Birthers, Deathers, and the Muddled Middle: POLITICS THREAD

by **Werthless** » Fri Sep 18, 2009 14:07:06

He's already got the libertarian vote, all 3% of them, so he's gotta start rounding out the complete package a little better. Fiscal conservative principles can still be applied to other arenas, and he should come up with some stock answers that don't won't turn people away. He can corner the "pissed off, responsible citizen" if he simply makes people feel comfortable with his foreign policy answers. He doesn't need to impress there, just hold his own.

by **allentown** » Fri Sep 18, 2009 14:09:41

Werthless wrote:David Brooks column

The populist tendency has always used the same sort of rhetoric: for the ordinary people and against the fat cats and the educated class; for the small towns and against the financial centers.

And it has always had the same morality, which the historian Michael Kazin has called producerism. The idea is that free labor is the essence of Americanism. Hard-working ordinary people, who create wealth in material ways, are the moral backbone of the country. In this free, capitalist nation, people should be held responsible for their own output. Money should not be redistributed to those who do not work, and it should not be sucked off by condescending, manipulative elites.

Barack Obama leads a government of the highly educated. His movement includes urban politicians, academics, Hollywood donors and information-age professionals. In his first few months, he has fused federal power with Wall Street, the auto industry, the health care industries and the energy sector.

Given all of this, it was guaranteed that he would spark a populist backlash, regardless of his skin color. And it was guaranteed that this backlash would be ill mannered, conspiratorial and over the top — since these movements always are, whether they were led by Huey Long, Father Coughlin or anybody else.

It cuts both ways. Yes the populist movement has had the economic issues that Brooks cites as a wellspring over the years for right and left-leaning populists. But the right-leaning populists have also had a lot of racism, anti-immigrant, isolationist leanings in the past. There are a lot of folks in the current populist surge for economic reasons, but the birthers seem pretty clearly anti-black President racists and the deathers seem to be the anti-abortion fringe folks. The nasty side of what is going on is not economic populism, it is the old hot button issues of the right. Think continuation of the Terrry Schiavo fight.

by **TenuredVulture** » Fri Sep 18, 2009 15:01:57

allentown wrote:
Werthless wrote:David Brooks column

The populist tendency has always used the same sort of rhetoric: for the ordinary people and against the fat cats and the educated class; for the small towns and against the financial centers.

And it has always had the same morality, which the historian Michael Kazin has called producerism. The idea is that free labor is the essence of Americanism. Hard-working ordinary people, who create wealth in material ways, are the moral backbone of the country. In this free, capitalist nation, people should be held responsible for their own output. Money should not be redistributed to those who do not work, and it should not be sucked off by condescending, manipulative elites.

Barack Obama leads a government of the highly educated. His movement includes urban politicians, academics, Hollywood donors and information-age professionals. In his first few months, he has fused federal power with Wall Street, the auto industry, the health care industries and the energy sector.

Given all of this, it was guaranteed that he would spark a populist backlash, regardless of his skin color. And it was guaranteed that this backlash would be ill mannered, conspiratorial and over the top — since these movements always are, whether they were led by Huey Long, Father Coughlin or anybody else.

It cuts both ways. Yes the populist movement has had the economic issues that Brooks cites as a wellspring over the years for right and left-leaning populists. But the right-leaning populists have also had a lot of racism, anti-immigrant, isolationist leanings in the past. There are a lot of folks in the current populist surge for economic reasons, but the birthers seem pretty clearly anti-black President racists and the deathers seem to be the anti-abortion fringe folks. The nasty side of what is going on is not economic populism, it is the old hot button issues of the right. Think continuation of the Terrry Schiavo fight.

Left wing populists have had plenty of racists as well. For instance, Orval Faubus was a pink-diaper baby. True, we like to think of our heartland leftist being all Woody Guthrie types, but some of them were nasty fuckers.

by **dajafi** » Fri Sep 18, 2009 15:25:01

I guess there's no particular reason why 21st century populism should be all that much stylistically different than the 19th century variant, very much warts and all.

But as Matt Taibbi, Glenn Greenwald and others have noted, what's weird about this populism is that it seems more concerned--angrily obsessed even--with the trickle of downward redistribution (which happens to have a racial cast) than the raging flood of public money flowing, now and forever, towards the top. Yes, what ACORN did was digraceful and wrong, and they should be de-funded. Just as the war-profiteering companies that stole or lost billions should be banned from the public trough and forced to reimburse us. At least the racist populists of past centuries generally had the right villains in mind.

by **Rococo4** » Fri Sep 18, 2009 15:45:42

jeff2sf wrote:
Rococo4 wrote:
jeff2sf wrote:I should point out here, lest smoothie accuses me of being flip, that I'm sure the job loss was no fault of your own, that I know being unemployed sucks, and that I hope you get a job tomorrow.

i didnt take any offense to that. i actually probably am getting a job tomorrow.

I missed this, congratulations if it happens, let us know.

the job blows, i dont know if i want to do it

by **FTN** » Fri Sep 18, 2009 19:54:10

15 most corrupt members of Congress

by **jerseyhoya** » Fri Sep 18, 2009 19:59:12

A list that includes Mitch McConnell and doesn't include Chris Dodd is, um, questionable.

by **dajafi** » Sun Sep 20, 2009 11:58:37

Obama to Paterson: GET OUT

President Obama has sent a request to Gov. David A. Paterson that he withdraw from the New York governor’s race, fearing that Mr. Paterson cannot recover from his dismal political standing, according to two senior administration officials and a New York Democratic operative with direct knowledge of the situation.

The decision to ask Mr. Paterson to step aside was proposed by political advisers to Mr. Obama, but approved by the president himself, one of the administration officials said.

“Is there concern about the situation in New York? Absolutely,” the second administration official said Saturday evening. “Has that concern been conveyed to the governor? Yes.”
...
The move against a sitting Democratic governor represents an extraordinary intervention into a state political race by the president, and is a delicate one, given that Mr. Paterson is one of only two African-American governors in the nation.

But Mr. Obama’s political team and other party leaders have grown increasingly worried that the governor’s unpopularity could drag down Democratic members of Congress in New York, as well as the Democratic-controlled Legislature, in next fall’s election.

Mr. Paterson and his aides did not respond to repeated requests for comment Saturday. Mr. Paterson arrived on Long Island Saturday evening to attend a dinner, but walked hurriedly past a reporter who tried to ask him about the White House request.

I'll admit that I kind of love this. Paterson's accidental anyway (thanks again, Eliot), and he's been such an utter, ineffectual boob and is so unpopular among rank-and-file NY Democrats that the concerns you might otherwise expect about being big-footed by the national party really aren't valid. Add in that he's yet another legacy pol--his dad was a Harlem machine big shot decades ago--and we'll be well rid of him.

Were the choice between Paterson and Giuliani, I honestly have no idea how I'd vote. Much as I detest and fear him, I think Il Douche would do a better job in the governorship, and I'd kind of enjoy inflicting him on our bastard scumbag legislators. (Who says liberals never spite-vote?) But I'd prefer another option--even if it's Andrew Cuomo, of whom I'm also not particularly fond.

by **TenuredVulture** » Sun Sep 20, 2009 12:08:24

I don't think it's a great precedent however that a White House openly is urging a governor to withdraw from a race.

by **dajafi** » Sun Sep 20, 2009 12:17:51

TenuredVulture wrote:I don't think it's a great precedent however that a White House openly is urging a governor to withdraw from a race.

As a general rule, that's probably correct. But I think the Caroline Kennedy thing really, really pissed Obama off as did the misrepresentation about Gillibrand (mentioned in the full article--evidently Paterson had promised not to appoint her, then did so anyway). And part of what he needs to do IMO is put a little fear into his fellow Democrats. If this helps in that regard, AND rids us of the imbecilic Paterson, I'm all for it.

by **jerseyhoya** » Mon Sep 21, 2009 13:21:24

[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=B7qp9Tyd8v4&feature=player_profilepage[/youtube]

Can almost see where Corzine was going with this. Sort of.

I haven't watched much TV recently, so I don't know if they have a TV version of this, but I hope they do soon.

by **allentown** » Mon Sep 21, 2009 13:22:08

TenuredVulture wrote:I don't think it's a great precedent however that a White House openly is urging a governor to withdraw from a race.

Yes, this thing is usually done via the party chairman. Somebody in the party needs to forcefully tell sure losers who are losing through nonperformance in their jobs, corruption, etc. that the party is not going to back their vanity campaign into oblivion.

by **TenuredVulture** » Mon Sep 21, 2009 22:59:29

The whole Post Office Sucks but UPS and Fed Ex is awesome cracks me up--first of all, US Mail is cheaper for most things. And I recently had some stuff shipped from Barnes and Noble--some came via US Mail--I received it on Friday. The rest didn't come until monday. So, for faster, cheaper shipping, go with the government!

by **Rococo4** » Tue Sep 22, 2009 00:49:11

TenuredVulture wrote:The whole Post Office Sucks but UPS and Fed Ex is awesome cracks me up--first of all, US Mail is cheaper for most things. And I recently had some stuff shipped from Barnes and Noble--some came via US Mail--I received it on Friday. The rest didn't come until monday. So, for faster, cheaper shipping, go with the government!

the post office for the most part is impressive. seriously. it is amazing how they do it.

of course it is much easier to do when they dont have to be in the black.

by **Werthless** » Tue Sep 22, 2009 08:57:31

TenuredVulture wrote:The whole Post Office Sucks but UPS and Fed Ex is awesome cracks me up--first of all, US Mail is cheaper for most things. And I recently had some stuff shipped from Barnes and Noble--some came via US Mail--I received it on Friday. The rest didn't come until monday. So, for faster, cheaper shipping, go with the government!

The US post office will lose $7 billion this year. It's not a leaner organization. They just undercharge many of those actually using the service.

by **lethal** » Tue Sep 22, 2009 09:00:47

Werthless wrote:
TenuredVulture wrote:The whole Post Office Sucks but UPS and Fed Ex is awesome cracks me up--first of all, US Mail is cheaper for most things. And I recently had some stuff shipped from Barnes and Noble--some came via US Mail--I received it on Friday. The rest didn't come until monday. So, for faster, cheaper shipping, go with the government!

The US post office will lose $7 billion this year. It's not a leaner organization. They just undercharge many of those actually using the service.

They undercharge the bulk rate users (advertisers) and overcharge everyone else (us). I read an article about that at some point in the past 2 years, but I can't recall where.

by **drsmooth** » Tue Sep 22, 2009 09:01:25

Werthless wrote:The US post office will lose $7 billion this year. It's not a leaner organization. They just undercharge many of those actually using the service.

I wonder what kind of dent they would make in their deficit by dropping delivery of the "non-profit" political mail that clogs my post box; or the coupons, flyers, and catalogs. In my case, they could probably reduce deliveries to once per week, with room to spare.

by **Houshphandzadeh** » Tue Sep 22, 2009 09:03:15

Is there any sort of Do Not Mail list for dumb junk mail like the Do Not Call list? (That exists, right?)

by **drsmooth** » Tue Sep 22, 2009 09:13:54

services like public post embody the nexus of political/economic activity, and test the persuasive powers of those who like their ideological abstractions transferred to the world of living breathing people straight up & unsullied by inconvenient habits, customs, etc.

by **Bucky** » Tue Sep 22, 2009 09:17:12

Houshphandzadeh wrote:Is there any sort of Do Not Mail list for dumb junk mail like the Do Not Call list? (That exists, right?)

Yes, there is. I remember stumbling upon it shortly after being in the post office and hearing the clerk telling a customer "no, there's no way to control junk mail". It's online somewhere.....

Archived

Birthers, Deathers, and the Muddled Middle: POLITICS THREAD