Welcome to DU! The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards. Join the community: Create a free account Support DU (and get rid of ads!): Become a Star Member Latest Breaking News Editorials & Other Articles General Discussion The DU Lounge All Forums Issue Forums Culture Forums Alliance Forums Region Forums Support Forums Help & Search

General Discussion

Showing Original Post only (View all)
 

Better Believe It

(18,630 posts)
Tue Jan 3, 2012, 10:50 PM Jan 2012

Ralph Nader: "Why aren't the Democrats landsliding today's Republicans?" [View all]

( The following is not copyrighted material. BBI)

Tuesday, January 3. 2012
The Politics of Lowered Expectations
By Ralph Nader

Ezra Klein, the bright, young, economic policy columnist for the "Washington Post" believes that Obama came out ahead last year in the "administration's bitter, high-stakes negotiations with the Republicans in Congress."

He cites four major negotiations in 2011 with the Republicans that Obama won. Obama won the game of chicken played in February by the House Speaker John Boehner and Senate minority leader Mitch McConnell to avoid a government shutdown. He won the battle to raise the customarily supported debt ceiling on government borrowing. He avoided an embarrassment after he had to concur in the formation of a "Supercommittee" on deficit reduction when Congress couldn't come to an agreement. And he won all of a two-month extension of the social security payroll tax cut and extension of unemployment compensation benefits.

If those were "high stakes," I wonder what microscopic instrument would detect any lower stakes. Obama keeps "winning battles" that he could have avoided. But what about taking the offensive on some really significant matters? For example, when he caved in December 2010 to the minority Republicans and agreed to extend the deficit-producing Bush tax cuts on the rich, he didn't demand in return a continuation of the regular bi-partisan approval of lifting the debt limit. So over weeks in 2011, he had to mud-wrestle the Republicans on the debt limit - to the dismay of finance ministers across the world - and won only after conceding the bizarre creation of a Supercommittee to order its own Congress to enact budget cuts. That Supercommittee gridlocked and closed down.

Finally, if he does nothing, the $4 trillion over 10 years that are the Bush tax cuts expire automatically on January 1, 2013 - after the election. On the same day, the spending trigger automatically kicks in which cuts over ten years $500 billion from the bloated Defense budget and another $500 billion from other departments, but not from social security and Medicare/Medicaid beneficiaries.

This is an Obama victory? What makes Mr. Klein so sure Obama won't cave again? He has all this year to do so. His own Defense Secretary Leon Panetta has often said that there's now way he would go for any further defense cuts. Also, Obama was ready in 2011 to raise the Medicare eligibility age in return for the deal on debt ceiling. He was saved from this folly only by the stubbornness of Boehner and his clenched-teeth sidekick, Virginian Eric Cantor from the arguably most passive Congressional district in the U.S. Boehner and Cantor wanted more.

Here are some high stakes fights where the Republicans defeated the White House and blocked major substantive advances. They stopped the wide-ranging energy bill, and stifled Uncle Sam's authority to bargain for drug discounts that taxpayers are paying to the gouging drug companies for the drug benefit program for the elderly. They kept the coal industry King Coal on Capitol Hill, preserved crass corporate welfare and tax loophole programs, and blocked the able nominee to head the new agency to protect against consumer finance abuses. They also cut budgets for small but crucial safety programs in food, auto safety, and children's hunger.

Republicans preserved the notorious nuclear power loan guarantee boondoggles, a bevy of Soviet-era weapons systems nestled in the arms of the military-industrial complex and mercilessly beat up on the work and budget of the cancer-preventing, illness-reducing Environmental Protection Agency. That's just for starters.

Obama and the majority Democrats in the Senate dug this hole for themselves when they failed to curtail the filibuster in January 2009 and 2011 by majority vote. They doomed themselves to the numerically impossible hurdle of needing 60 votes to pass any measure and avoid filibusters.

Putting themselves on the defensive, while dialing business lobbyists for the same campaign dollars as the Republicans, the Obama crowd, of course, could not advance what they promised the American people. They went silent on raising the federal minimum wage to $9.50, promised by candidate Obama in 2008 for 2011. At $9.50, it would still have been less than the federal minimum wage in 1968, adjusted for inflation. Hardly a radical proposal.

Obama went silent on the card check, promised unorganized American workers in their losing struggle with multinational corporate employers. While bailing out the criminal gamblers on Wall Street, he could have pressed for a stock transaction sales tax that could have raised big revenue and helped dampen speculation with other peoples' money such as pension funds and mutual fund savings.

He could have pushed seriously for a visible public works program producing domestic jobs in thousands of communities for improved public services. He could have directly challenged the Tea Partiers with cuts in corporate welfare, but he did not, except for ending an ethanol subsidy. He could have made a big deal of cracking down on corporate fraud on Medicare and Medicaid that totals tens of billions of dollars a year. However, once on the defensive from his own self-inflicted weak hand, he was always on the defensive.

Obama may be in a superior tactical position vis-a-vis the Congressional Republicans, as Mr. Klein posits, but is this all there is left of the touted movement for hope and change in 2008?

President Obama is deemed by his fellow Democrats to have won the financial battles, but the Republicans won the rest. How can the expectation levels of this two party duopoly sink any lower?

Let's face it, if today's Republicans are the most craven, greedy, ignorant, anti-worker, anti-patient, anti-consumer, anti-environment and coddlers of corporate crime in the party's history, why aren't the Democrats landsliding them?

For two answers try reading John F. Kennedy's best-selling Profiles of Courage, 1955, or if you favor the ancients, Plutarch's Lives (circa 100 A.D.).


http://nader.org/index.php?/archives/2341-The-Politics-of-Lowered-Expectations.html#extended



128 replies = new reply since forum marked as read
Highlight: NoneDon't highlight anything 5 newestHighlight 5 most recent replies
Because assholes like Nader keep promoting the RW meme that both parties are the same. baldguy Jan 2012 #1
I didn't know that right-wing Republicans (RW) are promoting the idea that they are like Democrats Better Believe It Jan 2012 #4
That's how the GOP has maintained power even though they've been the minority party for 40 yrs. baldguy Jan 2012 #18
if that corruption theory holds getdown Jan 2012 #30
Dems are generally less corrupt than Republicans. Generally. baldguy Jan 2012 #39
so why ignore the lobbying point? getdown Jan 2012 #44
+1000 ellisonz Jan 2012 #9
Ralph is a jerkbag coward. Afraid to confront the GOP party. A yellow belly. n/t deacon Jan 2012 #20
You bet me to it oh and BTW Fuck Yourself Nadir! n/t BlueToTheBone Jan 2012 #23
+1,000,000,000,000 HuckleB Jan 2012 #71
Beat me to the punch. Thank you. When you have people saying Suji to Seoul Jan 2012 #75
+1 uponit7771 Jan 2012 #123
Precisely. (nt) redqueen Jan 2012 #127
In my opinion if Nader cared about the Democratic Party Angry Dragon Jan 2012 #2
He's a repuke...why would he care about the BlueToTheBone Jan 2012 #25
Nadar crawled out of his hole today? JoePhilly Jan 2012 #3
The Undead cast no shadow. Ikonoklast Jan 2012 #8
lol treestar Jan 2012 #12
I got slammed a few days ago for pointing that out SixthSense Jan 2012 #5
Read this ^^^^ Charlemagne Jan 2012 #128
Because ProSense Jan 2012 #6
Fuck Nader. Odin2005 Jan 2012 #7
Fuck Nader...nt SidDithers Jan 2012 #10
How long do you think we'll have to wait for an intelligent rebuttal of Nader's article? Better Believe It Jan 2012 #11
Good question. AnotherMcIntosh Jan 2012 #14
Here: ProSense Jan 2012 #15
I think he meant on the issues. randome Jan 2012 #21
I ProSense Jan 2012 #28
I'm missing something, too. randome Jan 2012 #29
They have better getdown Jan 2012 #32
Which ProSense Jan 2012 #38
wait getdown Jan 2012 #40
Sure ProSense Jan 2012 #46
Couldn't get pass(sic) the title. nt Electric Monk Jan 2012 #74
Yikes! ProSense Jan 2012 #88
Actually ProSense Jan 2012 #36
That wasn't it! Logical Jan 2012 #87
Of course you couldn't. LanternWaste Jan 2012 #93
Nader, being an asshole Summer Hathaway Jan 2012 #16
+1 ellisonz Jan 2012 #47
That makes it pretty easy then, call someone an asshole and avoid the content of TheKentuckian Jan 2012 #69
Church Lady? Summer Hathaway Jan 2012 #72
So you simply don't do content. Why not say so instead of hiding behind assholes? TheKentuckian Jan 2012 #109
Huh? Summer Hathaway Jan 2012 #112
+1 Johonny Jan 2012 #79
Maybe nader has no interest in the Iowa GOP Caucus. JoePhilly Jan 2012 #17
If you read his comments on the Republicans in the article you would know the answer! Better Believe It Jan 2012 #33
There are a few facts in there Robb Jan 2012 #26
The heart of the EFCA was card check and it has not been implemented by the White House. Better Believe It Jan 2012 #42
Incorrect. Robb Jan 2012 #45
Do you subscribe to only RW newsletters? brentspeak Jan 2012 #55
Nader is unsafe at any speed. Major Hogwash Jan 2012 #98
"He's the best President in decades for unions"? Did he make an effort to turn back NAFTA? AnotherMcIntosh Jan 2012 #101
Count the union endorsements. Then visit the following link: Robb Jan 2012 #102
Who else are they going to endorse? Gingrich? Romney? Paul? AnotherMcIntosh Jan 2012 #105
but that would require getdown Jan 2012 #34
Why do you only quote articles about losers like Nader? Major Hogwash Jan 2012 #37
Did you really expect that? sabrina 1 Jan 2012 #60
Word. ronnie624 Jan 2012 #76
Thank you that is very nice of you to say. sabrina 1 Jan 2012 #78
It's more than disappointing, it's dispiriting whatchamacallit Jan 2012 #107
Yup. nt woo me with science Jan 2012 #108
Pay me to write articles, and I'll happily do it. joshcryer Jan 2012 #65
I have a buck fifty in bottles and cans davidpdx Jan 2012 #90
here's one bigtree Jan 2012 #92
Blame the Republicans for their use of the filibuster treestar Jan 2012 #13
The fake Republican "procedural filibusters" could have been stopped by the Democrats. Better Believe It Jan 2012 #51
Baloney treestar Jan 2012 #106
That is true, the blame here goes to Reid and our caucus. TheKentuckian Jan 2012 #110
K&R for truth slay Jan 2012 #19
@#$% Ralph Nader. n/t Scurrilous Jan 2012 #22
I like Ralph izquierdista Jan 2012 #24
them are getdown Jan 2012 #35
That we should change the Senate rules? n/t ellisonz Jan 2012 #48
How ProSense Jan 2012 #52
It's downright fucking ignorant. ellisonz Jan 2012 #56
By not changing Senate rules, Democrats left Republicans in possession of the weapon they've used smokey nj Jan 2012 #91
You don't got it... ellisonz Jan 2012 #96
I get it just fine. smokey nj Jan 2012 #99
The Supreme Court indicates it to be close to humbug status anyway. TheKentuckian Jan 2012 #111
He sure is powerful. Lol. And he was right all along as has become sabrina 1 Jan 2012 #61
what just because getdown Jan 2012 #68
Because most people have no idea WTF is going on in politics and will blame the President for everyt FarLeftFist Jan 2012 #27
i don't blame him for anything getdown Jan 2012 #43
I'm referring to Nader wondering why the D's aren't having a landslide. FarLeftFist Jan 2012 #50
It's a good question getdown Jan 2012 #54
I used to say "Fuck Ralph" - but not any more FreakinDJ Jan 2012 #31
how'd that happen? getdown Jan 2012 #41
Ralph Nader is a tool for the right. ellisonz Jan 2012 #53
I do remember that debate in 2005. Democratic Senators caved in to Republicans. Better Believe It Jan 2012 #57
It wasn't a question of caving or not caving. ellisonz Jan 2012 #66
Fake filibusters need to be destroyed. Senators should be required to filibuster in a filibuster! Better Believe It Jan 2012 #94
No such agreement was made on SCOTUS picks was made. n/t ellisonz Jan 2012 #95
Do you believe that agreement did not apply to Bush's Supreme Court nominees? Better Believe It Jan 2012 #119
they are, ralph. spanone Jan 2012 #49
I bet you were one of the 'progressives' who voted for Nader in 2000 book_worm Jan 2012 #58
yeah getdown Jan 2012 #63
In the ballpark... Bobbie Jo Jan 2012 #67
Gore won in 2000. Nader had no effect. JackRiddler Jan 2012 #116
Simply put. CanSocDem Jan 2012 #120
It's the difference between blaming a gadfly... JackRiddler Jan 2012 #122
Because the far left would rather attack the center left than deal with reality Motown_Johnny Jan 2012 #59
The *authoritarian* left would rather attack the moderate left than deal with reality. joshcryer Jan 2012 #62
what he said getdown Jan 2012 #64
Fuck Nader Rincewind Jan 2012 #70
Hey Ralph Yo_Mama_Been_Loggin Jan 2012 #73
It takes 51 votes to change the Senate rules. Nader is right, and Harry Reid has no guts. cherokeeprogressive Jan 2012 #77
Lost opportunity. sabrina 1 Jan 2012 #80
Harry Reid has triggered the nuclear option before. joshcryer Jan 2012 #85
What am I supposed to use this for? Toilet paper? nt BootinUp Jan 2012 #81
Are you insane, it's on a screen. How will you flush it? JackRiddler Jan 2012 #117
as much as i hate to stoop to symbolism BootinUp Jan 2012 #118
I have a question. CanSocDem Jan 2012 #121
Despite Nader being an asshat, his point is valid... Scuba Jan 2012 #82
.... Because they don't agree with Ralph??? quaker bill Jan 2012 #83
Thanks for posting and taking the obligatory heat. mmonk Jan 2012 #84
They have no desire to. They want to be as close to being the Republicans as possible and still have TheKentuckian Jan 2012 #86
Once again, Nader is an urban legend BklnDem75 Jan 2012 #89
The Republicans funded his last campaign because he's a freak. Major Hogwash Jan 2012 #97
Nader makes some good points in the article paulk Jan 2012 #100
Differenes Johnny2X2X Jan 2012 #103
So, the "Democrats [are not] landsliding today's Republicans" because some posters hate Nader? AnotherMcIntosh Jan 2012 #104
Nader bad! Errrrrr... leeroysphitz Jan 2012 #113
A good compromise is to go kind of regressive with the whole deal. TheKentuckian Jan 2012 #114
Saint Ralph. Where has he had his head stuck? nt bluestate10 Jan 2012 #115
"...they failed to curtail the filibuster..." WOW! Ignorant on many fronts! Obama is NOT congress or uponit7771 Jan 2012 #124
It's amazing that Ralph doesn't see the irony. Why didn't he landslide them? Tarheel_Dem Jan 2012 #125
Well why didn't Nader "landslide"? CreekDog Jan 2012 #126
Latest Discussions»General Discussion»Ralph Nader: "Why ...