Progressives Need to Issue an Ultimatium to Obama

Post Reply New Topic

lol what do you want Obama to do? Rule like a dictator? Maybe you guys should move to Red China or Comrade Fidel's worker's paradise if you want "progressive" one party rule. I somehow think your guy's opinions might change when the republicans or god forbid the tea partiers taker over.

I want Obama to use strategic tactics effective presidents (i.e. LBJ and, from a purely "how much of his desired legislation he got past" perspective" Dubya) used. Repeat, repeat, and repeat your message while running ads in the districts of those who oppose your legislation.

Evidently, you've heard nothing of Drew Westen. Look him up and you'll see why the organized (to use the term very loosely) Left has failed at sloganeering.

Obama, for starters, should flood the airwaves with ads like these.

[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=plCkZ38ftlI&NR=1[/youtube]

Obama needs to use scare the American public in to submission?

While that was a LBJ campaign ad from everything I've learned about him he was a pragmatist and was more than willing to make a deal with his opponents. He was the ultimate politician.

*btw did you edit your video? i thought it was the daisy ad when i made my reply.

When Palin and promient Republicans ask for people to "reload" and label the President a "Maoist", the time is to fight back by point out their indiscretions. A Daisy style ad to give the Republicans a taste of their own medicine is perfectly in order.

[quot=""Jacoby"]While that was a LBJ campaign ad from everything I've learned about him he was a pragmatist and was more than willing to make a deal with his opponents. He was the ultimate politician.[/quote]

He was willing to fight for substainatially more significant measures than Obama has shown himself willing and could hone in a persistent and consistent progressive message.

1) Always quote the person you're responding to.
2) On secondary reflection I thought a more positive ad was in order, although Obama needs strong and perhaps even vicious counterattack ads to ensure the Republicans don't have a monopoly on spin. You don't win in politics by being a concessionary nice guy and Obama needs to learn that.

I think you can figure out who I'm talking to. I just don't like messing with the codes and whatnot. The whole breaking peoples arguments quote by quote aint my thing either.

But didn't LBJ give up on the great society because he wanted to expand the war in Vietnam? That's how I learned it. I agree though, Obama is no where near as talented of politician as Lyndon Johnson. Obama was just a do nothing senator who gave nice speeches. Unfortunately for us, politicians with experience that actually know how to govern are usually crooks.

I think the whole Palin "reload" comment was blown out of proportion. She obviously didn't mean it literally and I don't want to hear anything about "code". The left does plenty of mudslinging and fear mongering too. They just lost this debate. About 70 years ago.

The problem is that the Right, by far, is better at tearing down candidates - be it crybaby Beck's crusade against Van Jones or the smear mongering against Anita Dunn.

And telling a crowd that's been known to get passionate to the point of near violence to "Reload" while using a rifle scope as a graphic completely irresponsible.

America isn't looking for "rightwing" answers so much as it's looking for any drastic radical reformism. And that's the fault of the Democratic Party in this Depression - the failure to hone in a consistent and persistent message of progressive populism backed up through substanstive action. If the Democrats give the Right a monopoly on populism, I think Hedge's doomsday scenarios look a terrifyingly plausible.

[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fVolES3cJI4[/youtube]

You think Republicans would seek negotiation and compromise if they came into office with a 60-40 Senate majority, overwhelming dominance in the House, and a brutal landslide victory in the Presidential race? No, they would take that as a mandate from the masses to implement their policies, and tear through any Democratic opposition like a paper kite. In November 2008, the American electorate soundly rejected Republican rule in favor of the Democrats, indicating that the Democrats should implement the policies on which they campaigned. I'm not saying Obama should rule like a dictator; I'm saying he should lead and use the fully legal control his party has over the federal government to get stuff done.

The major problem being that since Obama failed to capitalize on this opportunity, the American electorate now sees progressivism as shallow or, worse, as coporate welfarist DLCism. Thanks to Obama's "concessionary personality" (as Nader termed it), there will likely be a backlash from the populist Right come the midterm elections (Tea Partisans will be elected in droves).

I read an article today (I think it was in Times or CNN) that suggested 2010 will not be as disastrous for the Democrats as 1994 was. After all, they don't have a "contract with America;" in fact, they're busy ripping each other to shreds over who is more right-wing and have no coherent alternative to propose. Even McCain is being challenged in his home state. Also, the Democrats did get health care passed, and public opinion is starting to warm up to the idea that insurance companies will not be able to rape you as easily. Clinton lost ground because his healthcare bill failed; Obama's passed (albeit in a very weak form) and this success will likely help the Democrats to maintain control of Congress.

Also, if the Democrats ever find a halfway-decent marketer to manage their campaigns, there is so much ammunition to draw from to use against the right in the past couple years. If the "liberal" media at some point starts reporting on obvious Republican hypocrisies, they'll get slaughtered at the polls.

In all honesty, there wasn't really any real way for the Republicans to oppose this bill until mid January when Scott Brown was elected to the senate which they just bent the rules to get around anyways. The problem Obama and the Democratic leadership faced was from their own party.

Do the republicans even support a issue as divisive as this? I can't think of any besides abortion which isn't a legislative issue anyways. I can't think of anything that had absolutely no bipartisan support at all, not even a token support from the other side. Combine that with American public being decidedly against this bill. It's pretty unprecedented

I think they'll probably keep control of the house too but I think the Dems could lose their majority in the senate tho. Deep blue states like California, Illinois, Wisconsin, etc are in play for the GOP. Massachusetts already got switched. Who'd of thought?

So long as lazy, vacation taking, contemptous non-campaigners like Martha Coakley aren't the Democratic candidates in those states I see no threat.