home

Confusing Methods With Objectives

By Big Tent Democrat, Section Other Politics
Posted on Mon Dec 27, 2010 at 10:48:43 AM EST
Tags: (all tags)
Share This: Digg! StumbleUpon del.icio.us reddit reddit
Let us not confuse objectives with methods. [. . .] The country needs and, unless I mistake its temper, the country demands bold, persistent experimentation. It is common sense to take a method and try it: If it fails, admit it frankly and try another. But above all, try something. The millions who are in want will not stand by silently forever while the things to satisfy their needs are within easy reach. - FDR

DennisG at Balloon Juice scolds unenthusiastic progressives:

By any fair measurement the 111th Congress and the first two years of the Obama Administration have been an incredibly productive time. The list of real legislative accomplishments is long and so is the list of new Executive orders, Presidential Memorandas, rule making and changes to the way the Federal Government is run. But of course, none of that matters because not everything desired has been accomplished and there have been some compromises along the way that make some of the successes less than perfect.

This reflects the Beltway mentality of thinking passing laws is the goal, as opposed to making things better. It confuses methods with objectives. More . . .

Now it is certainly possible to argue that this has been a very good two years of governing from Washington. But such an argument needs to be grounded in how what was done made things better.

Let's take one example - HAMP. By any fair measurement, HAMP is an abject failure. Indeed, it is a, perhaps, unintended scam.

It has failed, and it is time to admit it frankly and try something else (HOLC is my preference.) But that is not happening. And will not happen so long as the corrupt incompetent Tim Geithner remains the Treasury Secretary.

True, the Obama Administration can claim successes for some of it policies. It is true, for example, that without the inadequate stimulus of 2009, the nation would be even worse off.

But "could have been worse" is not the bar for judging policy. At least not for me. And indeed, with regard to The Deal on the Obama/Bush tax cuts, we got the "worse." And more "worse" is now coming in the form of massive spending cuts.

Of course, those spending cuts will be enacted through the passage of laws. the government will be doing "something." They will reach bipartisan agreements and be a "productive" government.

What they will produce will be misery. But the Beltway, and those of the Beltway mentality like DennisG, will rejoice.

The rest of the country? Not so much.Speaking for me only

< How The Lame Duck Session Moved The Overton Window To The Right | The Norquist Strategy Part 2: The Trailer >

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

  • Contribute To TalkLeft


    • Display: Sort:
    Confusing Methods With Objectives | 88 comments (88 topical)

    Readers Must Login or Create an Account to Comment

    It's the big foam finger mentality (5.00 / 1) (#2)
    by Dadler on Mon Dec 27, 2010 at 11:49:40 AM EST
    Unless we keep cheering mindlessly, chanting "We're number one!  We're number one!" with that big foam finger held aloft, then we're all whiners with unrealistic expectations.

    They remind me of a football team who loses yards on their first two plays, makes a few on third down, then punts on 4th and 15 and thinks it's progress.

    Dopes.

    And fire Norv Turner along with Geithner! (none / 0) (#3)
    by Dadler on Mon Dec 27, 2010 at 11:49:59 AM EST
    Ahem.

    Parent
    The people who (none / 0) (#28)
    by Makarov on Mon Dec 27, 2010 at 04:20:47 PM EST
    want Norv fired now would, by logic, have wanted the Eagles to fire Andy Reid after 2005.

    Just saying.

    Parent

    "Could have been worse" (5.00 / 3) (#4)
    by Anne on Mon Dec 27, 2010 at 12:03:25 PM EST
    is a mentality that is pernicious and apparently, highly contagious.  We use that standard now in the voting booth, we use it to judge those who are elected, we use it about the actions and policies by which we are governed.

    I don't know what happened to raising the bar, but adopting a "could have been worse" standard isn't going to do it - there will always be a "worse" option, so what we have to look forward to is a steadily declining quality of governance - because when you keep lowering the standards by which we measure the people we elect, we get elected officials who are more or less incapable of high-quality performance.

    Or so it seems to me.

    And on top of weaving this it-could-be-worse standard into the fabric of governance, we have the "but look at all the things we accomplished - look how productive we were!" cry from those who apparently think "something" is always better than nothing.

    It's making me a little crazy, frankly.  I suppose part of it is that I don't get to live by this attitude - not without consequence.  I can't do a crappy job at work and expect my boss to accept my "hey - it could be worse!" standard.  I can't do a crappy job at my marriage, or as a parent, or a friend or a neighbor, or as someone who inhabits space on this planet, without negative consequence: I could lose my job, ruin my marriage, turn my kids away from me, have no friends, be hated by the neighbors - I could end up a miserable human being if my attitude in life was the same as the one exhibited by too many in elected office who have a say in what kind of environment I live in.

    So, the question is, why are so many willing not just to accept mediocre-to-execrable-to unconscionable performance by those in charge, but to embrace it as if it were a good thing?

    Not only do I not get it - I don't know how to reverse it other than to keep rejecting it.  And then I am subject to the but-but-if-you-don't-elect-the-Democrat-the-even-worse-Republican-will-be-in-charge-and-things-will- be-even-worse, guilt-tripping, shaming, abusive tactics of those whose standards still have a long way to go before they reach bottom.  And they have a new pejorative for people like me now: "purist."

    The good news - for me - is that those tactics don't work on me anymore.  Go ahead and call me a purist, try to shame me for not being "pragmatic" enough and for getting in the way of getting "something" done - it doesn't bother me.  I will sleep better at night knowing I haven't sold one more piece of my soul just too boost someone else's political fortunes - fortunes which keep proving to work against our interests.

    For me the argument is grounded, as always, in (5.00 / 1) (#5)
    by Farmboy on Mon Dec 27, 2010 at 12:07:31 PM EST
    accomplishments. As you and I often do, we differ in that you choose to complain that the hungry didn't get unicorn steaks for Christmas dinner, and I choose to be happy that at least the hungry get a hot meal, even if it was just turkey and potatoes from a box.

    Hmmm (none / 0) (#7)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Mon Dec 27, 2010 at 12:18:07 PM EST
    "As you and I often do, we differ in that you choose to complain that the hungry didn't get unicorn steaks for Christmas dinner, and I choose to be happy that at least the hungry get a hot meal, even if it was just turkey and potatoes from a box."

    Given the economic situation, are you really going to go with THAT analogy?

    The reality is that you and I differ on what constitutes "turkey and potatoes from a box."

    You think it is the Obama/Bush tax cuts, the coming massive spending cuts, and the utter failure on the foreclosure crisis.

    I disagree.

    Parent

    Yes, because my "turkey & potatoes" (none / 0) (#10)
    by Farmboy on Mon Dec 27, 2010 at 12:42:48 PM EST
    meal is comprised of things like: "passing the fair pay act for women, expanding children's health insurance, hate crimes legislation, tobacco regulation, credit card reform, student loan reform, the largest investment in clean energy ever, the largest investment in education in our country ever" - things like that. Source: Rachel Maddow 12/22

    BTW, I don't live in an all-or-nothing world, and I don't think you do either. I can approve of passing the repeal of DADT, for example, without approving passing extended tax cuts for the rich.

    Parent

    Wait up (5.00 / 3) (#13)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Mon Dec 27, 2010 at 12:59:00 PM EST
    You write that your turkey and potatoes meal is comprised of things like:

    (1) "passing the fair pay act for women" - you mean the Lily Ledbetter Acr? I support the Lily Ledbetter Act. But it is not a "Fair Pay For Women" Act. It merely changes the statue of limitations calculation that was wrong imposed by the Supreme Court on Title VII cases. To be clear, it applies to more than women. It applies to all persons with claims under Title VII.

    "The Lilly Ledbetter Fair Pay Act of 2009 is an Act of Congress enacted by the 111th United States Congress and signed into law by President Barack Obama on January 29, 2009.

    The bill amends the Civil Rights Act of 1964 stating that the 180-day statute of limitations for filing an equal-pay lawsuit regarding pay discrimination resets with each new discriminatory paycheck. The law was a direct answer to the Ledbetter v. Goodyear Tire & Rubber Co., 550 U.S. 618 (2007), a U.S. Supreme Court decision holding that the statute of limitations for presenting an equal-pay lawsuit begins at the date the pay was agreed upon, not at the date of the most recent paycheck, as a lower court had ruled."

    (2)"[E]xpanding children's health insurance" - yes this was good. I hope it survives the February spending cuts massacre.

    (3)[H]ate crimes legislation - The MAtthew Shephard Act. A good bill.

    (4) "[T]obacco regulation" - not sure what this is supposed to be doing, but sounds good. Maybe you can explain how it makes things better. Last I looked, cigarettes are still being sold.

    (5)"[C]redit card reform" - actually, this was a disastrous bill. Not an accomplishment at all. Look past the titles some time to understand the point of this post.

    (6) "[S]tudent loan reform" - clearly good. No buts about it.

    (7) "[T]he largest investment in clean energy ever" will now be slashed thanks to The Deal.

    (8)"[T]he largest investment in education in our country ever" will be slashed now thanks to The Deal.

    But fine, count these as historic accomplishments. I do not see them that way, except for DADT.

    More importantly, the government did not stop when these bills were passed. I have been repeating myself over and over again about the importance of TAX POLICY for funding these wonderful things.

    You write "BTW, I don't live in an all-or-nothing world, and I don't think you do either. I can approve of passing the repeal of DADT, for example, without approving passing extended tax cuts for the rich."

    So do I. What's your point on that?

    Parent

    DADT is huge (none / 0) (#18)
    by MKS on Mon Dec 27, 2010 at 02:27:49 PM EST
    It is like the Titanic hitting the iceberg.  The effects will be cataclysmic but largely felt down the road.  

    I truly think it is the end of the religious right as we know it.  That political movement could well morph into a Sarah Palinesque xenophobic nationalism.....but their heydey is over.  Before the religious right became the right arm of the Republican party, you had Republicans like Ike, Nixon and Ford.  After, you had Reagan and Bush, Jr.

    Without the organized religious right, we should go back to the (minority) Republican Party of the 1970s....Many of the religious right incline to populist economic policies....as did Huckabee before he had to backtrack last election cycle.  Many of them will migrate back to their William Jennings Bryan economic roots if opposition to abortion and gay rights is no longer on the radar screen.

    Witness the debate on RedState last week about the failed initiative in Colorado to declare every embyro a person.  It failed by a 70-30 ( or so) margin.  The Redstate commentators were all over each other about the next step to reinvigorate the pro-life movement....they clearly feel old and beat up.  The poster Gamecock a few months ago openly wondered whether the religious conservatives should give up on politics and focus instead on saving individual souls.  

     Wedge issues worked in progressives' favor in 2010--knocking out O'Donnell and Angle and Buck.  Social Conservatism will not recover from the momentum created by DADT repeal.  

    So, I tend to take a moment or two longer than most to savor DADT repeal.  The repeal of DADT will help progressive economic policies in the long run.

    On economics, it is all about playing defense in the Senate to keep the funding in place.  Don't let the issue go to Obama in the first place.... And jobs.  More jobs means more Democratic members of the House in 2012.

    Parent

    If the repeal of DADT could only (5.00 / 1) (#41)
    by Militarytracy on Tue Dec 28, 2010 at 02:19:14 AM EST
    change the people who live outside the gates like you envision.  Let's just go ahead and be blunt here.  Within the military nobody cares if your marriage is an ethically mixed one either.  We simply do not care, it does not change your job or your ability to preform that job to a standard of excellence.  But we still have friends who spend their mixed ethnic family lives mostly inside the gates of Fort Rucker because the people who live outside the gates here are still filled with hate, and exercise filthy mouths, and off the charts offensive beliefs.....and some people will not expose their children to it willfully.  The repeal of DADT is huge within the military, it will gradually fix many things outside the gates in some places but it will not fix and heal all that ails us and it will not capsize the religious right.

    Parent
    You remind me of a MLK, Jr quote (5.00 / 1) (#42)
    by Harry Saxon on Tue Dec 28, 2010 at 08:57:36 AM EST
    Let us be dissatisfied until from every city hall, justice will roll down like waters and righteousness like a mighty stream. Let us be dissatisfied until that day when the lion and the lamb shall lie down together, and every man will sit under his own vine and fig tree and none shall be afraid. Let us be dissatisfied. And men will recognize that out of one blood God made all men to dwell upon the face of the earth. Let us be dissatisfied until that day when nobody will shout "White Power!" -- when nobody will shout "Black Power!" -- but everybody will talk about God's power and human power.


    Parent
    I think it will have huge effects over time (none / 0) (#50)
    by MKS on Tue Dec 28, 2010 at 01:47:15 PM EST
    The Right reveres the military.   To have the military accept gay soldiers as equals will make a huge difference.

    The analogy to Civil Rights is a good one.  No, racism did not end, but the segregationists are out of power--and segregationist expression is disqualifying.    

    Parent

    It will make some difference (none / 0) (#57)
    by Militarytracy on Tue Dec 28, 2010 at 08:57:51 PM EST
    But the religious right will only reverence specific things within the military exactly as they do right now and they will always have voices within the military that they will lift up and lean on who oppose gay soldiers. Just like no matter what happens in the real world, the left will always demonize the military in specific ways and when anything happens that would indicate that demonization isn't quite hitting the mark....then you discover that they have only just begun to become incensed and enraged about it :)

    Parent
    One thing that will be huge (none / 0) (#58)
    by Militarytracy on Tue Dec 28, 2010 at 09:15:05 PM EST
    is that if you are married in a state that recognizes gay marriage, based on how the military views what is legal and not...you will be legally married.  And I'm assuming that all the benefits that go with being married apply as well.

    What super terrific changes will this mean for civilians though?  I have to ask this because lately I've been thinking a lot about how we get automatic 100% healthcare "coverage" and nobody else does and our "sacrifice" is what everyone has bought into that makes us more special.  You have to have a head of the household sign up for war on command.  So....I assume that if gays are willing to sign up for the same sacrifice they will get to be more special than civilian gays, because not everything we experience in military culture easily crosses over into civilian culture.

    Parent

    love your optimism (none / 0) (#19)
    by The Addams Family on Mon Dec 27, 2010 at 02:30:28 PM EST
    DADT is huge. It is like the Titanic hitting the iceberg.

    wish i shared it

    Parent

    Social conservative are growing discouraged (none / 0) (#20)
    by MKS on Mon Dec 27, 2010 at 02:43:24 PM EST
    The Right just won big in 2010 but nothing will happen to push a socially conservative agenda....

    On gay rights, the Conservatives will do what they always do when faced with defeat--join the "winners"--because being essentially authoritarian, they cannot stand not having the validation of the governement; so they will change to get that validation.  

    Notice how few social conservatives really complained about DADT--because they know how thoroughly they were defeated....It is the Overton Windown moving left on social issues....DADT repeal is a centrist position now.....Social Conservatives will now say, so they can be on the winning side, that they were always for gay rights....Just like they do today on Civil Rights for African Americans.

    Biden is right about DADT repeal's effect on gay marriage.....This will cleave the social conservatives....

    The key is to make sure the next two Supreme Court nominees are by Democrats....  

    Parent

    That's an interesting argument (none / 0) (#23)
    by lilburro on Mon Dec 27, 2010 at 03:19:42 PM EST
    the only thing I wonder is that McCain's top advisor, Steve Schmidt, after the campaign in 2008, was signalling that the GOP had to move away from gay rights in order to be viable.  Schmidt isn't a social conservative but I think the GOP is planning to keep those wedge issues alive in some way.  Maybe the states' rights movement they've started aside from the healthcare issue is another way to keep those votes coming in.

    Parent
    They will try (none / 0) (#25)
    by MKS on Mon Dec 27, 2010 at 03:25:34 PM EST
    but the energy will be directed towards the help-the-rich Republican economnic strategy....

    At some point, that should wear off on the descendants of those who championed William Jennings Bryan.....

    Parent

    I share your optimism on (none / 0) (#22)
    by KeysDan on Mon Dec 27, 2010 at 03:05:40 PM EST
    repeal of DADT.  I believe it will eventually (before the end of 2011) be certified and repealed. The broad acceptance by the general populace as well as wide attribution of repeal to the president are among factors that will fan the fires of his fierce advocacy

    Moreover, I agree that the impact of DADT repeal transcends the military's institutional discrimination.  However, the stakes are known to the bigots as well as to the Republican strategists.  All the dangers of a death rattle are now in play.

    Parent

    Social Conservatives hate (none / 0) (#24)
    by MKS on Mon Dec 27, 2010 at 03:22:39 PM EST
    being ridiculed.   And opposing DADT and gay rights in general will now lead more often to ridicule.  On Jay Leno.  Letterman.  In popular culture.  This is defeat writ large.

    There may, however, be a death rattle on gay marriage.  But I sense they will instead turn and vent their anger on national security issues (in the short run.)  Obama is weak and selling out Israel (and is a secret Muslim, etc.)

    It is hard to understate the impact of DADT repeal.

    Parent

    to overstate (none / 0) (#26)
    by MKS on Mon Dec 27, 2010 at 03:29:36 PM EST


    Parent
    The Religious Right never (none / 0) (#29)
    by kenosharick on Mon Dec 27, 2010 at 05:32:29 PM EST
    goes away. They temporarily fade before roaring back stronger. This has been the pattern since at least the 1920s. See "God's Own Party: The Making of the Christian Right" by Daniel K. Williams.

    Parent
    In some form..... (none / 0) (#31)
    by MKS on Mon Dec 27, 2010 at 06:15:07 PM EST
    But the difference between the 1920s and today is startling.  Women vote and hold office.  Gay Rights is the norm.  These things will not ever change.  

    But the Religious Right had no power of consequence until 1980.  To send them back to the 1950s and 1960s would be a very good thing.

    Parent

    True Farmboy, but (5.00 / 4) (#15)
    by Politalkix on Mon Dec 27, 2010 at 01:29:46 PM EST
    I have been one of the strongest supporters of the President since the time I began posting here. Even if some of the administrations views were unpopular here, I supported them (or in some cases were neutral) because I felt that they were generally in the correct direction and would strengthen our country in the long term future (even if it caused some short term pain).
    The tax deal, however by its nature, is a completely different ball game. In my mind, it will cause serious injury to the well being of the United States as a nation. Not only will it undermine some of the touted successes of this administration through lack of funding, it will also harm the economic interests of the vast majority of people in this country, many years into the future in ways that BTD succintly explained. I even have my doubts regarding its viability to improve the job situation in the short term. An article in the Washington Post indicates the dangers of letting too much cash sit in the hands of executives in the private sector. The executives will do what they know best. They will either buy back shares of their own company to boost share prices, invest in foreign markets like those in Asia or make merger deals which will cause more layoffs. Very few CEOs, these days, are visionaries who will invest in facilities and infrastructure and R&D that will employ more people and create demands and industries of the future.

    Parent
    The Beltway Pundits and Their Ilk (5.00 / 2) (#6)
    by The Maven on Mon Dec 27, 2010 at 12:16:04 PM EST
    as well as diehard Obama cheerleaders indeed seem to have decided that was is "important" is the appearance of action as opposed to the actual content of the legislation or policies.  As we all understand here, what is critical is not merely to be able to sign a bill into law, but to know that the new law isn't just some half-measure (or worse) papered over with a pretty (but entirely misleading) title.

    Those sorts of folks will be roaring with applause over such measures in the 112th Congress as the Reducing the Deficit Through Efficiency Act or the Guaranteeing Social Security for the Future Act, without ever stopping to consider the real impact of what's just been passed.

    For them, it's all about tallying up wins and losses for politicians and parties; the substance is entirely a secondary concern.  To mix metaphors, public interests are nothing more than pawns on a chessboard to be sacrificed or used as bargaining chips in an attempt to achieve a perceived victory.  And thus does our polity move ever further away from the needs of the people.

    Assignment mentality (5.00 / 2) (#11)
    by cal1942 on Mon Dec 27, 2010 at 12:43:18 PM EST
    This reflects the Beltway mentality of thinking passing laws is the goal, as opposed to making things better. It confuses methods with objectives

    Perfect description of the Village attitude BTD.

    I finished the paper.  The assignment has been turned in.  Glory hallelujah.

    Never mind the content, I got the paper in.

    Now it's time to carp about the lousy grade.

    Scolding the people who decide if you'll pass is, well ... unwise.

    we're all grade-grubbers now (none / 0) (#14)
    by Dadler on Mon Dec 27, 2010 at 01:05:22 PM EST


    Parent
    The Republicans now control the House (5.00 / 1) (#17)
    by MKS on Mon Dec 27, 2010 at 02:06:01 PM EST
    So, the best the Democrats can do now is play defense.  

    The era of Progressive legislation is over.

    Keep the filibuster rules in place--there will be no good legislation coming out of the House that Democrats would want to pass the Senate.  There will be, however, a lot of bad legislation passing the House that the Dems would want to block.  No need to unilaterally disarm by changing the Senate rules--talk about shutting the barn door too late.

    The only exception would be judges.   Better filibuster rules could help to confirm judges...but that is still not reason enough to change the rules.  Better to let the Republicans try to filibuster judges....That would make it easier for Dems to do the same down the road.

    Securing 41 liberal votes in the Senate is the only real play now....

    So DennisG (5.00 / 4) (#21)
    by Zorba on Mon Dec 27, 2010 at 02:51:16 PM EST
    is touting Obama's Executive Orders?  Like Executive Order 13535 to ensure the enforcement and implementation of abortion restrictions in the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act?  How about the E.O. being drafted even as we type that establishes indefinite detention as a long-term policy?  And let us not forget the E.O. that authorized the CIA to assassinate an American citizen, away from the battlefield, wherever he may be found.  Those Executive Orders?  Surely something to be proud of.  </snark>  

    Good to have you back BTD (none / 0) (#1)
    by kmblue on Mon Dec 27, 2010 at 11:03:47 AM EST
    I'm still not clapping louder.  Happy New Year!

    And the country (none / 0) (#8)
    by jimakaPPJ on Mon Dec 27, 2010 at 12:30:00 PM EST
    thoroughly rejected all those new rules, EO's and Czar like proclamations in the last election.

    It is further outraged by the lame duck session. Fortunately for Demos the outrage is now spread to a bunch of Repubs, many of who will be ousted in the 2010 primaries, giving the Denos a shot at taking the seat.

    The unwillingness of the Congress, and Obama, to abide by the election means that little will get done. For that we can be thankful.

    I wonder if you felt the same way (5.00 / 2) (#9)
    by CST on Mon Dec 27, 2010 at 12:35:38 PM EST
    In 2006 and 2008.

    "thoroughly rejected" indeed.

    The country does not vote for or against "new rules, EO's and Czar like proclamations"

    They vote for candidates, for many different reasons, on many different issues, not just the ones you cherry pick from your own life.'

    I agree with this actually: "The unwillingness of the Congress, and Obama, to abide by the election means that little will get done" - except I'm thinking the 2008 election, not 2010.  And no, I'm not thankfull for that.

    Parent

    Good question (2.00 / 1) (#30)
    by jimakaPPJ on Mon Dec 27, 2010 at 06:03:52 PM EST
    And the Demos took over in 2006 promising lower energy costs...how well did that work out?

    And the Demps took more power in 2008 promising hope and change and all we got was Insurance Corporation Welfare...

    The issue is that people do not want hope and change when it effects them.

    Parent

    Re (none / 0) (#37)
    by Harry Saxon on Mon Dec 27, 2010 at 07:02:15 PM EST

    the Demos took over in 2006 promising lower energy costs...how well did that work out?

    I also remember Bush pushing alternative energy around the same time, so please try to be fair and balanced about this issue in the future, from Reuters via a Malaysian online news site:

    President George W. Bush called on Tuesday for tapping renewable energy sources like wind and solar power to contend with surging energy costs but environmental groups questioned his commitment to easing U.S. oil dependence.

    Bush also told employees at a key laboratory for renewable energy research that he regretted "mixed signals" that had led the Colorado facility to announce job cuts earlier this month because of budget cuts.

    He visited the National Renewable Energy Laboratory a day after his administration rushed the transfer of $5 million to the lab to enable it to restore the jobs and resolve what could have been an embarrassing situation.

    Click Me

    And the Demps took more power in 2008 promising hope and change and all we got was Insurance Corporation Welfare...

    And the Tea Partiers will fight the evilllllll corporations to the last dime of their Koch-funded leaders campaign money next year, just wait and see, folks.

    Parent

    Solar and wind power (none / 0) (#59)
    by jimakaPPJ on Tue Dec 28, 2010 at 09:59:56 PM EST
    is not cheaper energy.

    Please try and be accurate.

    Parent

    Re: Really? But wave power is. (none / 0) (#60)
    by Harry Saxon on Tue Dec 28, 2010 at 10:56:22 PM EST
    From www.sfgate(dot)com

    The wave study results suggest that more than 100 gigawatt-hours of power could be produced annually at a cost ranging from 17 to 22 cents per kilowatt hour. That's cheaper than the 23.5 cents per kilowatt hour - a cost that will increase 3 percent a year - that the city is paying for power from the solar project built on top of the Sunset Reservoir. PG&E's average commercial rate for power is currently about 18 cents per kilowatt hour, a spokesman said.

    Click Me

    From www.businessweek(dot)com

    June 8 (Bloomberg) -- China's decision to step up work in renewable energy may help make solar and wind power as cheap as coal as a fuel generating electricity, executives at a conference in Shanghai said today.

    Solar projects in China are bringing closer "grid parity" where clean power costs are similar to those for fossil fuels, said Anil Srivastava, executive president for renewable energy at the French power generator Areva SA. Johnny Kwan, a senior vice president at chemical company BASF SE said China is on the way to being "the most successful low-carbon economy."

    Click Me

    From www.(cnn)(dot)com:

    Earlier this month, the accounting firm Ernst & Young named China the most attractive place to invest in renewables, knocking the United States out of the top position.

    The study ranked countries on such things as regulatory risk, access to finance, grid connection and tax climate. It cited the lack of a clear policy promoting demand for renewables in the United States -- a product of Congress' failure to pass an energy bill -- as one of the main factors for the dethroning.

    China has already surpassed the United States in the amount of wind turbines and solar panels that it makes. China is also gaining on the United States when it comes to how much of their energy comes from renewable energy sources.

    Looks like the Chinese are in on the conspiracy too, PPJ, thanks for the heads up.

    Please try and be accurate.

    Repeat after me:

    Siemens is part of the conspiracy:

    DONG Energy and Siemens have entered into an agreement for testing and research and development involving 6 MW offshore wind turbines. Under the agreement, Siemens is to supply two of these test turbines to DONG Energy, which will used them for research and development purposes.


    Click Me

    Try to have more facts with your assertions, PPJ, otherwise people might think you're some sort of nut who takes Fox News seriously.  :-)


    Parent

    sigh..... (none / 0) (#63)
    by jimakaPPJ on Thu Dec 30, 2010 at 10:07:22 AM EST
    Sirloin is cheaper than fillet mignon.

    And your point is??

    Parent

    Uh, yes meat exists in different grades (none / 0) (#65)
    by Harry Saxon on Thu Dec 30, 2010 at 11:43:19 AM EST
    but energy is energy, so your analogy demonstrates loose, turbid thinking on your part.

    True,  a lowball estimate of 17 cents/KWH may not be true at the time of implementation.

    However.

    How many years do you think it will take for 17 cents to materialize, given the pace of technological change these days?

    As for solar being competitive, it isn't something that takes a quantum leap in technology, according to this fellow here from the Rocky Mountain Institute:

    "Getting to good economies of scale where solar PV can compete in the market on its own does not require a technological breakthrough," said Stephen Doig, RMI program director. "We actually have all the components and pieces. We just need to drive out the waste in the system, get to scale, and then we will have competitively priced systems. New technologies, or new panels will abet this process, but we don't need to depend on them."

    Click Me.

    That was less than 100 word, BTW, for the folks at home keeping track.

    Thanks for the feedback.

    Parent

    Current coal powered technology is (none / 0) (#68)
    by jimakaPPJ on Thu Dec 30, 2010 at 04:42:51 PM EST
    providing electricity at 10 cents/kwh.

    Of course you may have discovered a way to harness Unicorn gaseous emissions..

    ;-)

    Parent

    And that is retail. (none / 0) (#69)
    by jimakaPPJ on Thu Dec 30, 2010 at 04:43:51 PM EST


    Parent
    You don't think (none / 0) (#70)
    by Harry Saxon on Thu Dec 30, 2010 at 08:33:59 PM EST
    that solar/wind/tidal, etc., can't be brought down to 10c/kWH by the country that first sent a man to the Moon.

    Okayyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyy

    Parent

    Can we also expect (none / 0) (#72)
    by jimakaPPJ on Fri Dec 31, 2010 at 09:44:17 AM EST
    time travel, immortality and good tasting broccoli??

    The issue isn't what we can do in the future. The issue is what we can do now.

    What the environmentalists want is to force people to use more costly and limited energy sources in a mistaken belief that this will stop global warming.

    So we need to drill for more oil and dig more coal and build more nuke reactors... and have such a booming economy that we can do the research needed for wind power, solar power, wave power, etc.

    You know, oil and coal did not become the primary fuel sources for the world because of what some politician did. They did so because they were the most efficient and least costly.

    Parent

    Got any more straw men to sell? (none / 0) (#74)
    by Harry Saxon on Fri Dec 31, 2010 at 10:12:57 AM EST

    I also lay aside all ideas of any new works or engines of ware, the invention of which long-ago reached its limit, and in which I see no hope for further improvement...
        - Sextus Julius Frontinus, governor of Britania, 84 C.E.

    The abolishment of pain in surgery is a chimera. It is absurd to go on seeking it... Knife and pain are two words in surgery that must forever be associated in the consciousness of the patient.
        - Dr. Alfred Velpeau (1839), French surgeon

    Men might as well project a voyage to the Moon as attempt to employ steam navigation against the stormy North Atlantic Ocean.
        - Dr. Dionysus Lardner (1793-1859), Professor of Natural Philosophy and Astronomy at University College, London.

    Let's here from a military expert.

    That is the biggest fool thing we have ever done. The bomb will never go off, and I speak as an expert in explosives.
        - Admiral William Leahy. [Advice to President Truman, when asked his opinion of the atomic bomb project.]


    Click Me

    False dichotemy, PPJ.  Look it up.

    The issue isn't what we can do in the future. The issue is what we can do now.

    The issue is that alternative power sources are within range of being competitive in a few years, but according to you, that's like expecting time travel to be perfected in the next few years.

    What the environmentalists want is to force people to use more costly and limited energy sources in a mistaken belief that this will stop global warming.

    Of course, it's all just a conspiracy, and the Rocky Mountain Institute is in on it as well.

    So we need to drill for more oil and dig more coal and build more nuke reactors... and have such a booming economy that we can do the research needed for wind power, solar power, wave power, etc.

    No, if we do the research into wind power, solar, etc., we can do without OPEC, coal and nuclear power in a gradual weaning process that will serve America and the American people better than your proposal.

    Thanks for your paranoid POV.

    Parent

    According to me (none / 0) (#77)
    by jimakaPPJ on Fri Dec 31, 2010 at 08:06:20 PM EST
    gasoline is above $3.00 and going up.

    And all the Demos have to offer is 17 cents a KWH power available sometimes in the future??

    No one is saying that technology won't improve... I am saying that we have to live until then and your solution is to do Cap and Tax and kill the economy.

    Parent

    Good cherry-picking PPJ (none / 0) (#79)
    by Harry Saxon on Fri Dec 31, 2010 at 08:56:11 PM EST
    and you still haven't told me why we should let the Chinese eat our lunch in renewable energy, did Al Gore get to them too?

    I am saying that we have to live until then and your solution is to do Cap and Tax and kill the economy.

    Nice smear, PPJ, I wish Soros just paid me enough to make it come true.

    Parent

    You don't work for Soros?? (none / 0) (#80)
    by jimakaPPJ on Sat Jan 01, 2011 at 10:49:59 AM EST
    Who knew?? Here I thought you stood beside him and whispered into his ear, "You are not a God."

    You seem to suffer from this belief that I must react to every straw man you toss up.

    Look, my point was simple. All the "green" energy types are not competitive. Maybe they will be sometimes in the future. But forcing us into them with Cap and Tax and new EPA rules will just force us further deeper into a recession.

    Parent

    Re: I thought you stood beside him (none / 0) (#82)
    by Harry Saxon on Sat Jan 01, 2011 at 02:37:29 PM EST
    Sorry to deflate your balloon, PPJ, but I'm not quite as important in the scheme of things as you think, can you live with the disappointment?

    Besides, I believe the requirement is for a slave as a narrator in the scenario you describe, which makes it rather old-fashioned, kinda like some folks around here.

    You seem to suffer from this belief that I must react to every straw man you toss up.

    You seem to be afflicted with the notion that your posts here are unworthy of my criticisms here, and you may be correct.

    All the "green" energy types are not competitive.

    You have yet to provide one link to back up any assertions here in this thread, PPJ.

    If my martyrdom is to keep repeating this simple fact, and yours is to get snitty whenever this occures, then so be it.

    But forcing us into them with Cap and Tax and new EPA rules will just force us further deeper into a recession.

    You're the one who brought up Cap and Tax in an inelegant attempt at Look Over There, but I'll declare that I've reached the end of my travails on this thread, so as not to give you another grievance for today.

    Thanks for the feedback.

    Parent

    funny (none / 0) (#61)
    by CST on Wed Dec 29, 2010 at 08:57:33 AM EST
    that's not what I remember 20006 being about, there was something about a war...  Go figure, it meant different things to different people - everyone doesn't think just like you.  And it worked out so well they won again in 2008!

    Now the republicans have taken over promising a balanced budget by cutting your taxes and not cutting any programs that anyone likes.  Talk about hopium.

    Parent

    And how did 11/10 go for you? (none / 0) (#64)
    by jimakaPPJ on Thu Dec 30, 2010 at 10:09:05 AM EST
    Lower energy costs was ONE of the promises.

    Parent
    Gotta link to back up your contention, (none / 0) (#66)
    by Harry Saxon on Thu Dec 30, 2010 at 11:44:33 AM EST
    even one from the Wikipedia?

    Or is this like asking you to prove that the Sun rises in the East every morning?

    Parent

    You may look to the West in the AM (none / 0) (#67)
    by jimakaPPJ on Thu Dec 30, 2010 at 04:39:54 PM EST
    DEMOCRATIC PROMISE #16: Lower Gasoline Prices
    Promise: "Democrats have a plan to lower gas prices...join Democrats who are working to lower gas prices now." - Then-Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi (D-CA), Press Release, April 19, 2006

    Link

    Enjoy.

    Parent

    Uh, one mention by (none / 0) (#71)
    by Harry Saxon on Thu Dec 30, 2010 at 08:50:49 PM EST
    the Speaker Pelosi that is #16 on a list of promises is hardly "running on it", and you still fail to account for the results of the 2008 election which in your eyes presumably "rewarded" the Democrats when they didn't keep promise #16.

    Would it break your heart to learn that I'm underwhelmed?

    I expected it to be the lead of a story about the elections in 2006, how the President didn't care about the effect of rising gas prices on the American people....

    Oh, that's right, there was a Republican plan to deal with rising gas prices after the 2006 election, this is from 2008, from msnbc(dot)com:

    SHARM EL-SHEIK, Egypt -- Saudi Arabia's King Abdullah told President Bush he was worried about the impact of high oil prices on the world economy, the White House said Wednesday. After their talks, Bush was hopeful that OPEC would authorize an increase in oil production.

    The White House did not say there was any commitment from the king about increasing oil output. The kingdom holds the world's largest oil supplies and is a major voice in decisions by OPEC.

    Worries about the economy and high oil prices have shot to the front of the U.S. presidential campaign. The White House seemed eager to portray Bush as dealing with the politically potent issue as he came under blistering criticism from the campaign trail.



    Click Me

    Parent
    So we should just (none / 0) (#73)
    by jimakaPPJ on Fri Dec 31, 2010 at 09:48:45 AM EST
    ignore press releases from the Democratic leaders?

    Who knew?

    BTW - Democrats were elected in 2006 to fix things.

    How'd that work for you?

    ;-)

    Parent

    No, but saying that they ran on it (none / 0) (#75)
    by Harry Saxon on Fri Dec 31, 2010 at 10:17:17 AM EST
    when it was #16 on the list is a bit misleading at best, so again you're making a false dichotemy.

    BTW - Democrats were elected in 2006 to fix things.

    How'd that work for you?

    ;-)

    We'll see how happy you'll be in the next two years with the House of Representatives in Republican hands, can we call them an utter failure if the Economy doesn't pick up by early 2012?

    I'm looking forward to your spinning for them next year.

    :-)

    Parent

    So they didn't promise? (none / 0) (#76)
    by jimakaPPJ on Fri Dec 31, 2010 at 08:02:08 PM EST
    She announced, "Democrats have a common-sense plan to help bring down skyrocketing gas prices by cracking down on price gouging, rolling back the billions of dollars in taxpayer subsidies, tax breaks and royalty relief given to big oil and gas companies, and increasing production of alternative fuels."

    Well, over a year after taking the Senate and the House on Jan. 4, 2007, and promising to lower oil prices, the Democrats have presided over the highest oil price increase in history. Last week, gasoline prices averaged $3.94 per gallon, $1.03 higher than when now-Speaker Pelosi made her politically motivated promise.

    Link


    Parent

    You wouldn't want to be unfair (none / 0) (#78)
    by Harry Saxon on Fri Dec 31, 2010 at 08:43:30 PM EST
    without noting what Pelosi said at the time that column came from, would you?

    Even if you did, from the Huffington Post:

    The president knows, as his own administration has stated, that the impact of any new drilling will be insignificant -- promising savings of only pennies per gallon many years down the road. Americans know that thanks to the two oilmen in the White House, consumers are now paying $4 a gallon for gas. But what Americans should realize is that what the president is calling for is drilling as close as three miles off of America's pristine beaches and in other protected areas.

    The president has failed in his economic policy, and now he wants to say, 'but for drilling in protected areas offshore, our economy would be thriving and the price of gas would be lower.' That hoax is unworthy of the serious debate we must have to relieve the pain of consumers at the pump and to promote energy independence.

    Today, the New Direction Congress will vote on legislation to bring down gas prices by taking crucial steps to curb excessive speculation in the energy futures market. The president himself could lower prices by drawing down a small portion of our government oil stockpile, the Strategic Petroleum Reserve. The New Direction Congress will continue to bring forth responsible proposals to increase supply, reduce prices, protect consumers, and transition America to a clean, renewable energy independent future.

    Click Me

    218 words, it's easier if you don't move your lips.

    And even if the column was right, the Democrats got elected again in 2008 despite "falling down on the job", so I guess your discontent should be directed towards the electorate that voted them in office, as was displayed on your blog displayed from 11-05-2008 until recently.

    Thanks for playing, and better luck this time.

    Parent

    A trip of 1000 miles (none / 0) (#81)
    by jimakaPPJ on Sat Jan 01, 2011 at 10:54:45 AM EST
    begins with first step.

    If we don't start the excuse will always be that we haven't started.

    And all we have to do is look at how the oil speculation burst in 8/2008 when Bush (too late)issued his EO opening up off shore drilling.

    Did you say, "Thanks for playing?"

    DA, you are most welcome.

    Parent

    Re: A trip of 1000 miles (none / 0) (#83)
    by Harry Saxon on Sat Jan 01, 2011 at 02:47:05 PM EST
    It does seem like that after I respond to you, doesn't it, PPJ?

    If we don't start the excuse will always be that we haven't started.

    Much obliged for the tautology.

    And all we have to do is look at how the oil speculation burst in 8/2008 when Bush (too late)issued his EO opening up off shore drilling.

    Or, again, we can look at what rational people were saying at the time, from www.priceofoil(dot)org:

    While the oil companies tried to blame lack of exploration opportunities on the oil price. "Lack of access to responsible production is a root cause of our continuing energy shortfall," said Shell Oil in a statement. "As we have seen, limited supply and increased demand can lead to shortages and higher prices."

    Its only two months ago that Shell said that the oil price raise was NOT due to supply shortages. As we blogged in May: "The record oil price of $135 a barrel is due to "market sentiment" rather than a shortage of supply" said Shell's chief executive, Jeroen van der Veer.

    The oil companies will say anything to justify getting their hands on more acreage. And Bush will do anything to assist his old buddies. And neither will solve the problem.

    Click Me

    Did you say, "Thanks for playing?"

    No, thanks for the laughs would be more appropriate.

    DA, you are most welcome.

    Have a nice day if you can, PPJ.

    Parent

    Blaming the oil companies?? (none / 0) (#84)
    by jimakaPPJ on Sat Jan 01, 2011 at 03:09:34 PM EST
    I thought it was the place of government to intervene for the general welfare.

    Parent
    First you have to decide (none / 0) (#85)
    by Harry Saxon on Sat Jan 01, 2011 at 04:36:46 PM EST
    what the government is suppose to do in this particular case:

    A) Reverse "market sentiment",

    or

    B) Provide "responsible access to responsible production".

    No charge for the lesson.

    Parent

    You mean we get to decide? (none / 0) (#86)
    by jimakaPPJ on Sat Jan 01, 2011 at 07:35:13 PM EST
    What a novel thought from you, DA.

    Have a happy and a Good Night!

    ;-)

    Parent

    Depends on whether you (none / 0) (#87)
    by Harry Saxon on Sat Jan 01, 2011 at 08:21:00 PM EST
    value intellectual consistency or defending the poor, despised, helpless mom-and-pop operations like Shell Oil, PPJ.  

    :-D

    Parent

    BTW, if you are really convinced I (none / 0) (#88)
    by Harry Saxon on Sat Jan 01, 2011 at 08:23:47 PM EST
    am the banned, loathsome DA, why haven't you told your good buddy JM?

    Sleep tight, and don't let the bedbugs bite.

    Parent

    It was the economy (5.00 / 5) (#12)
    by cal1942 on Mon Dec 27, 2010 at 12:53:36 PM EST
    It's always the economy.

    Jobs, jobs, jobs.

    Had the unemployment rate been two points lower Republicans would have lost ground in the 2010 elections.

    People don't give a crap about executive orders, Czars, deficits, etc.

    People care about jobs.

    Parent

    Agree with CST (5.00 / 2) (#16)
    by waldenpond on Mon Dec 27, 2010 at 01:35:47 PM EST
    You didn't believe in any rejection when the conservatives were booted.

    Dems were punished for effing up.  They have trotted out their new pre-polled talking points, but Repubs were honest that they were not being voted 'for.'

    As far as getting nothing done..... The Dems are about to do filibuster reform which will also give the conservatives control of the Senate and sideline the few with any understanding of policy from blocking the destruction about to be brought down on the country.

    The rotting from within will accelerate.  It's intriguing to watch.  

    Parent

    What can you expect (none / 0) (#27)
    by observed on Mon Dec 27, 2010 at 03:33:55 PM EST
    from people who confused Obama with FDR?

    More circular firing squad (none / 0) (#32)
    by MKS on Mon Dec 27, 2010 at 06:19:42 PM EST
    The Left forever guillotining Danton.....

    Perhaps the need to vilify Obama supporters holds you back, making it difficult to chart the next step....

    If you were to talk about what the next step should be, i.e. suggest a constructive idea....

    Parent

    Sure. Dems need to stop cheerleading (5.00 / 1) (#33)
    by observed on Mon Dec 27, 2010 at 06:37:15 PM EST
    far right tax policies---so far right they would make Reagan blush. Obama needs to feel heat from the left.

    Parent
    More specifically, Dems and the blogs (none / 0) (#34)
    by MKS on Mon Dec 27, 2010 at 06:49:44 PM EST
    need to secure 41 votes in the Senate for Social Security.

    That was done in 2005 by TPM when it was less august than now.  One blog can make a difference.

    Lining up that support, and arguing against the Republican view of Social Security in need of a private market fix....is a better use of time than constantly bit*hing about Obama and his supporters....

    If you think first tearing down Obama and his supporters is needed--to clear away the brush, so to speak--you are mistaken....Who are you going to convince with that approach?

    Time is awasting...
     

    Parent

    Dems won't save SS (none / 0) (#36)
    by observed on Mon Dec 27, 2010 at 06:58:13 PM EST
    if Obama puts it on the chopping block---not in the Senate.

    Parent
    So, you give up already? (none / 0) (#38)
    by MKS on Mon Dec 27, 2010 at 07:16:10 PM EST
    And getting the attention of a Senator is easier than the President....

     

    Parent

    Why bother with Obama if he (none / 0) (#39)
    by MKS on Mon Dec 27, 2010 at 07:27:48 PM EST
    is really a Republican?--as all here seem to assert.

    Or maybe you do not think he really is a Republican after all.....

    Either way does not matter.  

    A letter with 41+ Senators' signatures on it pledging to filibuster any changes or cuts to Social Security would go a long way to getting Obama's attention, don't you think?

    Parent

    It would have no effect at all (5.00 / 3) (#40)
    by shoephone on Tue Dec 28, 2010 at 02:13:51 AM EST
    A little over a year ago, 84 members of the Congressional Progressive Caucus sent Obama a letter stating that they WOULD NOT vote for any health care legislation that didn't include a strong public option.

    We all know how that turned out. Almost all of them ended up voting for it. And Obama knew they'd cave in.

    What makes you think some sternly-worded letter signed by 41 senators is going to push Obama into protecting social security? He's been telling us for two years that he's raring to go on social security "reform".

    Parent

    So, all is lost--it is hopeless (none / 0) (#44)
    by MKS on Tue Dec 28, 2010 at 12:44:57 PM EST


    Parent
    Liberal Senators like say Durbin? (5.00 / 3) (#43)
    by MO Blue on Tue Dec 28, 2010 at 09:03:54 AM EST
    Durbin who stated he hated some of the proposals from the Cat Food Commission like a devil hates holy water. Of course when push came to shove, he also stated that he would have voted for the commissions recommendations which included cuts to SS benefits had a vote been taken.

    I can give you the names of 15 Democratic Senators who either said they would vote for the Cat Food Commission recommendations and/or who have signed a letter stating that deficit reductions based on these recommendations should be part of the agenda in the next Congress.

    You made the same argument on preventing the tax cuts to the rich. How did that go? Something about Sen. Landrieu to the rescue because of her remarks on how morally corrupt these cuts were. IIRC morally corrupt or not, good old Mary voted yea for the tax cuts to the rich loud and clear when it can time to vote.        

    Parent

    You said I made the same arguments (2.00 / 1) (#45)
    by MKS on Tue Dec 28, 2010 at 12:51:37 PM EST
    regarding the tax cuts.....I am not sure what you are referring to.....

    So what, if Obama does not pay any attention?  If you have 41 votes, then Obama can't change Social Security.

    If Obama is the Rebpublican you all say he is, bypass him.  If you think that is not possible, why do you post here?  If all is lost, why bother at all?

    Really, I would like to know why you post here.  Obama will harm Social Security.  There are not 41 votes in the Senate to stop it.  So, what is your purpose in posting here?

    Parent

    There are not 41 Dem votes to save (5.00 / 2) (#46)
    by MO Blue on Tue Dec 28, 2010 at 01:14:18 PM EST
    Social Security.

    My purpose in posting here definitely doesn't align with your agenda of ignoring what Dem politicians actually say and do so that I can be a cheerleader for Obama and the Democratic Party. If Jeralyn requests that I go elsewhere, I will comply. If not, I fully intend to express my opinion on issues that matter to me.

     

    Parent

    I don't think (none / 0) (#48)
    by MKS on Tue Dec 28, 2010 at 01:38:05 PM EST
    anyone will ask you to stop posting.

    It does appear that you think saving Social Security is a lost cause and that you come here to complain about a fait accompli.  A bi*ch session--that is what this discussion is for you.

    My agenda is not to ignore anything or cheerlead anyone.   I have in fact criticized Obama and his policy choices here.  I am not knee-jerk in that regard, so I may accordingly seem out of step.  

    I do disagree that saving social security is a lost cause.  It has been repeatedly saved, and can be again.  If people here would do more than just b*tch about Obama, and actually do something constructive, then something might actually get accomplished....

    Parent

    What makes you assume that people (5.00 / 2) (#53)
    by Anne on Tue Dec 28, 2010 at 02:59:45 PM EST
    aren't doing more?  That they aren't calling and e-mailing and faxing their elected representatives?

    Just because people post comments here does not mean they are not also making their feelings known to the people who represent them at all levels of government.

    Parent

    The truth is hard to take... (5.00 / 2) (#47)
    by shoephone on Tue Dec 28, 2010 at 01:29:15 PM EST


    Parent
    Your "truth" that social security (none / 0) (#49)
    by MKS on Tue Dec 28, 2010 at 01:42:51 PM EST
    is already lost has not yet occurred, so it is not truth.  If and when that happens, I will acknowledge it.

    Defeatism is not necessarily more realistic or clear seeing.....

    Too many have lost perspective here....

    Parent

    Don't misinterpret (5.00 / 1) (#52)
    by shoephone on Tue Dec 28, 2010 at 02:44:07 PM EST
    My "truth" is that Obama will not be influenced by 41 phantom, caring, filibustering senators. As MO Blue rightly points out, we can't even count on the senate leadership (Durbin). If you want to stay in denial about where Obama and Senate Dems are on the issue, that's your perogative. The only serious pushback on social security is going to come from the House.

    Parent
    From the Republican House? (none / 0) (#55)
    by MKS on Tue Dec 28, 2010 at 03:15:47 PM EST
    Huh?  

    If you are relying on Republicans to save Social Security, that is some realism you are imbibing...

    There will be 53 Democratic Senators next session.  It is worth the attempt to secure 41 of them.....You are saying it cannot be done.  Maybe, maybe not.   But it is worth a try.

    Complaining about Obama will do nothing.  Relying on the Republicans in the House is foolish.   It seems the only play is for Dems in the Senate.  If that is already lost, as you say, then go home--it's over.

    Parent

    The Left really expects to lose (none / 0) (#51)
    by MKS on Tue Dec 28, 2010 at 02:11:04 PM EST
    The Left does not know how to govern, and it would appear is much more comfortable being in the minority and complaining about the majority....

    Very interesting phenomenon.....

    The Right labors under no such disadvantage....

    Parent

    The right tells Republican politicians that (none / 0) (#54)
    by MO Blue on Tue Dec 28, 2010 at 03:03:34 PM EST
    if they vote contrary to the right wing voter's agenda, they will either get rid of them through a primary challenge or stay home. They actually will let the Republican lose the election rather than vote for someone who does support their agenda.

    Dem voters OTOH call and write begging a Democratic politician to vote in favor of their agenda while reassuring the politician that regardless of their vote or how badly it hurts the voter, they will always vote for the Dem.

    I'm all for Democratic voters pursuing their agenda in the same manner.      

    Parent

    Please provide me with a list of 41 Democratic (none / 0) (#56)
    by MO Blue on Tue Dec 28, 2010 at 03:17:12 PM EST
    Senators who have publicly stated in 2010 that they will vote against any cuts to Social Security.

    Calling any writing my sweet Claire is a given. What is also a given is that she first publicly demanded a deficit commission be established and is one of the 14 Democratic signers of Warner's 12/3/10 letter on the deficit.

    "Prompt action is needed to bring the country's deficit into balance and stabilize our debt over the long term," the joint letter concludes. "Regardless of whether the Commission's report receives the support of at least 14 of its 18 members, we urge legislative action to address these problems. link

    The 14 does not even include Durbin and Conrad, both who indicated that they would vote in favor of the Cat Food Commissions recommendations.

    Parent
    absurd (none / 0) (#62)
    by The Addams Family on Wed Dec 29, 2010 at 09:48:58 AM EST
    If Obama is the Rebpublican you all say he is, bypass him. If you think that is not possible, why do you post here?

    why post here even though Obama has spent 2 years caving and moving the Overton Window right on issues that supposedly matter to Democrats?

    that's now a reason NOT to post here?

    strange

    Parent

    Or, if you really believe Obama is George Bush, (none / 0) (#35)
    by MKS on Mon Dec 27, 2010 at 06:52:23 PM EST
    then act accordingly.    

    Work on the Senate....

    Parent

    Confusing Methods With Objectives | 88 comments (88 topical)

    Readers Must Login or Create an Account to Comment