Krugman: Progressives, To Arms! Forget about Bush—and the middle ground (it doesn't exist)

[Karmadillo]

The Obama supporters may not enjoy this, but Krugman makes a good case that efforts for progressive change will require partisanship, not bipartisanship. The quote from FDR at the end of the excerpt is well worth thinking about. Speaking of the forces of "organzied money," he said, "They are unanimous in their hate for me—and I welcome their hatred." Sounds like something a Democratic President might want to keep in mind next year when Republicans and their corporate media allies are demanding compromise.

http://www.slate.com/id/2180178

Progressives, To Arms!
Forget about Bush—and the middle ground.
By Paul Krugman
Posted Wednesday, Dec. 26, 2007, at 7:53 AM ET

<edit>

But Bush will soon be gone. What progressives should be focused on now is taking on the political movement that brought Bush to power. In short, what we need right now isn't Bush bashing—what we need is partisanship.

<edit>

The question, however, is whether Democrats will take advantage of America's new liberalism. To do that, they have to be ready to forcefully make the case that progressive goals are right and conservatives are wrong. They also need to be ready to fight some very nasty political battles.

<edit>

A year ago, Michael Tomasky wrote a perceptive piece titled "Obama the anti-Bush," in which he described Barack Obama's appeal: After the bitter partisanship of the Bush years, Tomasky argued, voters are attracted to "someone who speaks of his frustration with our polarized politics and his fervent desire to transcend the red-blue divide." People in the news media, in particular, long for an end to the polarization and partisanship of the Bush years—a fact that probably explains the highly favorable coverage Obama has received.

But any attempt to change America's direction, to implement a real progressive agenda, will necessarily be highly polarizing. Proposals for universal health care, in particular, are sure to face a firestorm of partisan opposition. And fundamental change can't be accomplished by a politician who shuns partisanship.

I like to remind people who long for bipartisanship that FDR's drive to create Social Security was as divisive as Bush's attempt to dismantle it. And we got Social Security because FDR wasn't afraid of division. In his great Madison Square Garden speech, he declared of the forces of "organized money": "Never before in all our history have these forces been so united against one candidate as they stand today. They are unanimous in their hate for me—and I welcome their hatred."

more...

[asdjrocky]

1. k&R!

[fascisthunter]

2. Enough Compromising! Bush Was the Result of Compromising!

Time for us to take this party and it's leadership back from conservatives pretending to be democrats.

[Frances]

3. I will support Obama if he is the nominee,

but I don't like the way he acts as though Repubs can be trusted. Believe me, the Repubs will smear him every bit as much as they smeared Kerry, Gore, and Bill Clinton before him.

[Karmadillo]

13. Sad, but very likely true.

nt

[ninkasi]

4. Amen!

K&R

[yourout]

5. It would require Political Courage.....something sorely lacking in the Dem leadership.

[oasis]

6. Rock solid.

:bounce:

[penguin7]

7. He lost me at liberal vs. progressive

In my view, if you want single payer not for profit universal health care, you are a liberal and progressive. If you want increased subsidies for the private health insurance companies, you are part of the problem.

[SteppingRazor]

8. I agree that the concilitory tone of Obama stands at odds to this, but ...

so does the Third Way politics of Hillary Clinton. After Republican successes in the 1980s and 1990s, the Democrats thought that the best way to get more votes was to move to the right and steal them from the Republicans. They failed to learn the real lesson of Republican dominance -- that standing for a specific ideology gets more votes than being wishy washy. The lesson for Democrats to learn from GOP electoral successes shouldn't have been "be more like them," it should have been "be far more leftist than we are now."

I roll my eyes as much as anyone inclined toward reason and critical thinking when conspiracy theories about the great tentacles of the DLC start getting bandied about here on DU. But I do agree with the DLC's detractors, insofar as I agree that the centrist politics that have come to dominate the Democratic Party are mistaken.

Of the three major Democratic candidates, only John Edwards seems to understand that aggressive partisanship and progressive ideology can be a winning combination, both in 2008 and beyond as we seek to undo the damage done not just by Bush, but also far-right Republican dominance since 1980.

Hmmm ... it sounds like I've just hopped from Obama to Edwards. I'll have to think about this a little more, though. ;)

[n2doc]

9. The real point is that the other side doesn't compromise

They fight every inch of ground. "bipartisanship" just means that they get what they want, every time. In times like these with an implacable opponent, fighting is the only option, even if it make you seem "nasty".

I hope Obama, if he is the nominee, has some of that nasty in him. He will need it.

[wryter2000]

11. I suspect Obama has some of the nasty in him

I'm a John Edwards supporter, but I suspect Obama knows what he's doing. As long as kumbaya works for him, he'll use it. I'd be very surprised if he can't also land a good punch or two. I'm pretty sure his wife can. :)

I hope that's not wishful thinking on my part.

[bjobotts]

39. WRONG. Obama is a corporatist. Party politics against progressives

He says a lot but has 'done' nothing. You don't invite the same people who caused the problems to help you correct them. They merely try to stop you so they don't look bad.

There must be accountability. The people in power will not give up their power or the gains they've gotten or continue to get. They have feasted at the table and should not be invited back to teach us how to eat.

[wryter2000]

10. Krugman hits it out of the park as usual, K&R

:applause:

[TwilightGardener]

12. Another stupid attack by Krugman. The middle ground DOES exist--

maybe not in Washington, where our government is either paralyzed or the GOPers get their way, but around the rest of the country, in state and local governments (where there tends to be more cooperation between the parties), and among the vast non-political "mushy middle" of America. There are people who want universal health care, but think abortion is wrong. There are people who hate the Iraq war, but feel they pay too much in taxes. How many people adhere completely and faithfully to one party's platform? Many people don't care about party politics and vote for the person who best represents them. And don't forget the "shallow stupids" who make their decision based on first impressions and media portrayals. I was just ranting about this in another thread--there are many, many people who like candidates in BOTH parties at the same time. I don't get it, but it does indeed speak to a middle ground.

[Seabiscuit]

35. I think you're confusing people with muddled minds with a political "middle ground"

The "middle ground" is a compromise of left and right, and doesn't exist anywhere on any issue. There's no such thing as "sort-of-socialized medicine" or a "kind of end to the occupation of Iraq". Krugman's right. It doesn't exist, and you're not going to get it, no way, no how. You either fight for your principles or you get run over by your opposition. For decades the RNC and their corporate cronies and think tanks have fought tooth and nail, lied, cheated, stolen and swindled their way into power which in Rove's dreamworld will last forever. For the past 7 years it's been blatantly evident that the Republicans in Congress don't compromise. And why should they? They've fought, lied, cheated, stolen and swindled to get all the power, why should they give any of it away? They vote together as a bloc in favor of the Bush party line. End of story. We don't need more Reid-Pelosi "non-partisanship" which has consistently translated into squealing like stuck pigs as they hand Bush everything he wants on a silver platter. We need a President who will fight for our principles, because the opposition will NEVER compromise or give us what we want in any way shape or form. Obama doesn't understand this at all. Only Edwards does. As did FDR. Don't ever forget: it's a WAR out there. They started it, and they conquered. If we want our freedom back we've got to fight for it.

[RaleighNCDUer]

55. Excellent reply -

just what I was about to post, minus a few choice obscenities.

In a compromise between a hyena and a goat, it is always the goat that gets eaten.

[bjobotts]

41. No it doesn't. Speaks to issues on one side or the other. Not half abortion.

Abortion compromise works like this...sex ed. plus availbility of contraceptives, and family planning means less abortions

enter non compromise....No. Don't have sex. Don't have abortions.

Where's your middle. War...No war...not some war
Tax the rich ...no tax the rich...not some tax the rich
single payer national health care... no single payer national health care

It used to be the partys got together to discuss the best way to move forward together and now it has turned to It's our way or the no way by these repubs. who have obstructed all legislation (even with support from both partys)in the senate.
There are many ways to swim but one party refuses to get in the water...they just want to own the pool.

[snot]

14. I agree with Krugman.

We don't necessarily have to sink to the level of all their worst tactics, but we must speak the truth without mincing it, and stand up for what's right without compromising prematurely.

[ClarkUSA]

15. Paul Krugman is a great Democratic political strategist, who has run many winning campaigns.

:eyes:

[JohnLocke]

18. I'd trust Krugman a lot more than I'd trust Carville/Penn/Brazile/Schrum.

[ClarkUSA]

23. I don't trust any of them.

:shrug:

[JohnLocke]

24. Well the difference is...

Krugman is an academic and economist who knows what he's talking about.

The other four are political strategists, who are sleazy (Carville/Penn/Schrum) or not too bright (Brazile).

[JNelson6563]

34. No shit and Brazille

thinks if they, the strategists, come down from on high from time to time and hang out at Crapple-bees, Voila! They will learn all they need to about what Joe & Jill Six-pack are thinking.

Oy.

A bigger pack of clueless losers I am hard pressed to think of.

Julie.....still thinking......

[ClarkUSA]

43. Not according to Robert Reich, who has much more cred than Krugman in economics AND policymaking...

Krugman, the Times Oped Page, and Obama

Will someone please explain to me why Paul Krugman has it in for Barack Obama? And why the Times oped page continues to devote its prime
real estate to Krugman’s repeated attack? Here he is again today, for the third time in two months, excoriating Obama for compromising too
much with insurance companies and drug companies in his health care plan, without mentioning that (1) HRC’s health care plan compromises
at least as much, (2) all the leading Democratic plans are basically the same apart from mandates, which would apply to a tiny fraction of the
currently uninsured, and (3) Obama’s may be marginally better than HRC’s if he’s correct in judging that the most of the currently uninsured
couldn’t afford to pay HRC’s mandate anyway.

http://robertreich.blogspot.com/2007/12/krugman-times-oped-page-and-obama.html

Reich's bio:

Robert B. Reich is Professor of Public Policy at the Goldman School of Public Policy at the University of California at Berkeley. He has served in
three national administrations, most recently as secretary of labor under President Bill Clinton. He has written eleven books, including The Work
of Nations, which has been translated into 22 languages; the best-sellers The Future of Success and Locked in the Cabinet, and his most recent
book, Supercapitalism. His articles have appeared in the New Yorker, Atlantic Monthly, New York Times, Washington Post, and Wall Street Journal.
Mr. Reich is co-founding editor of The American Prospect magazine. His weekly commentaries on public radio’s "Marketplace" are heard by nearly
five million people.

In 2003, Reich was awarded the prestigious Vaclev Havel Foundation Prize, by the former Czech president, for his pioneering work in economic
and social thought. In 2005, his play, Public Exposure, broke box office records at its world premiere on Cape Cod.

As the nation’s 22nd Secretary of Labor, Reich implemented the Family and Medical Leave Act, led a national fight against sweatshops in the U.S.
and illegal child labor around the world, headed the administration’s successful effort to raise the minimum wage, secured worker’s pensions, and
launched job-training programs, one-stop career centers, and school-to-work initiatives. Under his leadership, the Department of Labor won more
than 30 awards for innovation. A 1996 poll of cabinet experts conducted by the Hearst newspapers rated him the most effective cabinet secretary
during the Clinton administration.

Reich has been a member of the faculties of Harvard’s John F. Kennedy School of Government and of Brandeis University. He received his B.A. from
Dartmouth College, his M.A. from Oxford University, where he was a Rhodes Scholar, and his J.D. from Yale Law School.

http://www.robertreich.org/reich/biography.asp

[JohnLocke]

45. I respect both Robert Reich and Paul Krugman enormously.

Reich's book Reason was one of my favorites. But I think he's wrong on this one.

[Jim Sagle]

47. I think you're being unfair to Shrum.

IMO, he belongs in the not too bright column, not the sleazy column.

[JohnLocke]

50. You got a point.

Always good to see you, Jim. :hi:

http://www.attytood.com/2007/03/why_bob_shrum_is_a_loserand_wh.html

[paulk]

16. whether you agree with Krugman on Obama or not

I think he raises some important points, especially about the media -

"Thus, in 1994, Time celebrated the Republican victory in the midterm elections by putting a herd of charging elephants on its cover. But its response to the Democratic victory of 2006—a victory in which House Democrats achieved a larger majority, both in seats and in the popular vote, than the Republicans ever did in their 12-year reign—was a pair of overlapping red and blue circles, with the headline "The center is the place to be."

Oh, and the guests on Meet the Press the Sunday after the Democratic sweep were, you guessed it, Joe Lieberman and John McCain.

More seriously, many pundits have attributed last year's Republican defeat to Iraq, with the implication that once the war has receded as an issue, the right will reassert its natural political advantage—in spite of polls that show a large Democratic advantage on just about every domestic issue."


--------------------


Our next President is going to be fighting not only the Republicans, but the MSM - who will do everything in it's power to thwart any real change. And that's going to mean ignoring what they say about where the country is and where its going - because the MSM lies about those things. Who is going to be tough enough to stand up to these forces?

As an object lesson remember that Clinton's rescinding of the Reagan era tax cuts passed without a SINGLE Republican vote. We've got to be ready to move a progressive agenda forward without any help from the Republicans.

[oasis]

27. Another excellent post by Paulk.

:thumbsup:

[Armstead]

17. I agree with Krugman -- I just hope he doesn't sell out what he says

If he ends up in Camp Clinton, he'll be going against everything he says in that excellent article.

[Perry Logan]

19. It's amazing how people who couldn't get elected dogcatcher know so much more about politics...

...than the people who actually hold office. What would they know, right?

[ldf]

44. who put us in the shitcan we are in?

those that are in office.

and the dullards that vote based on their desire to feel comfortable while getting drunk with (read someone as stupid as they are) the most powerful man on the planet.

[Forkboy]

20. I agree, which is one of the reasons I don't support Obama or Hillary.

:shrug:

[Gloria]

37. Same here, Forkboy!!

[Peace Patriot]

21. "America's new liberalism"?

"The question, however, is whether Democrats will take advantage of America's new liberalism. To do that, they have to be ready to forcefully make the case that progressive goals are right and conservatives are wrong."--Paul Krugman

I have enormous regard for Paul Krugman, and he is absolutely right about this issue--"centrism" (rightwing/corporate 'Democrats' compromising with Bushite fascists)--will spell: the biggest "Banana Republic on earth" (us). We need an FDR who is hated by "organized money" and we need a fighting, "bust their balls," "throw the bums out," adamant, well-organized, pro-worker, pro-poor, pro-veteran, pro-peace, anti-global corporate predator Congress as well.

Which brings me to the phrase "America's new liberalism." Krugman makes the mistake that many leftists make of assuming that the majority of Americans are any different than they have ever been--or that they have been over the last seven years: consistently progressive in most of their views--and not just by close margins but by large margins (way up in the 60% to 70% range and even higher on some issues). And I think Krugman and others get this notion that Americans somehow made a right turn, recently, from too much exposure to the war profiteering corporate news monopolies (including the one he writes a column for). It is the one propaganda success of these corporate news monopolies that they convinced many of us that OTHER Americans were 'sieg heiling' to Bush, in large numbers, and that we, the members of the great progressive American majority are a minority, and are isolated and alone in our views.

I've been studying issue polls over the last five years (since just before the war), and what I have realized, from this study of both corporate-news and independent polls, for one thing contributes to my conviction that the last 4 major elections ('00, '02, '04, '06) have been stolen--the latter two by the obviously intentional means of 'TRADE SECRET,' PROPRIETARY programming code in all the new electronic voting systems, owned and controlled by rightwing Bushite corporations, with virtually no audit/recount controls--a situation that was made possible, during the 2002 to 2004 period, by contrivance of both party leaderships. Perhaps it was Krugman's vacation just after the '04 election--something I shall never forget--when those of us who were trying to mount an investigation of that election were not just abandoned by the Democratic Party leadership and, of course, by the corporate news monopolies--but were maligned and marginalized and ostracized, and an "iron curtain" was drawn over the matter of our obviously and egregiously fraudulent voting system and its fraudulent results. There were a few people in positions of power who could have helped turn that "black hole" inside out. Krugman was one of them. When he went on vacation just after that stolen election, I knew we would be in for a very rough time, indeed--and that it would take decades to restore transparent vote counting and democracy in the United States.

So I look with a somewhat jaundiced eye on leftist commentators now, who aver that there is something "new" happening with regard to Americans' revulsion at unjust war, torture, spying, official lawlessness, massive looting, extreme unfairness of every kind, and all the things that the majority of Americans have all along been against, and that there is something "new" in what most Americans have all along been FOR--such as worker protections and decent wages, strong environmental protection, strong regulation of corporations, strong government action on behalf of "the little guy," clean, transparent elections, protection of Social Security, universal health care, human rights, world peace, international law, and so on.

This error of not understanding the fascist/corporate coup in our election system (of 'TRADE SECRET' vote counting, and additional outrages, such as massive repression of the votes of black citizens) leads to larger strategic errors. It's just not that we need an FDR who is hated by "organized money" and who welcomes that hatred. It's that no such person will be permitted to enter the White House, nor, indeed, will a majority of such persons be permitted to gain power in Congress. And that will not change until we restore vote counting that everyone can see and understand--the fundamental condition of democracy.

I'm all for good and intelligent analysis of the political scene, of policy, of candidates and other important matters. And, as I said, I agree with this column, wholeheartedly. But the question that is so seldom posed in columns like this is: HOW DO WE GET AN "FDR" ELECTED IN THESE CIRCUMSTANCES OF BUSHITE-CORPORATE CONTROLLED VOTE COUNTING?

[Joe Fields]

22. Paul Krugman must have been reading my thoughts, or reading my

posts, or vice versa. Nothing could ring more true than that article. A big K&R.

[Hippo_Tron]

25. FDR also had to appease the southern committee chairs...

By not introducing any civil rights legislation. Certainly he didn't compromise with "organized money" because they were at odds with everything he wanted to accomplish. But the New Deal coalition had some less than savory characters in it that FDR had to compromise with to get his agenda passed.

[Hippo_Tron]

26. Dupe n/t

[Two Americas]

28. run to the heart

We need to run to the "heart," not to the middle. The "heart" is the shared concerns and needs of the majority of the people - education, equal opportunity, a decent wage, health and well being, justice, strong communities of mutual support, affordable housing, and a healthy environment. There exists a small number of people who profit by restricting or destroying the things that the people need, and they are now having everything their way. Their interests are well represented by the Republican party. There can be no compromise with them. The desperate needs of the many can no longer be compromised for the sake of the desires of the few.

[zulchzulu]

29. Political Theater Over Accomplishing Anything Reasonable!

Let's do what Krugman says and stick fingers in their eyes, trip them at the knees and spit in their faces! Our way or no way at all!

Onward over the cliff, my fellow Lemmings!

The crowd on our side will cheer mightily as we must be about getting...nothing...done...um...and waste more years not getting decent healthcare, domestic partnerships, education reform and environmental controls... let's make sure there aren't enough votes to get veto-proof legislation passed!

Let's...accomplish...nothing!!!! We'll feel great though!

:crazy:

[depakid]

30. Seems to me you've been asleep for the past 10 - 20 years

Just what do you think the far right has done to what used to be (and actually still is outside the MSM) mainstream America- and more particularly progressive positions on the issues.

I'll tell you: EXACTLY what Krugman suggests we do.

If it works (repeatedly) for the far right- even though their stances are both irrational and unpopular, then how do you think it would do with responsible stances on the issues- championed by real Democrats who aren't afraid to stand up for traditional Democratic values in a nation sick to death of corruption and ineptitude?

[Seabiscuit]

38. I don't know about the "asleep" bit...

sounds more like he's on a bummer trip mixing some really bad acid with too many speedballs. His rambling is downright hallucinatory.

[zulchzulu]

60. Do you condemn Russ Feingold too? Is political gridlock how we get things done?

People like Russ Feingold know that in order to actually accomplish anything, you have to work with the moderates on the other side of the aisle to get legislation passed. That's what grownups do.

What punks do is say it's their way or the highway. They get off on political theater and posing over actually accomplishing anything.

If you prefer the punk's schoolyard antics in government, good for you. The "rallying cry" that Krugman insinuates will work is nothing but snide childishness.

After nothing gets accomplished years from now due to fractured political partisanship, will you be proud?

[RaleighNCDUer]

58. Pictures of POWs always make me sad.

And your post reads like a picture of a POW.

[Fovea]

31. Right on

Now lets take it to the corporatists.

[sandnsea]

32. It isn't about middle ground, it's about common ground

and it does exist. Krugman doesn't get it.

[Jim Sagle]

48. Some of the common ground is in the middle, most of it isn't.

[Radical Activist]

54. Right. There's power in unity.

A unified public is the only way to combat corporate power. Progressive policies can be adopted if we don't allow republicans to play the game of dividing people.

[RaleighNCDUer]

61. It isn't about middle ground, it's about common ground

and it does exist. Krugman gets it; our politicians do not.

Common ground is that rational people don't want war. Common ground is that everybody wants safe streets. Common ground is that we all want our kids to do at least as well as we did, better if possible. Common ground is that nobody likes others telling them how they have to live.

It is progressive policies and liberal traditions that answer the issues of the common ground. Not collaborating with fascists; not compromising with the right. The answers from the right always exacerbate the problems; they are dependent upon everybody doing as they say, upon pain of punishment.

The very concept of 'the commons' is progressive - it is that there are things which belong to the society as a whole, held in trust for all the people. You don't protect the commons by compromising with the right, and giving them only half rather than all of what you are trying to protect. You protect the commons by not compromising, and giving them nothing.

[Bozita]

33. Krugman will be on with Charlie Rose tonight

http://www.charlierose.com/shows/2007/12/26/1/a-conversation-with-paul-krugman

12/26/2007
Paul Krugman
A conversation with Paul Krugman
Keywords:The Conscience of a Liberal, Paul Krugman
A conversation with Paul Krugman about his book The Conscience of a Liberal.

[Cameron27]

36. K&R

[bjobotts]

40. The fight is against the "Money" party which includes dems and repubs

Only a progressive agenda will get our country back and moving in the direction the principles of our constitution have established. So far Dennis Kucinch is the only true progressive we have running for president but the senate and the congress incumbents.. the dinosaurs of pork...the porky pigs...the beltway insiders...the group Gore referred to who keep accepting money from those that have it and keep voting without debate the way those donors dictate, these are the ones who are not doing what they promised their constituents. These are the ones in our own party that we need to be rid of nearly as much as the republican neocons.

No we don't need to stay in Iraq...No we don't have to slowly go into a single payer national health care program, No we don't have to "change" NAFTA and our other trade policies(we just end them)...no we don't have to continue tax cuts for the very wealthy, or increase or maintain our defense spending etc etc etc.
Bipartisanship is date rape to republicans and their democratic supporters like Feinstein and Jay Rockefellar and now Harry Reid(pushing the Cheney telecom amnesty bill). "NO" is a complete sentence. It's time for progressive democrats to insist our party do what they have promised us...be progressive democrats.
Bush bashing is a self propelling action which Bush starts everytime he opens his mouth. Tell dems to quit being apologists for these republicans who have all but destroyed our country with their greed and profit privatizing. Quit saying things like "we are anxious to work with you..." while they obstruct every piece of legislation to hit the senate and refuse to compromise or concede anything to a democrat. It is just playing the kick me game. It's time to get people who have been elected to make sure the government will not work out of office. Once they become rational again then we will discuss bipartisanship...like in 12 yrs after we get your ilk out of the government that we make efficient and progressive.

[BeyondGeography]

42. Armchair Paul wants us to chant La Marseillaise

How exciting!

Has anyone told him most New Hampshire Democrats oppose health insurance mandates yet?

[JohnLocke]

51. How insulting.

Krugman is a respected economist, a professor at Princeton, a former member of the Council of Economic Advisers and current member of the Group of Thirty.

I respect Robert Reich. I hope you would not attack Krugman.

[eridani]

53. With single payer, it will be cheaper than what they are paying now

Paying less for more is always saleable.

[Stevepol]

46. As usual, Krugman is right, and if the vote counting ever gets straightened out,

Dems will have a long reign coming and I mean a long one.

Problem is IMO this isn't possible if the vote counting mess isn't cleaned up.

[sasquatch]

49. Oh yeah, to arms baby!

:bounce:

[JAbuchan08]

52. my response

posted on slate

Sorry to offend the middle, but it is squishy centrism which has gotten us to this point in the first place.

I suppose that it is important to first define the terms. I don't think of the Democrat's as a victim of centrist ideology (ie. a belief that extreme positions are counterproductive), so much as a victim of their own inability to take a stand.

I consider myself to be a moderate on a whole host of issues. I don't want to be over-taxed. I want our federal budget to be balanced. I don't want social programs to be giant sinkholes for tax-dollars. I would like to see some federal power to be devolved back to the states. I think that factory farms are cruel, but I enjoy a good hamburger. I think that the fewer abortions preformed in America the better, because the beginning of human life is a rather subjective measurement, but I support more effective contraception to that end. The only issue that I'm really strident on is accountability, if (for example) you are going to attack another country on the pretext of WMD you better have the forms filled out in triplicate and your evidence better consist of something better than speculative drawings and rumors heard from a drunk guy with an axe to grind.


Generally (and perhaps I am to generous to myself) I am fairly both fairly moderate (in the sense that I eschew rigid ideologues and take the middle road on many issues) and liberal (in the sense that our political environment has defined certain seemingly moderate views as "liberal") and I think that their are lots of Democrats like me.

Even so, (if I was running the show) I don't think that I could compromise with the Republican party on much of anything, because they are generally composed of radical ideologues. From taxation to crime and punishment the "positions" they hold are that "liberals" are too liberal on the issue in question therefore they must push a more conservative agenda. In short (modern) conservatives are reactionaries with whom it does little good to compromise, because they will always see America as needing one more push to the right.

Yet still Democrats are willing to compromise with the Republican party. It is not as if holding out against a bad idea is rigidness or intractability. It is simply common sense. Look at what the "center" has accomplished over the past 7 years - it has granted the Bush presidency legitimacy for the sake of "unity." It allowed Bush to essentially investigate its own response to 9-11 and as a result find no negligence. It granted Bush the power to invade Iraq, when his disregarded for any independent verifications of his preconcieved notions about Iraq alone should have cancelled any Democratic support. Even today Democrats talk around investigations, without connecting any teeth to their barks.

So basically democratic "centrism" doesn't consist of any beliefs other than that the center is the place to be. It isn't a matter of finding a compromise that works for the good of the country, it's just about finding a deal (rarely even a compromise) - whether that deal works or not.

[yardwork]

56. Absolutely. This is way beyond partisan politics.

[peacetalksforall]

57. I measure my hopes for the Democrats

Clinton in past the middle of a line heading very right based on acquaintences, speeches, and her &^**@&^*# votes,
Obama, Biden, Dodd teeter in the middle and follow Clinton.

I am losing hope when I realize that NONE of the candidates are addressing vote theft sufficiently. I despise the fact that those in the Senate DID NOTHING about certifying voting machines and have never brought it up. That there is no oversight after all these years is horrific.

So why do they want us to vote for them when voting means nothing?

Krugman is right - we must get rid of the baron-business board of directors, not just Cheney and Bush.

But, we need the ability to vote.

Big business created and participated in the theft of our vote.

We should ask Krugman what he thinks about how we get to vote.

Notice how most the candidates won't talk about this issue.

Votes. The beginning of our country. The end of our country.

Talk, talk, talking is meaningless. Not talking about not being able to vote honestly is helping the death of a country. So why spend a fortune just talking about their ideas?

Rove's greatest crime is being in charge of voting. No candidate seems to be working on it except Kucinich.

[CTLawGuy]

59. prepare for civil war then

that's where we are headed...

[TankLV]

62. YES! YES! YES! Fuck those who call for this "bipartisan" crap...

They are TRAITORS in my opinion - TRAITORS!

You think the repukes will be "bipartisan" if and when they should get back in control?

Anybody who thinks that is an IDIOT.

The repuke have been the most disgusting PARTISAN for DECADES, and now that we Democrats are back in some sort of control - there's a giant wail for "bipartisanship".

WHERE WAS THIS CALL FOR THIS CRAP WHEN THE REPUKES WERE LOCKING DEMOCRATS OUT OF CONFERENCE ROOMS?
WHERE WAS THIS CALL FOR THIS CRAP WHEN THE REPUKES WERE RELEGATING DEMOCRATIC MEETINGS TO BASEMENT CLOSETS?
WHERE WAS THIS CALL FOR THIS CRAP WHEN THE - ONLY - REPUKES WERE ALLOWED TO MEET WITH THE LITTLE DICTATOR "PRESIDENT"?

And these are just THREE of the countless REPUKE OUTRAGES that have occured in the past few DECADES...