As John Cassidy notes in The New Yorker, President Obama has been on a roll since his party took another midterm shellacking on November 4th. Far from cowering from the onrushing conservative bull, he’s toying with it, working it up into a blithering rage.
If the midterms were essentially a mass outpouring of elderly white male angst, and I believe that they were, there couldn’t be anything more infuriating for this crew than to watch the president announce that he simply isn’t going to make it a priority to deport millions of Latinos who are in the country without legal authorization. That announcement is coming next week (most likely) and talk of impeachment hearings and lawsuits have already begun.
If this wasn’t angering enough, President Obama announced a replacement for Attorney General Eric Holder, whose race has been a constant source of consternation for the very kinds of people who disproportionately turned out and determined the outcome of the midterms. But these folks got no relief because Obama’s nominee is not only black, but she’s a woman. It did not go over well.
If racial fury was the most salient message sent by the midterm electorate, the second clearest message was that do-gooder liberals shouldn’t stand in the way of raw corporate power. The coal industry routed their opponents nearly across the board, and the consensus seemed to be that the electorate had just demanded that the Keystone XL be built, starting today. The president has threatened to veto that effort and instead announced an understanding with China in which neither coal nor tar sands have much logical future.
In another move, the president came out strongly in favor of Net Neutrality in a way designed to pressure his own administration not to buckle to the big media providers.
You can call these decisions what you want, but they are being received as a giant thumb in the eye. The Republicans are talking like the president is standing in the Capitol Building with a can of gasoline and a pack of matches.
Even Harry Reid is panicking.
Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-Nev.) said Thursday that he has urged President Barack Obama not to take any executive action on immigration until December, amid threats from Republicans that such a move could derail funding for the government.
“The president has said he’s going to do the executive action — the question is when he can do it. It’s up to him,” Reid told reporters on Capitol Hill. “I’d like to get the finances of this country out of the way before he does it.”
Reid added that he has expressed his view to Obama, but ultimately “it’s up to him.”
For the segment of the population that actually bothered to vote on November 4th, the feeling of impotent rage is so intense that comparing them to a bull and the president to a toreador doesn’t even begin to describe it.
Folks, our country is largely in the hands of incredibly enraged and aggrieved people. This is what happens when decent people stay home on Election Day.
Luckily, that didn’t happen in 2012.
Being seen as standing in the way of immigration reform ought to work out well for Republicans.
A shutdown crisis is pretty much inevitable, and I suspect Obama would rather have it sooner than later. The way the media is talking about it, most people probably think the Republicans are already in complete control of Congress so the Senate Dems are not going to get much flack from the public, whatever happens, but since Reid is still in control of the Senate Calendar, Obama has more leverage than he will come January.
In a shutdown crisis this time, the President should lay out what he will veto and stick to it, and not offer his offices for negotiation between the houses of Congress. Just let them fight it out.
My list for veto bait:
Any increase beyond what the President asked for in defense spending
Any cuts to Obamacare, Medicare, Medicaid, or Social Security
Failure to appropriate adequate funds to end the ebola outbreak in West Africa
Further breaks to the fossil fuel industry
Attempts to gut the regulatory process, like accelerating the decision on the Keystone XL pipeline or gutting the EPA, FCC, or SEC
If I were Obama threatened with another government shutdown, I’d say, “Please proceed — I could use a bounce in my poll numbers.”
That’s all good, but he’ll have a lot more leverage if the Senate passes what he’s asking for (which it will if Reid is running the show) and it’s only the House holding things up.
If the House and Senate can cooperate to make things difficult for Obama, they can pass a bill with one or two things in it and I think Obama will have much more difficult politics vetoing it.
Oh, Tarheel.
Yer livin’ in a dream vacuum.
Stick to it!!!???
He will stick to one tactic and one tactic only.
Pose…and then negotiate.
Pass the ball.
Don’t take a shot.
He’s a narcissistic point guard, fer chrissakes.
Take over the game?
Never happen.
He thinks that he is above “the game.”
Watch.
AG
Yes, the word “should” signals a bit of wishful thinking. But sometimes the universe shafts the cynics just for a bit of fun. The people of the world could use some fun again.
NO MORE PHUCKS TO GIVE.
GO, MR. PRESIDENT.
BRAVO.
This has been another edition of “What Rikyrah Said”.
I love the President when he trolls the right wing. That is all.
If my social media stream from here in TeaPartystan is any indication, the view has pretty much been etched into granite that the President has become nothing more than an insane, tyrannical rogue who is standing in the way of the wishes of Real Ameruka. The convulsions and foaming at the mouth seem to be going on 24-7. Why, they say, even the members of his own party think he has lot his mind!!
Yes, he is poking both thumbs deep into the eye sockets and grinding them even deeper. At this point, what the fuck does he have to lose? He just sat and watched the bulk of his party run like hell from most of the seminal accomplishments of his tenure in office. And those that ran the fastest and farthest got their asses handed to them in the most unflattering manner.
I don’t know what the President’s real motivations and thought processes are right now as to these actions. But I am pretty sick and tired of being affiliated with a party that seems to think the answer to beating Republicans is to snuggle up with them and try to emulate their policies, but simply in a “lower calorie serving “.
As far as I’m concerned, please proceed, Mr. President!!
You’d think the Dems would have learned from the fate of the Blue Dogs in 2010, but nooooooooo.
I’ve a hunch that some independents vote Republican despite not agreeing with all of their positions, because the GOP at least stands for something, and the independents respect that. The movement conservatives took a lot of once-unpopular positions and stuck with them until they became popular.
Now one can say, but the media has a right-wing bias, etc., but so what. What have the Dems got to lose now if they grow a spine, after having lost so much?
I’ve a hunch that some independents vote Republican despite not agreeing with all of their positions, because the GOP at least stands for something, and the independents respect that.
Well, around here lot of people I know claim they are “independents”. They “vote for the person and not the party” and “vote on the issues”. Well, I call BULLSHIT on this whole “independent” thing!! What this really means is that they are primarily low information voters who don’t pay enough attention to politics to develop any coherent philosophy or consistent principles. And as a result they don’t EVER even consider voting in primaries and they end up voting based on the general consensus of those they know who verbalize strong political views and whatever media sources they choose to ingest. And around here, that is strictly a Republican point of view.
My mother has claimed to be an “independent” all her life. And I bet the last and only Democrat she EVER voted for in her entire life was JFK. By and large, in my experience independents are just people who don’t want to admit to having a bias. Somehow that seems, at least in their own mind, to make them feel more thoughtful and contemplative.
As Nixon won the woman’s vote in 1960, wouldn’t be too sure about your mother’s vote that year. Whichever way my mother went that year, it wouldn’t have been easy for her because neither would have passed her tests “character and integrity.” The only vote she cast that she bragged about was the one for Shirley Chisholm in the 1972 primary.
It’s hard to say. I don’t know for certain. My mom was raised in a family of New Deal Democrats, but I could have seen her going for Nixon. She certainly did in the 70’s.
My mom was raised in a German/Austrian Catholic family. Not sure when she connected the racism that repulsed her as a child to politics. Am sure that she never voted for a Republican candidate for President, governor, or Senator after 1960.
The movement conservatives took a lot of once-unpopular positions and stuck with them until they became popular.
Actually, they aren’t popular. Several states approved minimum wage increase initiatives and voted down fetal personhood and anti-contraceptive measures.
Perhaps I should have said, “[their positions] became popular enough to get elected on them.”
No — their positions became less popular than ever. In 2014, they better succeeded in hiding their positions and nominating superficially pleasant sounding and looking candidates. The baggers accepted the wink-wink-nod-nod just like the bigots did in 1980 with Reagan. What they baggers don’t get is that those they champion reserve their major winks-nods for those that put the big money in their campaigns. Like Ted Cruz’ gay billionaire supporter.
Brownback?
Yes.
If Democrats stopped being cowards and stood the fuck up for what they ostensibly believe, there are a lot of people who would vote that don’t, and some who vote R simply because they see Democrats as cowards.
The longer the Democratic party refuses to be a strong party, the longer they will remain an opposition party. It has less to do with liberals being anti-hierarchical as it does with the Democratic party not actually standing for anything in particular at any particular moment.
People like strength, and being strong in favor of good things will win you votes. Pretending to be a Republican-lite tends to get your ass thrown out of office. Which is why I’d love to see Landrieu lose her runoff. If you’re a Republican with a (D) after your name, own it or fuck off.
You forgot the unfortunate legal trouble that Don Blankenship, a major coal industry figure, had hit him after the election–an indictment related to the mine disaster his orders allowed to happen.
But rumors abound that the President is going to make nice with Congress by letting them vote in the corporate sovereignty of the Trans-Pacific Partnership trade agreement, if Japan doesn’t scuttle it first. The President has the power to cancel all negotiation of trade deals; he should do it. Now. Wave that red flag again.
Another possible action is to slow-walk all boondoggle DoD contracts that exist only because of a corrupt Congress.
And he should treat Harry Reid like the lame duck leader Reid is (even if he should miraculously survive as leader after January 2015, he’s still functionally a lame duck).
Would Obama have moved on anything if “decent people” hadn’t stayed home on Election Day 2014? Showing up in 1998 only produced more Clinton-GOP bipartisan bad legislation. Showing up in 2012 re-elected Obama but produced little else.
btw – Loretta Lynch is unacceptable as would any Wall St. protector lawyer would be. Defending it because the rightwing is flipped out because she’s an African-American woman is a double fail. The rightwing is flipped out because 1) it’s an Obama appointment and 2) she isn’t a Republican. If she were appointed by a President Romney, she would be confirmed ASAP.
Did Latinos not show up for Udall in CO because of inaction on immigration legislation or:
Immigration activists have sharply criticized President Obama for a rising volume of deportations, labeling him the “deporter in chief” and staging large protests that have harmed his standing with some Latinos, a key group of voters for Democrats.
The truth is that team Obama was a bit too clever by half on this. Those higher deportation numbers to appease the white voters, GOP, etc. The left and Latinos weren’t supposed to notice. A shame they did. A ruse that didn’t garner any conservative/GOP votes but lost support from the left.
Barack Obama is, frankly speaking, the nicest Black person that you are going to come across.
I need to explain this…
The reason why I’m so strident in continuing to tell you that I don’t give a flying PHUCK at how the 2014 voters feel is…
Barack and Michelle Obama are literally THE BEST that the Black Community could offer to this country.
From my Black Perspective, they are EVERYTHING, that White folks SAY they want from Black people.
On one level, because I have been Black in America longer than 3 days, I knew what they had been saying is bullshyt, but Black people have a strong sense of optimism….how else could we have survived in this country without it?
It is the FUNDAMENTAL LACK OF RESPECT towards not only this President..
BUT HIS ENTIRE FAMILY…
that is the breaking point.
We haven’t been on Mars for the previous 43 WHITE PRESIDENTS..
we’ve been in America.
And, we can tell the difference.
I will say it again.
They better get over themselves because NOBODY is going back.
NOBODY is playing with them.
NOBODY gives a phuck.
WE ARE DONE coddling them.
Those white folks like Dr. Ben Cardin for POTUS. And didn’t balk at voting for Sen Tim Scott and soon to be Rep Mia Love.
President Obama was twice elected (and while not by a majority of white folks. Has he and his family been disrespected? Sure. So was Bill Clinton and his family. As was FDR and his wife. And Carter and his family didn’t fare all that well either.
How do you explain that in 2012, 59% of women in Iowa voted for Obama and 58% of NH women did as well. Those two states are too overwhelming white for minority women to pushed up the women’s vote for Obama by much.
The problem is white men. While race is a factor, it’s not the only factor and continuing to act as if it is won’t fix it.
I think the depth and breadth of the disrespect and, yes, the visceral hatred, of the Obamas is what I find so horrifically galling and nauseating. I will never be able to walk in the shoes of a black person or to fully appreciate the uniqueness of their perspective. But as a white person, what I have seen and heard from my personal circle of acquaintances and relatives has rattled me to my core these last 6 years. I have lost so much respect for so many people, not just as friends and loved ones, but as human beings.
When my wife and I went to see the movie Twelve Years A Slave, we left theater that night with the sickening realization that we actually knew people who held and expressed the same dehumanizing views of black people that were so vividly expressed in that movie. Now, in today’s circumstances would they go to the extremes that some of those people did in the movie? Probably not. But that core attitude that a black person should not be viewed as equally human as a white person still lives, and it is really all around me. That, to me, is a very disturbing thought.
Did they express the same visceral hatred for Ken Blackwell, Condi Rice, and Colin Powell? Those that did, and voted for Blackwell’s white opponent, are nothing but racists and will carry their bigotry to their graves, but are at least consistent and therefore, understandable. Those that didn’t — are Republican partisans that are bigoted and inarticulate enough to repeat ugly racist stuff to express opposition to Obama. They are conflicted and confused but won’t admit it and hide behind the Republican or conservative label because that’s easier than becoming informed and thinking.
Almost all are the latter. And predictably, when Colin Powell came out in support of Obama, he was instantly transformed to one of “those n@#$ers”. They can handle a black person who “stays on the plantation”. But when they stray, the reaction is as predictable as the sunrise.
In 2008 prior to the election, my mother said how much she loved Colin Powell and would want him to run. After his Obama endorsement it was, ” ‘They’ stick together.”
Know what you mean. My dad, who is now the ultimate Tea Partier, really liked and admired Powell back when he was in with the Bush cabal. Powell was, according to him, you know….”one of the good ones. Intelligent, well spoken. Not like all those gangsta wannabes with their droopy pants and rap music”. Even said he could see voting for him if he ran. Now, he loathes him just as much as he does Obama. Funny how that works.
Not funny — they are merely Republicans first and bigots second. Easier to admit the latter than the former given the disastrous GWB administration’s policies when they got suckered into the great WMD ruse and that tax cuts don’t create deficits. They’ve been voting for GOP jerkwads for forty years and all they have to show for it is flat/stagnant wages, more gazillionaires, job insecurity (if they have a job at all), and endless wars. Funny how their “god” and guns haven’t protected them.
Heh, please don’t point me toward the fork in the road marked “let’s talk god & guns”. I won’t get anything done today. 🙂
Of course they stick together. That’s 90+% true no matter who “they” are. It’s human herd/pack instinct.
Except, you know, the implication was “Colin Powell endorsed him because he himself is black, and Obama is black.”
Yes, and I would expect him to. But then, I grew up amid Chicago racial/ethnic politics. I once posted about a friend’s mother who always voted against all Irishmen and for all Italians, regardless of Party. For the remainder of the ballot she voted Republican. She was Italian-American and her husband was a German-American businessman which explains the Republican part.
The anti-Irish sentiment was not universal among Italians. I had many playmates who had one Irish and one Italian parent.
Similar feelings here. It caused me to uproot my family after 10 years in rural Missouri so that my kids would not be constantly exposed to it. It felt like demons were released in 2008. As angry as I am about their ugliness, I am disappointed in myself for my naivete that the election of President Obama showed signs of cultural maturity.
He was twice elected President; so, you weren’t naive about the overall cultural maturity of USians. Just about that of the bigots that have been voting for Republicans since 1964.
Me too. I thought the post-racial Age had finally come.
By 2007, I sensed that a Black man or a woman could be elected President. Didn’t for a moment construe that possibility as indicative of post-racial or post-misogynist age. Both will be with us for a long time to come, but during the interim lots of cracks and chinks will be made in the cultural/psychological edifice that keep both around. They will slowly wane instead of being toppled in one fell swoop.
I suppose we shouldn’t be surprised at all the rhetorical and legal backlashes against African-Americans and women since 2008. Same thing happened in the aftermath of the Brown v. Bd. of Ed, Civil Rights Acts, and Roe v. Wade. The first casualty was the ERA. And against the gays and lesbians until very recently (DOMA was passed in 1996!) A major difference is that a boatload of money from GOP, DEM, and libertarians came into the same-sex marriage issue the in the past few years.
you pick two states.
OVERALL
White Women went for Mitt Romney.
Barack Obama’s ‘women’s gap’ was due to NON-White Women.
And you refuse to understand the “gender gap.” In the 2012 election, it existed in all demographics. For example:
And the gender gap among latinos was 13%.
The white voter gender gap has generally been smaller in “red states” and that of course, at the aggregate national level overwhelms the white women’s vote in “blue states.” Not that we have a national election for President — it’s fifty states and a few districts.
Why do you dismiss the white vote in places that don’t conform to your prejudice?
I believe race is the factor. Like KDrum, I’ve been convinced it’s because of the Democratic party being seen as the “welfare for POC party.” Welfare = black people living on the hog of MY tax dollars while my income continues to stagnate. It’s all about perception (in terms of the party’s labels), and reality (economic stagnation).
Race is simply baked into the cake, and Obama is both black and Democratic to bring it out in a more visceral way.
But like KDrum I think that another factor is that the middle class don’t get much help. They get no subsidies or have employer based healthcare that was working ok for most. Go on about making things better for everyone, but not being helped directly like no cramdown or helping their kids get jobs out of college etc. Is not conducive to creating strong incentives to vote for dems.
I think Barack Obama and his family are about the nicest folks you’d want to meet period. Some say he doesn’t socialize enough, but he loves interacting with people and has a great sense of humor – he is not into ego stroking. I will miss him so when he’s left office. After 6 years of doing everything he can to get R help to move the country forward, it’s now time to give up the ghost. Fuck ’em. And those Dems who think cooperating with R’s is a good strategy are just rewarding their obstruction.
From my White Southern perspective, that very quality is what has driven the GOP and the bigots nuts. Only through upping the ante of the racist imagery and through endless repetition have the bigots tied their lies to white voters’ associations with the President. And the GOP had to go quasi-subliminal in their advertising this year in order to do it.
And of course, the white preachers and the white establishment media have played along.
Because the President, to their way of thinking, has been “nice”-ing them out. How, what is that U-word, of him!
I am an old white dude and the wife and I voted for Obama twice and would again, if he could run. Doesn’t mean we agree with him (or each other) on everything. I never agreed with ANY politician – or any friend or relative – on everything. And sometimes what we don’t agree with has to do with race. So? He’s still the best president we’ve had in decades. Stay calm.
Coral Davenport and Mark Landler, NY Times:Obama to Announce $3 Billion Contribution to Climate Change Fund
You have no idea how much I love tha Obama is doing this.
Obama’s entire presidency has been a no-win situation for him. He bent over backwards in the beginning to encourage bipartisanship, and the Republicans spit in his face. They have ignored him, tried to humiliate him, insulted him, and refused to cooperate with him at every level on virtually every topic.
I agree that he should steamroll right through to the end. He has been a model of integrity, honesty, and strength during his two terms and I’m sickened by the disrespectful treatment he’s gotten.
Fuck the GOP and their Teaparty lunatics.
Republicans like Joe Lieberman, for whom he campaigned and coddled, and Kent Conrad and a whole slew of Blue Dogs.
What the Republicans did was enforce party discipline ruthlessly; otherwise obstruction could not succeed. Democrats, not so much; even when they had sufficient power there was the backbiting with the media.
I never understood that Lieberman thing. Maybe he wanted him to break the filibuster but that is a false procedure which the Democrats could have eliminated. Surely Obama knew that. So why?
He bent over backwards for his bipartisan fetish. Never appreciating that rational Republicans disappeared decades ago and any time it looked as if there were bipartisan Republicans it was only because Democrats were willing to advance the GOP agenda.
Never forget the “moderate” Democrats, though, who think like Republicans. Never mind the problems of bipartisan consensus: just plain partisan consensus is a heavy lift too.
This makes obvious what I’ve suspected for a while. The President was treading carefully before the election, eg. delaying executive action on immigration, because nervous Senate DINOS pleaded with him to do so. Now that their “bend over and ask for more” “strategy” has proven to be the complete failure that any sentient being should have predicted, he is completely free not to give any more fucks about them. Good for him and I hope he is genuinely enjoying his new-found freedom to do what he knows is right.
This is what I expect too. I frankly think his whole presidency has been like this: Democrats, especially in the Senate, whimpering that if he “does” “things” people will get mad and hold it against them so please please please go slow, play nice, don’t make us go out on a limb, etc.
And in a way they have a bit of a point: the presidency began with the whole financial crisis that begat the bank bailouts and the stimulus and no one ran on any of that, and Democrats had to be going, “Damn, this isn’t what I signed up for, I was just running on restoring normality and getting in fewer wars.” Within months of the first term they started to feel like he owed them, and he did what he could to help them out, even though they’re for the most part a bunch of woebegone small-thinking time-servers. He delayed the expiration of the upper-income tax cuts, he let the ACA play out interminably, etc. But now he doesn’t need to worry about them. A lot of them lost, and, really, how much worse can it get? Freedom’s just another word, &c.
” He delayed the expiration of the upper-income tax cuts”
No, he made them permanent in exchange for a short term unemployment extension.
He may well be a nice erudite man, but in power politics, he’s like a kid on a bike competing at a NASCAR track.
Among the people begging for it: Barbara Boxer and Russ Feingold. You were saying?
I have no particular love for Boxer or Feingold.
BTW, what’s their annual income?
Now you’ve gone too far. Boxer is and Feingold was much better than most senators.
I voted for Boxer in her first run for office — county supervisor — in 1972 which she lost. (Before that, 1970, she joined in with students like me that were protesting Nixon’s invasion of Cambodia. She stood out because she was older and more articulate.) My friends and I were surprised when she decided to run again four years later — and didn’t think she had much of a chance because most officeholders in the county at that time were Republicans. We weren’t so good at detecting political shifts in the early stages. We voted for her and were pleased to have been wrong about her chances. Had no idea that she would go so far and win every race after that.
Didn’t say I hated them either. But I don’t take their vote for the Bush tax cuts as a sign that the cuts were good or right. I think they were very bad, horrible even and a contributor to increased income inequality.
Barbara Boxer is your Senator and I’m glad you are happy with her. I’ll even say that I’d rather have her or Feingold than either of my Senators, Durbin and Kirk.
Feingold voted nay on the Bush 2001 tax cut. Odd list of Senators that didn’t vote:
Boxer (D-CA)
Domenici (R-NM)
Enzi (R-WY)
Harkin (D-IA)
Kerry (D-MA)
Leahy (D-VT)
Murray (D-WA)
Not that it mattered since it passed with 58 votes.
The disgusting DINOs (as if we needed any more evidence of that and all but two still around, and Mary may not be for long) were:
Baucus (D-MT)
Breaux (D-LA)
Carnahan (D-MO)
Cleland (D-GA)
Feinstein (D-CA)
Johnson (D-SD)
Kohl (D-WI)
Landrieu (D-LA)
Lincoln (D-AR)
Miller (D-GA
Nelson (D-NE)
Torricelli (D-NJ)
Feinstein is the CA senator married to an investment banker and she and her husband most definitely benefited from the tax cut.
No loss with Landrieu. She won’t even make 50 so let her lie in the bed she made.
IMHO a fair question. Given the Senatorial salary alone, it would appear that they voted for bad legislation that personally profited them. I’m not saying senators have to give up their salaries or vote against raises or tax cuts, but it does raise eyebrows.
Much harder to vote to raise your own taxes.
there was a lot more to it than that and you know it
No I don’t, Jim.
then you should probably do some more reading on that deal
Well, our failed gub’mint is in the hands of candidates that those incredibly enraged and aggrieved people voted for. A majority of those voting last week are filled with hate for Obama, those whose top priority is for their representatives oppose Obama in every way possible—that’s the only “policy” they care about. If any of these voters happened to agree with Obama on some policy (say, minimum wage) they want their DC reps to oppose it anyway, in order to “fight” Obama.
So Obama’s initial response is to wave the red flag in front of the red staters. Fair enough and bravo. But it’s going to be an awfully lonely fight as the months transpire, with both houses against him, plus the federal courts, plus the corrupt corporate media. None of these opponents is going to engage in the hand anxious wringing we saw from the Dem majority in 2007.
And we are already starting to see the hapless Dem party (which already largely ran from Obama in the election) start abandoning him on Repub legislation (as well as abandoning their base). This will be seen very quickly when craven Dems allow a Keystone cave-in to land on Obama’s desk, placing the entire onus on him. Hell, we’ll be lucky if 20 Dems don’t vote with Mitch’s Majority to override a veto!
It will take political courage on Obama’s part to let the gub’mint get shut down over Repub poison pills, since Repubs clearly suffer no ill effects from such actions. He may very well be attacked by both parties for not caving! It already looks like it’s a pipe dream to expect Harry’s Dems to play anything like the same obstruction game as Mitch & Co pulled—too many cowards, as Obama is going to find very quickly.
As for the hope of executive orders and unilateral prez actions, we’ll see if Roberts’ Repubs will allow a Dem prez to exert the same (historically uncontroversial) power that, say, Prez Rmoney would have been allowed. My prediction is—no way. The Repub courts stopped Obama’s gulf drilling moratorium (after the BP oil geyser) in its tracks, remember. All those joking about Boner’s threatened laswsuit may find the jokes on them. Repubs would be fools not to use the Supreme Court the plutocrats bought.
So Obama will have no allies very soon. And there won’t be any price paid by Repubs when they shut down the gub’mint, default on obligations and impeach him. Indeed, the corporate media is slobbering all over itself for all those actions. Congress is quite a powerful entity under the constitution–and this one’s in the hands of the American Fascist party, with a deeply partisan Supreme Court to boot. That may be quite a bull.
I certainly don’t want to share in your cynicism. But the rational part of my brain, combined with what I have observed of the political landscape and the complete lack of spine, party discipline and courage that exists within almost the entire Democratic caucus, I’m afraid I would have to place my chips on things playing out much like you have outlined. As much as I don’t want it to be true, it seems highly probable.
This is flawed reasoning/observations:
In several states, voters approved conventional Democratic policies, such as increased minimum wage and said “no” to personhood and increased restrictions on contraceptives. In FL — while it failed to achieve a 60% margin — 57.6% voters approved legalization of medicinal pot while Crist, who supported Amendment 2, received 47.07% and Scott, who opposed it, received 48.15%. Are we to assume that there a lots of old folks in FL that want to consume pot but also want a GOP governor?
Sounds reasonable to me!
Sounds reasonable to me! Reasonable conclusion I mean. Not a reasonable stance.
Offered it in jest because it sounded ludicrous to me.
Facts support my guess:
Well there are two over 65 whites (one male one female) who voted “yes”. Also, I know many whites in the 60-65 range who voted yes. The only “no” vote that I know is 62 year old white male who has always voted Democratic until this year. He abstained on the top of the ticket. He argues that raising the minimum wage will price goods out of reach for the middle class. I’ve tried to argue sanity to him, but he started listening to Huckabee earlier this year and I’ve watched it rot his brain.
Sigh. Rises in price of goods — likely to be minuscule — will not outpace the rise in wages for everyone. Math, how does it work?
More than two — 38% of =>65 years old favored legalization. Unfortunately, as it had a 60% threshold and the voting population skews towards older and married people, it missed by less than three points.
5.951 million voted in the governor’s race.
5.849 voted on Amendment 2; so, doesn’t appear that many were like your friend.
The two I referred to were my household.
I’ve argued the cost thing. If raising the McDonald’s workers wages $2 an hour increases the burger from $4 to $6 are claimed, then that franchise is only selling one burger per worker per hour and is either horrendously overstaffed or is open during an incredibly slow time. Similar examples apply to Walmart clerks. But facts don’t matter to those who hear revealed truth from RWNJ’s. Sad to see a Dem stalwart lose his way like that.
Addendum:
How does raising labor costs by 25% increase a good’s price by 50%? Innumerate. The implication is that labor is 200% of price. Hence the burger can’t go up by more than $1 and then only if labor is 100% of cost, i.e. material, rental, property tax and franchise fee are together trivial components of cost.
USians are math challenged. Another example, people believe if they spend a dollar and it’s tax deductible that they’ve saved a dollar.
I’ve just thought of this. These older people may be influenced that when they were young in the ’60s, labor actually did make up 90% of costs on average, however labor has lost so much ground that it probably makes around 45% of cost. I’ll have to research this. That would make the burger go up around fifty cents. $4.00 to $4.50. Small price to pay for someone to get sort of decent pay. I think MW should be $15 and then pegged to the median wage, not CPI because we see how CPI can be manipulated.
Well, off to work, making sure the machines don’t mangle your mail.
It’s the irreconcilability, stupid.
Never mind the “issues”, every single one of them is fungible. ONE Party, and only one, has invested decades and $billions in a propaganda of irreconcilability. It is one of the largest investments ever made, in anything, in any time or place.
Now that the factions have been made irreconcilable, two things.
Betting against the Democratic Party is often a smart idea. Betting against Obama is just stupid.
Can’t have it both ways. Obama has been at the top of the Democratic Party since 11/08. Unless you meant that Obama was the architect of losing the House in 2010 and the Senate in 2014.
I suppose a comment that gave me pause by Andrew Levine is worth noting:
Guys like you are not going to fix the Democratic Party.
You see everything in terms of race, so the endless racial hostility of your propaganda toward white people is something you can’t drop without pretense.
Is Obama moved by hatred as much as you are? Maybe.