Dems' prospects growing dimmer as Dorgan, Dodd announce their retirements
Ah, may you live in interesting times:
With the 2010 election year barely under way, two senators and one governor — all Democrats — ditched plans to run for re-election in the latest signs of trouble for President Barack Obama's party.
Taken together, the decisions by Sens. Chris Dodd of Connecticut and Byron Dorgan of North Dakota as well as Colorado Gov. Bill Ritter caused another bout of heartburn for Democrats as they struggle to defend themselves in a sour political environment for incumbents, particularly the party in charge.
As 2009 ended, Democrats watched a string of their House members announce retirements and one congressman defect to the GOP.
Some of this is just going to be natural attrition. But it's also obvious that, once again, liberal Democrats have underestimated the power of the media attacks against them, and as always have not even figured out the need for an effective response, let alone how to formulate one.
Republican retirements outnumber Democratic retirements in the House, in the Senate, and among governors. The preferred Republican/media meme of the day doesn't match up well against reality.
http://www.washingtonmonthly.com/archives/ind...
thanks for posting that
shameful that so many are posting this tripe without any reflection.
talk about parrots... really, Neiwert, I'm disappointed.
also... since when is Dodd a liberal?
I think he's pulling up stakes because he knows he's compromised. The Friends of Angelo thing just basically castrated him. He was responsible for weakening the bonus restrictions on AIG because someone in the Obama administration told him he had to. I think he's retiring because he knows he's been bought and paid for. Good for him, and I hope he finishes his term strong.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TvCWPdOZF2k
Diabolus est Deus Inversus
There is no way Dodd could begin to defend himself against Peter Schiff and he knows it. Dodd's actions have help wrought this economic crisis and Schiff would have put him on the ropes in the first round.
Goodnight, Frau Blücher
Peter Schiff might very well have thumped Dodd, but only by virtue of the fact that Dodd is an incumbent who was tainted with the TARP and bunus mess. Schiff wouldn't necessarily do so well against a generic Democrat, however.
Yes, Schiff has a lunatic following among Ron Paul, libertarian, Austrian School economics nuts, but that doesn't necessarily extend to the average voter. There's a limit to the number of times Schiff's supporters could play the vidoe of that stupid debate he had against Art Laffer, inventor of the Laffer Curve. Laffer essentially said that everything was doing fine, and the housing bubble would continue indefinitely, and the stock market can easily reach...oh...a BILLION. Schiff said "no it can't," and surprise surprise, Schiff is suddenly a prophet.
But even a broken clock is right twice a day. All any Democrat would have to do to up-stage Schiff in a debate is to ask him about his views on deregulation of business. Schiff, like all Austrians will say all we have to do is nuke the Federal Reserve (which tends to go over well with audiences), return to the gold standard (which has mixed reviews), and remove any and all regulations on commerce, and let businesses do whatever they want. Then, magically everything will be wonderful thanks to the virtues of that benign deity known as the glorious free market.
At that point, he'd lose the audience who believe (rightly) that de-regulation of the market is what got us into this mess in the first place. I have a feeling that Schiff's standard answer of "only because we didn't de-regulate it ENOUGH" will fall flat on its face.
from C&L own video archives...
Peter Schiff Was Right
http://crooksandliars.com/john-amato/peter-sc...
Schiff has been dead right about the economy since this debacle started.
Goodnight, Frau Blücher
http://voices.washingtonpost.com/thefix/senat...
http://mydd.com/2010/1/4/another-house-goper-...
(Of course these may be old numbers).
Diabolus est Deus Inversus
Totally framed as a negative for Democrats the whole way through, stating as fact that it signals the "latest signs of trouble for Obama's party."
Puh-LEEEZ.
And, your link illustrates the ACTUAL facts nicely. Thank you.
That's amazing. I've seen this crap about Democratic Congressmen 'dropping like flies' pupping up everywhere today, usually originating from MSM sources. But I guess, like the Rasmussen polls that are spreading faster than the Ebola virus, this too has no basis in reality.
So, according to the latest manufactured opinions, Obama has the lowest approval ratings of any president, and Democratic Representatives, Senators and Governors are fleeing en masse, like rats leaving a sinking ship prior to the anticipated 2010 massacre.
The news media loves a close horse-race, doesn't it?
I'm all for New & Fresh Liberal Blood. Old-school liberalism has failed us.
LimpBalls
we can't afford to lose right now.
while i might not be familiar with all of dorgan's votes/history, he oftentimes did fight the good fight. one of the few dems that stood up to the clinton-GOP-neoliberal cabal in telecom and financial corporate give-aways and voted against the legislation that furthered the country down the path to third world-ism.
so, of all the senators to retire it is unfortunate its dorgan. thanks for sticking to your progressive guns though, sen dorgan.
... like Grayson, Kucinich, Franken, and Massa?
Of course, that still leaves the Concession Twins in charge ...
yes please.
"To me, truth is not some vague, foggy notion. Truth is real. And,
at the same time, unreal. Fiction and fact and everything in between,
plus some things I can't remember, all rolled into one big "thing."
This is truth, to me. "
-Jack Handy
That's what I'm talking about! We need NEW and FRESH outspoken Libs with B@LLS! Franken/Grayson 2012! or Kucinich/Franken or any combination of the 3. I'm sick of corporate-owned pseudo-libs dangling by the strings of their puppet-masters!
LimpBalls
About a month after his on floor demonstrations he was on MSNBC saying "this is the best we can do."
but for another reason. I think there will be millions of first time democratic voters - whether young or independents, who may very well sit this out. This handling of healthcare has been a fiasco, and it's not good to basically turn a deaf ear or a blind eye to those who voted for you the first time. They may be dissafected with the dems for life.
I voted third party in 2008, and for Nader in 2000 and 2004.
Any "lesser of two evils" doubts I might have had have been dispelled by Obama.
I've been reading Alexander Cockburn for years. He's right a hell of a lot more than he's wrong. He was right about Obama.
http://www.independent.co.uk/opinion/commenta...
"Obama's liberal defenders comfort themselves with the thought that "he had to say that to get elected". He didn't. After eight years of Bush, Americans are receptive to reassessing America's imperial role. Obama has shunned this opportunity. If elected, he will be a prisoner of his promise that on his watch Afghanistan will not be lost, nor the white man's burden shirked...."
And besides a clear conscience, what do you have to show for it?
Bomb throwing is very cathartic, but choosing to build something is more lasting.
The Obama campaign put together a very powerful network. At the local level, I think it's going to pay dividends immediately.
but choosing to build something is more lasting
I am. I'm a card carrying member of the Socialist Party. I give them my money and my time each week. And my votes.
You can't think in terms of election cycles. History moves in centuries.
A clear conscience is important. Because of your vote for Obama, more kids will be bombed in Afghanistan and the insurance industry will continue to make profits on the backs of working people.
Among many other bad things.
Obama has been disappointing...McCain/Palin would have been a 24/7 nightmare worldwide.
Interesting analysis given that Obama has done everything Gramps and the Beauty Queen had planned.
I'm having a hard time seeing how Obama is better.
Go see a fucking optometrist.
I'm not going to relive the 2008 Presidential election because you have no perspective.
And stupid.
Perhaps you might want to delineate where exactly on the REAL issues (war, torture, invasion, military spending, banking bailouts, etc) that he has done anything at all different than Caribou Barbie and the Old Man would have done?
I mean, you know, instead of spitting worthless vitriol and attacking the person instead of the argument.
Amazing how you give McCain/Palin complete benefit of doubt.
I just don't give Obama the benefit of doubt either.
And it's not a hypothetical, you can use Gramps campaign for what he ws going to do and Obama's recent actions for what he has done.
I see no difference between the two. And you probably aren't going to be able to supply a clear cut list of any real differences either.
Is that why you are attacking me personally instead of my argument?
I can already tick off a couple off the top of my head:
Obama bailed out the auto manufacturers (not banks like boosh), with some strings attached, to auto worker's jobs, instead of out-sourcing them, and despite republicans opposition
He is closing Gitmo, very gradually, and facing flak for having civilian trials for some,
Already allowing for protests around him, not so many of the no-protest zones, even to the extreme extent that some are armed,
mcgramps probably wouldn't cotton to the teabaggers, but the palin rallies practically created them.
Diabolus est Deus Inversus
So no go there.
Closing Gitmo? Well he hasn't so that's a no go as well. Let's stick to what he HAS done.
Protests don't make a freaking bit of diff to anyone else on the planet so who cares.
And it doesn't help you in any way. Next.
Yup Palin is a tea bagger. No doubt about it.
That Levi guy even says so.
Sounds hypothetical to me
Particularly since Obama IS president, and mcgramps lost.
Diabolus est Deus Inversus
Like I said, Gramps and the Hooker stated what they were for when they campaigned.
Obama has a record of what he has done.
What Obama has done has not been materially different on the big core issues to what Gramps said he was going to do if elected.
Not really all that hypothetical, just illustrative of the point that Obama is not really all that different than McCain at the core.
They share the same core agendas.
Symes,
I think most Afghans would agree with you.
The people of privilege will always risk their complete destruction rather than surrender any material part of their advantage." J.K. Galbraith
...bomb bomb bomb redneck Johnny and the dumb bitch.
...between bomb bomb bomb Johnny and bomb bomb bomb Obama.
Or aren't you actually paying attention to what he (Obama) is doing between cheer leading him blindly?
that's a j/k, right?
it's probably a reference to Old Man's campaign song.
too bad obama has only exchanged a word in it. or exchanged it for two. (or more, it's been only a year).
I simply can't relate to professional second guessers who now claim without any proof that they could have done better.
Knowing exactly what Obama has already done?
That is what we are talking about right?
Howzit goin over there this winter? Kinda chilly I suspect.
Here. Click on view all legislation. Take it from there. I'll admit some of this stuff is bs. But, some isn't. I think people have to step back and put things in their proper perspective. I'm not happy about alot of this stuff.
But I'm not such a fool to throw the baby out with the bathwater either.
Oh, I thought when people turned 18 they had to choose citizenship.
Unless, your father is a Brit national. Then you can claim his citizenship. At which time, you have to relinquish one or the other.
Dual citizenship is very difficult to get. Actually, I think they got rid of that a lonnnng time ago. But, ya never know. I could be wrong about this. So, how did you do it?
What is your conceptual, continuity?
All it took was $2500 over a period of 3 years, a Life in the UK test (where I learned more about the UK than my boss even knows) and an application for citizenship.
It's still possible if you don't marry a Brit, but you would need a skill that is in demand. IT used to be one of them but that changed last year. And if you come over that way it'll cost $3500 over a 5 year period as you have to renew your Visa at least once before you can apply for indefinite leave to remain.
No requirements to relinquish your former nationality here. Belgium has that requirement though and that is my next destination.
The winter this year is bad in comparison to other English winters, but I am coming over from Boston so it's really a piece of cake for me.
Been between 24 and 35 degrees for the last 3 weeks with no end in sight, the circulation pattern is reversed this year with arctic air coming in from the east over Russia and Norway. Funny thing about climate change, it's all about messed up circulation patterns for everyone living on the land. It's just the oceans that heat up.
Too bad the Troglodytes who keep denying it are unable to understand such concepts. To many variables to keep in their pointy little heads I guess.
And I'd wager that it doesn't make a bit of difference to Afghans.
The people of privilege will always risk their complete destruction rather than surrender any material part of their advantage." J.K. Galbraith
Nor to the Pakistani or the Iraqi or the Yemeni either.
It's all just a lot more of the same with more bombs to all of them.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lyWSeI7DcAc
Diabolus est Deus Inversus
I knew one fellow who had a beautiful Irish Setter but the dog was absolutely demented. After being bred only for it's looks for generations he was the result.
I worked for another fellow who purchased a young female german shepard that came from some strong championship lines - he paid 15k I think. That dog ended up being afraid of it's own shadow.
Had McGrumpy been elected we would have already invaded Iran and would be bombing the shit out of Yemen right now.
I'm disappointed in Obama too but, Jeez, let's maintain just a little common sense.
So where else do you see a difference in their foreign policies?
See 2000.
I voted for Nader because of the whole Bush=Gore argument (among others). Look at the Bush legacy. Are you trying to tell me Al Gore would have been half as bad?
We are discussing how the Dems and the Repubs have the same major policies.
I don't think the US would be fighting 3 open and one proxy war right now if Gore had won if that is what you are asking.
I also think you'd have better relations with the rest of the planet.
Are you trying to tell me that a Gore Presidency would have been as bad as the Bush years?
I respect your argument. I understand that compromise on things like torture and bombing civilians, etc. are anathema to a progressive; but I think you have to acknowledge that uncompromising ideology is not an effective strategy (in this imperfect world). It's a very old conflict, and one in which both sides are right (and wrong).
You edited before I replied. So, Gore did not equal Bush, and I submit to you: that is evidence that Obama (warts and all) does not equal McCain.
Obama is not Gore.
Gore might have stopped 9/11[Though judging by Obama's handling of a certain incident, it sounds like the airline companies would have lobbied to insure that 9/11 would have still happened, just because they don't want to hire unionized inspection teams.], but we'd still have watered-down health care and declining incomes, but with a little more over-sight on the housing/internet speculation to keep those bubbles from immediately bursting. Voting Nader's never been a regret for me, especially now. The Dems can't even deliver on even a fraction of the reform that they used to in the past.
"The Obama campaign put together a very powerful network. At the local level, I think it's going to pay dividends immediately"
for who? for what dividends? partisan campaign wins? the powerful network that you refer to has been disheartened and dissed, repeatedly. i don't think it can be counted on the same way it was used in 08.
.
Maybe not as strong, but it's a political apparatus. I'm trying to work with it this year in Oregon to get universal single-payer for Oregon.
So, that would be dividends for people in Oregon.
i wish you and your fellow oregonians all the luck in the world in getting univ 1-payer for your state! respect
Excellent and admirable. Good luck on your success.
Show those parasites in DC that they are idiots!
Single payer rocks, I know first hand.
I'm never going back if I can help it.
...make sure that they tell you that you're pretty before they fuck you.
"Dump the Dems."
loser.
That was fast!!
I was waiting to see when the first mindless, ad hominem "You're a teabagger troll" remark would pop up.
Congrats, Leftandleft! You win first prize!
Actually you're the one who used so many words.
L&L was just pointing out the obvious, for now, and the near future, we just have these two parties.
Additionally, ad hominems and insults are not considered synonymous. That's a misuse perpetuated by republican pundits, who probably never heard a pun they understood.
Diabolus est Deus Inversus
it's more like "for now, and the near future, we have just this one party."
And it was just that attitude that led to the narrow electoral margin that allowed the conservative activists justices on the Supreme Court to appoint boosh.
Diabolus est Deus Inversus
What led to low turnouts (and they weren't really all that low) was Gores wastrel race, his handlers sucked and his PR people should have been fired in the first week.
What gave the election the needed edge to get that close were electronic voting machines and dirty tricks (voter roll purging being the worst) in Ohio , FL and other key states.
Don't revise history to try and score points.
have in running successful campaigns that would give you the credibility to critique those who ran Al Gore's.
"I mean Romney is the most conservative on illegal immigration and I don't think Ronald Reagan could get elected in California today."
Ann "Clipped" Coulter
eclipses bobby shrum's
Gore's campaign was a joke, he was wooden and un-prepped, his PR campaign NEVER countered anything the Repubs threw out about him, it was a disaster from the word go.
Why, are you actually going to argue that his people ran a brilliant campaign?
I offered no opinion on Gore's campaign or people.
Are you a critic without portfolio?
"I mean Romney is the most conservative on illegal immigration and I don't think Ronald Reagan could get elected in California today."
Ann "Clipped" Coulter
In other words I am not blind, stupid or willfully ignorant.
Are you ?
Do you really think that someone has to have actually run a political campaign to be able to spot one that was run like shit?
I would concede a lot to the "Hindsight is 20/20" concept. That election was stolen.
The people of privilege will always risk their complete destruction rather than surrender any material part of their advantage." J.K. Galbraith
I appears that for some hindsight is something they don't do.
I guess it's that Obama thing about not looking back...
then from your English perch you will acknowledge that Gore got more votes than any other candidate, and was defeated when a 5-4 court decision gave Bush the electoral votes of Florida, where Gore probably also got the largest number of votes.
"I mean Romney is the most conservative on illegal immigration and I don't think Ronald Reagan could get elected in California today."
Ann "Clipped" Coulter
And he should have hammered that AWOL, coke snorting drunk to hell and back but because he ran such a shite campaign he wasn't able to.
Yup. Gore got more votes (or should we say more Dem votes were ignored/tossed).But that doesn't mean his campaign was not poorly run. Look at his VP choice. Gore as pres probably would have been a lot like Obama's admin.
The people of privilege will always risk their complete destruction rather than surrender any material part of their advantage." J.K. Galbraith
And most definetly the winner on all the voters ballots who were turned away and were never allowed to vote at all.
...with such important ballots, I'm honored by your selection.
What important ballots? Democratic Party ballots?
At this point they're just as good as Republican ballots as far as the people of the world are concerned.
You clowns sit safely on the fence, actually with pride voting for a guy who had no chance in Hell of winning and now you want to spent the next four years telling everyone stupid enough to listen "I told you so."
LOL.
You make too many assumptions, I think you vote that way as well.
try strident in their beliefs. opposite of "safely on the fence", more like taking a stand
the dem leadership ignores nader-type voters at their own party's risk. there aren't enough dem partisans to get dems elected, and if you use and abuse the left they won't be there for the dems. that was the lesson of nader.
but it seems it was not well learned.
not well learned, to the tenth power
Has he run that many times? Wow, how quickly elections come and go. Has he gotten above 3% yet?
"I mean Romney is the most conservative on illegal immigration and I don't think Ronald Reagan could get elected in California today."
Ann "Clipped" Coulter
i doubt it, but you would have to ask someone more familiar with the nader-runs than i.
Nader acts as if all of the world's blights would suddenly vanish if we'd only expanded our minds and voted for him as Prez.
That's total bullshit. Nader acts like he gives a shit about things other than profits. Try having a more mature debate here. This is an important issue.
The people of privilege will always risk their complete destruction rather than surrender any material part of their advantage." J.K. Galbraith
by the fact we are not smart enough to elect his as President.
Actually, he may not act that way. He just leaves me with that impression.
"I mean Romney is the most conservative on illegal immigration and I don't think Ronald Reagan could get elected in California today."
Ann "Clipped" Coulter
What impression did Obama leave you with? Are you satisfied?
The people of privilege will always risk their complete destruction rather than surrender any material part of their advantage." J.K. Galbraith
impressed me as a pragmatic, intelligent politician who believed the best interests of the country would be served by someone who tried to find common ground from which to govern. I had hopes he could, but felt he was being naive given the extremes of both parties.
He is doing pretty much what he said he would do, some of which I disagreed with from the git go.
"I mean Romney is the most conservative on illegal immigration and I don't think Ronald Reagan could get elected in California today."
Ann "Clipped" Coulter
You are susceptible to what Chris Hedges calls junk politics.
statusquObama, change you can only pretend in
always being on the losing side, whining and liking it.
"I mean Romney is the most conservative on illegal immigration and I don't think Ronald Reagan could get elected in California today."
Ann "Clipped" Coulter
I am on the side of the ethical, and sticking with it.
What Hedges means by junk politics is where there is not a discussion of issues, but instead only personalities.
statusquObama, change you can only pretend in
Yeah I'm sure Alice is just loving life right now.
(Snark)
The people of privilege will always risk their complete destruction rather than surrender any material part of their advantage." J.K. Galbraith
You lose everytime when you vote for the lesser of two evils anyway.
You are aware of that right?
Particularly when they both have the same core policies.
evil as easily as are many around here, yourself included, I suspect.
"I mean Romney is the most conservative on illegal immigration and I don't think Ronald Reagan could get elected in California today."
Ann "Clipped" Coulter
What I think of Obama was not quickly come by, he's had a full year to show where he is coming from already.
The whole election was junk politics. Which party is going to offer a solid platform for the American people? Nothing was really discussed or properly debated in the the campaign by either side, just a bunch of vagaries, concepts and ideas offered up. It's all emotional appeal, imagery and symbolism, used by two teams, like in some kind of sporting contest.
"If the US government enforced its banking laws like it did its park regulations, we wouldn't be
in this damn park in the first place." OCCUPY.!!
It's just that no one other than Ralph says he wants the things I want. he's more left than anyone who runs.
My ballot often looks like a loser tally sheet. I did not vote Nader to be smug or to tell anyone I told you so, either. It's just that the people picked to run don't have my best interests at heart, more importantly, they don't have the best interests of the country as a whole at heart.
I can't stand NOT to vote, but I won't vote for someone because the polls say they're going to have a better chance at winning than someone else. I'm going to vote for the person I think will best represent me.
me-oww!
your consciense. We are not sheep.
"I told you so," because we have no idea. We can make him the most perfect President--in our minds. Not really a basis for an "I told you so" moment.
me-oww!
However we do have Monday morning quarterbacks who grant others total benefit of doubt on the basis that they aren't Obama.
I understand that many people love Nader. He just rubs me wrong.
When you are responding to personality you are not dealing with issues.
From the standpoint of intelligence I find Obama quite appealing.
He said early on he would fight when the FISA vote came. That was very important to me. The government under George Bush gave lucrative contracts to huge Corporations to illegally surveil the citizens of the country.
Obama said he would not go along with the retroactive immunity, I believed him. I donated to his campaign, I am as poor as a church mouse.
When the fight came, after the primaries, he turned 180° and ran with the fascists.
Where I come from, you can fool me once, but I will be damned if you ever fool me twice.
I still think Obama is a pleasant intelligent fellow.
But for me what matters is actions and he is just another of the lying Washington Motherfuckers.
I don't love Nader, or any such foolish thing. If he ever showed me that he was another lying Washington Motherfucker, I would be off his bus.
But then he is not a politician.
----
What really is the top of the list of the Democrats' corruption, the Republicans are the same way, they just don't mince their words, is bailing out the Banksters with trillions of public money but allowing them to continue lobbying, and making campaign contributions.
This is corruption of the worst sort. Hand over trillions of the taxpayers' money, receive back millions in campaign contributions while entertaining lobbyist ALL paid with the same money.
statusquObama, change you can only pretend in
I feel that Mr. Nader has played the buyers remorse card far too often.
Frankly I wish that someone with Nader's credibility was screaming everywhere slamming Obama on health care, unemployment, the wars, etc...with solutions of course.
I am so used to people not liking my choice. And I try not to be smug about the best President we never had.
But he'd never be good with the clowns who are busily fucking up that legislative branch of gov't.
me-oww!
Who grants Obama all the doubt he doesn't deserve.
Sorry Symes,
I cannot provide you with visual aids.
They said the same thing about Carter.
Turns out Carter was right about alot.
What is your conceptual, continuity?
"Sorry Symes, I don't have anything but bluster to counter you with".
Obama was a manufactured candidate. It was a brilliant deception.
The Banksters plundered the country royally. The first stage of the greatest heist in the history of the world.
They then proceeded to buy the government that would bail them out. The second stage of the greatest heist in the history of the world.
At this moment Barney Frank is overseeing the bailout legislation for the the third stage of the greatest heist in the history of the world.
We have been plundered but good.
In my neighborhood, houses are selling at as little 25¢ on the dollar of the peak, which was never inflated to begin with, given that there are mostly minorities.
Why there are not marches in the streets is beyond my understanding.
statusquObama, change you can only pretend in
.
Cockburn wrote this in 2008. Very prescient.
http://www.independent.co.uk/opinion/commenta...
"Obama's run has been the negation of almost every decent progressive principle, with scarcely a bleat of protest from the progressives seeking to hold him to account. The Michael Moores stay silent. Obama has crooked the knee to bankers and Wall Street, to the oil companies, the coal companies, the nuclear lobby, the big agricultural combines. He is more popular with Pentagon contractors than McCain, and has been the most popular of the candidates with Washington lobbyists. He has been fearless in offending progressives, constant in appeasing the powerful...."
There's no reason to be "disappointed' in Obama. Liberals projected all their fantasies onto this candidate, even though anyone bothering to follow the money train would have known long ago that he's just another right-wing, corporate politician.
cannot muster the support of more than 3% of the electorate.
And if Obama had run a campaign that pleaded you or Mr. Cockburn, he would not have either. Face it, very few in this country share your views.
"I mean Romney is the most conservative on illegal immigration and I don't think Ronald Reagan could get elected in California today."
Ann "Clipped" Coulter
Very few in this country see things as they actually are.
Instead, they believe what comes from their TVs and the other means of corporate propaganda.
This is what Lippman and Bernays meant in the early twenties with the phrase manufacturing consent.
According to your principle, no one should run unless they can win.
Candidates of substance, however, run to raise important issues. Issues that do not to translate into raising important money, without which one cannot access the means of propaganda.
If, as it seems consistently with you, that issues do not matter, and that is the crux of advertising and corporate propaganda, that facts and issues do not come into play, then these candidates will find no resonance with you. You will go with the one that wins the advertising award. As will millions of others.
Congratulations, you have been hypnotized.
Don't come back whining when you wake up to find that you also have been fleeced.
statusquObama, change you can only pretend in
"Face it, very few in this country share your views."
Then you should probably read what Emma Goldman had to say about ignorant majorities.
"Never before did the corruption, the complete rottenness of our government stand so thoroughly exposed; never before were the American people brought face to face with the Judas nature of that political body, which has claimed for years to be absolutely beyond reproach, as the mainstay of our institutions, the true protector of the rights and liberties of the people.
Yet when the crimes of that party became so brazen that even the blind could see them, it needed but to muster up its minions, and its supremacy was assured...."
http://www.panarchy.org/goldman/majorities.html
Amazing...Written almost 100 years ago, yet it reads like she was writing just hours after the 2008 election.
The teabaggers on the right and the knee-jerk Democrats on the "left" are both products of what corporate media feeds them.
Us on the left who aren't so prone to knee jerk reactions?
Those of us who are more a patient type?
We all know how Washington moves. Are we wrong to have a more patient approach?
What is your conceptual, continuity?
You're a bright guy,so could you please explain to me why these "Liberal Democrats" continue to underestimate "the power of media attacks against them" and why they keep rolling over without even so much as a limp wristed response?What the Hell is wrong with these people?These are not,let me repeat NOT the dangerous "radicals" that the GOP and their media counterparts keeping warning everybody about,unless of course you find Girl Scouts some how threatening.
"To me, truth is not some vague, foggy notion. Truth is real. And,
at the same time, unreal. Fiction and fact and everything in between,
plus some things I can't remember, all rolled into one big "thing."
This is truth, to me. "
-Jack Handy
I thought CT AG Richard Blumenthal was already beating the GOP Senate candidate(s) in early polls. Dorgan's seat is likely to go to a Republican, but Blumenthal--who may very well be more progressive than Dodd, or at least less on the take--looks to be a lock for Connecticut's Senate spot.
Word is that Dorgan asked Ed Schulz (the radio guy) to run in North Dakota. FWIW.
But I think a law in the state in regards to years of residence keeps Schultz(sp?) from running there.
According to Wikipedia he lived in Fargo for at least 15 years until the late 90's. Maybe he can claim relocation for a job. His wife is from Fargo too. I don't know the laws, and yes, he spells his name Schultz (apologies).
He's not the most progressive - he seems to me just to be loud, obnoxious, and a little knee-jerky; but he may be the most Democrats could hope for in NoDak.
Dimmecrats?
Diabolus est Deus Inversus
The more incumbents that go, the better. The Congressional Democrats have been failing us for too many years: failing to stand up to Bush and his...well, too numerous to even think about...failed policies; then failing to do the right things when they have control. The Republicans have managed to derail almost everything they want to derail, leaving us with half-baked legislation again and again. This is not a criticism of these individuals, but of the party as a whole. So new blood is very welcome. Maybe the Democrats running in these districts will be progressive, but I won't hold my breath. I wish every one of them had to retire...whats that called again? Oh, term limits. I'll keep dreaming while they keep attending to business as usual, pretending to disagree with Republicans, pleasing their special interests, and "compromising" to "centrist" ideals.
Wimps. Why don't you start running on a platform rather than on a party?
Hard to run in:
And it might kill the fish
Or really...really make em queasy.
http://ecx.images-amazon.com/images/I/51Rmu6e...
Diabolus est Deus Inversus
Of course, that was a rhetorical question, right? Because we both already know the answer to that one.
If your politician in whom you have placed much faith, blood, sweat and tears and your vote, were to run on planks of a platform (you know, like they used to do), then their legislative record could be held against them -- like the metrics that are all the rage in public education these days. Heaven forbid that that should occur.
But, if your politician runs strictly as part of a Party then there are no metrics -- there is no way to hold he or she to account beyond "Well, I did vote the party line throughout my term." Zero accountability, and don't you know that that is exactly the way these politicians like it! Just like the campaign blather that Obama spouted about "No lobbyists" and "Public option health care" and "Transparency in government". What is really telling is what Madam House Speaker Pelosi said in regard to that specific inquiry "Well, that was Obama speaking during the campaign (regarding the Public Option)." No accountability -- no how, no way!
Personally, I think it is high time to re-institute Party Platforms, hold these politicians' feet to the fire, and make them accountable for their misdeeds while in office. Why is accepting large campaign contributions from corporations NOT considered bribery, a high crime? This is criminal behavior far beyond the pale of interpretation. RICO statutes should be applied to these multiple (office holder) criminal enterprises, including the seizure of all their ill-gotten gains. That, as well as term limitations AND only publicly financed elections (the costs could be reduced by re-instituting the fairness doctrine).
"Those who make peaceful revolution impossible will make violent revolution inevitable."
-- John F. Kennedy
The corporate media, which dominates United State journalism, wants us to believe they are 'dropping like flies'. They are on the same side, the media and repugnants, never forget that. Never believe the Orwellian mythology of a liberal media, that's one of their best kept secrets to keep the common man buying into corporate control.
Is it the 21st century yet?
when did the corporate media not dominate United States journalism.
Back when journalists worked for free?
"I mean Romney is the most conservative on illegal immigration and I don't think Ronald Reagan could get elected in California today."
Ann "Clipped" Coulter
Back when we had a Fairness Doctrine and before we had corporate monopolies.
http://www.lovearth.net/mediamoguls.jpg
Is it the 21st century yet?
it looks like the Dodd and even Ritter retirements have given a boost to Dem chances of keeping those offices.
As for making predictions - some sort of HCR will pass in the next month or so, making few happy, but basically tabling it as an issue for a while (Reps will not run on repealing it). The biggest factor for Dems will be the economy - as it stands in Sept/Oct of this year. The Teabag nuttiness will have few victories in the primaries, but they will dutifully vote for Reps in the fall. Their enthusiasm will be less than now, but combined with a traditionally older more conservative turn out in the non-Presidential years, and residual grumpiness among progressives, there will be Dem losses in both houses, the degree dictated by strength of the economy, but not enough to give Reps control of either house. Reps will claim even the smallest of victories to be evidence the tide is turning and nobody trusts Obama anymore, and the MSM will promote the idea that the Reps are back ( or at least on their way back). Progressives will complain that if only Obama had channeled Dennis Kucinich, the Reps would have been blown out of the water, and Teabaggers will be confused that Obama still hasn't been forced to resign, impeached or tried for treason yet.
guarantees many disgruntled people. If people vote their wallets, many incumbents are toast.
________________
common sense matters as much as truth
In the House, 14 GOP incumbents have decided not to seek re-election, while 10 Democratic incumbents have made the same announcement. Does this mean Republicans are "dropping like flies"?
In the Senate, six Republican incumbents have decided not to seek re-election, while two Democratic incumbents have made the same announcement. Is this evidence of a mass Democratic exodus?
http://thinkprogress.org/2010/01/06/fox-dem-d...
!
________________
common sense matters as much as truth
I would say "YES" to both your questions, except that it would be less than totally honest.
The much more likely scenario is "Take the money and run. FTS about hanging around Washington on the public teat, because it;s starting to look like the "marks" are getting wise to us, and angry ..."
You are aware, I presume, that whatever campaign funds these politicians have left in their "kitty" when they leave office is fair game -- that's right, it all belongs to them as they cash in their chips and leave. They also leave with a very generous public pension, as well as continued access to the same great medical care they had available while in office. Next stop, either the lecture circuit or a lobbyist job, or both.
Nice gig if you can get it, IMHO ...
"Those who make peaceful revolution impossible will make violent revolution inevitable."
-- John F. Kennedy
and they know what is in store for the Democratic party. They're leaving before the pitchforks come out.
name for his internet talking points?
"I mean Romney is the most conservative on illegal immigration and I don't think Ronald Reagan could get elected in California today."
Ann "Clipped" Coulter
I'm a life long lib recognizing that low income Dems and independents being forced to buy reduced coverage insurance is a big non starter and will likely have serious negative impact on the Democratic party for decades.
Don't let the lobbyists hit you on the way out. Let's get some fresh progressive blood in there.
so dodd is finally gone.
couldn't he retire a few years earlier before he helped destroy the country?
good bye, author of the banking bailout and the stimulus package, king of all state subsidized mortgages.
we won't miss you.
The guy was a tool, time for a replacement for him and about 140 other Dems in office on the hill.
Wow. I can see the Obama haters are out in force today. I'll tell you what, if you don't like the way things are then vote for a Republican and y'all can feel all warm and fuzzy again.
As far as Dorgan, Dodd, etc. retiring. Who gives a shit really? Not that much difference in them and people like Spector, Snow, and Collins. In other words, they are all alike and the liberals won't even notice they are gone.
> if you don't like the way things are then vote for a Republican
> Not that much difference in them
exactly.
... if you don't like the way the country is run you can move to Ethiopia?
.
"I mean Romney is the most conservative on illegal immigration and I don't think Ronald Reagan could get elected in California today."
Ann "Clipped" Coulter
And I am better off for it as well.
But the point is that little diatribe is either just ignorant posturing (ala my example) or willful ignorance given that the very actions of the WH and Congress these last 3 years can be directly compared and show no real change except for the distraction issues that are used to hype you all up.
You know, like health care. Where they are going to play on your progressive streak like cheap fiddles then give your money to the insurance companies because of course the US is incapable of actually figuring out how to do what everyone else on the planet has already done. And you will eat it up (assuming you actually believe there is a difference) and be little party loyalists.
I challenge you to take a real hard look at what the US is doing right now and come up with any real difference to what it was doing 4 years ago. And don't be giving any examples of "Obama is going to" or "Obama said he would" because he hasn't. Stick to the facts of what has been done, not what you think might get done assuming nobody tells Obama it will be too hard to do it.
But you won't do that Ricky because your modus operandi is to bluster and imply that I am a turncoat or somehow lacking character for leaving a sinking ship of fools. I hear the same thing from right wing tools as well, so it just reinforces my opinion that with very few exceptions there really isn't much difference even at the street level between the party supporters either. Both are rabid for their party, and both are willfully ignorant of the situation that they are helping to perpetuate.
Some people are more patient.
What is your conceptual, continuity?
He has done a lot already, and all of it has been Bush on steroids. What's to be patient for, to see how far he is willing to go to out Bush Shrub?
What has been done over the year is EXACTLY what Bush was doing. Obama is just more articulate about it.
You go ahead and wait, hell will freeze over before you see any change from the same old routine you've been living for the last 8 years.
I guess we'll have to wait and see won't we. Washington moves at a snails pace on a good day. To think Obama could somehow wave a magic wand and all would be roses is kinda naive, don't you think?
What is your conceptual, continuity?
He's waved his magic wand and Pakistan is getting attacked.
He waved his magic wand and there were 45,000 more soldiers headed for Afghanistan.
He waved his magic wand and the banks got $1.3 Trillion.
He waved his magic wand and all investigation and prosecution of the previous administrations crimes ceased to exist.
He is waving his magic wand over Yemen right now. Guess how that will turn out?
Hell, he even waved his magic wand and single payer health disappeared.
In fact it appears that he has been waving his magic wand all over the place and getting lots of things done, yet he can't seem to get anything done according to you so we'll just have to wait right?
Talk about naive.
Are our soldiers in Pakistan? No. It's a more covert operation. Something alot of people wanted instead of invading.
It's 30k for Afghanistan. Stop exaggerating. But still, that's not good.
But if it will end this damn thing that Bush ignored, which cause this problem to explode, that do it and get it over with.
The banks. Well, I suppose millions of Americans in breadlines would be acceptable to you. ok. fine. I don't like this. But it did temporarily stop it from occurring. Get ready for another one.
Previous admin. Yeah, I'd like to see that as well. But not at the cost of a civil war here.
Yemen, funding only.
Now, how do you think McCain would have dealt with those?
Like it or not, he's a still a better option to McCain.
What is your conceptual, continuity?
Comments are closed on this entry