Dodd's dawdling White House bid

Not directly related to this post, but...

The Democrats are locked out of power and I expect them to remain so (regardless of occasional isolated small successes) for as long as I or anybody posting here is alive. Why? To put it succinctly, the Democratic party has become irrelevant and it shows not the slightest sign of changing that.

The Republicans have an agenda which they have been focused on for nearly thirty years, as well as a core of clearly defined principles. They have steadily and successfully worked at implementing that agenda. As a result, The New Deal and The Great Society are fading away and labor unionism shrivels.

OK, it's no surprise that Liberals don't like that Republican agenda. So what's the answer? Most of them have decided that the only game in town for Liberals is the Democratic party. So what is the Democratic agenda?

It's, well... um... it's... uh... oh, I know. It's to get elected!

What are Democratic principles? Uh... Well actually there's one: try not to say or do anything that's too different than what the Republicans say and do because the electorate seems to like what the Republicans say and do.

Democrats understandably applaud their last successful President, Bill Clinton. Indeed, he won two terms and presided over a bustling economy and a budget surplus. What are the specific major achievements he's known for? NAFTA for one. Mega corporations love it and most conservatives do, but it hasn't done much to benefit workers here or abroad... seems kind of Republican to me. Welfare reform... I'm sure Ronald Reagan was proud of that. Then there were some right-of-center judicial appointments.

In other words, the key to Clinton's success was to be more like a Republican than a Democrat.

And then we come to the name that's been bandied around here so much lately: the current Golden Boy du Jour, Barack Obama. Like Clinton he's affable and erudite and can boast stunning SAT scores. He hasn't actually done anything, but in his defense he's a junior senator with only 2 years under his belt so he naturally can't have done very much. However, for that very reason it seems bizarre that some Democrats are in utter ecstasy at the prospect of President Obama.

He might be good at the job (he's bright enough) but we certainly can't know that. I can only conclude that their paroxysms of joy are for the fact that somebody so blandly pleasant, so innocuous might actually win -- and again, simply to win is the entire agenda.

Since there's not much of a record to judge, I look back to his '04 campaign and I'm not favorably impressed. For instance, I recall watching the "debate" on television between Obama and Keyes. Obama was a veritable fount of vague platitudes while Keyes was constructing detailed, logical arguments. So although I found very little to like about Keyes, the same was true of Obama for the (entirely different) reason that he had nothing specific to say.

My eyes were glazing until the subject of NAFTA was raised. Keyes was adamantly opposed to it while Obama was all for it. Huh?

NAFTA is the very heart and soul of what is euphemistically called "Free" Trade. Free Trade degrades the quality of life worldwide. It turns workers in the developed world into oppressed drones with diminishing hope for improving their lives, while it spreads crushing poverty, malnutrition and environmental destruction in the developing world -- all in the name increasing profits for mega corporations. And "Liberal" Barack Obama is for it.

So there was an opportunity -- not just for Obama but the whole Democratic party -- to adopt a principle (Fair Trade as opposed to Free Trade) and a related agenda (promoting the health and growth of small local economies now being crushed by Globalism). Furthermore these would mesh perfectly with the party's recent historic position.

But that would require years of hard work promoting the agenda to the electorate. It's so much easier to be Republican Lite.
____________________

When I was a child the Democratic party was the natural heir of the 19th century Populists and the early 20th Century Progressives, of Franklin Roosevelt and the New Deal.

I was a schoolboy when Lyndon Johnson declared war on poverty and signed the Voting Rights Act. The future seemed to be bright and hopeful. The lives of working class Americans had been improving steadily for at least three generations. On the world stage America was the strong and honorable foe of the oppressive Stalinist Empire.

Needless to say things have changed quite a bit since then in America and the world. We have also seen dramatic changes in the two political parties who run America.

We have witnessed a reversal of polarity of the two parties on several levels. One of those reversals is that the Republicans who were adrift, unfocused, seemingly purposeless from the 30s to the 60s are now unified and focused while it is the Democrats who are in disarray and don't know what they stand for.

Another one (and it is very weird and ironic) is the total attitudinal inversion that has occurred.

The Populists' and the Progressives' message was one of anti elitism, of animus towards the delicate, arrogant ruling class. "The ruling class despises you", the message went. "Besides holding you in poverty they hold you in contempt. They mock your manner of speaking, of dressing, your forms of recreation and entertainment and they mock your religion." That theme continued with the Liberal Democrats until the 1960s.

Indeed the message was well founded. The Ruling class was contemptuous of the unwashed masses. And it's political agent the Republican Party was, up until the 1960s, at best condescending toward them and at worst contemptuous.

In the early 1970s that paradigm suddenly flipped. Now the wine sipping fey elitists are Liberal Democrats, and they are the ones who hold the working class in contempt , who mock their manner of speaking, of dressing, their forms of recreation and entertainment and their religion. You can see that trend often in this blog. The Republicans meanwhile endlessly remind the voters of that fact and defend the culture of the common man, thus reaping the political benefits.

Today the typical Democratic attitude to the working class fairly oozes condescension rather than solicitude, as if to say "You're too stupid to know what's good for you... trust us." That is inevitably followed, after each lost election, by: "What are you going to do when Bubba isn't smart enough to vote in his own best interest?"

Bubba happens to be smarter than they think he is, certainly smarter than them. He can see the obvious while they can't. That is, when there are no substantial differences with the bread and butter issues, then one can only vote the cultural issues.

So you lose, Democrats.

If the post is longer than the original story, then the poster is officially a windbag. But in this case, we already knew that.

Juanito...You're very proud of your party..thats good..however you're very naive to think one party or the other will remain in power for a long period of time. Whats worse is the arrogance
you have towards other decent people saying that only the republican party possess principles.It is degrading and inacurate. If you would like proof of this..simply look at the history of the presidents and their affiliations. They stand at about 50/50. The economy will probably determine more changes than anything when it comes to parties. Hence the saying "it's the economy stupid".

Continue supporting your party..I'm sure you feel it's right and noble...but don't degrade other decent people in the process.
.

Juanito...You're very proud of your party..thats good..however you're very naive to think one party or the other will remain in power for a long period of time. Whats worse is the arrogance
you have towards other decent people saying that only the republican party possess principles.It is degrading and inacurate. If you would like proof of this..simply look at the history of the presidents and their affiliations. They stand at about 50/50. The economy will probably determine more changes than anything when it comes to parties. Hence the saying "it's the economy stupid".

Continue supporting your party..I'm sure you feel it's right and noble...but don't degrade other decent people in the process.
.

Juanito...one other thing. Perception is everything. Two people can watch the same debate and walk away thinking their candidate did the better job. Human nature..but only if you take the time to think about it before you declare victory.

Juanito Bandito,
I think your white collar is getting sweaty.

If Katrina had happened to an upper middle class area of the United States President DumDum,Dark Cheney,and the Roverats would have been on a boat pulling people out of the water personally.

Here's a famous soundbite from the First Mother of Dubya,Barbara Bush:

While standing outside a hurricane relief shelter in Houston,Barbara Bush said
"These people can't stay in Texas,I hope they don't plan on staying"

It's amazing what a member of the Bush family,including W.,will say when they don't have the white house spinmeisters around to cover for them.

Wait two years,when Dubya doesn't have the spinmeisters "fixing" everything he says.
I bet there will be alot of media members,and former Whitehouse staffers willing to talk about the failed W. administation.

John E, bill r, Tom,

What makes you think that this is an endorsement of the Republican party?

I think a Gore/Obama ticket would be a sure fire winner for the Dems.

They would get to the root of the corruption that has gone on in the Dubya administration,and the republican led congress.
I also believe they would do a MUCH better job of promoting the U.S. interests worldwide.
Dubya Doolrights policy of not talking to countrys he perceives as our "enemy" might have worked for him in the fifth grade,but not in the real world.

I'm sure the neo-cons,especially the ones in the southeast won't see it this way.

Let the whining begin:

John E., which one for Prez? Gore or Obama? I would actually like to see Gore run again. If for nothing else than to see Gore versus Hillary Clinton in the primaries. These two hate each other and the campaign would be like snake vs. mongoose.

Juanito,
If that's not an endorsement for Republicans, what is it? Ken Mehlman couldn't have said it better. "The Republicans have an agenda which they have been focused on for nearly thirty years, as well as a core of clearly defined principles. They have steadily and successfully worked at implementing that agenda."

Hey Juanito Burrito,your post really say's a lot about your disgust with your party.They finally have total control,and they've taken a major dump on fools like you.

I've noticed you don't have anything to say about your former National Chairman,Haley Barbour,and him hooking up with the Klan.

Bill,
Gore as Prez,Obama as VP.

This would also give Obama the cred he needs to run later on.
Just a thought.

OK boys and Girls.

Uncle Juanito understands that this was really too long for a blog.

Uncle Juanito understands that your little heads hurt when you see all of these words and commas and everything.

If you don't want to read it, you certainly don't have to.

But if you didn't read it, don't pretend that you have and write comments.

Because then you all look like silly, silly little geese.

OK?

"The Republicans have an agenda which they have been focused on for nearly thirty years, as well as a core of clearly defined principles. They have steadily and successfully worked at implementing that agenda."

Janet, perhaps you'd like to explain to us all exactly how that statement is pro Republican?

Juanito, Juanito, Juanito... While I appreciate some of your larger argument, perhaps you could keep your posts to something under than the length of "War & Peace".

Allow me to help. I think I can sum up your point with these (relatively) simple statements: our political system is bankrupt of anything remotely meaningful to ordinary working people. It is run by and for a moneyed elite, aka the Republicrats. (Mayor Daley, anyone?) Let us hope this system collapses sooner rather than later, as it surely must by virtue of all empires having expiration dates. And may its collapse be peaceful and bloodless.

John E,

Gore/Obama???? Why don't you see if Castro/Cahvez is available, there wouldn't be much difference?

bill r:

"Two people can watch the same debate and walk away thinking their candidate did the better job."

As I've said already, in the paticular "debate" we're talking about here I didn't see a winner.

So far, it seems that only Elizabeth Bennett has a clue about what my political affiliation may be.

Congratulations for having actually read my screed (yes, it's too long for a blog, especially this one) and for the cogent summary.

To my no neck friend Terry,not to be critical,but you've taken us Dems to task on several occasions in regards to spelling."Chavez"was miss-spelled.

No apology needed.

Speaking of Chavez,he just signed a big deal with China to sell them some of the oil we're not going to get anymore.And in turn China is going to launch a telecommunications satelite for Hugo.

This is the results of the neo nuts trying to pull a coup on Hugo.

As always,the loss of oil should stick it to American consumers,but we're used to now.