I was riding in my car yesterday listening to some political station on my satellite radio when Paul Ryan came on to be interviewed. I don’t even remember most of the conversation, but I noticed when he was asked if he thought there were areas that he could find to work with the president. He gave some lip service to the idea, but he quickly pivoted to saying that President Obama is one of the most divisive leaders we’ve ever had and that he had been mostly successful in taking the country in the direction he wanted. Ryan saw his job as being as uncooperative as possible and to roll back virtually all of the Obama’s accomplishments.
It was kind of striking in its hostility, not so much because he was saying it, but because he was so unapologetic about it. So, it doesn’t surprise me to see him saying much the same things in a new Time piece. He wants to use the next year to draw the sharpest possible contrasts with the president so that the people will have a clear choice about which direction they want the country to go.
I can see the value in having a clear choice, and I’m fairly optimistic that the people won’t choose Ryan’s side, but this doesn’t augur well for the next session of Congress getting anything done.
Ryan intends to pass a series of bills in 2016 that, though most have no chance of advancing, lay out the conservative agenda for America. “I want to make us the party of ideas, to offer the nation an alternative plan, an agenda,” Ryan told TIME. “I really believe that we have an obligation given that we don’t like the direction the country is headed.”
One problem is that the Republicans disagree about a lot of things among themselves, so laying out an agenda that they can agree on isn’t really possible. What is possible, and what they can agree on, is that the president is a divisive guy who should be blocked and vilified at every opportunity.
But, then, who’s being divisive?
Ryan intends to pass a series of bills in 2016 that, though most have no chance of advancing, lay out the conservative agenda for America. “
Do conservative Republicans ever pay any attention to, much less become fully informed about, whatever proposals their DC darlings spend their time crafting? Or do they limit themselves to hearing the darlings scream:
and nod approvingly like the ignoramuses that they are?
And the DCCC will respond to this, how? Will they seriously challenge Paul Ryan’s seat, since it’s a presidential year?
I wonder if the Dems will challenge anyone. They may be comfortable with deadlock. It remains to be seen if either party really wants to change this deadlock.
Has not looked to me like the DNC or any Ds have any plans other than running HRC for POTUS. The end.
It appears to me – correct me if I’m wrong (I hope) – that there’s a dearth of “talent” waiting in the wings on the D bench. The Ds are not organized like the Rs are in terms of grooming potential candidates up through the ranks. They appear, to me, to wait for some sceamer like Cory Booker to appear and then pat themselves on the back for “discovering” the “next big thing.”
Do Ds actively want to make plans and/or craft good bills/laws? Evidence to the contrary, methinks.
Both branches of the UniParty appear to hide behind each others’ skirts.
that has less to do with the DNC & DCCC and more to do with Democrats in general
You bring 15-20 people to your county Democrats meeting you can change the course of your local party and then you can influence the state party.
Um, I gather from your pseudonym that you’re from Illinois. Surely you can’t be serious about this claim.
15-20 people? Really?
guess it depends on the size of your party
Suburban counties won’t take much. Cook County will probably take more
What you need to do is get elected Precinct Committee person.
Been there. Did that. Rahm Emanuel steam rollered us.
only because you didn’t have a big enough group or you let him
Had 80. He had the DCCC and his threats to donors were credible.
I suspects any threats from Emanuel have a little less credibility today. And a State Party which oversaw an election which produced Governor Rauner is a vulnerable State Party.
Ousting entrenched power can feel like a Sisyphean task, but it happens all the time. I hope the movement persists to create a better day in Illinois politics, because it will win eventually if it can persist.
Well, I agree, it could hardly get worse. Oh, wait. Wisconsin.
They will respond, like they did on the budget bill, that they must compromise with Ryan or nothing at all will be done.
Ryan’s seat has a PVI of GOP +2 – theoretically winnable if you invest money in it.
The Democratic Party of Wisconsin is pretty much a broken organization at this point. It will take them a generation to rebuild, if they ever do. If somebody wanted to challenge Ryan they’d have to have an organization of their own, set up and in place, ready to mount a campaign across the whole Congressional district. Counting on any kind of local Party apparatus support of such an effort would be naive. Regardless of what the DCCC might consider I don’t see it happening.
VidaLoca, what do you think of Russ Feingold’s chances? Is it wishful thinking?
No, not wishful thinking. Every poll I’ve seen —
here’s one that has historically proven to be reliable — has Feingold ahead of Johnson by double digits.
Yes the Dems generally have a fair chunk of responsibility for the rather meek public response to the GOP obstructionism, going on 7 years now.
But Obama needs to step up his game too, step out of his mild and moderate low-key understated approach, which barely registers on anyone’s radar and therefore can be ignored in the media, and occasionally show some righteous passion and anger at what the Rs are doing. Using the bully pulpit more energetically might just wake up some key elected Dems along with the grass roots and put the Rs on the defensive for once, nudging public opinion in our direction.
But as it stands now, given the squishy-soft Dem response, the Rs are not having to pay the political price.
I see an opening here for all elected Dems and Obama to start flexing their muscles — if there are still muscles available to be flexed given the nonuse for so long.
Whenever I hear a GOP member make a claim that someone is say “Divisive”. It seems to almost always turn out that the GOP member is the one that is acting that way. They seem to act that if they point the finger at someone else no one will notice.
Are we finally going to get all the vetoes we were promised? I remember when the Republicans’ plan for this Congress was to pass a bunch of wildly popular bills and then dare the President to veto them. I was looking forward to that.
The GOP had trouble coming up with “wildly popular bills” and therefore, blamed Obama for their failure and then blamed Obama because their failure didn’t gain them and additional 5% in national polls.
I guess I don’t see this deep GOP disagreement.
Tax cuts?
Supreme Court Justices?
Gay Rights?
Global Warming?
Maybe the Middle East, but I don’t see that as any less than exists our own party.
The behavior of liberal blogs in this cycle is fascinating. They seem absolutely determined to ignore the Democratic Primary.
Obama’s divisive? Yeah, whatever. That’s been the rightwing talking point since the day O got elected the first time. I have to “give” the rightwing (reluctantly) something for their grim, heavy-handed tenacity. They. Have. Not. Stopped. Saying. This.
Like all big lies, as Herr Goebbels (or whomever), instructed us, become “factual” or “truthy” if Big enough and told with consistency and constantly.
The media is now all rightwing all the time. They get their daily dose of rw talking points, and so, this hogwash is propagandized daily. What else is new? Well, O’s “fecklessness” and the alleged tyranny of what is called “political correctness” are sort of the new brick bats du jour.
Needless to say, the gullible populace is adjured that the R-Branch “has to oppose” everything proposed by the D-Branch or Obama just because. The end.
It didn’t used to be this way, but this is the way it is now. MANY citizens have been heavily propagandized into believing that this is what they really want.
What to do?
What to do indeed. How does one talk to people that hold up signs reading “keep government out of my Medicare?” It’s difficult to excuse them for not knowing that it was a Democratic POTUS that pushed this through, but how the hell can they not know that it’s a federal government program?
Believe me, I’ve tried talking to some, and it’s a losing battle. I’ve approached it from different angles with GOP/TP family and friends. They are beyond logic.
I was just thinking about how some otherwise very smart friends of mine insisted on voting for Lying Liar of All Times Fiorina when she ran for Senator of CA. Their “reason” for voting for her is that Fiorina was a “good business person.”
Like: are you kidding me? The woman is the most incompetent, lying fool. But she made it to the top of HP, laid waste to a once great company, waltzed away with a giant golden parachute that the shareholders got to pay for… and THAT somehow makes her “qualified” to run for high US govt office. Beggars the imagination.
Pretty much, I’ve given up attempting to reason with anyone, unless they’ve somehow started to realize how they’ve been “had.” Those are truly the only people who’ll really listen. The others? Hopeless. They love their delusions and will cling onto them for dear life.
I have somewhat more respect for those that say, “I vote Republican and have no interest in knowing any more than that” than those that come up with specious rationale as if they actually bothered to critically think about the candidates and issues.
How anyone can vote for candidates with no clue as the character and track record of the candidates has long mystified me. Still recall the morning after Nixon resigned. I was the only young person in an accounting office staffed with middle-aged and older women. They were all shell-shocked and couldn’t believe how Nixon had betrayed them. I was very nice about it but directly asked how they couldn’t have known that Nixon was a lying cheat? Followed that up with, that alone was the reason I could never have voted for him. It was a nice moment in time when Republicans were able to comprehend a truth.
The woman is the most incompetent, lying fool.
Actually Fiorina would fit right in several repug admins,
along side
Heck of a job brownie,
“the f#@king stupidest guy on the face of the earth.”Feith
“the largest single disaster in American foreign policy in modern times” Bremer
James Watts.
Rumsfeld …..
I think she is actually trolling the GOtPer clown car hoping to land in some possible cabinet position of who ever wins that booby prize, if they win.
Before Chris Hayes was a big media guy, he wrote a blog. His post detailing some of his experiences campaigning for Kerry in Wisconsin are valuable:
http://chrishayes.org/articles/decision-makers/
It’s all great, but this part is particularly on point here:
“Undecided voters don’t think in terms of issues. Perhaps the greatest myth about undecided voters is that they are undecided because of the “issues.” That is, while they might favor Kerry on the economy, they favor Bush on terrorism; or while they are anti-gay marriage, they also support social welfare programs. Occasionally I did encounter undecided voters who were genuinely cross-pressured–a couple who was fiercely pro-life, antiwar, and pro-environment for example–but such cases were exceedingly rare. More often than not, when I asked undecided voters what issues they would pay attention to as they made up their minds I was met with a blank stare, as if I’d just asked them to name their favorite prime number.
…
As far as I could tell, the problem wasn’t the word “issue”; it was a fundamental lack of understanding of what constituted the broad category of the “political.” The undecideds I spoke to didn’t seem to have any intuitive grasp of what kinds of grievances qualify as political grievances. Often, once I would engage undecided voters, they would list concerns, such as the rising cost of health care; but when I would tell them that Kerry had a plan to lower health-care premiums, they would respond in disbelief–not in disbelief that he had a plan, but that the cost of health care was a political issue. It was as if you were telling them that Kerry was promising to extend summer into December.”
Any one of us who has called and knocked on the doors of voters can testify that this lack of civic education is one of the chief factors in causing Americans to become cynical and disengaged from politics. Some voters, like the voters Hayes chronicles here, fail to understand that their issue can and should gain a response from government. Others want government to do something that it can’t or won’t do. Some have their own exceedingly narrow axe to grind, a personal issue which isn’t shared by enough people to gain a response from leaders.
We make our calls and knock on doors to engage the voters, to draw out their hopes and worries, dreams and fears. Sometimes, even when we elicit that engagement, the voter remains unpersuadable. Not unpersuaded; that’s another thing.
I’m talking about voters who do not want to think or learn about government, or what elections and elected leaders do. I’ve heard from many voters who say that they will vote, but they’ll make up their minds about who to vote for when they get in the ballot box. Sometimes, that just reflects a person who doesn’t want to commit to a canvasser. But I have heard many people whose conversations with me convinced me that they really didn’t want to think about their vote until they marked their ballot.
These people (not too many, but a growing part of the electorate in my relatively narrow experience) have allowed themselves to become emotionally and psychologically immune from engaging, learning or growing.
There’s really only one agenda that they can agree on: it’s Victory.
In this case, seems like the agenda is the same on the Democratic side. Hence all the “screaming” at Sanders’ supporters to take an oath now to vote for Clinton in the GE.
I think the comment indicated that the only agenda Republicans can agree on is victory. Victory is a shared objective among Democrats, but – unlike the Republicans – there is a lot of other objectives that part of the larger Democratic consensus.
I’m not sure it is reasonable to take anyone who “screams” on the internet very seriously. Surely they are not relevant to the discussion. Plus, I’ve learned over the past 60 years that the progressive wing of the Democratic party will do whatever that wing wants to do.
I think it is heating up online because it is becoming pretty difficult to imagine any path to the nomination for Sanders. There will be gnashing of teeth and blaming and bitterness and then progressives will do whatever they want to do. I hope they decide to support Hillary but what I hope has always been pretty irrelevant to them.
I fine with agreeing to disagree on most of what you said in your comment, but not this:
Seems to me that there is far more consensus among Republicans that war is good and government regulation of business and progressive taxation are bad than there is on those three issues among Democrats. Sorry, I just can’t forget the large numbers of Democrats that backed GWB’s Iraq war and bombing to effect regime change in Libya. And the continuing failure of a large number of Democrats to see the destructiveness of all the deregulation and reduction in progressive taxation during Clinton’s term.
The progressive wing always falls in line. Stats have shown it true election after election.
This is always the only agenda a Party EVER has.
This is hilarious coming from the man who gave Dems most of what they wanted in order to pass a budget bill. He got the Speaker job by agreeing not to do exactly that, and no amount of blaming the president is going to keep his base from turning on him once they figure it out.
He’s a superficial little weasel front-running an irrational mob in the interests of K and Wall streets. This will be interesting.
Not to back up little slime weasel Paul Ryan, but it seems to me that he did what he felt he had to do (and I suspect what the big wigs were directing him to do) in order to get the budget passed and keep govt from shutting down. The PTB could care less if the 99% suffer over the War on Xmas season, but for heaven’s sake, there’s bigger fish who’ll suffer if the govt is shut down.
Plus that would end up making the GOP look bad for the campaign, and make no mistake, the Trump would bray about how he’d never let that happen, you pussy wimps.
Let’s get real. What Ryan did was utterly predictable, and then to reflexively bray to the M$M about how divisive Obama is also utterly predictable.
This is why Ryan – creep weasel that he is – didn’t want the jerb. I think his weasel-y arm was really twisted hard to force him to do it, and no doubt some big payola + promi$e$ of more came into play.
The Ds are worthless sh*ts, but the R-Team has really painted themselves into a corner with their worthless obstructionism. It’s backfiring on them. That said, don’t hold your breath for any yooooge changes.
in light of the recent outcomes of elections in the UK and Spain, me thinks speaker ryan may want to reconsider his comments.
it appears this populist movement thingie may have better legs than he thinks…continued obstruction and vilification could well spell the onset of the long overdue demise of the gop as a viable party…just sayin’.
Not to mention our neighbors to the north…