The disingenuous advice of Fox News Democrats

[Joanne98]

The days and weeks that follow a decisive election like the one we just witnessed are a haven for hyperbole and hysterical overreactions and misinterpretations.

LBJ, for instance, declared that “these are the most hopeful times since Christ was born in Bethlehem” after his 1964 landslide, then watched Vietnam destroy his presidency and Republicans post massive gains in the next election. Republicans heralded the end of New Deal/Great Society liberalism after Ronald Reagan’s win in 1980, only to suffer crushing losses in the 1982 midterms as blue collar voters returned to the Democratic fold. Bill Clinton was left for dead by just about everyone after the 1994 Republican revolution, but cruised to reelection in 1996. Karl Rove prophesied a “permanent Republican majority” after George W. Bush’s reelection, and we all know how that turned out. And on and on.

You’d think we might learn something from all of this, and in some ways we have. There is noticeably less end-is-near panic among Democrats today than there was after the ’94 election, and pundits are generally willing acknowledge that President Obama may yet be reelected (perhaps even by a comfortable margin) -- a possibility few were willing to grant when it came to Clinton. (This December ’94 quote from a Democratic strategist named Ted Van Dyk was typical: "The president is done. He's finished. He's like that old Thurber cartoon where the guy has just had his head sliced off in a fencing match. He just hasn't noticed it yet.")

But not every Democrat and not every pundit is willing to take a breath and a step back before opining on What The Midterms Mean. Which brings us to a truly awful Op-Ed in Sunday’s Washington Post from Pat Caddell and Doug Schoen, Democratic tacticians (well, they both were at some point -- I can’t remember the last campaign Caddell was involved with) who claim that the only reasonable course available to Obama now is to….make himself a lame duck:

Continue reading
http://www.salon.com/news/politics/barack_obama/?story=/politics/war_room/2010/11/15/obama_caddell_schoen

[Crazy Dave]

1. I think you've found a new label for Blue Dogs and dem moderates

Instead of Reagan Democrats we'll call them Fox News Democrats.

[unblock]

2. +1000

or faux democrats for short.

[Doctor_J]

3. They should not be called Dems

they are Fox News Employees, nothing more.

[Jim Lane]

4. Where to begin with this piece of lunacy?

This morning there was a follow-up online conversation, which largely consisted of them rehashing their article.

Their views include: that both sides (Republicans and Obama) are at fault for the gridlock; that if Obama declared himself to be out of the running for 2012, the Republicans would suddenly become much more cooperative because the country would demand it; and that Obama should begin to govern as a centrist.

I'll just take that last point. It was governing as a centrist that got Obama into this situation. If he had pushed for a stimulus plan large enough to be more effective, then unemployment wouldn't be so high (or, possibly, he wouldn't have gotten the package but the blame would've clearly been the Republicans'). If he had brought the troops home, closed Gitmo, ended DADT, and done a genuinely progressive health-care bill (single payer or at least the "robust public option"), then his base would've been more enthusiastic and would've turned out in the election.