Showing posts with label Democrats. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Democrats. Show all posts

Monday, February 27, 2017

Why we lose



On Saturday morning the delegation from the Chaos Compound (Me and the Missus) went to the DNC Winter Meeting in downtown Atlanata, hoping to drum up support for Keith Ellison.



 https://www.thenation.com/wp-content/uploads/2017/02/Keith_Ellison_Nation_Endorsement_IMG.jpg


 And if there were any questions about why Democrats keep losing, I think they were answered that day.

Donna Brazile opened the proceedings announcing the color guard from a local ROTC program. Then silence for a minute. "Um, is the color guard here?" Silence for another minute. "Okay, yeas they're here, please rise for the presentation of the colors." Silence. . . "Um, color guard? Are you. . .?" Eventually they made their way to the front, but Christ, she couldn't even get that to run smoothly.


https://s.yimg.com/ny/api/res/1.2/RWRa1GqirMevCwXuaddR7Q--/YXBwaWQ9aGlnaGxhbmRlcjtzbT0xO3c9MjAwMDtoPTEwMjk-/http://media.zenfs.com/en/homerun/feed_manager_auto_publish_494/660d9eb15fb72351747b2eff9b46b1c0




Atlanta Mayor Kasim Reed was in attendance, and his presence was noted, but he was not invited to speak, which seemed like a pretty big snub considering he is the mayor of the host city. You'd think they'd at least have him do one of those "on behalf of the city of Atlanta, I would like to welcome you, blah blah blah. . ." kind of things. But nope. Nothing.

 Then there was a debate over Resolution 33.






This was a proposal to re-instate President Obama's policy of not allowing the DNC to accept corporate money and not letting corporate lobbyists serve as "at-large" members. This was greeted with a great deal of enthusiasm by the attendees like ourselves who were not voting members. It was, of course, stricken from the by-laws. The opposition was led by some guy from California named Mullholland who stepped up to the mic and said something to the effect of "We're not the little sisters of the poor, we're the Democratic party."  This would have been an easy bone to throw to the grass roots, since not striking it down would have merely referred the by-laws in toto to another discussion committee where the proposal could have been killed quietly. But Democratic leadership isn't even smart enough to do that.

Then there was a video tribute to Donna Brazile who acted as if she had no idea this was going to be sprung on her **eyeroll**. The video played for about a minute, stopped, the screen went blank, then it started again from the beginning. As the Missus noted "it's hard to get competent tech people when you piss off all the millennials."

Then Donna Brazile read off a list of people she wanted to thank and said that without them, they never could have accomplished all that they had accomplished and everyone in our pro-Keith-Ellison section started chuckling and looking around saying "she thinks she's accomplished something?"

You just lost a race to the most beatable candidate in history. You lost the House and you lost the Senate. And you're talking about your "accomplishments?" This is why it's going to be so hard to make anything better, the higher-ups in the party refuse to learn a single goddamm lesson from losing. When you lose a race that the opposition party had pretty much gift-wrapped and handed to you on a platter by nominating an unstable buffoon, a cartoonish blowhard, an admitted sex offender, and a man with absolutely zero qualifications to hold public office as your opponent - when you somehow manage to lose that race and you think "ah, time to rest on my laurels!" nothing is ever going to get better.

And if she had talked about her "accomplishments" and the other DNC members had laughed or heckled or booed, I might have some reason for optimism, but no. They applauded politely as if what she was saying made some kind of sense in their world. It was appalling.

Then they chose the DLC-affiliated Tom Perez as the new DNC chair, because apparently they're just fine with the job done by Brazile, Wasserman-Scultz, Kaine, etc. The only encouraging news was that it took a second ballot, and the vote was pretty close, so there are at least a sizable minoroty among the voting members that seem to have some sort of clue as to how to move forward.


http://www.ooyuz.com/images/2017/1/22/1487819183420.jpg



Oh, and the vote took forever because the hand-held clickers that they were using to record votes didin't work right and they eventually had to switch to paper ballots. I forgot to mention that at the very beginning, members were to press a button on the clicker to record their presence so that a quorum could be established. That took forever and several members never did get their presence recorded because the most simple technology is apparently beyond the grasp of the party that, as the Missus says, pushes away the young people.


That afternoon, we participated in a "save the ACA" march. We marched past the convention center where the DNC meeting was still going on, and the hotel where the DNC bigwigs were staying, shouting and chanting and whatnot. It would have been an easy thing for someone, say Tom Perez?, or anyone to come out of the convention center and address the assemblage. Just tell us that you hear us, you understand, you intend to fight, just basic boilerplate stuff would have gone a long way. But did anyone come out? Haha, no. Of course they didn't.

And that is why we keep losing.






Thursday, June 3, 2010

Some Things Are Just So Predictable

Yesterday, The Atlanta Journal Constitution ran this Op/Ed piece:

A case for term limits in Congress

By Lee Raudonis

Whenever I see a column by someone with whom I am not familiar, the first thing I do is check the author info at the bottom of the column to see if it's anyone with an obvious axe to grind. So who is Lee Raudonis?

Lee Raudonis of Big Canoe is a former executive director of the Republican Party of Georgia.
(Big Canoe is the name of a town in GA)

Ah, now it makes sense. Republicans only care about term limits when they are in the minority.
From the Gingrich "revolution" until 2008, you never heard them talking about term limits. Hell, term limits was even part of the Contract on America, but as soon as they took power, eh? Term limits? mmmm, no thank you.

http://img.timeinc.net/time/quotes/2007/07/0730_gingrich.jpg

Lee Raudonis knows what I'm talking about:

Remember the “Contract with America,” a document that some believe helped Republicans gain control of both houses of Congress in 1994 for the first time in 40 years? I remember it well, because I was working in the House of Representatives at the time and suddenly found the member for whom I worked in the majority party. I also remember the “Contract,” because one of its key provisions was support for congressional term limits.
At the time, I thought this provision was more of a political gimmick than a serious proposal to reform government, and I was not all that disappointed that the House could never muster the 290 votes needed for a constitutional amendment to put term limits in place.


Oh, they tried so hard to muster those votes! So much effort. . . oh, wait! I'm thinking of all the effort they put into trying to destroy Bill Clinton! Watergate, Filegate, Troopergate, Travelgate, and when they couldn't find anything, they impeached him for getting blown. I guess that's what distracted them from their efforts to install term limits.

But I digress. Go on, Lee.

In the 15 years since I left Washington, I have become a supporter of term limits

Qu'une surprise !
I bet it was for the reason usually given.

I have become a supporter of term limits — but not for the reason usually given.

Whaaaaa???

Rather than favoring term limits as a way to prevent representatives from becoming corrupted by power and out of touch with their constituents, we need to limit congressional service in order to break the unhealthy bond that exists among many representatives, their political party and their constituents. Too many members of Congress have become so dependent on their constituents and party for their identity that they seem incapable of making any decisions that might upset the voters, even if the future of the country depends on those decisions.


Yes, clearly that is the problem. Congressmen are just too responsive to their constituents. It's so obvious now! Also, they are just so dependant on their party, that's why Barack Obama had such an easy time getting healthcare to sail through the legislature! Members of Congress were just so closely tied to their reform-favoring constituents and their reform-proposing party that they just never thought to oppose. . . wait a minute! That's not how it happened.

http://enduringsense1.files.wordpress.com/2009/12/baucus.jpg Max Baucus (D-Healthnet)
By way of example, few politicians in either party appear capable of making the difficult decisions needed to bring the budget deficit under control.


And that brings us to the second thing that is just so predictable. Once out of power, Republicans quickly rediscover their fear and hatred of deficits.

I seem to remember someone saying. . .

Reagan proved deficits don

just a few years ago, when Bush 43 was running up deficits that would have made the Gipper blush. No one on the right was complaining about fiscal irresponsibility then, just as they weren't griping about deficits in the '80's. But as soon as they are in no position to do anything about it, MY GOD!!!! THE DEFICIT!!!!!!

It's just so predictable!

The third thing that is just so predictable: The "Vote Out All The Incumbents" movement that surfaces when the majority of the Incumbents are Democrats.


here's one example:
The objective of Vote Out Incumbents Democracy is to force Congress to act more responsibly as representatives of the American people, present and future, as well as in their role as caretakers of our nation.

Here's another:

end government corruption by kicking out all corporate special interest lobbying and career politicians

See, it's got nothing to do with which party is in charge! Of course not! The fact that there are currently 257 Democrats out of 435 seats isn't the point. And the fact that if every incumbent is voted out there would be 257 Republicans instead, well gosh! That never even occurred to me! And even if all the incumbents aren't voted out, each one that is is voted out has about a 60% chance of being a Democrat, so that an anti-incumbency-themed election could only help Republicans, well, Gee! I never even thought of that! It's just that we didn't happen to be in an anti-incumbent mood from 1994 through 2008. Party has nothing to do with it!

It's all just so predictable!


P.S. I don't know why this strikes me as so funny, but when I did a Yahoo image search for Newt Gingrich, Yahoo advised me of this:

Others who searched for Newt gingrich also searched for...Not a political figure in the bunch! Apparently people who like Newt also like drunk girls, over-the-hill rock stars, an actress I never heard of, and some girl's butt in a thong.

Yeah, that sounds about right!

Tuesday, March 23, 2010

Please, just shut up. I can't take it anymore.

McCain: Don't expect GOP cooperation on legislation for the rest of this year




http://img.timeinc.net/time/quotes/2007/09/0904_mccain.jpg


"There will be no cooperation for the rest of the year," McCain said during an interview Monday on an Arizona radio affiliate. "They have poisoned the well in what they've done and how they've done it."


I'm sorry, am I to understand that what we've seen from the Republicans this last year or so has been "cooperation?" You know, this bill was gutted of everything that would have made it worthwhile to try to please you assclowns and all you did was piss all over the process, drum up phony outrage and spread outright lies about bullshit like "death panels."

You were sitting in the passenger seat, you grabbed the wheel and ran the car into a tree then complained that you weren't allowed to drive. So I hope you're right for once. I hope there is no more cooperation, since it seemed to be a one-way street anyway. I hope that Harry Reid grows a pair and starts actually ramming legislation down your throats. You don't deserve to be involved in the process. You've shown yourselves to be completely irresponsible, obstructive whiners whose only goal is your opponents' failure.

You guys have been pretty upfront about your motivations for stopping healthcare reform.
South Carolina dickweed Jim DeMint said that if they could stop the healthcare bill "it will be his Waterloo. It will break him." Not "we need to stop this bill because it's a bad idea." No, you had to try to stop a bill that would give millions of Americans better access to doctors and medicines because it would be politically advantageous. So fuck Jim DeMint, he's not allowed at the grownups' table anymore.
http://blog.buzzflash.com/files/images/demint.jpg

And remember Orin Hatch? He said that the bill had to be stopped because it would make the Democrats too strong. (really!) Party politics is more important than the health of the American citizenry? Fuck you, Hatch. You don't get to be involved in any discussion of substance anymore.

If you had complaints about the actual content of the bill, like the cost or whatever, you had your opportunities to register your objections, but you opted to scream and whine about socialism and health rationing and killing grandma. If you're not going to take this shit seriously, then why the hell should you be involved? The majority gets to pass the laws it wants to. If the people don't like those laws, they can vote the bums out and send in a new batch of bums to enact different laws. That's the way a Republic works. That's the way America works. You all seemed to have no trouble grasping the concept when you were in the majority. Well, now the people have sent in a different group of bums because they didn't like what you bums were doing. That's the system. Grow the fuck up and deal with it. Either put on your big boy pants and try to participate constructively, or shut the hell up and stay out of the way.

Monday, February 8, 2010

The Problem With Democrats

Bush's tax cuts for those making over $250,000/year are going to expire soon.

Most people are just fine with this. Even some people who are making over 250K are OK with this.

The Democrats are planning on letting them expire, which seems like a no-brainer.

But these are Democrats we're talking about.

And here's the headline from today's The Hill:


House Democrats support letting Bush tax cut expire, but see it as tough sell



A Tough Sell.

Only today's Democratic Party could see this as a tough sale.

Who do you think is going to be in support of extending tax breaks for the wealthy?

Rep. Mike McMahon (D-N.Y.) co-authored a letter with Rep. Bobby Bright (D-Ala.) in January asking Obama to include in his budget request to Congress an extension of all of the 2001 and 2003 tax cuts for two years.


Oh, of course! It's the circular firing squad.

These guys could come up with a plan to give adorable puppies to sick children and they'd find a way to screw it up.

Puppy Love With A Side Of Kisses by Kim The Star Princess.

I don't know why the Republicans even bother to mount an opposition to them. You'd think they'd just stand aside and watch them implode.