The Politics Thread - please direct all related posts here..

[HarthorneWingo]

I think I agree with everything the Times stated in this editorial. The problem with Obama is that while he's trying to reach out a hand to republicans and conservative democrats, they're spitting on it. Obama doesn't know how to bash skulls when he has to and, perhaps, that's the part of his "inexperience" that is hurting him.

Editorial
The Massachusetts Election
Published: January 20, 2010

If anyone should have seen it coming in Massachusetts, it is President Obama — the long-shot candidate who rode to electoral victory on a wave of popular impatience and an ability to identify and address voters’ core anxieties.

There are many theories about the import of Scott Brown’s upset victory in the race for Edward Kennedy’s former Senate seat. To our minds, it is not remotely a verdict on Mr. Obama’s presidency, nor does it amount to a national referendum on health care reform — even though it has upended the effort to pass a reform bill, which Mr. Obama made the centerpiece of his first year.

Mr. Obama has done many important things on the environment, and in foreign affairs, and in preventing the nation’s banking system from collapsing in the face of a financial crisis he inherited. But he seems to have lost touch with two core issues for Americans: their jobs and their homes.

Mr. Obama’s challenge is that most Americans are not seeing a recovery. They are seeing 10 percent unemployment and a continuing crisis in the housing market. They have watched as the federal government rescued banks, financial firms and auto companies, but they themselves feel adrift, still awaiting the kind of decisive leadership on jobs and housing — in terms of both style and substance — that Mr. Obama promised in 2008.

Mr. Obama was right to press for health care reform. But he spent too much time talking to reluctant Democrats and Republicans who never had the slightest intention of supporting him. He sat on the sidelines while the Republicans bombarded Americans with false but effective talk of death panels and a government takeover of their doctors’ offices. And he did not make the case strongly enough that the health care system and the economy are deeply interconnected or explain why Americans should care about this huge issue in the midst of a recession: If they lose their jobs, they lose their health insurance.

Mr. Obama has not said or done the right thing often enough when it comes to job creation and housing. He appointed an economics team that was entwined with the people and policies that nearly destroyed the economy. He made compromises that resulted in a stimulus bill that wasn’t big enough or properly targeted. Even now, despite a new, rather awkward populist tone, serious relief for homeowners is lacking and financial regulatory reform is in danger of being hijacked by banking lobbyists and partisan politics.

The victory by Mr. Brown, a Republican, should be setting off alarms in the White House. Most immediately, it jeopardizes passage of the reform that the nation desperately needs. The Democrats could try to get the House to pass the Senate’s bill, although their chances seem dim, or as Mr. Obama seemed to suggest on Wednesday, they could seek a stripped-down measure that could win bipartisan support. They certainly should not try to ram a combined House-Senate bill through the Senate before Mr. Brown is sworn in.

The Democrats had an exceptionally weak candidate in Massachusetts, but the results call into question their tactical political competence. The party now has less than 10 months to get it right before the midterm elections, when they are in danger of losing more seats in the House and the Senate. It is indisputable that the Republicans have settled on a tactic of obstruction, disinformation and fear-mongering, but it is equally indisputable that the Democrats have not countered it well.

Mr. Obama has three years to show the kind of vision and leadership on the economy that got him elected — not just because his chances of a second term are at stake, but because the nation needs to get a handle on joblessness and mortgages or the nascent economic recovery could turn into a lost decade or a double-dip recession, or both.

The president is fighting hard for a consumer financial protection agency, in part because he sees it as one element of financial reform that people will understand. What Mr. Obama has to understand is that the agency is unlikely to be as effective as he intends unless other parts of financial reform — regulating derivatives and limiting “too big too fail” banks — also are robust. And homeowners need mortgage relief — not just lower interest rates, but the ability to renegotiate and restructure their loan balances.

We admire Mr. Obama’s intelligence and the careful way he makes decisions. It is reported that he seeks out dissenting views doggedly. He tells Americans the truth. We don’t want Mr. Obama to turn into a hot populist, but he can be too cool and often waits too long to react at big moments. If White House reporters are still making jokes two years from now about checking the president’s pulse, the nation will be in big trouble.

[knicks742]

I think I agree with everything the Times stated in this editorial. The problem with Obama is that while he's trying to reach out a hand to republicans and conservative democrats, they're spitting on it. Obama doesn't know how to bash skulls when he has to and, perhaps, that's the part of his "inexperience" that is hurting him.

Editorial
The Massachusetts Election
Published: January 20, 2010

If anyone should have seen it coming in Massachusetts, it is President Obama — the long-shot candidate who rode to electoral victory on a wave of popular impatience and an ability to identify and address voters’ core anxieties.

There are many theories about the import of Scott Brown’s upset victory in the race for Edward Kennedy’s former Senate seat. To our minds, it is not remotely a verdict on Mr. Obama’s presidency, nor does it amount to a national referendum on health care reform — even though it has upended the effort to pass a reform bill, which Mr. Obama made the centerpiece of his first year.

Mr. Obama has done many important things on the environment, and in foreign affairs, and in preventing the nation’s banking system from collapsing in the face of a financial crisis he inherited. But he seems to have lost touch with two core issues for Americans: their jobs and their homes.

Mr. Obama’s challenge is that most Americans are not seeing a recovery. They are seeing 10 percent unemployment and a continuing crisis in the housing market. They have watched as the federal government rescued banks, financial firms and auto companies, but they themselves feel adrift, still awaiting the kind of decisive leadership on jobs and housing — in terms of both style and substance — that Mr. Obama promised in 2008.

Mr. Obama was right to press for health care reform. But he spent too much time talking to reluctant Democrats and Republicans who never had the slightest intention of supporting him. He sat on the sidelines while the Republicans bombarded Americans with false but effective talk of death panels and a government takeover of their doctors’ offices. And he did not make the case strongly enough that the health care system and the economy are deeply interconnected or explain why Americans should care about this huge issue in the midst of a recession: If they lose their jobs, they lose their health insurance.

Mr. Obama has not said or done the right thing often enough when it comes to job creation and housing. He appointed an economics team that was entwined with the people and policies that nearly destroyed the economy. He made compromises that resulted in a stimulus bill that wasn’t big enough or properly targeted. Even now, despite a new, rather awkward populist tone, serious relief for homeowners is lacking and financial regulatory reform is in danger of being hijacked by banking lobbyists and partisan politics.

The victory by Mr. Brown, a Republican, should be setting off alarms in the White House. Most immediately, it jeopardizes passage of the reform that the nation desperately needs. The Democrats could try to get the House to pass the Senate’s bill, although their chances seem dim, or as Mr. Obama seemed to suggest on Wednesday, they could seek a stripped-down measure that could win bipartisan support. They certainly should not try to ram a combined House-Senate bill through the Senate before Mr. Brown is sworn in.

The Democrats had an exceptionally weak candidate in Massachusetts, but the results call into question their tactical political competence. The party now has less than 10 months to get it right before the midterm elections, when they are in danger of losing more seats in the House and the Senate. It is indisputable that the Republicans have settled on a tactic of obstruction, disinformation and fear-mongering, but it is equally indisputable that the Democrats have not countered it well.

Mr. Obama has three years to show the kind of vision and leadership on the economy that got him elected — not just because his chances of a second term are at stake, but because the nation needs to get a handle on joblessness and mortgages or the nascent economic recovery could turn into a lost decade or a double-dip recession, or both.

The president is fighting hard for a consumer financial protection agency, in part because he sees it as one element of financial reform that people will understand. What Mr. Obama has to understand is that the agency is unlikely to be as effective as he intends unless other parts of financial reform — regulating derivatives and limiting “too big too fail” banks — also are robust. And homeowners need mortgage relief — not just lower interest rates, but the ability to renegotiate and restructure their loan balances.

We admire Mr. Obama’s intelligence and the careful way he makes decisions. It is reported that he seeks out dissenting views doggedly. He tells Americans the truth. We don’t want Mr. Obama to turn into a hot populist, but he can be too cool and often waits too long to react at big moments. If White House reporters are still making jokes two years from now about checking the president’s pulse, the nation will be in big trouble.

That's exactly what I mean when I talk about that Wingy. He is governing in the abstract, thinking that because he believes he has great ideas, everyone would logically follow along. He is not taking in consideration that each congressperson has their own little fiefdoms back home and they have their own agendas and sometimes they need to be beat up to see things your way.

I read abstracts on an interview he gave to ABC where he said that he lost touch with the American people because he thought that if he followed what he considered to be good policy, they would logically analyze it and conclude he was doing the right thing. Clearly he doesn't understand that selling the message is as much or more important than the message you are giving. Either that or he is calling us so dumb we don't get how great his plans are.

[newguy]

Here's a view from the Chairman, Editor in Chief of U.S. News & World Report who stated "We endorsed Obama. I voted for him. I supported him publicly and privately.":

http://www.thedailybeast.com/blogs-and- ... s:archive3

Obama punted on the economy and reversed the fortunes of the Democrats in 365 days.

He’s misjudged the character of the country in his whole approach. There’s the saying, “It’s the economy, stupid.” He didn’t get it. He was determined somehow or other to adopt a whole new agenda. He didn’t address the main issue.

This health-care plan is going to be a fiscal disaster for the country. Most of the country wanted to deal with costs, not expansion of coverage. This is going to raise costs dramatically.

In the campaign, he said he would change politics as usual. He did change them. It’s now worse than it was. I’ve now seen the kind of buying off of politicians that I’ve never seen before. It’s politically corrupt and it’s starting at the top. It’s revolting.

Five states got deals on health care—one of them was Harry Reid’s. It is disgusting, just disgusting. I’ve never seen anything like it. The unions just got them to drop the tax on Cadillac plans in the health-care bill. It was pure union politics. They just went along with it. It’s a bizarre form of political corruption. It’s bribery. I suppose they could say, that’s the system. He was supposed to change it or try to change it.

Even that is not the worst part. He could have said, “I know. I promised these things, but let me try to do them one at a time.” You want to deal with health care? Fine. Issue No. 1 with health care was the cost. You know I think it was 37 percent or 33 who were worried about coverage. Fine, I wrote an editorial to this effect. Focus on cost-containment first. But he’s trying to boil the ocean, trying to do too much. This is not leadership.

Obama’s ability to connect with voters is what launched him. But what has surprised me is how he has failed to connect with the voters since he’s been in office. He’s had so much overexposure. You have to be selective. He was doing five Sunday shows. How many press conferences? And now people stop listening to him. The fact is he had 49.5 million listeners to first speech on the economy. On Medicare, he had 24 million. He’s lost his audience. He has not rallied public opinion. He has plunged in the polls more than any other political figure since we’ve been using polls. He’s done everything wrong. Well, not everything, but the major things.

I don’t consider it a triumph. I consider it a disaster.

One business leader said to me, “In the Clinton administration, the policy people were at the center, and the political people were on the sideline. In the Obama administration, the political people are at the center, and the policy people are on the sidelines.”

I’m very disappointed. We endorsed him. I voted for him. I supported him publicly and privately.

I hope there are changes. I think he’s already laid in huge problems for the country. The fiscal program was a disaster. You have to get the money as quickly as possible into the economy. They didn’t do that. By end of the first year, only one-third of the money was spent. Why is that?

He should have jammed a stimulus plan into Congress and said, “This is it. No changes. Don’t give me that bull. We have a national emergency.” Instead they turned it over to Harry Reid and Nancy Pelosi who can run circles around him.

It’s very sad. It’s really sad.

He’s improved America’s image in the world. He absolutely did. But you have to translate that into something. Let me tell you what a major leader said to me recently. “We are convinced,” he said, “that he is not strong enough to confront his enemy. We are concerned,” he said “that he is not strong to support his friends.”

The political leadership of the world is very, very dismayed. He better turn it around. The Democrats are going to get killed in this election. Jesus, looks what’s happening in Massachusetts.

It’s really interesting because he had brilliant, brilliant political instincts during the campaign. I don’t know what has happened to them. His appointments present somebody who has a lot to learn about how government works. He better get some very talented businesspeople who know how to implement things. It’s unbelievable. Everybody says so. You can’t believe how dismayed people are. That’s why he’s plunging in the polls.

I can’t predict things two years from now, but if he continues on the downward spiral he is on, he won’t be reelected. In the meantime, the Democrats have recreated the Republican Party. And when I say Democrats, I mean the Obama administration. In the generic vote, the Democrats were ahead something like 52 to 30. They are now behind the Republicans 48 to 44 in the last poll. Nobody has ever seen anything that dramatic.

Mortimer B. Zuckerman is chairman and editor in chief of U.S. News & World Report and publisher of the New York Daily News. He is also the co-founder and chairman of Boston Properties Inc. He is a trustee of the Council on Foreign Relations, the Washington Institute for Near East Studies, and the International Institute of Strategic Studies.

[duetta]

Here's a view from the Chairman, Editor in Chief of U.S. News & World Report who stated "We endorsed Obama.

I'm always pleased to know what one of the cheerleaders for the Iraq War thought. Mort's credibility is pretty much in tatters at this point.

[HarthorneWingo]

That's exactly what I mean when I talk about that Wingy. He is governing in the abstract, thinking that because he believes he has great ideas, everyone would logically follow along. He is not taking in consideration that each congressperson has their own little fiefdoms back home and they have their own agendas and sometimes they need to be beat up to see things your way.

I read abstracts on an interview he gave to ABC where he said that he lost touch with the American people because he thought that if he followed what he considered to be good policy, they would logically analyze it and conclude he was doing the right thing. Clearly he doesn't understand that selling the message is as much or more important than the message you are giving. Either that or he is calling us so dumb we don't get how great his plans are.

Well, Obama had a very high approval rating after he got elected to office. Very high. So, he thought that he could use that to reach out to republican and shift the animosity that existed between the parties. I thought he was naive in that approach and I think I've been proven right. The republican put in over 200 amendments to the healthcare bill (Senate's bill) and yet no republican would support it????? How can that be? It's just clear to me that the republicans in office have absolutely no interest in trying work out legislation that would be in the interest of u.s. citizens. It IS the party of "no." And the rich keep getting richer.

There will be a revolution by the lower and middle classes in this country eventually as corporations and "rich people" continue to get richer and more powerful.

The problem these days is that for some reason "beating the filibuster" is now the benchmark by which legislation is passed. That's horribly wrong. The dems should implement "the nuclear option" and start passing its legislation by reconciliation.

[cgf]

I wish we could be safe from a healthcare bill but they'll get something done which will just expand and become more and more destructive over time as each new congress tries to "Fix it." I wish Washington ever actually changed, but why do I feel like I should know better. Oh well I guess we do have some hope, the Tea Party'ers might pull neocons out of the GoP leaving the party to true conservatives like Ron Paul, Rand Paul and Peter Schiff...wishful thinking I know, but it's real hope something I don't think the US political scheme has offered since Perot's self-destruction or Reagan's first election campaign as he proved that Goldwater's platform could win in america.

[HarthorneWingo]

I wish we could be safe from a healthcare bill but they'll get something done which will just expand and become more and more destructive over time as each new congress tries to "Fix it." I wish Washington ever actually changed, but why do I feel like I should know better. Oh well I guess we do have some hope, the Tea Party'ers might pull neocons out of the GoP leaving the party to true conservatives like Ron Paul, Rand Paul and Peter Schiff...wishful thinking I know, but it's real hope something I don't think the US political scheme has offered since Perot's self-destruction or Reagan's first election campaign as he proved that Goldwater's platform could win in america.

Dude, isn't your healthcare bill solution to ... do away with insurance companies and people will just have to save their money to go to the doctor or hospital?

[richardhutnik]

Those who decide they want to go with the "nuclear option" are setting themselves to get hammered when they go out of power. I recalled there talk about the Republicans wanting to do the "Nuclear Option". End result is that, without them in power, they would be hammered.

Anyhow, I am hard pressed to think the Democrats could do much to prevent the decline in public opinion. People are hurting, and not much Washington can do about it. Is somehow Obama going to materialize a job for me? Can I expect any of them to get me to be able to afford to see a doctor? Exactly what can they do?

- Rich

[HarthorneWingo]

Those who decide they want to go with the "nuclear option" are setting themselves to get hammered when they go out of power. I recalled there talk about the Republicans wanting to do the "Nuclear Option". End result is that, without them in power, they would be hammered.

Anyhow, I am hard pressed to think the Democrats could do much to prevent the decline in public opinion. People are hurting, and not much Washington can do about it. Is somehow Obama going to materialize a job for me? Can I expect any of them to get me to be able to afford to see a doctor? Exactly what can they do?

- Rich

Well, he certainly could have made the chances of you getting a job better had the first stimulus been bolder. Many economists predicted that the first stimulus would keep the economy from collapsing but not enough to bring us back from the brink and get back the lost jobs. But it was difficult enough to get even the first stimulus passed. And Obama didn't think he could get enough votes in the Senate to get a more robust bill through. So this is why we are at where we're at. There's been talk of a second stimulus but with the democrats only having 59 votes at best in the Senate, that'll probably never happen.

All I can say is that if a republican get elected president in 2012, he/she (lol ... "she?" hahaha) better have a 60-40 GOP split in the Senate. (At least that's what I would hope ... but knowing what pussies the dems are, that probably won't happen.)

[HarthorneWingo]

Meet Mr. Bopp.

http://motherjones.com/politics/2010/01 ... ens-united

The Man Who Took Down Campaign Finance Reform
— By Stephanie Mencimer
Thu Jan. 21, 2010 9:42 AM PST

Thursday's Supreme Court decision striking down limits on corporate spending in elections marks the latest in a remarkable string of victories for a Republican lawyer in Terre Haute, Indiana. James Bopp Jr. did not argue Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission before the high court, but the case was entirely his brainchild.

Bopp, the longtime counsel to the anti-abortion group National Right to Life, has now almost singlehandedly obliterated many of the nation's relatively modest restrictions on corporate election spending, including the landmark McCain-Feingold campaign finance reform legislation. And he's done it all in the name of the First Amendment. In 2007, Bopp persuaded the Supreme Court to eliminate limits on corporate funding of television ads in Federal Election Commission v. Wisconsin Right to Life, arguing that the rules were an unconstitutional infringement on free speech. A few months later, he represented Citizens United in its battle with the Federal Election Commission (FEC) over its efforts to air a critical documentary about Hillary Clinton on television during the election season—the case that led to Thursday’s major Supreme Court decision.

As with so many of Bopp's cases, few people took the Citizens United challenge seriously in the beginning. During one hearing in early 2008, US District Court Judge Royce Lamberth actually laughed at Bopp for comparing the Citizens United film—which portrayed Hillary Clinton as a European Socialist—to investigative news shows like 60 Minutes. Since then, judges, good government groups and various other political actors have learned that Bopp is not to be laughed at. After the Supreme Court decided to take the case, Citizens United hired renowned high court litigator Ted Olson to handle the oral arguments, but the case bears all the trademarks of Bopp’s handiwork.

Bopp has a knack for finding provisions in campaign finance laws that have been taken for granted for decades as acceptable restrictions on corporate speech. Then, he makes ACLU-like arguments that such rules violate the First Amendment. Part of Bopp's genius lies in his choice of clients. Although his cases ultimately benefit powerful corporations, their public faces are usually small advocacy groups like Wisconsin Right to Life or Citizens United that are seeking to participate in political debate. Perhaps most impressive, he crafts cases that appear persuasive to people who do not share his agenda (he is a staunch conservative and member of the Republican National Committee). As a journalist and civil libertarian, I was deeply conflicted about the Citizens United case. After viewing the Hillary documentary, I thought Americans ought to be able to watch it on television if they wanted to, and was sympathetic to Bopp's argument that the campaign finance rules in this case resulted in censorship. Clearly the Supreme Court was, too.

Not content with blasting 100 years of campaign-finance precedent out of the water, Bopp is taking aim at other established principles of American election law. His firm is currently representing anti-gay marriage forces in Washington State, California and Maine, where he has filed lawsuits challenging basic transparency provisions in those states' election laws. In October, Bopp persuaded the Supreme Court to overturn a Ninth Circuit decision allowing the disclosure of the names of people who signed petitions to put an anti-gay marriage measure on the Washington State ballot. In California, Bopp has sued state elections officials in an attempt to have state donor disclosure rules deemed unconstitutional. Bopp has argued that laws requiring donor names to be made public subjected supporters of Proposition 8—which struck down gay marriage in the state—to harassment that violated their free speech rights. That case is still pending.

Bopp's firm has filed a similar suit in Maine, where the state's ethics and election commission is investigating the National Organization for Marriage for failing to register as a political committee and reveal its donors during its work on a ballot initiative that outlawed gay marriage in that state. As he did in California, Bopp has argued that the disclosure law is unconstitutional. A federal judge disagreed and ordered the National Organization for Marriage to reveal its donors, but Bopp's firm is fighting the decision. That case is likely to also end up before the Supreme Court in the not-so-distant future. As with Citizens United, it's hard to imagine that such a core provision of election law—in this case donor disclosure—could be struck down. But good government groups and campaign finance watchdogs would do well not to underestimate Bopp's power of persuasion.

[knicks742]

I just want to say that I knew this President would be a failure. I am sad to see that I was correct. We should have picked Hillary. That is all.

[richardhutnik]

I just want to say that I knew this President would be a failure. I am sad to see that I was correct. We should have picked Hillary. That is all.

This is his first year. I am seriously curious how being a first lady, and a senator for less than two terms, supremely qualified to be president of the United States. Obama was a legislator longer than Hillary was. And then you also get to McCain, who also lacked executive experience. Palin actually had the most executive experience of all the four last election.

Considering Obama brought in the same people that were involved with Bill Clinton, I am hard pressed to think you would see better results than now. Hey, maybe being divisive would of worked for Hillary.

- Rich

[richardhutnik]

Well, he certainly could have made the chances of you getting a job better had the first stimulus been bolder. Many economists predicted that the first stimulus would keep the economy from collapsing but not enough to bring us back from the brink and get back the lost jobs. But it was difficult enough to get even the first stimulus passed. And Obama didn't think he could get enough votes in the Senate to get a more robust bill through. So this is why we are at where we're at. There's been talk of a second stimulus but with the democrats only having 59 votes at best in the Senate, that'll probably never happen.

All I can say is that if a republican get elected president in 2012, he/she (lol ... "she?" hahaha) better have a 60-40 GOP split in the Senate. (At least that's what I would hope ... but knowing what pussies the dems are, that probably won't happen.)

So, economists were suggesting the federal government borrow at the same rate that consumers were before the crash, in order to get the economy going? Please let me know how the heck that was going to result in lost jobs being replaced, unless it is some sort of sugar fix?

Like note this article:
http://www.poughkeepsiejournal.com/arti ... t-job-cuts

"IBM sets profit record but hints at job cuts"

At first glance, this augurs well for jobs in the region against a recent history of substantial downsizing. But Mark Loughridge, chief financial officer, told brokerage analysts on a conference call Tuesday that there will be more reduction of costs through "work-force rebalancing." That invariably means disappearing jobs in IBM.

While Loughridge put a 2009 number of $3.7 billion on cost reductions, including job cuts and consolidating work in various centers, he did not give a specific number for 2010. A year ago, he gave more detailed guidance.


Please let me know how the U.S government running $3 trillion annual deficit is going to result in needed job creation when you have corporations like IBM deciding they will cut people, despite running large profits? There had better be a fundamental understanding of how the economy works, and how to generate real wealth, that doesn't involve playing games with currency or tax rates, or there is just sheer folly going about.

- Rich

[BasicBall]

I just want to say that I knew this President would be a failure. I am sad to see that I was correct. We should have picked Hillary. That is all.

B will be figure it out. He's a good man, in a corrupt, hypocritical, instant gratification society!

Hillary would have been as big IF not a bigger failure on the world stage. We will see what hard truths have been learned over this past year now though wont we? Hillary would not have beaten McCain/Palin and how ugly would this situation be now? This country was a mess when he took office and he should govern that way. None of this politicians on both sides of the aisle give a damn about their constituents, they care about being re-elected!

Everyone wanted to applaud and take bows for electing a black man, but real being real this country is not prepared to get behind him in any way shape or form....They have convinced themselves that people of color are ill-equipped to lead. What he should do is simply accept the fact that he is black and govern accordingly! The climate in this country is worse than ever. What does I want my country back mean anyway? LOL Do you say that?

As long as the haves scream louder than the have nots, we all will suffer. That is the real truth!

[HarthorneWingo]

You gotta listen to this. Specter and Bachmann going at it. I love it when Bachmann tries to deny that she's talking from "talking points" rather than answering Spector's question. She must be related to Sarah Palin (who I hope will be running against Obama in the '12 Presidential Election. You go girl!)

http://www.realclearpolitics.com/video/ ... _lady.html

[richardhutnik]

In other news, a cameraman apologizes to his boss for not filiming himself rescuing a baby that would of drowned in Haiti:
http://www.themercury.com.au/article/20 ... -news.html

Gotta love the marketplace... it is so funny.

- Rich

[newguy]

To my second most recent post (response to Wingo), I only heard crickets (and that Wingo was going to take a sabbatical.)

Then, in response to the Massachusetts vote for Brown, Duetta cites the problem to be an uneducated electorate (despite that MA is the #1 educated state in the US... that the college educated split on Obama/McCain... and that it was the under-educated that voted for Obama 2 to 1) that is manipulated by right-wing media FOX, WSJ, and talk radio (despite the left having Academia, Hollywood, and broadcast media not named Fox on their side.)

Next, I posted the opinion of M. Zuckerman, and Duetta plays kill-the-messenger by stating this man's rep "is in tatters" (despite emigrating from Canada, graduating from Harvard, then Wharton, teaching at Yale, and currently heading up US News & World Report that publicly endorsed Obama.)

Below is a brand new poll of another blue state. What I am noticing is that the issues discussed here do not match the the issues of the majority in CT. Are you at all concerned about the third item... health reform causing a bigger deficit? If not, why?

- Connecticut residents oppose the current bills in Congress by a margin of 51-34 percent

- By a margin of 62-29 percent, Connecticut residents believe Congress has rushed the process and should take more time to get it right

- More than three-quarters of voters, 77 percent, say they are very concerned or somewhat concerned that changes in health care will result in more government spending, higher taxes, and a bigger budget deficit.  61% described theselves as “very concerned” about these possibilities

- Half of state residents say the changes to health care being considered will do more harm than good

[duetta]

Then, in response to the Massachusetts vote for Brown, Duetta cites the problem to be an uneducated electorate (despite that MA is the #1 educated state in the US... that the college educated split on Obama/McCain... and that it was the under-educated that voted for Obama 2 to 1) that is manipulated by right-wing media FOX, WSJ, and talk radio (despite the left having Academia, Hollywood, and broadcast media not named Fox on their side.)

Please cite where I claim that education has anything to do with the specific MA result. I said nothing of the sort. The MA race reflected a perfect storm, involving a tone-deaf candidate (who apparently couldn't even name former or current Red Sox players) and wide-spread discontent with events in Washington - events, I need add, that were specifically set in motion by the deliberate decision of the Republicans to put partisan politics above the national interest, and stonewall every attempt at collaboration, despite the fact that at 17% of GDP and growing, America's health care expenditures threaten to bankrupt this country. And, for the record, Obama remains quite popular in MA. His current approval rating there is apparently around 60%. I would love for you, however, to present detailed polling data supporting your claim that the uneducated chose Obama by a margin of 2 to 1.

Next, I posted the opinion of M. Zuckerman, and Duetta plays kill-the-messenger by stating this man's rep "is in tatters" (despite emigrating from Canada, graduating from Harvard, then Wharton, teaching at Yale, and currently heading up US News & World Report that publicly endorsed Obama.)

Mr Zuckerman is the publisher of the New York Daily News; he is also a prominent member of AIPAC, an ultimately right-wing organization that many now believe was instrumental in steering the United States towards war in Iraq (see "The Israel Lobby and US Foreign Policy"). The Iraq war has cost America upwards of 1 trillion dollars since March 2003 - and once one calculates the health care and disability costs for America's wounded warriors over the next forty or fifty years, it is likely that the Iraq war will end up costing us around two trillion dollars. It is also indisputable that in pursuing AIPAC's goal of removing an enemy of Israel, by diverting forces from Afghanistan to Iraq, America sabotaged its ability to extinguish Al Qaeda when it had the chance, in 2001-02 - and, in fact, allowed this loathsome organization to metastasize and infect the entire Muslim world. Despite all of this, Mort Zuckerman's Daily News still saw fit to endorse George W. Bush for President in November 2004 (while simultaneously acknowledging in a two consecutive Sunday editorial how this same President's economic policies were likely doing as much damage to America as anything Bin Laden might attempt). Honestly, at this point, when Mort speaks, I flush the toilet. I recommend you do the same.

[HarthorneWingo]

To my second most recent post (response to Wingo), I only heard crickets (and that Wingo was going to take a sabbatical.)

I know. I can't even follow my own advice. I'll have to go back and look at what "words of wisdom" you are responding to.

[newguy]

The Democrats offer a weak narrative vis-a-vis the Republcans - and narrative, not reality, is what really sells with an under-educated, poorly-informed, often collectively-insane electorate.

IMHO, Obama was as guilty as anyone in this regard throughout this entire first year. He appeared sometimes weak (as when allowing Baucus to dither in negotiations with his band of six, a delay that can truly be described as responsible for killing momentum for health care reform) - and at other times aloof and professorial. And aloof and professorial does not sell in a nation where only 37% graduate from college.

The right wing has a brilliant media machine, beginning with FOX and the WSJ, extending to conservative talk radio, that never, ever lets up on the pushing of conservative narrative - even when the narrative is not only false, promoting utterly failed ideas as somehow never having been tested, but given the real-world crisis that America faces today, potentially traitorous.

This group doesn't care about America, only about the further accumulation of wealth by the elite that controls it, the promulgation of their insane ideology, and retaining their ultimate hold on power. They would brainwash their grandmother and children if it served their political, ideological, or economic interests. IMHO, these people can wrap themselves in the flag all they want, but their character is not that different from that of a Herman Goering. They do not put the interests of the nation or the species first - only the dubious interests of their sect.

But the real problem here is that Obama has refused to stand up and fight - both the corrupt within his own party, and then the right-wing. We are living in interesting times, and unless Barack figures that out, and begins acting accordingly, he is likely to be not only a one term President but also a spectacularly unsuccessful one.

You win in America, a country that acquires far too much of its culture, not from a careful study of history or philosophy or science, but instead from movies, television, music, and irrational religion (as opposed to the rational variety), by winning the battle of narrative. We are losing the battle of narrative - and if we lose this battle this time, America may well lose the entire war.