home

The Pre-Mortem: Daley Says Dems Lost 2010 Election Because They Were Too Liberal

By Big Tent Democrat, Section Other Politics
Posted on Sun Dec 27, 2009 at 10:28:42 AM EST
Tags: (all tags)
Share This: Digg! StumbleUpon del.icio.us reddit reddit

As predictable as the sun rising, the Chicago/Third Way/DLC type that support the Obama Third Way are laying blame for the coming Dem loss in 2010. As one would expect, Chiacgo pol and DLC stalwart William Daley blames the DFHs:

The announcement by Alabama Rep. Parker Griffith that he is switching to the Republican Party is just the latest warning sign that the Democratic Party -- my lifelong political home -- has a critical decision to make: Either we plot a more moderate, centrist course or risk electoral disaster not just in the upcoming midterms but in many elections to come.

The battle of the 2000s in the Democratic Party was between those seeking Fighting Dems and folks like Daley and Rahme Emanuel who were for accomodating conservatives and Republicans. Because George Bush was the worst President in history, the decision on that battle was inconclusive. Unfortunately, the Democratic Party was handed back without a fight to the DLC wing by the fantasy that Barack Obama was not a Third Way politician.

Perhaps the wake up call has arrived and progressives will realize that pols are not their best friends. They are pols, and they do what they do. Fight for the policy, not the pols. See also Cenk Ugyur.

Speaking for me only

< Would FDR Have Been As Timid? | Sunday Afternoon Open Thread >

  • The Online Magazine with Liberal coverage of crime-related political and injustice news

  • Contribute To TalkLeft


    • Display: Sort:
    The Pre-Mortem: Daley Says Dems Lost 2010 Election Because They Were Too Liberal | 98 comments (98 topical)

    Readers Must Login or Create an Account to Comment

    Definitely think that the Dems will use this (5.00 / 2) (#1)
    by MO Blue on Sun Dec 27, 2009 at 10:41:41 AM EST
    as an excuse to track further right. Just what the doctor ordered. A choice between two corporate owned, Republican parties.

    Yup. (none / 0) (#36)
    by ChiTownDenny on Sun Dec 27, 2009 at 01:12:18 PM EST
    The campaign slogan will be "Too Liberal"  or " Do you want the Republicans to be back in charge?".
    For the most part, either way, so what!

    Parent
    Its what happened in 94 (none / 0) (#43)
    by Socraticsilence on Sun Dec 27, 2009 at 04:09:27 PM EST
    I've only lived through Clinton and Obama did Dem presidents always tack right and triangulate?

    Parent
    Not necessarily. (5.00 / 1) (#50)
    by shoephone on Sun Dec 27, 2009 at 04:24:34 PM EST
    LBJ didn't exactly triangulate. More like "strangulate"... the wimps in his own party!

    Parent
    He had enormous public (5.00 / 1) (#62)
    by BackFromOhio on Sun Dec 27, 2009 at 07:28:56 PM EST
    sentiment behind him after JFK's death to pass the civil rights legislation JFK could not.

    Parent
    LBJ also had a reputation (5.00 / 2) (#65)
    by shoephone on Sun Dec 27, 2009 at 08:47:53 PM EST
    as being a very successful Senate majority leader, by employing similar tactics. Obama, on the other hand, had no such reputation, no such skills, no leadership position, and did the bidding of corporations like Exelon, during his very brief Senate career. Kennedy or no Kennedy, there are no comparisons to be made between LBJ and Obama.

    Parent
    LBJ couldn't have been elected today (none / 0) (#87)
    by Socraticsilence on Mon Dec 28, 2009 at 02:51:15 PM EST
    heck he couldn't have been elected in 1960- long term Senators seem to go down in Flames- Goldwater, Humpherey, McGovern, Ford, Mondale, Dole, Kerry, McCain-- almost every losing Presidential canidate of the last 4+ decades has been a longterm Senator (heck, you could add in Gore if you wanted)- look what happened in the 2008 Democratic Primaries for godsakes- the longtime Senators were no-shows compared to a 1-termer, a 1.5 termer and a 2/3rd termer- long Senate service lets you get things done- but doing so requires deals that aren't politically palatable.

    Parent
    That argument doesn't hold (none / 0) (#92)
    by Cream City on Mon Dec 28, 2009 at 03:18:02 PM EST
    considering who won in 1960.  Not a newbie to the Senate.

    Parent
    Looking back (none / 0) (#53)
    by Socraticsilence on Sun Dec 27, 2009 at 04:48:29 PM EST
    if the whole "Domino Theory" wasn't a boondoggle and Vietnam actually was like WW2-- is LBJ remembered as the second greatest president of the 20th century (behind FDR)?

    Parent
    Clinton had no choice, imo. Obama did. n/t. (5.00 / 1) (#74)
    by sallywally on Mon Dec 28, 2009 at 10:32:57 AM EST


    Parent
    It just gives me a headache (5.00 / 1) (#2)
    by Militarytracy on Sun Dec 27, 2009 at 10:48:05 AM EST
    to read both of your postings here.  I spent too much time in the Booman writeup that is complete BS this morning I suppose.  Anyhow....Go Left Young Man, fight left, pull left.  That's where I'm going.

    Booman (5.00 / 2) (#4)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Sun Dec 27, 2009 at 10:55:41 AM EST
    can not even see how ridiculous he is.

    He now embraces everything he spent years saying was the worst thing of all time.

    He has embraced the Clintonism of the 90s when the Dems have the biggest majorities they have had in 40 years.

    It is an embarrassment for many people. But perhaps a business strategy as well. I don't know how he makes money off his blog now. I assume donations? O-bots donate.

    Parent

    Ha (5.00 / 3) (#31)
    by lambert on Sun Dec 27, 2009 at 12:33:07 PM EST
    From the Department of Don't Say You Weren't Warned... Youthful Folly.

    Parent
    If you don't see how the fundamental (none / 0) (#47)
    by Socraticsilence on Sun Dec 27, 2009 at 04:18:09 PM EST
    organization of our political system has changed I don't know what to tell you-- the rise of the filibuster has structurally altered congress in a dramatic fashion-- do I think Obama could have gotten more on Healthcare yeah, do I think it would have been something like the PO-- no, that wasn't going to happen and if we'd tried reconcilation people would have been shocked to see how many Senators turned on the party (see: Feingold, Russ).

    Parent
    Your framing is inaccurate (5.00 / 2) (#51)
    by shoephone on Sun Dec 27, 2009 at 04:30:52 PM EST
    The truth is, if Obama had actually wanted and fought for the public option, it might have made it into the Senate bill. A lot of the angst within the House Progressive Caucus now is due to the fact that Obama did not lead on the issue, and that he shunned them from day one.

    Parent
    I think that's true (5.00 / 1) (#57)
    by Inspector Gadget on Sun Dec 27, 2009 at 05:54:33 PM EST
    There is something the Obama team does to get people to take 180 degree turns on educated, and informed opinions. People who stood firm that the administration was wrong all of a sudden are making excuses and claiming he is brilliant. He certainly could have gotten anything he wanted in the bill.


    Parent
    I guess we should all be happy (5.00 / 1) (#70)
    by lilburro on Sun Dec 27, 2009 at 11:14:09 PM EST
    that Obama accomplished Dem '00 objectives but oh - with a mandate on top!

    The mandate represents an advance in boldness among Dems (it being the center of the primary 08 healthcare debate and previously extra controversial) and also a huge guarantee to corporations.  Which is not super convenient to Booman's thesis.

    Parent

    There's nothing like a good (none / 0) (#71)
    by Militarytracy on Sun Dec 27, 2009 at 11:21:01 PM EST
    convenience, or better yet a series of fortunate conveniences to inspire a nice long epic Booman  diary.

    Parent
    I'm a flaming capitalist too (none / 0) (#3)
    by Militarytracy on Sun Dec 27, 2009 at 10:50:29 AM EST
    but because I demand accountability for the taxpayer dollar and the services they receive I am now an anti-corporatist.  I'm all for well regulated corporations!

    Parent
    I'm a corporatist where it works (5.00 / 1) (#7)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Sun Dec 27, 2009 at 11:06:06 AM EST
    It does not work in the health insurance area.

    Parent
    I used to agreee with this, i.e, that (5.00 / 1) (#15)
    by pluege on Sun Dec 27, 2009 at 11:31:38 AM EST
    corporatism should be able to work in some instances (clearly health care is not one them). But since corportism also clearly doesn't "work" in finance and banking, military supply, education, transportation, media/entertainment, communications, agribusiness, natural resources and mining, and so many other areas, I'm wondering exactly where DOES corportism work?

    What area of business would not be better off without a few behemoths dominating the industry, reducing competition, distorting production priorities, distorting legislation, undermining workers, paying exorbitant salaries for a upper management do-nothing old boy network, and generally providing for a poorer product and economic condition than many smaller firms would have provided.

    What exactly is today's corportism good for in terms of better product and social conditions?

    Parent

    The neoliberal, Freidmanesque (5.00 / 2) (#17)
    by jondee on Sun Dec 27, 2009 at 11:45:12 AM EST
    paradigm of increasing market share being business's ONLY responsibility is the root of the problem, IMO.

    "The twelve sisters" network of conservative foundations, in an effort to roll back Great Society ideas and what was left of the New Deal, got lean, mean and into take-no-prisoners mode in the sixties to push neoliberalism in order to counter what they saw as alarming liberal trends in American society. They succeeded quite well.

    Parent

    See, I can't say that corporatism doesn't (5.00 / 0) (#18)
    by Militarytracy on Sun Dec 27, 2009 at 12:02:21 PM EST
    work in the military.  I have to say that it works in some instances and not in others.  It works if honest oversight is allowed.  It fails whenever people start hiding true intentions and actual results.  When it comes to the equipment that your forces have and are able to access and use, corporatism has not failed.  When some ex general is a lobbyist and works for somebody manufacturing the crappiest body armour out there and they successfully block any other manufacterers to be able to submit bids....that's a failure but it isn't a corporate one.

    Parent
    Are you saying small firms (5.00 / 1) (#24)
    by pluege on Sun Dec 27, 2009 at 12:16:11 PM EST
    couldn't have made the same military equipment, only better and for less? I don't agree.

    Have you seen a defense contractor up close try to build something? The paperwork is impeccable, the product is grossly overpriced and low quality. Schedule drives everything ad nauseam, and as they miss every milestone, they just make a new schedule. And the best part is they know everything even when they obviously know nothing. At the end of the job, they meet with the government contracting officers to resolve claims. The government officer comes with boxes of money and gives them everything they want - its as corrupt as can be - stealing the American taxpayer blind. No doubt upper management throws great parties though.  

    Parent

    I have seen defense contractors build lots (5.00 / 1) (#27)
    by Militarytracy on Sun Dec 27, 2009 at 12:29:40 PM EST
    of things, and I have seen small business come in and innovate all the time.  One of the jobs my spouse is seriously looking at is working for a firm that must wed two different computer programs together, one of which is from a company in Great Britain.  He was meeting with the two companies, both are small both have something to offer us that the military needs.  He was with a bunch of soldiers looking at the presentations and when they were done he told them he needed both and he told them what parts of their software he needed to steal to make the software he needs.  A new subsidary of something was immediately created.  They called my husband very soon afterwards and told him that they heard he was retiring soon and that they need to hire him to work for them so that they can better know what the military needs are.  Retire though....no such luck.  It happens as much as anything else does at this time.  All of the clothing our soldiers need has been completely redone.  All those old contracts bit the dust, needed to, the stuff was pathetic for what your tax dollar was getting you.

    Parent
    IMO (5.00 / 1) (#37)
    by cawaltz on Sun Dec 27, 2009 at 01:21:12 PM EST
    oversight is the key. Although I would argue that the DoD has minimal outside oversight and there is room for tons of improvement. Unless it has changed drastically I'd imagine the military folk are still encouraged to "use it(meaning money)or lose it" even if they don't actually need things.

    Parent
    There's always room for improvement (none / 0) (#39)
    by Militarytracy on Sun Dec 27, 2009 at 01:41:01 PM EST
    when you are talking large and bureaucracy.  Things go quite wrong when the ability to spot the needs and address the needs for improvement are stiffled......usually by something or someone trying to corner a market or gain some kind of market protection.  There is something wrong or something broken in this house everyday though, we make it through okay so long as someone addresses those realities.

    Parent
    I never type what I mean to say (none / 0) (#8)
    by Militarytracy on Sun Dec 27, 2009 at 11:08:35 AM EST
    half the damned time.  I am not an anti-corporatist, but Booman says that I am based on his definition of what an anti-corporatist is.

    Parent
    obama's historic failure (5.00 / 4) (#9)
    by pluege on Sun Dec 27, 2009 at 11:08:53 AM EST
    He has embraced the Clintonism of the 90s when the Dems have the biggest majorities they have had in 40 years.

    this is what is so frustrating about obama and his fans. Clinton did what he did because he had to. No telling what Clinton could have accomplished without a crazy rabid republican congress and media.

    obama is making republicans relevant so he can do what Clinton did - the stupidest thing imaginable except that center-right republicanism is what obama is for.

    Yeah, Obama did not have to do this (5.00 / 2) (#11)
    by Militarytracy on Sun Dec 27, 2009 at 11:14:05 AM EST
    He walked through the door in the midst of a terrible emergency situation.  His bold action at that time could have prevented so much.  Hell, if everyone knew with certainty how insolvent the banks still are and the truth about that crisis....he could find a new mandate for strong action.  It isn't who he is though and there will be no strong actions taken outside of Afghanistan.

    Parent
    Yes, he did (5.00 / 3) (#28)
    by lambert on Sun Dec 27, 2009 at 12:29:51 PM EST
    If Golden Sacks, for example, owns him, then he's going to do what they say. Either out of genuine belief in a shared ideology, or out of calculation for personal benefit. And either way, the public interest doesn't figure in, and never did.

    Parent
    Oh please (none / 0) (#45)
    by Socraticsilence on Sun Dec 27, 2009 at 04:10:36 PM EST
    Clinton acted in large part how he wanted to-- he was driven right by the GOP but to pretend he wasn't a third-way Dem is to ignore reality.

    Parent
    Clinton read the public mood and practical (none / 0) (#75)
    by sallywally on Mon Dec 28, 2009 at 10:48:33 AM EST
    situations a hell of a lot better than Obama has, and he had far more ability to explain things to the public in real terms than Obama. He could walk the walk; his inspirational explanations dealt with the real world and with real needs - things Obama chooses to ignore.

    I think Obama just loves to be part of the "hoi polloi" (sp.?) and does what he does to ensure he stays there; Clinton didn't care what the Village thought - and his vision and skills have far exceeded them.

    BTW, Clinton's post-presidential activities have sought to improve the world; I doubt Obama's will do that. He will be prominent but not for folks in need anywhere - he will protect his "coolness" at all costs.

    Parent

    Funny how often Clinton's revisionists (none / 0) (#76)
    by jondee on Mon Dec 28, 2009 at 11:35:37 AM EST
    seem to always lapse into strikingly non-specific, ahistorical language when they're dancing around the fact that Clinton triangulated with the right every bit as much as Obama does.

    He walked the walk; explained things inspirationally; read the public mood better etc etc

    That's not analysis, that's a country song.

    Parent

    Psst, ck definition of hoi polloi (none / 0) (#79)
    by Cream City on Mon Dec 28, 2009 at 01:32:36 PM EST
    as I think you mean the opposite.  That is, if you understand the definition of the Villagers as the elite.  The hoi polloi are the commoners, the masses.

    Parent
    Surely this is to attribute too much power... (5.00 / 3) (#26)
    by lambert on Sun Dec 27, 2009 at 12:28:19 PM EST
    ... to a "fantasy"? ("the Democratic Party was handed back without a fight to the DLC wing by the fantasy that Barack Obama was not a Third Way politician.")

    I think it's more likely that individuals and institutions in the legacy parties were the key actors. One can't hold a "fantasy" accountable for caucus fraud, for example...

    And among those individuals (5.00 / 4) (#32)
    by oldpro on Sun Dec 27, 2009 at 12:34:18 PM EST
    were the 'liberal-lion' Kennedys...passing torches to do what?  Keep a Clinton legacy from surpassing his?  I wonder...

    Parent
    Oh, please (none / 0) (#35)
    by gyrfalcon on Sun Dec 27, 2009 at 01:06:51 PM EST


    Parent
    Please what? It hadn't occurred to you (5.00 / 1) (#40)
    by oldpro on Sun Dec 27, 2009 at 03:15:15 PM EST
    that two Clinton presidencies might be threatening to a fabled Kennedy legacy undergoing rehabilitation from the failed candidacies of RFK and Teddy himself?  If he couldn't be president, perhaps he could prevent a competing legacy and enhance the Kennedy legend by being a kingmaker for 'the first black president.'  Nevermind that he wasn't a liberal...

    If you have a better explanation for that incredible piece of bad theatre, I'd like to hear it.  Honest.

    Parent

    It's not all about race (5.00 / 2) (#42)
    by Cream City on Sun Dec 27, 2009 at 04:06:11 PM EST
    with the Kennedys.

    Obamah is a Hahvahd man.  That made a Westerner into an Easterner, which was possible because -- thank heahvens, dontchaknow -- he never was a Southrunuh.

    Bill Clinton is a Yalie.  But ever and always a Southrunuh.

    And of course, Hillary Clinton could not be a Hahvahd grad, much less a Hahvahd man, because it only accepted men in her era.

    (There was much journalistic coverage and discussion of the reaction toward the Clintons in D.C. then, but then it apparently had to be covered up to pretend to party unity. . . .)


    Parent

    If one thinks of it, though, (5.00 / 1) (#80)
    by Inspector Gadget on Mon Dec 28, 2009 at 01:40:37 PM EST
    the Kennedy's didn't spend their time trying to expand women's rights. JFK and Robert would probably not have said they had a wish to see a woman in the WH before they died.

    Based on the causes they believed in, I can see why Ted would have chosen to support Obama over Hillary.


    Parent

    Yup. It's a guy thing.... (none / 0) (#93)
    by oldpro on Mon Dec 28, 2009 at 03:18:45 PM EST
    the presidency.

    Good point.

    Parent

    Oh, please (5.00 / 1) (#44)
    by gyrfalcon on Sun Dec 27, 2009 at 04:10:04 PM EST
    stop making things up.  You will not find a single solitary soul, friend or enemy, of Ted Kennedy who would say he ever in his entire life had that kind of meanness in him.

    He was a fierce protector of his brothers' legacies, or what he believed were their legacies, but it was always open and aboveboard.

    Ted Kennedy never in his life was sneaky or underhanded, and he never, ever undermined somebody to keep them from outshining somebody else.  Not in his character.

    I don't honestly know why his endorsement of Obama needs any kind of explanation.  The better part of the Democratic political establishment of this country endorsed, campaigned for and heartily supported Obama, most for far less idealistic reasons than Teddy.

    Teddy fooled himself about Obama, as so many others did.  Obama was to him the last chance for an old man to imagine somebody was going to pick up his brother's torch.  That Caroline, his brother's daughter, got sucked in early added to his wishful thinking and helped him to bury whatever doubts he may have had.  It's no more complicated than that.

    Parent

    Making things up? Wow. (5.00 / 2) (#58)
    by oldpro on Sun Dec 27, 2009 at 07:09:07 PM EST
    Your last paragraph is every bit as speculative as mine.

    Until somebody writes a book and spills the beans, we'll all just be speculating about his motives.  

    Nothing underhanded or insidious about it.  Human behavior is an entire field of study!  And while we're on the subject, I see nothing about meanness in what I suggest...I don't even suggest that Teddy knew his own motives entirely.  I do take issue, however, with such saintly characterizations as "never in his life was sneaky or underhanded."  Your memory or your research is faulty...one or the other.

    Parent

    That ahistorical line (5.00 / 2) (#60)
    by Cream City on Sun Dec 27, 2009 at 07:16:44 PM EST
    also stopped me.  But it was good for a laugh.

    Parent
    I just thought it sad, Cream... (5.00 / 2) (#66)
    by oldpro on Sun Dec 27, 2009 at 09:03:53 PM EST
    Happy Holidays to you.

    Parent
    The difference being that (none / 0) (#77)
    by gyrfalcon on Mon Dec 28, 2009 at 11:52:30 AM EST
    my speculation is based in the undisputed reality of Teddy's behavior and basic character.  Yours is made up.

    Parent
    Suggest you google (none / 0) (#81)
    by oldpro on Mon Dec 28, 2009 at 02:07:48 PM EST
    Chappaquidick and something about expulsion from Harvard for cheating...just for openers.  THAT is the "undisputed reality of Teddy's behavior and basic character."

    I didn't make that up and there's plenty more not in dispute.

    I do not understand such deep denial of actual, historical 'undisputed reality.'  But perhaps we actually do agree on 'those facts' but draw different conclusions about their meaning...is that it?

    Parent

    How about guys who have such (none / 0) (#82)
    by jondee on Mon Dec 28, 2009 at 02:18:41 PM EST
    little self control that they cant keep it zipped up in the Whitehouse even when they know the Rethug dirty tricks boys are laying for them?

    Nobody has the market cornered on "the character issue".

    Parent

    Well, I agree! Sort of.... (none / 0) (#85)
    by oldpro on Mon Dec 28, 2009 at 02:36:31 PM EST
    for a second there I thought you were referring to JFK but quickly realized you meant the big dawg.

    Here's the thing about "guys who...can't keep it zipped..."...they're guys...and the Kennedy men were notorious but not special.  And there is good evidence that 'the danger of discovery' heightens the thrill...hence Bill in the White House, Edwards on the campaign trail and worse yet...Gary Hart.

    It's a rare 'guy' who can resist an opportunity...even more rare, one who can resist EVERY opportunity in a lifetime.  I just think they're hardwired for acting on sexual impulse in many undignified situations.  Evidence exists all around us.

    Parent

    The temporary insanity defense (5.00 / 1) (#88)
    by jondee on Mon Dec 28, 2009 at 02:54:03 PM EST
    it didnt work with my wife.

    Can I give you her number?

    Parent

    Heh. That's the thing about wives... (none / 0) (#91)
    by oldpro on Mon Dec 28, 2009 at 03:02:27 PM EST
    ...it almost never works with them...in our culture, anyway.  Not unless you have an open marriage.  Many other cultures...quite a different story, wouldn't you say?

    Parent
    Nice to see that you're (none / 0) (#89)
    by Socraticsilence on Mon Dec 28, 2009 at 02:55:20 PM EST
    basic test is of things that were largely private life and occured 3+ decades ago-- by that same reasoning, one could generally conclude that Bill Clinton as a serial philanderer who dodged the draft would decide things based only on selfish grounds- a characterization which would miss a ton of things.

    Parent
    Private life? Look..ignorance is (none / 0) (#95)
    by oldpro on Mon Dec 28, 2009 at 03:27:40 PM EST
    no defense and Chappaquidick wasn't private.

    You can look it up.  Try substituting another name as you read the record...a name like, oh...George Bush.  Then tell me what you think of the behavior following the car going off the bridge.

    Norm Nobody would have been jailed and never heard from again.  Do you not get that?

    Parent

    No facts available to support or dispute (none / 0) (#52)
    by ChiTownDenny on Sun Dec 27, 2009 at 04:33:37 PM EST
    you or oldpro.  However, I'd be curious to get Jimmy Carter's take on this.

    Parent
    Sorry (5.00 / 1) (#46)
    by Socraticsilence on Sun Dec 27, 2009 at 04:13:39 PM EST
    but considering that Ted Kennedy achieved more than any liberal politician since LBJ-- including President's Carter, Clinton and Obama (so far- health care is possible topper) I have a hard time viewing this as anything more than straight up haterism.

    Parent
    A Senator for half a century (5.00 / 4) (#55)
    by Cream City on Sun Dec 27, 2009 at 05:17:42 PM EST
    vs. a one-term president, and possibly two (!), and the two-term president not even pulling a majority and coping with the conservative revolution at full power . . . or a Senator for half a century vs. two governors and a guy who was in the Senate barely long enough to still be in protege status (to Lieberman, yet) . . . do you see the problem with your argument?

    The argument probably can be made.  But this is not it.

    Parent

    Neverending post-primary (2.00 / 1) (#84)
    by jondee on Mon Dec 28, 2009 at 02:32:36 PM EST
    puma-snitism.

    Not that they dont make some valid points on occasion.

    Parent

    Nope. Not even close. (none / 0) (#97)
    by oldpro on Mon Dec 28, 2009 at 03:55:52 PM EST
    Did you read Cenk, tho?

    Parent
    OR wanting to replay 2008 (none / 0) (#56)
    by christinep on Sun Dec 27, 2009 at 05:23:17 PM EST
    We will probably never know the reasons for the torch passage--perhaps, altruism mixed with pragmatism mixed with political dominance mixed with ? There will be all kinds of "scoops" (or pretense to scoops) down the road, depending on how this all plays out. Two things from here: 1. If we are speculating, well and good; but, if this is to rehash the primaries and coulda-woulda-shoulda, what purpose does the whole thread about Kennedy's real intent serve? 2. While it is instructive to review how attitudes, expectations, support has changed so swiftly in the course of less than one (1) year, it undoubtedly will be even more interesting to see the actions and reactions that will take place in the coming three (3) years--because, if the feelings recently displayed are any indication, the next three years could be quite a roller-coaster?

    Parent
    Just speculating, christinep... (5.00 / 2) (#61)
    by oldpro on Sun Dec 27, 2009 at 07:18:04 PM EST
    I do think it's interesting that some people are willing to consider Obama's lack of liberal/progressive political chops but not Kennedy's!  They would rather think that Teddy's long years of experience in the political arena left him vulnerable to being fooled by a beginner than think his motives less than 'pure'.

    How wierd is that?

    Parent

    'Never said that (none / 0) (#67)
    by christinep on Sun Dec 27, 2009 at 09:47:57 PM EST
    'Just not speculating about Senator Kennedy's motives. (If I were, it would only be to say that Ted Kennedy was nobody's fool.)

    Parent
    Equally interesting (none / 0) (#78)
    by gyrfalcon on Mon Dec 28, 2009 at 11:58:52 AM EST
    that some people seem to have absorbed the decades of Kennedy-hate from the right.  Lord knows Teddy had his flaws, one of them being over-the-top adoration of his brothers, but I say again that undermining a good person on his side in order to -- what is it?  I'm still unclear on the convolutions of your imagined motivations -- burnish his own or andybody else's image, especially through that person's wife, was not something he ever did and was not the way he thought.

    Sounds like we have a little KDS going here.

    Parent

    Sigh...uncle. (5.00 / 1) (#83)
    by oldpro on Mon Dec 28, 2009 at 02:21:07 PM EST
    No KDS and conversely no cult of Kennedy either.

    It's what BTD reminds everyone of day after day...they are pols and do what they do.  Never mind what they say.  Watch what they do (and then ask yourself why they did it to understand political motivations of electeds).  

    Never fight for pols.  Fight for issues.

    Never mind.

    Parent

    Speaking for me only (none / 0) (#86)
    by CST on Mon Dec 28, 2009 at 02:38:13 PM EST
    Kennedy was someone who as a pol constantly fought for the people he represented.

    He was better at constituent services than anyone in the senate.  He fought on the issues that mattered to his constituents day in and day out.  He was the master of addressing the needs of people in MA.  As a citizen of the state, you could write him with a problem, and he would ALWAYS respond with an answer, and usually a solution.

    And with his votes in the senate, he almost never abandoned the principals of those who elected him.

    That's a whole lot more than I can say about any other pol.

    I can understand why those outside MA might not love him, but he represented us very, very well.


    Parent

    OK by me. I think he was a (none / 0) (#90)
    by oldpro on Mon Dec 28, 2009 at 02:56:20 PM EST
    very savvy politician who put constituent services at the top of his 'to-do list.'  Always good.  It's the best PR there is.

    FYI, however...having been a staff, I can tell you that the elected gets all the credit (and should!) but rarely has to raise a finger (or even be aware) of the constituent services provided, problems solved, etc.  The chief of staff keeps it all together...makes sure the work gets done and makes sure the elected knows of it for the press questions, etc. following the press release(s).

    It's basic but not every politician gets that or follows through by hiring the right staff.  Kennedys always drew great, self-effacing staff...the best.

    Parent

    of course it's his staff (none / 0) (#94)
    by CST on Mon Dec 28, 2009 at 03:20:38 PM EST
    I don't imagine he handled it all by himself, or even most of it.  But it is his direction to have them do that kind of stuff.

    I would kill to have Kerry do that.

    However, I have to say, I disagree with the assertion that he was not aware.  There are many issues I am thinking about where I know for a fact he had to personally pull strings.  And he was very very good at knowing an individual's problems when he met with them.  On more than just a surface level.  And I'm not just talking about press releases.

    And lets face it, his voting record in the senate, and sponsorship of bills (especially health care), kind of speaks for itself.  He was a solid liberal, not perfect (doesn't exist - since we all have different definitions of perfect), but a whole hell of a lot better than most "liberal" Democrats.

    As for the character questions, who knows.  But I do know that we elect people, not saints.  No one is perfect, but I wouldn't presume to know what went on inside his head or anyone else's.  I assume he had his own personal reasons for supporting Obama.  We are all entitled to our own opinions.  And we are all entitled to express those opinions.

    Parent

    Thank you, CST. (none / 0) (#96)
    by oldpro on Mon Dec 28, 2009 at 03:51:09 PM EST
    Here's something I've wondered about throughout this entire healthcare/health insurance melodrama:  I haven't heard Teddy's name raised in defense of any of it...have you?  Where do you suppose he would come down on the senate bill?  The house bill?

    Any idea?

    Parent

    I suspect (none / 0) (#99)
    by CST on Mon Dec 28, 2009 at 04:02:55 PM EST
    at this point in his life, he would have gone for it.  I would hope he would have fought for some of the more meaningful reforms before they were taken out but I guess it kind of depends on what "Ted Kennedy" we're talking about, the one pre-stroke, or the one post-stroke.

    However, the fact that his wife was present at the senate vote is a pretty good indication to me that he would have ultimately been in favor of it.

    I also think that a healthy Ted would've continued to fight for health care reform after this bill was passed.  I don't know if there is anyone currently in the senate we can count on to continue to fight after this point.

    Parent

    Well said and well put. Thanks. (none / 0) (#101)
    by oldpro on Mon Dec 28, 2009 at 04:40:23 PM EST
    I pretty much agree.

    Parent
    Don't forget (none / 0) (#98)
    by jbindc on Mon Dec 28, 2009 at 03:57:43 PM EST
    Kennedy supported Bush on NCLB.  One of the biggest legislative disasters of our time.

    Parent
    Yes I know (none / 0) (#100)
    by CST on Mon Dec 28, 2009 at 04:11:21 PM EST
    Although I do think your description is a bit over the top.  There have been some pretty bad legislative disasters.

    Patriot Act (which Kennedy and everyone else but Feingold voted for), Iraq War, shoot even the Bush tax cuts are all worse in my eyes - and that's just the Bush admin, never mind "our time" (who's time?).

    Like I said, not perfect.  But for what it's worth, he did say later that he regretted the decision and that the bill was not what he hoped it would be.

    Hindsight is always 20/20.

    Parent

    No 'haterism,' whatever that is. (none / 0) (#59)
    by oldpro on Sun Dec 27, 2009 at 07:11:45 PM EST
    Although I am Irish (both sides) and would happily indulge in vengeance, given a good reason and the opportunity.  Meanwhile, words will serve.

    Parent
    Liberal guilt will not allow it. (5.00 / 3) (#29)
    by Cream City on Sun Dec 27, 2009 at 12:30:20 PM EST
    Some otherwise fairly smart folks here still cannot cope with the facts about Obama, either.  So there is no hope for lesser libblogs.

    They can't (5.00 / 5) (#30)
    by mjames on Sun Dec 27, 2009 at 12:30:40 PM EST
    They'd have to admit they were wrong. I've never seen such outright defensiveness by supposed intellectuals. To us oldtimers they are kids. We need some adults to take over.

    I don't know... (none / 0) (#64)
    by BackFromOhio on Sun Dec 27, 2009 at 07:34:55 PM EST
    I see a lot of mea culpas over at Orange -- so much so I am quite surprised.....

    Parent
    The NEXT time? (5.00 / 5) (#34)
    by lambert on Sun Dec 27, 2009 at 12:41:22 PM EST
    Why not now?

    If not now, when?

    Daley's prescription for avoiding (5.00 / 3) (#49)
    by Anne on Sun Dec 27, 2009 at 04:23:00 PM EST
    a disaster in 2010 is beyond ridiculous; we should plot a more moderate, centrist course - more moderate and centrist than it already is, I guess - because...that would make us more like Republicans, who've been so good for the country?  We should move more in the direction of George Bush and Ronald Reagan because...they had all the good ideas, and this way, we could claim them for our own?

    Really?

    Boy, do we ever need a viable third party.

    The Senate now rerquiers 60 votes (none / 0) (#5)
    by pluege on Sun Dec 27, 2009 at 11:04:01 AM EST
    on all legislation specifically because republicans DON'T Fight for the policy, not the pols. republicans maintain political order even when the policy is something they supposedly are for like say lower medical costs.

    What they say they are for (5.00 / 3) (#6)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Sun Dec 27, 2009 at 11:05:26 AM EST
    Apple pie, mom, has nothing to do with whether they are for them.

    Parent
    Agreed, republicans are major liars (none / 0) (#13)
    by pluege on Sun Dec 27, 2009 at 11:16:17 AM EST
    but they wield outsized influence because they don't vote policy, they maintain discipline to vote against democrats, i.e., they vote politics, not policy. I don't advocate this, just point out its success in ruining the country.

    voting policy would be a terrific change for democrats - getting rid of blue dogs, conservadems and DLC vichy dems like obama, emmanuel, reid, hoyer, etc.  

    Parent

    From where I'm sitting (5.00 / 1) (#38)
    by cawaltz on Sun Dec 27, 2009 at 01:30:57 PM EST
    the Democrats aren't much more intellectually honest. Let's be real here the Blue Dogs are just as much a result of Democrats willing to "be pragmatic" and compromise principles.

    I dislike the idea that either party has some sort of moral superiority. Both sides do this.

    Parent

    All that matters is (none / 0) (#14)
    by jondee on Sun Dec 27, 2009 at 11:17:35 AM EST
    whether the IDEA of mom, apple pie, Great Communicators and being washed in the Blood of the Lamb works for them. And it has, well enough.

    Maybe WE need to secede this time.

    Parent

    Well, we've all seen what a (5.00 / 3) (#10)
    by Militarytracy on Sun Dec 27, 2009 at 11:11:16 AM EST
    rubber stamping majority gets us.  We just barely survived one rubber stamping us over a cliff.  This is looking like nothing finer than a repeat of the same thing only with a big "D" rubber stamped on it.

    Parent
    Actually I think part of the problem is the (none / 0) (#48)
    by Socraticsilence on Sun Dec 27, 2009 at 04:21:51 PM EST
    opposite-- if this was a "rubber-stamping" majority then we would never have had Nelson or Stupak do their things- Reid and Pelosi would have shut them down.

    Parent
    It's a nice sentiment (5.00 / 1) (#68)
    by Militarytracy on Sun Dec 27, 2009 at 10:19:13 PM EST
    Perhaps even possibly correct.  My thoughts and what I see are they have all been rubber stamping and wrangling for the Obama administrations desired outcomes.  That's why Jane is working to expose Rahm.

    Parent
    Competence (none / 0) (#12)
    by MikeDitto on Sun Dec 27, 2009 at 11:15:56 AM EST
    Liberal is a dirty word, so of course the public doesn't like things being too liberal. The problem is that most people have not taken political science classes. They don't actually have a deep understanding about what is or isn't liberal or conservative--after all, it changes depending on who is in power.

    What they really want is competence. And we have so far stumbled in that regard, especially on the economic issues that voters only trust Democrats to fix. To be sure, the Republicans making it impossible to confirm Obama appointees hasn't helped. But the White House and Democratic leadership have largely failed to point that out, and that obstructionism doesn't explain some of the other choices that I think people have found problematic.

    You don't need to take PoliSci to know (5.00 / 2) (#16)
    by pluege on Sun Dec 27, 2009 at 11:43:37 AM EST
    what liberal is and means. The irony of so many Americans' idiocy is that every Sunday so many worship and claim their love and fealty to the most liberal human being in the history of humanity, Jesus...and then go about their business all week doing the opposite what he said to do.

    Parent
    Well (5.00 / 1) (#19)
    by jondee on Sun Dec 27, 2009 at 12:05:39 PM EST
    look at how many of their shepherds-tending-their-flocks like to reiterate that "it's about faith, not works".

    They might as well turn it into a bumpersticker. If they havnt already.

    Parent

    Some do so (5.00 / 3) (#20)
    by Cream City on Sun Dec 27, 2009 at 12:07:39 PM EST
    on Saturday, too.  Just saying that, although the Christian evangelicals have gained most attention for their extremity, there are all sorts of fundamentalists who have wreaked havoc on our country (and world).  It is, I think, a simplistic mindset -- no matter the faith -- that cannot cope with the complexities that come with a liberal view.

    Parent
    Do not accept narratives of Democratic weakness (5.00 / 4) (#33)
    by lambert on Sun Dec 27, 2009 at 12:39:26 PM EST
    You're assuming that the legacy parties have some notion of being accountable to voters for their public policy choices.

    Surrender that illusion, and you will see that the Dems are extremely competent at getting what they want, in the same way that Bush was competent in getting what he wanted, like the destruction of Constitutional government that Obama is busy consolidating.

    It's just that what the Dems want has very little to do with what you, as a citizen -- heck, as a human being -- need. For confirmation, look at health care, where it's not even a story that several tens of thousands to die will before 2014, and all to take the hit for a political class that has decided it's not  "politically feasible" to put even the weakest of weak tea reforms in place before then.

    Parent

    Playing the liberal card (none / 0) (#21)
    by Militarytracy on Sun Dec 27, 2009 at 12:09:06 PM EST
    when we are getting to solutions does very little in stopping my efforts to stick with the facts and argue for the solutions.  I don't care what you call me.  And if you call me the "C" word, that always makes me burst out laughing.  Not exactly sure why.

    Parent
    Makes all of us laugh (5.00 / 1) (#22)
    by Inspector Gadget on Sun Dec 27, 2009 at 12:12:00 PM EST
    "C"onservative just doesn't fit.


    Parent
    Ah Ha ha ha ha (5.00 / 1) (#23)
    by Militarytracy on Sun Dec 27, 2009 at 12:14:39 PM EST
    P.S. I've been watching Cougar Town.  Too funny

    Parent
    :) Cougar Town is the only show I don't (none / 0) (#63)
    by Inspector Gadget on Sun Dec 27, 2009 at 07:32:44 PM EST
    mind doing reruns so early in the season (IMHO). I laugh just as hard second round.

    Parent
    "Be careful what you wish for" (none / 0) (#41)
    by shoephone on Sun Dec 27, 2009 at 04:01:12 PM EST
    That is my message to Ding-dong Daley and the other ding-dongs in the White House. They certainly aren't succeeding at pulling liberals to their side, so their only other option is to rid us from the party fovever -- which, to my mind, is looking like the most reasonable option. But that means being left with a very small tent party that will lose elections. Not my problem.

    Some of us don't get caught up in feeling like we "don't have any other place to go." Not when the D's are bought by the same corporate interests as the R's. Unfortunately, the ding-dongs will ignore that at their peril.

    Yep, a good policy-thrashing from the left is exactly what they need. If they can't handle the base of their own party, they really do deserve to lose us, and they seem to be careening in that direction, whether they realize it or not.

    Next time the DSCC or the DCCC sends me a fundraising ask, I'll forgo my usual rant about how they've let me down again. Instead, I'll simply tell them, "I'm a liberal, and I heard you don't want my kind. So be it."

    Whose center ? (none / 0) (#54)
    by mmc9431 on Sun Dec 27, 2009 at 05:07:38 PM EST
    Again we allow people with no concept of reality to define the center. Anything that isn't bat sh@t right wing is considered to be out in left field.

    The polls showed that a majority of Americans wanted the PO in HCR. (They also wanted real health care reform) There was nothing left wing about it and yet now people want to frame it as some wild eyed liberal agenda.

    I don't doubt that Democrats will continue to drift further and further to the right. That where corporate America wants them to be.

    Todays Democratic party reminds me of what the Republican party was before the Evangelicals highjacked it. They haven't had a liberal bone in their body in forty years now. The only thing that keeps me voting for them is that the Republican have gotten worse.

    If we couldn't get a more progressive administration after GWB I don't have any hope in seeing one in the foreseeable future.

    Hopefully Obama loses some seats in the (none / 0) (#69)
    by lilburro on Sun Dec 27, 2009 at 10:58:49 PM EST
    Senate, but not a majority anywhere.  That would be perfect.  Because at that point either Obama realizes that being moderate means passing amendments ensuring Palin becomes Dictator for Life in 2012 and earning 2 Republican votes, and he decides thusly to be partisan and more hardknuckle, OR we get Palin for dictator in 2012.  And Obama goes down as the most bipartisanreffic guy in history, as he was a member of two parties, the Democrat and Republican.  Apocalypse ensues.

    The Pre-Mortem: Daley Says Dems Lost 2010 Election Because They Were Too Liberal | 98 comments (98 topical)

    Readers Must Login or Create an Account to Comment