Originally Posted by Child of Socrates

David:

I want to stop the insanity in its tracks. We don't have any more time to play the blame game. The GOP is in full-blown crazy (Ryan, Walker, Priebus --- meh on Xer Republicans from Southeastern Wisconsin and I apologize to the country for them ) and anyone with half a brain can take them down. NOW.

I'm baffled that we are still having to push so hard, but look at the chess board as it's laid-out today. We have a SCOTUS that, all evidence to the contrary, has decided that money is directly equivalent to speech. We have a unified segment of wealthy and powerful people that has an agenda and knows how to promote it. We have a cowed, completely neutered or fully RW media landscape, and the few voices from the left are slowly being silenced. Add to that the cowboy mentality of the average American, who admires forceful self-assured behavior far more than the thoughtful and less dynamic. In short, the deck is stacked.

Now, what to do about that. There are two possibilities.

1. First, the hubris of the right may lead them to self-destruction. That happened prior to 2008, so they are not likely to repeat that mistake this soon.
2. The left, primarily in the Democratic Party, could grow a spine, but I see no evidence of that. Even Obama's speech of yesterday was measured to deliberately gain him some ground while remaining above the fray. In short, the battle is not joined ... at least from the left.

So I see little chance that the game will change in any perceptible way, yet change is necessary to staunch the continuous slow bleeding. Shock may be the one tool left. And yes, it will involve pain, not the least of which will fall on people my age. I'm 64. I'm not sure how well I'll be able to tolerate the RW plan delivered in full just as I'm approaching retirement. I may have to learn.

Originally Posted by pbrower2a

The dirty little secret is that Presidents compromise or they fail. Such is true even if the Other Side wants failure.

The Hard Right, as exemplified by the Tea Party, wants a Christian and Corporate America even if such requires another Great Depression and a dictatorial regime to make it possible. The wisest course for the President -- if he doesn't want to become an abject puppet -- is to do what is necessary to keep the system from breaking down while he waits for the political failure of the Hard Right. These fellows do not play fair. They want their ban on abortion (and maybe even contraception!), the elimination of environmental protection, more rapid exploitation of resources, more dependence on petroleum and coal, NPR off the air, and deregulation of the financial industry even if such is contrary to the wishes of most Americans. Never mind that such is failure; these people believe that Americans will still come to JEE-Zussss as they understand Him (no thanks -- their Jesus isn't the One who gave the Sermon on the Mount but instead a good friend of tycoons, executives, and big landowners) by 2012 at the latest.

There won't be any new stimulus until at least 2013 even if the economy melts down again. The Republicans, if anything, would shift taxes onto working people so that the super-rich "can invest more". Sure. They will bid up luxuries that most of us will never see unless we are to become the domestic servants of those plutocrats, big landowners, and their retainers. America needs more investment in quality education at the K-12 level so that people who go to college are better prepared for it and those who aren't college material can still find decent -paying work -- but who needs good pay when the cheap-labor interests can get an abundant supply of cheap, disposable, cowed labor.

The 112th Congress has thrown away two years of possible progress; countries elsewhere are catching up with us while we debate whether global warming is a phantom because some special interests want us to act as if it were a phantom or at least a triviality. But we must remember: the wolf-sheep hybrids (wolves toward real and imagined enemies, sheep toward leaders) that are the American people, or at least its Right Wing, have their view of a good life, and that is a life dedicated to Pie in the Sky When You Die.

Have you actually seen anyone who "wants a Christian and Corporate America even if such requires another Great Depression and a dictatorial regime to make it possible" ? I have not.
It is clear that we need compromise and consensus to get anything done. With both parties dug in, it does not look good to reach any agreements and the idea of operating under perpetual continuing resolutions is not appealing.

Originally Posted by Marx & Lennon

I wonder whether mitigating the damage is the right approach. So far, we've followed a pattern of one step forward and two steps back. The one step is always demagogued as extreme liberalism, so the "sensible" two steps back needs to be a bit bolder to compensate. All this has done is to plant the political center pin further to the right every year. Has this produced any gains? After all, Bill Clinton is the one who signed-off on killing the Glass-Steagle Act, yet Democrats continue to praise the Clinton Years as the model to move us forward. Why?

I'm seriously considering sitting on my hands during the next election cycle. In my part of Virginia, we have conservative Dems and hyper-conservative Reps. Functionally, the Dems are less-bad, but why should that endear them to me? They tend to facilitate bad behavior rather than actively pursue it, but the results are the same: bad behavior. Having the Dems fingerprints on the result only reinforces the view that the policy is bipartisan. That may be OK with the Dems, but it's not OK by me.

I went a few rounds with PW on this prior to the 2010 debacle, and the point still holds. Why should the public elect a faux Rep when real ones are in the running? Harry Truman made the same point 60 years ago. The policy results continue a slow but steady movement to the right. Both parties are on-board. When, not if, the next disaster occurs, who's left to pick up the pieces?

Since it appears we are going to try the insane approach, perhaps we should let the insane get the blame for it ... just this once.

My right-side, emotional side, of my brain has certainly moved in your direction since the 2010 election. For me, it was the tax deal this early Winter.

As an avid H.C. (my Senator at the time) voter in the primary with serious concerns about Obama's fortitude as a fighter, I have long since grown tired of defending him from Progressives that stood transfixed with tears and stars in their eyes at Grant Park and now grimace and gnash their teeth over his latest capitulation.

Yet, the left-side of the brain kicks in. Does any Progressive really believe that the agenda, let alone outcomes, would now be what they are today if the Dems had kept the House? Deficit reduction at all cost? Really??? Does any Progressive really believe that the agenda or outcomes will be the same if Obama gets defeated by a Pawlenty or a Romney let alone a Huckabee, Palin, Bachmann, or Trump?!!! Have disillusioned Progressive become this isolated, this stupid?

I must admit the appeal of the Machiavelli combination of having a Repug in office when (what I believe) the real 4T hits the fan coupled with Progressives being reminded of the different levels of Dante's Hell. Sure, its frustrating to have a whussy moderate trying to hold the line against the barbarians, but that’s a whole lot different than having Vlad the Impaler requesting you to drop your drawers repeatedly.
But, then again, I have a whole brain.

I prefer the wise words of another poster on another thread about focusing on re-capturing the House, maintaining the Senate, building a base that is more Progressive. However, for those with full brains, the chances of that are next to nil if Obama goes down. If that happens, prepare to bend over.

Originally Posted by playwrite

Sure, its frustrating to have a whussy moderate trying to hold the line against the barbarians, but that’s a whole lot different than having Vlad the Impaler requesting you to drop your drawers repeatedly.
But, then again, I have a whole brain.

I am not willing to take a chance that "pure" progressivism will prevail in this cycle, or the next. This is a looonnnnggg game we're playing.

I think yesterday was the day that Obama laid himself out. He was very explicit on the Bush tax cuts and Medicare. If he goes back on either of those, he will be toast, and deservedly so.

Originally Posted by Child of Socrates

I am not willing to take a chance that "pure" progressivism will prevail in this cycle, or the next. This is a looonnnnggg game we're playing.

I think yesterday was the day that Obama laid himself out. He was very explicit on the Bush tax cuts and Medicare. If he goes back on either of those, he will be toast, and deservedly so.

I hope so. I think all he can meaningfully do until 2012, besides giving in, is help real Democrats win back the House and keep the Senate. We can expect only marginal economic improvement under the current regime, as blt said. Good policies cannot be enacted. Obama is a shoe-in for re-election, having no credible opposition. The real battle is for the House and Senate, and in the states. Obama needs to be aware of this too, and not focus all his efforts on his own campaign.

Keeping an eye on real progressives is wise too. This needs to be approached strategically, especially in voting; with an eye both on the long-term and the short-term. I think it would help his chances if he could accelerate his pullouts from Iraq and Afghanistan.

Originally Posted by Eric the Green

I hope so. I think all he can meaningfully do until 2012, besides giving in, is help real Democrats win back the House and keep the Senate. We can expect only marginal economic improvement under the current regime, as blt said. Good policies cannot be enacted. Obama is a shoe-in for re-election, having no credible opposition. The real battle is for the House and Senate, and in the states. Obama needs to be aware of this too, and not focus all his efforts on his own campaign.

Keeping an eye on real progressives is wise too. This needs to be approached strategically, especially in voting; with an eye both on the long-term and the short-term. I think it would help his chances if he could accelerate his pullouts from Iraq and Afghanistan.

I like this, Eric. More, please.

(Repeat as needed, particularly to your Democratic and progressive allies)

Originally Posted by radind

Have you actually seen anyone who "wants a Christian and Corporate America even if such requires another Great Depression and a dictatorial regime to make it possible" ? I have not.
It is clear that we need compromise and consensus to get anything done. With both parties dug in, it does not look good to reach any agreements and the idea of operating under perpetual continuing resolutions is not appealing.

PB does not live in our world. His world looks very different from the one most of us live in.

James50

Originally Posted by Eric the Green

I hope so. I think all he can meaningfully do until 2012, besides giving in, is help real Democrats win back the House and keep the Senate. We can expect only marginal economic improvement under the current regime, as blt said. Good policies cannot be enacted. Obama is a shoe-in for re-election, having no credible opposition. The real battle is for the House and Senate, and in the states. Obama needs to be aware of this too, and not focus all his efforts on his own campaign.

Keeping an eye on real progressives is wise too. This needs to be approached strategically, especially in voting; with an eye both on the long-term and the short-term. I think it would help his chances if he could accelerate his pullouts from Iraq and Afghanistan.

Two thumbs up.

Keep in mind that, if the theory has any validity at all, the 4T goes to the bold. I can't argue against anything written here. Tactically, it all makes great sense ... assuming we're still in a tactical game. The GOP doesn't think so. Neither do I. So far, the Obama administration has been triangulating. I doubt that has a prayer of working this time. For that matter, it wasn't of much use last time

We can disagree about what all the posturing, ploys and feints mean at this point, but the full range of possibilities needs to be considered. Kiff is right: this is a long game. But, much like crew, starting behind the wake is a major no-no.

Originally Posted by Marx & Lennon

First, the hubris of the right may lead them to self-destruction. That happened prior to 2008, so they are not likely to repeat that mistake this soon.

They're already repeating it.

Some weigh-in from the not-unprincipled opposition:

Originally Posted by radind

Have you actually seen anyone who "wants a Christian and Corporate America even if such requires another Great Depression and a dictatorial regime to make it possible" ? I have not.
It is clear that we need compromise and consensus to get anything done. With both parties dug in, it does not look good to reach any agreements and the idea of operating under perpetual continuing resolutions is not appealing.

I have never met Karl Rove, Rush Limbaugh, Glenn Beck, or the Koch brothers...

Originally Posted by pbrower2a

I have never met Karl Rove, Rush Limbaugh, Glenn Beck, or the Koch brothers...

Neither have I, but I have also not seen statements from them about dictators or depressions.

Originally Posted by Marx & Lennon

I'm baffled that we are still having to push so hard, but look at the chess board as it's laid-out today. We have a SCOTUS that, all evidence to the contrary, has decided that money is directly equivalent to speech. We have a unified segment of wealthy and powerful people that has an agenda and knows how to promote it. We have a cowed, completely neutered or fully RW media landscape, and the few voices from the left are slowly being silenced. Add to that the cowboy mentality of the average American, who admires forceful self-assured behavior far more than the thoughtful and less dynamic. In short, the deck is stacked.

The Tea Party types remain loud, Rash Limbaugh remains shrill and unaccountable... Maybe we have seen Glenn Beck on the fade only a couple months after Keith Olbermann, but I can more easily see Olbermann making a comeback. FoX Newspeak Channel is losing viewers, and even it can't hide the large protests against some State governors. Polls show the Tea Party and the Reactionary majority in the House having lost much popularity quickly.

If the Hard Right were indisputably on the upswing, then you would see such people as Governors Brewer, Perry, LePage, Scott, Walker, and Kasich touted as likely candidates for President. A fascistic regime invariably ends up under the domain of the most ruthless, extreme, and abrasive... we still have some hope. We don't yet see liberals like Ed Schultz, Dylan Ratigan, Rachel Maddow, and Michael Moore packing their bags and selling their properties for pennies on the grand so that they can take off for Finland. We don't see organized violence; the attempted assassination of Representative Giffords was amateurish (if tragic) and isolated.

The President is comparatively liberal except on crime, and significantly the Attorney General is no buffoon. An administration that so far has shown little sympathy for scammers can easily go against anyone who compromises the voting rights of those who might vote 'wrong' according to the interests of sitting Governors. You can be sure that the Civil Rights Division will be very active in 2012. As a candidate barack Obama played a beat-the-cheat strategy to prevent a Gore-like or Kerry-like loss, and I can expect much the same in 2012.

Now, what to do about that. There are two possibilities.

1. First, the hubris of the right may lead them to self-destruction. That happened prior to 2008, so they are not likely to repeat that mistake this soon.
2. The left, primarily in the Democratic Party, could grow a spine, but I see no evidence of that. Even Obama's speech of yesterday was measured to deliberately gain him some ground while remaining above the fray. In short, the battle is not joined ... at least from the left.

Point 1 -- The arrogance is already there. We see State governors trying to exercise dictatorial powers. We see the GOP House majority attempting to push policies unpopular to all themselves (but with little influence upon the budget if enacted) as riders to a budget bill. We see calls to privatize Social Security and Medicare.

Point 2 -- Nothing so forces people to develop a spine as the perception of danger that one will be rendered irrelevant or worse. The Hard Right has tipped its cards, and its 7-6-5-4-3 straight will beat two queens and a J-10-9. If you are to stay in the game, then you discard a queen and hope for a king or an eight. Several leaders in the GOP majority in the House, not to mention some Governors, have shown what they intend for America.

A spine does not imply that one takes the most reckless course of action.

So I see little chance that the game will change in any perceptible way, yet change is necessary to staunch the continuous slow bleeding. Shock may be the one tool left. And yes, it will involve pain, not the least of which will fall on people my age. I'm 64. I'm not sure how well I'll be able to tolerate the RW plan delivered in full just as I'm approaching retirement. I may have to learn.

Mercifully --

• 1. We have no tolerance for political violence. Jared Laughner is in deep trouble.
  
  2. There have been mass protests in some liberal-leaning states (Wisconsin, Michigan) and some near-neutral (Ohio, Indiana) states against extremist deeds of governors and state legislatures. We would have extreme cause for pessimism if Scott Walker had gotten away with what he did without meaningful complaints.
  
  3. The President is a consummate politician. He isn't exactly Jimmy Carter or William Howard Taft.

We are in a Crisis Era. The degeneracies that we tolerated in the now-passed 3T have come back to bite us. The bad business practices, sordid mass culture, vase priorities, and awful politics must die.

Originally Posted by Justin '77

Some weigh-in from the not-unprincipled opposition:

"The Democratic Party approved this mess?"

Originally Posted by The Grey Badger

"The Democratic Party approved this mess?"

And still does, of course.

Originally Posted by Justin '77

And still does, of course.

I would dearly love to see them put out that poster, of course.

Originally Posted by radind

Neither have I, but I have also not seen statements from them about dictators or depressions.

They don't exactly call for dictatorships and depressions, but there is a strand of conservative thought (the dominant ideology of the Republican party) that seems to regard excess prosperity as a threat to human values, virtues, and development. I don't buy the argument because I think that human life and the universe provides enough threatening challenges that we don't need to invent new ones just to toughen ourselves up, but some conservatives do.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn...001779_pf.html

(for the record, Murray is wrong about the Swedish birth rate: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Demographics_of_Sweden)

I'm not saying that all, or even most conservatives think like this, but Murray is a fairly prominent voice within the movement.

http://www.american.com/archive/2009...exceptionalism

Originally Posted by Marx & Lennon

I wonder whether mitigating the damage is the right approach. So far, we've followed a pattern of one step forward and two steps back. The one step is always demagogued as extreme liberalism, so the "sensible" two steps back needs to be a bit bolder to compensate. All this has done is to plant the political center pin further to the right every year. Has this produced any gains? After all, Bill Clinton is the one who signed-off on killing the Glass-Steagle Act, yet Democrats continue to praise the Clinton Years as the model to move us forward. Why?

I'm seriously considering sitting on my hands during the next election cycle. In my part of Virginia, we have conservative Dems and hyper-conservative Reps. Functionally, the Dems are less-bad, but why should that endear them to me? They tend to facilitate bad behavior rather than actively pursue it, but the results are the same: bad behavior. Having the Dems fingerprints on the result only reinforces the view that the policy is bipartisan. That may be OK with the Dems, but it's not OK by me.

I went a few rounds with PW on this prior to the 2010 debacle, and the point still holds. Why should the public elect a faux Rep when real ones are in the running? Harry Truman made the same point 60 years ago. The policy results continue a slow but steady movement to the right. Both parties are on-board. When, not if, the next disaster occurs, who's left to pick up the pieces?

Since it appears we are going to try the insane approach, perhaps we should let the insane get the blame for it ... just this once.

I go back and forth on this, but the conclusion I always come to is that the strategy of sitting out does not work. It always seems to end badly for the political group that tries it. Consider:

I wasn't alive then, but from my reading of history I gather that liberals/progressives weren't very happy with Jimmy Carter in 1980. That was why Teddy Kennedy tried to primary him. Many apparently saw Reagan as a cartoonish figure who would be quickly defeated in 4 years. The result, 12 years of Republicans in the White House.

Conservatives weren't really happy with Bush I, but they got 8 years of Clinton, which was apparently a horrible thing for them judging by the level of radicalization, mobilization, and heated rhetoric emanating from the right.

Liberals during Bush vs Gore weren't really happy with Gore, and thought Bush would easily be defeated in four years, but looking back I don't think very many now think that we are in a better place because we had 8 years of Bush rather than 8 years of Gore. One might argue that 8 years of Gore would have led to a Republican being elected in 2008, but I would respond that in that scenario we simply would have seen the present political situation reversed. Massive Republican losses in 2010 instead of massive Democratic losses. The Republican losses would be especially likely because the Republicans would have been unlikely to have enacted the types of economic stimulus that mitigated at least *some* job losses and prevented politically unpopular cuts to government services.

It might be tempting to conclude that the current radicalization of the Republican party is the result of Republicans needing to court voters that stay home otherwise, but I would argue that it instead is reflective of intense conservative activism at the grass roots level.The tea party ensured that members of the Republican establishment faced primary challenges if they didn't espouse the "correct" views during the last election, so it forced the entire party to shift right either by removing the Republicans that would not comply with conservative demands and replacing them with politicians that would, or cowing them out of fear. Progressives would be wise to take note of the tea party strategy as it seems to be the only proven way to actually shift the political debate in this country.

Overall, while I am intensely dismayed by what I view as the end of Obama as a force for progressive change, I view it in the context of the longer sweep of history in this country. Its been awhile since I studied the subject, so I could be getting details wrong, but I recall that we think of as the New Deal didn't happen all at once. Roosevelt didn't take office until almost 4 years after the beginning of the Great Depression - 4 years of Hoover's tentative and abortive attempts to bring the country out of an economic crisis. While Roosevelt always took a harsher stance against "the banks" and "Wall Street", his first attempt at the New Deal was every bit as corporatist as Obama's health care plan. Roosevelt's presidency didn't take a truly radical turn until 1936, and even then it is well known that he plunged the nation back into depression by prematurely balancing the budget in 1937. Keynes was reportedly unimpressed by him during this time, commenting that he didn't appear to really understand business or the economy.

It wasn't until government spending during WWII put money back in the pockets of individuals and businesses, and got the government involved in rolling out new technologies, and unionization spread which protected the middle class and allowed it to have political representation, that the economy fully recovered from the depression. I also should mention that during the immediate postwar years the economics profession re-wrote their textbooks in order to incorporate knowledge gained during the depression, which set the stage for more effective economic policy - at least until the field start to devolve intellectually during the 70's and 80's.

I also remember that progressive change isn't confined to 4T's. The Civil Rights Movement, Woman's Rights movement, creation of medicare, creation of the EPA, and massive infrastructure projects such as the interstate highway system, to name just a few progressive accomplishments, all happened outside of 4T's. With the exception of gay rights, the time period between 1992 and 2008 was remarkably bad for progressives, (remember that even Bush 1 signed the Americans with Disabilities Act and started to regulate sulfer in order to curb acid rain), but that appears to be a historical anomaly, rather than the rule.

Originally Posted by Marx & Lennon

I'm baffled that we are still having to push so hard, but look at the chess board as it's laid-out today. We have a SCOTUS that, all evidence to the contrary, has decided that money is directly equivalent to speech. We have a unified segment of wealthy and powerful people that has an agenda and knows how to promote it. We have a cowed, completely neutered or fully RW media landscape, and the few voices from the left are slowly being silenced. Add to that the cowboy mentality of the average American, who admires forceful self-assured behavior far more than the thoughtful and less dynamic. In short, the deck is stacked.

Now, what to do about that. There are two possibilities.

1. First, the hubris of the right may lead them to self-destruction. That happened prior to 2008, so they are not likely to repeat that mistake this soon.
2. The left, primarily in the Democratic Party, could grow a spine, but I see no evidence of that. Even Obama's speech of yesterday was measured to deliberately gain him some ground while remaining above the fray. In short, the battle is not joined ... at least from the left.

So I see little chance that the game will change in any perceptible way, yet change is necessary to staunch the continuous slow bleeding. Shock may be the one tool left. And yes, it will involve pain, not the least of which will fall on people my age. I'm 64. I'm not sure how well I'll be able to tolerate the RW plan delivered in full just as I'm approaching retirement. I may have to learn.

Perhaps we are all still too focused on change coming from the top of the pyramid instead of the bottom. We think we will elect change. From what I understand, a real transformation of a society always comes from the citizens standing together and demanding justice. Waiting for that elected night in shining armor, delays the process.

Originally Posted by btl2283

... It might be tempting to conclude that the current radicalization of the Republican party is the result of Republicans needing to court voters that stay home otherwise, but I would argue that it instead is reflective of intense conservative activism at the grass roots level.The tea party ensured that members of the Republican establishment faced primary challenges if they didn't espouse the "correct" views during the last election, so it forced the entire party to shift right either by removing the Republicans that would not comply with conservative demands and replacing them with politicians that would, or cowing them out of fear. Progressives would be wise to take note of the tea party strategy as it seems to be the only proven way to actually shift the political debate in this country.

You cite two interwoven dynamics that have tended to move me away from blind support. First and foremost, politicians fear apathy. If they can count on solid support without doing much of anything, why should they? On the other hand, if they know that their support is based on their performance, they'll be more attuned to the wishes of their constituents. Second on your list is activism. The right is highly active, but the left is not. I don't have a fix for that. Fear triggered the rise of the Tea Parties. Maybe that's a model ... or not.

Originally Posted by btl2283 ...

Overall, while I am intensely dismayed by what I view as the end of Obama as a force for progressive change, I view it in the context of the longer sweep of history in this country. Its been awhile since I studied the subject, so I could be getting details wrong, but I recall that we think of as the New Deal didn't happen all at once. Roosevelt didn't take office until almost 4 years after the beginning of the Great Depression - 4 years of Hoover's tentative and abortive attempts to bring the country out of an economic crisis. While Roosevelt always took a harsher stance against "the banks" and "Wall Street", his first attempt at the New Deal was every bit as corporatist as Obama's health care plan. Roosevelt's presidency didn't take a truly radical turn until 1936, and even then it is well known that he plunged the nation back into depression by prematurely balancing the budget in 1937. Keynes was reportedly unimpressed by him during this time, commenting that he didn't appear to really understand business or the economy.

I can't argue with any of this. Sadly, that's not occurring now. Perhaps there isn't sufficient motivation, though the more likely issue is Obama's personality. He's a bit too intellectual to join the fray in earnest.

Originally Posted by btl2283 ...

It wasn't until government spending during WWII put money back in the pockets of individuals and businesses, and got the government involved in rolling out new technologies, and unionization spread which protected the middle class and allowed it to have political representation, that the economy fully recovered from the depression. I also should mention that during the immediate postwar years the economics profession re-wrote their textbooks in order to incorporate knowledge gained during the depression, which set the stage for more effective economic policy - at least until the field start to devolve intellectually during the 70's and 80's.

You see this, and so do most of us on the board. How is this made evident to hoi polloi, who have resisted personal risk taking as the world spins further away from their best interests?

Originally Posted by btl2283

They don't exactly call for dictatorships and depressions, but there is a strand of conservative thought (the dominant ideology of the Republican party) that seems to regard excess prosperity as a threat to human values, virtues, and development. I don't buy the argument because I think that human life and the universe provides enough threatening challenges that we don't need to invent new ones just to toughen ourselves up, but some conservatives do.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn...001779_pf.html

(for the record, Murray is wrong about the Swedish birth rate: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Demographics_of_Sweden)

I'm not saying that all, or even most conservatives think like this, but Murray is a fairly prominent voice within the movement.

http://www.american.com/archive/2009...exceptionalism

Thanks. I am an independent because I have issues with both parties. For example we need a real Health care system and the Republicans can only recite their dogma that free enterprise solves all problems. However, I just do not see the concern about 'excess prosperity'. Desire for excess would be closer to the truth.
My concern is to promote more dialog in attempt to develop some consensus in place of just name calling (by some on both sides) for the fun of it. This is counterproductive in my opinion. Radicals on either side will never be reached, but we only need a relatively small shift in the center to reach some kind of agreement.

A chime-in regarding the topic of the thread--

If things remain on the course they are now on, Obama will not win re-election. A few articles to illustrate why:

Democrats' Disgust With Obama

Obama job approval hits 5-month low in Gallup poll

Morning Jay: Obama's Speech Was Meant to Reassure the Left

Obama's speech the other night was seemingly inexplicable. Instead of attempting to confront the debt issue, begin a dialogue and position himself in the center for his re-election campaign, he swung wildly to the left, attacked the Republicans, and accused them of all the standard Democrat smears...throwing old ladies out in the street, etc.

He did this stuff before, leading up to the November elections. Stuff like reporting the state of Arizona to the UN human rights commission over its immigration law. Stuff that seems practically designed to inflame his opposition and dive them to the polls in droves. It looks insane. Surely he should be following the Clinton model.

But what's happening is that the far left won't let him move to the center. That speech, like his wild demagoguery leading up to November, wasn't the result of careful political calculation. It was panic over the fury of the left. If it's a sign of where things are headed for 2012, the result of it is going to be more of what happened in November 2010. The Tea Party will be angry, the moderates and independents will be turned off, and Obama will lose while holding about 45% of the vote, which is where his approval rating now stands.

There was unlikely to be a dramatic improvement in the economy in the next two years anyway, but with a deadlock in Washington characterized by slanderous partisanship of the kind Obama displayed in that speech, threatening tax increases while the debt continues to spiral out of control, it is almost a certainty that the economy will either not improve or grow worse.

I think the left really is about to suffer its big fall. The right had theirs in 2006 and 2008. The left is showing the same pattern -- completely oblivious determination to stand by its unthinking dogma, in the face of unambiguous public sentiment against them. It will be like the 1980 election on steroids, regardless of who the Republicans nominate.

I thought Obama would move to the center and try to look like Clinton in 1995. He's dispelled that illusion now. When pressed, he goes into far left Chicago machine mode. He's not in Chicago anymore. He will lose if this is how it's going to be.

Thursday, April 14, 2011

Corbett numbers down in the dumps

http://publicpolicypolling.blogspot....-in-dumps.html

To the list of states already regretting their new Republican Governor you can add Pennsylvania: Tom Corbett has only a 34% approval rating to 44% of voters disapproving of him and voters say that if they could do it all over again now they'd vote for Democrat Dan Onorato instead, by a 49-44 margin over Corbett.

Pennsylvania joins Wisconsin, Ohio, Michigan, Florida, and Georgia as states where PPP has recently found that if voters had a second chance they would now vote against their new GOP chief executive. Part of that is a reminder of just how much of the Republican gains last year were driven by low Democratic turnout- the party's voters were fat and happy after big wins in 2006 and 2008 and just didn't have the sense of urgency they would have needed to keep that momentum going last year. But the other thing it's reflective of is that there has been somewhat of a shift in the political landscape over the last five months, particularly with independent voters.

Exit polls last year showed Corbett defeating Onorato by 18 points with independent voters. Now Corbett has only a 31% approval rating with them to 38% who disapprove and those folks say they'd vote for Onorato by a 45-41 margin in a redo. In addition to independents turning against all of these newly elected Republican Governors, we also found in polling earlier this week that they've turned against the new Republican Congress.

Independents are unhappy, impatient, and expecting immediate results from the folks they voted into office in November and because they don't feel like they're getting that they're quickly getting negative toward the new GOP officials. It seems safe to say that if last year had been a Democratic year they'd probably already be turning against the Democrats too but for Republicans this is proving to be part of the price of success.

In addition to the upside down numbers for Corbett with independents he's suffering because only 60% of Republicans approve of the job he's doing. There are actually more GOP voters- 22%- who disapprove of his work so far than there are Democrats- 16%- who think he's doing a good job.

Voters in the state are pretty ambivalent toward Pat Toomey, which given Corbett and Barack Obama's unpopularity isn't necessarily a bad place to be. Toomey has a 32% approval rating with 31% of voters disapproving and 37% expressing no opinion. He's on narrowly positive ground with independents at 29/25, and benefits because Republicans (51%) are stronger in their approval of him than Democrats (44%) are in their disapproval.

Pennsylvania hasn't had the large protests that Wisconsin, Michigan, and Ohio have had directed against their new governors. In case you (JPT) think that President Obama is the only political failure, then take a look at how Republicans are doing, too. What saves Senator Pat Toomey (Reactionary, Pennsylvania) could be that as a new Senator he keeps a low profile so far even though he was President of a Hard Right group called the Club for Growth (which seems to be that whatever enriches tycoons and executives merits any sacrifices from everyone else).

Need I discuss some other states? Let's start with New Hampshire, which has two freshman GOP Representatives. Does this look like evidence that Republicans are on their way to a permanent majority?

Dems win NH generic leg. ballot, NH supports gay marriage

http://www.publicpolicypolling.com/p...NH_0408424.pdf

Raleigh, N.C. – Republicans made huge gains in the New Hampshire last fall, picking up
a whopping 124 State House seats and 9 Senate seats to wrest control of both houses of
the legislature from the Democrats. But if voters could go to the polls now, they would
flip a lot of those seats, if not the majority, right back. Statewide, 49% of New
Hampshire voters would select the Democratic candidate in their district, with 41%
preferring the Republican. Democrats and Republicans unsurprisingly stick mostly with
their respective parties, but the huge plurality of the electorate that identifies with neither
party (36%) decide the issue, siding with Democrats 46-34. Last fall, independents
swung heavily the GOP’s way, but in many states, they are moving back toward
Democrats now, according to recent PPP polls.

New Hampshire is one of the only states in the union to have full same-sex marriage. A
44% plurality currently believe gay couples should have full marriage rights, as they do
now, with another 35% supporting the previous status quo, civil unions. Only 19% are
against any legal recognition of a gay couple’s relationship. Two-thirds of Democrats
and 47% of independents are for full marriage rights, but a 47% plurality of Republicans
also supports civil unions.

In a sign of how big of a shift there was in turnout toward the GOP last fall, senior
Senator Jeanne Shaheen’s approval rating has drastically improved from a 41-46 spread
in late October to 50-36 now. The independents who turned out in November were
particularly conservative and in an anti-Democratic mood. They disapproved 42-44 of
Shaheen then, but the independents in this electorate approve 50-31.

Newly elected Kelly Ayotte starts out with a bit of a honeymoon, but is not as popular as
her predecessor, Judd Gregg. Gregg’s net +23 approval margin just before last fall’s
election is almost twice Ayotte’s +12 (46-34) now. Only 57% of Democrats disapprove
of her performance. Independents also give her the benefit of the doubt, 41-29.
Frank Guinta defeated Carol Shea-Porter for the 1st Congressional seat by 12 points last
year, but his district’s voters now have an unfavorable opinion of him by a 34-41 margin.
Similarly, Charlie Bass retook his seat narrowly, but he posts only a 31-49 spread.
PPP surveyed 769 New Hampshire voters from March 31st to April 3rd. The survey’s
margin of error is +/-3.5%. Other factors, such as refusal to be interviewed and
weighting, may introduce additional error that is more difficult to quantify.

The 2010 election demonstrates that unlimited funds behind stealth candidates in states in which support for the incumbent Party is weak can win some elections. But after the election, the people elected have to make good on their promises. In November 2012 the political realities stand to be very different from those of November 2010. Can Hard Right politicians show themselves the salvation of the American economy by then? They are going to need miracles.

This article shows part of I am concerned about.

Vicious or virtuous? | The Economist
http://www.economist.com/node/18560747
..."One big thing that has changed politics fundamentally is the extreme polarisation of the parties. The Brookings event was held in honour of Henry “Scoop” Jackson, a Democratic senator who died in 1983. In nearly half a century on the Hill he became famous for building cross-party coalitions and championing bipartisan legislation. But his is a dying breed. In 2010 Congress was more deeply split on partisan lines than at any time since the second world war, according to Congressional Quarterly, a sister publication of The Economist, which has measured voting patterns on the Hill since 1945. "...