Tuesday, February 16, 2010

Killing the Democratic Party

Recently the latest news is Senator Bayh has chosen not to run for re-election. Even Senator Chuck Schumer is showing signs of vulnerability in NYC. Survival for Democrats means distancing themselves from the tin eared arrogant Obama.

Obama's problem is that he needs to take everything off the table and just worry about job creation. The problem is Obama was not right for the job in the first place. He was elected as a symbol with a Pepsi logo and little more than droning on about hope and change.

I am waiting for a Democrat with the onions to challenge Obama. The Pelosi and Rangel
types were too far to the left. Perhaps a blue dog Southern Democrat revolt is in order.

Obama is revitalizing the GOP with his arrogance.


Always On Watch said...

BHO has become political poison.

The Pagan Temple said...


I've learned the hard way since 2006, a Democrat is a Democrat is a Democrat. A blue dog revolt would be meaningless as long as they caucus with the party, which is controlled by the liberal wing. Even if the dogs came to control it, it would not make that much difference in a good many ways. Evan Bayh supported Obamacare, that's why he is in trouble now and may be why he has decided to step down.

When push comes to shove, all the Senate Blue Dogs went along with Obamacare. The House dogs might be a little bit more authentic, because they are closer to their constituents.

If Ted Kennedy had been the senior Senator from Kentucky, he too would have been a blue dog. It's almost a meaningless appellation, especially as it applies to the Senate. All it takes to be a blue dog is an index finger to hold to the wind, and a middle finger to give the constituents when you think you can get away with it.

Sure, in some ways they are better than the liberal wing. But in a good many ways they always manage to betray the fact there isn't really that much difference in a lot of important areas.

Ask a Blue Dog what he thinks about repealing the estate tax, and then tell me there's a difference. Ask a Blue Dog about the Second Amendment, and most of the time you will get a speech about hunting rights. Ask him about the legitimacy of the progressive income tax, and he will tell you that its only fair.

I could go on and on. I'll never vote for one of them again.

Alligator said...

Certainly BHO has suffered setbacks and has damaged the Democratic Party. Despite some GOP gains and the threat of major Dem losses at the polls in November, I see the president and his political apparatus are more than ever determined to stay the course. What will they be able to accomplish through executive orders, and parliamentary slight of hand before November? How many in the GOP will vacillate and compromise to allow some of the Obama-Pelosi-Reid agenda through? Clinton at least had the sense to moderate his views and move to the middle when faced with similar public outcry and poll numbers. I don't see Obama doing that all. We're not out of the woods yet despite his sinking poll numbers.

Cateran said...

Beak said
"Obama is revitalizing the GOP with his arrogance."

Yes, he's having the same effect that Bush had for the Democrats during the last election.

Alligator said...

Mac said
"Obama is revitalizing the GOP with his arrogance."

Yes, he's having the same effect that Bush had for the Democrats during the last election."

That's pretty much how it goes in our nation's politics. In the last couple of decades, the polarization factor has become much greater (I partially attribute that to instant communication and 24/7 news coverage). We saw it with Clinton losing the House and Senate when the Dems had both when he went into office. Some call that gridlock and think that is a situation to be avoided. However, gridlock is not necessarily a bad thing when it comes to government. One party being completely in control of all branches seldom works out well for the people. I think a third party spoiler might be nice to keep the other parties on their toes.

The_Editrix said...

"In the last couple of decades, the polarization factor has become much greater..."

If I, as a foreigner, may chime in? It will never cease to stun me how people could see devil incarnate in Bush while appointing Messiah status to Obama. Alright, I have yet to see a picture where Bush does NOT look like an idiot, but his shortcomings, as I see them, are due to the fact that he is not a principled conservative or principled anything, and not that he is "rightwing". He saw America safely through 9/11 and that alone ought to have secured him long-standing popularity, but it wasn't so. Now you have Obama whose biggest achievement seems to be that he is not George W. Bush. He got the Peace Nobel Prize for that and next he'll get the Chemistry Nobel Prize because he's got great chemistry and nobody seems to mind that he does a lot of things for which Bush was crucified.

It's not the polarization. Never have political parties and leaders been so close together in their OBJECTIVE goals. Emotionalisation and extracerebralisation are the problem.

A third party sounds theoretically fine, but as a power to tip the scales it is just another source for corruption. Believe me, we are living with it since our Federal Republic took off.

beakerkin said...


Jared Diamond suggests that the land factors and availability of resources rather than race made Europeans and Asians dominant.

In Americas other than the Turkey or Llama there were not good candidates for domestication of animals. As for plants it was limited to corn, beans and the sweet potato in the south.

It was not that Indians were not able to adapt new things. The horse became a vital part of Comanche life but was adopted after contact with Europeans. Buffalo is semi domesticated today
but there was no need to do so.