We are going to find out this week whether the Democratic Party still exists as a political, policy-making, organization. For whatever reasons, the president now considers himself to be the leader of the Republican Party.
But what about all those other people? Several senators and congresspeople who are, nominally at least, Democrats made statements that they disapprove of this wonderful compromise. Are they going to write a strongly worded letter or do something?
A lot can happen between now and November 2012, so I'm not saying I know what is going to happen on that election day. But for me, the Obama administration is over.
There aren't even any plans for Afghanistan or Iraq to get better. They don't even bother to bullshit us about it anymore. Those occupations will not end until the American empire completely collapses. There are no plans for the federal government to do anything to promote employment. The tax cut deal effectively removes the federal government as a player in the economy. There's no money. The president has surrendered on every social issue. He will not get rid of DADT.
What's left? Obama is not even planning anything between now and 2012. He has no agenda. He is done.
I am not sure I understand your post, but if you are suggesting that Obama and Pelosi could have muscled Democratic Senators into supporting a $2 trillion stimulus, I am not sure I agree. I do believe that Obama should have rolled out a much larger stimulus and let the Blue Dogs carve off pieces for themselves, but I have my doubts about the $2 trillion.
I do not think that threatening primaries would work. The president and the leadership have to be devoted to re-electing incumbents to hold the party together.
I totally agree that the White House is still not listening. I read something somewhere written by an advertising person who analyzed the midterms. The verdict was that Obama and the Democrats screwed themselves by alienating their core customers. Duh! I know almost nothing and I could have told them that! The question is, why didn't they know that? And if they did (I assume that they did), why didn't they care?
A two trillion dollar stimulus that reduced unemployment to 6% would certainly have done a lot for Democratic prospects in the 2010 midterms. But, "Obama and the Democratic Congress" was never a team working together on policy. I do not think that there were ever enough Democratic senators willing to support a two trillion dollar stimulus.
And even if there had been, and even if unemployment had been reduced to 6%, would the "independents" have bothered to vote in a midterm election?
Pennsylvania is in play because the McCain campaign said it was in play. In keeping with corporate press/media policy, anything McCain's campaign says is repeated, whether it is true or not true.
It sells the drama. That's what the corporate press/media want, that's what they get. Even Nate Silver said Pennsylvania was "in play" when he was on TV. Why? I have no idea, but it was definitely what the people who run the show would want a guest to say.
The McCain/Palin campaign should have been over the day after the ethics investigation found that Palin violated the code and abused her authority. If it had been a Democrat, there would have been no other story until she resigned. Instead, not one interviewer asked her about it and no one pressed McCain on it. Why not? Because it would have ended the contest in the third quarter.
The corporate press/media has been keeping the McCain campaign alive for about a month now. I do not think it is because they want him to win. It's because they want to keep the illusion of a contest alive.
It is probably rude and definitely a cliche, but it still amazes me, looking at that map of the country, and comparing it to the map of America in 1861, and wondering how it can be that the residents of the former Confederate States of America are so impervious to reason.
Does the average "Joe the Plumber" in those states really believe that the Republican Party has his interests in mind when it makes policy decisions?
I did not support Senator Clinton in the primaries and her vote for the war was the number one reason why I did not support her. That is not loathing. If she were the nominee, I'd be backing her all the way.
Why are you, two weeks in front of the general election of a lifetime, trying to stir up shit from the primaries? What are your goals in this?
If Obama has a lead of five or better going into the last debate, McCain will have little choice but to try to upset the race with some Big Drama move. It will be more obviously desperate than his prior Big Drama moves, but that won't stop the corporate press/media from behaving as if it were sober and serious.
If there is so much as a one point move up by McCain, the narrative going into the debate will be "McCain closing gap as doubts about Ayers rise."
You can count on the corporate press/media to do anything and everything to make this a closer race.
The Rove-Schmidt campaigns were never any good. They won because of factors that they did not earn or cause, but that worked to their benefit.
Without the corporate press/media War on Gore, the 2000 election would not have been close enough to steal.
Without the 9/11 attacks, George W. Bush would never have been very popular. His policies would have been exposed to a public that doesn't like them. No 9/11, no invasion of Iraq, no Young Churchill Great War Leader. He would not have been re-elected, the 2004 War on Gays notwithstanding.
This year, left without these outside factors, their campaigns are exposed for what they are: divisive and not good enough to get a majority.