Can Democrats Govern?

[Soggy in NOLA]

You can't continually prop up failing businesses and their bad policies.... then you are just turning them into government lite.

 

[uscitizen]

Well since the cons want less government it would seem that they would want dems in power.

 

[California Girl]

Well since the cons want less government it would seem that they would want dems in power.

That would work if we didn't also insist on the 'lower taxes' thing. Damn! That puts the Dems out of the game.

 

[Soggy in NOLA]

Well since the cons want less government it would seem that they would want dems in power

Only to an imbecile would it seem that way. We were disgusted with the whole Bush/McCain Republican model of amnesty, NAFTA and gov't expansion. Obama and the Pelosi gang has only doubled down on this.

 

[uscitizen]

Well since the cons want less government it would seem that they would want dems in power

Only to an imbecile would it seem that way. We were disgusted with the whole Bush/McCain Republican model of amnesty, NAFTA and gov't expansion. Obama and the Pelosi gang has only doubled down on this.

so the republicans don't want less government then?
The re-election of Bush would seem to indicate that.

 

[CrusaderFrank]

Dems can govern, but they chose the Far far far far FAR FAR Left Lunatic Fringe of Fascist/Socialism as their tonal center; you can't govern 300MM people with a philosophy loved and adored by only a scant few million kooks and diehards, it would be like Pat Robertson trying to govern

 

[Darkwind]

Found this on another forum.

Ezra Klein - Can Democrats govern?



I really have nothing to add except he's hit the nail on the head.

Stimulus too small? Republicans wanted the country to go bankrupt and the President to fail.

It's harder for Democrats to govern because they are made up of many different groups. Republicans are mostly uneducated white Christians who don't even know what they want. 8 years under Bush proved that beyond a shadow of a doubt. They didn't "govern", they "ruled".

Look at what the conservative Supreme Court just passed. They made corporations "people". Conservatives are dancing in the street. Politicians will now go to the highest bidder. Even out power, they corrupt.

Thank you for pointing out at least one glaring fallacy in the OP. Too small? WTF would you call about 28% of GDP, an unprecedented level of interference by the gov't in the economy?
As for the rest, you continue to prove you have never met a Republican.
And you continue to prove you are an ignorant hack. Corporations having the status of "persons" goes back to the Taft court, at least.

I would just ignore rdean. He is an uneducated, knuckle dragging neaderthal whose only purpose in life is to call people names while driving up his blood pressure. Fell pity for him and pray he doesn't stroke out.

I'll be ambassador to the United Nations.

 

[Navy1960]

I've thought for some time now that for the most part give or take a few issues here and there most people want the same things. They want freedom, security, good health, and the chance to provide a good life for themselves and their loved ones. Take healthcare for example, I have always belived that as a people Americans are giving and do not want to see their fellow citizens suffer. They want access to affordable healthcare, they want healthcare that is high quality and the ability to make the choice for themselves and their famailies whats best for them. Where many of those that represent us on both sides of the Isle tend to go wrong is that rather than focus on the things that most Americans believe in and build a firm foundation from there, they would rather listen not to those that vote for them but special interests groups that tell them how to feel. Take your pick on the party doesn't matter, in this they are both the same. Take Defense for example on the one hand you have citizens that want safety and security and want your troops to have the VERY best in terms of providing that, however most people would agree that if those troops are advising those that represent us we have enough of this, and not enough of that they would listen. These are foundations for good Govt. one that is responsible for the people they represent and the constitution they take an oath for, not the party they happen to belong too. When this happens maybe just maybe we might have a Govt. that watches out for the bottom line, and starts to put the needs of this nation FIRST, in terms of jobs, security, healthcare, take your pick.

 

[Darkwind]

Well since the cons want less government it would seem that they would want dems in power.

In the case of conservatives governing. Less is much more than what we have had in over 20 years.

 

[rdean]

Stimulus too small? Republicans wanted the country to go bankrupt and the President to fail.

It's harder for Democrats to govern because they are made up of many different groups. Republicans are mostly uneducated white Christians who don't even know what they want. 8 years under Bush proved that beyond a shadow of a doubt. They didn't "govern", they "ruled".

Look at what the conservative Supreme Court just passed. They made corporations "people". Conservatives are dancing in the street. Politicians will now go to the highest bidder. Even out power, they corrupt.

Thank you for pointing out at least one glaring fallacy in the OP. Too small? WTF would you call about 28% of GDP, an unprecedented level of interference by the gov't in the economy?
As for the rest, you continue to prove you have never met a Republican.
And you continue to prove you are an ignorant hack. Corporations having the status of "persons" goes back to the Taft court, at least.

I would just ignore rdean. He is an uneducated, knuckle dragging neaderthal whose only purpose in life is to call people names while driving up his blood pressure. Fell pity for him and pray he doesn't stroke out.

I'll be ambassador to the United Nations.

May the wind at your back always be your own.

My blood pressure is fine. I admit I don't know many Republicans. The ones I do know are ashamed of the Tea Baggers. Ashamed of Bush. Ashamed of Iraq. They seem to be Republicans because their parents are or were.

So you admit that it's a "good" thing that corporations can show political ads during campaigns? After all, they have lots of money. Hey, why not just let them "govern"?

 

[rdean]

I've thought for some time now that for the most part give or take a few issues here and there most people want the same things. They want freedom, security, good health, and the chance to provide a good life for themselves and their loved ones. Take healthcare for example, I have always belived that as a people Americans are giving and do not want to see their fellow citizens suffer. They want access to affordable healthcare, they want healthcare that is high quality and the ability to make the choice for themselves and their famailies whats best for them. Where many of those that represent us on both sides of the Isle tend to go wrong is that rather than focus on the things that most Americans believe in and build a firm foundation from there, they would rather listen not to those that vote for them but special interests groups that tell them how to feel. Take your pick on the party doesn't matter, in this they are both the same. Take Defense for example on the one hand you have citizens that want safety and security and want your troops to have the VERY best in terms of providing that, however most people would agree that if those troops are advising those that represent us we have enough of this, and not enough of that they would listen. These are foundations for good Govt. one that is responsible for the people they represent and the constitution they take an oath for, not the party they happen to belong too. When this happens maybe just maybe we might have a Govt. that watches out for the bottom line, and starts to put the needs of this nation FIRST, in terms of jobs, security, healthcare, take your pick.

You're talking about Democrats, not Republicans.

 

[Soggy in NOLA]

The re-election of Bush would seem to indicate that

Wrong again Sparky.... We saw Kerry as a pretty crappy alternative. And, given his posturing on every major issue since, we were right. Had there been a substantive and formidable alternative to Bush that would have been more to my liking, I'd have gone for them

 

[Soggy in NOLA]

Sadly, Bush was the pick of the litter in 2000 & 2004

 

[Navy1960]

I've thought for some time now that for the most part give or take a few issues here and there most people want the same things. They want freedom, security, good health, and the chance to provide a good life for themselves and their loved ones. Take healthcare for example, I have always belived that as a people Americans are giving and do not want to see their fellow citizens suffer. They want access to affordable healthcare, they want healthcare that is high quality and the ability to make the choice for themselves and their famailies whats best for them. Where many of those that represent us on both sides of the Isle tend to go wrong is that rather than focus on the things that most Americans believe in and build a firm foundation from there, they would rather listen not to those that vote for them but special interests groups that tell them how to feel. Take your pick on the party doesn't matter, in this they are both the same. Take Defense for example on the one hand you have citizens that want safety and security and want your troops to have the VERY best in terms of providing that, however most people would agree that if those troops are advising those that represent us we have enough of this, and not enough of that they would listen. These are foundations for good Govt. one that is responsible for the people they represent and the constitution they take an oath for, not the party they happen to belong too. When this happens maybe just maybe we might have a Govt. that watches out for the bottom line, and starts to put the needs of this nation FIRST, in terms of jobs, security, healthcare, take your pick.

You're talking about Democrats, not Republicans.

Actually I was talking about both.

 

[The Rabbi]

Thank you for pointing out at least one glaring fallacy in the OP. Too small? WTF would you call about 28% of GDP, an unprecedented level of interference by the gov't in the economy?
As for the rest, you continue to prove you have never met a Republican.
And you continue to prove you are an ignorant hack. Corporations having the status of "persons" goes back to the Taft court, at least.

I would just ignore rdean. He is an uneducated, knuckle dragging neaderthal whose only purpose in life is to call people names while driving up his blood pressure. Fell pity for him and pray he doesn't stroke out.

I'll be ambassador to the United Nations.

May the wind at your back always be your own.

My blood pressure is fine. I admit I don't know many Republicans. The ones I do know are ashamed of the Tea Baggers. Ashamed of Bush. Ashamed of Iraq. They seem to be Republicans because their parents are or were.

So you admit that it's a "good" thing that corporations can show political ads during campaigns? After all, they have lots of money. Hey, why not just let them "govern"?

Aha! I knew you had never met a Republican. Ask me how I know.
I suppose you're into that "suppressing free speech" thing. It works well in Cuba and N.Korea I hear.

 

[Emma]

thanks, Erik:


Relieved | Talking Points Memo

A wave election hit us in 2008 where we not only had overwhelming majorities of 59 seats in the Senate (once Republicans finally got around to letting us seat Franken) and 257 seats in the House (returning us to the same power level as when we ruled the House with inpugnity in 1992-3) but, most importantly, a President who was explicitly elected on an agenda of "change." It was a once-in-a-lifetime opportunity to wrench the wheel away from the abyss and really deliver on our promises. It was disheartening when it seemed that Reid was allowing McConnell's disingenuous narrative of "it's always taken 60 votes to get anything done" to take hold, but we were later even saved from that when Specter switched. But it seems we've spent the entire year moving our own goalposts farther away. Things have gotten so bad that in roaming the halls today it feels exactly as if we lost the Majority last night.

The worst is that I can't help but feel like the main emotion people in the caucus are feeling is relief at this turn of events. Now they have a ready excuse for not getting anything done. While I always thought we had the better ideas but the weaker messaging, it feels like somewhere along the line Members internalized a belief that we actually have weaker ideas. They're afraid to actually implement them and face the judgement of the voters. That's the scariest dynamic and what makes me think this will all come crashing down around us in November.

I believe President Clinton provided some crucial insight when he said, "people would rather be with someone who is strong and wrong than weak and right." It's not that people are uninterested in who's right or wrong, it's that people will only follow leaders who seem to actually believe in what they are doing. Democrats have missed this essential fact.

(full essay at the link)

 

[Missourian]

I cannot believe the Democrats squandered the wave of popularity of Obama's election and a super majority.

Obama's inexperience was the number one factor in his inability to succeed in passing his agenda.

Also, in order to secure their majorities in the House and Senate, the Dems fielded a plethora of moderate candidates...that decision has come back to bite them in the rear, making them look unable to govern.

Lastly, Harry and Nancy are not strong leaders. They may have been the most popular, or it may have been deemed "their turn" to assume leadership, but the Dems suffered when they faltered.

There is definitely a lesson in this for Republicans.

 

[Diuretic]

Bring back Bush, I say. At least he destroyed the country and was damn thorough about it!

 

[Darkwind]

Thank you for pointing out at least one glaring fallacy in the OP. Too small? WTF would you call about 28% of GDP, an unprecedented level of interference by the gov't in the economy?
As for the rest, you continue to prove you have never met a Republican.
And you continue to prove you are an ignorant hack. Corporations having the status of "persons" goes back to the Taft court, at least.

I would just ignore rdean. He is an uneducated, knuckle dragging neaderthal whose only purpose in life is to call people names while driving up his blood pressure. Fell pity for him and pray he doesn't stroke out.

I'll be ambassador to the United Nations.

May the wind at your back always be your own.

My blood pressure is fine. I admit I don't know many Republicans. The ones I do know are ashamed of the Tea Baggers. Ashamed of Bush. Ashamed of Iraq. They seem to be Republicans because their parents are or were.

So you admit that it's a "good" thing that corporations can show political ads during campaigns? After all, they have lots of money. Hey, why not just let them "govern"?

So, you don't know any Conservatives at all, and those you know who claim to be Republicans really aren't.

 

[Maple]

Can Democrats lead??? Of course they can, but liberals or progressives can't. Keep in mind that the democratic party was hi-jacked many years ago by Michael Moore, George Soros and the Hollywood left crowd.

The JFK democrats are still out there and it appears that they now know their party was hi-jacked, it's high time they did. LOLOLOLOL