'Weakness, chaos, and failure'

Wednesday, December 16. 2009

'Weakness, chaos, and failure'

I've said it before, and I'll say it again:

The Democratic Party is not so much a political party anymore as much as it is a public relations firm whose primary target audience is that of a remedial civics class.

'Progressive' blogger John Aravosis seems to add my argument: (via Ace)

Why with 60 votes are Democrats so ineffective, but with 50 votes Republicans excel?
...

It's not about the votes, people. It's about leadership. The current occupant of the White House doesn't like to fight, and the leadership in Congress has never been as good at their jobs, at marshaling their own party, as the Republicans were when they were in the majority. The President is supposed to rally the country, effectively putting pressure on opposition members of Congress to sit down and shut up. And the congressional leadership is supposed to rally its members to hold the line, and get the 51 votes necessary for passing legislation in a climate where the minority is too afraid to use the filibuster. When you have a President who is constitutionally, or intellectually, unable to stand for anything, and a congressional leadership that, rather than disciplining its own members and forging ahead with its own agenda, cedes legislative authority to a president who refuses to lead, you have a recipe for exactly what happened last night. Weakness, chaos, and failure.

We lost real health care reform not because we don't have a "real" filibuster-proof majority in the Senate. We lost health care reform because we don't have a real leader anywhere in our party.

Posted by Tom Elia in Politics at 14:54 | Comments (24) | Trackbacks (0)

Trackbacks

Trackback specific URI for this entry

No Trackbacks

Comments

Display comments as (Linear | Threaded)

I don't think Obama is one who won't fight. Not at all. It is what he is fighting for that is the problem.

The people of this country are gradually taking control. The media and the politicians are being called out. And rightfully so.

#1 Army of Davids on 2009-12-16 22:45 (Reply)

see

twitter.com/rextyranny

#1.1 rextyranny on 2009-12-17 00:08 (Reply)

It's nothing to do with leadership, it's simply that too many Americans have looked at this and seen that the bill from Pelosi and Reid have nothing to to with health care and everything to do with control.

Americans do not like to be controlled.

#2 Peter (Homepage) on 2009-12-16 23:01 (Reply)

Aravosis misses the point. The GOP is every bit as cowardly. They were able to pass the tax cuts, and rally 70+ votes for the Iraq War, because the American people wanted it.

Barack and Harry can't do the same because there will be something like a revolt in this country if they get their way. The people who must vote for this disaster are self-interested actors who would like to keep their jobs. Voting to further something with more than 60% disapproval isn't a great way to do that.

#3 Calvin on 2009-12-16 23:02 (Reply)

Well he certainly didn't have to fight very hard to become president - the media packaged him nicely and the Republicans gave him the gift of John McCain. Really how hard did he really have to fight to win???? But governing is another story - as BO is learning.

#4 Andrew on 2009-12-16 23:05 (Reply)

Neither party has a real leader at the moment.

This suits me right down to the ground. The policies and proposals being bruited about range from ill-advised to disastrous, and a real leader who could bring them to fruition would be dangerous at a level not achieved by nuclear weapons.

It's not that Obama won't fight, nor is it that he's fighting for unpopular things. It's that the man's an incompetent who doesn't know how to fight. Again, I find that delightful.

Regards,
Ric

#5 Ric Locke (Homepage) on 2009-12-16 23:05 (Reply)

"I am not a member of any organized political party. I am a Democrat." -Will Rogers

#6 JCC on 2009-12-16 23:06 (Reply)

No, the problem is that Obama and his party never properly defined the problem that their health care bill was supposed to solve, and then didn't craft a bill or proposal that they could convince people would actually solve or at least ameliorate the problem at acceptable cost.

Marketing starts with the product and Obama and the Democrats haven't had a good product to sell through this whole sorry year. They just tried to ram something through using cries of "Crisis" to start a stampede.

It still may work, but it's not legitimate.

#7 Marty on 2009-12-16 23:11 (Reply)

The short answer to the Democratic Party's current failures: despite the enthusiastic headlines, we are NOT all socialists now.

In fact, probably the opposite. The greatest Republican electoral victories in recent times all came when a leader believed in conservative principles, knew how they worked, and was able to communicate these ideas to the American people.

Conversely, the more clearly Democrats communicate their basic "progressive" principles, the less people seem to agree with them.

#8 TB on 2009-12-16 23:29 (Reply)

Sorry, Tom, but you're wrong.

Not about the Dems not being a political party anymore; that's a given.

What the Democrats actually have become instead is a hate group. The only thing that matters to them is the acquisition, exercise and abuse of power by any means necessary in order to achieve their political and personal goals.

No matter what laws they have to break, what lies they have to tell, who they have to smear, slander and destroy along the way.

And regardless of what damage they may do to the country in the process.

They're fascist thugs, pure and simple.

#9 Wes S. on 2009-12-16 23:32 (Reply)

It has something to do with the things they are trying to do. It is the nature of conservatives to stick to what has worked in the past. Republicans won't touch massive expansion of government unless it is already a foregone conclusion - like Medicare D. Understanding that making sausage is messy, Reps usually avoid the nastiest parts, keep things small, and make sure it is well wrapped. They won't shrink government much either, but they're akin to the stop in the ratchet.

Democrats, on the other hand, disregard results and specifics in favor of good intentions. Then when they have to actually translate their Land of Magical Ponies ideas into real laws, it gets very messy very quickly.

#10 Roga (Homepage) on 2009-12-16 23:38 (Reply)

The leadership crisis is real.

Obama isn't a leader, he's a cheerleader at best. He has no history of fighting for what he believes in. At this point it's not at all clear that he believes in anything at all, except of course his own fabulous self. But he's far too timorous to be a real fighter. He won't magically turn into a real fighter later - he just doesn't have it in him.

He handed off leadership on all his "signature" issues to Congress. And that's a problem because Harry Reid isn't a leader, either. He's an unimaginative plodder at best. Nancy Pelosi is the closest thing Washington has to a leadership-type personality, and she's really more of a strongarm thug than a serious leader.

The current Democratic plan, though, remains dangerous. That plan is the one forseen by de Tocqueville - they will bribe the electorate with its own money. The fact that they can't possibly deliver on their wild promises doesn't matter; in future, all opponents can be smeared with the cry that "those $%^&*# are trying to take away your free (whatever)!" Very dangerous, if it works.

#11 tom swift on 2009-12-16 23:51 (Reply)

It's not that Obama doesn't like to fight. It's that he doesn't like to make decisions. He simply believes it closes out his future options to come down on any side of any issue. After all, this is a man who took 6 months to decide which dog to adopt.

#12 Fred on 2009-12-17 00:09 (Reply)

Well this jumped out at me:

"The President is supposed to rally the country, effectively putting pressure on opposition members of Congress to sit down and shut up."

Yeah, sit down and shut up, minority party. I won.

#13 J.Wilde on 2009-12-17 01:25 (Reply)

Yes, Obama is weak. But the process has been a debacle, and the bill (any form) is just going to force Americans to pay higher premiums.

Best thing to do is KILL THE BILL. But, of course, that would require common sense. Liberals would rather make insurance companies richer and Americans poorer in their quest to expand gov't.

#14 Jerry45 on 2009-12-17 03:17 (Reply)

When you're at war with reality, always, and everything you want & do is irrational, once in a while you won't get your way. The republicans just got lucky - thus far. I'm not counting on them anytime soon.

#15 egoist on 2009-12-17 04:55 (Reply)

The majority of commenters have it right. It's not lack of leadership that's at issue here, it's the terrible legislation itself. Why can't the Democrats use their overwhelming majority to easily push through this pig in a poke? Because voters have figured out what the Democrats are really up to, and they don't want to see the bill passed.

#16 Robert on 2009-12-17 05:56 (Reply)

But, but, but, the score is in on his first year's accomplishments. He gave himself a B+

#17 sookie on 2009-12-17 06:16 (Reply)

What BS. Bush didn't get amnesty and he didn't get social security privatization. The Medicare bill likely wouldn't have made it out of the house had the true cost not been hidden and No Child Left Behind was sponsored and pushed through the Senate by frickin Ted Kennedy.

#18 bleh on 2009-12-17 10:17 (Reply)

Bleh is onto something. The impression that Republicans got so much of what they wanted and Democrats don't stems entirely from the narcissism of liberals. They want it all, and any interference is seen as some enormous victory (probably via cheating) by the organised forces of evil. Anything that Republicans pass is seen as some terrible anomaly; anything Democrats don't pass is seen as some failure of strategy.

Stop going by feelings and impressions, dammit. Look at the data.

#19 Assistant Village Idiot (Homepage) on 2009-12-17 15:06 (Reply)

"The Democratic Party is not so much a political party anymore as much as it is a public relations firm whose primary target audience is that of a remedial civics class." What else would you expect from a party that was founded on the sole principle of getting control of government jobs?

#20 Bob on 2009-12-17 16:42 (Reply)

please add a choice to enlarge the type

#21 poor eyesight reader on 2009-12-17 22:46 (Reply)

We have been trying to enlarge the font, and have been running into difficulties. But we'll get it fixed!!

I promise.

#21.1 Tom Elia on 2009-12-18 10:59 (Reply)

We have been trying to enlarge the font, and have been running into difficulties. But we'll get it fixed!!

I promise.

#21.2 Tom Elia on 2009-12-18 10:59 (Reply)

Add Comment

Name
Email
Homepage
In reply to
Comment	Enclosing asterisks marks text as bold (word), underscore are made via _word_. Standard emoticons like :-) and ;-) are converted to images. E-Mail addresses will not be displayed and will only be used for E-Mail notifications
	Remember Information? Subscribe to this entry

Historical US House Composition

Syndicate This Blog

Major Newspapers,
Magazines,
and Web Sites

Political Web Sites,
Magazines, and
Other Journals

Blogs

Economics, Science, & Technology Related
Blogs and Web Sites

Research Tools

Regional Newspapers

Features

Archives

Categories

Business News

Libertarian Ad Network

Old Archives

Wednesday, December 16. 2009

'Weakness, chaos, and failure'

Stephan Challenge

Search

Historical US House Composition

Syndicate This Blog

Major Newspapers,Magazines,and Web Sites

Political Web Sites,Magazines, andOther Journals

Blogs

Economics, Science, & Technology RelatedBlogs and Web Sites

Research Tools

Regional Newspapers

Features

Archives

Categories

Business News

Libertarian Ad Network

Old Archives

Wednesday, December 16. 2009

'Weakness, chaos, and failure'

Stephan Challenge

Search

Major Newspapers,
Magazines,
and Web Sites

Political Web Sites,
Magazines, and
Other Journals

Economics, Science, & Technology Related
Blogs and Web Sites