It's funny to see all the media put Pakistan's complicity in focus just today. Where was this serious discussion for the last 10 years? I have been ridiculing the war on terror for years and have used the way Pakistan has duped the Bush administration in the past as one of my examples as to why this war on terror as being a joke. It took Bush's people until the second term to realize Pakistan was just using the US for the money and arms and would never really help the US in any meaningful way to turn in Osama and the other terrorists.
Anyone can check my mydd history. I have been saying for years that both our parties took too long to realize what a sucker Pakistan has been playing the US for. They have been throwing bones here and there to justify the US administration's idiocy in trusting the Pakistanis with arms and foreign aid.
The MSM has been bringing up the Pakistan complicity angle way too late.
Bush should have acted like Pakistan's friend, but behind the scenes should have aggressively gone forward with attacking different parts of Pakistan to find Osama.
Ha ha, before I came here, the first site I actually went to was freerepublic for my daily dose of comic relief. Some of them actually claim that Obama is a bigger danger to the US than Osama.
Only TWO commentators disagree with the rest of the kooks. Contrast this to FOX NEWS that likes to pick on the one or two commentators on a typical DKOS post that are the exception and not the rule over there and use their comments to tar the LEFT.
Oh, let me just say that I have more common sense than many esteemed senators from BOTH parties when I said that Democrats need to highlight Bush's stupidity with getting taken by Pakistan on the war of terror. It was clear for decades that Pakistan was a bigger supporter of terrorism than Iraq, as bad as Saddam was.
When that lil town in CA was in the news for overpaying their mayor and a couple of other officials , Jerry Brown did not hesitate to bash that waste of taxpayer spending. I think the big blunder of the democratic party has been that their leaders hve not been front and center emphasizing accountability when in reality both parties are guilty of letting waste slide by. But the Republicans somehow monopolize the "hold government accountable" message.
Asking to cut wasteful spending is not AGAINST liberal values. Other than a few perfunctory hits at wasteful military spending, liberals in general have spent more time complaining about tax cuts instead of complaining about government waste. It's time progressives use that as their main message instead of whining about the need for more taxes all day long. Progressive leaders should have pressed for a bill framing it as a middle class cut, instead of as a rich class tax hike in a unified voice. It's all about how frame the message.
You need to do both to cut the deficit - cut spending and raising taxes. If you cut spending first, you buy some trust from the public. If you talk about raising taxes first, you lose the benefit of that doubt.
Before anyone tries to do any draft whoever movement, there needs to be a messaging machine setup that being mainstream liberal doesn't necessarily mean being an impractical hippie.
There should be easy to understand points made repeatedly about how some liberal causes can actually save money in the long run. I am an example of a libertarian who is pro business who has seen how quite a few liberal causes make sense financially for the country. You invest properly in inner cities, you reduce crime. But to do that accountability needs to be the #1 priority for liberals because liberals believe in bigger government than tea partiers. So if they need to sell the concept of a bigger government, they need to show that they are capable of hving government be accountable for its mistakes.
I put out a diary a few weeks ago about the Feingold campaign mess. Was he out of touch with his constituents that this wave took him by surprise? Living in GA, I am very familiar with the tea party movement and this anger is not suddden. It has been building since last year, even the non racist component of it. It started off with a lot of kooks and racists, but their message has been getting a lot of traction among the ordinary folk who do not follow politics like we do. Didn't Feingold have staff members who get feedback and warn him that he needs to be more public about his GENUINE disagreements with the white house(not just the throwing Obama and Pelosi under the bus ads we have seen from the Blue Dog types). He could have come across as an honest dissenter of policies without being an obstructionist or someoone just thorwing the President under the bus.
The big mistake is the Democratic party(including the liberal wing) didn't put up more emphasis in thier public speeches about curbing expenditures(like Hailliburton handouts or big corp subsidies). Just like Republicans made big shows abou Acorn, Democrats should have repeatedly highlighted agents of government waste too. Instead all they do is harp about taxes not being high enough for the rich. Sure, let that beyour stance, but don't make yourself the face of such a stance. It hasn't proven to work positive results in American politics. When dealing with deficit talk, Democrats reflexively talk about raising taxes(at least they added a qualifier "for the rich" in this election cycle). A person who doesnt follow politics closely hears Democrats talking about raising taxes and Republicans wanting to reduce spending. No wonder myths that Obama must have raised taxes for small business stuck and people like Feingold who fell in the trap of wasting too much time fighting a losing battle supporting more taxes for the rich get lumped in with a caricatured "likes to rais eyour taxes' meme.
changeagain2012, before I converse with you more seriously, I would like you to stick with one alias. It makes it easier to treat a fellow MYDDer with different views with more seriousness.
I will admit that Obama's hiring of Gibbs wsa troubling even back in 2008. I tolerated his hiring during the campaign as a means to an end. But when he retained these kind of people for the administration, it did not please me. Trust me, I was one of the first to turn against Obama early on with many negative diaries despite running as an Obama delegate(just for kicks) during the primaries.
I am not ideologically inclined to either extreme and not blindly loyal to any candidate. But I do find myself defending liberals a lot because I think they get blamed way too easily for things that go wrong. I am actually not in favor of universal health care though I do no mind government health care for those that can't afford it(expand medicaid to include essential and emergency health care, but not "cadillac" health care for more income groups and the unemployed. ). Yes, it's sort of a public option, but phrased differently.
I know of some FL non -ideological voters who have turned against the Democrats. The Florida confusion with Dean a few years ago was hardly on their minds anymore.
And I am sick of people like donkeykong blaming the democrats. Contrary to your opinion, hard left people werent the only ones that stayed home. People in the middle that were inspird by OBama but were not otherwise very political either sgtayed home or voted for the Republicans. So you want to get angry, get angry at them. It's a lazy talking point to say the purists are responsible for this loss. Who caused more hurdles for Obama's legislation that ended up with half assed compromises - purists or the blue dog types?
Did you forget Bil Clintn went on Larry kIng and said that it did not matter who won - Lieberman or Lamont during the CT senate election? Obmaa is not the first Democrat to "support" a third party guy.
Can somoene explain why Russ lost ? I understand a younger senator without enough of a track record losing to an anti white house wave. Was it just one issue - Healthcare - which he supported that undid all the work he did for fiscal responsibility (The Iraq war, TARP bailouts)? Looking at the comments in Wisconsin papers, I saw very little specific that tea partiers and nominal democrats had against him other than that he was liberal and he voted for the healthcare bill. And he definitely did not get traction for trying to save the country money on the idiotic Iraq war. I find it funny that if you say anything is defense related, even if it is wasteful expenditure, these tea party idiots have no objections to the waste. Shouldn't Russ have gotten a pass from those democrats on the healthcare issue? Surely, they should have known him as someone with integrity. As far as far left, how is he far left? He is mainstream liberal in many areas. Should we call republicans socialist because they supported medicare vote during Bush's presidency?
Russ didn't hold out on any votes. So what is this bullshit about purists being too demanding of Obama? Name a few Feingold stances that was too demanding of ideology that alienated voters?
Last time I checked, it was the blue dogs who caused Obama more problems than the liberals like Russ Feingold. Who wsa more demanding? Liberals complained, but when all was said and done, they did not bolt from the party. Some stayed home, but it was the Reagan Democrats that bolted. So who was more demanding?
If liberals knew obama would botch financial and health care reform, maybe they would have hoped for health care reform to be tabled in favor of using that leverage to enact many other reforms. obama could have enacted so many other progressive reforms in finance , EPA, FDA, stimulus if he didn't touch health care. Just expand medicaid to include preventive care and emergency care for a bigger segment of population and call it a day until the next term.
So you are wondering why such a tactic of forgoing one so called liberal piece of the agena health care reform in favor of many other progressive reforms would help Obam. I will tell you why. If you enact a liberal policy like improving the environment, the non- political non-liberal would not like it, but they wont obsess over it because it doesn't have a direct impact on their life. It is like the auto bailout. Quite frankly, I was grumbing aobut it too. But at the same time, it did not fdirectly affect my car choices. So that lack of direct government intrusion in my life regarding cars bought enough time for me to see how well that bailout turned out. Same with clean water and air. You can show with visceral examples how their life can be improved. There are mining disasters Obama could have used in timely fashion to explain the importance of regulations. People tend to be more receptive right after a disaster to see how they can avoid another one. People who are not rabid right winger would buy into it or at least be neutral about it.
But when you start passing convoluted health care bills, you are giving them the perception that helping others will affect their quality of life directly. Then they get mad, and some of them get carried away by irrational talking points about seemingly related issues such as stimulus. If the health care bill wasnt a mess, it would have been hard for right wingers to tar the stimulus as a waste. Stimulus was a good talking point before the health care mess. But now it has become a sneer worthy talking point with non-progressives. So one policy has tarred another policy.
Janet Neopalatino didnt deliver on smarter Homeland Security. More of the same old "appearances" crap. TSA is still an asinine entity that tried to come up with insane regulations after the African guy tried to annhilate his own genitals.
The military budget is still the same despite some efforts by Gates and Co. to pare down some unnecessary weapons.
Is there any framework to get school reform in the next 2 years? Too little. I guarantee African American majority schools in poor neighborhoods will still be pathetic under an Obama presidency.
Obama said change and got us Summers and Geithner. PEOPLE DID NOT SIGN UP FOR THAT KIND OF CHANGE.
Financial reform was too little too late. Even if I am against TARP, I recognize it as an opportunity to have gotten it tied with finanical reform. But Obama missed that boat and lost all leverage when he tried to reform the system later on. Obama is just too slow to capitalize on a disaster to use leverage.
Obama didn't reform the MMS.
The EPA is better but has it done enough for clean water and air? What has the senate done with 60 Dem votes? Forget global warming, get better environmental conditions that even rural common folk can relate to. Fresh air fresh water. Keep it simple.
I used to put diaries on MYDD defending the right of a person to vote third party and had diaris in defense of the Nader voters in 2000 despite the fact that I never voted for Nader. It was a matter of principle for me that a major party should not take voters for granted and that a third party vote was no worse than a no- vote by a voter staying home. I got attacked by many of the readers back then. It is funny that they did not realize I was probably defending your moral right to vote third party back then. I had no idea.