http://intoxination.net/jamie/big-news?utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=feed&utm_campaign=Feed%3A+intoxination%2FenSI+%28IntoxiNation%29

"You can't win! I've got God on my side!!"
-Max Von Sydow, NEEDFUL THINGS

:D

Michale.....

More than 600 regular donors from the New York area -- whose four- and five-figure checks added up to $10 million for the DSCC and DCCC in 2006 and 2008 -- have so far abandoned their effort to retain the Democratic majorities.

My guess is that it's more that the major donors don't want to back the losing team, rather than it being a collective punishment for bad legislation..

Of course, the DSCC tried to spin it the other way, but what's the more likely explanation?? :D

Reality is more likely that WS sees the writing on the walls and are going to put their money over to the GOP instead of the DP..

Time will tell.. :D

But here's the thing..

*IF* Obama et al was REALLY behind Main St, then they would give us jobs??

Main St cried for Jobs...

Obama gave us TARP

Main St yelled for Jobs...

Obama gave us Crap Care

Main St SCREAMED for Jobs...

Obama gives us financial "reform"

What part of....

J..... O...... B..... S.......

.... does the Obama Administration NOT understand??

And please, please do not give me that song and dance about how many magical mystical jobs the bailouts saved or created..

We are BOTH too intelligent to buy into THAT load of felgercarb... :D

Let's face it...

Obama and the Democrats are as much behind Main St as the Republicans are and probably a lot less...

Michale.....

Then how do you explain this?

If the Dems really are fighting for Wall St, why is WS mad at them and not donating as much?

:-)

-CW

You seem to think that Dems are going against Wall St and standing up for Main St.

You are in error.

Everything that Dems have done to date has grossly benefited Wall St.

Even the current Wall St (so called) regulation is a big boon for Wall St and the banks..

Why else would all their stocks shoot up?

Now I am not saying that the GOP is the champions of Main St..

But the facts clearly show that they are considered more so than the Democrats are..

Michale.....

I'm also not intimately familiar with Senate procedure, but I'm guessing that the death of Senator Byrd probably happened at a really bad time.

It sounds like they had the votes lined up and then, with Byrd's passing, suddenly someone like Brown realized he had more leverage.

I still believe if Dems did this right, though, much of this could be avoided or at least prepared for.

That is, they need to get their philosophy out in front of the legislation. Get out what they stand for first. With the story and overarching narrative in place and with buy-in for a middle-class narrative, it'd make it much easier to hammer someone like Brown.

And at some point, be prepared to call a bluff. This would have been a good time to do it. Imagine Scott Brown actually following through on a filibuster for his "special treatment". I don't see it.

-David

p.s. I also see their Wall St vs. Main St message as causing them some unique struggles. It's a powerful message, but in particular, I think it can be viewed as anti-business and this is how Republicans will portray them. This is more a messaging issue than an actual philosophy issue.

I personally think its a problem of "message discipline" on the Democrats' part. Whenever a Democrat does something Republicans don't like, you can be sure they'll be decrying it to the high heavens for the next week solid. They keep on message, all of them are on the same page, and they get their point across no matter what question a journalist asks them. Democrats, for some reason, seem fundamentally incapable of doing the same thing.

The Wall Street reform bill is just the latest example, and the most frustrating currently. Here is an issue tailor-made for this year's campaign: "Republicans are standing up for Wall Street, Democrats are standing up for Main Street!" -- this should be the centerpiece of the Democrats' entire campaign effort, and yet (as you point out) so far, they're fumbling it once again.

Sigh.

-CW

http://boldprogressives.org/home

Why? Because all I think the Democrats would have to do to not allow this to happen is to come out and say almost exactly like what you said.

Something like this:

"Scott Brown is asking for you, the taxpayer, to pick up the bill for future bailouts. This is wrong. The big banks who caused this crisis should be paying."

This seems like all it would take to get a junior Senator from Massachusetts to back down. Or am I missing something here?

Yet they don't. A junior Senator. Instead they're negotiating with him. Unless again, I'm missing something here.

Sadly, we see this again and again until you either have to conclude that Democrats are a) incompetent or, b) they actually want this as well and just don't want to go on the record saying it.

I would actually like to believe they are incompetent because that could be addressed, but this just doesn't ring true. The script repeats too often.

I believe that what has happened is that the two parties are both beholden to large corporate interests such as the financial sector and work together in this scripted fashion to pass legislation that won't really change things too much.

This is what I find frustrating. Partly because I don't see the Republican party or Tea Party as a viable alternative.

This is why I contribute only to individual candidates and groups who are fighting to do the right thing, and not the Democratic party.

What's needed is much more reform within the Democratic party and a way to convince them that they don't need corporate backing in order to win.

Rant over.
David