Trouble In Paradise

[Lord Jim]

There's been a lot in the national media lately about the problems the GOP has going into this year's midterm elections...

A lack of a central message, or program, (like they had in '94) problems with the RNC, some gaffe prone candidates, etc.

A couple of news items caught my eye that illustrate, (beyond the condition of the economy) some of the "message" issues in the Democratic camp:

Pelosi Angry Over White House Midterm Prediction

White House spokesman Robert Gibbs on Tuesday walked back earlier statements that Republicans could "no doubt" win control of the House this November, but that wasn't enough to placate House Democrats angry about the remarks.

House Speaker Nancy Pelosi and other Democrats took aim at the White House in a closed-door meeting Tuesday night, according to reports, arguing that Gibbs' comments will hurt the party's campaign efforts in an already-challenging midterm election year.

"How could [Gibbs] know what is going on in our districts?" Pelosi said to other Democrats Tuesday night, Politico reports. "Some may weigh his words more than others. We have made our disagreement known to the White House."

Pelosi reportedly grilled White House staffer Dan Turton, the top White House aide at the meeting, about the impact of Gibbs' comments. Such pessimistic remarks, the thinking goes, could dampen enthusiasm among Democratic fundraisers. (Of course, it could be argued that such comments could actually encourage donors by stoking concerns about a Republican takeover.)

Gibbs initially said Sunday on NBC's "Meet the Press" that "there's no doubt there are enough seats in play that could cause Republicans to gain control." Asked about his remarks at a press briefing Tuesday, Gibbs said he simply "stated the obvious" but added that he still believes the Democrats will maintain their majority in the House.

"I think we'll retain the House," he said.

Senior staff from Pelosi's office had contacted the White House Monday about Gibbs' remarks on "Meet the Press," Fox News reports, and Democrats were not satisfied with Gibbs' follow up statement that he was stating the "obvious."

House leaders have been publicly pushing back against Gibbs' analysis. "I don't think we will lose the House," House Majority Leader Steny Hoyer (D - Maryland) said Tuesday.

"I think we'll probably have some net losses," House Majority Whip Jim Clyburn (D-S.C.) suggested. "But we aren't planning to lose anything."

http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-503544_162- ... 03544.html

Now, the question of whether or not it's good political strategy to "commit truth" in the way Gibbs has done is one for which a good case can be made on both sides. Personally I could argue it either way.

To say that spreading fear within your party base about the possibility of a GOP take over of the House might help to motivate your folks to show up at the polls certainly makes sense....

However, it could be argued with equal plausibility that such a tactic could backfire; imbue voters on your side of the aisle with a sense of despair, while motivating the Republicans to turn out ("Well whaddya know; even Obama thinks we could take over the House...we must have a real chance, I should get my butt to the polls)

But what is inarguable, absolutely inarguable, is that it is very bad politics to have the Democratic White House and the Democratic Congressional leadership publicly at odds about which is the better tact to take, with the elections looming just four months away. That the chief White House spokesman would go out and make a statement like the one he did, without any discussion or even a "heads up" to Pelosi reveals a complete lack of co-ordination between the White House and Hill Democrats on campaign strategy; and a not very good working relationship between the two.

To have this kind of schism between these two in an election cycle likely to be extremely problematic for them under the best of circumstances, is a major problem for them.



And then there was this:

Reid: I Wish Obama Had Backed Me Up More On Health Care

Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-NV) said that there is something he disagrees with President Obama on: Obama isn't tough enough on the Republicans. The Senate Majority Leader also said he wishes the White House backed him up more during the battle over health care reform.

In an interview on Friday with Jon Ralston, one of the top political reporters in Nevada, Reid was asked for examples of things he disagreed with Obama on. Reid said there are multiple things. When asked for a further explanation by Ralston, Reid's answer came down more to process and style, rather than substance.

"I think that he is on many occasions -- I shouldn't say on many occasions, on a few occasions -- I think he should have been more firm with those on the other side of the aisle," said Reid. "He is a person who doesn't like confrontation. He's a peacemaker. And sometimes I think you have to be a little more forceful. And sometimes I don't think he is enough with the Republicans."

Ralston asked Reid for an example.

"Health care," Reid responded. "That went on for many months. And I think much of that early on scrimmaging was done in the Senate itself, and the White House didn't come in until later. Now, we came up with a great product, and I'm sure he can look back and say I was right, but boy for me down in the trenches, I know it was a time when I wanted a few folks in the White House behind me."

Ralston then suggested that Reid was saying Obama wasn't strong enough.

"He's a very strong man. He's calm, he's cool, he's deliberate," Reid responded. "But as I just said, I think sometimes he -- I would like him to be more confrontational. He isn't, that's who he is. My saying this isn't gonna make him that way. I know who he is, and I understand him."

http://tpmdc.talkingpointsmemo.com/2010 ... -video.php

Aside from being a really odd criticism, especially coming from a man with Reid's level of political experience in the Senate, (just what sort of leverage does Reid imagine that Obama has over the GOP members of the Senate?) and factually inaccurate, (while Obama has talked endlessly about the need for bi-partisanship, his record of performance on the issue is entirely different) it's another example of airing the dirty linen in public, which does nothing to help strengthen their mid-term election strategy. It makes it appear as though the Democratic Leader of the Senate thinks nothing of publicly criticizing his President; on an issue where Obama expended an enormous amount of political capital.

The fact is it was Reid himself who made a right cock up of the Health Care Bill when he tossed out the Baucus Bill (which included a trigger mechanism for a public option) and in the process threw Olympia Snowe under the bus (who supported the Baucus Bill) because he mistakenly believed he could round up enough Democratic votes to pass a public option outright. He couldn't, and in the end he wound up with neither.

These two stories indicate fairly conclusively, that while the the GOP undeniably has some message problems this year, the Democrats ain't exactly singin' in three part harmony either....

[Andrew D]

Aside from being a really odd criticism, especially coming from a man with Reid's level of political experience in the Senate, (just what sort of leverage does Reid imagine that Obama has over the GOP members of the Senate?) ....

I agree. It was Reid who failed to be tough enough with the Republican obstructionists in the Senate. When it became clear that the Republican strategy was "filibuster everything of any significance, regardless of whether the proposal would be good for Americans, as long as filibustering it hurts the Democratic Party," Reid's response should have been pure hardball.

And he could have done lots of things. He could have told the Republicans that if they filibustered anything -- anything at all -- no Republican proposal made thereafter would ever see the light of day. Every Republican proposal would be referred to committee and left there to die. (In the unlikely event that a Republican proposal were a good idea, it would be reproposed by a Democrat and then actually considered.)

He could have told them that another result of their filibustering would be that through the reconciliation process, the maximum possible amount of federal funds would be redirected from States with Republican Senators to States with Democratic Senators. The budget calls for $X billion to be spent on building a new military facility in Alabama? It will now be built in California. $Y billion in highway funds for Montana? Nope; they're going to Vermont instead. Etc.

The Democratic Party should also have been much more aggressive. They should have mounted a huge ad campaign to the effect of "What the Republicans want is for the richest few to live like this [shots of mansions owned by the economic elite], even if ordinary Americans have to live like this [shots of "Hoovervilles"]. Yes, that's right: If the Republicans had had their way then, shantytowns like these [still continuing shots of "Hoovervilles"] would have been the consequence for more and more Americans. But thanks to the Democratic Party, America went in this direction [shots of middle-class Americans living in prosperous comfort from the 1950s onward] instead. And the same choice faces you now. Do you really want to go their way? Or do you want to go the way that leads to a better life for ordinary Americans, not just for the wealthy few?"

They should have taken much more advantage of the fact that Republican Party leaders treat a large component of their base -- right-wing Christians -- with contempt. They should have said something like: "You voted for them, because they promised that they would push for a constitutional amendment banning abortion. But did they? No. Even when they controlled both Houses of Congress (and didn't have to worry about a presidential veto), they didn't make that proposal. They didn't even try. All they did was tell you that they would, even though they knew that they wouldn't, and then laugh at you behind your backs."

There were many other possible tactics. But the not-very-thinly veiled subtext should have been the same throughout: We are the party that is trying to make life better for ordinary Americans; they are the party that is trying to make life better for the wealthy few that control their party, and ordinary Americans be damned.

But they didn't. And if they lose control of one or other other or both Houses of Congress, they will have only themselves (and, to some degree, Obama) to blame.

Lamentably, no matter who takes the blame, the people who suffer will be ordinary Americans. The upside, such as it is, is that after Republican policies turn a recession into a double-dip recession and then, perhaps (though I hope not) into a full-blown depression, the Republicans will go back to where they belong: the political wilderness.

[Lord Jim]

Well first of all, if any of your "punish the residents of the states represented by Republicans" proposals had be tried, the Democrats would be facing an even bigger pasting this fall, and it is they, not the GOP, who would be headed for the "political wilderness".

If Reid had attempted such political suicide, it's highly unlikely that he could have gotten a majority of his caucus to go along....

I don't know why you continuously sing this same refrain about how the evil GOP is preventing the wonderful proposals of the Democratic Party from being enacted, when the facts are demonstrably otherwise.

At the CSB you kept insisting after the 2006 elections that the reason the Dems couldn't force Bush to withdraw from Iraq was Republican "obstructionism" in the Senate, even after I pointed out to you the fact that the Dems in the House could simply have refused to vote any additional funding for Iraq except for the purposes of withdrawal, and they didn't need the support of a single Senator to force a withdrawal if they had the numbers within their own ranks in the House to do this. Pelosi didn't do this, (even though she had promised a US withdrawal from Iraq during the campaign) because she didn't have the DEMOCRATIC votes in her own caucus to do it.

Nevertheless you kept repeating the same refrain....

Now you're on even weaker ground. The fact is that the Democrats, back when their caucus had a filibuster proof majority of 60 votes, passed a health care bill without a public option because Reid could not get enough of DEMOCRATIC support to include one.

Surely you heard about this; it was in all the papers...

As for Republican policies leading to a double dip recession; the Dems are managing to accomplish this all on their own with the MOAP. With a little luck, a Republican Congress might finally produce the tax breaks and incentives for small and mid-sized businesses that are needed to pull us out of this mess.

[Andrew D]

I agree that Reid wasn't tough enough on his own party either. Nor was Pelosi in the House.

And that dramatically illustrates one of the fundamental differences between the parties in Congress: Reid and Pelosi have to persuade their membership, because Democrats have the politically unfortunate habit of thinking for themselves. McConnell has no such difficulty: He instructs his minions how to vote, and nine times out of ten, they get up on their hind legs and obey. (The rare exception generally results in ordinary Americans' being better off.)

But it won't matter. Come November, unless there is some dramatic change between now and then, the same mob of illiterates that made it seem as if GWB had been elected -- even though we all know that he was not -- will come mouth-frothing to the polls and vote Republican. Thus, for the umpteenth time, proving John Stuart Mill exactly right.

[Andrew D]

I fail to see how redirecting federal funds away from States with Republican Senators and toward States with Democratic Senators would have been "political suicide" for Reid and other Democrats. Why would the voters of Nevada have objected to Nevada's getting a bigger share of federal largesse?

Sure, voters in States with Republican Senators would have been really pissed off, but so what? Reid doesn't need them to retain his Senate seat; nor does any other Democratic Senator. The notion that such a strategy would have resulted in the Democrats' being exiled to the political wilderness seems to me utterly fantastic.

I don't quite follow the reference to "the wonderful proposals of the Democratic Party". I have repeatedly posted that I do not know whether the Democrats' policies would actually succeed; but the Republican Party's policies are what got us into this mess, so after eight years of dismal failure by one side, it's time to give the other side a chance.

But the worst of all Republican fears is that the Democrats' policies might succeed. So they resort to any means available to prevent those policies from being implemented. Whether they actually agree or disagree with them is of no moment; all that matters is that the Democrats fail, and the welfare of ordinary Americans be damned.

[Crackpot]

In short because it would be putting a fine point on the partizan bickering at the expense of the American People and opening the floodgates for Republicans to do the same when they have the majority.

[Crackpot]

One thing the Democrats have been absolutely miserable at has been selling their proposals and legislative successes to the Public. Perfect case in point In the immediate run up/aftermath to the health care bill they promised they'd be vindicated when the bill could be discussed on it's merits absent the fear-mongering and hyperbole. Unfortunately they've done fuck-all to explain it since. Exactly who do they think is in charge of selling their proposals magic advocate fairies?

[Lord Jim]

In short because it would be putting a fine point on the partizan bickering at the expense of the American People and opening the floodgates for Republicans to do the same when they have the majority.

And the whole approach would piss off voters in all states, except for the fiercest partisans, because it would make the legislative process even more dysfunctional...

[Andrew D]

And the whole approach would piss off voters in all states, except for the fiercest partisans, because it would make the legislative process even more dysfunctional...

Really?

Republican Senator Richard Shelby of Alabama put a "blanket hold" on all Obama nominees whose nominations were then pending. He did so simply to ensure that Alabama would get lucrative contracts to build an FBI facility and Air Force tankers.

He did it anonymously, because even he realized that if it became public, it would be indefensible. But thanks to some aggressive journalism, it did become public.

That was about as partisan and corrupt as political moves get -- far more so than the openly partisan wrangling that I have suggested. He hid what what he was doing, because he knew that it could not pass the smell test. (And once it was revealed, it did not.)

How many "voters in all states" got "piss[ed] off" about that? Just about zero.

[Andrew D]

In short because it would be putting a fine point on the partizan bickering at the expense of the American People and opening the floodgates for Republicans to do the same when they have the majority.

How much finer a point can there be than McConnell's and his underlings' filibustering everything without the slightest regard to the merits of the proposed policies?

And it isn't about "at the expense of the American People" -- that's what Republican policies are all about.

Democratic policies created the modern American middle class. Republican policies -- unsurprisingly, the Republicans' having tried to obstruct the creation of the modern American middle class in the first place -- have eroded it.

As to the Republicans' having a majority, that can have only one consequence: Ordinary Americans get ratfucked again.

[Lord Jim]

Republican Senator Richard Shelby of Alabama put a "blanket hold" on all Obama nominees whose nominations were then pending. He did so simply to ensure that Alabama would get lucrative contracts to build an FBI facility and Air Force tankers.

He did it anonymously, because even he realized that if it became public, it would be indefensible. But thanks to some aggressive journalism, it did become public.

That's not even partisanship...

That's an example of how the Senate's rules empower individual Senators to a ridiculous extent...

Getting those types of rules changed would meet with a great deal of public support...(including mine)

That's a far far cry from your, "we won't allow any bill introduced by a Republican to be considered and we won't allow any federal project money to go to a state represented by a Republican" proposals...

Not a valid comparison....

[Andrew D]

One thing the Democrats have been absolutely miserable at has been selling their proposals and legislative successes to the Public.

That task becomes rather difficult when one is confronted with a torrential flood of big-money-backed lies.

It is not an accident that right-wingers have decided that Congress is not allowed to stop huge corporations -- the undisputed masters of all Republican Senators -- from flooding the airwaves with falsehoods whose sole purpose is to enrich those corporations (and their Republican underlings) at the expense of ordinary Americans.

[Lord Jim]

How much finer a point can there be than McConnell's and his underlings' filibustering everything without the slightest regard to the merits of the proposed policies?

First of all "everything" hasn't been filibustered, and the issue of the "merits" of what has been is entirely subjective.

[Andrew D]

There are the subjective viewpoints of the ignorant, and there are the subjective viewpoints of the knowledgeable. If the latter were to prevail, the Republican Party would be nowhere.

That does not mean that all Republicans are ignorant. It means simply that -- as everyone who pays attention to American politics knows -- the ignorant vote overwhelmingly Republican.

[Crackpot]

One thing the Democrats have been absolutely miserable at has been selling their proposals and legislative successes to the Public.

That task becomes rather difficult when one is confronted with a torrential flood of big-money-backed lies.

It is not an accident that right-wingers have decided that Congress is not allowed to stop huge corporations -- the undisputed masters of all Republican Senators -- from flooding the airwaves with falsehoods whose sole purpose is to enrich those corporations (and their Republican underlings) at the expense of ordinary Americans.

that still ignores the rest of that post. Where is the effort to set the record straight? There isn't a concerted misinformation campaign since it's not required in the absence of an information campaign.

[Andrew D]

The "effort to set the record straight" is there for anyone who cares to look for it. But right-wingers are afraid to look for it -- and afraid to havwe anyone else look for it -- because they know what they will find: exactly what all thinking people have already found.

[Lord Jim]

the ignorant vote overwhelmingly Republican.

Except of course, in West Palm Beach Florida....

Where the Democrats had such a strangle hold on "the ignorant vote" (and an inability to read a very simple ballot, that was designed by the local Democratic Party) that they accidentally voted for Pat Buchanan in such large numbers, they handed the election to George W. Bush....

[Lord Jim]

Every time I hear about how "stupid" Republicans are...

Four words come to mind...

West Palm Beach Florida...

[Andrew D]

There are three other words much more appropriate:

George Walker Bush