"President Obama and the Democratic leadership in Washington have rebranded themselves as the party of economic irresponsibility."
Thus wrote, in a ruthless affront to recent history, Republican strategist Alex Castellanos.
It came in the third paragraph of a rather compressed, possibly hurried, five-paragraphs-long NY Times op-ed this Thursday morning, in which the author was celebrating this week's birth of a "New Republican Party," in venues such as Virginia. How did Gov.-elect Bob McDonnell do it? How did he pull it off in the wake of a massively Democratic 2008 and the state's previously rapid purpling?
Well, wrote Alex, being the principled mensch that he is, Republican Bob didn't "moderate," which of course he did. "Instead," continued Alex, he enhanced his old-time Republicanism "with an optimistic, populist vision of economic success.
"Mr. McDonnell offered suburban voters, working women and independents a better way to increase jobs and expand the economy, from the bottom up," wrote Castellanos. "It was a stark contrast to what Americans are seeing in Washington, where elitist Democratic politicians, in bed with the Wall Street establishment, are taking Americans' tax dollars away to invest in arrogant, top-down public-sector schemes." You get the drift.
Bundling and then confronting Alex's bombastic rubbish all at once -- the insulting revisionism, the gross distortions, the utterly Orwellian Newspeak and borderline-sociopathic shamelessness -- is almost physically harmful, like college-dorm binge-drinking. It leaves one badly disoriented and nearly breathless, but also laughing hysterically.
After eight years of a Republican president's fiscal madness -- six years of which received a GOP Congress' stamp of unquestioning approval -- it's the Democrats, says Castellanos, who are the party of "economic irresponsibility." Forget that they're having to cope with the consequences of a chronically gutted revenue base and an unprovoked war and an unfunded entitlement and soaring, inherited deficits on the heels of debt-reducing, presidentially Democratic surpluses.
Forget that Republicans raided the public treasury, coddled plutocrats, ignored the working class, exacerbated our health-care system's collapse, abused science and scientists, corrupted justice, violated international treaties with abandon and in general brought this nation perilously close to the brink of irreversible desolation. In fact, they may have accomplished just that. The coming years will tell.
At any rate, just forget all that. Because, you see, Republicans are now bringing us -- and by the way, there's nothing new about this; they've done it time and time and time again since the early 1960s -- "an optimistic, populist vision of economic success."
Yes, they're the happy, Everyman warriors, fighting for suburbanites, women, and above all, of course, independents of every age and every income and every geographic locale.
They have nothing but contempt for Washington, Wall Street and political elitism, and nothing but scorn for "arrogant" -- whatever that means -- "top-down public-sector schemes"; you know, the ones keeping their unemployment extravaganza just below Great Depression levels.
What did Castellanos title his piece in the Times? "Finally, an Authentic GOP." Two qualifiers too many.
But that's not the problem. Not for Democrats. The problem is, Castellanos had one thing right: independents are, once again, buying Republicans' bamboozlement. And the horrifically atomized Democratic Party is, once again, kissing its majoritarian future goodbye.
There is, of course, an even deeper problem: one of a central contradiction. (Most) Democrats know they must spend more money to create jobs, but they're also acutely wary of aggravating the (Republican) deficit and thereby further alienating deficit-conscious independents.
But something is going to have to give: the contradiction's imbalances cannot be reconciled. Democrats are going to have to take the plunge on a jobs program, and hope that independents are forgiving -- which, I think, they will be, if they're also working.
In short, a Grand Bargain must be struck internally -- progressive Democrats must give and take, as must Democratic conservatives.
What could such a bargain look like? How about ...
Urban progressives will hand to rural conservatives those justifiably hated, big-city Wall Street financiers on a populistic, too-big-to-tolerate platter and call for a temporary halt to pushing for a public option in health-care legislation. In return, conservatives will agree to a $500 billion (or whatever) jobs program and (silently) pledge to support, in 2011, a genuine public option.
The elimination of the public option (which is going nowhere, anyway) would speed the completion of health-care legislation, which Democrats desperately need to complete, and a massive jobs program would demonstrate to independents that Democrats of all ideological stripes are profoundly serious about unemployment -- that joblessness is not an ideological plaything.
Would both sides be willing to accommodate this, or some similar, Grand Bargain? I haven't a clue. Let's remember that these are Democrats we're talking about. But one thing is strikingly clear: they're going to have to start working together, creatively, or Alex Castellanos' "Authentic GOP" could soon be known as the majority party.
Buzz this on Buzzflash.net
Let's spend some money
"Most Democrats know they must spend more money to create jobs..." really? So, the way out of this recession is to spend even more money. I didn't think there was any money left. Well, one thing you can always count on from the Democratic point of view is that it's always OK to spend other people's money. casino online
Yeah, I despise the Dems now too
I absolutely loathe the lying, fruitcake Repubs and have done so for the last 12 years--ever since they spent $60 million of taxpayer money to get Clinton for cigar sex. However, especially during Bush's reign, the Dems have cowered in the corner and done nothing. Even now that they are in the majority, they continue to dither. We voted for "change" and all we get is a continuation of two wars, a shredded Constitution, and butt-kissing the very rich (that $60 mil is now a drop in the bucket thanks to TARP). Obama can't even get rid of "don't ask, don't tell." Real unemployment is closer to 20%. You will see thousands more stores close after Xmas, when a broke populace spends even less, and that means thousands more out of work. These jobs are not coming back. If Congress refuses to control Wall Street (and I understand the latest bill gutting Sorbanes-Oxley {spelling?} lets the banksters screw us even more), they'll be looking into the gun barrels of the next American revolution.
President Obama and the...
...Democratic leadership in Washington have rebranded themselves as the party of economic irresponsibility.
IF this claim is true then it seems that both of our major parties have now branded themselves as economically irresponsible.
The Bush administration and its Republican Congress cooperated to show the world just how extreme economic and diplomatic irresponsibility can be. In fact, the irresponsibility was more general; it is hard to think of any aspect what the Bush administration did that was responsible (though in fairness, it was responsible for getting us into two unnecessary wars and for running up a record deficit).
An 'authentic Carpy': bamboozling facts, as always
The VA Democratic candidate Deeds was a weak Republican Light who rejected the public option, and was not well received by Northern Virginia, so progressive voters stayed home.
a new coalition is waiting to be born
* i've long thought since king ronald's election with so many democrats's votes, that a new 'new deal' coalition was in the mists, needing someone to articulate it and bring all the disparate elements together, as fdr did. i kept hoping that a great depression would not be the catalyst as i sure didn't want my kids to live through that. however, no one on either side had both the vision and ability to bring it all together. clinton was smart enough and politician enough, but wanted people to like him. then the bush disaster and now obama, who again has the intelligence and political savvy, but again wants people to like him, aka bipartisanship. he's tasted the very good life at the top of the pyramid and wants to stay there; although he, like clinton, know that for many\most people, the pinnacle will always be in the clouds. he knows and has sufficient empathy to feel for them. however, i don't think he's the one either. i just hope it's not a republican who is a smoother liar and willing to take the tiny steps to help all americans, before returning to the base of have way too much and beyond way too much to taek back even those few steps for all americans. \\
Born Free - “those who would give up essential liberty to purchase a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety.” -- b. franklin, 1759
Republicans Don't Do Truth
As Republicans feel that it's OK to lie and cheat and steal as long as it benefits them, why ever would anyone ever trust them with a deal that won't happen for several years? Their temperments and objectives can change in the blink of an eye, so making a pact which takes place at some time in the future means risking a complete reversal of the understanding based on situational ethics.
The middle doesn/t work for Democrats!
Dems, and their creation DLC, can't go to the middle and win elections. This is a proven fact we lived with between 1994 and 2005. They need to get things done. Dems must be progressive and show the independents that good things can come from a government working for the people.
Independents are independent because they don't have a defined political philosophy. Good programs enacted by a strong, well defined Democratic party platform, will keep the independents voting for the Democratic party candidates.
If Dems keep acting like Repugs, independents will vote for the real thing. Maybe we need to re-hire Howard Dean so the Democratic party can find direction (again).
Pelosi and Reid have to go.
It's clear the Democratic leadership is too wimpy. Without strong leadership the repugnants will suceed in their plan to thwart change. Their propagana will suceed again as well. We must get rid of Pelosi and Reid. The watered down health bills are testimony to the lack of strong leadership. We may lose our chance to rebuild America if we let the changes be fillibustered and watered down.
No "Grand Bargains"
Carp, the "grand bargain" you suggest is a non-starter because we may not have a majority to impliment a genuine public option in 2011.
Yes, the independents are beginning to drink the GOP swill again because the democrats do not counter vicious lies with the audacity of truth. These people have the collective memory of a hedgehog and they must be constantly reminded how we got into this mess, Grayson-style.
The only way--and I mean the ONLY way--for the democrats to keep their majority is through an energized progressive base. Absent that, these sorry scurilous bluedogs will have to cobble together an impossible-to-win coalition of moderates over an energized teabagger base.
Not happening.
To win, Bluedogs must stand up and be PROUD DEMOCRATS. They cannot run FROM the president, they must run TO him. But Bluedogs are as dumb as they are corrupt and they seem intent on reliving 1994 by becoming republican-lite zombies. What in God's name possessed these people to wake up one day and decide they wanted to be democrats? What the hell do these people believe in?
Anyway, if they all get whipped in 2010 I say good riddance, I hate these spineless, greedy, principle-less dumbfucks.
You want to keep the majority, Democrats? Begin breaking up the goddamn banks, beginning with Goldman-Sachs and Bank of America. And prosecute the sorry criminals that got us into this mess. We need to see a little Teddy Roosevelt trust-busting going on and Eliot Ness perpwalks.
And while you're doing that, pass the damn jobs bill that should have been part of the original stimulus package--nothing but construction and infrastructure spending--NOTHING BUT--and pay for it by halting the Bush tax cuts on the wealthy--WHICH IS WHAT YOU RAN ON, you effing losers!
Oh, and uh, stop the wars.
I grow to despise the Democratic Party more every day. On the political scale they are almost indistinguishable from the GOP of the '70's--which shows you have far to the right they've moved. Add to that their constant weak-kneed dithering and cowtowing to right-wing bullying and honestly, they make me want to wretch.
At this point I don't give a riproar if the dems maintain their majority or not. They've lost their soul and a significant percentage are bought off--enough so that the the conservatives still have a governing majority (incredible isn't it?). Any democrat that sides with the excreble republicans after what they've done to the country for the last 8 years...well, words escape me.
Break up the banks and prosecute the criminals. Pass a real jobs bill. And stop the wars. Do that and get re-hired. Think they will?
Not a chance.
In The Eye Of The Beholders
Way too many manhours have been wasted by interpreting the national significance of four, highly localized and unrelated, elections. Everyone, including myself, is seeing what they want to see, regardless of how objective and knowledgeable they are. My sense is that both parties and the factions within and adjacent to those parties have not learned the real lessons of the '06, '08 and now '09 elections. That is probably because the voting populace has not been able to precisely define just what is bothering the hell out of them.
Frankly, hardly anyone or any political party has been able to define it for them. Yes, the far right corporatists had a ready-made well oiled machine to fill one breech and create the tea-baggers. But that is a pretty small sliver of people. Glen (Lonesome Rhodes) Beck has done a yeoman's job of thrusting himself in front of that parade. For lack of a better definition of "change we can believe in", I and most of the other far left progressives have made the public option the be-all and end-all of change. Thin gruel indeed.
Something bigger, more fundamental and currently ill defined is brewing on the left and right. Someone will eventually step and define "change we can believe in" for the majority of Americans by articulating a short list of simple principles wrapped in a coherent narrative. So far, Obama has sold the concept of "change we can believe in", but he has yet to define and sell what that means.
Nature and politics abhor a vacuum.