Was he all wrong? The woman won the primary and went to sleep, "assuming" a democratic win. Thats weak.
Of course, Emanuel is doing what any good party-loyalist would be expected to do: try to brush off the party's political clothing and characterize the whole thing as just a minor bruise.
thoughone said:
That assumption is exactly what got her and may get the White House in to trouble. As above, that phrase 'Kennedy's seat' sounds like a press driven copy line. However, if she did take that attitude then the results are obvious.
From all we've heard thus far, the assumption is correct and, the results are indeed, obvious.
Re: Kennedy's seat: I don't care who coined the phrase, the question is, is it true? In this case, again, from what has come out so far, Coakley didn't really campaign hard, apparently relying upon the slot being a "safe" democratic seat. Her fate is hers. If she was that lazy, perhaps, she did the electors of Massachusetts a favor.
Bro, I think you keep mistakenly thinking that the democratic party is some homogeneous group -- and I've been trying to impress upon you, they aren't. You can't simply push an agenda without realizing that here may be negative impacts among the various wings and groups that make up the party. I,e., you can't always expect the consiervative elements of your party to vote in favor of some of the more liberal ideas. If it happens, there can be consequences and repercussions, that Life. Thats also Politics 101.
You should not forget that Obama did not receive 100% of the popular vote or electoral count. McCain got upwards 45% of both. You also not forget that Obama got a good percentage of the independent voters, hence, Obama's 52.9% of the popular vote was made of more than left leaning democrats.
Moving forward with an agenda not paying attention to the lay of the land can be like spitting into the wind.
thoughtone said:
True the Democratic Party is not as homogenous as the Republican Party, the Republican Party however, is united. Their leadership is strong to the point of fascism. Remember when Olympia Snow dared to give an appearance of support to one of President Obama’s intuitives last year and then Mitch McConnell threaten to deny her any committee chairmanship when and if the GOP returned to the majority? This is how the republicans get things done . . .
Lets assume for the sake of argument that party influence is as strong as you say; now, if you force a democrat whose constituency is 70% conservative to toe a so-called party line and vote in favor of an issue, say federally funded abortions (I'm just using that as an example here) which is against what most voters in that democrat's district believe is the proper role of government, what, prey tell, do you think those the voters are likely to do to that congressman at the next election ???
- Replace him with a democrat who WILL sympathize with their sentiments; or
- Replace him with a republican who may be more likely to vote according to their sentiments ???
I would suggest that the Congressman knows his likely fate and in most cases, will tend to remember who put him where he is.
Bottom line, aren't we really talking more about the voters that make up a district ??? - no matter which party label it may be wearing ???
thoughtone said:
The factions that are killing the Democratic Party are the so called conservatives like Mary Landrieu, who took $100 million to sign on to the health care vote, Claire McCaskill and Blanche Lincoln, moderates, another name for corporatists Democrats like Lieberman, Evan Bayh, Max Baucus, and Ben Nelson. Who claim to be Democrats but are actually lobbyist for insurance and health care companies.
Its ugly and it may be distasteful, but, isn't it political compromise ?
thoughtone said:
As I keep saying, if you continually rely on the most conservative elements of the Democrat party to have the final confirmation votes on core Democratic core issue legislation, the only thing that will result will be more and more Republican corporate friendly laws, because the Republicans have purged their party of moderates and dare any of their members to step outside the Republican corporate line. I say, let the so called conservative and moderate Democrats leave the party and reconstitute themselves as what they truly were/are, the Republican party of pre Reagan!
I would suggest that your purge would probably leave your party, out of power! (though I don't believe that you can pigeon hole people quite the way you're doing it).
You and I are different; we agree on some things; we disagree on others. If, through give and take, we can reach common ground, the idea is to move the thing forward. Neither of us have gotten all of what we want, but hopefully through compromise we would have both gotten some things that we believe in, AND made things better for those we represent. Is that a good or bad thing ???
thoughtone said:
For the umpteenth time, Obama won the greatest majority since Reagan’s second term. He won Independents and many Republicans on a very liberal platform.
C'mon bro, you can see that the people who make up those numbers are diverse. They don't represent a monolithic force. They came together around some commonality, at the time. Seriously, the KEY is how to keep them all under the tent -- NOT to start throwing them off the boat. It requires savvy, guile, a bit of charisma, smarts and a lot more to keep them there. When one faction, however, i.e., the Far Liberal Wing, wants to control the agenda, the tent may become too small, for everyone to get under at one time. That party may soon be, out of power.
thoughone said:
Your spin is that he needs to be more conservative. This is what he is doing with the current results shown. You want him to listen to the people that didn’t put him in office more than those that did. If you cannot take this from the defeat in Massachusetts as many corporate Democrats such as Lani Davis, Joe Lieberman and Evan Bayh are spinning the loss, then the Democrats are in for big losses in 2010.
Bro, I want him to listen to everyone. More importantly, however, those who are making the demands, (whatever wing or faction that might be) MUST understand that it may be unrealistic for them to think they can have their way. They may not be able to set and control the agenda!
Big Tent politics aren't easy. If you haven't noticed, the republicans suffer from the same malady.
Again, if you take a look, both political parties are in a heated battle over the so-called: center, independents, and moderates. Which ever party can appeal to more of them at an election, wins.
LOL. Bro, you've already called for ignoring moderates, conservatives and everyone else and just vote because democrats (supposedly) have the majority. They don't, actually.
You have to find a way to work WITH people. AND, if you can't get people's "Reasonable Participation", with some reasonable give and take, then you have to make damn sure most of the country sees it like you do that your opponents are simply being recalcitrant, obstructive, etc. Democrats have tried to paint republicans as the "Party of NO", however, based on the House race in New York, the lost in Massachusetts and sagging poll numbers, maybe democrats have not convinced enough people. sabe ?
thoughone said:
based on the House race in New York,
Democrats won the congressional seat in New York that was republican for over 100 years! Where have you been? Why isn’t this as significant as the so called liberal Massachusetts loss. Are you buying the media ether?
You're missing the point. That may be my fault; I may not have been sufficiently clear.
The people are saying something and the politicians had better listen and understand (1) what it is they're saying; and (2) why they're saying it. I don't necessarily believe that they're the same.
Why is it that at one point the percentage of people who thought healthcare reform was high on the agenda; and later, that number dwindles ??? PERHAPS, proponents of reform have done a poor job defining the issues. PERHAPS, the opponents have done a better job confusing the issue. While the democrats squabbled over the issue and what MUST or MUST NOT be included in the legislation, someone else capitalized and stole the support away. PERHAPS, if reform was to occur, compromise may have been in order, LOL, instead of telling the Blue Dog's, you don't need them; or they better vote against what they feel is the sentiment of their constituents
thoughone said:
GW an HW Bush and Regan never had a supermajority in the Senate and they transformed our country from a manufacturing high wage economy to a financial, service based low wage economy. The tea leaves are right in front of your eyes!
I think thats exactly what I've been saying.
Bro, we're all a little bit of both.
Don't forget, however, the forces working against you. The Limpbaugh's, Becks and other wingnuts loosely organized but strongly intent on seeing this administration FAIL. (Their words, not mine). For example:
thoughone said:
Well if people are as sheep like and stupid as you claim and many are then you cannot appeal to that segment any way. BTW, I think the republican conservative right wing media is more influential in your part of the country than any other.
People are what they are and they are influenced in ways many probably don't have a clue. We are all influenced. If one here stands up and tells us he/she has reached "True Enlightenment" -- it would probably be a sure sign that he/she has just been hooked on the latest fad. Surely, however, with a bit of patience, you can subtly change that enlightenment to a slight different reality, perhaps without the enlightened ever knowing it.
right, and remember what happened to him.
QueEx
thoughone said:
Nixon's policies were popular, I did not necessarily agree with them, but he did get elected twice. His down fall was criminality, not his leadership.
Of course, you are right about Tricky Dick's fall except, however, it was in fact his own leadership that led to his downfall.
QueEx
