Yo forreal why Obama been talkin ? to progressives?
Options
Comments
-
look at it this way: progressives could/can vote for:shootemwon wrote: »But Obama is talking ? . Telling us to stop ? and get over it. Does he WANT a primary challenge? I mean, he can't even acknowledge that our frustration is legitimate?
01. OBAMA
02. some third-party ? that will never win
so they vote for Obama because he's the closest electable thing to their candidates (even if he's not close). there's basically no benefit for him to give the progressives anything, and he can burnish his centrist creds by NOT doing so. why would he NOT bash progressives?
FAKE EDIT: i will grant you that it's bogus that Obama hasn't done a lot of things he said he would on the campaign trail, but to that i must say:
01. this is what you get for thinking he was different than every other politician ever
02. he talked about a ? AWB, so i'm glad THAT went nowhere -
look at it this way: progressives could/can vote for:
01. OBAMA
02. some third-party ? that will never win
so they vote for Obama because he's the closest electable thing to their candidates (even if he's not close). there's basically no benefit for him to give the progressives anything, and he can burnish his centrist creds by NOT doing so. why would he NOT bash progressives?
FAKE EDIT: i will grant you that it's bogus that Obama hasn't done a lot of things he said he would on the campaign trail, but to that i must say:
01. this is what you get for thinking he was different than every other politician ever
02. he talked about a ? AWB, so i'm glad THAT went nowhere
Well, while you say there's no benefit for him to give the progressives anything, he's out on the stump in desperation mode begging us to get fired up about this election. It's not his own re-election, but he's losing an unprecedented number of Democrats in congress, and if there wasn't such a lack of enthusiasm from his base, his party could salvage a lot more.
But hey, I understand that you have to make some concessions. I'd imagine that if he did what we wanted, his opponents would characterize him as pursuing a radical left-wing agen- oh wait. -
because he knows that the progressives have basically two options:shootemwon wrote: »Well, while you say there's no benefit for him to give the progressives anything, he's out on the stump in desperation mode begging us to get fired up about this election.
01. whatever Democrat MIGHT give them what they want
02. some third-party ? that will never win
he can still hit the "if you don't vote for us, some ever worse REPUBLICANS will get into office" and get the majority of the progressive vote because those voters WILL be more afraid of Republican politicians than they are mad about Obama & Friends not giving them what they want. now, i will grant you that he's still hurting the party by not doing whatever gets the motivated voters out there to vote, but it is what it is. -
because he knows that the progressives have basically two options:
01. whatever Democrat MIGHT give them what they want
02. some third-party ? that will never win
he can still hit the "if you don't vote for us, some ever worse REPUBLICANS will get into office" and get the majority of the progressive vote because those voters WILL be more afraid of Republican politicians than they are mad about Obama & Friends not giving them what they want. now, i will grant you that he's still hurting the party by not doing whatever gets the motivated voters out there to vote, but it is what it is.
If you agree he's hurting the party by diminishing morale among progressives, don't you contradict your previous post when you said "there's basically no benefit for him to give the progressives anything"??? -
i honestly think their turnout isn't so benefited by diminishing their morale, so the "hurting the party" isn't really something that's going to ? the Democrats (they're going to get killed no matter what, right?) ... but it's a bit of a mild contradiction, i admitshootemwon wrote: »If you agree he's hurting the party by diminishing morale among progressives, don't you contradict your previous post when you said "there's basically no benefit for him to give the progressives anything"??? -
i honestly think their turnout isn't so benefited by diminishing their morale, so the "hurting the party" isn't really something that's going to ? the Democrats (they're going to get killed no matter what, right?) ... but it's a bit of a mild contradiction, i admit
I dunno. I mean my position is that progressives would never be 100% happy with Obama, and that it's a good thing because there needs to be criticism from his left if we want him to lean toward progressive policy. But leaving that aside, Obama had a pretty epic coalition of activists and volunteers in his camp when he won his election. Of course, you can't hope to keep all of them enthusiastic for 2 years, but Barack was basically like "thanks for the election help. now ? off! see you in 18 months!" and then he apparently is shocked when 2010 election season rolls around and his '08 supporters are feeling kind of cynical about him. -
Because he is a politician and that's what pols do. They are one way when they need you and another when they dont.
Right now they are in dire need of independents and progressives wont help them with that. -
this is, ironically, how the far right feels about more moderate Republican candidates whom they support for electability reasons who then they see as selling them out. so i suppose what the progressives need to do is come to terms with what Obama CAN do for them that they want, or just vote for someone else. if he runs on a platform of doing 10 progressive things (this is not a real number), is ACTUALLY doing one of them enough?shootemwon wrote: »Of course, you can't hope to keep all of them enthusiastic for 2 years, but Barack was basically like "thanks for the election help. now ? off! see you in 18 months!" and then he apparently is shocked when 2010 election season rolls around and his '08 supporters are feeling kind of cynical about him. -
this is, ironically, how the far right feels about more moderate Republican candidates whom they support for electability reasons who then they see as selling them out. so i suppose what the progressives need to do is come to terms with what Obama CAN do for them that they want, or just vote for someone else. if he runs on a platform of doing 10 progressive things (this is not a real number), is ACTUALLY doing one of them enough?
I don't think that's a fair comparison. I'm not over here playing Huey Long, whereas the far right in America has now reached the point where "RINO sellout" is anyone who supports the federal government doing anything other than defense spending.
I consider myself capable of compromise. I'm a strong supporter of providing universal health care with a single payer system, but I can compromise and say a bill with a public option would still make me happy. The far right activists are going around ousting people like Senator Bob Bennett (R-Utah). Looking at his record, the far right could find a gripe or two, but this guy is far from moderate. The Tea Party unseated him in the Republican Primary because he voted for TARP, and you know, anyone who voted for TARP might as well be Fidel Castro. It's not an accurate comparison because realistically I'm not asking Obama or any other Democrat to to be radical liberals, I'm just asking them to be center-left.
As for your question about 1 out of 10 things, I can't really answer that because different things have different value to me. In legislative process, there are limits to what the president can do, I understand and accept this. What irritates me is not that he walks out of the negotiation with less than I hoped for as much as we're seeing more and more, he's already thrown me under the bus before the negotiations start. And I think his excuses, which usually consist of something along the lines of "We realized we couldn't get Congress to pass everything we wanted, so we figured we'd concede half of it from the outset so we could COME TO A SOLUTION!", are absolutely adorable. Does he really think I'm that dumb? Does he really expect me to believe that HE'S that dumb? Pretty insulting ? . -
i'm not so much talking about this current "RINO" mania (which is a sore subject for me) as i am talking about the times conservative voters side with Republicans for electability and then feel cheated when they don't get what they really want out of it. it's going to happen when you're going with "closest electable candidate" over "dude that agrees with me 100%." progressives and conservatives will NEVER get everything they want.shootemwon wrote: »I don't think that's a fair comparison. I'm not over here playing Huey Long, whereas the far right in America has now reached the point where "RINO sellout" is anyone who supports the federal government doing anything other than defense spending.
yes and yes. anyway, what i am asking is, how MUCH does Obama have to do for the progressives for the progressives to say "okay, this guy DID do something for us?" it's going to vary from person to person, obviously.shootemwon wrote: »And I think his excuses, which usually consist of something along the lines of "We realized we couldn't get Congress to pass everything we wanted, so we figured we'd concede half of it from the outset so we could COME TO A SOLUTION!", are absolutely adorable. Does he really think I'm that dumb? Does he really expect me to believe that HE'S that dumb? Pretty insulting ? . -
i'm not so much talking about this current "RINO" mania (which is a sore subject for me) as i am talking about the times conservative voters side with Republicans for electability and then feel cheated when they don't get what they really want out of it. it's going to happen when you're going with "closest electable candidate" over "dude that agrees with me 100%." progressives and conservatives will NEVER get everything they want.
Well you can separate your parallel from the current right wing activism, but in the end, it's connected to the situation that has me frustrated. The Republicans are moving further to the right as the far right continues to wail and scream that it's not enough. On the other hand, the Democrats, always choosing to be on the defensive, keep moving to the right as well because they're afraid of being called "liberal". I understand that a lot of Americans don't respond well to the word "liberal", but it's easy to see how that came about when Democrats continue to run from "liberal" rather than defend it (as Republicans do with "conservative"). So while the Republicans are moving further towards their ideological base (the right), Democrats are (and have been) running frantically AWAY from their ideological base (the left).
You're right, progressives and conservatives will never get everything they want, but I already know I can get an acceptable portion of what I want, because I can look at previous examples. LBJ's domestic agenda was not that of the radical left in this country, but were I around to vote, it would have been enough to gain my strong approval. His foreign policy, particularly Vietnam, would have greatly disappointed me, but Civil Rights and Medicare would have been enough to secure my continued support. These days, the Democrats seem still to be moving steadily right, which they've been doing for years now. Obama and his Democratic allies would never even consider pursuing even a small fraction of an LBJ-type progressive agenda, but I get lectured that I have to accept the wavering by Democrats, because it's the only way they can deliver "better than nothing". They talk as Democrats who push any progressive agenda will always lose, despite the fact that Vietnam, which was an ideological departure from progressives, is what sank Johnson's presidency, not his ideological commitment to a progressive domestic agenda. The difference between me and the right is more than just a temporary case of "RINO-mania". The conservative base has been increasingly accommodated by the GOP, more and more every political cycle for the past 30 years. The far right may feel betrayed by the GOP, but that's in no way a result of the GOP failing to court the base.yes and yes. anyway, what i am asking is, how MUCH does Obama have to do for the progressives for the progressives to say "okay, this guy DID do something for us?" it's going to vary from person to person, obviously.
I can't tell you a standard list of "A, B, and C" that he has to do to get my support. I'm not a one-issue voter, and I try not to hold grudges over one particular disappointment, because I think it's better judge a president's performance as a whole, much like a baseball player should be judged by his average rather than evaluated on what he did during a single given at-bat. I can't quantify the minimum I'd find acceptable from Obama, but I can say with confidence that for me, he's below the Mendoza line. I'd like a better HCR bill, a better wall street finance bill, a large stimulus, an end to DADT, and so on, but it's not like an asterisk next to any of them that denotes "absolutely necessary to earn my support". I'm not sure I can really reconstruct what my attitude towards Obama would had be, had he, for example, delivered a public option or a sufficient stimulus or something else. What would be helpful (even if it was only symbolic in the end) would be for Obama to treat his base like....a base. I mean, like I said, I understand there needs to be compromise, but I expected Obama to compromise from something based on our ideal policy down to a "good enough" policy, as some concessions would need to be made in order to get enough support. Instead, it's always Obama lowering the the best-case to "good enough" policy before-hand and then conceding the remaining good stuff in an appeal to Congress (in some occasions, he makes these concessions without even picking up Congressional support for doing so). I know that you've already explained why Obama doesn't think he needs to earn points with progressives, and I think you make a good point, to some extent. However, since you asked what would improve my attitude about him, this is a big part of it. -
shootemwon wrote: »According to Tom Daschle's new book, Obama made a secret agreement to take the Public Option "off the table". This was in July 2009, months before the Senate "killed" the public option. So can we please agree at this point that my longheld belief that Obama could have done more to fight for a public option is not completely imaginary.
I think his thinking was this:
1) there are massively powerful forces aligned against any sort of sweeping Health Care Reform
2) chief among these forces are A) Republicans,
Insurance Industry, C) Big Pharma, D) Medical Organizations (doctors, hospitals, etc)
3) the only way to get a HCR off the ground, much less passed (remember, Clinton's didn't even make it outta committee and it was killed by Democrats) is to attempt to co-opt these forces and at least get some of them on board, thus dividing & conquering and making Sun Tzu proud
So....
- It obviously epically failed with Republicans who quickly realized they had zero to gain from ANY bill passing, even if they were basically Democrats (Snowe, Collins). Would substantial Tort Reform have won them over? Maybe. But Trial Lawyers are a BIG Democrat constituency.......
- It sorta worked with the Insurance Industry, they actually put up a big show of supporting it with million dollar ads and didn't really turn on it publicly until Fall of 09.
- It really did work with Big Pharma who basically took what Obama offered and told their heartbroken health insurance buddies to go ? themselves. Note that Big Pharma is actually bigger and more powerful than the Insurance Industry.
- It succeeded in splitting doctor & hospital organizations in two, as groups that have opposed any HCR for decades threw their support behind it. If the Public Option was dropped to please anyone, it was the hospitals.....who *HATE* Medicare.
Obama was telegraphing dropping the Public Option when he kept saying "but its not the entirety of this bill", etc. And you know what? It wasn't. I attended a industry conference for hospitals (I handled the audio and projection screens) and the one thing their headline speaker kept stressing was that the Public Option was overhyped and that the REAL impor- YES!!!! GO PHILS!!!! -tant innovation was the INDIVIDUAL MARKET, the fact that people will be able to shop around for their insurance. Ezra Klein, who was like the biggest policy wonk nerd blogger during this whole saga termed it as "bringing consumerism to health insurance" and repeatedly ethered the ridiculous idea that the whole bill was worthless simply because it lacked a Public Option. -
Swiff, your analysis of the different forces and his success with them is pretty good. According to Daschle, it was indeed to the hospital industry who Obama promised no public option.
One thing I have to say though, is while you're right that he was successful avoiding opposition from Big Pharma, when you say "he took what they offered", correct me if I'm wrong (seriously, I'm going off of some sorta foggy memory here), but what he offered was that HCR won't interfere with them ? people over on medicine costs, and thus, they would of course take this agreement. I can see how this was probably necessary to avoid the bill going down in flames, but I wouldn't characterize that agreement as anything working well.
When he said the public option wasn't the entirety of the bill, I heard it too. I read the writing on the wall which said "Chances are slim to none, brace for it", but it didn't say "I've been against the public option all along and lying about it". Clever stuff how he made a few Senators the fall guys for it though.
GO PHILS!!!!! -
i submit that the Democrats move more responsibly to the right, because centrist politics are a) more legitimately popular and b) more electable, while Republicans moving to the right is ? stupid. the latter causes a party to fight about RINOs (which i guess includes me, so ? all these Tea Party ? ) and the former includes allowing more conservative Democrats (say, the Blug Dogs) to be in the party and THEORETICALLY help the party accomplish things.shootemwon wrote: »The Republicans are moving further to the right as the far right continues to wail and scream that it's not enough. On the other hand, the Democrats, always choosing to be on the defensive, keep moving to the right as well because they're afraid of being called "liberal".
i suppose if they don't help it's an issue, of course.
i guess my thought is that let's say Obama delivered a public option and failed to deliver anything else, whether because he compromised or it couldn't be done or whatever the reason might be. do you (or a hypothetical progressive voter) say "it sucks we got nothing else, but at least Obama gave us something?" or "this is not enough?"shootemwon wrote: »I can't quantify the minimum I'd find acceptable from Obama, but I can say with confidence that for me, he's below the Mendoza line. I'd like a better HCR bill, a better wall street finance bill, a large stimulus, an end to DADT, and so on, but it's not like an asterisk next to any of them that denotes "absolutely necessary to earn my support".
maybe i'm just too close to being a single-issue voter (not that we know what that issue is...) to appreciate how complicated it is for you to qualify want Obama would need to give you to satisfy you. but i'm also not a progressive, so this is sort of foreign ground for me -
i submit that the Democrats move more responsibly to the right, because centrist politics are a) more legitimately popular and b) more electable, while Republicans moving to the right is ? stupid. the latter causes a party to fight about RINOs (which i guess includes me, so ? all these Tea Party ? ) and the former includes allowing more conservative Democrats (say, the Blug Dogs) to be in the party and THEORETICALLY help the party accomplish things.
i suppose if they don't help it's an issue, of course.
The problem from my view is that the Blue Dogs get to dictate policy, because if they consider something too liberal, we always end up changing it for them, whereas the moderate Republicans can negotiate policy a little bit towards the center, they're also expected to meet halfway and vote for something a little more to the right than they wanted (I'm talking about in the past of course. Moderate Republicans, which some claim still exist, are now just bullied into conforming completely, though that's more vague when you're in the minority). Which I guess is just a testament to how necessary the Blue Dogs are on each and every vote if the Republicans maintain solidarity in their opposition.
Not just speaking as Progressive, but in general, I think it's a bad thing when the ruling party has their policy dictated to them by a few people who are among the furthest from the party platform. It's a hell of a bargain for big-money special interests though, since they only have to buy off a couple politicians instead of a large portion of elected officials. We didn't used to have all this nonsense because 50 years ago if a you were a member of congress and did this over and over again, the party bosses would ? end you. Now thanks to all our "reforms", the party bosses have lost their power, which has been transferred to special interest.
When Blue Dogs water down and ? up our bills before pledging their support, people say "Well, at least they're on board for this much. The Republicans would NEVER support what the blue dogs agreed to", but it's always ? that LOTS OF REPUBLICANS would have supported 20-30 years ago, so we see they're not just the more conservative wing of our coalition, but redefining how we define ourselves over and over til regular Democrats look like Mitch McConnell, and blue dogs by contrast, look like Jim DeMint.i guess my thought is that let's say Obama delivered a public option and failed to deliver anything else, whether because he compromised or it couldn't be done or whatever the reason might be. do you (or a hypothetical progressive voter) say "it sucks we got nothing else, but at least Obama gave us something?" or "this is not enough?"
maybe i'm just too close to being a single-issue voter (not that we know what that issue is...) to appreciate how complicated it is for you to qualify want Obama would need to give you to satisfy you. but i'm also not a progressive, so this is sort of foreign ground for me
Well I appreciate that you understand this is tough for me to consider hypothetically, but I've always been as much frustrated by Obama's strategy as his outcomes. I believe when a President enters office with high approval ratings and a majority in both chambers of Congress, he needs to establish himself off the bat as a guy who has a say in what happens, not an empty suit to sign whatever his congressional majorities manage to pass.
Forgive me for this regrettable analogy (which I probably will regret when I don't have 5 Dogfish Punkin Ales in me) but Obama's strategy (over and over again) has kind of been like: On First Down, we'll show we want to work with the other team, so QB kneel (maybe they'll appreciate it and go easy on us later). On second down, throw a short pass near the sidelines for 3 yards. Then on third down, he tells me "A long pass for the endzone is too risky. But if we run it up the middle for another yard or two we'll really be in good position for a field goal. Do you want to score or not?"
If you do something completely absurd and predictably fruitless on first down and play smallball on second down, and start talking about kicking already when you reach third down, It's fair to ask if the end zone was ever your goal to begin with.
Again, sorry.
To address your scenario, if he got us healthcare with a strong public option, I'd be very happy about it (note that it'd be a big compromise from the Single Payer System I really want, but I'd still be very happy). I'd still be critical of the other stuff, because like I've said before, if people don't criticize Obama from the left, he'd be the most liberal person in the country, which would just be an invitation for him to move further right. But the Public Option would make HCR something I really support, and a bill I really consider worth spending all of your political capital on. So I'd probably be inclined to cut the man more slack for delivering mediocre results on the other things.
My answer would be that I'd be critical of his other unimpressive results, but I'd support his presidency so far on the whole and feel comfortable citing that one major achievement in a sentence that includes the words "If he accomplishes nothing else as president, at least".... -
isnt it in some way shape or form, still possible for a strong publc option?
-
earth two superman wrote: »isnt it in some way shape or form, still possible for a strong publc option?
Sure, it's possible, but it would require additional legislation, which isn't foreseeable in the near future. -
i see why that's very frustrating; i suppose i'm just bitter because they're still considered "acceptable Democrats" while if you're a moderate Republican it's OUTRAGEOUS right now, for whatever reason, regardless of if, say, you're from a state that's not incredibly conservative.shootemwon wrote: »The problem from my view is that the Blue Dogs get to dictate policy, because if they consider something too liberal, we always end up changing it for them ... Which I guess is just a testament to how necessary the Blue Dogs are on each and every vote if the Republicans maintain solidarity in their opposition.
agreedshootemwon wrote: »Not just speaking as Progressive, but in general, I think it's a bad thing when the ruling party has their policy dictated to them by a few people who are among the furthest from the party platform.
this is the advantage of being a single-issue voter: you can be righteously outraged by a president or totally satisfied and still feel completely at ease with yourself.shootemwon wrote: »My answer would be that I'd be critical of his other unimpressive results, but I'd support his presidency so far on the whole and feel comfortable citing that one major achievement in a sentence that includes the words "If he accomplishes nothing else as president, at least".... -
Well like I was saying, they HAVE to be "acceptable" Democrats because they move everything Dems do to the right and the rest of the Dems have to accept it since what they support today is what the rest of the Dems will be supporting in a few years. Like I said, parties in general, but especially the Democrats have a serious need for more powerful leadership. A few generations ago, if some mope tried to be the "deciding vote" on his own party's policy every time a bill came to the floor, leadership would tell him "cut this ? out or we'll make a few calls and you'll be off the ticket next election". But now they can just run to their special interest buddies for the support they need. So the party boss way ain't pretty, but as much as you may not like Nancy Pelosi, she actually cares about passing bills that reflect the platform her party was elected on. lobbyists only care about what their clients get, and don't give a ? about whether or not its good public policy.i see why that's very frustrating; i suppose i'm just bitter because they're still considered "acceptable Democrats" while if you're a moderate Republican it's OUTRAGEOUS right now, for whatever reason, regardless of if, say, you're from a state that's not incredibly conservative.this is the advantage of being a single-issue voter: you can be righteously outraged by a president or totally satisfied and still feel completely at ease with yourself.
Being a single issue voter actually sounds pretty sweet. I could demand "X" and if I don't get it, I'd feel no remorse voting against the incumbent, even if the other party is "worse" because there's not such thing as worse than not delivering "X"
But I don't think I could ever limit myself to caring about only one issue like that. Besides, don't you still have to face the fact that with two centrist parties chasing after votes from the fickle "undecideds" that your position on your one issue is just as likely to be disenfranchised as my entire set of positions on various issues? -
in the end i think the extremes that move you to the center are always going to be better than the extremes that move you away from it. i'm not a progressive, so you can take that as just agreeing with the centrists, but i think it helps with electability because it's a genuinely more popular position. now, it won't necessarily help things get accomplished, so that's the trouble.shootemwon wrote: »Well like I was saying, they HAVE to be "acceptable" Democrats because they move everything Dems do to the right and the rest of the Dems have to accept it since what they support today is what the rest of the Dems will be supporting in a few years. Like I said, parties in general, but especially the Democrats have a serious need for more powerful leadership.
i guess i don't miss the party boss way when it bends politicians away from their constituents towards what the party wants; this doesn't really mean special interests are awesome, though. plus, i hate Pelosi for her MD connections as well. i'm not going to stop hating on her even if she's got any good traits.shootemwon wrote: »A few generations ago, if some mope tried to be the "deciding vote" on his own party's policy every time a bill came to the floor, leadership would tell him "cut this ? out or we'll make a few calls and you'll be off the ticket next election". But now they can just run to their special interest buddies for the support they need. So the party boss way ain't pretty, but as much as you may not like Nancy Pelosi, she actually cares about passing bills that reflect the platform her party was elected on.
it can be very relaxing or very frustrating, depending on the specifics of the issue. local politicians are always stressing me out. also, my one issue tends to do better with centrists than progressives, so that works out for me.shootemwon wrote: »Being a single issue voter actually sounds pretty sweet. I could demand "X" and if I don't get it, I'd feel no remorse voting against the incumbent, even if the other party is "worse" because there's not such thing as worse than not delivering "X" -
I guess that works if you see Blue Dogs as centrist. I see Obama as centrist if you look at his policy (he's more center-left by what he says, but flat out centrist with his policies). So I view Blue Dogs as basically being Reagan style Republicans. Conservative, stupid, irrationally afraid of the government spending money on anything unless it's something that Middle America (as defined by a bunch of conservative political elites) likes......but still not batshit insane like Sharon Angle and not driven by mean-spirit like Jim Demint.in the end i think the extremes that move you to the center are always going to be better than the extremes that move you away from it. i'm not a progressive, so you can take that as just agreeing with the centrists, but i think it helps with electability because it's a genuinely more popular position. now, it won't necessarily help things get accomplished, so that's the trouble.
You can hate Pelosi, that's fine. I'm just saying any party leadership is a better powerhouse than special interest. And as for pulling politicians away from their constituents, I think if you're a Democrat in Congress and to stay in touch with your constituents, you're opposed to virtually EVERYTHING the Democrats do, then maybe your district doesn't want a Democrat. You may want to switch parties, or if you're registered Dem for an actual reason, then vote for Democratic policy, since your district voted for a Democrat to be their representative. Of course, that line of thinking requires the foolish assumption that these Blue Dog guys AREN'T just spineless shitbags and that they actually care about anything other than keeping their seats.i guess i don't miss the party boss way when it bends politicians away from their constituents towards what the party wants; this doesn't really mean special interests are awesome, though. plus, i hate Pelosi for her MD connections as well. i'm not going to stop hating on her even if she's got any good traits.
It's my belief that we should vote for the party that best reflects our opinions and then if they win, that party should try to enact the platform that they campaigned on. I know isn't really an idea that has a lot traction in America (much more of a European concept), but I think it'd be the best way. Of course, the two party system predictably causes people proudly boast "I vote for the person, not the party". ? . -
i view them as centrist simply for the fact that Democrats are "to the left" and Republicans are "to the right" and they're movement from the standard Democrat position towards the center (even if they then pass it and head right). yeah, i imagine some of them are Republicans running as Democrats because it made them more electable, but what can you do.shootemwon wrote: »I guess that works if you see Blue Dogs as centrist. I see Obama as centrist if you look at his policy (he's more center-left by what he says, but flat out centrist with his policies). So I view Blue Dogs as basically being Reagan style Republicans.
good, because man do i love to hate on Pelosishootemwon wrote: »You can hate Pelosi, that's fine.
however, they also voted for the person (which i gather you don't approve of), and individual politicians are always going to vary from the party line somewhat. so if a conservative Democrat represents a state where the people like the way he votes, he shouldn't feel obligated to vote like the party boss wants and disregard that just because he's in that party. now, of course there might be a reason for him to vote as a party boss wants, but that's on the boss to make the argument.shootemwon wrote: »And as for pulling politicians away from their constituents, I think if you're a Democrat in Congress and to stay in touch with your constituents, you're opposed to virtually EVERYTHING the Democrats do, then maybe your district doesn't want a Democrat. You may want to switch parties, or if you're registered Dem for an actual reason, then vote for Democratic policy, since your district voted for a Democrat to be their representative.
this sort of negates the purpose of primaries, though, beyond deducing who's most electable.shootemwon wrote: »It's my belief that we should vote for the party that best reflects our opinions and then if they win, that party should try to enact the platform that they campaigned on. I know isn't really an idea that has a lot traction in America (much more of a European concept), but I think it'd be the best way. -
I don't give a ? who they voted for. Americans love the idea of electing individuals rather than supporting a party because we think we need everything to be personalized and specialized for us specifically. It's the same reason that if you walk into starbucks and say "large coffee please" they look at you like "WTF", cause you didn't order some special grande steamed mocha latte raspberry chocolate coffee with light whipped cream and 3.5 dashes of cinnamon on top. While we're on the subject of stupid ? most people believe, let me also mention I've about had all i can take with this hegelian fallacy ? . Just because the Democrats and Republicans are both unimpressive doesn't mean we'd solve things by electing people "IN BETWEEN" the two parties.however, they also voted for the person (which i gather you don't approve of), and individual politicians are always going to vary from the party line somewhat. so if a conservative Democrat represents a state where the people like the way he votes, he shouldn't feel obligated to vote like the party boss wants and disregard that just because he's in that party. now, of course there might be a reason for him to vote as a party boss wants, but that's on the boss to make the argument.
Yeah, understood.this sort of negates the purpose of primaries, though, beyond deducing who's most electable. -
let me just say that i am totally disgusted by the American way of being self-congratulatory and declaring everyone to be special and unique and all this ? ? about self-esteem. seriously, it's enough already. but that said, i DO think it's important to look at politicians as individuals and not just "Democrat Representative #10 From My State." it also makes a difference when you want the party bosses to acknowledge that their constituents DO want something other than the default Democrat position.shootemwon wrote: »I don't give a ? who they voted for. Americans love the idea of electing individuals rather than supporting a party because we think we need everything to be personalized and specialized for us specifically.
i don't think it "solves things," but i think you get more reasonable stances and ideas than "CRAZY LEFTIST DUDE" and "RIGHT-WING FASCIST" will.shootemwon wrote: »While we're on the subject of stupid ? most people believe, let me also mention I've about had all i can take with this hegelian fallacy ? . Just because the Democrats and Republicans are both unimpressive doesn't mean we'd solve things by electing people "IN BETWEEN" the two parties. -
I know my ideals on this topic don't work in a two party system. I'll still rant over my disgust with the way things are though.let me just say that i am totally disgusted by the American way of being self-congratulatory and declaring everyone to be special and unique and all this ? ? about self-esteem. seriously, it's enough already. but that said, i DO think it's important to look at politicians as individuals and not just "Democrat Representative #10 From My State." it also makes a difference when you want the party bosses to acknowledge that their constituents DO want something other than the default Democrat position.i don't think it "solves things," but i think you get more reasonable stances and ideas than "CRAZY LEFTIST DUDE" and "RIGHT-WING FASCIST" will.
The Democrats have been no more liberal than "center-left" in a few generations and the republicans have been "fiscal conservative, except for military spending; debt reduction; unless we decide we want tax cuts; small government, unless its abortion or ? marriage or anything else we feel like telling people they can't do", and that's such a great example of what kind of results come from electing "the person, not the party". pretty soon the whole party is running as the person and you get intellectually inconsistent garbage like the neocons of the Bush era.
