President (To Win Colorado) See Full Big Line

(D) Kamala Harris

(R) Donald Trump

80%

20%

CO-01 (Denver) See Full Big Line

(D) Diana DeGette*

(R) V. Archuleta

98%

2%

CO-02 (Boulder-ish) See Full Big Line

(D) Joe Neguse*

(R) Marshall Dawson

95%

5%

CO-03 (West & Southern CO) See Full Big Line

(D) Adam Frisch

(R) Jeff Hurd

50%

50%

CO-04 (Northeast-ish Colorado) See Full Big Line

(R) Lauren Boebert

(D) Trisha Calvarese

90%

10%

CO-05 (Colorado Springs) See Full Big Line

(R) Jeff Crank

(D) River Gassen

80%

20%

CO-06 (Aurora) See Full Big Line

(D) Jason Crow*

(R) John Fabbricatore

90%

10%

CO-07 (Jefferson County) See Full Big Line

(D) B. Pettersen

(R) Sergei Matveyuk

90%

10%

CO-08 (Northern Colo.) See Full Big Line

(D) Yadira Caraveo

(R) Gabe Evans

70%↑

30%

State Senate Majority See Full Big Line

DEMOCRATS

REPUBLICANS

80%

20%

State House Majority See Full Big Line

DEMOCRATS

REPUBLICANS

95%

5%

Generic selectors
Exact matches only
Search in title
Search in content
Post Type Selectors
October 10, 2010 01:22 AM UTC

What are Democrats Running For?

  • 158 Comments
  • by: DavidThi808

From 2002 to 2008 we Democrats slowly, oh so slowly, fought like crazy to get back in the majority. The country was being mis-managed and taken in the wrong direction and we worked our asses off to turn it back around. In 2006 when we regained Congress we wanted to see change, but accepted that gaining the presidency was key and focused on 2008.

And then with 2008 we had an extraordinary victory. A blowout for the presidency. 60 votes in the Senate. A sizable majority in the House. Finally we had what we had aimed for. We could turn the country back in the right direction. We could manage it competently. We could address the big problems we face and make the country and the world a better place.

At the same time, most of us realized that this did not mean an immediate implementation of every liberal fantasy. The populace is largely moderate. Change takes time. Effective management requires new people appointed and time for them to straighten things out. New legislation requires discussion and negotiation to craft good bills. But everything was in place.

And then…

  • Over a year after Obama took office, entering knowing that the MMS was a sex & drug fueled orgy with the oil industry rather than a watchdog – we had the BP blowout. In all that time there had been no effort to actually perform the mandated oversight. We haven’t had an improvement in managing the government.
  • The healthcare reform effort was politically inept taking over a year, included putrid buy-offs of some Senator’s votes, and did nothing to address the out of control cost escalation. The various proposals for a public option were submarined at the behest of the insurance companies, after single payer was killed for them before discussions even started. (What was accomplished is good, but the process was so long and ugly that it turned an improvement into a political liability.)
  • The financial reform bill was the absolute minimum the voters would let Congress get away with. We had the rare opportunity to truly reform the financial system over the objections of Wall St. and instead Congress and the Obama Administration worked to minimize restrictions on the banks. And so we have obscene bonuses and unlimited campaign contributions returning to Wall St.
  • And what about the biggest problem people face? Unemployment at a true rate of 17% and an economy that is stuck. We had an initial stimulus that was too little. And we now have everyone in Congress wanting to reduce the deficit – which is the worst possible action at this point for the economy.

And in this election how are our Democratic Congresspeople responding? Most of them are claiming that they oppose Obama, they oppose HCR, they oppose the stimulus, they want to reduce the deficit. It’s not just that they are doubling down on the Republican talking points. They are not pointing to any successes. They are not pointing to anything accomplished.

What happened to us? We control the presidency and Congress. We started two years ago with large dreams. And after two years we have very little accomplished, and are running away from those few accomplishments. We are letting the tea partiers, the right wing of the Republican party who would never vote for a Democrat – we are letting them set our political agenda.

Now you can reply that the Republicans are worse. And that’s true. But “we suck less” is not the world’s most compelling political slogan. So as candidates try to get the Democratic base enthused and moderates to vote Democratic, they run up against these problems:

  1. With a playing field as favorable as it can get for one party in this era, we accomplished almost nothing. We’re ineffective.
  2. Washington has mostly ignored joblessness – which is the #1 priority for the majority of voters, even most that do have a job. We’re indifferent.
  3. Democrats aren’t running for anything. They’re against everything they passed, but they’re not for anything. We’re passive.

So a vote for the Democratic party is a vote to continue doing nothing. A vote for the Democratic party is a vote to reward failure. A vote for the Democratic party is acceptance that things will not get better. Yes the Republicans are worse but does that mean we vote for corporate lackeys who will leave the economy in the toilet as it lurches from disaster to disaster? Because if we don’t punish ineptitude, then we will continue to get more of the same.

I think we need to face up to a couple of things. First this is not a team event of Democrats vs. Republicans where fealty requires that we back our side no matter what. Our country is in a world of hurt and we need to do what is best for the country, not what is best for our party. That means we need to speak honestly about what we get from each candidate and select the candidate who is best for the country. Anyone who blindly votes for either party is not putting our country first. And keep in mind that most Republicans have the same goal we Democrats do, a stronger country, a booming economy, and opportunity for all. Many of our differences are on how to get there.

Second we need to face the fact that the Obama Administration is not doing a great job. We all have a lot of ourselves tied up in believing they will, because we put everything into getting him elected. And a lot of our faith in the Democratic party is tied into how he would do better. But ignoring reality won’t fix things. After the election we need to look at how we can pressure the administration to step up and lead on the big problems we face, and lead effectively. (Better management of the bureaucracy would be nice too.)

Third, we need to determine what message our vote sends this November. I am loathe to vote for candidates who’s platform is they oppose the few limited successes that we have seen over the past two years. And I am loathe to reward failure. But politics is many times selecting the least bad choice and that is what we face today. With that said, I am open to suggestions – is there a way to cast a vote that says “I’m voting for you but if you don’t start fixing things I won’t next time – and this time I’ll follow through on my threat. Really, I’m not kidding, next time I won’t vote for you (even though I gave you a pass this time)”?

As to those that will say now is not the time to discuss this, that we need to be 100% focused on getting Democrats elected – bullshit. For the past two years Congress has shown no interest in what the voters wanted unless they were members of a tea party demonstration. This is the one time our elected representatives have started to at least pretend to pay attention to us. November 3 it will be back to business as usual.

Tweet
Share

Comments

158 thoughts on “What are Democrats Running For?”

  2. Conservatives faced the exact same situtation in 2008 – Republicans had sold us out and governed badly. You want to know how to fix it? There’s only one way.

    You have to let the other party swing so far in the opposite direction that people react to it. We took the plunge in 2008 and let Obama get elected, and we’re reaping the rewards today. That’s reality.

    Maybe conservatives and liberals would be better off just trading power completely every few years.

          1. The ones that are complete non sequiturs, like this one? (Another quick explanation for you – I wasn’t giving an opinion here, so it makes no sense to comment on the quality of my opinions here.)

      2. Now if you could find a way to get a Republican nutcase to win the presidency, you could turn things around by 2014. Unfortunatly for you though, conservatives will probably pick a fine president in the mold of Ronald Reagan. You never know though, there’s nothing Republicans can’t screw up.

        4. If we elect one of those Republican nutcases to the presidency, we won’t make it to 2014…much less to 2016, when we could actually replace her… or him.

          Besides, which fine Republican “Reagan-esque” candidate in the current crop do you see stepping in to that role?

    3. We took the plunge in 2008 and let Obama get elected

      Yeah, sure!  You did no such thing!  The Repubs never ‘let’ the Dems do anything, the Repubs fight every inch!  You thought good and hard to come up with that excuse for losing, didn’t you?  Pathetic!

  3. How do we get a better class of candidates that understand how to actually govern?

    That’s really what this post is about, isn’t it?  Getting quality candidates willing to actually listen, and not just to the big donors, but to their constituents and their honorable opponents as well.

    Politics has devolved over the last few decades into a zero sum game of “Gotcha”, aided and abetted in many ways by the short attention span TV news and cable talking heads.

    In an age where mediocracy and random good luck is celebrated with fame and sometimes fortune, passing good legislation, a grueling and lengthy process in the best of times, often goes unrecognized, much less rewarded.  Any hint of failure (real or imagined as told by your opponent) is trumpeted far and wide.  So fear of failure outweighs the risk of trying to succeed.

    Also, the celebritization of politics has drawn an increasing number of egomaniacs and narsissists, as only they are able to withstand the unrelenting blast furnace of media attention.  

    So, the bottom line is to get better results, we need to change the incentives to get a better class of candidates on both (all?) sides of the political spectrum.

    Calling out hypocrisy is a start.  Fundamentally changing the financing/fundraising model of campaigning is absolutely a requirement.  But the most critical issue that prevents either party from governing successfully is the fact that negotiations through media photo-ops and sound bites does not promote respectful, honest debates on the priorities, compromises and most of all sacrifices that need to be made to promote the best interests of the nation.

    I’d add more thoughts, but this post is already getting too long.

    1. I think our candidates themselves are mostly ok, it’s the system as you describe it that forces the problems. For example, I don’t think Senator Bennet likes what he has to do to raise money from Wall St. But it’s necessary in order to win.

      Speaker Sam Rayburn did not like the oil barons in Texas at all. As he said “all they do is hate.” But he carried water for them because otherwise he would have a heavily funded primary challenger.

      1. love all those health insurance companies who are contributing to him?  Go look them up on the FEC site.  

        What did Bennet have to do to get all that insurance company support?  Could it be that you libs have been played?

        1. Why are all the insurance companies now maxing out (whoops, can’t do that any more thanks to the Activist 5) dumping millions into GOP shadow groups?  Hoping to gut regulations that establish benefit caps and insure sick children–while keeping the mandates!–guess if your side wins you can have yet another chance to see the painful gap between the ‘fiscal conservatism’ and ‘compassionate conservatism’ of GOP campaigns and the corporate-whoring of their governance, again.  Your very argument above, carried to its unbiased conclusion, would prove what I say.  K Street is looking at Republicans with hopeful lust in their eyes, and saying ‘Ka-Ching!’

           

            1. who I have never imagined to be interested in more than the drive-by slur…

              http://www.politico.com/news/s…

              A new portrait of the health industry landscape has begun to take shape, with some of those major players shifting their dollars from the very Democrats who passed the law they seemingly endorsed at the White House.

              The insurance industry, for instance, has consistently donated more to Republicans than to Democrats ever since August 2009…

              Health professionals, bolting from the American Medical Association’s pro-reform position, have become the strongest supporters of the Tea Party Caucus, a coalition of conservative House members aligned with the movement born from a visceral rejection of the law.

              …Overall, the health sector has poured nearly $40 million into the 2010 election cycle through its many varied political action committees.

              http://thehill.com/homenews/ho…

              Rep. Greg Walden (Ore.), deputy chairman at the National Republican Congressional Committee (NRCC) and chairman of the Republican leadership, has held dozens of briefings this cycle with leaders at various corporate political action committees.

              He has urged them to donate more to Republicans, but disputes any suggestion that the House GOP has or will be reviving a Tom DeLay-era initiative aimed at pressing K Street to hire Republican lobbyists and contribute to GOP candidates.

              http://motherjones.com/mojo/20…

              The story of the 2010 midterm elections is increasingly one of what are called “independent expenditure” campaigns, the secretive organizations that have unleashed a torrent of cash into the political bloodstream thanks to the Supreme Court’s Citizens United decision in January. As the Washington Post reported  today, outside interest groups are spending five times as much cash-$80 million-in the 2010 elections as they did four years ago. Most of that money is coming from conservative groups, by a seven-to-one margin.

               

              2. “Since 2007, Democrats had received the lion’s share of the insurance industry’s PAC and individual donations. Initially, insurers and Democrats appeared to be working together on the reform law. The industry offered early to accept major new restrictions on covering patients with pre-existing conditions and sick children. In exchange, it saw potentially huge dividends in the promise of an individual mandate requiring all Americans to purchase health insurance.”

                Read more: http://www.politico.com/news/s…

                2. Or having it read to you…

                  In June, the most recent month for which numbers are available, the insurance industry donated $543,840 to Republicans and $353,870 to Democrats. The industry’s giving, Levinthal said, “flipped on its head faster than you could say ‘go.'”

                  …But the changing alliance of other industry players hasn’t been so obvious.

                  Health professionals, for instance, have quietly become the biggest supporters of the nascent Tea Party Caucus, a movement by and large catalyzed by opposition to the health reform law. They donated a little more than $2.7 million to Tea Party Caucus members, making them the group’s most supportive industry, according to a separate CRP analysis.

                  Read more: http://www.politico.com/news/s…

                    1. Thus, we have Ken Buck’s sugar daddies at Americans for Job Security running ads that are painting his opponent, Jane Norton, as a tax and spend Republican. These ads are both misleading and self serving, because they are being funded by a few government contractors who are backing Ken Buck because they expect that if he is elected, he will make sure that the Senate passes government programs that will enrich those contractors. They are trying to elect an earmark Senator.

                      Buck will have to pay back the government contractors who are paying for the radio and TV ads that are attacking Norton and dishonestly painting her as a tax and spend Republican. And he will.

                      http://www.peoplespresscollect…

  4. And after two years we have very little accomplished, and are running away from those few accomplishments.

    We are soooooo better off than we would be if we were living under the same old politics of the past 2000-2008… good God. Besides our improved stature in world politics and public opinion, the accomplishments are many… here’s a few: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v…

    I’m sick and tired of those who suggest the Obama presidency is already a failure. We are moving in the correct direction.

      1. In less than a minute, Rachel Maddow has managed to put a lie to the GOP’s (and the Tea Party’s) Reagan-worship.  Not that reality seems to matter much to them anyway.

        The remaining 4 minutes of her history lesson should serve as a splash of cold water to wake some of us from this apparent funk.

        Time to rent “Mr. Smith Goes To Washington”

      2. But let’s discuss the list of accomplishments in this video. To steal from Rachel’s script, it’s complex.

        1. “Last night’s House-Senate agreement on Wall Street reform represents the toughest financial reform since the Great Depression.” True. But true because all legislation since FDR up to now has been to weaken financial regulation. No matter how little was in the bill, this would have been a true statement.

        2. “Not since FDR has a president done so much to transform the country.” I disagree. LBJ was essential to the success of the civil rights struggle (a good transformation) and our putting significant troops into Vietnam (a bad transformation). Ronald Reagan fundamentally changed the direction of our government and what was considered the moderate path. I think both were easily more transformative.

        3. HCR – yes that is a major accomplishment.

        4. Stimulus bill – a critically important accomplishment. And the alternative energy components were really good.

        5. Kids health insurance assistance, fair pay act, nuclear non-proliferation, hate crimes prevention, FDA regulation of tobacco – all good but this is the kind of thing we should expect. This I put in the category of the day to day work of doing their job.

        6. Breaking up MMS was a good thing. Yes. But the sex & drugs parties with industry wasn’t enough, we needed the BP blow-out too before Obama acted. This was not addressing a known problem until it became even worse.

        7. Fired two Generals. True. That is more Robert Gates but Obama backed him up.

        8. Closed down Sallie Mae. Yes, very sensible move. (And it speaks volumes about how corrupt Washington is that something that saves us so much money and has no downside is legitimately celebrated as a major victory.)

        9. Cancelled an unnecessary weapons systems. Yes and that is difficult to do. But not impossible, Bush cancelled the Crusader program.

        It’s a great video to sell the voters on Democratic candidates. But if we’re discussing what we should reasonably expect, I think it falls short. It’s a bit more complex.

    2. I THINK.  Because everytime I accuse him of handwringing, people yell at me.  At best he’s a victim of the “enthusiasm gap;”  at worst, he’s a purveyor.

      Here’s how I read David’s pep talk:

      Why are you even here?

      At the beginning of the season, we had great hopes for you.

      But you haven’t done shit since.

      Blah Blah Blah…

      So, even though you’re our kids, we need to forget about you and focus on getting different kids next year.  Better kids.  Because even though you’re our kids, you ain’t shit.

      In the meantime, don’t expect us to clap for you.  Because even though you suck less than the other team, you still suck.

      Next time I get involved in Little League, if there is a next time, someone PLEASE remind me to NOT bring David in to give my kids the pep talk.

      1. But the key issue is to exert a countervailing pressure. If we accept the pressures as they are, then we’re not going to see the changes we need to improve our country.

        As to your kids Little League games, my daughters would comment that no matter how badly they played, I told them they were awesome. Different approach for different situations…

        3. is that he has bought into the David Sirota narrative that Democratic politicians are bad and we need to replace them with purer progressives.  I’m thinking that the Republicans are doing the same thing.  Things aren’t working so more radical and extreme candidates are needed.

          What makes me sick about all this is that someone like President Obama who gets up every day and works to make our country better is vilified as not doing enough.  Mark David as another self-loathing liberal who would rather have a climate denier like Ken Buck in office for the next twenty years because Michael Bennet isn’t pure enough for him to work for.  What a joke diary.

          1. Why do you have against the proposition that we need to do better? Do you think support of President Obama requires that we say he’s doing perfect?

            I’m not saying we need more radical or extreme candidates. I’m saying we need our candidates to be more effective. The candidates we have.

            And my bottom line is the present situation is what could very well lead to a Republican takeover of Congress on Nov 3. I’d prefer we Dems keep the majority, and that requires that we face some unpleasant truths.

          2. (from a disheveled old bastard who wandered in and sat in the last pew of the last church on the block, just to have a safe place to sip out of his philosophical brown paper bag, and was wishing someone, anyone, would lay it on the line for the preacher).

            Unfortunately, Thi’s “Oh, Woe is Us” sermon is full of contradictions or mistakes — in its facts, in its values, in its perception of the world. If the person in the pew in front of him would take of his/her hat, the old fart would straighten up and pay stricter attention. And, perhaps, engage in a discussion: “Are we closer to heaven or to hell?”. We’ll see.

            1. They will have a better shot at winning Nov 2. When your back is to the wall, the polls show you’re in deep doo-doo, and the public is very unhappy with you – it’s worth considering something different.

              I see candidates continuing with messages that have not sold the voters over the last month. It’s not to late for them to switch to a more effective message.

                1. 1. We stopped the Republicans digging the hole deeper.

                  2. Give us 2 years to now get us out of the hole.

                  3. We will focus 100% on jobs and we will produce results within months, and produce additional help month after month.

                  4. We are going to send every unemployeed person we can to college to match skills with demand.

                  5. Any person who moves more than 100 miles for a job can hand their house back to the bank and owe nothing.

                  6. We’re proud of the legislation we passed. But we know we need to do better and operate quicker.

                  2. 1. You aleady said that message sucked. Change your mind?

                    2. Your original post indicated that 2 years were sufficient to lead to disillusionment. Now you’re saying 4 years would lead you back?

                    3. Just try 100% focus in the current Congressional climate. Although the Obama administration hasn’t focused solely on jobs, jobs have been a part of nearly all of its major imperitives. Wall Street salvation: jobs. Infrastructure investment: jobs. Health care: jobs. Small business assistance: jobs. Minimum wage: jobs. Unenemployment benefit extensions: jobs. Equal pay: jobs. Energy reform: jobs. BP escrow: jobs. Small bank incentives: jobs. And (although the administration has been timid in its support) Don’t ask, don’t tell: jobs.

                    4 and 5. Capital and demand are more fluid than skills or persons. Change the flow of capital from paper “wealth” to economic worth, change demand (burger flipping) and match it with existing skills (manufacturing and distribution), move capital and demand to where people live.

                    6. Thank you! The administration beat you to the punch. It is already messaging that. The fact that some Democrats aren’t running on this message is no fault of Obama or Biden.

      3. At best he’s a victim of the “enthusiasm gap;”  at worst, he’s a purveyor.

        I agree.

        There is a time for trying to ‘change’ the ‘system’ AND it is NOT 3 weeks before the election.

        David is trying to demoralize the Dems, like dwyer, into thinking that the Dems need to be taught a lesson so we should stay home from the polls and that it is no big deal if the Repubs win.

        I think that it is a big deal.  For one thing… look at how much ice is melting just in the last few years at the poles.  In 6 more years, it very well could be that many coastal and island regions will be under water or be losing significant portions of their beaches.  That will cause world-wide panic far worse than the financial crises.  The temperature and the acidity of the oceans is already reaching a crises state.  Maybe David will think about that when O’ahu beach erosion gets some media attention??

        Since all of the Repub candidates, incumbents and new, are global warming deniers do you, David, think that the biggest polluter (US)will be able to do anything to prevent that panic and worldwide crises?  I hope that you are willing to take considerable responsibility for your part helping Repubs get elected.

    3. Unfortunately it’s inaccurate.

      1. We have stopped banks from exploiting people on their mortgages. Actually the top story right now is about how the banks have been lying on foreclosure documentation. They haven’t been stopped.

      2. That we are bringing jobs back. Actually the last couple of months it’s been static. And we need to add 100K jobs a month just to keep the unemployment level even.

      3. That we have insured there will not be another financial crisis like this. Actually most independent financial experts say we’re still facing the same problem – banks that are too big too fail taking risky bets.

      So great speech, but it’s not reality. And I’m more concerned with reality.

      1. maintaining Democratic majority. or even Bolstered with gains.

        Are you man enough bj, to admit the Majority American people spoke?

        or are you gonna cry about Union thugs, ACORN, or Illegals voting? More likely it will be what ever you make up to convince yourself it really did not happen?

          1. Not to be confused with the

            Republic of China  

            the Republic of Cuba

            or

            the Republic of North Korea.

            No matter however blurred the tea bag republican party makes it. or wants us to become Just like them.

            Thus the Democratic part of our Government Keeps us from becoming the 3rd world country the tea bag republicans are striving for working towards.

            2. Fro, you absolute goof, google DPRK please.

              Also, explain this please:

              Foreign-connected PACs

              Election cycle:  

              Total: $12,204,154

              To Dems: $6,517,903

              To Repubs: $5,581,701

              Dear God, why did I just respond to this fool?

    5. fast enough for the Davids.  Even though we’re driving through a minefield and a hail of right-wing bullets and bazookas.  With the left flank throwing periodic grenades.  But we’re only getting up to 30 mph, and the naysayers scream “floor it!”

      Have the Admin. and Congressional Dems made some mistakes?  You bet.  They’re only human.  And the pressure cooker they’re in magnifies every human weakness.  But they’re steering the broken ship of state (oh, never mind the mixed metaphor!) in the right direction, while trying to keep water from pouring in the holes that come from infrastructure neglect and past Republican malfeasance.

      I get very tired of the whining that Superman and Wonder Woman are just corporate shills who have let us all down because they’re really evil and greedy and lazy and stupid.  When what we really have are mostly good but flawed human beings just like the rest of us, but braver–because they raised their hands, applied for the miserable job and a majority of us on the hiring committee picked them.

      So if they’re so bad, what does it say about the hiring committee?    

  5. Let me add to your initial analysis, the following:

    1) Obama won the party nomination on a platform which did not deal with the financial meltdown, because it did not happen until after Labor Day.  In contrast, FDR ran for the presidency after the full extent of the financial nightmare was known and had been in effect for more than three years.

    Obama had a whole new set of priorities.  By adverting the worst case scenario, he failed to allow all of America to experience how bad things could have been. (Calling our resident grammarian, it that too many verbs in the subjective?…when the hell can Sh come back, anyway?)  

    1. has been in the cards since the 1970’s Community Reinvestment Act, strengthened more so in the 1990’s by Clinton.  It encouraged, even required, banks to make inferior loans. Obummer was a young lawyer for ACORN while ACORN was out threatening banks if they didn’t make enough poor-quality loans.  Wall Street (heavey contributors to Mikey Bennet) packaged those loans, good and bad, into products, the risk for which was not easily identified.

      Not too long after Bush took office, he tried to rein in Fannie and Freddie.  Barney Prank and Piss Dodd shouted him down, insisting Bush hated poor people.  Bush wasn’t strong enough to stand up to those thugs.

      In 2005, John McCain tried to rein in Fannie and Freddie with a bill that never made it out of the Senate Finance Committee.

      Obummer’s first task should have been addressing the wild business of Fannie and Freddie.  He still hasn’t done it.

      The rest is history.  

      1. I ask YOU do not find it embarrassing to post and re-post debunked propagandist clap trap?

        wait you are republican things like facts, truth, honesty and Reality do not matter to you.

        only pleasing your oligarch bosses in keeping them in power.  

        1. The Republicans controlled the Senate in 2005.  What was McCain’s problem?  The Republicans took over Congress in 2002, why didn’t Bush try again???

  6. We do have problems —

    * Candidate selection and vetting (but the Repubs have far more problems in this area).

    * The power of corporate money in politics and government (again, not a partisan problem).  We have to change how campaigns at the federal level (at least) are financed.  

    * The problem of bad management in government.  Another nonpartisan problem.  Very few people who work in government seem to understand that it takes a different kind of management because government doesn’t have the same “bottom line” as the private sector.

    But —

    The Dems’ biggest problems, in my opinion, are in two areas:

    * Bad at message.  We don’t know how to frame our message well, and repeat it ad nauseum.  And we are clueless about how to reframe the garbage from the other side.

    * We always play defense (and not very well), and we rarely play offense (we don’t even have an offensive coach).  And what does our defense look/sound like?  “Oh, you’re right, we’re terrible, please don’t hit me again, etc . . .”

    I want tough, assertive, effective Dem candidates, on offense nearly all the time.  Is that asking too much?

    1. I want tough, assertive, effective Dem candidates, on offense nearly all the time. В Is that asking too much?

      Because Dems and Republicans are both playing defense–of the established system (albeit slightly different players–You Inc. Vs. Me Inc.).

      We imagine that Dems. are fighting… what, the Class War? They accepted a buyout years ago.

      1. We don’t want affordable health care?

        We don’t want to regulate the corporations?

        We don’t want peace?

        We don’t want bipartisan cooperation?

        We don’t want a sustainable environment?

        Why don’t you want America to recover from the disaterous rule of Republicans over the last twenty year?

        I know  I know.

        You hate America when it is united and want a poloarized country because you are one screwed up puppy.

        1. 10% unemployment and stagnant

          Health insurance prices rising (all that free stuff isn’t really free, ya’ know?)

          Peace?  Looks like Bush was close in Iraq. There will be no peace if Obummer doesn’t deal with Iran.

          Bipartisan cooperation?  You mean consensus, or do mean the Republicans have to agree with the socialist/Marxist march?

          Sustainable environment? What valid research? Are you talking about that stuff make up by Algore and the other liars?  Or do you mean when the Colorado legislature moved to systematically put coal miners out of work?

  7. I won’t bother to re-rant re Michael Bennet, except to say that he came as a big surprise from the top.

    Obama, whatever his performance, was confronted with a Senate full of Bennets, bought and paid for in one sense or another. I don’t entirely blame him for the much larger paralysis that grips the nation.

    IF there is an answer, it will come from the bottom up. Maybe via blogs like this one. Maybe by attending monthly meetings of the Dem. party. Maybe by organizing a new party (my sense of what’s needed). I don’t think we can depend on existing politicians or institutions to heal themselves (e.g. campaign finance reform; ain’t gonna happen). And, we need to recognize that the political structure and the economic structure are tightly interwoven.

    I tend to think in terms of thinking big: a new constitutional convention, outside the established disorder. The current system is clearly broken. No guarantee that success will come easily or without some, er, plates being broken.

    1. I think it’s exceedingly unlikely that a constitutional convention will be called, at least in my lifetime.

      It would take far too many votes in Congress, or the assent of way too many state legislatures, to make it happen.

      The forces supporting the status quo and those who like the changes to it wrought by the Roberts Court have enough votes at both levels to prevent a constitutional convention.

      That’s not to say a constitutional amendment isn’t possible. I think the leading candidate is a balanced budget amendment, which nearly was sent to the states in the mid-90s and, if the GOP regains control on Capitol Hill, will probably get another push at some point.

      Beyond that, I can’t see 67 senators voting for any other constitutional amendment, a reversal of Citizens United included. Too bad, as that’s not the only thing we need to fix.

      1. Did the Continental Congress have the permission of Parliament to meet? Did the House of Lords approve the new Constitution?

        I agree with you that “permission” from the existing structure to abolish that structure in favor of something more likely to work to the interests of the people is highly unlikely. This is the very first principle that needs to be cast aside: that we the people need permission to institute a new government to protect inalienable rights, etc. As long as we are stuck on the idea that existing institutions must give permission, then we are not a free people.  

      1. For many of us Democrats, we’re willing to take a critical look at our own party. We’re willing to speak honestly about our deficiencies. We’re willing to admit when Republicans are right.

        That doesn’t mean we are switching to the Republican party. It just means we’re open minded and thoughtful. I think that helps us improve. But it will never make sense to someone like you or BJ where your view of party loyalty requires you to mindlessly parrot the right wing talking points.

        Try thinking for yourself someday, it’s scary but can also be liberating.

        1. My impression is that you are rare because you contemplate, question and examine.  I often find that you are fair. I do not find any of that with most of your vulgar, abusive friends on Pols.

          1. Have you ever done that? Can you point to a single comment you’ve made that questions any Republican talking point? Or that admits there is some validity to any Democratic proposal?

            Because it strains credibility to claim that the standard Republican points are 100% perfect and the Democratic points do not have a single valid argument.

            1. Ari and I had a very good discussion of health care the other day.  As much as I hated it, I agreed with him on some points and as much as he hated it, he agreed with me on some points.  No profanity and no abuse involved.  

      1. No thanks. I think this debate is fine to have, but this is a dumb time to have it. Yes, yes, you’re thinking “If not now, when?” because that’s really clever and original. But how about not a month before the election? Everything everyone says has an effect, for better or worse, in election season. What you say helps Republicans and hurts Democrats and otherwise accomplishes zero.

        Anyone who cares about something bigger than his own fame knows that. Why don’t you?

  9. is the problem that has hog-tied the Democratic Congress and the Obama administration.

    Because the cost of campaigns is so high, for at least the last 20 years the Democrats have unashamedly sought to finance them by pleasing corporate interests.

    It’s true that, until Citizens United, the means of the reward was, by and large, PAC contributions, by and large, along with some especially important individual donors.

    Then came the 527 organizations early this decade.

    With Citizens United, though, corporations don’t have to limit their contributions and they don’t have to use PACS to give them. From their perspective, why give to Democrats who can give them some of what they want when the  Republicans will give them all they want?

    In chasing the mirage of the corporate dollar for the last two decades or so, Democrats have moved away from the economic progressivism that was so critical to their success in much of the last century.

    We see that in the last few years, as David ably points out. The administration negotiated with itself, not the Republicans, and made concessions even before bargaining began. Other important reforms were simply never brought to the table, despite their importance to the Democratic party’s base and even many independent voters.

    Meanwhile, the Republicans continue their usual style of dog-whistle politics. They swear and promise that they’ll give the Christians what they want on social issues, which of course they won’t, while sticking to the same Laffer Curve economic nonsense and pre-Progressive era policy prescriptions for the economy as they have for the last too many decades.

    I see things moving this way: the only way Democrats thrive in the post-Citizens United era is to find a way to make numbers beat dollars. That has to mean becoming more economically progressive – which, practically speaking, means support for unions, support for a higher minimum wage, efforts to end out-sourcing of our industrial and, increasingly, our services base, support for programs aimed at rebuilding the country’s infrastructure and transforming our energy situation, and especially, a more sharply graduated income tax scale with higher rates on the wealthiest.

    The party can continue its basic approach on social issues, including its more-or-less neutral view on guns, because those stances seem to command a majority of the electorate now.

    If the GOP wins Congress this fall, then the economy is going to get worse. Moreover, incomes for people who aren’t already wealthy will decline even more, the national infrastructure will continue to deteriorate, and we will avoid doing anything about oil and coal dependence, global warming, and our bloated defense establishment.

    Obama will be playing defense, which might help him win re-election just as it did Clinton, but his agenda will be essentially dead.

    Republicans see politics as a place where compromise isn’t permitted or to be admired. They care far more about feeding the corporate money machine and the rabidly intolerant and compassionless Christian base.

    In the end, that will cost them control of Congress, should they regain it this year, just as it did in 2006. It may be two years, or four, or eight, or maybe even longer (all that corporate money can do alot), but eventually the public will realize that their version of “conservatism” is just a swindle.

      1. If the GOP wins Congress this fall, then the economy is going to get worse. Moreover, incomes for people who aren’t already wealthy will decline even more, the national infrastructure will continue to deteriorate, and we will avoid doing anything about oil and coal dependence, global warming, and our bloated defense establishment.

  10. Actually, David, quite a lot has been accomplished!  This website is still ‘in progress’. Click on the ‘Achievements’ tab and then on the ‘Expand’ on the right near the top to get the detail.

    They are doing a pretty good job of documenting each individual item.

    http://obamaachievements.org/

    So, David.  Read every single item and I don’t want to hear any more whining from you, thank you.  Considering all the crises from day one, even before day one actually, this list is pretty impressive.  And considering that we had 60 in the Senate for only about 3 months and the filibuster has become the norm, I think what was accomplished is impressive!

    Bless you, David.  Believe me, life would be much easier without all the negativity.

    2. Someone needs to tell all those people who have been unemployed for 2+ years to stop whining because they’re ungrateful little twerps.

      Look guys, you can sit around and congratulate each other on how awesome we’ve done over the last 2 years. But that won’t change the fact that come Nov 2, we’ll probably get our asses kicked because the majority of voters don’t agree.

      You can shoot the messenger, but that won’t make the message irrelevant.

      1. You’re a water boy for the Republicans pushing their propaganda that the country is on the wrong track and can’t get anything done.

        You complaints ignore the fact that Republicans have worked 24/7 over the last two years to obstruct every effort to improve the country and the 60 seat majority was a myth.  Two words for you you Quisling regarding the stalemate in the Sentate: Joe Lieberman.

        It is Wormtongues like you that make the job of destroying confidence in our Democratic president so much easier.

        The only messenge you are sending is what a fair weather Democrat you are.

        1. I think telling each other that we’re doing the best we can is why we’re looking at a Republican resurgence on election day. Winning will require that we admit our weaknesses and address them.

          As to your denigration of me, when would you have us look at the issues that look to lead to our losing the Congress? When we’re down to 10 seats in the Senate?

    1. The response is a petulant “well go vote Republican.” If we’re unwilling to look at our own weaknesses then we will never improve.

      We all rightly ping BJ for being a mindless font of republican talking points. Are we any different if we won’t take a critical look at ourselves?

      2. We are, however, very critical at your choice of timing for bashing Dems.  Bashing is what your article is doing more than critically looking at weaknesses.

        The timing would have been better a year ago or a month from now. Again, NOT 3 weeks before an election!

      1.  Because the American Worker takes home far to much in their paycheck.

        the American people need to be told whom to marry, whom to love and have NO control over their reproductive abilities.

        republicans believe in the Constitution of the united states right up until they have the power to change it.

        Vote republican because society needs to be led with fear, under a christian theocracy.

        Just like Muslim theocracies are.

        (in the name of morality!)

        VOMIT

          1. Stay up too late watching cheesy horror movies last night?  Or did you get into the parents’ liquor cabinet?

            Why don’t you go respond like an adult to Club Twitty’s factual listing of evidence that the insurance industry is pouring all its big money into Repub campaigns–at this very minute?

          2. With that well reasoned and thoughtful comment, let me just say Marilou

            My impression is that you are rare because you contemplate, question and examine.  I often find that you are fair. I do not find any of that with most of your vulgar, abusive friends on Pols.

            Coming from such an admirer of reasoned and thoghtful non-abusive discourse as yourself, I must say that that

            Vomit on you

            has to be one of your most contemplative, and fair comments you’ve made here yet in your nearly six months on Pols.

            Keep up the good work gal, you’re well on your way to being uber-classy.

  12. 2) The Chinese character for danger is also the character for opportunity. (I may have it slightly wrong, but close enough for blog work)  Obama saw the economic crisis has an opportunity to introduce new ways of doing things to build a new structure for the future.  This is most clearly seen in the emphasis on the green energy.  Obama concentrated on governing well during the crisis.  I think he has done an excellent job.

    BUT, he focused on governing.  He neglected the political.  He assumed that he had united the party in 2008.  Not so quick.  The split between his supporters and Hillary’s was an inch wide and a mile deep…..and opened up as soon as there was conflict.  He or more correctly, Axelrod, attempted to consolidate Obama’s position by rewarding his supporters and ignoring those who disagree with him….Now, he may have had a cabinet of rivals, but he did not have a party organization of rivals…and he should have.

    Howard Dean should have been front and center in that White House..Both because his fifty state strategy helped put dems back in power AND he was the go to guy on Health Care…

    Carvelle should have been there…and Hillary should have taken him by the hand and brought him there.  Obama has never dealt  with the South.  He had been to Pakistan, but I don’t think he had ever been to Texas or Georgia or West Virginia before his presidential campaign.  He needed to bring those people into the fold…and he simply ignored them.  BAD MOVE.

    The President also failed to bring along the whole country to understand the what and whyfore of his policies.  Step by step, he should have explained…a version of FDR’s Fireside Chats.

    The repubs looked at the same danger/crisis scenario and seized the opportunity to get back in power.  While Obama focused on governing and not on politics.  The repubs abandoned all pretense of governing and focused on politics….concentrating on all those disenfranchised who had not voted for Obama or who were independent.

    They were single minded and not distracted, at all, by the needs of the country.

    Finally, I owe this to JO as well as David, thank you for the refocus on the average democrat…”What can we do.”  I have felt so sidelined, that I have simply given up.  “If not us, then who?  If not now, then when?”   Again, Thank you for the call to arms….such as they are.

    1. That’s a big part of what has bothered me too.

      And I would add this – clearly the critical issue to the vast majority of people is unemployment. Yet Obama and Congress have done very little to address this other than the original stimulus and then telling us it will take time.

      They’re not focusing on the average American.

    1. Hey David, your link above didn’t work.  Here’s the one I think you meant.

      Clinton has a great line in there about how the stimulus at least “stopped the digging” (as in what do you do when you find yourself in a hole?), and even better, about not bringing back the “digging brigade”.

      The GOP/Tea Party short-sighted approach of cutting off economic development by shrinking the economy by focusing exclusively on paying down the debt is unbelieveably penny-wise/pound-foolish.

  15. The problem isn’t that our candidates don’t know what message our vote sends. Nor that they don’t care.  

    The problem is that candidates have to campaign to win. Campaigning just to raise issues or be right or be smart or send a message or move the debate is….. cute. But hardly anyone can afford to do it.

    Sure Ron Paul can run for President. His wealth is established and his other job is his as long as he wants it.  Same for Kucinich.  Bernie Sanders.  Mitch McConnell.

    Most candidates cannot afford it.

    So the impatient and agitated D complains that not enough has been done since election day 08. (I would argue that D’s did not have 60, just barely a 51 or 52 majority, but it’s still not the point.)

    You can read  a long and growing list of accomplishments and complain “it’s not enough.”  Others will read that list and complain “it’s way way too much.”

    And then here comes the next election. Even for the voter who wants to be reasonable, it’s hard to tune out the hype and insanity.  It’s not always clear who is correct.  So the discussion we should have and the arguments that should get made are ignored.

    Example  

    Higher taxes or lower taxes?

    Forget that since 2008 most taxpayers have paid lower rates.  Forget that Bush was forced to set the tax cuts to expire in 10 years because he had to jam them through Congress by reconciliation – specifically intended to reconcile budget deficits, ie, reconcile deficit reduction and even though everyone knew the deficits would increase, CBO could only score the first ten years.

    So we end up with a pointless and meaningless national debate about whether taxes should be higher or lower.  And since few have useful facts, majorities of voters  choose “lower” and then seek to rationalize their choice

    sure, the last bath of R’s didn’t decreas spedning, but the next bath is sure to, or at least more likely to than the other guys or other lame bs.

    The real discussion abut taxes should be a discussion of the budget – revenue and spending.   And candidates who talk about “eliminating waste and creating efficiency” as their only recipe for spending reductions should never ever win.  An R candidate should be able to campaign on the logically and fiscally defensible making income taxes even more progressive. A D candidate should be able to campaign on SS insurance eligibility age being actuarially  adjusted as life expectancy rises (or falls).

    Not in this media and political environment.  The R would be immediately derided as a RINO because, of course, taxes are always too high.  The D would get derided as a blue dog, conservadem who is hindering the progressive movement.

    Some expenses or investments should be publicly funded.

    Which? (Do we want publicly funded highways?)

    To what level?  (Graded dirt or the interstate highway system?)

    How do we pay for it?  (income tax, user fees, tariffs and duties, sales tax, inheritance taxes, etc) (and related – how do we collect it ?)

    When we ignore those three questions, or allow our candidates to ignore them, we choose drama, gossip and fashion over valuable political organization and progress. And we vote for blind ideology or for the guy we’d like to have a beer with or against the guy with the expensive hair cuts, etc and blah blah blah.

    1. Watch Bill Clinton do it – http://www.thedailyshow.com/wa…

      Granted, Clinton is an amazing talent. But others can just copy Clinton’s speech – I’m sure he would be ok with that.

      The voters aren’t stupid (mostly). They try and get a feel for who the candidate is because that generally does have more impact than the details of their policies. That’s why running as “we suck less” and saying they opposed the major Democratic initiatives is so deadly – it damages voters view of the integrity of the candidate and makes them appear as someone who is accomplishing nothing.

      I think you are right that it has to be presented in a way that works in today’s short attention span mindset. But anyone selling anything faces that same challenge. The trick is to rise to that challenge.

        1. 1. A very compelling way of getting across that the first 2 years were to stop things from getting worse, and the next 2 years are needed to now move back up. The way he presented it I think would resonate for a lot of moderate voters.

          2. His idea to send the unemployed to College. That would both reduce unemployment (students aren’t unemployed) and increase their ability to land a job once they graduate.

          3. His discussion about 5 million jobs that are available today. Figuring out how to get people into those jobs would greatly reduce unemployment.

          And the biggie was that it was a positive proactive speech. The mood of so many running is defensive and discussing what they won’t do. The difference in tone was I think the best part of it.

      1. Let’s find a candidate for national office who will campaign on elimination of:

        Dept of Ag

        Dept of Ed

        Energy subsidies,

        HUB

        SBA

        NEA

        Dept of Transportation

        AND

        Cutting spending from 22% of GDP to 3% of GDP.

        AND

        adopt a TABOR like  formula (inflation + populaiton) for federal spending

        AND

        Across the board spending freeze, or freeze plus the TABOR like annual adjustment.

        And when that candidate gets crushed and marginalized,  my point will be proved. Oh wait, Ron Paul had all of this. So did Fred Thompson.   And Ross Perot,  How did those campaigns work out?  Point made.

        Now if you really want to have the conversation, explain how elimination of the Dept of Ag and HUD, just to name two, will be received.

  17. And this is due to bad writing on my part. On re-reading I see that the diary had a couple of disconnected points and I didn’t pull it together well.

    Anyways… What I intended to be my primary point was that we need to speak to these issues in the next 3 weeks to win the election. Yes, fixing problems comes later. But presenting a more compelling argument for Democratic candidates – that is needed today.

    Call it a false perception, call it a legitimate criticism, the point remains that what voters see as the record and emphasis of the last two years is not what they want. And if we can speak to that effectively, and flip people’s perceptions, then I think Democratic candidates will do a lot better.

  18. or fortunately (depending on your point of view), the Constitution can be amended only two ways.

    First is by referral from Congress, then approval by 2/3 of state legislatures.

    Second is by initiative of the state legislatures, 2/3 of which would have to approve the effort.

    We do not have any other mechanism available. There is no referendum or initiative at the federal level.

Leave a Comment

Recent Comments


Posts about

Donald Trump
SEE MORE

Posts about

Rep. Lauren Boebert
SEE MORE

Posts about

Rep. Yadira Caraveo
SEE MORE

Posts about

Colorado House
SEE MORE

Posts about

Colorado Senate
SEE MORE

42 readers online now

Newsletter

Subscribe to our monthly newsletter to stay in the loop with regular updates!