Romney continues to impress me.
"President Biden said he was going to try to unite the country," the senator said. "His comments in Georgia did not suggest he's trying to pull us back together again." He continued: "He's got to recognize that when he was elected, people were not looking for him to transform America. They were looking to get back to normal. To stop the crazy."
It is odd how the Liberals and Progressive do not seem to understand that? There is no big mandate for change, except in their minds...
93 comments:
Republicans are elected to do nothing, and they love to project that attitude on Democrats.
In the nicest way possible, I have thought that the story of Mitt Romney and his family sum up how America has gone wrong. Mitt's dad made a good living selling cars. Mitt compiled a fortune beyond the dreams of avarice making tax shelters. That explains why and how our country has failed.
--Hiram
Democrats are often accused of divisiveness, by Republicans and by repeaters of Republican talking points. From my perspective, I find this absurd, and as an example of projection. Fundamentally, Democrats are a party that wants to do things in a political system that require consensus to work. The Democratic Party itself is a diverse coalition of interest groups which are often in conflict with each others. Divisiveness isn't what we seek, it's what defeats us.
--Hiram
And thank heavens for that. I think "wants to do things in a political system that require consensus to work" is a definition of divisiveness. The push to eliminate the filibuster is EXACTLY an attempt to rule by division.
Hiram,
Of course Republicans are elected to accomplish things...
- pass tax cuts
- increase spending
- increase deficits
- take away reproductive rights from women
- protect our society from LGBTQ people
- keep the poor and mobile in our society from voting
- weaken environmental protections.
Jerry,
Unfortunately the GOP crazies are not promoting any moderate solutions either.
Their only goal as during the Obama years is to destroy the country so they can get back in office. It is such a screwed up system...
And yet over half the country voted to put these stupid, evil Republicans in power?
Crazy stuff, like controlling the border, cutting regulations, "doing nothing" about the imaginary climate crisis, fast-tracking COVID vaccines......
Republican agendas were frequently obstructed by unanimous Democrat "resistance." Now, Democrats find themselves fighting unanimous Republican (and even public) opposition so they want to change the rules to allow simple one-party rule. Is that a good thing?
"yet over half the country" Source please? I mean the DEMs do control the House, Senate and Presidency... If just barely. Maybe you are counting the cattle?
Yes I noted the GOP desire to make it easier to pollute.
And having a COVID vaccine is somewhat pointless if they will not take it. :-O
And yes we are still arresting people at the border.
I really am not sure if ending the filibuster would be good or bad.
With both sides getting so polarized, maybe it is the only way to get anything done...
Of course the legal whiplash will make for quite the mess as GOP / DEMs keep doing and undoing each others efforts.
Maybe I should go for a Law degree.
It seems we may need even more Lawyers.
And yet over half the country voted to put these stupid, evil Republicans in power?
I have taken great comfort in the fact that while Donald Trump was the choice of the 538 quasi anonymous members of the electoral college in 2016, in both that election and the election of 2020, the American people chose someone else. Our system failed us, but we did not fail ourselves.
--Hiram
The progressive wing of the Democratic Party blew it
"'yet over half the country' Source please? I mean the DEMs do control the House, Senate and Presidency... If just barely. Maybe you are counting the cattle?" Pick a source you like and that I will believe. Be careful of the wording of the poll. Asked if "cheating played some part in the election" I see answers like 80% yes. That doesn't mean Democrats didn't "win," but it means people don't believe the election was fair and honest. Some have the feeling, a few have the facts. I don't know why you keep trying to sustain that mistrust rather than restore faith in elections by reducing the opportunities for cheating.
And if the filibuster is eliminated, Democrats will immediately enshrine all those cheats into law, nationwide, and in the name of "voting rights." What a dishonest fraud!
Swing-district Democrats in need of a midterm reboot push leadership to break up BBB
https://wapo.st/3qxg1ky
sounds like a good idea to me.
Jerry,
Saying the same stupid unsupported incorrect thing does not make it true.
It just makes folks here respect your statements less. Source please.
Laurie,
Kevin hit the nail on the head this time..
"The progressive wing of the Democratic Party blew it
The progressive wing of the Democratic Party blew it
Every other headline these days is about Joe Biden's disastrous approval rating and the chaotic shape of the Democratic Party. How could Democrats have done this? What's wrong with them?
Let's cut the crap and acknowledge the obvious answer. First off, the progressive wing of the party insisted on pushing voting rights laws that had zero chance of passing. Biden knew this from the start and said so. Then Bernie Sanders insisted on an insane BBB bill that would have been unprecedented in the history of the country—and doubly unprecedented with a 50-50 Senate. But he insisted, and every time it got cut back it gave progressives another chance to moan about how they were being betrayed. Eventually it died.
For some reason, after an election that was razor close, progressives managed to delude themselves into thinking we were on the cusp of a revolution. How they did this is as big a mystery as how millions of people deluded themselves into thinking that Donald Trump really won the election. It's inexplicable.
But that's what happened."
Well I found Jerry's problem, he apparently thinks that Newsmax and Rasmussen are reliable data / news sources.
"The progressive wing of the Democratic Party blew it"
I'm sorry, this is BS. The moderates have gotten everything they want -- an infrastructure bill and nothing else. No BBB. No voting reform. No election reform. No eliminating the filibuster. No Supreme Court expansion. No making DC and PR states.
Yet, Biden's approval continues to go down. How is that the fault of the progressives? None of their stuff has been enacted!
Does anyone really believe that Romney or any other Senate Republican was going to vote for voting rights if Joe Biden had just been a little nicer?
Of course Joe's approval is going down. The Progressives are very unhappy that their unrealistic expectations are stymied. So they are drowning their own President. :-(
When I was looking at voting rights bills, I had a hard time finding a comparison of competing bills.
I also was unable to find a summary of the Voting Rights gap caused by SCOTUS rulings and what bill just closes them... Then at least there would be a detailed sales pitch...
It was much easier to compare the Immigration proposals.
It looks like HR4 John Lewis Act mostly just fills the holes.
The GOP is definitely seeming like bigots if they don't want to defend that basic civil rights law.
This Electoral Count Bill seems like a no brainer...
More on That
"wants to do things in a political system that require consensus to work" is a definition of divisiveness.
Wanting to do things is often divisiveness. Republican administrations often go merrily along because they don't do things, and so they don't divide people. It's a basic rule of politics and possibly life that it is much easier to do nothing than do something.
--Hiram
"The Progressives are very unhappy that their unrealistic expectations are stymied. So they are drowning their own President."
It's not progressives. They compromised -- they walked back BBB to the dollar amount that Manchin wanted. And then -- voila! -- Manchin walked away from his own bill!
It ain't the progressives holding things up.
"Well I found Jerry's problem, ..." NO, You Haven't. What you have found is your own unwillingness to do any research that might disturb your own strongly held opinions.
Therefore you can ignore the obvious concerns of some large portion of the electorate, the exact number you do not know NOR want to acknowledge.
Actually, Sean, progressives simply played "hide the canoli" to get the bill from $5T to $1.8T. Manchin saw through the deception and blew the whistle. Three cheers for a common sense Democrat. They are rare gems.
Sean,
I meant it is the progressives tanking Biden's approval rating, well them and moderates apparently. I don't think folks like me saw him kissing the butts of progressives like he has tried to do.
Jerry,
As always... Source please...
Sean,
It looks like Manchin disagrees with your assessment.
BBB stunk of tax cuts via SALT, handouts to Unions, handouts to everyone, etc... Definitely a bridge too far.
Jerry, If not consensus... How do you envision the House, Senate, and POTUS getting anything done?
By consensus. If it was me, I would require 60% votes (or even 2/3) on EVERYTHING. If you cannot find substantial "bipartisan" agreement on how to solve the problem, or even what the problem IS, you should not be passing expansive legislation just for the sake of passing something. Gridlock is actually a desirable state of affairs.
You want sources for the CBO analysis of the "$1.8T BBB" shell-game? Looks like you found it.
So you support consensus decision making...
And actually I want a source for this silliness. "Therefore you can ignore the obvious concerns of some large portion of the electorate," I don't see 38% as large.
The thing is all decisions can't be made by consensus. That's because a decision not to choose is also a decision. Many of the worst choices that were made in American history were made where no consensus was obtained. The most obvious one is with respect to slavery. Because consensus on the issue was possible, we chose to resolve the issue of slavery through Civil War, a choice where a consensus was not required.
--Hiram
And I don't see a 50-50+1 as a decisive mandate, let alone a consensus. Especially since we know the election was stolen.
I don't see 38% as negligible, and I am pretty sure your "source" for the 38% is the lowest you found. How about we consider the number just among Republicans? Is that "large"?
"I meant it is the progressives tanking Biden's approval rating"
The progressives haven't gotten anything they wanted! Blaming them for the results of moderate policies is absurd. It's starting at your preferred conclusion that "progressives are bad" and making up the rest.
And, yes, Joe Manchin has walked away from his previous proposal.
WP: Manchin’s $1.8 trillion spending offer appears no longer to be on the table
Jerry,
If you are an example of the unfounded conspiracy minded GOPers.
Ignoring the 38% who cry foul with NO proof is an excellent idea.
Sean,
I assume Manchin tried very hard to get the "real cost" down, with no success.
Why aren't the Progressives willing to just pass this piece meal?
Sean,
I don't think Progressives are bad. I just disagree with their Democratic Socialist beliefs.
Now if the Progressives want to keep promoting them, attacking DEMs that disagree with them, bashing the President for not doing something via Executive Order, etc. That is their choice.
I just believe the DEM party will stand a better chance in 2022 if they had passed more modest improvements, instead of swinging for that home run. Say start us on the path to reducing deficits.
"Say start us on the path to reducing deficits."
Thank you for proving my point about starting at your preferred conclusion and making up the rest.
This says it as well as I can.
"Right now, the focus of Democratic disappointment is two voting rights bills and the Build Back Better social infrastructure bill. Have they failed to become law because the public rose up in disgust against them? No. There has been no popular revolt against voting rights legislation or BBB. All the latter’s key provisions are popular with the public, many overwhelmingly so.
The problem has come down to two Democratic senators, Joe Manchin of West Virginia and Kyrsten Sinema of Arizona, who have decided to stand athwart their party’s agenda.
So what precisely is the wacky leftist idea that Biden and the party have embraced to their detriment? Paid family leave? Universal pre-k? Support for clean energy? There has been no public revolt against any of it.
If anything has marked the performance of congressional progressives during the last year, it has been their seriousness. They’ve been realistic about what was possible, committed to doing the hard work of policymaking, and willing to give ground in service of the larger goal of passing legislation.
Let’s look at one issue to see how this has played out. During the 2020 primary, the progressive candidates embraced varieties of Medicare for All, a legitimately left idea. Moderates including Biden advocated the more modest but still progressive public option. Biden won that debate.
But as president, Biden still hasn’t offered legislation based on his campaign health care plan, and probably never will. Instead, BBB contained even more limited tweaks to the system, including adding hearing coverage to Medicare and enhancing Obamacare subsidies.
It’s meaningful, but it’s also piecemeal, trying to address discrete gaps in the system. It’s nothing like the top-to-bottom overhaul progressives wanted.
And yet, like the good soldiers they’ve shown themselves to be, progressives didn’t say, “These health care provisions are trash and I won’t vote for this bill unless it’s Medicare for All.” They negotiated to make what progress they could and accepted the outcome of those negotiations.
That’s been the progressive modus operandi this entire time: Make their case for what are very popular ideas, stay flexible, accomplish what they can, and support the president."
WP: Don't blame the left
Since I am not a DEM, I really do not have a dog in this fight.
As a fiscal conservative moderate, I have no desire to have the government collect and spend anymore of my money. So yes most of what the Progressives are pushing is not popular with many of us.
And of course getting free stuff polls well...
Until folks learn what they have to give up to get it...
How do you think the DEMs can win in 2022?
Tax more, give out more, borrow more?
And yes the devils are likely in the details.
"From progressives’ perspective, they have been constantly making concessions to Manchin on Build Back Better all year: dropping their signature climate program from the bill, agreeing to drop paid leave, and significantly shrinking the bill’s overall size down from $3.5 trillion over 10 years.
But Manchin argues that, actually, they’ve changed very little. The bill remains a grab bag of practically all of Democrats’ domestic policy agenda, or at least everything that Senate rules will allow to pass through the budget reconciliation process. Democrats did drop some proposals, but the main device they used to lower the cost was to set programs to expire after just a few years (or even one year).
Manchin told Baier that, across the bill’s various versions, it was “basically the same amount of things that they were trying to accomplish.” He added, “If you’re going to do something, pick what our prized priorities are — like most people do in their families or their businesses — and you fund them for 10 years. And you make sure they deliver the services for 10 years. It’s hard to deliver service for one year or two years or five years.”
Again, Manchin has been saying this since early November, so it hardly comes as a surprise. And if Manchin really did make an offer to the White House this week, as Psaki claims, that suggests he has an idea of what he’d accept. What’s odder is that there’s been no known effort from the White House or top Democrats to revise the bill in that way, even though he was long known to be the crucial swing vote. House Speaker Nancy Pelosi briefly seemed inclined toward a bill that would do “fewer things better,” but she reversed course after House progressives disagreed, instead crafting a House bill that exemplified the “keep everything in, but set it to expire soon” approach.
So perhaps Manchin’s announcement is meant to serve as a bucket of cold water in progressives’ faces — to make them finally realize that either they go along with the major structural changes to the bill that he wants, or they get nothing.
Another relatively optimistic possibility is that Manchin is deliberately sinking the big liberal bill in a high-profile way to burnish his brand as an independent, but will eventually work on and support his own compromise bill — as he did on voting rights earlier this year. Democrats had crafted a massive bill called the “For the People Act” that passed the House, but Manchin panned the bill and announced he wouldn’t vote for it. Then, over the ensuing months, he negotiated a compromise called the “Freedom to Vote Act” that he proudly supported, though he did not actually support changing the rules to let the bill overcome a filibuster and pass.
In any case, it seems like Democrats have tried everything to get Manchin’s support —everything except actually taking Manchin’s demands seriously and scaling Build Back Better down. If they hope to salvage Biden’s agenda, that’s seemingly what must come next."
"Ignoring the 38% who cry foul..." Smart, except that people ACT ON those perceptions, and the big worry among Republicans is that OUR side, knowing their votes "won't count" will stay home. That probably doesn't bother you, since you are happy with our current governing "majority."
Well then stop telling everyone that the system is deeply flawed without any evidence then...
This lack of faith in the system is a Trump / FOX news creation. Congratulations.
Hopefully all those folks dumb enough to fall for it do stay home...
It is like one of those "intelligence poll tests"...
If you are dumb enough to believe the system was off by 4 states and 7.5 million voters...
You do not deserve to have a say in the future of this country.
WOW. Why are you trying to suppress the votes of 50 million people?
And, I would point out, the FAITH in the system ginned up by Democrats and the major media is ALSO a media creation, with the same sort of negligible evidence.
And if you believe that thousands of KNOWN fraudulent ballots do not raise suspicions of the outcome, then you aren't passing any "intelligence tests" either.
Are Republicans becoming the country’s majority party?
https://wapo.st/3IfqnLL
this seems crazy to me given Trump and the modern GOP
Jerry,
I am actually against that form of suppression...
That is why I am asking the GOP crazies to stop promoting lies...
Making it harder to vote is pretty clearly proven .
More hoops, fewer hours, fewer drop off option, fewer hours, fewer locations.
Fraudulent ballots... Source please...
Laurie,
Thanks
"The Democratic Party has held a near-constant lead in partisan affiliation surveys since the end of the Great Depression. That advantage was once huge; Democrats outnumbered Republicans by between 15 and 26 points every year between 1958 and 1980. The lead has narrowed to no more than 10 points in recent years, but the fact remains that Republicans have drawn level with Democrats or surpassed them only a few times since 1932.
That’s what makes the Gallup data so potentially Earth-shattering. Gallup found that partisan identification has shifted by a massive 14 points since early 2021. In the first quarter of 2021, 49 percent of Americans said they were Democrats — defined as solid partisans and Democratic-leaning independents — compared with only 40 percent who said they were Republicans. That lead shrunk in each quarter of the year. By the fourth quarter, the lead shifted to the GOP. As President Biden’s job approval dropped into the low 40s, 47 percent of Americans said they were Republicans compared with 42 percent who said they were Democrats."
"Gallup notes that the most recent time the GOP led in partisan affiliation by five points was in the first quarter of 1995, right after Republicans secured their first House majority in more than 40 years. The only time the GOP has led by more than five points was right after the stunningly quick victory in the 1991 Persian Gulf War, when President George H.W. Bush’s approval ratings soared to as high as 89 percent.
The Gallup poll is only one poll, so Republicans should curb their enthusiasm. But after examining it together with Pew Research Center data, I think it’s worth noting that these numbers echo previous increases in GOP affiliation. The Democratic Party lost its lead only four times. Two instances followed a successful war in the Middle East led by a Republican president (1991, 2001-2003). The other two occurred because of the collapse a Democratic president’s popularity when his party completely controlled Washington — under Bill Clinton in 1994-1995 and Barack Obama in 2010-2011."
I am sure it will vacillate back and forth as usual.
But my view is that the DEMs are not doing themselves any favors pursuing the Far Lefts agenda...
Gallup Poll
PEW Past Fluctuation
But my view is that the DEMs are not doing themselves any favors pursuing the Far Lefts agenda
There isn't anything Democrats could do that wouldn't be labelled far left by Republicans. And there is not point in working to get elected to things if you don't want to govern, at least if you are a Democrat. And no one is doing anyone himself a favor if all he wants to do is serve in elective office. Being in elected office just isn't all that much fun.
--Hiram
For myself, I don't like catch phrases in politics. I don't like to use words I have heard a lot from political commentators. That's one reason why I don't watch people like Rachel Maddow. When I hear an inexperienced candidate start mouthing right from the start all the cliches that seem to dominate our discourse, I am almost embarrassed for him. I think he has obviously been sold a packaged product of focus groupped findings by some sleezy political consultant who gets paid big money to lose elections by naïve rich people who are bored doing whatever it is they do when they are being rich.
--Hiram
Hiram,
These are far left policies by any measure.
They were being compared to the 1930's changes...
If your supporters represent only 50% of the citizens.
Trying to pass things to pacify the furthest Left quartile(s)
of your 50% may be unwise if you want to stay in power.
The problem is that these charges are always made and always in the same language.
It is reasonable to believe we have problems. Take climate change. Some think it's a matter of concern, others don't. The issue is joined. But I am pretty sure climate is neither a left nor a right wing thing. It affects each of us pretty much the same. Climate doesn't care about anyone's agenda, or how anyone's agenda is characterized.
--Hiram
Manipulation of election laws isn't a left wing or right wing thing either. As many Republicans have argued to me the Democratic Party not so long ago, was a profoundly racist party. Ours was not the party of Lincoln. And there a Democratic run states like New York which have election laws that are incredibly unfair, even racist, a point Republicans make often. So if Democrats are guilty of election manipulation as well as Republicans, and you can look at gerrymandered districts in Maryland, for evidence of that, how can addressing the issue be either part of the left wing or right wing agenda? Can something be ideologically divisive it, to quote the cliche, "both sides" do it?
--Hiram
Back to your original statement...
"There isn't anything Democrats could do that wouldn't be labelled far left by Republicans."
You are correct that the issues are not Left or Right...
However the proposed solutions seem to be. It is inherent in how we define "Left" and "Right".
More Federal Government intervention and control is usually a DEM thing.
This is an Interesting Graphic
"This is an Interesting Graphic"
Interesting? Maybe. Accurate? No.
What did you disagree with? It seemed to nail the big stuff pretty well.
These are just the same tired stereotypes disconnected from reality that you traffic in, so I get why you like it.
Do you have any summary of LEFT beliefs that you like and agree with?
How do you determine / define Left vs Right?
More Federal Government intervention and control is usually a DEM thing.
Sure, and this is why Republican administrations end in catastrophe. What characterizes Republicans is a lack of agenda. They want to do nothing, and nothing is easy to do. Nothing was more revealing than their decision not to have a platform in 2020. Before that happened, I thought the most Republican thing ever was to repeal Obamacare 62 times without even once providing an alternative.
What Republicans learn every time they fail is that just because they choose to do nothing, that doesn't mean that nothing happens. And what does happen is the choice they made, made more convenient by the fact that they didn't have to work to get a consensus to make.
--Hiram
Inflation is a big deal for Republicans now. Much kvetching about it comes from Republican sources. Yet they are entirely without an understanding of what is causing it, or how the problem can be addressed. And their reasoning for ducking those hard issues is sound. It's an issue that can be "both sided". They know, just as we know that the way to slow inflation is to slow the economy. To dry up investment and expansion opportunities and to throw people out of work, and to not create job opportunities. You want lower gas costs? Give people fewer places to go, and fewer reasons to go to them. Simple. But Republicans don't have to address those issues, because the essence of a Republican approach to politics and policy, is that there are tough choices out their, and it should always be the case that tough choices should be made by someone else.
--Hiram
As you know, the GOP 2020 Platform was their 2016 Platform.
I have pointed you to it many times.
And yes the GOP likes to blame people without offering solutions.
Trump's unpaid for tax cuts, increased spending and extreme FED action caused many of today's problems. Yet the GOP shirks that responsibility.
the GOP 2020 Platform was their 2016 Platform.
The one with the lacerating criticism of the incumbent president?
I once argued, I don't recall where, that in not putting forth a program, that by reposing absolute faith in the leader, the Republican Party resembled the Nazi Party of Adolf Hitler. Somebody responded, quite correctly, that the Nazi Party did have a very detailed or at least verbose platform from very early in it's development, a platform it adhered to right up to moment when the Red Army reached the suburbs of Berlin.
Well, yes. The Republican Party was once a genuine political party, in form and often in substance, and not so long ago. But those days are in the past, and it remains to be seen whether they will ever return.
PBS is running a series on Hitler's Rise to Power. It's not very good, but even bad shows on this subject fascinate me. It does have the feel of a criticism of Donald Trump, or possibly Boris Johnson who seems to crashing and burning over in Britain.
--Hiram
Here you go AGAIN
"Do you have any summary of LEFT beliefs that you like and agree with?"
The problem you're not reckoning with is that the two parties frequently don't do what they say they believe. I focus on what they do, you seem to focus on what they say they believe. Which is why you continually come back to nonsense like "federal intervention and control is a DEM thing" -- when GOP legislators are constantly sticking their nose in lower levels of government whether federal telling state what to do or states telling local government what to do or using the Supreme Court to do what they are unable to do legislatively.
I am sure the Nazi's kept re adopting their old platform too. As I say, it was still effect in May of 1945.
--Hiram
Reminds me for some reason of one of my favorite jokes from the movie, "The Lady Vanishes" which was made around 1938. In the movie there are two comic characters which don't have much to do with the rest of the movie, but were there to provide a little relief. They were later spun off to do some movies of their. At one point the conversation turns to "Mein Kampf". One character observes that in Germany, brides receive a copy of it for their weddings. The other character, somewhat baffled, replies, "It's not that kind of book, old boy."
The platform of the Republican Party, like the platform of the Nazi Party, exists in a very technical form but it was not updated and it was ignored. The parties in each case were subservient to the will of their leaders and quite proudly so.
--Hiram
I assume you have not read their platform.
Sean,
So your definition of Left and Right is based on your perception of what some of them are doing?
No general guidelines like
Left
"the government can tax the rich to raise up the poor"
"if it did not work over the past 60 years, it is because we did not spend enough"
Right
"we can cut taxes and raise revenues"
"if it did not work over the past 40 years it is because we did not cut them enough"
Why do parties make platforms if it not to explain their beliefs / goals?
"So your definition of Left and Right is based on your perception of what some of them are doing?"
I'm worried about what actual policies are being passed, not about labeling everything.
I glanced at it. Its a withering attack on the current administration.
--HIram
Sean,
Then what do you use to measure good/Left and bad/Right?
I mean somehow you score these perceptions. Don't you?
Hiram,
Since the GOP platform was from 2016, I do not think it was written around Biden?
"And yet over half the country voted to put these stupid, evil Republicans in power?"
The 48+2 represent 40.5 million more citizens than the 50.
So...no. Small states voting for Republicans does not equal over half the country.
Moose
"Then what do you use to measure good/Left and bad/Right?"
I don't automatically associate "good" and "bad" with an ideology. Just because something is "left" doesn't make it "good". And just because something is "right" doesn't make it "bad".
"Good" and "bad" are based on the results.
Since the GOP platform was from 2016, I do not think it was written around Biden?
The 2016 platform was an attack on the president. Because it wasn't updated, when it was adopted, an attack on the incumbent president was an attack on Trump.
We often talk about sticking to talking points, reciting canned phrases. Recycling things heard from cable tv personalities. To avoid that is one reason why I don't watch them. If you ever catch me uttering some sort of Democratic liberal equivalent of "extreme socialist agenda" please call me on it.
There are two issues that really bug me, which I don't think get enough attention. Issues where maybe some canned phrase might be appropriate. One is Trump's efforts to commit election fraud in Georgia. The guy was caught on tape. I simply do not see how anyone could support such a person ever again. Certainly such a person could not be supported without a total loss of moral credibility.
The second issue was the Republican choice not to have a new platform in 2020, to contemptuously recycle their platform from four years earlier. What that signaled was that the Republican Party was no longer an independent party, a party at all really. It was just a vehicle to be used by the unfit man they so irresponsibly chose to put on the ballot. This was a fundamental betrayal of their responsibility to their constituents and to the American people. It was deeply destructive to our country, a blow from which we show few signs of recovering.
--Hiram
Sean,
So the "War on Poverty" was bad since it enabled the destruction of the 2 parent family for many poorer households?
My point being that
""Good" and "bad" are based on the results."
is like driving forward while looking in the rear view mirror.
Somehow you are forward determining "Good / Bad" when you vote...
Hiram,
It would be interesting to see how much "platforms" change over time.
To me if something is not broke... Don't spend time changing it.
"Somehow you are forward determining "Good / Bad" when you vote..."
I'm projecting what I think the results will be, naturally. The point is, when I look at an issue, I don't ask "what's the 'left' position on this?", I ask "what's the outcome I favor?".
It would be interesting to see how much "platforms" change over time
The important thing for me at least is that platforms are a statement by the party, independent of the candidate. In terms of change, candidates come and go, but the principles of the party remain largely the same over time.
The Republican Party broke their trust with American people when the put Trump on the ballot. They abused that privilege, and without some reckoning, that will continue after Trump departs the scene, perhaps long after.
--Hiram
Local Republicans are trying to make a big deal of the Hennepin County Sheriff, scrambling as much as they can to something they perceive as a moral high ground. Well, of course the Democrats are acting like a responsible party, the way Republicans should have reacted to Trump but didn't. Democrats are waiting for most of the story to come out, and making decisions accordingly. Governor Walz is now asking for Hutch's resignation as are Democratic members of the Hennepin County Board. Hutch may resign, he certainly won't get the endorsement, and without support of his party, his days are numbered.
Consider what happened to Trump whose breaches of trust were much greater? Who tried to fix an election and who tried to lead a revolt? How many Republican governors called for his resignation? How many Republican senators did? Today, as Trump resumes a leadership role in his party, how many Republican leaders are objecting? Is Lynne Cheney's principled opposition to Trump really enough to save the moral credibility of the Republican Party?
--Hiram
Sean,
Do you see anything in the DEM Platform as bad?
Because to me that defines "Left"...
As the GOP Platform define "Right"
"Do you see anything in the DEM Platform as bad?
Because to me that defines "Left"..."
You're continuing to miss the point. You're looking to label things as left/right so you can dismiss/accept them based on the label alone.
You seem to forget that I reside in the wastelands between...
I am free to disagree with both sides based on the merits of or weakness of the policy / proposal.
It is nice not feel obligated to agree with or defend people on either extreme.
I wonder if extreme answers are more likely or less likely to be right answers or wrong answers. What about the middle answer? Is what we see as the moderate answer really just a product of indecision?
Think of the great problems of the history. Which were the best responses? Who had the answers? The radical, the middle of the road or the moderate answer? Are their times when we misunderstood the nature of our response? That the moderate answer turned out to be the radical answer or the radical answer turned out to be the moderate answer?
--Hiram
I have faith a society's social norms improving over time... That is why I support a democratic form of government...
Unfortunately in the USA we citizens have learned that we can vote ourselves money, services, etc and avoid paying for them by passing the DEBT forward.
That said I will usually vote for decisions that are acceptable to 60% of the population and are paid for by those receiving the benefit.
I have faith a society's social norms improving over time...
This is a country that came close to choosing Donald Trump for president. That's scarier even then the fact the electoral college actually picked him for the job. It's incredibly significant that Mr. Trump, who tried to fix the election, particularly in Georgia, is still the de facto leader of his party. That would have been unthinkable until recently.
I am a big fan of "The West Wing". The TV series was made between 1999 and 2005 overlapping the Clinton and Bush administrations, and of course the events of 9-11, which occurred just prior to the premiere of the third season. It's an entertainment show, but it reflects the social norms of it's time, in this case two decades ago. In watching it, hardly an episode goes by that doesn't take for granted some assumption, usually involving basic decency, that no one would make today. CJ always had press conferences. Legalities were always follow or at least received lip service. Subpoenas were honored. None of those things are assumed today 20 years later. Maybe the trend won't continue, maybe we will turn back from the direction we have been going toward for a long time now. Maybe our frail and elderly president who is nevertheless, a decent man will succeed in turning things around in the months remaining to him as an effective political leader. But let's say, I have my doubts.
--Hiram
Hiram,
Yes citizens can make BAD choices at times.
I made the mistake of voting for Trump once, because I disliked the Left's candidate / platform. It was a desperation move...
However I did learn that there was something far worse than Liberal, as did many of my friends. Therefore Trump got stomped in 2020...
Now the question is... Will the DEMs seek to win over moderate people like myself, or will they continue courting and placating the Far Left?
I never understood why people disliked Hillary. By all accounts, she is quite likable. Friends of friends of friends of mine have worked for her speak very highly. When she wasn't a daily target of paid for political attacks, her popularity numbers were quite high. She had very good relations with Republicans, when she was in the senate and as secretary of state.
I don't like political advertising, and I make a point of missing as much of it as I can. One thing negative political advertising is intended to do is drive approval ratings down. What the people purchasing it are buying is a product that increases our dislike and even hatred of each other. The result is one somebody starts running for office, their numbers are artificially driven down. Those numbers don't represent any sort of genuine feeling, rather it's just a matter of how effective the marketing is. Once the target of those attacks leaves public life, the attacks stop, and a more normal approval rating resumes. George Bush was a terrible president, but lately he has become quite popular now that nobody is criticizing him. I expect much the same will happen with Hillary.
--Hiram
Hillary being an enabler of Bill Clinton's sexual escapades and her hiding the email stuff did NOT win her any points with me.
Did that make you not like Hillary? Were you more bothered by Hillary as enabler of escapades than Trump as escapader?
The email stuff was an issue, but we have a lot more access to the details of Hillary's public life than we have of Trump's. And I don't know what email practices have to do with likability.
As for the emails the whole thing seemed weird to me. For one thing it was so dated. Who sends and email anymore? Who with any sort of brain puts anything in an email they would mind seeing on the front page of the New York Times. The security claims were laughable. Email is inherently the most insecure form of communication in the history of the world. Never before did it happen that the most banal communications were available for the entire world to read forever. Nag Hammadi papyri have nothing on emails.
--Hiram
To me she seemed just as slimy and untrustable as Trump.
And she was a Liberal...
That is of course very hard to believe. And amazingly insulting. By any standard Trump is a pretty awful person. I can't think of a single other leader of the Republican I would characterize in such terms. Within a political context she has always been reasonably trustworthy. In contrast, in a business context, where he is spent his life, Trump is totally untrustworthy. This isn't disputed by the way.
--Hiram
Remember that was in 2016 and I had not been exposed to exactly how much of a lying slime Trump is...
Hillary's character is about 100 times better than Trump's. I provided about 100 link's back in 2016 about what a scumbag Trump is, but you chose nogt to believe them.
I am a stubborn foolish man sometimes... No doubt...
Post a Comment