Nelson has spent the last couple years voting in lockstep with the Republican minority on dozens of key issues, particularly around spending and debt.

..

while the Democratic Senatorial Campaign Committee spent over $1 million on their own ad blitz to bolster his image.

More PROOF of where the Democratic Party stands. How Nelson has voted is a matter of public record. He votes with Republicans. Yet the DEMOCRATIC LEADERS CHOSE to spend big money to defend him.

Yet we STILL get folks on here defending the Democrats as failing because of the Republicans. They don’t look, or refuse to see, all the smoking gun evidence that’s out there as to what it is the “Democrats” in DC actually DO. Oh, I admit they talk a good game. Almost always have. If talking is good enough for you, then by all means, I recommend supporting Democrats.

But don’t be an asshole and crap on us here at FDL for merely pointing out the FACTS that show where the Democratic Party’s real motives lie. You can deny reality all you want to, but don’t expect everyone else to live in your fantasy world.

From Obama continuing and even expanding EVERY BUSH Constitutional violation, to never, ever, working toward actual progressive goals but always working against them, the evidence is clear. Bury your head in the sand all you want, but the fact remains your dearly beloved Democratic Party is an equal co-conspirator with the Republican Party in representing the desires of the few over the needs of the many.

I gotta come up with a shorter term for “moronic elitist assholes.”

The vote to keep Harry Reid as majority leader (and Democrats in control of all the committees) is by far the most important vote in Congress.

Keeping Democrats in control of the Senate means, among other things:

a) Continuing to confirm Obama’s judicial nominees versus confirming none at all, or confirming all of the next Republican President’s judicial nominees, and

b) Preventing Medicaid from immediately turning into a tiny block grant to states, if a Republican President is elected (along with the remaining portion of the Ryan budget that can be enacted with reconciliation).

Now, I know there are many here who don’t really believe there is any difference between a Democratic-appointed judiciary and a Republican-appointed judiciary, and believe that conservative policy like the Ryan budget can be a useful tool to get voters to vote for progressives in the future (notwithstanding, or indeed because of, all the pain that it would cause in the near and medium term).

But for those progressives here that want progressive policy to actually be enacted, and progressive judges to actually be seated, this is a very bad development indeed. We should always push for the most progressive candidate that can win. That means ejecting Senators like Joe Lieberman in Connecticut, while refraining from doing so in states like Nebraska (that would defeat a progressive Democrat by 30 points). This may very well mean supporting a Democratic Senator who often breaks with the party line for symbolic reasons when he is not the deciding vote, if there is no better candidate that could win.

I’d rather have teh DSCC spend their money on some one who isn’t running than on some one who is.

Thank you, OFG. My sentiments exactly.

Is this part of Nelson’s golden parachute?

I believe there is a diff bet Rs & Ds. Among other matters, Ds would have a much easier job at turning Medicaid into block grants and Medicare into Medical savings accounts bc their motives would be pure. /s

So who doesn’t understand that the point of campaign spending is to a great extent, campaign spending.

Big business gives a lot of money to the parties, and then they give it back via media purchases.

Our election process is a front for what is basically a corporate entitlement program.

Who the hell knows what kabuki goes on. Some is worth figuring out, but to me better leave this one alone & spend your time on other matters.

Those $38K per plate donors won’t bat an eyelash at this utter waste but I wonder what donors on a budget will think.

There seems to be an easy way to test your theory. Democrats controlled Congress and could have passed reconciliation bills for 2 years. (Or at the very least, at least during the 1 year for which there were reconciliation instructions.) So, if Democrats used that opportunity to block grant Medicaid and turn Medicare into medical savings accounts, you would be correct. On the other hand, if Democrats did not do either of these things (despite an 8-10 vote excess over 50), then your prediction is wrong.

Now let’s take a look. The result? Democrats didn’t do either of these things. (On the other hand, Republicans nearly unanimously did vote for the Ryan budget, in both the House and the Senate.)

The vote to keep Harry Reid as majority leader (and Democrats in control of all the committees) is by far the most important vote in Congress.

Yeah, as evidenced by how wonderful things have been since 2007. So much, much better from 2007-2011 then from 2003-2007. Everybody else see how much better off we are since 2007???

Like I said, live in a fantasy world all you want, but don’t expect folks with two functioning eyes and ears and a functioning brain to live there.

I keep hearing that their evil is a better brand because the president is “intelligent” and “means well”.

And for some reason, I’m supposed to be grateful that the “adult in the room” is the one knifing me in the back.

Well said Nomics. Although I would have liked to see him run and lose. Rat Bastard that he is.

Everything in due course. Gotta set up the right kabuki before you can pull the wool over people’s eyes. Rs have been working on dismantling FDR programs since they were passed, and much more deliberately and strenuously since Reagan. For example, firing ATCers was a first big step in full-scale assault on public sector unions. Clinton was the first D to make a major effort to capture corp donors & become slaves to corps. During O, Ds have done it by losing 2010 elections & being able to do it under cover of the alleged recalcitrance of the Rs.

Your hypothesis of using a full scale assault fails to capture the dynamics that are required to not lose all the voters all at one.

How about the theory that Democrats in charge of things makes a huge difference? Let’s look at THOSE results.

Obama is a Democrat (claimes to be one anyway). Obama has been in charge of executive decisions since 2009. The same decisions Bush was in charge of.

Let’s look at Bush’s record:
Warrantless wiretapping
Torture
Started a war based on lies
Locked up an American citizen on American soil with no charges, right to a lawyer, or anything (Jose Padilla)

Obama:
We still have wiretapping (how do you think the feds were aware of the protest planned at the White House that gon Lt. Dan Choi arrested. That’s coming out, sooner or later.
We still torture
Started a war without consulting Congress AT ALL
SIGNED A BILL claiming the right to lock up ANY AMERICAN, ANY TIME, ANY WHERE, with no rights.
Has assassinated one American, and claims the right to assassinate ANY American without due process.

Huge, huge differences. Yep, all those judges in all those right places have made huge huge differences too.

For a single example, from 2003 to 2007, the confirmed Supreme Court nominees were Roberts and Alito. From 2007 to 2011, the confirmed Supreme Court nominees were Sotomayor and Kagan.

If we got Roberts and Alito clones from 2007 to 2011, it is very likely that much of potential future progressive policy would be unconstitutional today (from policies passed under the commerce clause to policies passed under the taxing and spending power).

Again, I acknowledge there are some people that believe that Roberts and Alito are equally conservative as Sotomayor and Kagan. That’s why I specifically directed my post to people who did not hold such a belief. To be use your words, I directed my comment only at those with two functioning eyes and a brain.

There’s also team-cheering going on. So if voter identifies strongly as a D, s/he’ll cheer for O regardless of what he does.

Your hypothesis of using a full scale assault fails to capture the dynamics that are required to not lose all the voters all at one.

Exactly.

Nelson was very helpful in making the ACA healthcare reform bill into publicly financed private insurance for everyone under a mandate. Obama offered up Social Security and Medicare in July in the ‘debt’ stupidity with the Rethugs:

http://www.washingtonpost.com/business/economy/in-debt-talks-obama-offers-social-security-cuts/2011/07/06/gIQA2sFO1H_story.html

The only cool thing I got from the Democrats were these refrigerator magnets (Firewall themed) which I repainted with the inscription: We want bread and roses too. Just getting ready for some real change, someday.

Guaranteed income for the jobless. A generous public jobs program like the WPA or CETA.
Leave our SS the f*** alone.
And so on…..

I really hate it when you hold back!

Sort of reminds me of Japanese Baseball, a tie game is the best possible outcome.

Your hypothesis is that Democrats have to worry about losing liberal leaning voters. But I really doubt that is the case. Our winner-take-all, absolute-majority-required, electoral-college system pretty much forecloses third parties from getting any traction. While a small number may vote against Democrats occasionally, they by and large come back in future elections (vigorous denials of this notwithstanding). There are many dynamics Democrats have to worry about, but losing liberals is really not one of them.

So if they really in their heart of hearts wanted to block-grant Medicaid, they likely could have done so under the cover of a “grand bargain” (either in 2009-2010, or in 2011 during the debt ceiling deal). The fact that they didn’t indicates that they do not wish to — not that they are somehow afraid of losing voters on the left.

Similar to extreme sports-team loyalty, except that sports teams can’t destroy the country and maim the world.

If the Dem-bots could only see how similar they are to the Bush-bots they hate so much, they’d have an existential aneurism.

Getting rid of Nelson IS winning – never mind the million dollars. I would have gladly given him that not to run. He is the dumbest of the dumb.

Is this lose-lose-lose-etc situation a result of that old eleventy-seven chess playin’?

How much don’t I care, let me count the ways.

Another Blue Dog bites the dust. Whoop di do

Just heard that Obama is appointing a former Bush under secretary of the Treasury to the Fed Board of Governors. Shouldn’t that put an end to this entire conversation?

Yeppers, progressives will always vote D, just like they did in 2010.

They won’t not vote, they won’t not donate, they won’t not work their little hearts & feets out for hopey changey.

Ah, yes, world of difference makers there.

Since those two have taken their seats the SCOTUS decisions have been remarkably better. It’s been an incredible upgrade.

Pretty cool when you get to claim two SCOTUS picks make a world of difference AND simultaneously can claim that two SCOTUS picks isn’t enough to change anything and that’s why we haven’t seen any better SCOTUS results.

So, which is it??? Did those two picks from 2007-1011 make a difference or did they not? Can you cite specific cases?? Or, is it true that those two picks made very little difference? Again, folks with two functioning eyes and ears and a functioning brain can answer that question immediately.

And since the answer is no, they didn’t make a difference, then that’s the bottom line point.

In a sense, you are right. They won’t capitulate on Medicaid. They will create a way for the states to define benefits for the ACA in a way that Medicaid will devolve to the lower medical care associated with pilfered, state based, block grants.

We will indeed have to create solutions which are not political. We can have better lives without you and your precious politicians and their parties. We will create better lives without the Nelsons and their like of any parties.

Not necessarily. The appointment of the Democrat would last until 2018, while the appointment of the Republican would last until 2014. So if nominating two fed members from different parties is the only way to get the Republicans in the Senate to agree to their confirmation, having one additional Democrat over a Republican from 2014-2018 is a net positive.

And aside from that, whether it is a net positive from 2012-2014 would probably depend on the Bush official.

Unlike fiscal policy, monetary policy actions are pretty constrained. The basic divide at the moment is whether to increase monetary stimulus (to get at the employment part of the Fed’s mandate), or to not do so (out of fear of the inflation part of the Fed’s mandate).

Many moderate Republicans in economics circles believe that we should indeed have more monetary stimulus, owing to the collapse of aggregate demand. They believe the hard-right turn on monetary policy the party has taken is a mistake.

So if you are for more monetary stimulus, and the Bush official is in favor of more quantitative easing, the pair of appointments is a net positive from 2012-2014. If the Bush official is against more quantitative easing, the appointments are a wash (1 for, 1 against).

On the other hand, if you are against more monetary stimulus, you should be hoping that Obama appoints a hard-right Republican.

So the fact that Obama will appoint a Bush official (without additional information and research) does not answer the question at all.

Heh, yeah, more fantasy world bullshit. 2010 didn’t happen. Nope, that was all just a dream.

Liberal voters far and wide showed up and supported the pathetic Democrats after their FAIL the first the two years. Yep, the liberal voters didn’t at all abandon the D Party in 2010.

Go on living in unreality. It’s cool. But know this. Most liberal voters can’t support a party that does the things the Democrats have done. It’s that simple. I can’t support a party that beleives in killing habeas corpus. Period. NEver. Ever. And there are lots and lots and lots and lots of folks like that.

So you can deny they exist, or keep whistling past the graveyard all you want, but we’ll see won’t we? Hope you come back here next November. You will, right???

Maybe the DNC spent all that money on good old boy, Ben because he’s got a real purdy mouth…

You are missing the larger picture here. The following two statements are not mutually exclusive:

a) Sotomayor and Kagan made little difference relative to their predecessors (Souter and Stevens)

b) Sotomayor and Kagan made a world of difference relative to Republican choices to replace Souter and Stevens

In fact, both statements are so obviously true that I am unsure why they need to be spelled out.

A is true because their predecessors were liberal as well, and would have voted the same way most of the time.

B is true because Republican choices to replace Souter and Stevens would have returned the Supreme Court to the pre-1937 era of Constitutionally forbidding progressive economic policy.

To put it another way, people who believe that B is false (or that B isn’t sufficient reason to vote for Democrats) serve little purpose by posting at sites such as this.

Why? Because if future progressive policy is Constitutionally forbidden for a generation (or two), then there is literally no way for anyone here to ever achieve anything they would like to achieve (short of a Constitutional amendment). It doesn’t matter if Dennis Kucinich and Bernie Sanders are President and Vice President, and have supermajorities in both houses of Congress. The vast majority of their progressive economic policy would not get past the Supreme Court.

I understand that the ad money was meant to entice Nelson into running for re-election by showing him the support he would receive from national Democrats. I don’t understand why you would spend that money

I am sure he did not need to be enticed and as a senator he demanded the money be spent only when after spending that money and his poll numbers did not turn around did he decide to quit.
Senator’s have big ego’s and great perks nobody gives that up unless they have too.
But on the plus side the blue dog/ Obama plan to sell out Lefties and get corporate money to win reelection seems to be failing even $1 million in ads can’t save what is arguably the most Blue Dog Senator in a purple state.
Incumbent politicians are normally almost impossible to defeat in an election Ben deciding to retire shows our strength! Ben deciding to retire shows that money can’t buy this election.
Our biggest worry is another stolen election.

and unlike in some other states, increased turnout from the Presidential race would not help him.

Because he represents everything the 99% hate!

Your claim that 2010 was caused by liberals staying home (or voting against Democrats) is easily testable.

The exit polls indicate that liberals showed up at the same rate (as a percentage of the electorate) as they did during the previous midterm (20% vs. 20%). They also show that they voted for the Democrat at a rate slightly above the rate they did for the previous midterm (90% vs. 87%.)

For the 2006 data, go here:
http://www.cnn.com/ELECTION/2006/pages/results/states/US/H/00/epolls.0.html

For the 2010 data, go here:
http://www.cnn.com/ELECTION/2010/results/polls/#USH00p1

In both cases, you can search for “Vote by ideology.”

Even with Nelson in the race Republicans were going to take this seat.

So lets run a real Lefty given a choice between a fake Dem and a Republican voters always chose the Republican I believe Harry Truman said. So lets make the choice between a real Dem and a Tea Bagger:)

The Fed can affect fiscal policy through interest rates but that is about it. At the momenet interest is near zero.

No, YOU are missing the larger picture here. YOU are the one that’s stuck in the this Democratic Republican bullshit.

No one mentioned or questioned whether the Republican picks would’ve or could’ve been different. We’re NOT talking about the Republicans. We’re talking about the DEMOCRATS.

And FWIW, yes, TWO SCOTUS picks COULD have made a sizeable difference, although not earth shattering given the current makeup. But two, unabashadly liberal/progressive jurists would’ve moved the bar a little left. Two just plain liberal choices would’ve left the bar the same. THESE TWO choices actually moved the bar a little right in that the Souter/Stevens combination is actually more liberal than the Kagan/Sotomeyer combination.

So, when given a chance, which way did the Democrats move the bar??? RIGHT. And that was by CHOICE.

The Republican are irrelevant to this discussion because we’re talking about what the DEMOCRATS CHOOSE to do and not do. And by not supporting Democrats any more that doesn’t mean we’ll be supporting Republicans, I can’t envision anyone here doing that.

You can focus on those mean ‘ole Republicans all you want too. That’s exactly what the D Party wants you to do. That’s the kabuki show. Don’t judge us by what we do, judge us by what those mean ‘ole Republicans would do. And by giving in to that being the bar that must be crossed, there is very little the Democrats can do that wouldn’t meet it. Bullshit.

The bar is do they work and govern in a way that they should that represents the values of most Americans. Either they do or they don’t. The fact that both don’t only means NEITHER can be supported, not that we are still forced to support one or the other.

Please, you’re smart as hell, would you wake up to what these two parties are doing and help us fix this shit? We could use someone with your smarts to help. Continuing the fallacy that the Democrats are progressive in any manner whatsoever is not helping. It’s part of the problem. Please stop being part of the problem and start being part of the solution.

Or not. You know, your choice.

That means ejecting Senators like Joe Lieberman in Connecticut, while refraining from doing so in states like Nebraska (that would defeat a progressive Democrat by 30 points). This may very well mean supporting a Democratic Senator who often breaks with the party line for symbolic reasons when he is not the deciding vote, if there is no better candidate that could win.

Right and this *cough* strategy has worked so well in the real world last election where the Tea Baggers took control of the House. If the Dems keep digging a hole eventually they will fall in. But keep thinking the way that you do we will ignore you and form a third party or revolt.

Wow, whatever.

Yep, they got a historic beating and yet all the liberals still showed up and voted.

I can see rewriting history is well underway, thanks, I wasn’t aware that it had gotten that advanced yet.

Voters have problems they want change either the GOP or Us will give them an alternative Dem Compromise satisfies nobody.

When I said fiscal policy I meant traditional taxing and spending. I consider changes in interest rate to be monetary policy.

Beyond interest rate changes for short term bonds, they can also buy and sell long term bonds to drive long term interest rates down. In addition, they can make commitments to keep short term interest rates low for a long time (bringing down long term interest rates, which are really just a function of expected future short term interest rates), they can buy riskier assets (increasing the amount of cash and assuming the risk), and they can commit to catch-up higher inflation for every month they miss their inflation target from below (reducing future expected real interest rates).

None of those actions are as effective as lowering nominal short term interest rates, but as you have said, those are already at zero and can’t be lowered any further.

Suggest using “donkeys” for the idiots in charge of the party. It’s short and covers their allegiances and their idiocy simultaneously.

A good example of “resistance to evidence.” A lot of people prefer their pet theories to any evidence to the contrary.

The short word I use for people like this is “stupid.”

Yes,to really effect change you need to control fiscal policy, that means congress and the presidency. In that regard this president and congress have not exactly stood out in the midst of what some would call a depression with 25 million unemployed these last three years.

OFG, may I tweak an excellent sentence of yours?

“So, when given a chance, which way did do the Democrats move the bar??? RIGHT. And that was is by CHOICE.”

Saw an article in last day (coming back from a computer hiatus, so caught up on a lot of material), maybe even here, that both Rs & Ds are hemorrhaging, but Ds in greater #s & %s, iirc.

You are an expert tapdancer, you must work in D.C. But that doesn’t change the fact that your fixation on individual little saplings is causing you to miss the whole fucking forest. Do you ever ask yourself whatever happened to the rule of law and the Bill of Rights?

I can understand the desire to protect what you have. Hence, elect democrats. But as I noted above, what have they done lately for me other than cave to the thugs? Not exactly a record anyone can point to with pride.

WRT progressives, if you want to be treated like a door mat, continue to act like one.

Picked this up as a major reason why there is no feminist movement any more.

Bill Daley sock puppet.

Nice.

I lived through 2010. I remember the polling going into 2010. I remember the results. So call me stupid all you want, but it wouldn’t be the first time history has been attempted to be rewritten.

It’s amazing to me that you and the other poster must have completely forgotten 2010. I look at evidence all the time.

Here’s the evidence I look at.

1) The Democrats won Congress in the 2006 off year, and in the 2008 Presidential year.

2) From polling to first hand accounts, liberals were well known to be unenthusiastic in 2010.

3) The Democrats LOST Congress in 2010.

4) It wasn’t just a loss, it was a loss of historic proportions.

Can someone explain to this stupid person how the “liberals showed up and voted in 2010 just like they did 2006″ meme fits into those four facts?

My 53 is just as relevant to your comment as the one I responded to. Trying to keep what you have while both parties are carving away at it on a daily basis is door mat behavior.

When you find that happening, you must make a stink. Even if you fail, at least you’ll have teh satisfaction of having tried.

So here’s the thing. Given the lack of any real forward movement on the things that progressives care about, and in fact, losses in personal freedoms and cuts in the safety net in the offing, why should anyone want to sign up for another four? I mean you can get the same thing from Mittens, no? Also, I havn’t even heard a word of, ‘well we will do better next time’ – - not that you could believe it, but they don’t even try.

I think OWS has something to do with what is not happening in this country and the way our elected officials have abandoned us. I’m not sure it can continue since it is attacked everywhere.

I disagree that Kagan and Sotomayor are a move to the right (overall) from Stevens and Souter. There are surely some specific cases where both will vote more liberal or more conservative than their predecessor. But there are not that many, and we haven’t seen many so far. Sotomayor in particular has sometimes dissented alone (8-1) from taking certain prisoner-rights cases, and Kagan wrote an amazing opinion decrying the influence of money in politics (at least matching her predecessor, Stevens).

Under your own standard though, even two William Brennan clones would not have made a difference. Opinions that Brennan would have signed on to (but Breyer and Ginsburg would not have signed onto) would have went from getting 0 votes to 2 votes. That would not have changed the outcome of a single case.

Ultimately, the reason I compare Democratic choices to Republican choices is because those are the only two potential outcomes of any given election. As much as you decry the Democratic-Republican “game,” that is precisely how our elections work. If we had a parliamentary system with a proportional representation parliament, things would be very different, as more points of view can be represented (and in particular, there would be more pressure for the parties to move to the left).

But we don’t have that system. We have a system that was practically designed (at a Constitutional level) to prevent or hobble the large-scale progressive change that we need. The absolute majority of the electoral college, the general winner-take-all system of federal offices, and the mal-apportionment of the Senate mostly prohibist more than two viable parties. This can’t be changed without a constitutional amendment.

In addition, for a partisan law to take effect, it needs the agreement of two legislatures, the President, the regulators (who often don’t answer directly to the President), future executives and their regulators (in enforcing it), and the judicial branch. If any of those veto points disagrees, the law dies or is damaged (sometimes severely).

So for any progressive policy to be enacted, we need essentially a royal flush. The stars have to align perfectly. However, for conservatives to block large-scale progressive change, they often only need to hold one of the above veto points. Progressives are at a disadvantage, because partisan progressive bills generally call for more government action, while partisan conservative bills generally want to block government action. During FDR and LBJ, we had two thirds of the Senate (and in some years triple-digit majorities in the House), due to an alliance between racist Southern Democrat thugs and actual progressives. (The two party system forced them into a single party when their economic views were very different.) These massive majorities (that we only had for a limited time) are why we have Social Security, Medicare, and Medicaid today.

This is why it is so important that we not cede one of the most powerful veto points to conservatives for generations. (And I really mean generations. If Earl Warren retired in 1966, we would probably have a majority progressive Supreme Court today due to the retirement timing of his replacement.)

The only process that liberals can successfully use to push government to the left of where the Democratic party is today, is the primary process. They need to convince a majority of Democratic voters to vote for more liberal candidates, in places where those liberal candidates can win a general election. (Nebraska is not one of those places. Delaware, Connecticut, New Mexico, and others are such places.) That’s literally the only way. It may be comforting to imagine that a third party will rise, but that is an illusion that is effectively prevented by our system.

He’s some kind of political animal. Hard to stay real with all that spinning going on around you, year after year.

Assuming the accuracy of every point you make about our current system, why would any thinking person favor continued participation in it over outright revolt, or over allowing Rethugs to win one cycle, so as to bring the masses to the point where they are angry enough to revolt?

I think there is a pretty simple explanation. Liberals showed up in the same percentages as they did in 2006, yet moderates fled the Democratic party (to the Republican party) in droves. In fact, the same exit polls that disprove your theory prove this one. And the same thing will likely happen next time Republicans take complete power and enact their budget: Democrats will probably win a resounding victory at midterm, despite the Democratic party in office being little different than it is today.

Liberals do not make up a large segment of the country. While large majorities favor liberal issue positions in a variety of areas, many who favor SS/Medicare/Medicaid/Taxes on the rich will simply always vote for a Republican (for social reasons, out of generational habit, etc). Actual liberals who take consistently liberal positions (and do not vote for Republicans) do not make up a large percentage of the country, so it is generally misguided to attribute large swings in election results to us. It is particularly misguided when the data disproves such an explanation.

I think you’re missing the point that although many Dems may not a priori “want to” cut Social Security, they feel that they “have to” — because they are neither principled nor on the side of regular people (and they’re not intelligent). In the past, they just didn’t feel like they had to — a situation which I and many others feel is changing due to the malign influence of the president and his posse of thoughtful, reasonable, moderate, bipartisan capitulators.

Yep. More bullshit about the need to support Obama and the Dems because in the future they might, maybe, possibly, perhaps, do something that is not quite as bad as what the Repubs might do.

Vote Third-Party 2012.

I see your choice, which was what I expected.

As I said from the beginning, if you want to view reality in that way, that’s fine, but don’t expect us to follow you into that fantasyland.

The Democrats and Republicans are working for the same masters, the evidence is clear. All your spinning in the world doesn’t change the evidence.

In 2012 it will come down to one big question. In 2008, Obama ran on change. Have things changed?

Good luck with that one. You’ll need it.

Cool, since liberals don’t make up much of the electorate, there’s no need for your bullshit here. We don’t matter anyway.

Save yourself some time and trouble.

I’ve always marvelled at the likes of you that claim liberals are a small part of the electorate yet you go to immense pains and bullshit arguments to get liberals to keep following your bullshit party.

Gee, someone with a functioning brain might think there was a reason for that.

And oh yeah, keep on believing 2010 had nothing to do with liberals being pissed. And please, please, please, come back here next November. OK??? Can’t wait to here from you then.

Let’s play out your scenario. Let’s say a Republican wins the WH, the House (at approximately the same majority), and (say) 53 or 54 Senate seats in 2012.)

If Republicans go the full Ryan, and voucherize Medicare, block-grant Medicaid, cut discretionary spending to 2% of GDP, etc, that would likely produce a strong midterm for progressives. We might even top the 60 seats Republicans got in 2010. We might barely get back a Senate majority, but probably not by much (since there are so few Republicans running in competitive seats in 2014).

What exactly would that get us? We would have a 30-40 seat majority in the House, a one or two seat majority in the Senate, and we would not have the Whitehouse.

That would allow us to block future right-wing fiscal policy. But beyond that, it wouldn’t allow much for the 2015-2016 Congress. We could block lower court judicial nominees, but Scalia/Kennedy would probably retire in 2013 or 2014 and their replacement would probably have already been confirmed. We wouldn’t be able to enact progressive policy over the President’s veto.

Then, in 2016, the outrage over the Ryan plan will probably have dissipated to a significant extent. (Not entirely, but certainly a lot of it.) Seniors would not see their Medicare voucherized yet, because Ryan prevents the effects of that plan from taking effect for current Seniors or soon-to-be retirees. The outcome of the 2016 Presidential election would likely hinge on the economy. In a reasonable economy, an incumbent President who takes over the office from a President of the opposing party is very, very difficult to beat. (Carter, and in this hypothetical, Obama, would be the only exceptions in 100 years.)

So where does this put us? It puts us in a policy environment FAR to the right of where we are today, with not a huge chance of reversing it in 2016 (depending on who wins the Presidency). After 2016, whatever Ryan outrage that remains will diminish even further. And if Ginsburg retires in 2013 or 2014, we lose the Supreme Court for a generation (and possibly the Constitutionality of any large scale progressive change).

Someday I’ll get over my aversion to more war, more crony capitalism, more protection for torturers and war criminals and corporate criminals (oh my), more murder of children (as long as they are brown and have names most Americans can’t pronounce), and learn to love big brother, because he’s the only fucking game in town.

I was talking about the theory that it would be more likely that Democrats would block-grant Medicaid and confirm conservative Supreme Court justices than Republicans would.

Your fantasy future is a reason to condone and support the immense betrayals we are suffering now?

Hmmm, stupid or disingenuous. I’ll go with both.

WTF???

Why are going to so much trouble to convince liberals to vote Democatic??? We don’t matter, remember??

BTW, not for nothing, will you or will you not lose sleep over voting for continued torture, continued rendition, continued assassinating of American citizens with no due process, and the end of habeas corpus???

Let me guess, you’re going to rationalize in your fantasy world by saying the Republicans will do those same things too, right???

It will be amazing to me next year when millions of Americans will in fact, give their approval an end to habeas corpus. Because by voting for those that made that policy, you are approving it.

Just imagine that for a second. Millions and millions of Americans will approve of the end of habeas corpus. After all the hype of the Constitution, the idea of human rights, etc., millions of Americans will approve of the end of habeas corpus.

Maybe I’m just not an American anymore. I’m ok with that if being an American means being for that shit.

Everyone here understands the kind of fine political calculations you thrive on. That used to be the standard fare here, too, before Obama got elected. People even used to get attacked here for questioning that brand of reasoning. Sorry to tell you, but, except for the TBoggateria, most here have moved past that place. We understand that the electoral system itself is rigged against us, and we ain’t playing no more. We are going to find another way, and, if we don’t, we will just endure the same exact ass-fucking, more or less, than we are already used to getting from the D.C. establishment and their corporate puppetmasters. We will not cooperate with our abusers anymore. Let the chips fall where they may. I wager you and your friends will wind up losing more than we will from this strategic shift.

Self-identified liberals make up 20% of the electorate. This is one of the most consistent readings in polling. This is not insignificant, but also not a majority. They are necessary, but not sufficient, for progressive policy to be enacted.

You constantly create a dichotomy, where something is either necessary and sufficient or unnecessary and insufficient. (To you, liberals are either insignificant and unnecessary, or necessary and sufficient.)

But this is not the case. Liberals are necessary for progressive policy to even have a chance to be enacted. But they are not at all sufficient to enact progressive policy. To get a progressive majority, we need an additional 30%, coming from

a) people who have consistent liberal policy positions but reflexively vote Republican, or go back and forth, out of habit/social factors/etc

b) people who are ideologically moderate, and have some liberal/conservative positions but are not strongly tied to either ideology or party

Threats to enable the other side wouldn’t us anywhere. If Democrats lose people on the left, they get twice as much traction moving to the right (converting R votes to D votes) than they get from moving left votes back to Democrats. (An R to D switch changes the margin by 2, while a blank-to-D switch changes the margin by 1.) This is precisely why Democrats did not go to the left after 2000, and in fact nominated someone who fully supported the Iraq war. (Yet Nader’s vote share declined by 90% in 2004.)

You are apparently quite hopeful that Democrats will lose in 2012, and would apparently be so gleeful of this that you would want me to come by in 2012 so you could laugh at me. Yet I would guess that by-and-large, we have similar views on many policy issues, and that our difference of opinion is primarily regarding tactics. So as much as people here decry people who make decisions based on Democratic-Republican tribalism, aren’t you here engaging in anti-Democratic tribalism (insulting those that support similar views but different tactics)?

And as for your “fantasyland” comment, I have laid out why I believe a Republican sweep of 2012 will result in a hard-right Supreme Court that could constitutionally forbid large swathes of progressive policy, and could make future progressive election victories irrelevant. You don’t seem to dispute this possibility; you just keep repeating that I live in “fantasyland.” For such a hypothetical to be a fantasy, you need to rely on Republicans appointing much less conservative nominees than they clearly would like to nominate. That seems (to me at least) to be an assumption that is not realistic.

HuffPo front page headline (subhead) describes Nelson as the “human impediment to progress“, then summarizes a list of his “accomplishments”, like killing bankruptcy reform, unemployment aid, firsts to oppose public option, etc.

Voting for a candidate is not endorsing all of their opinions. It is merely stating a preference that you prefer that candidate over the candidate of the opposing party.

If we had a situation where majorities of the Democratic and Republican party nominated candidates, such that the Republican was better on civil liberties than the Democrat, yet the Democrat was better on economic policy than the Republican, you might have a point. You very well might decide that the difference in policy on civil liberties outweighs the difference in policy on economic issues.

But we don’t have that situation. We have a situation where the Republican will likely have worse views on civil liberties (or at worst equal views with Obama), and where the Republican will be much worse on every other issue.

If there was an option to note vote for either candidate that could result in moving the country to the left, that would be one thing. But there is no such option. Elections in this country are zero-sum, and enabling long term right-wing structural changes (including to the interpretation of our Constitution) will not rebound to the benefit of those who support progressive policy, now or later. It will only be to their detriment.

Only 20% of the population identifies itself as liberal because for three decades, with massive media help, liberal has become a pejorative.

Yet on issue after issue after issue, liberl policies get majority support. You know this, yet you intentionally only focus on self-identificiation.

This country is not center right. It never has been. Oh sure, it’s voted center right many times. But almost as many eligible voters in America don’t vote as do. The American population is liberal, even though individually they won’t admit to it. Single payer health care even gets majority support time after time after time. That’s right, “soshalized medcine” gets majority approval.

And I am quite hopeful the Democrats lose in 2012. I am still in the minority here at FDL that the Democratic Party can be reformed back to it’s New Deal past. The only way for that to happen is to have them lose elections when they choose not to embrace those policies. By supporting them anyway, they are free to govern and act in any way they want to. So it’s hard for me to blame them for governing in a way the results in great personal wealth for them.

I would have thought we had similar policy views, but not when it comes to human rights. No way will I approve of the end of habeas corpus. And you can call it anti-D tribablism all you want to, I don’t give a shit. The fact is these two parties, as currently constituted, are part of the problem. The D party gets away with what it does because people like you keep voting for them no matter what. That’s part of the problem, not part of the solution. I’m not going to agree with being part of the problem and will say so. If it’s insulting then take it for what it’s worth. You’re method of speaking down to liberals like we’re too stupid to understand how the real political world works is pretty insulting too.

We get how the real political world is working, that’s why you have a problem with us. So, you’re either a D tribalist willing to support ANYTHING the D’s do (including ending habeas corpus) OR you’re part of the party network itself and have other motives for wanting D’s to win.

I have no respect for either. In the second case, one is an asshole. In the first, one is willfully ignorant of reality. Neither deserves respect.

See you next November.

Hey, OFG, just drink the kool-aid and lay down in the bunk. Ericj115 assures us the spaceship is really, really, really, going to arrive this time.

Really.

Bwahahahaha!!!!!

What do you mean by contrasting “you and your friends” with “we?”

While I don’t know you personally, I would imagine that there are far more similarities in our views on actual policy issues than there are differences. From your comment above, I assume you believe that because I disagree with your tactics, I therefore must work in DC or have a profession that has something to do with politics.

That is completely false. But more importantly, why would you even assume that? You said yourself that many in the past (before Obama) had similar opinions on political tactics. Are my opinions on tactics really so out of bounds that they imply that I am a corporate or political shill (for no one who isn’t a corporate or political shill could possibly share my opinions on tactics)? Really?

In your quest to ensure that “me and my friends” lose more than “you,” you aren’t taking into account that the only thing either of us has to lose is the ability to enact more progressive policy and to block more conservative policy. So while I am unsure why your goal seems to be to maximize the “loss” of others who have progressive policy positions, any loss I face will be a loss that you also face. Having (say) a court that will strike down a future single payer bill is a loss to both of us, and to any other progressive that favors progressive policies.

Good bye Ben. Don’t let the door hit your ass on the way out.

As for human rights, I don’t approve of Obama’s actions on civil liberties at all.

But the question in the voting booth isn’t whether I approve of Obama’s actions on civil liberties. The question is whether I prefer Obama remain president over his Republican rival, who will be worse on civil liberties and far worse on everything else.

My vote for Obama is not a vote to approve his civil liberties policies, or to approve of him as a person. It is a vote to prefer him to the other guy. Just because we are angry that the system is what it is does NOT mean that denial of the properties of our system changes our system.

It does not. And in fact, it won’t even be seen that way by anyone else. The media probably won’t even report third party candidate results much (if at all), and they will go on and on about how the people have decisively repudiated liberalism for all time. The Democratic party will certainly move to the right in this case (in an attempt to pick up votes in the middle), and your strategy will have failed at achieving your goals (as such strategies have failed throughout our history). As angry as we are about various policy betrayals, sacrificing the future of all other policies (with no potential benefit other than to satisfy our anger) is not worth it.

Give me a moment to catch my breath from the laughter induced by your implication that your system will get a single payer bill passed. Ooh, my sides hurt.

I assumed you might be an insider because of the incredible facility with which you lay out your extremely esoteric arguments. Your profile here says nothing about who you actually are. If I was unfair to you, I apologize.

You don’t seem to be able to hear what we are telling you-we don’t believe in the system anymore. We feel that we have been abused, and that staying in an abusive relationship is to condone and enable it. We know that the system holds for us only the certainty of slow but inevitable destruction as a group. We are willing to have some eggs get broken in order to have a hope of getting a better omelette. Personally, as a lawyer, I don’t even want to engage in a conversation with someone who is OK with the civil liberties and rule of law record of the Dems and Obama. We have been delivered into literal fascism, and I don’t care about anything else.

o is great ,dinner at eight.

You call it a “fantasy.” Do you really think much of the potential outcome I describe is all that unlikely?

Let’s put it a different way. What kind of outcome do you really expect should Republicans get total control and enact the Ryan plan? For us to be better off because of it, we would need to win more Senate seats than are even in play in 2014, 50-60 house seats in 2014 and then keep them in 2016, that the outrage over the Ryan plan would last multiple election cycles (until 2016 and beyond) to allow a Democrat to defeat an incumbent Republican President, and we would need to hope that Scalia/Kennedy/Ginsburg do not retire until 2016.

That’s just to get us back to where we were before.

Is that really all that likely?

Anything less than that and we would be far worse; we likely couldn’t repeal the Ryan plan, and we would have lost the Supreme Court for a generation.

ericj@ 80

Agree.

To clarify what I was saying, I do not assume that we are going to get a single payer bill any time soon.

I was just assuming for the sake of argument that we at some point ever get single payer, and pointing out how that even with this assumption, it is worthless if votes against Obama in 2012 result in a Supreme Court that strikes it down after it passes.

Your analogy to an abuser doesn’t work, because in that analogy, the abused is far better off breaking from the abuser. In our case, we would be far worse off by breaking from the Democratic party, since in our entirely zero sum system, that is mathematically equivalent to enabling the Republican party (and nothing short of a Constitutional amendment is going to change that).

And nothing I’m saying requires belief in the system. I’m just saying that the fact that the system sucks does not mean there exists a way to change it in a way that you desire. Our history is full of parties that never, ever get constitutional changes that they want, and when what we want is so much systemic change that it would require a constitutional amendment, there is no reason to assume (and every reason to assume the contrary) that we are ever going to get it. There is a reason why the most meaningful amendments to our Constitution (13-15) were passed with the South being forced to approve them at gunpoint, and why most other amendments since were supported by large majorities of both parties.

In short, the following logic doesn’t work:

1. The current system is awful.
2. ???
3. The current system is replaced.

There is no there there. We should be resisting coping mechanisms like assuming (without much evidence) that there is something we shove into 2 to make the logic work, rather than embracing such coping mechanisms.

Short of constitutional change, we can achieve less significant change in the current system through intelligent use of one’s vote in primaries, and convincing others in our party to do the same. While that may result in some progressive change being watered down, and other progressive change never being enacted at all (along with some progressive change that is enacted and is effective), there is absolutely no reason to believe that the structure of our Constitution is changing just because we don’t like it. None.

Well this is object lesson number one as to why I stopped giving to ANY political campaigns at the fed level. The DSCC can go get effed. What a crap-load. And now the DSCC or some such is sending a goon to tell me why Ben Nelson & Harry Reid are simply the bestest evah! Yeah, right. Go tell ya grandma how ta suck eggs.

There is no perceivable difference between the bought off “wings” of the one party system we got going on here. Putative “Democrats” or so-called “Republicans” and their equally bought off hacks in the SCOTUS?? Pardon me while I politely laugh into my hand if ya think I’m dumb enough to believe that it’ll make one damn bit of difference who “wins” in 2012.

The 1% will determine who will “win,” and the beat will go on.

Time is better spent believing in Santa Claus and/or clapping louder for Tinkerbell…

Yes, I call it fantasy. It comes out of your imagination, nothing more, nothing less.

In three short years, Obama and the Dems have managed to not only institutionalize Bush policies but have also pulled the country further into fascism than Bush managed in two terms.

I don’t buy the notion that a future Repub administration is any scarier than a Dem one despite your slanted scenarios. All your assumptions are based on the idea that the Repubs will be able run rampant and unchecked and that somehow the Dems will begin to act more progressive if they are rewarded for their past betrayals by being re-elected.

As I said before, your wordy comments all boil down to the premise that we have to support Obama and the Dems because in the future they might, maybe, possibly, perhaps, do something that is not quite as bad as what the Repubs might, maybe, possibly, perhaps, do.

And what’s with this “us” and “we” stuff? Scary Repubs aside, my conscience won’t permit me to support the Dems.

Third-Party 2012.

Third party just won’t work.

I see how it works, You try to tempt me with a straw man about single payer, but then refuse to see that my analogy works. Abuse victims can never see what their true range of options is until they first break free of their abuser. That is where we are now, first break free, then examine your true options. Perhaps we will get a new party out of it. Perhaps we will get a people’s revolution out of it. Perhaps we will get the same fascism we sre getting now. I’d rather roll the dice than let my abuser fuck me one more time. Done with you now.

I love it AND agree with it, you are absolutely on point.

Anyone not in the ten % income earners (who’ve received ALL the benefits of Obama’s “help”) or who’s not being paid by the Dand who’s lived through Obama’s first three years is sure to find this tripe amusing.

The Electoral College is the primary reason we have only 2 viable political parties. Until it is abolished all third party movements are doomed to empower the major political party the insurgent political movement is most ideologically distant from.

The 1912 Electoral College results illustrates this. Taft [23.2%] and TR [27.4%] received a combined total of 50.6% of the popular vote and a combined total of 96 [18%] Electoral College votes. Wilson with 41.8% of the popular vote received 435 [82%] Electoral College votes.

The idea that Republicans will be able to run “rampant” and “unchecked” is not an “assumption.” It is either true or false, depending on the issue.

If the issue is a budgetary matter, that can be passed entirely by reconciliation, it is an absolute fact. Republicans will be able to block-grant Medicaid by a simple majority vote using the reconciliation process. Republicans will be able to flatten the tax code (making it less progressive) with the same simple majority vote.

Similarly, at this point, they can get basically whatever Supreme Court justices they want (if they have the Senate). That is again a fact — not an assumption or an opinion. The only uncertainty is over who retires (if anyone) and when. If they want to appoint someone who will in the future rule potential future progressive policy unconstitutional, they will do so.

As for “being rewarded,” you have it exactly backwards. Centrist Democrats who lose to a Republican will use that loss as a justification to move further right (in attempt to pick up more of the middle). The media will barely (if at all) report the fact that there was even a third party candidate in the race at all (let alone his or her vote total), and will declare the results a massive repudiation of liberalism. We will get even more “new dems” who “reject” the “failed policies” of liberalism. All because the Democratic incumbent lost to the Conservative.

If you want to argue that we should take actions that will result in the Constitutional prohibition of progressive economic policy and allow the unilateral enacting of large swathes of the Ryan plan, because doing so will benefit the progressive cause in some undefined way in the future, you should argue that forthrightly. You should not deny the obvious policies Republicans would enact and justices they would appoint, or claim that the resulting outcomes would not be a big deal. If the best argument you can make has gaping factual holes (as your most recent post does), the position you are taking is probably not a very good position.

My guess is that if Obama loses, the actions that Romney’s justices take in 2022 or 2032 will cause you to regret your action in 2012 for the rest of your life. Instead, we should skip the vote-and-then-regret period when the consequences are so obvious, and instead prevent it from happening.

So you say. I feel differently.

You can use our electoral system to reward the Dems for their betrayal or you can use it to express your disapproval.

You make your choice, I’ll make mine.

Third-Party 2012.

The PROBLEM with responding to these hacks is, they’re being paid by the Dem. Party they’re defending!

But in your analogy, you have “broken free” from the abuser, so therefore you should see the “full range of options.”

Yet you have failed to explain how a single viable option would work. You have failed to explain how a left-leaning third party would ever get any more than zero electoral votes, or how you would get a “people’s revolution” (whatever that means) when vast supermajorities of Democrats and liberals are satisfied with Obama and the policies he signed into law.

There are people on the right who say the same thing. They dislike that our government takes any redistributive action in the economy at all, and believe that surely if we don’t get someone in to stop it there will be a revolution that will fix the problem. They have been wrong for centuries, just like people with your tactical ideas have been wrong for centuries. The idea that there must somehow be some way to get what you want (or even a chance of it, by “rolling the dice”) is nothing other than a coping mechanism. Except in this case, it is a coping mechanism with devastating consequences for the goals you aim for.

… or some rightwing thinktank in some cases. It’s ok to respond if you feel like dealing with a lot of hot air and b.s. As for me today: not so much. Like: whatever…

Agree with you. Voting Third Party sends some kind of a message – no matter how “weak” some view it. At least there is an *action* taken, which shows a viewpoint and the willingness to take a stand.

Not voting and/or voting for “the other side to send a message” are pretty useless, imo, but up to the voter to decide for themselves, of course.

Voting reflexively for the party that you’ve “always supported”?? Not. an. option. At least: not for me; not this time; probably never again. Just saying…

There have been plenty of people outside the 10% who have received tremendous help from Obama. The Making Work Pay tax credit effectiveness was inversely proportional to one’s income. The 16 million additional people who will have Medicaid in 2014 (due to the mandated expansion to 133% of the poverty line in every state) helps scores of people far below the top 10%. The expanded unemployment benefits in the stimulus bill (to 99 weeks and a higher dollar value) helped scores of unemployed people.

And these are just direct benefits. The regulatory benefits will also significantly help those below the top 10%. For two examples, the regulations coming out of the consumer bureau will help millions avoid the consequences of the people-screwing fine print in financial products. Regulations that were just passed by the NLRB make it easier for employees to organize.

You can argue that he should have done more in various areas (if he had the power to do so in those areas). But the idea that he hasn’t helped people below the top 10% is absurd.

It does send a message. But the message it sends is the opposite of what you think.

The message the individual politician gets is that they need to move further to the right, to get the middle. (An R to D vote increases their margin by 2, while a 3 to D vote increases their margin by 1.)

The message that the party and the country get is a repudiation of liberalism. Why? Because that is how the entire media will report it. They will barely (if at all) talk about the third party candidate, or report their totals with the results for the two parties.

This is precisely why Bill Clinton’s “new dem” strategy followed 12 years of Republican rule, and why the party moved slightly to the right after Nader in 2000. (Sheesh, our nominee was an enthusiastic supporter of the Iraq war.)

So a message is indeed sent. But it isn’t the message you want it to be. The effect of the message you want sent is equally as high as the sound a tree makes when no one is around to hear it.

Wow.

Quite a scolding we got today.

Talk about talking past the audience.

A whole different paradigm, ain’t it?

I got edumicated today. Gosh Thanks eric

You are full of it. You are talking about the future, it can’t be anything other than an assumption.

You make slanted predictions based on your assumptions and present them as compelling reasons to support the Dems.

I don’t care what your “guesses” are.

I say the fact that the Dems have done more harm in three years than the Repubs did in eight is a compelling reason to not support them.

Vote Third-Party 2012.

I think the $1 million was wasted either way.

Can we at least get two parties?

The Democratic Party, under its current ownership (Wall Street, big donors, the DLC/Third Way), has negative value. It not only impedes progress but its continued presence on the ballot discourages the creation of a truly progressive party. Die, Democratic Party, die.

I agree with you 100 percent. Voting third party sends the mandarins of the Democratic Party an unmistakeable message–namely, that they and their corrupt party will pay a price for betraying the very people whose support they need the most. That is the only language they comprehend.

How many decades do you figure you’ve been wrong for? Ever hear about the definition of insanity?

ALL Obama has to run on is misdirection. Why play his game? The issue is clear, WHAT has Obama done to deserve a second term? For me it’s simple: In 2012 I WILL vote to remove EVERY Incumbent, both Parties, who’s seeking reelection.

Time for generalizuning is over, we needed what Obama promised WAY TOO MUCH to not respond in kind.

Hogwash.

Whether or not a party has the power to do something is a legal (and parliamentary) question, with a yes or no answer. It is not an assumption.

You are trying to make your argument sound reasonable by writing off any criticisms as “hypothetical” (even if they are precisely as hypothetical as whether the sun will come up tomorrow). If your position were correct, and your tactics could achieve your goals, you would acknowledge the actual consequences of your position, rather than shoving them under the rug and ignoring them.

The extreme negative consequences of your position are going to affect far more people than just yourself (in particular those that cant afford them — not the ones that can), and telling them “but but but they were hypothetical” isnt going to give them much comfort after it happens.

How have I been wrong at any point? Are you even looking at what I am arguing? I am not arguing that our system is good, or that the outcomes are good, in any absolute sense. If I am wrong, please point out all the times where enabling Republican rule over Democratic rule has made the nation better (since the modern parties took their shape in the early 20th century).

Your “definition of insanity” argument proves way too much. It is an argument for any remedy. According to that logic, we should launch 100 hydrogen bombs tomorrow, since we have never launched so many bombs in one day, and the resulting society is not optimal. After all, the definition of insanity is doing the same thing over and over and expecting different results. Republicans use the same argument to justify their policies. (We have had Medicare for decades, and health costs keep going up. Per the definition of insanity, we need to repeal Medicare.)

I just read your entire FDL commenting history.

Out of nowhere. check

Hijacks threads. check

Knowledgeable enuf to be billing others for his advice rather than “wasting” time on us. check

We are really getting to the PTB. check

HB Gary or Rand Corp?

If that’s true, why am I here, rather than “billing others” (who?) for advice?

I tend to limit my posting here, since it too closely resembles a closed-reality loop. (Your post exemplifies it perfectly. To you, anyone who has the gall to argue a contrary position to the FDL prevailing wisdom must be an agent of the “PTB,” and such a “PTB” agent posting here proves that the (historically-low) small percentage of the party that disapproves of the Obama is getting to the “PTB.” To the extent that such a person says they are not involved in anything political at a professional level, they must be lying, since the “PTB” lies about everything.

Bravo for the most circular, conspiratorial, and substance-free argument on this thread.

You have been fantasizing about future events, all clearly speculative, in other words assumptions.

It is clear you have no idea what argument I am trying to make since you never address what I say. You do change the subject, make circular arguments, and spout conjecture as fact, relentlessly. Do you believe the bullshit you write?

Ohhhhh noooo, the “extreme negative consequences” of my position will bring doom to all!!! I never dreamed I had so much power! How ironic, coming coming from a shill who promotes Obama and the Democrats.

You now have me trembling… with laughter at the depths your willful stupidity.

Billing for shilling, dude. Don’t flatter yourself about the advice thing.

It’s pretty simple. People like you get paid minimum wage, or by the word, to post apologist bullshit.

You’re accusing someone of making a circular, conspiratorial, and substance-free argument? That was supposed to be snark, right?

No, chump, your style of lesser-evilism has prevailed for decades, the results suck. Get it now?

If you were for real you would have addressed Jon Walker’s critiques of Obamacare, but where were you? Perhaps not on the payroll then? Of course there are individuals who’ve been helped, is that your argument? How many could vave been helped? Want to discuss the opportunity lost? Want to discuss the promises made? Want to discuss our Healthcare costs compared to other industrialied countries? Want to discull the Wall St. giveaways? You’ve got a tough job, I’ll give you that.

The question folks is not ericj115, it’s what’s happened at FDL? It wasn’t that long ago when Jane told these Bozos to declare themselves or get lost, now they seem to be welcomed. Oh well.

I missed that Jane thing, but we didn’t really welcome this guy, amigo.

That is really quite something. I have already stated specifically above (in this very thread) that my work has nothing to do with politics. But to you, the fact that I am defending voting for this administration in 2012 (an administration that supermajorities of liberals and Democrats approve of in every poll) is ipso facto proof that I need to “declare myself” as a “paid agent” — something that I am not.

What is this, the Spanish Inquisition? If you deny something, you will continue to be interrogated until you lie and “confess,” or you will be banned? All because I stated an opinion about tactics backed up with argument and reason, that happens to be different from the majority opinion about tactics at FDL?

To tell you the truth, while I very occasionally have read other pages at FDL and responded to them, I generally don’t. I find that most pages accept so many premises as a given that I believe are fundamentally false (and deal with people with different opinions in such personally nasty ways) that it is just not worth it. Most of this site is clearly geared towards people with one opinion about this administration, and does not welcome people with different views. (Maybe this has changed since I have stopped reading the rest — I don’t know. But the fact that you are accusing me of being a paid shill for having the gall to voice a different opinion is a representative example of what I have seen in the past.) The only page I regularly read is this news section.

As for Obamacare, I was specifically responding to your claim that the benefits only went to the top 10%. (Clearly, the 16 million newly enrolled in Medicaid are not in the top 10%.)

I’m sure I would agree with you that the healthcare bill is not optimal, and a better policy could have helped tens of millions more get better care.

The two relevant questions are whether Obamacare as is was worth passing over nothing for a decade or two, and whether Obama could have gotten more.

As for the first question, the main negative in the bill was the max(695, .025*income) tax one would have to pay if they did not have insurance but could afford it (i.e. income was 12.5 times the post-subsidy cost of a silver plan).

To me, this negative did not outweigh the positives. The positives included guaranteed government-run insurance for half of the newly insured (on Medicaid). The other half would receive subsidized insurance, of which 80-85% (or something close to that after taxes/etc) of the premiums would go directly to providers for care. The insurance would have a statutorily-defined mandated benefits package (plus whatever the states added on to that), and a mandated actuarial value (that effectively caps out-of-pocket costs on top of premiums).

In essence, the government would be redistributing something close to 200 billion per year towards the uninsured. Including Medicaid and private insurance, the vast majority would end up in the hands of providers, and maybe 10-20 billion would end up in the hands of insurance companies each year for profits and administrative costs. To me, that benefit is a clear positive over no bill at all. Others here likely disagree of course.

People have tried to pass HCR several times since Truman. Each time, the fight was immense; each time, the push failed, and each time, the subsequent try was watered down from the previous attempt. Untold numbers of people have died in the meantime due to a lack of HCR. The idea that we should wait another 20 years to try to get something better (when we would likely be fighting for crumbs of this plan) just seemed out of this world to me.

Most critiques of this stance that I have seen believe that private insurance was about to collapse, and that this bill “saves” them from being wiped out in the collapse and the “inevitable” resulting single payer system. I believe that insurance companies were not going to collapse in the previous status quo, and that even if they did, the idea that single payer was inevitable (or even politically possible in the short or medium term regardless of any collapse) is absurd. The fact that single payer is a great, needed policy does not change any of that.

The second question is whether Obama could have gotten more. Many bring up his supposed “dealing away” of the public option back in June 2009. But even if such a deal occurred, it is irrelevant if he knew at the time that such a deal would never pass the Senate. If that was true, and Obama knew that, than giving away the public option was giving away something that necessity already forced him to give away. And Obama certainly did know that at the time; there was no way Lieberman was ever going to let liberals get their wish. To him, it was personal, even if it meant that he would never serve in the Senate again after 2012. (Which he won’t.)

The main critique to this question is that the 60 vote threshold is really just a mirage, and can be easily overturned with a simple majority. While this is true from a Constitutional perspective, it ignores over 150 years of institutional history. Supermajority requirements in the Senate have been around since 1806 (even if they were rarely used until the early 20th century), and many other similarly large proposals (by both parties) died at the hands of merely a threatened filibuster.

There would not have been more than 5 or 10 Senators who would have voted to end the filibuster entirely. I doubt that would convince many people here, since most people here seem to assume away political infeasibility as a legitimate constraint on policymaking, even when it wouldn’t involve breaking 200 years of precedent. But that is my view.

Again, identical logic could be used to say that we tried your way (of not bombing every country on Earth every day), and the “results suck.” So we should instead see the definition of insanity, and bomb every country every day. It can be used as support to any proposed remedy for any problem, and is nonsensical because of that.

Oh, that’s what you consider good analogizing? Why don’t you get back to us when the Supremes are ready to pass on the single payer law, OK?

Seriously, you think anyone here who reads your writings thinks you are a normal commenter? You are clearly a political animal, immersed and marinated in it, and you refusal to acknowledge that gives us every reason to ignore you. We can smell a quisling, and we don’t like them. And, if, as you assert, we are condemned to be ass-raped no matter which party wins, be informed that most of us here have already decided that we prefer to take our ass-raping the old-fashioned way. UNWILLINGLY.

Well done sir.

Is it I or we.

If by “political animal,” you mean “someone interested in politics and policy,” I plead guilty. I didn’t realize someone being interested in politics posting at a site about politics was such a problem.

No, it’s only a problem when someone who makes political arguments in your style claims to be an ordinary citizen. Who are you really? And, do you know a guy named insipid?

I already explained that my work has nothing to do with politics. I follow the news (including the FDL newsfeed) and political discussions online. That is my connection to politics. Gasp.

Back when I read some of the rest of FDL, there were plenty of other people that seem to follow politics (from their diaries/comments) at least as much as I did (or moreso). Their posts are far longer and more detailed than anything I have written. Yet they weren’t interrogated and accused of being lying paid shills. Apparently, the “style” that distinguishes me is having an opinion that is contrary to the majority opinion here (and articulating that opinion).

It seems sort of like a spiral. People with contrary opinions are alienated and leave, which makes contrary opinion more rare (and more “suspect”). This alienates (and effectively sends away) even more people, which once again increases the suspicion of such opinions even further. But having this kind of restriction on acceptable opinions doesn’t seem to be consistent with progressive values, at least in my opinion.

And I have no idea who ‘insipid’ is (or what kind of identifier that is). I haven’t read most of FDL in awhile, if they are connected to here.

No, it has nothing to do with differing opinions. We love those here, it would be boring if we all shared only one opinion. Rather, it has to do with the incredible detail, polish, and rapidity with which you construct your comments. I am a lawyer, and Ive never seen briefs better prepared, which leads me to view your output to be something that you are fully marinated in to a degree that suggests something beyond hobby, or at least that you are working off of talking points rather than being spontaneous. So, I’m suspicious of you. We here understand very well how much the Dem establishment, having ass-raped us for three years, would now like to delude us into giving our votes, anyway.

As to insipid, he is a clone of you, as far as examination of his writing would suggest. And, what a coincidence, he appears on the next post covering this same topic, and you do not.

Which suggests to me that we are once again being treated as though we were fucking retards. Let me test my theory: What is your view of Obama’s decision to “Look forward, not back” when he first came into office?

This certainly isn’t the first time I have expressed my opinions on these issues. I just generally discuss these issues with people on other sites (or off the Internet), where I have never been accused of being a lying paid shill for backing up my opinions.

Looking at insipid’s posting history, he or she seems to post outside of the news section. I don’t usually look there anymore; heck, I often don’t even look at the comments in the news section itself. He or she does appear to be a “clone of me,” if by “clone of me” is defined as “supporting voting for Obama and willing to back up his or her opinion.” But I think if you traveled off this site, you would find scores of people that fit that description. FDL isn’t the only place on the net to discuss politics, and most supporters tend to go to other sites that are not this hostile. The apparent closed information loop here probably contributes to why the few remaining supporters who ever post here are accused of being trolls.

As for the broader question, is there really any evidence the Dem establishment is particularly worried about those on FDL? To be sure, campaigns worry about their base, in terms of enthusiasm, volunteers, etc. But the idea that some organ of the “establishment” sends out paid shills to try to convince people here to vote Democratic seems kind of conspiratorial to me. I have read about campaigns having people try to manipulate opinion in primaries and in the general (Ron Paul comes to mind), but I think those are more about fighting over personalities and/or partisan fights, as opposed to fights over whether there is no difference between the parties.

I could be wrong here, but I do not see why the Democratic establishment would consider left-defections as a serious problem. Every poll indicates that large supermajorities of Democrats and Liberals approve of Obama. In Gallup’s poll, Obama’s approval among liberals is 10 points away from where it was the week he was inaugurated (73 vs. 83). I don’t have the historical data on that, but I would be shocked if that is an abnormally large drop. Gallup’s site does show historical data for Presidential approval among Democrats, and Obama clearly beats or ties every President at basically every corresponding point in their administration (going back to Truman).

There will always be some people in the Democratic party (really both parties) that are dissatisfied with their party’s officeholders, from their respective ideological camps. Getting that (or much of anything else) down to zero is impossible, and doesn’t even seem to be worth worrying about when such dissatisfaction is at a historical low (relative to past Presidents).

In particular, while most liberals and Democrats support Obama, even most of those who don’t support Obama will end up voting for him. (Even in 2000, Nader didn’t really go much above 3%, some portion of that told researchers that Bush was actually their second choice, and in any even that total will likely not be repeated given the consequences of that election.)

For the small portion of the small portion of the left that actually would ever consider not voting for the Democrat in a general election (barring a Watergate, etc), it seems to me that these people would mostly be unreachable for a hypothetical paid shill. It really does not seem to be a spectrum, where there are people progressively less likely to vote for Obama. Rather, from my (brief) experience reading FDL more broadly, it really seems that there is a hard dividing line; despite what I am sure will be denials of this, there is likely little (if anything) a first term Democratic President could feasibly do to get the approval of the people remaining here (and like-mined people not here). Similarly, there is little (if anything) a first term Democratic President could feasibly do to lose the approval of everyone else in the leftmost segment of the party.

Such a dividing line (if it exists as I described) would seem to make it quite pointless for a paid shill to come here for the purpose of trying to get people to change their mind. While seeing the results of one’s actions can certainly change one’s political attitudes (such as Nader supporters after 2000), I doubt any mere argument would change the minds of someone who actually believes not voting for the Democrat could possibly help them achieve any of their policy goals (at any point). This doesn’t mean political discussion is pointless — most political discussion probably doesn’t actually change anyone’s minds very much. It just means that posting on discussion sites (in particular on this discussion site) seems to be about the most unproductive waste of time imaginable — IF one’s goal is to convert anti-Obama votes to pro-Obama votes on behalf of the “Democratic establishment.” There are probably a thousand more productive actions one could take (and not nearly enough time to do all of them), if one is working for such an establishment and their goal is to maximize the vote share of Obama come November.

As for “look forward, not back,” I would have preferred that Obama vigorously went after the lawyers who wrote the opinions. Though in general, I am surprised so many people (at least at one point) were saying that Obama’s non-prosecution of George W. Bush and Dick Cheney was the deal-breaker. Obama honestly could not have made it more clear that he was not going to do this during the campaign. The “look forward, not backward” was the most he could do in his position to get the point across, and it seemed to me that this was quite obvious sat the time. If the lack of prosecution of the former President and vice President was a “deal-breaker” for 2012 (or even one of many), it should have been a deal-breaker in 2008.

Though honestly, anything Obama said about it before he was elected was unnecessary, because the idea that any elected President’s justice department would prosecute his or her predecessor (for what Bush did or for many things even worse than that) is absurd. I mean, even Nixon wasn’t prosecuted, where there was no doubt that a single judge would find what he did blatantly illegal.

What Bush did was worse (and violated more laws/treaties/Constitution/etc) than what Nixon did, but much of the judiciary in this country would not share that view. From a purely descriptive standpoint, for a democratic government to prosecute a previously-elected predecessor, the illegality would have to be beyond Nixon, and the legal question of the certainty of illegality of the actions in question would have to be so obvious that there would be a universal consensus on the issue. The fact that this is a rigged standard (in favor of executive lawbreaking) doesn’t change that something less illegal or less certain simply won’t be prosecuted. It is ludicrous to think it ever would be, by any elected President in this country. The most that could possibly come of such actions is something like the truth and reconciliation commission in South Africa. Democratic governments simply do not prosecute previous administrations, in the absence of something that would create a near-universal consensus to do so.

(And the fact that the lack of a prosecution of the previous President is a “deal breaker” for some is yet more evidence of the futility of any hypothetical “paid shill campaign.” Someone who considers that a deal-breaker was never going to vote to re-elect the President.)

And in case it wasn’t obvious, my description on the likely threshold it would take to prosecute a previous President does not mean I like it. I think Bush and Cheney (especially Cheney) picked lawyers that would tell them exactly what they wanted to hear, knowing that most objective lawyers would have looked aghast at what Cheney wanted them to approve (with regards to waterboarding/etc). In a perfectly just world, those who ordered illegal torture should be subject to an investigation and tried. (And certainly people like Nixon should be tried as well.)

We do not live in such a world. The world we live in is vastly different than a world where previous Presidents could be prosecuted for something that (likely) at least 40% of judges in America would find legal. And a majority would likely find that regardless of the ultimate legal issue, the legal advice the President used would prevent a conviction.) I’m not talking about factual issues of whether he is guilty of X; I am talking about the legal issue over whether X is illegal at all (or whether the legal advice makes the question irrelevant). As bad as it is, we do not live in a world where Presidents prosecute predecessors with those kinds of differing legal opinions (even when the non-consensus over such a question is absurd, as it is here).

I used the word “clone” in reference to the style, not the substance of the opinions expressed. We have lots of dedicated Obamabots and Dembots here, nothing unusual, but nobody else produces the writing style that you and insipid share.

We could not disagree more aboutthe “Lookingforward, not backward” issue. I would have bet my life you would come down as you did. If Nixon had been prosecuted, we would not have been re-subjected to Rumsfeld, Cheney, Abrams, Perle, etc. Consider the damage they did. That history lesson provided plenty of basis for prosecuting theBushies, your preference for political calculation over moral clarity is something I, and many here, would never go along with. Plus, your willingness to back away from prosecuting any executive crime so long as there was one corrupt lawyer willing to endorse it is, frankly, revolting, and makes a complete mockery of the rule of law concept. If Obama had made such a position clear before the election, he never would have gotten votes from the people here.

Finally, despite your reasoning about paid shills, we do indeed get them here, as all the regulars are well aware.

I don’t know how else you can interpret “look forward, not backward.” Presidential candidates are not to supposed to declare in advance of an investigation who their hypothetical justice department will prosecute. He was never going to come out and say “I won’t prosecute Bush.” That’s why he said “Look forward, not backward” — it seemed very clear at the time that he wasn’t going to prosecute Bush. There really won’t ever be another primary winner that would take a contrary position.

However, even if your sole (or most important) goal is the prosecution of executive lawbreakers, prosecuting Bush and Cheney would almost certainly hurt the cause. For one, most of the careerists in the justice department would probably resign before filing such a case, and potentially the political appointees wouldn’t do so either. He would probably have to repeat the Saturday night massacre all over again to get the prosecution of Bush started in the first place. And regardless of what I think about legal advice, the courts hearing the case would almost certainly throw out the conviction on those grounds alone (with a certain affirmation and probable unanimous affirmation by the Supreme Court). So it actually wouldn’t get anywhere. Additionally, having the public turn against Democrats (or any candidate that didn’t rule out such prosecutions in the future) for decades is probably not a good idea, if one’s main goal is to prosecute executive lawbreaking. You can’t look at executive lawbreaking if you never win the presidency. Any prosecution of Bush/Cheney would fail, and elections (and the judiciary, and the failed outcome) would ensure it would be a one-time attempt. If one’s conception of “moral clarity” would consistently result in MORE immoral lawbreaking in the future, maybe the question of which position satisfies “moral clarity” needs to be revisited.

If your goal is to minimize executive lawbreaking in the future (or to at least raise the risk and cost of doing so), it would be more fruitful to go after the lawyers who wrote opinions so outrageous that they likely knew them to be bullshit. That would be more likely to produce consequences that would hold up on appeal, more likely to deter future lawyers from writing something like the torture memo, and less likely to create a precedent that causes every partisan administration from going after their predecessors even when there was no wrong. It would also be much harder for a President to get away with doing something their own lawyers told them was blatantly illegal.

Now you’re just a fucking liar. “Look forward, not backward” was not unleashed on us until AFTER the election. I never would have voted for such crap, after eight years of agonizing over all the Bush era criminality. So, you are just another shill, paid or not, who thinks he can win by endlessly spouting bullshit until he exhausts his audience. Piss on you.

Here’s the infamous video. January 11, 2009. Now, get lost, you lying sack of shit. http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_detailpage&v=0K27oIJlAlA

Finally, despite your reasoning about paid shills, we do indeed get them here, as all the regulars are well aware.

How do you know they’re “paid shills”? You also decided that me and ericj115 are the same person and we’re not.

Plus, you’ve expressed admiration for Greenwald and Hamsher two people that are both paid to shill. So what’s your problem? I guess being a “paid shill” is ok if you’re trashing Obama.

Ah, yes. You appear correct that that terminology appeared later. My bad.

Instead, he said that “If crimes have been committed, they should be investigated,” but “I would not want my first term consumed by what was perceived on the part of the Republicans as a partisan witch hunt, because I think we’ve got too many problems to solve.”

Now that really sounds like someone who is going to prosecute Bush.

Well, it’s wonderful that you and your clone both believe that war crimes are no big deal. Assassinations and disappearing people also, no big deal. That moral bankruptcy you exhibit is what we see in your party, and is why we reject it, even if it means that an election cycle gets lost. Because we can think beyond one election cycle, and realize that it’s more important that our country get its soul back.

Lots of things are big deals that still won’t be solved. I never said it wasnt a big deal.

And I’m not sure why you think you’ll be throwing away only one election cycle (to whatever extent there are a non-negligable number of you). There isn’t going to be a President who prosecutes Bush during your lifetime, or anyone else’s. So you are apparently going to continue these tactics until you finally figure this out.

(I actually agree that will only be at most one one election cycle, since the consequences of the next Republican President will do wonders to focus the mind, even if those consequences are not reversible. But you probably have different reasoning why such time period will be limited to one election cycle.)