While reading ElvisL1ves’ post, I reviewed my last and saw that I’d done that. I’ll take the mod warning, but I do apologize to the mods for going over the line and breaking the rules. I apologize to saoirse for being too dismissive, and disrespecting your contributions.
I wouldn’t. I understand the political realities, and have evr since, as a teenager, I hearted Hart and ate the shit sandwich that was Walter Mondale (Who was right, I should point out). Thing is, I’ll eat that shitsandwich if you can get Independent voters in trade. But Obama didn’t establish any difference between his position and the republicans’. Those Independents are low-information voters. All they see is one side saying, “This is negotiable” and the other side agreeing.
Christ, I hope you’re right. This is Sullivan’s meep meep principle, and I’d like to believe it’s true. I am not relying on it, though.
I am not going to let Republicans off the hook. But if we’re talking about Barack Obama, then we’re talking about Barack Obama. I voted for a Rockefeller Republican, and was misled, perhaps. If you’re right, and he’s playing a longer game than I can see, then I apologize. If you’re wrong, then fuck you too, Reaganaut.
Were you watching the same Washington DC I was? Obama’s position was always “Let’s get this done.” Republicans’ positions could be consolidated into “We want what we want and anything else is unacceptable,” and that was clear throughout the process right up until the point where they signed off on a bill that contained nothing they said they wanted. They were anything but open to compromise, and I think most of the public noticed.
What? I’d take umbrage, except I don’t even know what that means in the context of this thread. I’ll just assume I’ve been insulted, suffer the sting and move on.
Thanks for the reply, ElvisL1ves. The American political system is rather confusing from the outside, but you’ve clarified a couple of things.
[Moderating]Remember, folks:Don’t say “Fuck you” to other posters.
No warning issued.
[/quote]
I’m superb! Thank you for asking!
Sorry, I don’t have the time for an elongated reply at the moment, but I did read the replies in this thread (including that long as heck post of yours, Shayna). So here’s my nutshell response:
First, I’m not not blaming the Republicans. I think 90% of this entire fiasco lies directly at their feet. That’s not what this thread is about, though, and my ignoring of that side of the aisle was purposeful. I think it’s important for our side to realize that there are some really discontented people on our side.
Second, you know what pisses me off more than Obama’s capitulation? Your attitudes. Both yours, Shayna, and xenophon41. I’m supposed to sit back and shut the fuck up about anything that upsets me because, hey, at least they’re not Republicans. That if I dare to criticize my side, it’ll cost us votes? Eff that noise.
I think you two are confusing cause and effect here. I’m willing to bet it’s the rare person who reads my OP and says “you know what? Yeah, I am upset! Why didn’t I think of it before?” More likely it’s that someone already is upset and reads my post to agree with me.
And that’s the key. There’s a reason people like rachelellogram see both parties as being equally useless and asking “what’s the point?” It’s not because both parties are equal. I think we both know that’s not the case. It’s just that both parties are equal with regards to ignoring what people on the left want. When the attitude is “sit down, shut up and vote Democrat because at least we’re not Republican” then the reaction is going to be “I’m just not going to vote.”
In short, I think there’s not only room in the Democratic party for criticism, I think it’s downright essential. How else can we possibly get the things we want if we’re unwilling to voice our objections to what’s occurred? If I were a politician, I’d rather know what’s upsetting my constituents before election day so I can make changes as I deem necessary rather than losing a close election due to apathetic voters, scratching my head and saying “how did this happen?”
Think more carefully for a minute, please. The bolded portion of your quote is NOT TRUE. If you assert that the Republican and Democratic parties are not equal and if you believe the policies of one party more closely reflect liberal ideals, then you cannot logically defend the simultaneous belief that both parties equally ignore those ideals. Right?
What you seem to want is for elected Democratic party politicians to take public positions and adopt rhetoric, and to vote for legislation that corresponds only to the things that “people on the left want.” And what you ignore when you wish for that (and what at least the President you deride remembers) is that those elected politicians do not only represent those “people on the left” within their constituencies, they answer to the whole population of whatever political parcel elected them. They may legitimately approach their job duties from a progressive sensibility, and they may legitimately promote liberal policies, and they may legitimately introduce bills or executive actions that are congruent with their political platform, but what they may not due with any legitimacy is refuse to consider opposing political desires or fail to attempt compromise with political opponents.
Radicals and reactionaries don’t believe in compromise; Western liberal tradition holds it as a virtue. I don’t believe you’re a reactionary, are you? Do you really want your political party to attempt to govern and legislate by ideological fiat? Isn’t that part of what drove lefties to distraction during the G.W. Bush years; that the government was doing things on a purely ideological basis, politicizing even the mundane functions of government, and doing so from a minority political viewpoint?
No shit? Gosh, I never considered that criticism within the party might be a good thing.[/sarcasm] I’m pretty sure you know you’re not being scolded for daring to criticize. Internal arguments are a staple of the Democratic Party, have been for decades. No, Ender, you’re being called out for poorly considered tantrum throwing and well poisoning. I’ll explain the difference.
Criticism would be something like “[I think] Obama should’ve made a hard line demand for a clean bill on the debt ceiling,” or “Obama should never have signed a bill without tax increases,” or “why doesn’t Obama tell the truth about Republican fiscal policies?” Now, the first two are arguable positions; they allow for further discussion among those wanting improved progressive policies, even if there’s disagreement among friends. The third complaint is a false but understandable impression, easily corrected by reference to Obama’s public comments on the budget, finances, the recession or the negotiations with the GOP.
Tantrum throwing is something like, well, the OP, where, because you can’t see any benefit to the final budget deal and you can’t accept results that don’t reflect your policy preferences, you complain that the President “sells out the ideals of his party” to appease Republicans, that he doesn’t understand that the GOP is deliberately undermining him, that he “doesn’t support” you (the American public?), that he “bargained away the health and welfare” of the country’s poor & needy, and that maybe “it doesn’t matter what President we have.”
These are statements one might expect to come from someone wanting to suppress voter participation, or at least wanting to promote the belief that government doesn’t work. They’re not actionable criticisms; they’re kneejerk responses to not getting your way.
How can I tell? Because you haven’t bothered to support your conclusions with argument. They’re correct because you feel they are, because you say so. The deal is bad and bargains away the common welfare, but you can’t list specifics of how it does that. Obama sells out the ideals of his party, but you can’t suggest plausible ways -beyond him demanding it- that he could get Congress to enact those ideals. The POTUS doesn’t have the courage of his convictions, but let’s not list his stated convictions and show how he walks away from them. And one of my favorites -the highly educated black man with a Muslim father and “Hussein” in his name post 9/11 who somehow got elected to the Presidency is politically naive.
If any of the above sounds pathetic, it’s not because I restructured the complaints or paraphrased them. It’s because they’re not critically coherent.
Yes, and the lack of groundswell of support behind Democratic candidates makes me think that the author’s assumption that he’s “winning” these encounters is even more ridiculous. If he is indeed making Republicans look like “petulant children” then how come the difference in approval between congressional Dems and Reps is so marginal? 30/60 for Dems, 25/66 for Reps?
…which was going to be the winning issue for Dems in 2012, until they left it on the table for this idiotic Super Committee (which best I can tell exists for the sole purpose of letting Congress pass the buck on controversial reform). And if I was a Republican I’d be staying exactly that:
Yeah, you wouldn’t think so, but then again we ARE the same party that let the GOP regain Congress less than 2 years after Bush left office.