Setting yourself up to be pushed around isn't brilliant political strategy

[jpgray]

There's a strange line of reasoning wherein our concessions to GOP hostage-taking are seen as political victories. The idea seems to be that by allowing the other side opportunities to act crazy, belligerent and irresponsible, we are damning them as such in the minds of the public. The problem is, people should have known this already, and certainly had plenty of the same kind of evidence going into 2010, where they elected many new crazy irresponsible belligerents.

Even if the public do see it our way, we also are damning ourselves as a party that mounts no significant attack on crazy, irresponsible and belligerent behavior. There's a huge disconnect in decrying the crazy, and then praising ourselves for finding common ground enough to pass much of their craziness.

You'll also note that craziness from the left doesn't get so much as a hearing, whereas craziness from the GOP is treated very solemnly, with appeals to its deep-down civic spirit and responsibility that we are quite sure are there somewhere.

Where did this concept come from?

[Warren Stupidity]

1. pretending this wasn't a public humiliation isn't honest discourse

this list could get very long.

[KharmaTrain]

2. None Of This Matters...

Firstly...in two weeks no one will remember nor care about the speech yet alone what day it was given. Secondly anything delivered in that speech has little chance of being passed. People love to bitch about a "weak President" when no matter what he proposes will never see one rushpublican vote in either the House or Senate...total obstructionism that is seen as "weakness". People wanted "divided" government and this is what its all about. If Democrats want serious change...then that change has to begin with retaking the house and bolstering Democratic numbers in the Senate and working to elect more progressive/liberal candidates. Get a CPC of 100 plus members and watch how things change...

[Bluenorthwest]

3. I agree with the OP

You are shoveling lots of rationalizations for stupid policy. Look it up, KT. Other Presidents have had 'divided government' most of the time that is the state of things, our system is designed that way. Others dealt with it without morphing into the other side. Without being defined by them, sans weakness. Read up.
Plus, you do understand that the Republican election orgy was a regional thing it did not come close to the West Coast, and thus, you are telling an entire region that we have nothing to do but hold that place, keep electing Democrats, until Alabama goes blue or some nonsense. We had record turn out, we elected Democrats. So this Republican problem is not one we can solve for you all. WE did not want this, others did, States thousands of miles away did this and the solution is up to them. We can not vote in their elections. They have to win them, and they are too lazy and too weak to do so.

[KharmaTrain]

5. Explain As You Wish...

Yes, we've had divided government but with "moderates" in one party or another who would do the compromising. In the 80s you had O'Neill compromising more than many liberals felt comfortable with...but compromise he did (especially on SSI reform). In the 90s you had moderate republicans like a Chuck Hagel or Specter who did cross over when they felt issues were a matter of national rather than partisan interest. Clinton had only one major party line vote...the tax increase of '93 that was also shown as "weakness" in those infamous '94 elections. If this President had ONE rushpublican vote he could work with we would see a lot different scenario than we do right now. The obstructionism is with the intention of parlyizing the administrative (those damn checks and balance thing) and then portraying that admistration as being weak. Looks like it's worked.

Whether the GOTB orgy last year was regional or not means little as it gave the rushpublicans a majority in the house and also in many state legislatures that is pushing their radical agendas. It may not have come to your neighborhood but it sure did to mine. I saw a combination of Democratic voters staying home to "punish" this administration and an energized rushpublican party flush with corporate money that won narrowly but won nonetheless and are prepared to do it again next year.

If this is an us vs. them thing regarding Democrats then next year is going to be the start of some very ugly times indeed...

[Champion Jack]

4. +1,000

and yet another unrec for the idiotic op

[bvar22]

6. It ALL matters.... Every little thing.

If, as you say, NOTHING will get passed by the Republicans,
then WHY NOT GO BIG....as in FDR/LBJ "BIG"?

Why NOT FIGHT?

Why NOT act like a real "Democrat" who WILL FIGHT FOR the Working Class & the Poor?

Instead of lurching again to the RIGHT,
or offer the Weak Tea of Centrist Appeasement,
Why NOT take a STAND?

I would much rather STAND & FIGHT for traditional Democratic Working Class Values,
then to slink away in surrender because the Republicans are Big Meanies.

Americans LOVE a "Fighter" who will STAND on Principles.
The Democratic Party once HAD Principles.
Take the FIGHT to the STREETS.

He had a HUGE ARMY In the Streets at his inauguration.
Some of them haven't given up on him,
and WILL answer the call to come STAND WITH HIM,
but Obama would have to get his hands dirty and actually Show Up.
I'm not willing to "fight" for some Centrist Appeasement bullshit,
and I won't FIGHT if he runs away and hides.




Who will STAND and FIGHT for THIS American Majority?
If Obama doesn't, The Democrats are TOAST in 2012.

You will know them by their WORKS,
not by their excuses.

Solidarity!
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

[KharmaTrain]

7. Then Go For It...

I'm all for the things Rachel says...raising taxes on the rich, eliminating loopholes...the list goes on, but I'm not the one voting on this...535 Congresscritters are and the chances of any bill passing between now and 1/20/13 are nil. So, you make the stand and lose...and then what? So you "go big" and lose big? Or if there's a chance to get a deal, you get what you can? I know what this administration will do.

This administration is in a no-win situation with those who are looking to paint it as weak...left and right. "Go big" and lose big and be painted weak. Don't go big...try to find something that will pass (that the rushpublicans will reject anyway) and look "reasonable" but weak. Either way this administration and the American people lose.

If the "Democrats are toast", it'll be each and every member's fault... If Democrats didn't learn that staying home last year was a major catalyst for the disasters we face now...they deserve to lose. And if Democrats play litmus tests and try to be the left mirror image to the right they'll lose even bigger.

The choices next year are getting clearer by the day...and so are all those looking to play blame games when the Democrats do lose.

[jpgray]

8. I'm not talking about the speech

I'm talking about what does matter, such as cuts to social spending when more and more people are loaded with misery.