Booman Tribune ~ A Progressive Community

Heads vs. Tails

by BooMan
Tue Nov 3rd, 2009 at 11:33:14 AM EST

Sarah Palin, Dick Armey, and Rush Limbaugh are pushing for a purge of moderates from the Republican Party. To be sure, this is about book sales, radio ratings, and fundraising, but it is also about something else. The way to keep the GOP as the Party of No is to threaten every member of their caucuses in Washington with an energetic primary if they work with the Democrats or the Obama administration. It's not a serious way of regaining majorities in Congress. In fact, it's quite detrimental to that effort. But the Republicans don't really care about Congress. They care about the White House. They don't want Obama to succeed. They want him to fight and scrap for every vote, and cause internal strife within the Democratic caucus.

The more Obama has to trim his sails to pass legislation, the more ornery his base becomes at signs of weakness, compromise, and capitulation. If everything he accomplishes is done with no bipartisan support, it keeps the Republican base energized.

So, this is a strategy for taking back the White House in 2012, and not an effort to truly remake the Republican Party or to win back Congress. That's what makes it truly distinct from the progressive blogosphere. While we complained about some of the decisions that Rahm Emanuel and Chuck Schumer made in their recruitments (and refused to assist some of their candidates), we did not object to their overall plan for retaking Congress. We didn't surge behind third-party candidates to prevent conservative Democrats from being elected in conservative districts. And what we were asking for wasn't radical. We wanted the Democrats to stand up to the radicals in the White House and Congress.

That doesn't mean that people in the progressive blogosphere don't want some pretty big changes, but that wasn't what we made our litmus tests about. Opposition to a senseless war, an unaccountable executive, and grotesque human rights abuses were our litmus tests. That's not radical.

Heads vs. Tails | 21 comments (21 topical, 0 editorial, 0 hidden)

Re: Heads vs. Tails (4.00 / 2)

Although the "grotesque human rights abuses" may be waning at this point, the other issues remain. But they remain as major issues for Progressives. The economy is the focus for everyone else and that ain't good.

The populace may blame Bush for the problem, but they're looking to the Dems for solutions and sooner rather than later they're going to have to show progress in something other than the Wall Street Casino. I see no "Fierce Urgency" or "Audacity" in dealing with the economy--only more of the same.

The strategy appears to be to reflate the credit bubble that got us where we are now. I don't know why we should expect anything else considering the economic team. I didn't know Obama very well before the primaries in 08, but when Clinton won New Hampshire and appealed to "change" with the same old Clintonistas behind her on the stage I wrote her off. I've tried to hold onto my hopes for Obama despite the fact that he just recycled Rubin, Summers, et al back into the gov't. I'm losing Hope for Urgency and Change, however.

There have certainly been some accomplishments, but the ultimate, necessary accomplishment isn't health care or the minimum wage or immigration. It's the realization that the economic model doesn't need to be "fixed". It needs to be transformed in some fundamental manner. If "urgency" and "change" is needed anywhere, it's there.

by Brad on Tue Nov 3rd, 2009 at 12:04:27 PM EST

Re: Heads vs. Tails (none / 0)

growing up in the suburbs of New York City, I got to know a lot of corporate executive types because they were the parents of friends and schoolmates. They were pretty supportive of Reagan not only because of his tax cuts, but because interest rates had grown to absurd rates under Carter, and they just felt the Democrats had no clue on economics. But they had no time for any of that cultural warrior stuff. As suburbanites, they had certain anti-urban attitudes, but of course NYC had gone broke in the 1970's and it had a huge crime problem in the 1980's. So, these guys were conservatives. But they had nothing in common with Pat Robertson or the Christian Coalition.

The vast majority of those folks are now inside the Obama-tent. Most of them are represented by Democrats in Congress. The more crazy the Republicans become, the less these folks want to do with them. They don't want radical reform of the financial sector. They want enough reform to provide stability, but that's it.

The interesting thing about the Teabagger Movement is that they are probably more hostile to these former Reagan Republicans than they are to the Democrats, or than the Democrats are to them.

I mean, the Chamber of Commerce supported the stimulus package, and the relevant lobbying groups are lining up for health reform.

So, the business community is slowly abandoning their previous support for the GOP. That puts a lot of new Democrats in Congress, but it means that the coalition is now responsible for representing a huge swath of the electorate, from the dispossessed, to labor, to Wall Street CEO's. It's an awfully Big Tent at this point, and governing it is a real trick.

Obama's first task was to stabilize the economy, and that meant he had to reassure the big investors. But, you're right that the price for that is weaker than necessary financial reform. The big question is whether or not the Democrats can manage their own caucus and still get things done better than half-ass. It's doubly hard because the Republicans are ruthlessly political and willing to stand firmly opposed while driving wedges into the weak links within the Dem caucus.

I don't envy the party leaders who have to navigate this.

by BooMan on Tue Nov 3rd, 2009 at 12:55:00 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Heads vs. Tails (none / 1)

They were pretty supportive of Reagan not only because of his tax cuts, but because interest rates had grown to absurd rates under Carter, and they just felt the Democrats had no clue on economics.

If you remember, Volcker raised rates that high to tame inflation, which had made the mid to late 70's not a fun time. Wall Street never gives any credit to Democrats for the economy. Besides, look what the neo-liberal policies of Clinton and Obama have gotten us.

They don't want radical reform of the financial sector. They want enough reform to provide stability, but that's it.

What do they suggest given that we know what happens when left to their own devices? We didn't have any systemic blow-ups while Glass-Stegall was in place, did we?

Is it? Can you tell me what Democratic principles that Rahm Emanuel, Ben Nelson or Blanche Lincoln support? None!! That's how many. We can't even get EFCA passed with 60 Senators for cryin' out loud!! Those three(and there are many more .. obviously) are only in it for the power and prestige. They don't give a rat's ass about the people they "represent". They might begin to care if they had a primary challenge. But even then, I wonder. And then, they'd mouth just enough platitudes to get themselves re-elected(hopefully .. for them that is)

by Calvin Jones and the 13th Apostle on Tue Nov 3rd, 2009 at 02:12:51 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Heads vs. Tails (none / 0)

On Ben Nelson, I'm inclined to agree with you. If we're talking about financial services reform, though, a lot of Democrats aren't going to be helpful because their districts are chock full of very influential people who work in those industries. These are people who like and trust Geithner and Summers. But that doesn't mean these Dems are Blue Dogs or that they typically cast bad votes.

In other words, the suburbs haven't changed all that much. They just hate Republicans now.

by BooMan on Tue Nov 3rd, 2009 at 02:35:08 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Heads vs. Tails (none / 0)

So they want to go through this again in a few more years?

by Calvin Jones and the 13th Apostle on Wed Nov 4th, 2009 at 12:36:56 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Heads vs. Tails (4.00 / 2)

I guess the Republicans are still stuck on the theory of the Unitary Executive... They don't see Congress as all that relevant, EXCEPT as a means for blocking the Executive. And while they'll use every trick in the book to block what the Democrats want to do in Congress now, if they should regain the White House, they will suddenly discover all those legislative tricks are unconstitutional, because when they have the White House, they believe it is Congress' job to do whatever the Executive says.

Their entire vision of how the government is supposed to WORK is skewed -- and not constitutional or democratic in the least.

Keith Olbermann speaks for me.

by JanetT in MD on Tue Nov 3rd, 2009 at 12:26:46 PM EST

Re: Heads vs. Tails (4.00 / 2)

It doesn't much matter whether it's Constitutional or democratic if they can get away with it. Besides, Mr. Obama seems to be a convert to the theory--at least as far as the national security state is concerned.

by Brad on Tue Nov 3rd, 2009 at 12:33:30 PM EST
[ Parent ]

What this gets the Republicans (none / 1)

is iron discipline. Look at what happened with the stimulus, what is happening with health care reform, forget civil liberties: Despite the vast formal Democratic advantage, the Republicans are still almost equal in power. When the Republicans were in a much smaller majority, there was clearly no equality. That is because there is no Repub equivalent of blue dogs, except in Maine, and even Snowe now seems to be functioning as a bargaining chip (it's possible that the Repubs would actually like to see a bad bill with triggers pass, and Snowe could have perhaps achieved that for them while keeping the party's fingerprints off).

by bento on Tue Nov 3rd, 2009 at 01:16:48 PM EST

Re: Heads vs. Tails (none / 0)

If Obama's base continues to degrade him constantly, he will lose the Whitehouse. I would not be shocked, just sad. I may be more pragmatic than most, but that is not settling as some seem to think it is.

The reason the Republicans remain in power so long when they are is because they support their president and his agenda. It is a simple fact that Dems don't. They turn their back on a president at their first disappointment. Dems have driven down the poll numbers a lot and that only makes him weaker for the opposition and allows him to do less, not more.

There are a few things that Dems seem to have forgotten that he said during the campaign:

Change is hard. 2. The government is a big ocean liner that is hard to turn which makes it resistant to change. Like the ocean liner, it moves in increments.
When he talked about changing healthcare, he said now is when we can BEGIN to change the health care system. He never said it would be changed 100% at once.

Passing the health care we have pending now is an investment in the future which could be changed to make it stronger in the future, if Dems retain power. If one doesn't remember this has been a 60 yr effort, then they don't realize passing even a weak bill is historic. It will be in future books about him even if he loses another term which seems likely without more support.

To those who think that healthcare is taking too long to pass, they worked on Medicare for 2 years before it passed. Those with impatience might read some history.

by cat on Tue Nov 3rd, 2009 at 02:24:44 PM EST

Re: Heads vs. Tails (none / 0)

I'll agree up to a point, and that point is the ocean liner analogy. Yes, it takes time to turn a big ship, but it won't turn at all if you don't have a new heading in mind. Incrementalism only works to create real change if there is some real change towards which one is working. It is not clear to me -- and presumably a lot of other Democrats -- what Obama's ultimate goals are. It's increasingly unclear whether he has any long-term goals.

So far, he's done a great job of articulating unarguably lofty principles, but a terrible job of translating those into concrete details or, if he has, of communicating those details to his constituents. If relatively high-information voters like the liberal blogosphere are wondering what's going on, imagine what it must be like for the larger majority that still get all of their news from the corporate media.

by corvus on Tue Nov 3rd, 2009 at 03:14:09 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Gotta listen to Rush -- (none / 0)

-- at least occasionally. "Moderates by definition have no principles" --Rush Limbaugh

FDR, to whom Obama has been compared, called himself variously a liberal and a progressive but Obama has done neither. He characterizes himself as a conciliator, or, you might say, Rush's 'moderate without principles'. In other words Obama is a triangulator like Clinton. Here while the Dems control the executive and legislative branches we have a president who refuses to crack the whip in favor of working with the devil, which is just what the devil wants.

The American people, according to the polls, want jobs, justice, education and health care, but what they get is continuing war @ $350m per day and corporate slavery promoted by a bought-and-paid-for Democratic-led congress that sits at 24% approval, 66% disapproval.
http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/other/congressional_job_approval-903.html

If we don't get leadership at the highest level from somebody not only calling himself a progressive but acting like one, as presently seems the case, then the Rush-type reactionaries will fill the void. And it won't only be "taking back the White House in 2012".
This from the previous post: "In what could be a nightmare scenario for Republican Party officials, conservative activists are gearing up to challenge leading GOP candidates in more than a dozen key House and Senate races in 2010."

Our role is clear. We don't accept the current situation and we demand better.

by Don Bacon on Tue Nov 3rd, 2009 at 02:45:44 PM EST

Re: Gotta listen to Rush -- (none / 0)

FDR also pandered to the Dixiecrats to get things done.

by Micheline on Tue Nov 3rd, 2009 at 07:42:14 PM EST
[ Parent ]

and others (none / 0)

FDR was actually quite conservative. He took care of the bankers and such just as Obama is doing, but of course he was a master at politics so he did a lot of everything if he thought it might work. More often than not it didn't work, but he tried, and related well (at least in his first term) to the public while he tried, both talking (fireside chats) and listening.

by Don Bacon on Tue Nov 3rd, 2009 at 10:41:47 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Heads vs. Tails (none / 0)

I suppose it's true that it's primarily progressives that are driving down Obama's numbers at this point. I don't, however, believe that will last. The perception (reality?) that his policies favor the haves over the have-nots will drive the independents who might vehemently disagree with much of the social agenda of the far right into that camp simply as an anti-government vote. There are an awful lot of desperate people out there and as unemployment, foreclosures and bankruptcies continue to rise along with bankster's bonuses so will the anger rise.

There's no doubt that Obama is in an impossible situation, but if no leader even attempts to publicly make the case and actually push for fundamental reform of the financial system, budget processes, etc. then there is nowhere left to turn but the angry mob.

obama talks about "recovery". Recovery to what? cheap interest? inflated housing prices? extreme debt? That's where we were in 2007. What alternative vision is being promoted? Gotta get the banks to lend more? Make the too-big-to-fail even bigger?

by Brad on Tue Nov 3rd, 2009 at 03:19:04 PM EST

independents (none / 0)

Independents are the nation's largest voting bloc, and they seem to be doing what Brad said, moving against Obama.

It's primarily (but not entirely) the undecideds that have hit Obama in the polls. While his approval rating has shrunk 12%, his disapproval is up a whopping 25% because the undecideds have shrunk 13% to give Obama only an 8% approval/disapproval spread. So most everyone has made up his mind, and Obama has only a whisker-thin majority approval with a steeply-ascending disapproval.

Jan 31
63% approval, 19% disapproval, 18% no opinion

Nov 3
51% approval, 44% disapproval, 5% no opinion
http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/other/president_obama_job_approval-1044.html

by Don Bacon on Tue Nov 3rd, 2009 at 03:48:24 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: independents (none / 0)

Obama's approval ratings mirror his actual election night totals. In fact, they are still slightly better.

"Obama's approval rating of 54 percent is nearly identical to the 53 percent of the vote he won a year ago," notes CNN Polling Director Keating Holland. "And in nearly every demographic category, the percent that approve of Obama today is within two to three points of the percent who voted for him in 2008. It's a different story when we turn to ideology. His approval rating among liberals is seven points higher than the number of liberals who voted for him. But among conservatives, the number who like Obama today is down 10 points compared to his share of the vote among that group in 2008."

link

by BooMan on Tue Nov 3rd, 2009 at 03:55:53 PM EST
[ Parent ]

apples and oranges (none / 0)

There is no possible correlation between presidential election results and presidential approval ratings. The first reflects the approval of a candidate compared to other candidates by actual voters, who were only 61% of eligible voters, and the second is a measure of the president by the population at large.

by Don Bacon on Tue Nov 3rd, 2009 at 04:10:37 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: apples and oranges (none / 0)

Yes it does. Usually vote totals reflect the population at large. It also confirmed by the fact that his coalition is intact.

by Micheline on Tue Nov 3rd, 2009 at 07:44:17 PM EST
[ Parent ]

nope (none / 0)

Nov vote: Obama 53%, McCain 46%
Jan poll: Obama approval 63% disapproval 19%

What coalition is intact?

by Don Bacon on Tue Nov 3rd, 2009 at 10:54:40 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Heads vs. Tails (none / 0)

Maybe we should have. I honestly don't know, they're getting what they want which is a sabotage of the Obama presidency.

________
The Raptor of Spain: A Webserial
From Muslim Prince to Christian King: An Alternate History

by MNPundit on Tue Nov 3rd, 2009 at 06:21:03 PM EST

Sabotaging the Obama presidency? (none / 0)

Now who might be doing that? Oh look, it's Mr. and Mrs. Twenty-four Percent.

news report:
Senior Congressional Democrats told ABC News today it is highly unlikely that a health care reform bill will be completed this year, just a week after President Barack Obama declared he was "absolutely confident" he'll be able to sign one by then.

by Don Bacon on Tue Nov 3rd, 2009 at 07:31:58 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Heads vs. Tails | 21 comments (21 topical, 0 editorial, 0 hidden)

Go to: [ Booman Tribune Homepage : Top of page : Top of comments ]

. Home
. About
. Contact
. Advertise
. FAQ
. Search

Username:
Password:

. Make a new account
. Reset password

Gift Cards * New Arrivals

NOTE: Overstock bests Amazon's prices and is "blue."

THE BOOKS WITH "BUZZ":
______________

Senator Edward M. Kennedy tells his extraordinary personal story:

True Compass: A Memoir
by Edward M. Kennedy.

Read Barack Obama's vision for America:

The Audacity of Hope: Thoughts on Reclaiming the American Dream
by Barack Obama

Boran2 and maryb2004 recommend:

The Big Over Easy: A Nursery Crime
by Jasper Fforde

Must-have information for all presidents-and citizens-of the twenty-first century?

Physics for Future Presidents: The Science behind the Headlines
Richard A. Muller

rae recommends:

Dark Ages America: The Final Phase of Empire
by Morris Berman.

On BooMan’s shelf:

Team of Rivals: The Political Genius of Abraham Lincoln
by Doris Kearns Goodwin

This looks interesting:

Adventure Divas
by Holly Morris

Here’s a good one from
Elizabeth Gilbert:

Eat Pray Love
by Elizabeth Gilbert

"Crash" * Best Motion Picture, Academy Awards * Only $11.79 at Overstock * 2006 SAG Winner, Best Ensemble

Check out
Powell's new section:
NEW FAVORITES
Selected new arrivals at 30% off

Recommended by Indianadem and ejmw:
The Conscience of a Liberal
by Paul Wellstone

From northcountry’s bookshelf:

The New Golden Age:
The Coming Revolution Against
Political Corruption and Economic Chaos by Ravi Batra

A novel about contractors in Iraq from the woman that runs The Spy That Billed Me:

Outsourced: A Novel
from RJ Hillhouse.

Great Deals
----- * ^ * -----

Find mystery novels by Nancy Pickard ("Kansas")

Challenging Empire: How People, Governments, and the UN Defy US Power by Phyllis Bennis (interviewed on DN!)

Featured by Keith Olbermann, New (Powell's Sale): Rogue State: A Guide to the World's Only Superpower by William Blum (whose other books merit serious consideration)

"Explosive" State of War: The Secret History of the CIA and the Bush Administration
by James Risen

The book the CIA doesn't want you to read: Jawbreaker: The Attack on Bin Laden and Al Qaeda: A Personal Account by the CIA's Key Field Commander
Larry Johnson's review

BT's all-time best seller:

PERMACULTURE:
A Designers' Manual
$79.95 * Sale: $59.95

Unequal Sisters: A Multicultural Reader in U.S. Women's History (Third Edition)

The Undercover Economist: Exposing Why the Rich Are Rich, the Poor Are Poor And Why You Can Never Buy a Decent Used Car!

The Worst Hard Time: The Untold Story of Those Who Survived the Great American Dust Bowl
by Timothy Egan

Green Press Initiative
----- * ^ * -----

Journalistas: 100 Years of the Best Writing and Reporting by Women Journalists by Eleanor Mills * NYT review

Bury Me Standing: the Gypsies & Their Journey

1491: New Revelations of the Americas before Columbus

Brokeback Mountain
by Annie Proulx
----- * ^ * -----
Check out Powell's
"At The Movies"

Imperial Ambitions: Conversations on the Post-9/11 World by Noam Chomsky (Power & Terror: Post 9-11 Talks)

The Price of Privilege:

How Parental Pressure and
Material Advantage Are Creating a Generation of
Disconnected and Unhappy Kids
by Madeline Levine

Save 35-70% on
name brand clothing,
footwear, and outdoor gear
at SierraTradingPost.com
:

We listened to PEN American Center's "State of Emergency" and found 1940s books by Curzio Malaparte only at Alibris. (Selection (MP3) excerpted from "The Skin.")

Banned Books * Are you a fan of Film Noir, Art House, Documentaries or Hong Kong Action? * Searching for a long-lost children's book or a first printing of Miles Davis' Kind of Blue on vinyl? Find it at Alibris!

:
:

Booman Tribune Homepage
admin@boomantribune.com
powered by Scoop

More blogs about Blogs at Technorati.

Technorati Profile