That ALWAYS cracks me up.. I visualize you in front of your pooter, with your eyes rolled up to the heavens thinking, "Is this guy serious!!??" :D

But you've been arguing for MONTHS now that Dems HAVE been "ramming things through" and telling the GOP "like it or lump it."

My beef with THOSE particular issues is not that the Dems have been telling the GOP to "like it or lump it"...

My beef with those issues is that the Dems have been telling the American People to "like it or lump it"..

A subtle yet distinct (and oh so important) difference.

A difference that is really pissing off the majority of Americans.

Michale.....

Chris1962 [2] -

I think you're right about current GOP officeholders moving right. No matter what happens in the midterms, I'm starting to think we'll have two years of almost-solid gridlock in Congress as a result. We'll see...

dsws [3] -

Good point about the filibuster. It went from requiring 67 votes in the 70s to only 60. And it's nowhere to be found in the Constitution.

Michale and Liz -

I think you're both being too optimistic, myself (albeit in different directions...)

:-)

[oh, and M, you're welcome... don't forget to close those html tags, folks!]

Michale [12] -

Oh, PuLEEZE.

Quite the contrary. The GOP's attitude was, "THIS is how we're going to do things. Ya'all don't like it, you can lump it."

The Democrats would do well to follow that example.

But you've been arguing for MONTHS now that Dems HAVE been "ramming things through" and telling the GOP "like it or lump it."

I mean, I'd agree more with your line I just quoted above than your previous stance. Except Nancy Pelosi, she's done a good job of getting things done in the House, no matter what the GOP thought of her.

But you just can't have it both ways. Either Dems have the same "like it or lump" style of governing as the GOP, or not. Pick one.

David -

Basically, conservatives can say and do whatever they want because they don't have to rely on angering the monied interests. Their agenda is 100% U.S. Chamber of Commerce backed and approved. Democrats are trying to walk a finer line, maintaining their populism and their corporate support at the same time.

You said a mouthful, there. Dead on.

-CW

People voted for a Rock Star. It's like Schwarzeneggar being elected Governor or Eastwood being elected Mayor.

However, I do concede that the American wanted change..

But people didn't want a change in America. People wanted a change in how politicians act and govern.

And I readily agree with you that the Obama administration has failed to deliver.

It's a matter of setting expectations and then working to exceed them. The trouble is that expectations were set really high and what was delivered was quite watered down.

I can agree with this.

p.s. BTW- I got a free Netflix trial and have put Unthinkable in my queue. Just watched last night a movie called My Name is Khan . It's about a Muslim "rain man" type character trying to live in the U.S. and the affect 9/11 had. It's a good flick because it injects enough humor and story that you're not being hit over the head with morals. You might like.

Have to say Netflix is pretty impressive. How do they manage to get movies through the mail so fast?

I really want to hear your thoughts on UNTHINKABLE when you watch it.. Maybe CW can do a review of the movie in the context of current events. This will allow us to discuss it and remain on topic.. :D

Netflix is a pretty nifty service. If I didn't have other sources for my movies, I would be right there with it.. They even have software where you can stream videos directly to your PS3 or your WII... I might try NetFlix again on my PS3, just for the HiDef content. :D

Michale.....

Fair enough. You and me both.

You can't FORCE that kind of change on a society. All you can do is put forth your agenda and hope the American public sees things your way.

People voted for change. Actually, I think the issue is more that they haven't delivered enough on the promise of change.

It's a matter of setting expectations and then working to exceed them. The trouble is that expectations were set really high and what was delivered was quite watered down.

And ... as we've talked about, they haven't done a very good job explaining what they've done and why. I think you said it well when you said perception matters as much as reality.

Cheers man
-David

p.s. BTW- I got a free Netflix trial and have put Unthinkable in my queue. Just watched last night a movie called My Name is Khan . It's about a Muslim "rain man" type character trying to live in the U.S. and the affect 9/11 had. It's a good flick because it injects enough humor and story that you're not being hit over the head with morals. You might like.

Have to say Netflix is pretty impressive. How do they manage to get movies through the mail so fast?

Yes, I would RESPECT them more. Doesn't mean I would agree with them more... :D

Honestly, Michale, I think what you're really saying is you just don't like Democrats.

I don't like or dislike "Democrats". I simply don't respect anyone who has an ulterior agenda and doesn't have the testicular fortitude to state their position, stay with their position and fight for their position and, above all else, be honest about it.

If by this you mean that I like Democrats who stand up for their beliefs, then yes. Guilty.

So, then ask yourself "WHY"... Why do Democrats, as a general rule, have a problem with standing up for their beliefs??

Is it the person?

Or the beliefs??

Or trying to tell conservatives that supply side economics failed? :) No matter how many facts illustrate the failure, they still believe in it :)

That's because the "facts" are cheery picked. There are plenty of "facts" that show supply side economics IS successful in and of itself.

If one considers ALL the facts, as opposed to just the facts that support one side or the other, it's clear that supply side economics is logical.

And I get your point, Michale. You think the progressive agenda is wrong.

Personally, for the most part, yes it is wrong. But that is not my point.

My point is, is that Progressives REFUSE to consider that their agenda is wrong.

That puts them into the ideologue category.

"... which puts him in the crazy, but not stupid, category."
-Mac, SPEED

(That's just a movie quote, not an indication of how I feel about Progressives.. :D)

So in your view, Democrats go to Washington and suddenly have a change of heart and realize that they have to do what's right for the country and this is to become more conservative? And that's why the progressive agenda doesn't get passed?

Considering that is exactly what has happened (at least, according to Progressives) time and time again, I think it's logical that the possibility must be at least considered.

Wouldn't you agree??

It's like a person beating his head against a brick wall and then blaming the ensuing headache on allergies. :D

Sometimes, we have to look inward to find the problem, not outward...

I just don't buy it. Mostly because I don't see any evidence to support it.

You mean, other than the fact that the Progressive agenda fails over and over again.. At least, according to Progressives... :D

Maybe it's not that you don't see the evidence. Maybe it's that you don't WANT to see the evidence. :D

I think it's far more likely that politicians (in both parties) are "coin operated".

Nice phrase. I really like that!! :D "Coin Operated Politician".... :D

You are correct. It COULD be that it's because the politicians are "coin operated" :D... As a matter of fact, I will even go so far as to say that you are likely correct. The chances are good that it IS that.

BUT....

But, it also could be that there is a problem with the Progressive agenda. If one is logical about things, one MUST at least consider the possibility.

Because, if it IS the Progressive agenda that is the problem, then Progressives are not doing anyone any favors by pushing a flawed agenda..

Look at it another way..

If Progressives assume that it's the politicians that are at fault, they continue to push the agenda and push the agenda to the detriment of their mental health and their country.

If Progressives consider that it's their agenda that is the problem and take steps to moderate or use "baby steps" to further their agenda, there is a much greater chance that it will succeed.. It will just take a bit longer but then everyone will be happy and squalid in the Progressive Utopian Agenda.. :D

Frankly, I don't think it would happen. This country is a Center-Right country and, barring mind-control on a massive scale, nothing is going to change that.

But the Progressive agenda has a BETTER chance if Progressives wouldn't be so militant about it. You can't FORCE that kind of change on a society. All you can do is put forth your agenda and hope the American public sees things your way..

I doubt it will ever happen, but hay... I have been wrong before... :D

But this doesn't go anywhere and starts to sound like 2nd grade. Republicans started it ... No, Democrats started it ... Oh yeah. Well, I know you are but what am I! :)

:D True.. C'est la vie... :D

Michale.....

You say you'd respect Democrats more if they'd fight for their agenda.

Then you say you want them to adopt what a so-called majority wants.

Honestly, Michale, I think what you're really saying is you just don't like Democrats.

You seem to only like the Democrats who act like Republicans.

If by this you mean that I like Democrats who stand up for their beliefs, then yes. Guilty.

Trying to tell a Progressive that their agenda might be the problem is like trying to tell a christian that there is no god.

Or trying to tell conservatives that supply side economics failed? :) No matter how many facts illustrate the failure, they still believe in it :)

And I get your point, Michale. You think the progressive agenda is wrong. So in your view, Democrats go to Washington and suddenly have a change of heart and realize that they have to do what's right for the country and this is to become more conservative? And that's why the progressive agenda doesn't get passed?

I just don't buy it. Mostly because I don't see any evidence to support it. I think it's far more likely that politicians (in both parties) are "coin operated".

We'll have to agree to disagree though on who has a better agenda for the country.

For example.....???????

Can we admit both sides cast blame on the other and move on? It's politics, remember?

I could go back and find examples where Republicans were casting blame during Bush's term. I know they never let up blaming the "liberal media", for example, or the ACLU during his term. Unions too. Other typical Republican bogeymen.

But this doesn't go anywhere and starts to sound like 2nd grade. Republicans started it ... No, Democrats started it ... Oh yeah. Well, I know you are but what am I! :)

Cheers
-David

For example.....???????

You like conservatives because they seem to stick to their agenda more.

Yes. I may not agree with everything that the GOP stands for. But I can respect their commitment to their agenda.

Just like I don't agree with everything the DP stands for. But I would respect them and their position a lot more if Democrats were willing to defend it and weren't so wishy-washy about everything..

I read a bit of your post on Susie's site. You've correctly identified that Democrats compromise too much but I think what's going on is a bit different.

The reason this happens is because there are a lot of big money interests who are working very hard to block change and get their agenda passed. And I believe many Democrats are afraid to fight against them because they are big donors. The Dems rely as much on big money as Republicans do.

Well, if that is what you got out of my post, you missed the point. :D

My point is that maybe it's not that the Democrat politicians are greedy and corrupted by the system that is our government.

Maybe it's the agenda that is the problem, not the people who attempt to serve it..

I think one step in the right direction is to financially support the progressives who are doing the right thing irregardless of whether it angers special interests.

Here again... Progressives are "doing the right thing"...

But the "right thing" according to whom?? Progressives..

In that regard, Progressives are just like Obama. So all fired sure that their agenda IS the "right thing" that anyone who doesn't agree must simply be crazy..

It is inconceivable to Progressives that they might be wrong. That the majority of the country does not support their agenda...

Progressives, like Obama, are going to "save" this country, whether everyday Americans want them to or not...

Trying to tell a Progressive that their agenda might be the problem is like trying to tell a christian that there is no god..

They just smile sweetly and say, "uh huh... uh huh.... Don't worry. We know better.."

That's why I think it's important to support the Dems who truly fight: Russ Feingold, Alan Grayson, Nancy Pelosi, etc, etc.

Here again... You seem to only like the Democrats who act like Republicans... :D

Michale.....

Seriously, Michale? When hasn't there been a problem that couldn't be blamed on liberals? Or illegal immigrants? Or any number of other scapegoats.

The GOP's attitude was, "THIS is how we're going to do things. Ya'all don't like it, you can lump it."

Ok, ok. 'Ya got me riled for a second. Now, I see where you're going with this.

You like conservatives because they seem to stick to their agenda more. Exactly what I and many others here argue the Dems should do.

I read a bit of your post on Susie's site. You've correctly identified that Democrats compromise too much but I think what's going on is a bit different.

The reason this happens is because there are a lot of big money interests who are working very hard to block change and get their agenda passed. And I believe many Democrats are afraid to fight against them because they are big donors. The Dems rely as much on big money as Republicans do.

If Rush Limbaugh ever said one thing I agree with it's: "Follow the money."

Basically, conservatives can say and do whatever they want because they don't have to rely on angering the monied interests. Their agenda is 100% U.S. Chamber of Commerce backed and approved. Democrats are trying to walk a finer line, maintaining their populism and their corporate support at the same time.

This is truly the issue. Given the amount of money politicians need to get elected, how do you elect politicians who will fight for people and not just big money donors?

I think one step in the right direction is to financially support the progressives who are doing the right thing irregardless of whether it angers special interests.

That's why I think it's important to support the Dems who truly fight: Russ Feingold, Alan Grayson, Nancy Pelosi, etc, etc.

Support your local MIDOTW winner! :)
Cheers
David

Maybe the something good that comes out of the election is that Democrats stop playing Republican. Maybe they realize they shouldn't ignore their base.

Or maybe their base should realize that their (the Base's) agenda is not in the best interests of the country.

I touch more upon that here:

http://susiemadrak.com/?p=7487&cpage=1#comment-7069

This may be the silver lining that comes out of this election. And also, conservatives, if they win back some power, will suddenly have to take some responsibility. So their negotiating position changes as well.

As I said before, the GOP has never had a problem with taking responsibility when they were the majority Party in power.

Quite the contrary. The GOP's attitude was, "THIS is how we're going to do things. Ya'all don't like it, you can lump it."

The Democrats would do well to follow that example..

However, if they did, they wouldn't be Democrats anymore. :D

I keep telling ya and telling ya and telling ya... :D

In times of war, the Democratic Party way of doing things is not conducive to good leadership...

Michale.....

Maybe the something good that comes out of the election is that Democrats stop playing Republican. Maybe they realize they shouldn't ignore their base.

My strategy is to support not the Dem party, but to support the candidates who are doing the right thing within the party (and also my local Congressman and a certain someone running against Mr. Tan himself).

http://www.coussouleforcongress.com/

The message I have for Democrats is, quit trying to run to the center because you're afraid of getting beat up by the right in the media. Here's a tip for you: No matter what you do, the right's gonna scream.

Know I've said this ad nauseum, but the Dems need to realize that this makes their position stronger, rather than weaker. Why? Because you know what your opponent is going to do. So why not give them something to really scream about?

I don't think Obama understood the depth of big money opposition. What he needs to do, however, is pick a point, and call the conservative bluff. And let 'em scream.

This may be the silver lining that comes out of this election. And also, conservatives, if they win back some power, will suddenly have to take some responsibility. So their negotiating position changes as well.

One way or another it'll be interesting!
-David

Michale.....

Don't get discouraged, Liz. That's what conservatives want. Low voter turnout and a discouraged electorate is part of their strategy.

It appears that low voter turnout and a discouraged electorate is also want the Obama administration wants.

Let's face the facts..

Obama et al have done MUCH more and been much more effective at discouraging the electorate than ANYTHING the GOP could have cooked up.

Michale.....

They say "we're going to win, we're doing to win" over and over in the media in the hopes people don't turn out.

Early voting has started here in Ohio. And it's reported that turnout has been as high as it was in 2008. I still think there will be Republican gains, but it may not be an avalanche as predicted.

Cheers
David

:D I hear you...

But it's always darkest before the dawn...

I am sure that, whatever happens, there will be silver linings for everyone to point to...

Michale.....

Oh, that wasn't idealism, I can assure you. That's a coping mechanism. :(

I had meant to qualify this.

The October Surprise could also be a successful attack on Iran by the US (surreptitiously aided by Israeli forces) at the direction of the Commander In Chief. By 'successful', I mean an attack that totally obliterates Iran's nuclear program with zero casualties on the American side.

If this were to occur, all bets are off on my predictions.

That's probably the one thing that Obama could do that would actually swing things the Democrats' way.

On the other hand, it would probably succeed in pissing off the Democratic Party base to no end.

But, of late, it has become clear that Obama doesn't really give a rat's arse if he pisses off his base or not..

Michale.....

While I admire your idealism, I think it falls short of reality.

One only has to look at recent statements by President "Buck up" Obama, VP "Quit Whining" Biden, Senator "Voters Are Angry Because They Are Ignorant" Kerry etc etc to see that Democrats are going to stay home in large blocks..

It's an interesting new strategy..

Obama et al tried attacking Republicans.

Didn't work.

Obama et al tried attacking Fox News.

Didn't work.

Now Obama et al are now attacking their own Democrat voters...

Time will tell if this will work, but I don't hold out much hope of that.

Unfortunately (for Democrats), to NOT vote for a Democrat is a vote for a Republican.

There is also still the matter of the Rangel/Waxman ethics trials that will likely come before 2 Nov. And we still haven't had our October Surprise in the form of a major terrorist attack on US proper.

Taking all of this into account, my prediction is that Dems will lose the House big... GOP will eek out a slim majority in the Senate.

How kewl would it be if the GOP got a majority in the Senate that would allow them to override a Presidential Veto.

THAT would set the Democrats quaking in their booties, eh? :D

Michale.....

That won't stop them from using the "nuclear option" the moment they think it's to their advantage.

"this is exactly how the system was designed to work (or not to work, as the case may be)"

The filibuster as it now exists was not designed by the Founding Fathers. It was created in the 1970s, apparently more or less by mistake, as part of the effort to mitigate the previous incarnation, which itself did not date to the founding.

"The Democrats will easily retain control of the House and will pick up a seat or two in the Senate."

Wow. I've been saying for some time that the Republicans would fall well short of expectations, but I've never gotten that optimistic. And lately I've been getting less optimistic, as the movement I expected hasn't shown up. I still expect a few surprises where relatively moderate Republicans lose because the high-turnout lunatic fringe won't vote for them, but I don't think there's time for the tectonic changes you're predicting. Short of catching bin Laden, I don't see that kind of shift happening overnight.

"the blogosphere - especially the Huffington Post - is not at all representative of how American voters think"

True. But the pundits' predictions are coming from polls and campaign spending, not from the mood on HuffPo.

So that "threat" of being taken out themselves, in 2012, is going to be present with every vote cast by every congressional Republican from here on in.

The Democrats will easily retain control of the House and will pick up a seat or two in the Senate.

Well, that's more of a prediction. It is based on the fact that I have concluded that the blogosphere - especially the Huffington Post - is not at all representative of how American voters think.

Glad you're coming out of the haze, Chris! It's just as well you got that out of the way before the final sprint to November. Stay well!