocating a primary challenge to Obama, so you're going to be disappointed whether Obama runs or not.  For example, lost among all of the wailing and rending of garments over the debt ceiling bill, no one seems to have noted that the bill that passed was substantially identical to the one proposed by the Majority Leader, who happens to be an, um, Democrat.

I won't tear you to shreds, although I think you're proposed course of action is an act of political self-immolation for anyone to the left of Mitt Romney to propose.  I'm amazed that people are already predicting an imminent Obama defeat in 2012.  While it's possible due to bad economic conditions, conditions that the Republicans are determined to preserve (if they can't make them any worse, that is), I still think his re-election is considerably more likely than not.  For an interesting take on his prospects in 2012, and interesting polling data from 2010, I would recommend this:

http://www.nybooks.com/articles/archives/2011/aug/18/next-election-surprising-reality/

by brewmn 8/3/2011 - 9:23 am

FWIW, I agree with you brew. I definitely understand synchronicity's frustration, but I think the only logical course of action is to support Obama in 2012. That said, as the least bad option, I'm not particularly enthusiastic about it. Also, I'm humble enough to know the limits of my own logic.

by Verified Atheist 8/3/2011 - 9:42 am (re: brewmn)

Well, again, with the many voter suppression laws that have been passed, no ACORN, a weakened union front, and serious lack of faith that there is anything to hope for from this president that more of the same....

 

I think we are in serious trouble putting all of our faith in Obama for this next election.  I understand the risks but I think the greatest is sticking to the current course. 

We need serious voter enthusiasm and to work 'harder' than we have before and I don't see him inspiring that.  I think we have to do something 'different' or we will lose.

There MUST be a way.

by synchronicity 8/3/2011 - 11:16 am (re: Verified Atheist)

Much depends on the economy.  There is increasing worry in the US, Europe and Australia that things will not just continue to sag along, with a mild though uninspiring recovery, but that we are actually headed for another recession.   Europe is unraveling.  Retail sales in Australia just fell for the first time in a year, as consumer spending did here in the States for the first time in two years.  If things head further south of where they are now, it won't matter what current polls say.

At some point, politicians actually need to pay attention to the way the real world is going, and not just to the ephemeral public opinion temperature.

I'm hoping that as soon as Obama figures out that there is going to be no magical confidence boom due to the fact that Congress just passed an austerity budget - and it shouldn't take him too long to figure that out - then some sheer cold-sweat electoral terror will set in, he will sack the team of dimwitted hacks who have been giving him such a bum steer, hire some bolder thinkers, and try to re-tool his economic policies rapidly, and before it is too late.  He's hanging by a thread.

It's important for people to communicate their dissatisfaction loudly, if that's what they're feeling, because that's the only thing that can pierce the bubble of yes-men, flatterers and conventional thinkers that Presidents tend to surround themselves with as they follow misguided policy courses.

by Dan Kervick 8/3/2011 - 9:46 am (re: brewmn)

At his Twitter town hall meeting he showed his hand.

He stated people bought homes they shouldn't have bought, he then proceeded to say their was no government program to fix the mess.

Hey dummy that because you didn't fight for one, Obama didn't say to the Nation "we bailed out the bankers and now lets help the poor and middle class. 

No he said "too many bought homes they shouldn't: so there will be no help" 

I hope he loses, I hope we primary someone who knows; unless the government HELPS the homeowners regain confidence, instead of cutting our throats, it will be a slow recovery. 

He could have done something, but he didn't . He didn't do something, because he really didn't care. He's to stubborn to admit he screwed the homeowner class.

We fought a world war, we put a man on the moon, and this betrayer throws the homeownership class under the bus.

He states "Theres nothing the Federal government can do" BS  

Instead he gives us "Cash for Clunkers, he gives us tax credits for Solar panels, but NO real help for underwater mortgages; he leaves that job to someone else, he allows the sharks to assist those suffering; homeowners will have to fend for themselves in the shark infested waters   

He either doesn't understand the dilemma or he really doesn't give a crap, that many Americans LOST a lot of the wealth factor.

There is no amount of pixie dust to convince me or other homeowners under water, to start spending.

It's enough I fear not being able to make the mortgage, and we have a Hoover president who doesn't care about homeowners.

Obama" let them live in tents and eat cake"   

by Resistance 8/3/2011 - 10:17 am (re: Dan Kervick)

I hope he loses...

Be careful what you wish for. You sound like the teabaggers who just don't care about the country anymore, and are here to burn it down.

There are dire consequences to letting them have control of the country, just in case you haven't gotten a taste of what they are all about. You may find it hard to believe that life under their control would be worse, but it will.

Sadly, I suspect we are about to go into another recession, which will make Obama's reelection even more problematic, so you may well get your wish. But I don't think you'll be happy about it once you start living it.

by stillidealistic 8/3/2011 - 11:15 am (re: Resistance)

I am about to lose most everything I sacrificed my working life for, so I could have something other than an empty promise of Social Security. Hoping the Democrats really had my back?

This daffy duck president could give a rats (A) about the working poor, Obama is concerned about one group over all others; his capitalist friends.

The sooner we go into the final tail spin, the sooner you Obama apologists will recognize, Obama was not any better for those of us financially destroyed. Those of us who saw the opportunity to reign in the abuses of capitalism, were set back to our detriment, because we were lulled into HOPING this Daffy Duck, had our backs .

We are most likely headed for another deep recession, because that is what the Capitalists want and why not? The people have no leverage to force the private sector to invest. The Rich can ride out the coming financial storm, and the peasants falling deeper and deeper into despair, will gladly accept lower wages; making us more competitive with the rest of the worlds slaves. 

Have you heard Obama speak this?

The sooner we have the debate in America about whether we want capitalist shills enslaving the working class or We the people are not going to be slowly bled, with the eventuality being the same, THE DEATH OF THE WORKING CLASS, FOR THE BENEFIT OF THE CAPITALIST CLASS.

Obama deceived us into believing in hope;  hope of what? 

We need to primary this betrayer, if you don't want to join the chorus of those who've been screwed over by this deceiver, we'll just have to suffer until you wake up?  

You want Social programs? Don't vote for a Capitalist Democrat......DOH

If  you do; you just won't get to where you want to be. Your hope is unfounded, your trusting in a fantasy.

Allowing the Capitalists to continue to destroy any hopes that the government, will ever provide the Security you strife for.  

It's not about YOUR  safety net, the Capitalists are concerned with. They only care about their own class, slaves can be found anywhere; besides the dumb American slaves will continue to anoint  Capitalist servant leaders and the stupid peasants will continue to put them into power.

The stupid American slaves will continue to buy goods that continue to undermine their financial security.  

What's in these new trade agreements that Obama is pushing?  Another Brick in the Wall, to subjugate the American working class?   

by Resistance 8/3/2011 - 2:19 pm (re: stillidealistic)

I'm sorry for your impending loss. It sounds as if (along with my son) are the poster children for the government programs that the banks dragged their feet on implementing. I don't blame you for feeling discouraged and even bitter, but the teabaggers will not help you either. In fact, they will hasten the day when we are all slaves to the "job creators."

by stillidealistic 8/3/2011 - 3:59 pm (re: Resistance)

Yes.  But.  By conspicuously withholding support from, or even actively working against, the politician or the party more sympathetic to the problems facing working-and-middle class people, we need to be sure we aren't making things worse.  For example, the economic troubles in Europe are leading to a violent anti-immigrant backlash, and in America the party poised to benefit from unhappiness with Obama is the one who is seeking to cure our bad economy by destroying public sector employees unions and cutting taxes on corporations and the wealthy even further than their present historically low levels.

Globally, the easy credit bubble has popped.  I agree with you that this presents a deep, fundamental problem for the economically advanced world.  But giving free reign to the forces of cultural resentment and laissez faire is not going to benefit working people in the short or the long run.     

by brewmn 8/3/2011 - 10:48 am (re: Dan Kervick)

Brew, this hasn't been much talked about but as for the economy there is the possibility of a snap back effect. While June consumer spending was terrible, the July sales of cars was up significantly and were not in the June sales figures. Corporate profits are high. There is not much inventory overhang.

The debt thing was disconcerting to me and I pulled in my horns. I think others did as well. The best thing about the debt agreement was the elimination of the hostage taking. At least we are protected from, in effect, a black swan, which would tank the economy, our jobs and our savings.

This is a long winded way of saying that the economy may not be as bad as it looks at the moment, given the huge component of consumer spending represented by cars, and the lack of cars on lots due to the parts shortages from Japan. I've heard that the pent up demand for cars could increase the GDP by as much as 1.5%

by Oxy Mora 8/3/2011 - 10:31 am (re: brewmn)

I understand why you see it that way.

But consider the possibility for a moment that instead of the usual premise that 'we can only win if we stick with President Obama', the reality might be that we can 'only win' if we find a new candidate.

Considering all of the factors right now it is possible that we are marching to our doom sticking with president Obama. 

There is not just the economy which is likely to go into a deeper recession now, unemployment, voter suppression laws, No ACORN, a weakened union, and a hugely disappointed and disillusioned base... this does not spell success.  And tell that base that what they are fighting for is more of the same for the next four years.

I don't think our anger and outrage of the right will be enough to put us over the top.

What if the surest way to lose the next election is to stay the course?

by synchronicity 8/3/2011 - 11:36 am (re: brewmn)

Obama's new campaign slogan: "Change you can believe in"

Really........ I mean it this time.

Message: DOA

by Resistance 8/3/2011 - 2:26 pm (re: synchronicity)

"What if the surest way to lose the next election is to stay the course?"

What if the surest way to win the election is to stay the course?  Read the essay I linked to.  The right was able to capitalize on trends that characterize every off-year election.  Obama's margin of victory in 2008 consisted of voters who traditionally don't turn out in off-years.  Most of these people can be counted on to vote in 2012.  That, combined with changing demographics, a weak Republican candidate (and all of the that have announced to date are very weak, IMO), and the Republicans' inability to date to shift primary blame for the bad economy to Obama, makes him, again in my opinion, very likely to win in 2012.  Furthermore, if Tea Party extremism dominates the Republican primary, as looks likely, Democrats are going to pick up a lot of swing seats just because moderate voters in those districts are going to try to keep the TP crazy at bay. 

I think you are posing a worst-case scenario that, at this moment, is not supported by any polling of the probable 2012 electorate.  I can sympathize with your unhappiness at our current political situation; I can't agree with your proposed solutions at all.

by brewmn 8/3/2011 - 3:28 pm (re: synchronicity)

My point is actually that either can be equally true if you pile up the reasons for either rationale.

by synchronicity 8/4/2011 - 2:28 pm (re: brewmn)

Maybe the answer isn't looking for the singular hero. The frustration is understandable, but I think at times we are losing sight of the fact that the Republicans are there because the People put them there.  The proper path is simply to replace the Republicans with those who are willing to work for the common good.  Maybe some of them won't pass the liberal purity test, but at least we won't be fending off those willing to take the country over the cliff out of some misguided ideology. 

For instance, in my Congressional district, IN 6, Pence is leaving to become governor of the state, and this opens up the chance to either get a Democrat in there (most likely a Blue Dog) or at least a sane Republican.  It is going to be difficult because of redistricting*, the 6 is even more conservative than before. (*thanks to the 2010 elections that swept in a R dominated state government).

The notion that any single person could walk into the political environment of today with a House and Senate dominated by the Republicans and achieve anything desired by those on the left is pure fantastical thinking. There is no political Underdog who can swoop in and save the day.

by Another Trope 8/3/2011 - 11:11 am

Obviously I disagree somewhat.  I am not expecting some perfect person to come in and make things 'perfect'.  I am not suffering from such a delusion.  But what is clear and unsustainable in my view is that this president by his very nature will produce more of the same regarding the results we have gotten so far.  I must fight for better than that because I think it is absolutely 'crucial'.  I do not believe this president will change his personality.  However I find it absolutely reasonable and intelligent to believe that someone with a stronger and different personality could have us getting 'better' results than this.  I absolutely believe that.  And there is nothing fantastical about it in my view.

by synchronicity 8/3/2011 - 11:20 am (re: Another Trope)

It is entirely possible that a stronger personality would have had different results.  Whether those would have been positive or negative is the unknown.  A key reason HillaryCare broke down was because the White House tried to ram a single version through and it turned allies into opponents, even within the Democratic party.  Given the highly charged partisan atmosphere even in 2009, it is possible a stronger personality would have created great theater but no tangible output.

The part I was calling fantastical was to believe that a uberstrong liberal president could achieve much of anything if, after the 2012 elections, Republicans control both the House and Senate.  There could be a whole lot of vetos going on, but the end result is that things remain basically the same.  A standstill for at least two years the best possible outcome (because it won't be Republican party Clinton took on and beat). 

 

by Another Trope 8/3/2011 - 11:38 am (re: synchronicity)

It's not just personality.  It's policy choices.  A lot of us thought we were voting for Barack Obama in the 2008 primaries specifically to bring an end to the Clintonian, Third Way, DLC era of Democratic Party politics.   But then what did Obama do?  He appointed all the same Clinton hacks we were trying to clean out.   Why did Obama even run against the Clintons if he was just going to follow Clintonomics?

Bill Clinton likes to pontificate about his tactical smarts.  But the fact is that he and Hillary Clinton are disciples of the same screwed-up neoliberalism that brought us the Rubin, Greenspan, Geithner pro-Wall Street, anti-deregulation, anti-activist conformism that crashed our economy in 2007 and 2008 and has us dragging anchor right now.  And the Clintons give no indication they would do anything substantially different.

I'm sick of Daley, Sperling, Geithner, Rubin, Bayh, Bowles, Clinton and that whole gang.  The Third Way era has to end!

by Dan Kervick 8/3/2011 - 12:07 pm (re: Another Trope)

Chances are that the only way to end the Third Way era is to become part of the Third Way era and morph it from the inside.  I'm a pessimist in that I just don't see any realistic means in the short term to creating a powerful Progressive Way that comes to dominate the Democratic Party and starts its era.

by Another Trope 8/3/2011 - 12:23 pm (re: Dan Kervick)

The Third Way era will end when it's failures are manifest to all.  Nobody had to morph Neville Chamberlain's brand of politics from the inside.  Hitler invaded Poland and Chamberlain's approach went up in flames.

by Dan Kervick 8/3/2011 - 12:53 pm (re: Another Trope)

I think that analogy is limited in its usefulness.  There is the Third Way (which brought us the prosperity of the tech/housing bubble), the Tea Party, globalization, etc etc.  When Hitler invaded Poland it was clear the Nazis invaded Poland.  But when companies aren't hiring, why that it is and who is to blame is not as clear.

by Another Trope 8/3/2011 - 1:03 pm (re: Dan Kervick)

When the economy tanks a second time, and Wall Street guys are still pulling down multimillion dollar salaries as millions more people are thrown out of their homes and onto the street, I don't think the line, "Yeah, but, the rich create jobs!" is going to have much currency any more.   The economy has already shed most of the jobs by powerless people at the bottom.  The next round will affect more of the people who help create public opinion.

by Dan Kervick 8/3/2011 - 2:23 pm (re: Another Trope)

That line's day is already done--and I think we should not wait to expose it as a ridiculous idea. (Preferably by demanding that the Rich do their part for the economy by creating a million private-sector jobs by Christmas or lose their tax cut, then watch what happens.)

by erica20 8/3/2011 - 7:48 pm (re: Dan Kervick)

By Christmas,  they will have moved to the Caymans

They got the bailout, they raided the treasury, theres not much left for them to stick around for. Stick around so you can tax them?

Except maybe to watch us grovel for the crumbs.

The rich will just continue to move their operations overseas and they'll import, and the sucker peasants will continue to buy.

Enriching the Rich, without having to pay American taxes. They don't have to live in America to reap the financial rewards, people will continue to buy their imported crap.  

by Resistance 8/3/2011 - 8:11 pm (re: erica20)

I feel extremely confident that a different person, that did not enter every negotiation by giving so much ground to the extent that the compromise in the end is giving even more than what the other side asked for, could be a better negotiator and less of a capitulator.  Very confident.

by synchronicity 8/3/2011 - 1:19 pm (re: Another Trope)

Also frankly, looking down the road at more of the same... I seriously don't think we can afford it and I don't think we can recover from it.

by synchronicity 8/3/2011 - 1:22 pm (re: Another Trope)

I agree that there is no hero out there who is going to save us all.  What we have to do is figure out how to exert pressure on the process so we can push people away from bad an ineffective and conservative policy agendas into smarter and more effective ones.

By the way, I'm not a progressive because I have some touchy-feely emotions about niceness and fuzzy liberal bunnies hopping around everywhere.  I'm a progressive because I think progressivism would work if people tried it.  If we had pursued more progressive policies more people would have jobs and the economy would be moving.  Conservative and middle-of-the-road economics have proven to be dumb and ineffective economics.  I refuse to believe we can't convince people that if we shift our economic focus away from protecting the interests of the top 5%, and toward advancing the interests of the bottom 95%, then we would mostly all be better off.

 

by Dan Kervick 8/3/2011 - 11:59 am (re: Another Trope)

Part of the problem is that the Republicans have convinced people (or reaffirmed an existing belief) that protecting the top 5% is the way to protect the bottom 95%.  They also tend to link the fate of the top 5% with the fate of the small business owner.  An attack on one is an attack on the other. 

by Another Trope 8/3/2011 - 12:17 pm (re: Dan Kervick)

Yes, these powers of republican persuasion are superhuman, aren't they?  On the other hand, it's easy to convince people of irrational things if you don't have equally powerful voices on the other side arguing against those irrational things, and labeling stupid views as stupid views.

by Dan Kervick 8/3/2011 - 12:24 pm (re: Another Trope)

As I wrote "convinced" I thought that was entirely true, and added the reaffirm comment.  In fact I would say that they did more of the reaffirming of and expanding upon existing beliefs about the economy, the role of government, and individual responsibility.  On one of the blogs linked to on this site yesterday, one of the comments below was from someone who was "why do you want to punish them for being successful."  The republicans and conservative think tanks didn't put that thought into the heads of the rank and file.  It was already there in some form or fashion. 

The other side is that there is enough rationalism being used that the fringe tangents that are irrational don't seem irrational.  It is true that large corporations hire a lot of people.  When the auto makers were on the verge of imploding, it was true that if they did the economic fallout in the larger region would be something that would dwarf whatever the government could do to intervene and make better.  If the government does "something" that hampers the ability of those corporations to maintain or grow their employee base, this is in principle not a good thing.  Therefore, (and this is where the irrationality starts jump in) anything the government might do that is deemed one of those "something"s is to be avoided.  The same line of logic of too much debt is bad, therefore the government debt has to be dealt with at any cost, and anything that raises the debt must be bad (and thus avoiding such complex thought that if it increases revenues, then this addresses the debt issue). Etc etc.

The point being though it is not so hard to persuade someone who has already been won over to the line of thinking.  What the Republicans are good at is actually not so much persuading but getting people really stoked up about an issue once they have bought into it.  These tax increases are an attack on your right to worship as a Christian, etc etc.

by Another Trope 8/3/2011 - 12:39 pm (re: Dan Kervick)

double post

by Another Trope 8/3/2011 - 12:45 pm (re: Dan Kervick)

The point being though it is not so hard to persuade someone who has already been won over to the line of thinking. 

Agreed.  Sometimes I think a helpful activity would be for a series of "teach-ins" organized around the country for grassroots activists, or maybe an online session hosted for such individuals by progressives who know how to frame an economic argument and who know what to say and how to say it in response to the things which opponents say.  David Coates I think could be a good person to do something like this.  There are others.  The point would be to help those at the grassroots level develop skill and confidence in their ability to make the progressive case on economic policy matters. 

I realize that does not address the question of how to win the media battles, where we need more people actually arguing the sound-bite friendly or limited-time progressive case on economic policy, and doing that well.  There are people who can do this, and do do this.  Just not enough of them. 

 

by AmericanDreamer 8/3/2011 - 12:52 pm (re: Another Trope)

Then are things like investing in early childhood education, where the evidence shows for every dollar invested, the community eventually sees a seven dollar return.  In my community, we getting all the business focused on investing resources into the poorer neighborhoods through the early childhood education frame.  Of course, part of that is ensuring that the families that these children live in are more financially stable since it is hard to learn if the cupboards are bare.  It is interesting watching these business executives, many who are republicans through and through, getting all jazzed up about community development and organizing as a result.  Of course, they are doing it from an "economic development" approach.  But as the great environmental Hazel Wolf said, "if you want to an accountant to understand environmental issues, you have to talk to them like an accountant."

by Another Trope 8/3/2011 - 1:25 pm (re: AmericanDreamer)

Yes, and if there's one thing that sums up my criticism of Democrats and especially our President, it's the refusal to tell the truth about things.

We are coming to a point where somebody needs to finally say: There is a bad economy, and then there is doing the right thing. Republicans would have you believe that doing the wrong things for each other will fix our economy. This is not true.

It's time to end this nonsense of sacrificing our sense of shared purpose to an economic machine that represents the interests of almost none of us. We are thinking people, but when I look around sometimes I see a bunch of cowering villagers dropping our money and our children into a volcano on the orders of high priests snickering as they wave their arbitrage charts and Dow Jones reports--charts and reports that always show that the only way out of our mess is their volcano. This is craziness, and it is time to be honest about it.

Doing the right things for each other may not fix our economy either. But doing things that show we care about each other during this difficult time will lay the groundwork for a shared recovery. And make no mistake, there will be no recovery without this groundwork, only a miserable slide into becoming the kind of nation that America once went to war to vanquish.

The Republicans want to silence people who believe in legitimate commerce and care about ordinary Americans, in the desperate hope that giving the Rich more and more power will somehow create a rising tide that lifts all boats. This is not true, and I think even the "Founding Fathers" about whom Tea Partiers love to talk, would have said so. There's a place for commerce in our Republic, but it's not the only reason we are here. There are better, more important things than the economic well-being of the richest among us.

It's high time to tell the truth about this, and Obama is not telling it in a way that everybody can hear.

 

by erica20 8/3/2011 - 1:01 pm (re: Dan Kervick)

Obama is not telling it in a way that everybody can hear.

That's because Obama has another agenda. it does not serve Obama' interest 

The old adage: You cannot serve two masters" should drive the point home.

Obama serves someone, it just so happens it's not US.

by Resistance 8/3/2011 - 2:52 pm (re: erica20)

ps sorry about the long comment. you know how i am....

by erica20 8/3/2011 - 1:23 pm (re: Dan Kervick)

Ha--if long comments were a crime I'd have been summarily executed many months ago.  I thought yours was a medium-length comment, erica20. wink

by AmericanDreamer 8/3/2011 - 2:35 pm (re: erica20)

Obama is just another typical politician whose ego, not his desire to do anything for the nation, is what got him where he is.  There's no way in hell this man steps down unless he's primaried and forced to do so.  We know this isn't going to happen so the question is can anyone, in good conscience, vote for this man when he is a Republican in all but name?  I certainly can't and won't.  There's little difference between his dismantling the New Deal and the Republicans doing it except if the Republicans do it the congressional Democrats will oppose it.  If Obama is dismantling Social Security, Medicare, Medicaid, etc... then the Democrats will silently allow it as they did with the idiotic and inexcusable fake crisis over the debt ceiling.

by oleeb 8/3/2011 - 10:51 pm

by Richard Day 8/4/2011 - 2:53 am

lol.  Thanks Dd:)

by synchronicity 8/4/2011 - 3:43 am (re: Richard Day)

I completely disagree.

Unless Obama is renominated the blacks will react at least as strongly  as the Irish Catholics would have reacted it JFK had been rejected by the Democrats in 1964.. And that won't be limited to the 2012 election.

The following 4 years of Republican/Tea Party  rule will not only  be a disaster in itself but almost certainly also involve legislation,, for example on voter registration, which will  guarantee its long term control of the government

by Flavius 8/4/2011 - 10:45 am

That's an interesting perspective given that the minority communities are suffering the most in our economy right now and that suffering is likely to grow.  We completely disagree on this.  I give the black community more credit than that.  Especially if he were to stand down.  If he keeps doing what he is doing, which is all that we can expect, I seriously hope he gets convinced that he should step down..

by synchronicity 8/21/2011 - 3:25 am (re: Flavius)

Latest Comments

more