Jump to content
Sign in to follow this  
RAN

Before you pop the champagne ... you might have a barf bucket handy

Recommended Posts

In the Nov. 7th Guardian:


https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2018/nov/07/rapprochement-not-impeachment-democrats-likely-approach-to-trump


Democrats’ policy agenda likely to include cooperation with Trump

With Nancy Pelosi at their head, the new House majority is likely to pursue a policy agenda that may include cooperating with the White House

 

The story reports that "Pelosi laid out six legislative priorities she said Democrats would [pursue]." What should be of concern to the left is this excerpt:

 

Quote

Pelosi said she hoped to begin the term by procuring Trump’s cooperation on the second and third items on that list – bringing down drug costs and passing a big infrastructure package – two areas where Trump has signaled an interest in working with Democrats.


So what's the problem? Think about it – Trump's the top gorilla, the King of the Mountain. He takes credit for anything that benefits him or his political ambitions and reactionary agenda. While screwing the working class horribly, he's always seeking anything that furthers the illusion that he loves "the workers".

 

Pelosi and the Dems live in this perpetual cloud-liberal-lala-land where they imagine they can reap some kind of public acclaim from having some peripheral role in Trump's version of an infrastructure program (remember the last fiasco?) and who-knows-what pharma legislation.

 

Trump and his now vast and powerful support base and infrastructure will somehow wangle this to his own great credit (and probably prove in the process that the Dems are a bunch of quivering wimps and violent leftwing socialists out to destroy his good works).

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
8 hours ago, RAN said:

So what's the problem? Think about it – Trump's the top gorilla, the King of the Mountain. He takes credit for anything that benefits him or his political ambitions and reactionary agenda. While screwing the working class horribly, he's always seeking anything that furthers the illusion that he loves "the workers".

 

Pelosi and the Dems live in this perpetual cloud-liberal-lala-land where they imagine they can reap some kind of public acclaim from having some peripheral role in Trump's version of an infrastructure program (remember the last fiasco?) and who-knows-what pharma legislation.

 

Trump and his now vast and powerful support base and infrastructure will somehow wangle this to his own great credit (and probably prove in the process that the Dems are a bunch of quivering wimps and violent leftwing socialists out to destroy his good works).

this holds back Americas growth till one one side can take all the credit. thats not good for the people 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

For America to do great, it needs a Democratic super-majority. That's the only time it has made big great changes.

I long ago created an experiment for people. Think about the ten best big things the federal government has done over the last century, and then ask who had power when they were done. There's a good chance all or nearly all were when there was a Democratic super-majority.

That's because anything less is blocked by the anti-American people pro-plutocracy Republicans.

But it's damned hard to get such super-majorities, which we last had with LBJ (Civil Rights and Voting Rights Act, Medicare, continuing JFK's man on the moon, cutting poverty by a third, etc.) back. Especially with the political engagement of the billionaire interests spending big sums on building political support and taking over the Republican Party.

 

So what to do? If one party decides to be the obstructionist party and block ANY good policies to try to get the American people to blame the OTHER party for nothing getting done, the right response would be for voters to blame them for the obstructionism and vote them out.


But that's exactly what Republicans did for eight years of Obama - his biggest policy, the ACA, passed without a single Republican vote while Republicans just stole a Supreme Court seat - yet it worked for them, and voters took the Senate and then the House away from Democrats.

 

So, the message is, screw the country, be obstructionist. Whether that would work politically for Democrats, who can say, but there's that question about it being wrong and harmful.

 

And there's something else - the very idea of government 'working for the people' and limiting inequality and helping create equal opportunity is very much at odds with the plutocrats' interest, so do-nothing obstructionism is victory for them, not a loss. And they're all too good at getting voters to SUPPORT the do-nothing, and oppose the government.

 

The 'right way' for Democrats to gain a super-majority is to advocate for good policies and get voter support for them so much to get that many votes. Unfortunately, the Republican propaganda machine prevents that. Even the ACA with tens of millions insured, lower cost increases, protection for pre-existing conditions, voters opposed for years. Republicans got a sweeping win in 2010 by running AGAINST all those things and voting to repeal the ACA. Nancy Pelosi was right - the bill had to take effect for voters to appreciate what it actually did rather than what Republicans were lying that it did like death panels, and now finally the ACA has public support.

 

So Democrats are in something of a dilemma between the political obstructionist approach which both is at odds with their principles and could and should backfire, and the cooperation with Republicans where every good thing they should get credit for, Republicans will get mostly undeserved credit for and make voters feel fine having Republicans in office.

 

But it's hard to see what choice Democrats have. What they probably SHOULD do though is compromise less. If Republicans want to trade, say, a higher minimum wage for abusing immigrants - and then run attack ads at Democrats for having supported abusing immigrants - just say no to such deals.

 

If Republicans are willing to just increase the minimum wage for whatever reason then cooperate. Let them get some credit. Democrats should make clear to the American people the difference agendas and hope the voters get the point, but where they can do things with Republicans good for the country, it seems right to do them.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The old guard Democratic leadership is where enthusiasm goes to die

 

Pelosi: “We believe that we have a responsibility to seek common ground where we can. Openness and transparency, accountability and bipartisanship are a very important part of how we will go forward.”

 

Ah yes, “common ground” and “bipartisanship.” That was why we all came out to vote, right?

 

With all the momentum from this election, the Democrats can’t afford more of this kind of leadership. They’ve long seemed spineless, now they don’t even seem to be able to read the writing on the wall. It couldn’t be more obvious that Trump is deeply unpopular and that Medicare-for-all is a winning issue. The presumptive candidate for leader of the opposition party can’t even say “Medicare for all,” let alone “impeachment.”

 

 Pelosi: “This doesn’t mean we’ll go look for a fight, but when we see the need to go forward, we will.”

 

The fight’s already here…..

 

Trump: “If they do that, then it’s just a war-like posture. If that happens, then we’re going to do the same thing, and government comes to a halt. And I would blame them.”

 

 

Pelosi:We will strive for bipartisanship, with fairness on all sides. We have a responsibility to find our common ground where we can. We’ll have a bipartisan marketplace of ideas that makes our democracy strong.”

Here are a few of the ideas the GOP marketplace is currently offering for sale:

  • Privatize Social Security
  • Cut Medicare, and other safety net programs
  • Dismantle ACA
  • Abolish environmental regulations
  • Abolish estate taxes, and capital gains tax

A store offering this product line is not one you want in your marketplace of ideas.

Here's some ideas from another source:

Steyer: “I don’t want to see the new House Democratic majority waste its time trying to forge consensus with congressional Republicans. I want a rigorous investigation of the administration, the appropriate justice meted out, and a general disgracing of the Republican Party. “

Steyer: “They have shifted the conversation to places that are so crazy that there’s really no other side to the conversation. Republicans are not in the “range of reason” on policy issues, and thus not viable negotiating partners. It’s literally ridiculous. I literally consider this to be less than baby talk. Do I think that this administration, which denies climate change and is in the pocket of the fossil fuel industry, is going to propose infrastructure that I think would be a good investment in even the medium term of the United States of America? Color me ridiculously skeptical.”

 

On impeachment:

 

Pelosi: “If Democrats were to attempt to impeach Trump, though, it would have to be bipartisan, and the evidence would have to be so conclusive. For those who want impeachment, that's not what our caucus is about."

 

Steyer: “The one thing a Democratic majority can control is oversight. And then to me the question is: What can they do to punish people? What can they actively do so that there is a punishment, some cost, for lying to Congress, for breaking the law, for breaking your word to the Constitution? That’s the question. And that’s what impeachment is.”

Steyer: Instead a House Democratic majority should focus less on trying to work with Republicans and more on oversight, investigation, and repercussions. “

 

 Meanwhile, Schumer is hopelessly out of touch and essentially useless:

 

Schumer: “We would hope, if there’s a constitutional crisis, that our Republican colleagues would join us in thwarting the president from creating that crisis.”

 

Could someone please translate?

My best attempt: He hope there isn’t a crisis, but if there is, the Republicans will save us from that crisis (that they have created), after it occurs. 

 

New flash- We are in crisis now.

 

Unless you are comfortable with Trump being president for the next six years, impeachment is the nation's highest priority.

 

Thomas Jefferson said never negotiate with pirates. Nothing is ever enough for them. Trump has declared war on our Constitution and the concept of the rule of law.

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

A political note:

What politicians SAY on 'bipartisanship' and what they DO aren't always the same.

I don't think we need 'bi-partisanship' now and that it would mostly mean simply doing bad things Republicans want.

 

But there are more 'independent' voters than Republican or Democrats, and they eat up words like 'bi-partisanship' and hate 'party' things mostly.

 

And winning them over is critical to either side. That's a forumla for a lot of phony 'bi-partisan' talk from politicians. Now trump has not taken that approach - he's picked the openly partisan approach that energizes his base. That leaves it up to Democrats to make him pay the price by winning over those independent voters.

I'm not a big fan of politicians saying things to get votes that are less than accurate. But it's pretty clear that there's an incentive for Democrats to appeal to the biggest group of voters who want 'bi-partisanship' or at least think they do, even while we want them not to actually mean it.

 

What I'm saying is, don't rule out that Pelosi isn't being a good politician winning independents, while not actually intending to do bad things for 'bi-partisanship'.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Once upon a time when the were moderates in the Republican party who would compromise... you know, there wasn't the fake cabal of news or as much right wing talking nuts on radio.

Mexico, the citizens who immigrated and are here legally from Mexico who could have been the perfect Republicans, but they now vote Democratic due to the right-wing nationalistic slugs - this ruined the demographics for the Republicans, so much that you have this Grand old Party mechanism that has built itself up recently by only using fear instead of helping to show direction for all the people who live here in this nation today.

 

They can't say what is right without lying about the truth. Maybe they live in a bubble, but some of them have been around for quite some time in the Senate. Go back and read:

Lies and the Lying Liars Who Tell Them, by Al Franken

 

Because it's true.

 

Peace!

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I don't think Pelosi means to compromise on things like privatizing SS. We should be reasonable IF laws are proposed that don't violate our beliefs we should support them. We shouldn't become like the Rs were with Obama.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
12 hours ago, TheOldBarn said:

Once upon a time when the were moderates in the Republican party who would compromise... you know, there wasn't the fake cabal of news or as much right wing talking nuts on radio.

Mexico, the citizens who immigrated and are here legally from Mexico who could have been the perfect Republicans, but they now vote Democratic due to the right-wing nationalistic slugs - this ruined the demographics for the Republicans, so much that you have this Grand old Party mechanism that has built itself up recently by only using fear instead of helping to show direction for all the people who live here in this nation today.

 

They can't say what is right without lying about the truth. Maybe they live in a bubble, but some of them have been around for quite some time in the Senate. Go back and read:

Lies and the Lying Liars Who Tell Them, by Al Franken

 

Because it's true.

 

Peace!

 

Yes the Republican party is shrinking to it's base what Trump and the Rs are doing now will only hurt them in the future as America inevitably becomes more multicultural. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
11 minutes ago, Gregory said:

I don't think Pelosi means to compromise on things like privatizing SS. We should be reasonable IF laws are proposed that don't violate our beliefs we should support them. We shouldn't become like the Rs were with Obama.

 

We should not compromise !

 

After all the wedge issues and lip service, Republicans represent the Plutocracy.  Your example of privatizing SS would be a gigantic giveaway to Wall St, and subject millions of Americas to the vagaries of a sometimes, wildly fluctuating stock market. 

 

When it comes to the the Republican/Plutocratic agenda, being reasonable means caving in to private interests and abandoning the needs and concerns of the vast majority of ordinary Americans.  The Republican Party will accept nothing less and we should not willingly give them any part of their plutocratic plan for the USA.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 minutes ago, bludog said:

 

We should not compromise !

 

After all the wedge issues and lip service, Republicans represent the Plutocracy.  Your example of privatizing SS would be a gigantic giveaway to Wall St, and subject millions of Americas to the vagaries of a sometimes, wildly fluctuating stock market. 

 

When it comes to the the Republican/Plutocratic agenda, being reasonable means caving in to private interests and abandoning the needs and concerns of the vast majority of ordinary Americans.  The Republican Party will accept nothing less and we should not willingly give them any part of their plutocratic plan for the USA.

I don't want privatized SS I think that's clear from my statement. If the Rs are capable of creating reasonable legislation that doesn't violate our principles IMO Dems should be realistic and willing to work with Rs.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
53 minutes ago, Gregory said:

I don't want privatized SS I think that's clear from my statement. If the Rs are capable of creating reasonable legislation that doesn't violate our principles IMO Dems should be realistic and willing to work with Rs.

 

Except in rare cases, the Republicans do not come up with "reasonable legislation that doesn't violate our principles".    I understand you don't want to privatize SS but it's a perfect example of legislation which would harm ordinary Americans. 

 

When it comes down to cases:   With the exception of wedge issues like gun rights, race and ethnicity, or abortion, the Republicans normally do not come up with any legislation other than that which transfers more of the nation's wealth to the very top.  Compromising with Republicans almost invariably means supporting regressive policies which harm ordinary Americans.

 

What we need to do is resist the Republican/Plutocratic agenda until such time as we have Democratic super-majorities.  As you noted elsewhere, demographics and time are on our side.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 11/10/2018 at 1:41 PM, bludog said:

 

We should not compromise !

 

After all the wedge issues and lip service, Republicans represent the Plutocracy.  Your example of privatizing SS would be a gigantic giveaway to Wall St, and subject millions of Americas to the vagaries of a sometimes, wildly fluctuating stock market. 

 

When it comes to the the Republican/Plutocratic agenda, being reasonable means caving in to private interests and abandoning the needs and concerns of the vast majority of ordinary Americans.  The Republican Party will accept nothing less and we should not willingly give them any part of their plutocratic plan for the USA.

 

Trying to fight authoritarianism with gentle compromises is like offering your abuser tea and crumpets. America needs an opposition that can really defeat authoritarianism.

 

Here’s how you don’t do it. Compromise. You can’t compromise with extremists — and especially not the alliance of extremists that has arisen in America, everyone from kleptocrats to theocrats to plutocrats to authoritarians to bone fide Nazis joining hands, circling a wounded democracy like vultures.

There are three reasons in particular for America’s stunning decline and fall:

  • The first and most obvious is staggering economic mismanagement — the rich got mega-rich, while the middle class imploded, and the average person lives paycheck to paycheck.
  • The second is extremism. As the economy stagnated, as the rich grew ultra rich, but the average person grew poorer, extremism arose. Tea Parties and Trumpism. Extremism arises in times of social collapse to offer people a simple message — if you take from them, those dirty, filthy nobodies, what is rightfully yours, then the prosperity you deserved, will be yours again. Every regressive movement in history has had just that message, and it’s hardly a surprise to see it rise in America, accompanied by supremacist sentiments.
  • The third force behind American collapse  is compromise, — and a centrist, supine opposition.

Americans now live bizarrely impoverished lives, unique in the world —mass shootings, falling life expectancy, stagnant incomes, choosing between healthcare and a roof over your head, never retiring, etc.

 

Every kind of fundamentally anti-democratic tactic and technique — gerrymandering, obstructionism, voter suppression, demagoguery — is seen as legitimate and acceptable. Compromising with extremists and fanatics only legitimizes extremism and fanaticism — and that way, upends and shreds the norms, values, and codes that govern civilized societies.

 

While the bad guys are busy planning a Reichstag Fire — and 'opposition' acting in good faith — what’s the likely outcome going to be?

 

If you compromise with extremists and fanatics, the thing you compromise is democracy.

 

The Good News is There Was a Blue Wave. Will The Democratic leaders Surf It — or Fumble It?

 

We, the people have given Democrats a mandate:  “Here! Fix this broken Republic! Repair this democracy! Do something about Trump's corrupt presidency!”

 

If they fail,... well, that might be it for democracy.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I think we all call for progress. Pelosi has attempted to squash an uprising regarding an abrupt change in dealing with climate change which to me is critically required immediately.

ExPDXer and Ran, you are both right!

Many moderates wish for the days when bargains could be made. But we are far beyond that considering what has been going on for years with climate change deniers on the right. 

We need a new infrastructure, and I completely understand there is no one fix, no magic bean that will allow the anyone in the world to consume like we do now and not realize the harm

that it will cause future generations. We need action. The fact is it will create new jobs, but the fact is also that we will need to vastly change our current way of life. 

It will actually bring a better quality of life to most, when we realize how important the use of energy is. Human beings should be more mobile, walking, riding bikes, etc...

Using energy and resources like we do with all the food waste, is foolish. We need to act and act now. Nancy please step away!

 

And btw, I was saying that Trump would be impeached and somehow Pence would be disqualified as taking over as president, and Pelosi as speaker of the house be the interim president. But what good would that do, I'm now starting to think.

Peace!

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 11/8/2018 at 7:19 PM, Craig234 said:

A political note:

What politicians SAY on 'bipartisanship' and what they DO aren't always the same.
 

What I'm saying is, don't rule out that Pelosi isn't being a good politician winning independents, while not actually intending to do bad things for 'bi-partisanship'.

I been thinking about Craig's assessment of Pelosi's statement,(and my initial reaction):

Pelosi:We will strive for bipartisanship, with fairness on all sides. We have a responsibility to find our common ground where we can. We’ll have a bipartisan marketplace of ideas that makes our democracy strong.”

Craig was spot on. Pelosi is being a good politician winning independents. At least placating red state democrats.

 

Normally, I don't dismiss dumb statements from politicians as some kind of 3-dimensional chess move, but in Pelosi's case, it looks like she was playing a cunning, and complicated game very well.

 

In retrospect, she seemed to 'allow' the anti-Pelosi revolt from red state democrats. I read somewhere that she actually encouraged these right wing democrats to run against her during the midterms, which was smart. The whole 'revolt' from these guys was staged to show red state voters they will 'stand against Pelosi', and to show incoming progressive members that 'Pelosi will stand against' conservative democrats, and not start a revolt of their own.

 

Politically well played, but I'm still not sure where she really stands on the issues if what she SAYS is not what she will DO.

I'm giving her a pass for now.

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
25 minutes ago, ExPDXer said:

I been thinking about Craig's assessment of Pelosi's statement,(and my initial reaction):

Pelosi:We will strive for bipartisanship, with fairness on all sides. We have a responsibility to find our common ground where we can. We’ll have a bipartisan marketplace of ideas that makes our democracy strong.”

Craig was spot on. Pelosi is being a good politician winning independents. At least placating red state democrats.

 

Normally, I don't dismiss dumb statements from politicians as some kind of 3-dimensional chess move, but in Pelosi's case, it looks like she was playing a cunning, and complicated game very well.

 

In retrospect, she seemed to 'allow' the anti-Pelosi revolt from red state democrats. I read somewhere that she actually encouraged these right wing democrats to run against her during the midterms, which was smart. The whole 'revolt' from these guys was staged to show red state voters they will 'stand against Pelosi', and to show incoming progressive members that 'Pelosi will stand against' conservative democrats, and not start a revolt of their own.

 

Politically well played, but I'm still not sure where she really stands on the issues if what she SAYS is not what she will DO.

I'm giving her a pass for now.

 

 

 

Thanks for the nice comments. On Pelosi, there is one good indication what's likely.


Look what she did as Speaker in 2007-2009. She passed hundreds of good bills Democrats got no credit for because of Republican obstructionism - and followed it by the very difficult passing of the ACA, which did not get a single Republican vote.

 

A great track record at keeping Democrats supporting good bills.

 

One criticism could be not pursuing impeachment, just as she is slow on it now; another that she wasn't even more aggressive on a progressive agenda. But as much as I'd like that, the country frankly was really not ready for it before Bernie's 2016 campaign, and there's something to be said for practical politics when voters demand it while fighting to improve that.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 hours ago, Craig234 said:

 

Thanks for the nice comments. On Pelosi, there is one good indication what's likely.


Look what she did as Speaker in 2007-2009. She passed hundreds of good bills Democrats got no credit for because of Republican obstructionism - and followed it by the very difficult passing of the ACA, which did not get a single Republican vote.

 

A great track record at keeping Democrats supporting good bills.

 

Yes, I have to admire her ability to herd cats, which is a very important requirement for Speaker position.

My view is she sometimes has difficulty deciding what direction to lead the disparate animals, by taking 'neutral', or unknown positions on issues.

With the ACA, Obama set the tone, and provided the direction. Pelosi then herded the cats through the ACA door very effectively.

 

Being ‘all things to all people’ has limits. Sooner or later the long-term direction of the Democratic party has to be decided, or we’re all effectively herded together, but not going anywhere. Are we being herded into the corporate centrist door, towards the progressive door, or just standing still?

The very thing that makes her an excellent shepherd, also impedes progress towards long term goals. What would FDR do?

 

Republicans seem to know exactly where they want to go, but have different views of how much they can get away with.

 

A decision will have to be made soon, if energizing the party around a winning issue in 2020 is important.

Bold plans, and direction generate voter enthusiasm. Even if it's framed as a long term goal, like 'Healthcare for All by 2040'.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
40 minutes ago, ExPDXer said:

 

Yes, I have to admire her ability to herd cats, which is a very important requirement for Speaker position.

My view is she sometimes has difficulty deciding what direction to lead the disparate animals, by taking 'neutral', or unknown positions on issues.

With the ACA, Obama set the tone, and provided the direction. Pelosi then herded the cats through the ACA door very effectively.

 

Being ‘all things to all people’ has limits. Sooner or later the long-term direction of the Democratic party has to be decided, or we’re all effectively herded together, but not going anywhere. Are we being herded into the corporate centrist door, towards the progressive door, or just standing still?

The very thing that makes her an excellent shepherd, also impedes progress towards long term goals. What would FDR do?

 

Republicans seem to know exactly where they want to go, but have different views of how much they can get away with.

 

A decision will have to be made soon, if energizing the party around a winning issue in 2020 is important.

Bold plans, and direction generate voter enthusiasm. Even if it's framed as a long term goal, like 'Healthcare for All by 2040'.

 

 

Yes, the Democratic Party has very different factions - the corporatists and the progressives especially. And we need a war for the progressives to take over the party.

But we also need unity, either way - there's no point in a divided Democratic Party handing power to the plutocrat Republicans.

 

The country is not yet unified behind progressives. That's a goal, not the situation. If we have only progressives voting for progressives, we go back to a minority that can't do much.

 

If I thought Pelosi was in the corporatist camp, I'd oppose her ASAP. I'm not currently convinced she is a problem rather than a solution at this time.

 

Let's organize our progressive efforts to take over the party, instead of weakening the party by fighting over Pelosi. Instead, let's try to get progressives nominated to every office they can win in a general election planning for 2020 when Democrats should be able to get every branch.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 minutes ago, grizzman1 said:

The Republicans still 'RULE'!

They will appoint at least one more Gun Loving Conservative to the Supreme Court before 2020 elections!

They'll appoint a big bunch of Conservative Originalist Judges to all the other courts that are now Liberally Dominated!

I think they'll all turn to the U.S. Constitution as their guide, the way it's suppose to work!

Not Dictating Law from the bench like the Liberals have for decades! 

it's true it's true. The Republicans are the wrecking ball regarding good governance. From education to health care and beyond they really are destructive which is bad for the US and the rest of the world. Even though they are the minority they wield power with their dastardly bull propaganda tricks. 

 

Mitch McConnell is working for whom?

 

Peace!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
Sign in to follow this  

×