On-line Opinion Magazine…OK, it's a blog
Random header image... Refresh for more!

The Village Doesn’t Get It

Susie Madrak noticed the same Washington Post piece that I was intending to write about earlier and covers it well.

The Post writer and the Democrats think the reason that the DCCC and DSCC [House and Senate campaign committees, for non-political junkies] can’t raise money is because the “big money” guys are upset over the “tough stance” the Dems are taking towards business.

First off, what in hell would lead anyone to believe that the Dems are taking a “tough stance” on anything? Has anything substantial been done to any of those people who are responsible for nearly pushing the global economy over the cliff? Has any real reform been enacted, or even being pushed? What planet are these people on?

Then the writer says that the “activists” are being complacent because the Dems control everything.

Hello, the “activists” are waiting for the majorities in the House and Senate, as well as taking the White House, to produce some results. So far, the Democrats have done nothing that advances the progressive agenda, so the “activists” are looking at individual candidates, rather than trusting the party with their money.

If the Democratic Party can’t make some real changes with the mandate they have been given, they will never be able to change anything, so there’s no reason to support them. The “activists” should save their money for a real progressive, liberal party.

6 comments

1 JimD { 09.27.09 at 10:33 am }

It does seem like a great historical chance has passed us by. Every 70 or 80 years, the money changers shoot themselves in the foot. That is the chance to strike.

I wonder if anyone else is regretting the Obama surge that stopped the Hillary Clinton Presidency.

2 Bryan { 09.27.09 at 12:53 pm }

I favored Edwards or Richardson, although I liked Kucinich’s ideology best. Hillary Clinton was before Barack Obama on my list because she was closer to the center than he was. In January of 2008 I identified Obama as a moderate to conservative Republican politically, no matter what initial he put after his name, and his primary campaign confirmed it. Just like the Shrubbery, he disenfranchised Florida voters.

There are a lot of Democratic policies that have been written on refined over the years, and are waiting, with the bills already written, to be enacted, but nothing is being done. HR 676 has been there, but Obama blocked it. The regulatory bills have been there, but Obama is blocking them.

The White House is the one insisting on catering to the Blue Dogs and the Republicans, because this White House is business friendly, and Bush III on civil liberties.

Congress is only interested in maintaining personal power, not doing anything for the voters, The Senate is just flat dysfunctional. If every Senator was a Democrat you would still be looking for 60 votes because they won’t do their job as written in the Constitution, only according to their local club rules.

The Democratic Party doesn’t understand that they can’t remain the majority unless they do something for voters.

3 Jim Bales { 09.27.09 at 2:31 pm }

FWIW, here is what I sent to the WaPo Ombuds — not that I expect it to make a difference!

Dear Sir,

I am amazed that the editors of the Post would publish “Democrats Are Jarred by Drop In Fundraising” (by Paul Kane) along with a chart that uttery contradicts the article’s thesis. (http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/09/24/AR2009092404906_2.html)

According to the graph, contributions to the DSCC and DCCC from individual donors dropped by 32% ($59.5M to $40.6M) in the first 8 months of 2009, compared to the same period in 2007. In contrast, all other donations *increased* by 13% over the same interval ($81M -59.5M = $21.5M in 2007 vs. $64.8M – $40.6M = $24.2M in 2009).

Presumably, Mr. Kane felt that his stenographic function (repeating what he had be told by his sources) was more important than his journalistic function (informing the public with the facts). In your capacity as Ombuds, could you please explain why the editors chose to concur?

Best Wishes,
Jim Bales

4 hipparchia { 09.27.09 at 3:32 pm }

The White House is the one insisting on catering to the Blue Dogs and the Republicans, because this White House is business friendly in thrall to giant corporations, and Bush III on civil liberties.

fixed it for ya.

5 Bryan { 09.27.09 at 3:44 pm }

I concur that the WaPo is unlikely to correct anything that contradicts the conventional Village wisdom.

If the Democrats don’t come to grips with their problems, and not just in fund raising, they are toast. I have not, and will not vote for Bill Nelson, my supposedly Democratic Senator, because he doesn’t support the issues that are important to me. If he wants to vote like a Republican, he can run as a Republican.

The party would be a better place without the Blue Dogs. Fiscal conservatism is just an excuse for not supporting liberal/progressive bills. They supported the out-of-control Republican spending.

6 Bryan { 09.27.09 at 4:01 pm }

We were posting at the same time, Hipparchia, but most of the people who stop by don’t need to be reminded what “business friendly” really means.