Getting Smarter About Politics

[sheshe2]

I guess the question is, what has to happen before a great many progressives figure out that what they think about politics doesn’t work? I mean, we started losing in 1972, and we’ve continued losing ever since; over the course of 43 years, at what point do we figure out that how we think about politics doesn’t get us the progress of government we all want?

We even have a stellar example of what we can do in order to get a progressive government. It’s called the Obama campaign, especially in 2008. That campaign was a progressive campaign; it was a classic, in that it promoted the idea that we could do great things with government, and make people’s lives better. He won in the first landslide a Democrat has experienced since 1964, with the largest turnout since 1968 and yet within one election cycle, progressives apparently forgot that lesson and reverted back to negativity and attacking Democrats.

Seriously, how could anyone who considers themselves politically savvy believe that negativity about Democrats is going to get us anything except more Republicans in office? And yet, before Obama even took office, the professional left and the PUBs (Progressive Unicorn Brigade) started attacking him for crap. The loudest segment of the progressive movement was already declaring his presidency a failure because he chose Timothy Geithner as Treasury Secretary, forgetting the basic political reality that it’s the President who sets economic policy, not the Treasury Secretary; not that they evaluated Gethner fairly, anyway. They even went after him for his choice for the Christian pastor who gave the invocation. How can anyone expect to be taken seriously, politically speaking, when you are criticizing the president of the United States for not choosing “the right pastor” to say a prayer at his inauguration?

The sad part is the negativity, which built to a crescendo almost as soon as he was inaugurated. The stimulus package was too small. He was spending too much money trying to bail out the banks. He wasn’t spending enough time bashing Republicans (as if that is a policy decision that makes sense to a country that is heading toward depression.) They complained that he was “too nice” to Republicans, apparently unaware that most Americans want bipartisanship. He was purposely showing the public how he would reach out to them and they would bite his hand off, but PUBs and professional lefties attacked him, not the Republicans doing the biting of the hand. It made no sense.

They attacked everything that Obama and every Democrat did for two solid years after his inauguration. And yet, the same people give themselves zero credit when it comes to the disaster that was the 2010 election, when we gave Congress to Republicans, thus preventing him from getting anything done and then blaming him for not getting anything done.

More http://pleasecutthecrap.com/getting-smarter-about-politics/#more-3798

[nadinbrzezinski]

1. Reaching for the popcorn

this will be way entertaining.

I need a full tub.



Hmm should I add butter, or make this a sweet treat?

[AtomicKitten]

5. Waiter!

[nadinbrzezinski]

16. Thankee

[SaranchaIsWaiting]

14. Me too but this is my kind of tub

I have a remote to turn off the sound.

[nadinbrzezinski]

17. It does fit

[Initech]

18. Pass the garlic butter please!

[nadinbrzezinski]

20. Here

🍪 have a cookie too

[MFrohike]

2. Cool

Nothing says authoritative account like the writer telling you to "go look it up."

[MannyGoldstein]

3. The Third Way needs to go

We we lose, even when we win, until our party is again led by folks with Democratic values.

The TPP is yet another big wet kiss to the class that Obama considers his peers.

[BainsBane]

39. Obama is not Third Way

[Thinkingabout]

4. Actually the bail out of the banks was paid by the Obama adminstration

But voted in on the previous administration and Bush's guy Hank Paulson who did not out needed controls to prevent the executives from getting their bonuses for one thing. When Obama bailed out the auto industry there were more controls and the auto bailout when well.

[Raine1967]

6. K&R!

I have a strong feeling this ail be met with much disapproval, but I happen to agree with all of it.

Instead, the PUBs and professional left instead targeted “Blue Dogs,” falsely claiming that they were responsible for the inaction of the Democratic Congress. It was complete crap on several levels. First of all, only one member of the Blue Dog caucus did not vote with Democrats at least 80% of the time. Most of them voted with Democrats more than 85% of the time and many of those targeted topped 90%. Even the one Blue Dog who didn’t vote with Democrats 80% of the time did so Democrats 68% of the time. At no time during the 111th Congress did any Blue Dog block a Democratic bill or vote against cloture. Never. Didn’t happen. But there is one other thing; no Blue Dog ever cast a deciding vote against a Democratic bill, including the Affordable Care Act. The fact is, Blue Dogs, who represent conservative districts, coordinated with Speaker Pelosi, so they could demonstrate a “no” vote at home while making sure the bill passed. And it did.

And before you scream at me and call me a liar, go look it up. I have. As bad as some Blue Dog rhetoric is at times, the people who replaced them are far more odious. Yet PUBs and pro lefties continue to brag that they have “purged” almost the entire Blue Dog Caucus from Congress. Strangely, the same people don’t take credit for helping create the Tea Party Caucus, despite the fact that every Blue Dog “purged” was replaced with a teabagger. How can a “progressive” brag about replacing Democrats who vote 80% of the time or more with teabaggers who vote with Democrats 0% of the time?

It’s just a fact. The worst Blue Dog in Congress was about 80X better than the person who replaced them when PUBs targeted them. The problem comes because too many progressives put far more value in rhetoric than results. They are so enamored with what politicians say, they refuse to consider what they do. They’re the very definition of gullible. If a politician tells you he’s going to bring peace, kill all defense programs, quadruple spending on programs for the poor and flip us over to a single player health plan, and you buy that bullshit and trash anyone who doesn’t say all that, you’re not politically savvy, you’re a gullible fool. Campaign promises are wish lists; they still need a majority in Congress to happen, and I guarantee that none of the above will happen when you target Blue Dogs and replace them with teabaggers.

I’m not talking about primaries. During primaries, support anyone you want, without trashing the other candidates, in case they win. And then, if your candidate loses in the primary, you don’t run off and sulk in the corner; you support the living shit out of the best candidate left, which right now will always be a Democrat. Always. Every time.

[MFrohike]

7. That's funny

The blue dogs either retired or lost in the general election. As the author of this piece says himself, go look it up.

[Raine1967]

8. maybe you missed this part:

And before you scream at me and call me a liar, go look it up. I have. As bad as some Blue Dog rhetoric is at times, the people who replaced them are far more odious. Yet PUBs and pro lefties continue to brag that they have “purged” almost the entire Blue Dog Caucus from Congress. Strangely, the same people don’t take credit for helping create the Tea Party Caucus, despite the fact that every Blue Dog “purged” was replaced with a teabagger. How can a “progressive” brag about replacing Democrats who vote 80% of the time or more with teabaggers who vote with Democrats 0% of the time?

I don't have to look it up.

One of my biggest problems with the 50 state strategy (I liked it a lot and wanted to to continue to become stronger) was that we got politically weak blue dogs. Instead of having the backing of progressives trying to push them to the left they were voted out.

It goes back to what this person is saying.

So, it's not funny. They lost in the generals for the very damn reason this was written. Look it up.

I suggest reading the article again. It's pretty good.

[MFrohike]

9. Don't let the facts get in the way of a good story

The blue dogs got removed over several cycles because they were specifically targeted as being vulnerable. They were outspent massively. That's the fault of the national party and its leaders. Those that weren't removed prior to 2010 found themselves redistricted into no-win scenarios. Those are the actual facts of the situation.

[Raine1967]

10. You are more then entitled to dismiss the entire piece because of your feeling

that the author

"is full of shit. "

I don't need your help. thank you very much. Take your axe and grind it elsewhere. I stand tall in agreement with the OP.

perhaps you can google, you might find that it is spot on point.

[MFrohike]

11. Hahahahahahaha

That statement, which I edited out but thanks for noticing, is fact, not feeling. I note that you didn't bother to rebut the rest of what I removed (removed because of the tone, not the content). But, since you're so free in handing out advice, maybe you're receptive to some. Google the name Steve Israel and look for stories about his wonderful tenure as DCCC chairman, especially in the last two election cycles.. Then look up the name Mike McIntyre. See if you can find anything about the amount of money spent to unseat him. Then look up the name Larry Kissell. Check on the amount spent to beat him AND about the redistricting that was necessary to replace him with a guy with multiple DWIs. If you're not familiar with those stories, then you don't know squat about the subject.

[Cha]

27. It's not "the author who is full of shit".. Mahalo Raine!

[Jamaal510]

12. It's not much, but

I'm doing my part and voicing my opinion. The DNC mailed me a survey last week, and I finished it, providing feedback on the issues that are most important to me, and what I think they need to focus on. I said in the survey that they should focus more on Congressional elections because there are unfortunately too many voters on our side of the spectrum who have unrealistic expectations of the Presidency. They could do a better job of emphasizing the importance of those types of elections, and so could the media.

[sheshe2]

15. Jamaal.

Thank you for the good work you do. I know you are so busy with school.

Luv ya for taking time to answer the important questions. You! You are our future.

Teach!

[lumberjack_jeff]

13. Success in politics is all about what you don't say.

In real life, I'm accused of treating every problem like a math problem.

If 20% of the people won't vote for anyone who is pro choice, and 40% won't vote for anyone who is for gun control, and 10% won't vote for anyone who advocates economic justice then only someone bad at math would preach loudly about all three.

1*.8*.6*.9 = 43.2% of the public. You'd better hope that there's a lot of overlap and no overlooked topics of interest.

The secret of Obama's success was saying as little as possible with as many florid, poetical words as possible.

So my advice to candidates is to talk about one thing - my preference is economic justice - and talk about everything else as little as possible.

[sheshe2]

19. If florid words is all you got, you weren't listening.

Nor have you been watching the last six years.

Screw that. I am not a single issue voter like you are. The economy under Obama has risen. Yes we have a long way to go for income equality, yet there is no fricking way social equality should not be screamed from the roof tops.They go hand and hand. You hold a very narrow vision of where we as a nation should be heading. That is wrong.

The secret of Obama's success was saying as little as possible with as many florid, poetical words as possible.

So my advice to candidates is to talk about one thing - my preference is economic justice - and talk about everything else as little as possible.

[Betty Karlson]

21. Well, maybe Obama could have started his presidency on a higher note than

by dashing the hopes and increasing the fears of his ardent base?

Choosing a known homophobe for a prayer right after homophobes had taken the right to marry away from gay Californians was at the very least tone-deaf. At worst, it betrayed a callosity that turned many people away from the Democrats when it was shown in other ways too.

Actions matter. Fighting AGAINST the public option mattered, not going after war criminals mattered, not going after massive fraud in the banking sector mattered.

And as for attacking Democrats in the first two years: "Fucking retards" (from the president's chief of staff) and "Unicorn Brigade" (from you and others) suggest that there were indeed vicious attacks on Democrats, but not in the way you mean.

[sheshe2]

22. Hey Betty.

Guess you forgot all about this...

http://www.democraticunderground.com/10026648982

I know you will not watch, yet this is where we were. Selective memory. Hmmmmm~

Well, maybe Obama could have started his presidency on a higher note than by dashing the hopes and increasing the fears of his ardent base?

Guess you were not a member of his "ardent base" since your hopes were instantly dashed. I feel sad for you. You thought he could change it all by snapping his fingers? Or was it his magic wand you voted for?



You do have a clue how the Government works correct? If you voted for a savior, that is never going to happen.

[Betty Karlson]

23. I watched it all right. Dont feel sad for me yet.

Yes, my hopes were indeed dashed. I care very much about equal rights. For the president to select someone who has spoken again and again against the rights that had been taken away in California, as I said: it was very tone-deaf at best.

I did not expect a president snapping fingers. I merely expected a president who would lift a finger now and then for the things I care about. Jesus Christ is my Saviour, Obama was merely expected to act as a president can.

Overcoming the big recession was a momentous accomplishment. Obama deserves credit for that. That doesn't mean he wasn't callous at times.

Did the recession compell him to pander to homophobes on January 20th, 2009?
Did the recession compell Holder to take war crimes prosecution off the table?
Did the recession compell Democrats to take the public option out of consideration?
Did the recession compell the administration to crush Occupy Wall Street, even though their protests were within the law?

In recent days, we have seen how much pressure a president can use for the things he cares about. Look at how much political credit Obama put on the line for the TPP. Imagine he had done that for the public option - which, by the way, would have rendered the whole health care system even more affordable than it already is.

And you are right in one remark: the president was not alone in being callous. Other Democrats were dashing the hopes of the base too. That is what turned voters away.

[Cha]

28. It's so easy to spot those who appreciate nothing that's happened over the last 7 years, she..

They bitterly dwell on missteps(yes, I didn't like that but didn't start hating him and never stopped bc of it) and don't acknowledge the whole forest and all the progress we've made. They are also are quite adept at lobbing ignorant cheap pot shots. Doesn't even have to be something that's true. If it's said enough around the web.. it is to them.

Nobody is perfect. Not even the bitter anonymous internet poster.

[wyldwolf]

24. Just a casual observation

I mean, we started losing in 1972,

"Progressives," as defined today on the internet, have never won anything of national consequence. Plenty of low-hanging fruit in the form of house seats in deep blue areas, yes, but little more.

Sure, the term 'progressive' has been assigned to Senators and President, often retroactively, but even they have 'betrayed' the 'progressive' cause by that nasty political tool known as compromise.

A DUer wrote a great piece on it here.

I believe the term the author of the piece you quoted is searching for is Puritopian.

As Eleanor Roosevelt said:

The ups and downs in peoples’ feelings, particularly on the liberal side, are an old, old story. The liberals always get discouraged when they do not see the measures they are interested in go through immediately. Considering the time we have had to work in the past for almost every slight improvement, I should think they might get over with it, but they never do.

[Cha]

25. Excellent quote from Eleanor Roosevelt.. Thank you, wlldwolf!

"The ups and downs in peoples’ feelings, particularly on the liberal side, are an old, old story. The liberals always get discouraged when they do not see the measures they are interested in go through immediately. Considering the time we have had to work in the past for almost every slight improvement, I should think they might get over with it, but they never do."

[MBS]

31. Wow, great quote.

Thanks!!

[Cha]

26. Milt Shook's Please Cut The Crap is one of my favorite sites.. thank you, she..

Bonus From your link..

"Yes, I say a great number of self-described progressives lie to the American people. For example, if you equate Hillary Clinton to any Republican on the political scene right now, you are lying. No, I don’t mean that you are mistaken; I mean you are lying. It is literally not possible to follow the political scene right now and see any equivalence whatsoever between any Democrat and any Republican right now. It is not true that any Democrat has anywhere near the same relationship with “Wall Street” that any Republican does. They’re not equivalent, they’re not even close. And when you tell people that Hillary is just as bad as “any Republican” you are telling bald-faced lie."

Same with President Obama.

"The PUBS".. Excellent!

[sheshe2]

33. There was so much great things in the article, Cha.

Thanks for bringing that one over.

[Cha]

34. The Obama Admin has been amazing.. not perfect but on the whole I've been so appreciative!

[Bonobo]

29. I must be tripping... Did you actually write the following with a straight face?

"how could anyone who considers themselves politically savvy believe that negativity about Democrats is going to get us anything except more Republicans in office? "

[tularetom]

30. The sad part about the Obama term is not that he didn't accomplish more

It's that he DIDN'T EVEN TRY.

The republicans announced the day he took office that they were going to block everything he tried to accomplish, and he more or less accepted that. He allowed his opponents to define the limits of his presidency.

He was smart enough not to push the Bush/Cheney war crimes thing, it would have torn the country apart. But he should have put a few thug bankers in jail, and he damn well should have made an effort to implement a single payer health care system, or at least a government option, instead of a system that really does nothing more than force millions of Americans to give money to insurance companies.

The man is a wonderful orator, he could have taken to the stump and rallied millions of voters to any cause he chose to push. But apparently he never felt strongly enough about anything to do that. He could have gone to congress once in awhile and twisted a few Democratic arms, but the only thing he cared about enough to do that was a godawful trade agreement that will result in a job hemorrhage.

He will emerge from his two terms pretty much unbloodied, because he never put up a fight.

[TheKentuckian]

32. If prosecuting soulless torture and depravity tears the nation apart then that is what is needed

"Looking forward" rubberstamps and makes acceptable the extreme immorality while forcing those that "look forward" to buy into, condone, and in all practical effect to embrace the crimes.

If that is what we are then we not only deserve to be torn apart but need to be as we have become a factory of cruel wickedness.

[Cha]

35. Then you have those who have no clue what went on and are whining he didn't even try.. the hardest

working President in my lifetime.

[sheshe2]

36. Yup.

Just read that. I will not even bother to reply.

[Cha]

37. I didn't read it, either.. it's obvious from the get.. they don't know wtf they're talking about.

[sheshe2]

38. blah blah blah

Lol~

Back at you.