Progressives criticize him for not being more in tune with what voters actually want – you know, an actual economic recovery, accountability for elite criminals, less economic inequality, etc.
The voters are voting Republican because they want “an actual economic recovery, accountability for elite criminals, less economic inequality, etc.”?
It was not just the “blue dogs” or what other excuse you give that blocked what you want, but 40 Republican Senators and 200 Republicans in the House, ~30 Republican governors, thousands of Republican legislators, …
Why are you so committed to the golden rule of never speaking ill of a fellow Republican?
While you started off pretty good in your reasoning, you went off the tracks when you failed to expand the “fracture Republican unity” into “defeat Republicans running for Congress who are the most opposed to compromise” which would be people like Ted Cruz. Targeting at taking out Cruz for being too extreme would fracture the Republican party. I’m sure there are others who if targeted by progressives successfully would change the thinking of the more pragmatic members of Congress.
Of course, defeating a Ted Cruz will require a message that is independent of a candidate, a message that catches on fast enough the party can’t prevent voters from acting on it. Like the message that caught on and defeated Cantor. Maybe progressives need to stop being Democrats and return to the Republican party they came from and fight the conservatives who started pushing them out five decades ago. After all, less than half a century ago, Elizabeth Warren was a Republican and not out of place in the Republican Party.
If only focused on president, then the top criteria for any candidate would need to be military authority and tactics to implement the military coup and dictatorship. You can not write laws by veto. Didn’t work for Clinton, and won’t work in the future.
You sought out the candidates for every office that were running on tax and spend?
Or were you voting for the free lunch pols who promised tax cuts would pay for all the welfare state you want by taking it away from “them”?
Everything you complain about is the policy of and in the control of Congress and the voters have been voting for Congress to be more and more opposed to what you want. If you want Obama to stage a military coup, you need to say so explicitly. Maybe you can create a movement and march on Washington demanding a dictatorship because Congress is the problem because the majority of the voters are a bigger problem.
I don’t think you can name any other president who has accomplished as much with as little support in Congress and the voters as Obama. LBJ had a cakewalk. FDR in comparison faced no opposition and Congress was a rubber stamp. Clinton was blessed with Republicans like Bob Dole who cared for the American people more that winning political points.
Yeah, Obama needs to legislate with vetoes, government shutdowns, mass layoffs, recession, depression, maybe military coup,…
Given the flaw in Obama is believing the power of the people to make law resides with the Congress, shouldn’t progressives defeat the Republicans in Congress that have totally refused to stop blocking Obama on everything progressives care about?
Or is “the Democratic president as dictator” the only principle allowed because the people should have no say in government by voting every two years for members of Congress?
Of course, conservatives consider passing laws with 60 votes in the Senate and significant House majorities to be massive executive overreach because 15 months of debate and three days to read the final bill was not enough. After all, only conservatives get to put bills together in secret and expect them to be passed by the House and Senate within 18 hours – the omnibus in December 2000 that made gambling with other people’s money legal, a bill far worse than the cromnibus.
mulp commented on the blog post CIA Health Professionals’ Role in Systematic Torture, Including ‘Human Subjects Research’
In recent polls, the over half the public believes the torture was legal and justified, and 45% think it should be used now and in the future.
Do you believe in democracy or not? After demanding an end to filibuster and demanding up or down votes, doesn’t democracy demand torture?
You must be Mitch McConnell to be offering those terms.
And you will get your wish with Mitch now bringing your deal up for a vote with the Republicans to pass it in the Senate and House on straight party line votes because progressives totally oppose the undemocratic Senate rules including endless debate until cloture by supermajority.
So, what would you offer the Republicans to get the required votes to pass in the House and Senate. If nothing, you get nothing except a law that eliminates Democrats totally from crafting the bills by kicking the can to when Republicans control both the House and Senate and can put Republican only bills to votes. If you argue that government shutdowns are the winning strategy, you must be a right-winger – Republicans have never lost control of Congress as a result of government shutdowns. Instead, the right-wing always sees the end as Obama or Clinton winning and thus the need to make Congress more right-wing. And progressive claim Clinton and Obama betrayed the left by winning against the right-wing.
Ok, be the leader. Layout the agenda and basis for the kind of government that everyone will agree with completely.
Now explain how you will define the laws of nature to make it happen.
Republicans and conservatives have united around pillage and plunder of the earth based on it being an infinite trash dump and infinite supply of free goodies, plus the theory that workers are pure liabilities who suck money like a black hole and consumers have infinite money they spend based on how rich other people are. Free lunch economics.
The best as I can tell, progressives want to force the rich to sell all their stock to the rich and then the rich can give all that cash to the government for a welfare state. A different version of free lunch economics.
The problem is no different for conservatives and progressives: all possible practical solutions end up facing opposition from all sides as too leftist for the right, and too right wing for the left, and increasingly, no compromise is acceptable, so no option ever gains more than 10-20% support.
So, good luck with being an “effective” leader without being a military dictator.
Why do you want Congress to be even more right wing?
The longest serving members of Congress historically are Democrats who were the product of the Great Depression and FDRs policies. Except for a handful the members of Congress with legacy of civil rights, voting rights, economic equality have been eliminated from Congress and when Democrats did replace them, they were more like 60s “liberal” Republicans than than 60s Democrats. (Elizabeth Warren is a 50s-60s Republican.)
The campaign to shorten Congressional terms is driven from the right based on their belief that the longer people are in office, the more likely they are to tax and spend. The reasons for shortening tenure is to get rid of tax and spend members of Congress and replace them with tax cut and tax cut and cut off the needy. See for example ourgeneration.org.
The best example of the change from getting the old guys out of Congress is Ted Kennedy who pushed for universal health care from his first days in Congress to his last days and the people representing “young guns” of Ted Cruz, Michelle Bachmann, etc who have called for no government provision of anything health care.
mulp commented on the blog post Omnibus Funding Bill is a Mixed Bag for Marijuana Reform
Penalties for pot are explicit in the law and not penalties for pot based on schedule penalties. Drugs based on pot are already FDA approved for prescription and thus legal because they are not pot with its thousands of chemicals of untested benefit and harm.
Sorry, you need to work to elect people to Congress that see liberty as not merely only to do with guns and force.
mulp commented on the blog post Omnibus Funding Bill is a Mixed Bag for Marijuana Reform
While President Obama claims to oppose the provision, he decided to effectively sacrifice the basic rights of 650,000 people to prevent government shutdown
If Obama vetoed the bill, then the complaint would be Obama sacrificed the economic well being of 650,000 DC residents at Christmas this year for the benefit of a few hundred cancer, MS, et al pot users in the future.
Don’t progressives call for the sacrifice by the few for the greater good of the many?
mulp commented on the blog post We’re Not Very Good at Bombing Countries into Peace and Prosperity
Let’s see, the US did not bomb or send in military to Rwanda:
500,000-1,000,000 killed in war
Nor did the US bomb or send in military to Western Sahara:
14,000-21,000 dead, 40,000 plus refugees
Nor Somalia for the first two of the three decades of that war:
Nor Ethiopian Civil War:
400,000-500,000 war dead, a million from famine
lots more to list…
We are not good at ignoring wars into peace and prosperity.
NGOs and charities don’t bring peace and prosperity.
And to argue capitalism is the problem, Stalin’s socialist regime killed ten million more or less and Mao’s socialist regime more than ten million.
So, I think the best thing the US could have done is praised the Soviet invasion of Afghanistan and let the socialist kill millions of Afghans who clung to religion and made Afghans secular.
So, in 2015, FDL’s position will be that it is undemocratic for Sen Warren to use Senate rules to delay or block and laws because the Republicans have clear majorities in the House and Senate and all bills should get simple and quick up or down votes.
Now consider that we are “on the hook for more than $303 T dollars.
But that is a problem only if the Federal government shutdown for the next century so no taxes are collected.
Conservatives are arguing that the benefit liability is the reason tax collections over the next century will need to be $500 trillion to pay for entitlements and war, which is a problem when you want no taxes, and war funded with debt like the Congress did before the US Constitution gave Congress the power to tax.
Conservatives want to go back to 1786 when the Constitution was unconstitutional.
mulp commented on the blog post D.C. Marijuana Reform Offers a Real Test of Obama’s Principles
I gather you believe the best way for Obama to care about DC residents is to be the Grinch who steals their Christmas by vetoing every budget bill on the principle that any bill that passes with Republican votes is a compromise and principle requires zero compromise and a total shutdown until 2017. DC residents will praise Obama for locking them out of their jobs so they can stay home smoking pot to ease the worry about no income.
Are you calling for a US national strike, a shutdown of all employers, and everyone going into foraging mode because too few people have money to live on?
Right, once Jan 2 comes, the Republicans can pass budget bills that eliminate all of Dodd-Frank, the EPA, and order all illegals be rounded up, and when Obama vetoes, the right-wing just attacks Obama for the recession the US falls into, and then passes a new budget with cuts to health care and other things, so they can blame Obama for the crisis because he vetoes the budget again.
As long as progressives join with conservatives in blaming Obama and Democrats for everything, Republicans will be able to win in 2016 across the board.
mulp commented on the blog post Debra Jean Milke is free after spending 22 years on death row
But where are the voters in the matters of justice.
Any voter in 2004 should have known of the torture, spying, etc in the endless global war on scary people, which was after all just an expansion of the endless national war on scary people in the US which has hundreds of people killed by police and millions put in prison for being scary.
Why weren’t the Republicans who were in control of rushing to war defeated in 2004?
But then again, why were Republicans ever elected at all after making it clear they were declaring war on scary people in the US.
The government has been doing exactly what the American people wanted based on voting for Republicans who made it perfectly clear they would wage war on scary people. Anyone who was not angrily going after scary people was defeated. Carter was defeated for failing to react angrily and go kill people in Iran, and for failing to use military force to force a new Panama treaty. Dukakas was defeated because he was not convincingly scary in going after scary people.
We get the government we vote for and we have been voting for people who promise to go after scary people thinking we are not scary, just the other people.
So, you want to have the Federal government shutdown for the next two years?
After all, would you support any bill that gets any Republican votes? Wouldn’t a single Republican vote mean a bill that is totally corrupt and bought, so the only solution is no bills pass and the Federal government is shutdown and the EPA blocked, Osha blocked, etc
I suppose you think Obama can only be a great president if he keeps government from doing anything because any law that gets a single Republican vote must be vetoed as too radical right wing and a sell out to corporations.
And that the sign of Obama being a great president is hot war in Africa and the Mideast and lots of mass murder with Obama blocking all US action in any way by taking a total isolationist stance. Not even sending aid can be allowed because it will support corruption or provide hostages to evil people.
- Load More