"The people have spoken, the bastards!"

[Meldread]

"The people have spoken, the bastards!" -- Dick Tuck, Democratic political consultant, campaign strategist, advice man, and political prankster

I realize there are many people on these forums who lack a sense of humor, but I think everyone can use a little chuckle in times like these. The outcome of the Massachusetts Senate Race is of course, not something we wanted as supporters of the Democratic Party. However, I've been listening to Howard Dean tonight and I find myself in agreement with him. What went wrong is obvious, and now really isn't the time to enter into a circle firing squad. We need to roll up our sleeves, identify the problems on the national level, and make swift corrections. The people may be bastards, but they've spoken loud and clear.

Unlike many I am not a chicken little. Republican's had smaller majorities in the Senate than we currently possess, and they STILL rammed everything they wanted through. Of course, this is the Democratic Party we're talking about. They could have 75 votes in the Senate and would still find a way to screw it up. That's where Obama comes in - we elected you, Mister President, to lead. So far, you've handed far too much over to the Congress - you know how they are - you were there. They can't find their ass with both hands. They're dysfunctional and the entire institution needs to be reformed.

Now is the time that you need to step up, and roll your party members in line. This is what made Bush successful in passing his legislation. He knew how to roll the Congress. Leaders have vision. You need to actually lay out a vision for America, and then MAKE the Democrats in Congress pass it. If Republicans try and stand in your way, you need to crush them. Bush never shed a tear over what he had to do to destroy Democrats. This is politics, and while I know you're a nice guy who is optimistic, your opponents have no qualms about doing whatever it takes to destroy you. You must, you MUST be willing to do whatever is necessary in order to succeed. Even if that means sometimes you have to send someone out to play in the mud.

No matter what happens, in the end, you will be judged by the actions of the Congress. Fairly or unfairly you will be judged by their failures and shortcomings. This is about YOUR survival more so than their own. It is time to take the reigns in a public way, paint your vision, make your agenda clear, and force it through. It's going to be ugly and brutal, but you promised change. Change has never been easy, and revolutions are rarely bloodless. It's time to draw the knife, and let the blood flow. If you do what the people desire, they will reward you. If fail and the bastards will speak again. This will get worse before they get better. Tonight was just one lost battle in a much larger war. You are the prize the enemy seeks. Now is the time to fight, it's time to dig deep, and do whatever is necessary to win.

[dkf]

1. +1000

[oldtime dfl_er]

2. Well said and recommended!

President Obama did have a vision, he had a vision of a bipartisan movement toward the betterment of our country. It looks naive to me right now.

[Meldread]

4. The problem with bipartisanship is that it requires Republicans.

The talking heads conveniently forget that despite all the bad shit Democrats have endured politically last year, and even today, the public STILL hates the Republican's more. Even the Teabaggers don't want to claim themselves as Republican. Even Scott Brown didn't want to associate with the Republican brand.

Many people are skeptical about health care because they don't know what the hell is in it. The Obama Administration over learned the mistakes of the Clinton Administration when it came to health care, and they dumped it into the lap of Congress. Even when it came to the Stimulus Package, to go further back, they let Congress go wild with it. This was his first major legislative effort, which although successful, set a precedent with Congress. I'd liken the stimulus package to moving in with your partner for the first time. You take out the trash, do the dishes, and clean the bathroom - because you don't want to look like a slob - and suddenly that magically becomes your expected role. Obama let Congress lead the way on the Stimulus, and as a result it wasn't as effective as it could have been, it contained a lot of spending that could have better been put to use elsewhere.... it lacked focus, the focus the Administration should have forced upon it.

Ever since that moment, the relationship the President has had with the Congress has been defined in these terms. He has a "loose" vision - more of an idea than a vision, really - and hands it over to Congress. While the President doesn't make legislation, he has the ability to shape it through threatening to veto. He does play a role. The two sides do have to work together in shaping it, and in my opinion this is where he has lacked the most.

This is why health care in the minds of many in the public is unpopular. If you poll on certain aspects of health care, it becomes VERY popular. The President - as leader of the Party - has not brought everyone together, crafted a coherent vision, and then pushed it hard. People are confused. People want change, and we have a two party system. They hate Republican's, but if they feel Democrat's aren't delivering where else are they going to go?

If I was Obama I'd welcome Scott Brown to Washington, invite him into the Oval Office, and ask him if he thinks he can hold onto that Senate seat. I'd ask him just how far he thinks he can go with his fellow Republican's, before it becomes suicide for him. I'd smile, tell him how tough it is in Washington, and let him know that I've learned that sometimes you have to do distasteful things for the greater good. I'd tell him that I'd hope to be good friends with him, and that I believe that we could get along very well. But he has the ability to strain that relationship, and I would remind him of all the power, prestige and privilege the President of the United States can bring to a United States Senator as well as his State. I'd also remind him that the reverse is also true.

If I don't have health care reform passed, and I find reconciliation unacceptable because I can't get everything I want, I encourage Scott Brown to go out to the microphone and tell everyone that he is committed to working with me to make the health care legislation "better." That after our conversation he is convinced that it is good for America to learn from the example of Massachusetts. We work out a deal privately and then we get that bitch passed with his vote.

On the other hand, if he fails to work with me - then I destroy him. Utterly. To the point he'll never be able to run for an elected office again, ever. I go after him with all the fury that the Republican's went after Bill Clinton back in the late 1990's with impeachment, and I do the same to every other Republican who decides that they are inflexible (I'm looking at you Maine Republicans). And Democrats who fail to fall in line have a rude awakening as well, as they find everything they want passed in Congress is stripped out of legislation, and they find funding for their re-election campaigns difficult - if not impossible.

In the end, one message will be heard loud and clear: Do not fuck with the President of the United States, Barrack Hussein Obama. He will fuck you right back.

[Democrats_win]

3. If they had voted for a green candidate, then ok. This was a Repuke they voted for!

It doesn't give you much confidence in America when we return this garbage to power. We know exactly what the Repukes stand for and it certainly isn't anything any American wants. Notice how the Fraud Market has reacted today. Yippy! Good times for the fraudsters! This is a demonstration of the poor moral character of the voters to return the Repukes to power. Truly, this is like a dog eating its own vomit. Worst vote in American history? Possibly.

[Meldread]

5. Do you think the average American voter cares about any of this stuff? They do not.

The average American voter looks for two things in a candidate:

1. What are they going to do for me / how are they going to help me with X problem.
2. Connection and likability.

They do not care about deeper policy matters or Republican or Democrat. People are frustrated, they wanted change and that is why they elected Obama. They look to Washington and still see it the same, and since we have a two party system they've elected a Republican. Either Obama delivers on the change that American's want or he's going to not only lose the Congress he's going to be a one term President.

As to number one, that requires a strong message that resonates with the people. This is what the Democratic Party as a whole lacks. This is why health care is so politically unpopular.

As to the second, there are many factors that go into it. But in large part it comes down to looks and personality. This is where ALL of Obama's strength is located. People love him, personally, and they like him as their President.

Therefore, the problem is the first issue for Obama and the Congress. There are two ways to solve it. The first is that Obama takes matters into his own hands and does what is necessary to correct the problems on his own. He cracks the whip and brings the Congress into line.

The second is that someone comes forward in Congress that has the ability to grab Senators and Representatives by the balls and squeeze until they cry for mercy. The Congress lacks strong leaders in leadership positions within the caucus that can make heads roll. The whole Nelson, Lincoln, and Lieberman shit should have never happened - not if there was a leader worth their salt. If Nelson wanted to play that shit with a real leader of the Senate, you know what would happen? He or she would laugh in his face, and tell him that if health care goes down because of him, he can hang up his reelection. Nebraska will get nothing. Nothing. He would become irrelevant. Joe Lieberman? Pfft. Laughed at. The leader would call the President up on the phone and they'd have a little chat. Then Joe would find himself isolated within the caucus. He would quickly find that he is going to lose everything that he was given, and furthermore Connecticut will get fucked because of him.

Of course, a real leader would also be fair - he or she would allow them to vote against it to pass, but will force them to make the procedural vote to avoid a filibuster.

Since Obama doesn't have what he needs in the Senate, and to a lesser extent the House - though the House is much better off - he has to do it himself. He has no other choice.

[oldtime dfl_er]

6. yea

but the average Massachusetts voter?

[Meldread]

7. Absolutely.

When I say "Average American Voter" I am talking roughly 70% or more of the people who vote. That includes many of the people who post here on Democratic Underground. It is certainly less here, I'd say roughly 15% - 20% - people here are much more informed and care about detailed issues. Yet, a much higher percentage are still moved by the two things I listed - including myself. There are certain issues that are very important to me, that can easily lose my vote. I also tend to support candidates that I feel have more charisma and the ability to connect with people - though, that's more strategic than for me personally.

If we set everything aside and voted on pure logic, we would only elect people who are well balanced (emotionally), who have the ability to work with others, and who are good at governing and passing legislation. We would focus on candidates who are good for the long term health of the nation, rather than short term political desires and needs. That's voting on 100% pure logical whats-best-for-America-rather-than-myself. Virtually no one does that, in fact I do not know anyone who DOES do that, in large part because no such candidates ever run for election because they have approximately 5% chance of victory or less.

It's a mistake to believe that people want to hear a politician talk about in-depth policy. That's fine in some circles, but those circles tend to be the educated elite, not the vast majority of American's. Virtually everyone wants to know "What are you doing for me, personally?" Even if they won't admit it or say it, virtually every voter thinks that... and while here at DU we may look closely at left vs right and Democrat vs Republican at least 40% or more of American's don't. In fact they probably couldn't tell you the difference between the two parties outside of a few hot button policy issues - such as Democrats tend to be Pro-Choice but Republicans tend to be Pro-Life. Yet, these aren't issues that necessarily make you a Republican or a Democrat.

Why do you think Sarah Palin is so popular? Her chances at being President have been destroyed because people don't believe she is smart enough nor do they think she is qualified. Yet, she is a political force BECAUSE people connect with her. She's a moderately attractive woman, she likes people, she tries to make connections with people, has a average mother personality - she's like somebody you might know in your personal life. That makes her relate-able. On the other hand, if Sarah Palin was an over weight, elderly woman, who had no physical attractiveness what-so-ever, had a dry personality with no charisma, held all the same views she currently does, but also was substantively deep and a policy wonk do you think she'd even have 1/100th of the appeal she currently has? Hell no. We wouldn't even know her name, because she would never have been drafted for VP in the first place, and may have never even become governor.

It's a mistake to believe that the average American cares about the things we debate about all the time. They're more concerned with day-to-day things. Is my family going to be safe? Am I going to have enough money to put food on the table? Am I going to be able to pay the light bill? Will I have a job next month? These are all things normal people are concerned with, and they couldn't give a flying fuck how you solve those problems, so long as they are solved. It's the result they are looking for, and that is what "change" means - change from a government that doesn't work for the people. This is why the bailouts angered the average American, because they felt they were getting screwed while the wealthy got bailed out. Had the banks and the people been bailed out at the same time, the reaction would have been dramatically different.

In the end democracy is a popularity contest. I can think of no better system of government, and yet at the same time it has its flaws. This is one of them.

[Meldread]

8. Kick

:kick:

[LeftishBrit]

9. I've been looking up past American senate majorities...

it seems that no party had more than 56 seats in the senate for over 30 years. The last time when a party had over 60 seats was in 1976 when the Dems had 61 seats - but at that time, Dems included some extreme right-wing George Wallace types.

Bush managed to do all sorts of evil stuff without 60 seats, so Dems should be able to do a lot of good stuff with what is still the biggest majority in decades.

But still, to hell with the right wing (who I fear will win our election here too.)

[salguine]

10. His name is actually "Dick Tuck"?

[Meldread]

11. Yes.

:evilgrin: