What’s making political news lately? Other than the unrelenting debate over the Islamic community center in lower Manhattan, all the news has been about radical Republicans winning primaries over less radical Republicans. It’s been good news from a Democratic point of view, because it is obviously easier to beat candidates who espouse radical ideas. But, the polls have continued to go south for the Democrats anyway. So, what gives?
Is the Muslim-bashing working? Is it something else? Perhaps the poor economic news that has rolled out during August had led people to turn against incumbents?
Until the economy shows serious signs of life, nothing else really matters, politically. It’s been a long, hot summer, people are jobless and broke and pissed off and Dems are the ones in control.
There are two things, imho. First, people don’t really care that much about policy – even though that is what affects them the most. For example, one of the major complaints about the healthcare bill appears to be the thing about not putting negotiations on c-span, not really any policy critique (I know there have been but I’m saying that it appears to me that the critique mainly appears to be about something other than policy). Second, democrats, or the so-called progressive have managed to get themselves wound up into a constant state of despair, cyncism and negativity that any postive news just gets brushed off:
well for starters, it’s NOT “health care for all”, it’s “health insurance for all”, and since deductibles are expected to be high, in many ways there is no guarantee of care even if you have insurance. this isn’t to deny many of the good things in the bill, but even there you see establishment choices that don’t really have much to do with reality. talk to any parent with a kid aged 18-26, and ask if they really enjoy having that kid STILL on their insurance. Maybe it saves the young adults a few bucks, but for mom and dad that’s a financial impact. and don’t get me started on the reproductive health of women in the exchanges or the high risk pools: why it’s good policy to force women with AIDS to give birth to AIDS babies, I’ll never know.
as for those $50,000 left behind, you DO know they’ll be engaged in combat too, right? because they will be, and the generals acknowledge this.
Obama supports the constitution? with what, assassinations of americans with no due process? or maybe by keeping innocent people in guantanamo or sending them to bagram? or maybe by trying to expand the use of national security letters? GIVE ME A FUCKING BREAK! even our host, with who i disagree on most topics, agrees that Obama’s record on the constitution and civil liberties is not good.
As for the oil well cleanup, I am really going to start mocking you, because the oil (as every single scientist has said repeatedly) is going to be there for DECADES and probably FOREVER. on top of that it’s widely expected that the oil and the dispersants are going to end up in the food chain. did you not notice federal police preventing journalists from taking photos and covering the story at the behest of BP?
this isn’t negativity and cynicism, this is REALITY and it doesn’t go away by clapping harder at half-measures.
I really didn’t want to get into a point by point discussion on these things but here goes:
you profess to know “REALITY” – well the actual “reality” is that Obama has pushed forward the most progressive policies that any President has done for a long long time.
Targeting American citizens for assassination is constitutional? Really?
Well it’s not my word you have to take for it but Harold Koh – follow the link I provided.
Using Harold Koh’s name over and over like a bright shiny object does not make assassinations of American citizens constitutional. The courts will decide that. See the ACLU and CCR lawsuit filed yesterday.
Well I think it’s clearly constitutional, but I question the difference between the drone attacks and the assassination. What is the legal basis for using them, because I don’t see one.
Wow wtf. Clearly unconstitutional*
that’s idiotic. anyone with even a basic knowledge of the constitution can tell you ‘targeted assasination with no trial” is a violation of due process.
please. you’re making yourself look foolish now.
if you read Koh’s speech, you will see that it not necessarily an issue of due process. Agree or disagree with the policy but when there is a war on it is accepted that people will be killed without due process. Oh what the hell, just read the damn speech – which by the way was given by someone ‘ with a basic knowledge of the constitution’ and you will see that your absolute certainty that you are right may not be on firm footing.
when people like you think they know everything, that they know the answers to how to achieve everything that you want, that they alone know how the President should act – I tell you that’s what makes me laugh.
Ummm…when was “war” declared by Congress? I must have missed that date while I was in my basement in my pajamas playing Magic the Gathering while eating corn chips.
This is classified as a “military engagement.” So, you are making apologies for Obama-sanctioned murder.
While I was using the word “war” to refer to what’s happening in Afghanistan and Iraq – as they are both commonly called, if you want the legal justification it is the authorisation for use of force is what I was talking about. Read Hamdi for example (summary at link) http://www.law.duke.edu/publiclaw/supremecourtonline/commentary/hamvrum
I am not sanctioning or making apologies for anything. I disagree with Obama on the escalation in Afghanistan (I was against the war/invasion in the first place) and I am and was totally opposed to the war in Iraq. I disagree with the decision re targeted killing. I am against indefinite detention without habeus. What I was saying that those acts are not necessarily against the constitution.
You know it’s funny but when Clinton decided to bomb aspirin factories in Sudan to distract from Monica, or when he bombed Iraq and aided in the killing of 500,000 people in Iraq as a result of sanctions, I didn’t hear hardly a peep from so-called progressives talking about civil liberties or constitutionality or the things that are being said about Obama.
Do you like FDR? do you think he’s the paradigm progressive president? are you willing to overlook the internment of over 100,000 japanese during world war II?
Look at how it was parsed:
Assassinating American citizens hasn’t been proven to be unconstitutional.
It makes me laugh each time I read it.
you’re such a pedantic twit.
first of all, your comment on Hyde:
is wrong: it goes further than Hyde and is giving states and end run around reproductive rights. And it’s not “universal health care”, it’s mandated health insurance. with deductibles so high you can’t use it, and with no cost controls. sorry man, your argument is bullshit.
“I know that the 50,000 troops will certainly be doing some more fighting BUT you cannot ignore the fact that he has withdrawn some 100,000 troops from Iraq and that the mission has changed.”
dude, it’s not a pullout when 50,000 troops are left behind.
as for Obama and the constitution, I’ll listen to civil liberties lawyers like Greenwald, Turley, the ACLU, etc. if “targeted assasinations” are legal, why is the ACLU etc challenging? for shits and giggles maybe? a lark?
please. you look foolish.
This is why it’s impossible to have a debate. You have your views and they won’t change and if someone disagrees you just resort to insults. What I am trying to do is to highlight the immensely positive things this President has done and to point out where I think the criticisms are misguided. There is a lot of conventional wisdom about this or that national security issue being constitutional. But the issue is much more complicated than that. I was trying to point out that there are reasonable people who disagree on this issue, people who are also constitutional lawyers (obama? Koh?) and who generally have a progressive way of seeing things. So, GG, Turley and the ACLU may have their views but others have their own view – this is not pedantic but a basic legal position. the ACLU is not the arbiter of what is or is not constitutional – that’s the Court’s job and I was making the point that – leaving targeted killings aside – the COurt has found, for example in Hamdi v Rumsfeld that indefinite detention – this is something by the way which people also think is unconstitutional. I think the better argument to make is to simply say you disagree with the policy.
Look there are plenty of people who can out of the top of their heads name 20 things that Obama has done that they think has betrayed them or that they don’t like. I don’t think that’s necessarily the measure of the President – at least not the full measure, you also have to look at the positive things. People like you don’t seem to want to do that; I have a real trouble understanding why that is, that’s all. That to me is what is foolish, not my comments.
i think it’s important to call a spade a spade. it is not enough to say “i disagree with the policy”, because it immediately begs the question “why?”
are you serious?
man, we have an official rate of 10% unemployment (when we know the actual rate is quite a bit higher), the administration’s saying this is the ‘new normal” and no new stimulus is on the way, despite the fact that americans need JOBS the admin talks about how what’s important is cutting the deficit, people are still losing their homes and HAMP has been an abject failure, health care costs are expected to rise in 2011, and so on. the democrat’s response has been limited to “we’re not as bad as those guys” and you’re wondering what gives?
dude, what gives is people are miserable, the economy is in the shitter, retirement savings are shrinking, and accurately or not, the people have seen banks get bailed out while the rest of us kind of twist in the wind. THAT’s what gives.
Honestly, i don’t think people are flocking to the republicans, it’s that they’re really pissed about the democrats.
adding to that, you ask if the bad economic news has turned people against incumbents.
i think that incumbents acting alternatively like dicks or like they’re totally disconnected from what’s going on in the country is turning people against incumbents. or maybe a better word is “the establishment”.
you can see how that played out in PA. the establishment said “arlen specter is who you’re voting for, so eat your spinach and like it”, and the electorate wholly rejected their choice. the establishment’s been making a LOT of bad bets lately: on the economy, on wars, on jobs. and yeah, you can point to Bill Clinton saving Blanche Lincoln’s ass to show there’s still substantial power there, but she’s expected to lose badly.
I mean seriously, with the record the establishment has for itself, would YOU trust them if you weren’t already committed to the party?
I should have been more clear. I am asking what explains the ‘recent’ deterioration in the generic ballot. Meaning, basically, in August.
There was a bounce for Dems in July which is also hard to explain. I don’t really know how seriously to take these things.
Boo, the Republicans just threw their base a HUGE party in DC, that Glenn Beck rally. That was an inspired, if hackneyed, get-out-the-vote effort. It was shameless. It was corny. It was filled with a bunch of lies and self-promotion. All those things are true but you saw Republicans giving their base something to believe in. But you don’t see Democrats lifting a finger; however, you do see them sweating, twisting, and whining that their base isn’t obsequious enough. So, each time that Obama and his coterie shovels more of those (true) horror stories about how bad the Republicans will be, enthusiasm for him goes further and further out the window. You can’t scare votes out of people but you sure can inspire them.
This is the essential difference between Obama ’07-’08 and Obama ’08-’10.
So George W. Bush inspired votes out of people? He didn’t use fear as his primary appeal?
It worked, didn’t it?
Bush used the Bible just like any other charlatan. I see the Bible as a book based in fear of the unknown but the Christians see it as inspiration faith. It’s perception. The voters took it as faith that the gays were gonna corrupt their children. One person’s fear is another person’s faith.
“You can’t scare votes out of people but you sure can inspire them.”
well, you can scare votes out of people but that’s not really the issue. Obama and the Democrats have, in the past 20 months:
-passed healthcare
-passed financial reform and established a consumer protection agency
-enforced regulations, empowered the epa to come down hard on greenhouse gases
-saved the us auto industry
-prevented a depression
-recovered as much money as possible from TARP
-performed serious aggressive diplomacy that reset relations with Russia, obtained tougher sanctions agaisnt Iran than anyone expected, started serious international nuclear disarmament discussions, negotiated a new START treaty with Russia, sought to engage Iran, Syria and the wider middle east, drawn down 100,000 troops from Iraq, fired two military commanders
-made massive investments in clean energy, expanded broadband access, weatherising homes etc,
-appointed two female (one hispanic) supreme court justices
-passed the lily ledbetter equal pay act
-kept the safety net going for the unemployed
-the list goes on and on
If that doesn’t inspire you and you’re just waiting for pretty speeches than take a look at the white house web site for his speeches in Cairo, the Iftar dinner, the Nobel peace prize acceptance to name a few.
If that doesn’t inspire you, I am not sure what’s left.
Guess what! Tonight Obama will give one of his patented pretty speeches lying to the public that combat operations in Iraq have ended. It’s gonna be a real humdinger! Confetti, beer, and all that jazz about Victory and the need for us (the war-haters) to suck it up for all the progress.
Yep, this is exactly the change I was waiting for. sarcasm
I think you are being much too harsh. I don’t know what Obama is going to say this evening, but we have this preview from earlier today (NY Times):
“Speaking just hours before he is to deliver an Oval Office address commemorating what is supposed to be the end of combat in Iraq, where some 50,000 troops will remain until next year in a mainly advisory and training role, Mr. Obama nonetheless warned that the American mission is not yet accomplished. Mr. Obama told the troops that his Oval Office address “is not going to be a victory lap; it’s not going to be self-congratulatory. There’s still a lot of work.”
So, how is this “lying” to the people? By the way, before you state the obvious: yes I know that the remaining troops will still be involved in firefights. If Obama tries to pretend otherwise in his speech, then I will agree that you are right, but based on his comments earlier today I don’t expect that he will.
10% unemployment, and regular announcements that this is the “new normal”.
For those of us paying attention, the deficit commission stacked with people who want to cut social security and raise the retirement age is not doing much to motivate us.
you know, underlying all of this is a feeling that things are not going well. For those of us that pay attention, we can point to Thing X or Topic Y. For others, it’s less distinct, just a vague feeling that things aren’t getting better and that the people running the show aren’t doing such a good job.
people voted in 2008 because they wanted things to get better. it’s been nearly 2 years since we elected a democratic president, and 4 years since we restored the democrats to power in the senate and the house. things haven’t gotten better, and many big promises turned out to be less than advertised. that’s my take anyway.
who is making regular announcements that this is the “new normal”? Not Obama as far as I can see.
“People voted in 2008 because they wanted things to get better.” – aha, so this is the complaint? that in 2 years Obama hasn’t made everything better and alright. BooHoo! Every attempt to do so has met with obstruction from the republicans and derision from his own supporters. you don’t want it to get better, you want it to become perfect overnight. that isn’t going to happen without things getting better first.
As to nothing getting better, about 700K were being lost a month when Obama took office – is that the same thing now? growth was negative 6% gdp – is that better or worse now?
the more accurate complaint is that things aren’t getting better quickly enough.
go tell your boohoo to the millions of people who are out of work, who’ve seen their retirement savings disappear, who can’t get loans even though the government is propping up the banks, and whose unemployment has run out. see what they say to you in return.
no one expects (or expected) things to get better overnight, and you are overstating that expectation to serve your own beliefs.
as for who’s saying high unemployment is the new normal, maybe you should read the front page of Booman tribune:
and here’s the Federal reserve:
when you have a mortgage to pay, children to feed, and medical expenses, “things aren’t getting better quickly enough” is a valid and defensible complaint, especially when it has been noted several times that there were other options that could have mitigated this, many of which could have been done by exeuctive fiat (like preventing the firing of gay soldiers by issuing a stop-loss order, HAMP, and more).
and before i forget, here’s Larry Summers, the chair of President Obama’s National Economic Council:
So now you know who in the administration has said this, although it would have been very easy for you to find out yourself if you were interested in that.
I am sorry but that is not saying that this is the new normal. It’s saying that the recovery will take a long time and unemployment will remain high until the recovery full occurs.
It’s August. A lot of folks are parroting the media narrative but haven’t actually looked at the election issues yet.
This election is going to be a late breaker–but only if Democrats start doing some campaigning. Right now, the silence from Democrats is striking.
I don’t believe polls. It’s too easy to muck with the results by screening the types of people polled, the way the questions are asked, etc. And the “news” is just as fabricated. Polls and “news” aren’t very good indicators of what is really happening. They do, however, tell us what the media wants us to think is happening and they’ve been selling gloom and doom for Democrats for 30+ years. And yet… an intellectual brown guy with a weird name got elected President! How did that happen?!
Unfortunately for Democrats, he’s not running this year. Consequently, turning out 2008’s new voters to vote for primarily 60-year-old white guys who have sort of played at governing is going to be a real stretch. And if they win, they are going to owe OFA bigtime.
BooMan, what the hell, man? You’re sounding like these Democratic insiders:
I don’t know if those words were chosen by the insiders or if Chris use his intuition(growing sense), but this is absurd.
How can they still not get it? How? How is it possible? Are their egos that delicate?
What gives?? I think there are a number of factors that are coming together which seem more and more likely with each passing minute to result in a catastrophic election day for both Democrats and the country. The relentless drum banging of the GOP machine, aided and abetted by their massive media helpmates, has created an environment in which complete irrationality drowns out anything of reason and substance which any thoughtful person might want to discuss or ponder. And the major mainstream media players have completely crumbled under the weight of this force. As a result, the narrative desired by the Republican Party has become the new reality. And no one dares question it. No oxygen remains for anything else.
When I watch Brian Williams sitting and talking with the President on a national news show about birther conspiracies and asking his response to these crazies; without Williams ever pointing out at any time during the conversation that it has absolutely no substance or merit, then you know they have won the argument in the media. When he asks Obama, “How do you feel about the fact that 20% of people polled think you are a Muslim and that you were not born in this country? How do you explain that? Why do you think that is?”
Well Mr. Williams, anyone with any sense knows “why that is”. Because, in large part, the major media players; those who are supposed to be objective, real journalists, have allowed much of these insanity to go unchallenged. That, coupled with what seems to be a weak and dispassionate interest in the Democratic Party to actually try and win anything, has set the table for an election which stands a very good chance of neutering the Obama administration for the remainder of his term.
But the driving force of all of this is the economy. When the economy is as bad as it is, and with what appears to most people to be a half-hearted effort at best to address the concerns of the average working American, no one should find it surprising that Democratic fortunes for November seem to be tanking at an increasingly rapid pace. The forces wishing to maintain or improve the huge advantages of the corporations and the wealthy have mustered all their forces and it appears like the odds are very good that they are going to get what they want in November. Any elected official who might have had even an inkling that we should do something that would benefit the majority of “Real Americans” will probably find themselves on the outside looking in after election day. It won’t matter whether they be Democrat or Republican.
Once again, It’s the economy, stupid!” The Republicans have pitched a marvelous game up to this point with their Party-Of-No strategy. Their effort to paint anything the administration has tried to do as some sort of radical Marxist assault on our country and freedoms is probably going to work for them. It is likely to win them something in the short term, which is really all they give a shit about right now, anyway. They’ll worry about what they do once they have the keys to the place in their hands again. That thought is too depressing to contemplate. I am afraid that the worst is yet to come.
Hey, wasn’t if the DFH’s that said “You’re only going to get one bite at the apple on this, what you have now is not going to be enough!”
Whoops.
Sorry, but the blame the media and corporations argument just doesn’t cut it. This is old news. They did it to Clinton and now they’re doing it to Obama and the Dems are standing around with bewildered looks on their faces like they’ve never seen this before.
“The relentless drum banging of the GOP machine, aided and abetted by their massive media helpmates, has created an environment in which complete irrationality drowns out anything of reason and substance which any thoughtful person might want to discuss or ponder. And the major mainstream media players have completely crumbled under the weight of this force.”
I ask you, what “reason and substance” is coming from the Democrats? Harry Reid saying they should build the mosque someplace else? Obama appointing a Social Security commission and making Alan Simpson one of the Chairmen? Larry Summers and Tim Geithner silent as the economy slides into the tank?
Where is the “relentless drum banging” from the DNC? Tim Kaine has been invisible since he was appointed, Joe Biden has been gagged for fear he’ll make a gaffe. Barack Obama makes a statement on the economy that even Booman describes as pathetic.
Please stop looking around for others to blame. The administration has done some good things but their messaging strategy has been terrible. They have supported bad candidates like Blanche Lincoln and Arlen Spector. They have completely misread the mood of the country. Appointing Elizabeth Warren weeks ago was a no brainer on multiple levels but they still haven’t done it. They go after Shirley Sherrod but Alan Simpson gets a pass. Please.
Yes, it’s a tough climate to win in but if they don’t start fighting and talking about what the Democratic party stands for and calling out every single lie and conspiracy theory for what it is, and if they don’t say that the Republicans are putting party ahead of country every single day from now until election day, they will lose big. And they will deserve to.
“And they will deserve to.” I think that serves to perfectly sum up the lack of perspective among angry lefties against the Administration. The Democrats, and thus the country, “deserve” to go down in flames because liberals are angry with what they see as half-measures. The Democrats “deserve” to lose big in November, thus returning the crazed neo-fascist Republican party to power, because they aren’t “fighting and talking about what the Democratic party stands for.”
Right now, the Democratic party stands for one main thing, and that’s to prevent the enormously dangerous Republican party from gaining actionable political power. That’s the whole ballgame. To ignore this betrays a profound misunderstanding of the situation we are facing.
It’s not that we hate half-measures by fiat. Sometimes you have to accept half-measures. But when those half-measures turn out to be the set goals of the party and when those set goals turn out to have been short-sighted political decisions as opposed to decisions that will help The People in the long term that’s where the feces hits the fan and when the lies about wanting more begin to reveal themselves. Compromise is always the goal with these people. As if fighting for something and trying to sell your progressive position is some sort of cooties!
I remember watching an ep of “The Good Wife” and one of the Republican characters mocked Dems by saying something to the effect of: “They fight for nothing. They’ll cave because it’s what Democrats do.” My heart sank because the writer is right.
Also, it’s the HUBRIS of Obama. He really truly feels that liberals will flock to him as some sort of Messianic figure who will protect us from the big bad Republicans. If anyone else would have signaled out that position in times like these, they’d have been called STUPID. But when Obama does it, it’s suddenly “what’s right.”
I appreciate where you’re coming from, but your priorities are backwards. Look: for the sake argument, even if, in your opinion, Obama and the Dems have accomplished essentially nothing; even if they have overall made things somewhat worse; isn’t it still vastly preferable that they be returned to power rather than a Republican party that makes the Dubya-era GOP look sane and reasonable?
There’s nothing wrong with the fact that many liberals thing the Obama-era Dems haven’t done enough. They HAVEN’T done enough, after all. You’re 100% right on that score. If in addition to that you think that they’re pathetic, sell-out, hypocritical losers, it’s your call. But even then, would you not infinitely rather have pathetic sellout Dems in charge of the government than a group of bloodthirsty, reality-denying reactionaries? Look what happened from 2000-08. The current GOP will make that look like child’s play if they get back in control. How is this even a debate?
I don’t know how to answer that. And that’s a profound problem. I’m just being honest. š
No, you aren’t. You know the answer to the question.
I should have spoken for myself when I said that scaring people to the polls doesn’t work. It just won’t work for me.
That being said, I don’t know how to answer that question. My answer should be: “Yes, vacuous is much better than vicious.” But I’m just not so sure.
In the current political climate, if you’re legitimately not sure about the answer, then I think you need to turn your computer off and go clear your head for awhile.
“Right now, the Democratic party stands for one main thing, and that’s to prevent the enormously dangerous Republican party from gaining actionable political power.”
And just how is the Democratic party preventing “the enormously dangerous Republican party from gaining actionable political power.”?
By acting like Republicans? By refusing to slug it out with them and differentiate themselves from them. By endlessly watering down legislation to get their votes?
You can sneer at “angry lefties” and liberals just like the WH does but you’re going to need them to come out for you in November. And if they think that endlessly capitulating, compromising and refusing to stand on principle is a winning strategy then it is you who “betrays a profound misunderstanding of the situation we are facing.”
…And if YOU think…
I’m not saying the Democratic party isn’t doing a bad job, on legislative priorities, messaging, ethics, whatever you want. I think there is vast room for improvement. You and I may disagree about how vast. And I apologize if my previous comment came off as “sneering” to you – I certainly didn’t mean for it to.
But despite whatever kind of crap job the Dems are doing, you suejazz and myself Lodus have control over what we individually say and do. And right now we have a choice: do we focus our energies on our complaints with the Democratic party, or on the danger the Republican party represents? Which of these entities is a greater threat to your values and priorities? Which has the greater capacity to cause damage to this country and to the world in the short-term? And the short-term is what matters, since we now have less than 10 weeks to go until the election.
You and I may not run the Democratic party, but we do have the capacity to either motivate the people around us to get to the polls in November, or demoralize them from doing so. Which action do you think is more conducive to creating the change you want and preventing the change you don’t want?
I appreciate your respectful response. Nowhere do I say in any post that I’m not going to vote for Democrats in November. I have a great Congressman and Senator and of course I will vote for them. I have been addressing the issue of blaming the media, corporations and the Republicans for our problems. I happen to think that a lot of our problems are self-made and that there are a lot of Dems who want to look elsewhere rather than to focus on making our party better and holding our own politicians accountable when they screw up. We need to cleanup our own act and stop looking for scapegoats.
“You and I may not run the Democratic party, but we do have the capacity to either motivate the people around us to get to the polls in November, or demoralize them from doing so. Which action do you think is more conducive to creating the change you want and preventing the change you don’t want?”
I’m sorry but you have it backwards.
If the Administration is pursuing policies that are demoralizing to the base then it is THEY that are demoralizing people, not the members of the base who are demoralized. There are a bunch of symbolic actions that the Administration could take in the next 10 weeks to rally their base and to acknowledge the concerns of the base. Or they can keep taking the base for granted, keep pissing on them and telling them it’s raining. It’s the Administration”s call.
It’s OBAMA’s call.
True dat.
You are only half-right.
You and I can’t control what the administration does. But we can control our reaction. If we spend all our time demoralizing the base, then our net effort is destructive and wasteful. Constructive advice is much needed. Non-stop bleating is harmful.
Stop blaming us, Boo!
I have a big problem with accusations that blogs are demoralizing the base. The overwhelming majority of the base do not read political blogs or watch Jon Stewart. And most of them are not demoralized until they talk to swing voters that they persuaded to vote for Obama.
It’s 10% unemployment with official forecasts that it will last until late 2011 that is demoralizing voters. And Congress’s unwillingness to take it seriously. And the White House’s silence, letting Congress deal with it.
Booman,
How has the constructive economic advice of people like Krugman, Reich, Roubini, Volcker and others been received by the Administration? How about Jonathan Turley, David Cole, Scott Horton and Andrew Bacevich on state secrets and national security issues? Are they too “demoralizing the base” with their “non-stop “bleating”?
Ignoring these voices is what is harmful and I think you know that.
It’s a conundrum, isn’t it?
When your government is pursuing policies that you disagree with and strategies that you think will backfire the normal course is to complain and offer your advice for what would be better. If there’s a better alternative, you start working towards that alternative.
But when you get that alternative and you still find yourself disagreeing, and there are no more alternatives? Then what do you do?
For me, the key is being constructive and fair. And to always, always keep in mind what the alternative is and how dangerous it is.
But then what signal does it send when you keep electing people even though they don’t do what you elected them to do?
You oust them in primaries to send them a message, not in the GE. Follow Tarheel’s model, please.
Has anybody looked at or read Extreme Liberal last two blogs. He has a totally different take on this question and maybe it will alleviate some of your concerns. I am not worried about the mid terms. I think we will hold the house and senate. The polls are always messy at this time of the year. Please everybody calm down and do what you can to help elect Dems in November.