HomeLatest ThreadsGreatest ThreadsForums & GroupsMy SubscriptionsMy Posts
DU Home » Latest Threads » Forums & Groups » Retired » Retired Forums » 2016 Postmortem (Forum) » Debbie's debate disaster:...

Sat Sep 26, 2015, 04:11 PM

Debbie's debate disaster: we're letting Trump win

http://thefloridasqueeze.com/2015/09/26/debbies-debate-disaster-were-letting-trump-win/





Debbie's debate disaster: we're letting Trump win
by nashville_brook | Brook Hines - The Florida Squeeze

http://thefloridasqueeze.com/2015/09/26/debbies-debate-disaster-were-letting-trump-win/

There’s a conversation I’m having with my husband that goes like this. He’ll say, “There’s no way Donald Trump will ever get elected.” I roll my eyes. He continues: “He’s going to destroy the Republican brand. He’s not a threat, and in the end he’ll help the Democrats.” Then, as my youth flashes before me, I’ll say, “Yeah, but — Reagan.”

At this point, we look at each other and say, “you don’t even have to go back that far.” George W was elected — twice, if you count 2000, which I don’t.

The American electorate is quite capable of electing someone like Donald Trump. We’ve seen the White House occupied by dumb, mean, loud and dangerous types for most of our lives. There's no magical force is keeping us safe from the know-nothings.

What’s so infuriating about Trump, is that regardless of his chances of winning, he’s getting traction with a segment of voters that should be ours. These folks are attracted to Trump because he talks about the tax code and how he'll address wealth inequality.

These voters imagine that a predator CEO will govern on their side. That's a leap of reason the Dems should be able to counter in robust, empowering tones. Imagine if we had matched both their debates to enlarge this narrative and start a national discussion around wages and tax fairness, to push back on attacks on Planned Parenthood, and let scientists compare our positions on climate. We might have reaped the benefits of an American public who could see the Democratic brand shine, while the Republicans make asses of themselves.

Instead, the American public senses we have something to hide.

That's why I was glad this week when the Democratic Progressive Caucus of Florida called for Debbie Wasserman Schultz and the DNC to expand the presidential primary debate schedule. "Chair Wasserman Schultz not only made the decision to limit debate among our candidates, she scheduled the debates during weekends and holidays when television viewership is known to be low," said DPCF President Susan Smith in a statement. "What was she thinking?"



Of course, many people believe they know what Debbie Wasserman Schultz is thinking, which is that the party has its thumb on the scales for Hillary Clinton. She's not a graceful debater. Her style is that of a corporate lawyer whose instinct is to set up the prey, and then go in for the kill. She seeks to delegitimize and disqualify her opponents. In 2008 she suggested that Obama smoked weed, and that he might be a Muslim (you'll have to ask him). How will this approach look on stage in 2016? 

We’ve already seen some ideas road tested on Sanders, with Clinton surrogates using his ideological roots as a movement progressive and democratic socialist, as well as his Jewish faith as a disqualifications (see the old canard of the dual-loyalty Jew). Diane Rehm of NPR fell for this, saying she had his name "on a list." These are ugly rhetorical strategies that divide the party and make enemies of those who she'll presumably need to win back after the Primaries are over.

Regardless of Wasserman Schultz' motives, though, back-benching the entire Democratic party during the Primaries for any reason is a scorched-earth strategy that hurts everyone.

Limiting debates makes Clinton appear afraid to debate Sanders. It also makes the DNC and party establishment appear unwilling to provide all Democrats an equal stage to be heard with the DNC’s favored nominee which, we'll recall, they’re not supposed to have. Rank-and-file Democrats see this lack of equity with their own two eyes, and it’s hurting the candidate it’s meant to help.

In the current environment it becomes necessary to avoid the appearance of being an “insider.” That’s why Hillary gave herself a makeover on Face The Nation last weekend, when she claimed that she was the real outsider in the race.


"...and I'm an outsider, and I'm Rosicrucian, and I only have one leg..."

It's an understandable tactic. Right now the American public wants an outsider so bad they’re willing to take it in the form of a mugging Donald Trump, who Frank Rich astutely points out, casually ripped the mask off the Clinton Foundation’s wink-wink/nudge-nudge quid pro quo, by claiming his donations obligated Hillary to come to his wedding.

As Secretary of State, First Lady, and the recipient of massive amounts of PAC money, Hillary is without question an apex insider; the top of the pyramid. What sets her and Trump apart with regard to outsider status is that she takes PAC money and he self-funds. Trump is making the case that that cozy relationships among the monied elite amounts to bribery no matter how you slice it, and the American public is nodding, “Yeah. We know.”

On a deeper level, I think there’s another issue driving the DNC’s bizarre stinginess with debates in this cycle. In 2008 all the candidates sang the same neoliberal tune. But this field of candidates features a real contender who questions the entire neoliberal political frame. Sanders stakes his political brand on being a movement progressive rather than an establishment neoliberal, and backs it up by shunning PAC money.

Sanders is not just a threat to Clinton, but a threat to the entire current approach of the Democratic Party. He's even questioning what what it means to be governed, and how involved we need to be in order to see the change we demand. 'We have to fight for these things together,' is a standard Bernie stump theme, and he makes a convincing case that a national coalition he develops won't eventually be veal-penned.

In an email sent out yesterday Sanders quoted the Pope, whose own anti-establishment leanings have been the hallmark of his papacy:
 “If politics must truly be at the service of the human person, it follows that it cannot be a slave to the economy and finance.”

This is just the opposite of the kind quid pro quo, establishment neoliberalism from which Clinton draws her power.  Many in the Hillary camp are likely contemplating the uphill battle they face trying to sell her DLC, Third Way, New Democrats style of politics in the new environment of the “disruptive electorate” that’s full of pissed off independent voters not beholden to either party.

Meanwhile, there’s a chance that if the Democrats get anyone to tune in to their debates, Bernie Sanders could become the anti-Trump. I think this is what keeps Wasserman Schultz awake at night. If she were truly concerned with countering the Republican narrative, she’d make sure Democratic candidates had equal, prime time with Republicans rather than competing with weekend sports or holiday family gatherings. But as it stands, the American public will see about twice as much of the Republicans than the Democrats before voting. This is not to the party’s advantage.

It's frustrating because the Democrats have a clear opportunity to make hay of a shockingly weak Republican field. But to do so we must present a credible counter-narrative. A return to the NAFTA, dot-com bubble, Glass-Steagall-repealing politics of the 90s will be a hard sell in the present environment. If Clinton does get the nomination, she'll likely need more than a few whacks at it to get her feet under her. So even if we believe that Clinton is our only hope for the general election in 2016, we still need more than a handful of debates on weekends and holidays.

Since 2008 many voters have seen the American Dream completely evaporate. We need real solutions, and real fighters who aren’t afraid to stand in front of us and compete for our votes at least as hard as the Republicans are competing. To do any less is bad strategy, bad faith, and we have to be mindful of how hubris could very easily hand the general election over the other side.

71 replies, 5099 views

Reply to this thread

Back to top Alert abuse

Always highlight: 10 newest replies | Replies posted after I mark a forum
Replies to this discussion thread
Arrow 71 replies Author Time Post
Reply Debbie's debate disaster: we're letting Trump win (Original post)
nashville_brook Sep 2015 OP
DirkGently Sep 2015 #1
nashville_brook Sep 2015 #2
hifiguy Sep 2015 #5
840high Sep 2015 #19
nashville_brook Sep 2015 #20
hifiguy Sep 2015 #33
Hortensis Sep 2015 #53
DirkGently Sep 2015 #66
nashville_brook Sep 2015 #70
roguevalley Sep 2015 #17
nashville_brook Sep 2015 #40
Vinca Sep 2015 #3
artislife Sep 2015 #11
Vinca Sep 2015 #52
artislife Sep 2015 #56
hifiguy Sep 2015 #4
world wide wally Sep 2015 #6
nashville_brook Sep 2015 #9
m-lekktor Sep 2015 #12
Tommymac Sep 2015 #16
nashville_brook Sep 2015 #22
SmittynMo Sep 2015 #7
RufusTFirefly Sep 2015 #8
nashville_brook Sep 2015 #58
bluestateguy Sep 2015 #10
nashville_brook Sep 2015 #14
DirkGently Sep 2015 #21
nashville_brook Sep 2015 #23
SoapBox Sep 2015 #13
nashville_brook Sep 2015 #15
hifiguy Sep 2015 #36
nashville_brook Sep 2015 #38
Art_from_Ark Sep 2015 #39
nashville_brook Sep 2015 #41
Enthusiast Sep 2015 #60
nashville_brook Sep 2015 #67
Enthusiast Sep 2015 #71
Uncle Joe Sep 2015 #18
SheilaT Sep 2015 #24
nashville_brook Sep 2015 #25
SheilaT Sep 2015 #27
nashville_brook Sep 2015 #31
hifiguy Sep 2015 #34
nashville_brook Sep 2015 #37
Alittleliberal Sep 2015 #50
nashville_brook Sep 2015 #57
DirkGently Sep 2015 #59
SheilaT Sep 2015 #63
DirkGently Sep 2015 #64
nashville_brook Sep 2015 #68
jberryhill Sep 2015 #42
leftofcool Sep 2015 #48
nashville_brook Sep 2015 #69
nashville_brook Sep 2015 #65
restorefreedom Sep 2015 #26
SheilaT Sep 2015 #28
restorefreedom Sep 2015 #30
nashville_brook Sep 2015 #32
hifiguy Sep 2015 #35
nashville_brook Sep 2015 #29
HooptieWagon Sep 2015 #43
nashville_brook Sep 2015 #47
Garrett78 Sep 2015 #44
snot Sep 2015 #45
nashville_brook Sep 2015 #46
DonCoquixote Sep 2015 #49
nashville_brook Sep 2015 #55
DisgustipatedinCA Sep 2015 #51
nashville_brook Sep 2015 #54
Enthusiast Sep 2015 #61
nashville_brook Sep 2015 #62

Response to nashville_brook (Original post)

Sat Sep 26, 2015, 04:27 PM

1. We're being drowned out.


While everyone is trying to decide who the least-worst Republican is, we offer no contrast, because "we" are laying low.

Why?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to DirkGently (Reply #1)

Sat Sep 26, 2015, 04:33 PM

2. i think there's those in the establishment who'd rather not talk about wealth inequality

Last edited Sat Sep 26, 2015, 07:28 PM - Edit history (1)

i think that we might be underestimating the trouble sanders conjures up for the party, simply as a matter of ideology.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to nashville_brook (Reply #2)

Sat Sep 26, 2015, 04:41 PM

5. One of the main reasons they are scared shitless about Bernie

 

is that he will derail the corporate gravy train the CorpoDems have all been riding for 20+ years and tear up the tracks for good.

Bender "speaks" here for the Turd Way

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to hifiguy (Reply #5)

Sat Sep 26, 2015, 06:58 PM

19. ....x10+

 

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to hifiguy (Reply #5)

Sat Sep 26, 2015, 07:07 PM

20. I can't not hear....

Last edited Sat Sep 26, 2015, 08:38 PM - Edit history (1)

"Bender "speaks" here for the Turd Way," in Bender's voice.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to nashville_brook (Reply #20)

Sat Sep 26, 2015, 08:23 PM

33. Bender will speak for whoever pays him the most.

 

He never tries to hide the fact.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to hifiguy (Reply #33)

Sun Sep 27, 2015, 06:48 AM

53. "We're letting Trump win?" LOL. Get a grip.

Really. We'd LOVE to run any of our candidates against him, but it's not going to happen.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to hifiguy (Reply #5)

Sun Sep 27, 2015, 01:47 PM

66. Bricks of justice


...from a shiny metal behind!

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to DirkGently (Reply #66)

Sun Sep 27, 2015, 02:11 PM

70. ...

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to nashville_brook (Reply #2)

Sat Sep 26, 2015, 06:36 PM

17. these people are probably going to get cabinet positions if she wins. They all make

me sick.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to roguevalley (Reply #17)

Sat Sep 26, 2015, 09:17 PM

40. i can't imagine that larry summers wouldn't be an economic advisor,

or someone with his ideological DNA

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to nashville_brook (Original post)

Sat Sep 26, 2015, 04:35 PM

3. The longer they can keep Bernie under wraps, the better for Hillary.

Or so they think. We might well wake up to a President Trump.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Vinca (Reply #3)

Sat Sep 26, 2015, 06:08 PM

11. Or Forina.

 

If she leads their side, then a lot of what makes H unique will be gone.

I remember in 2008, I did back office computer work for a fundy woman. She was nice enough and she had been a flower child kind of woman before getting born again and ---well--- restricted. She mentioned Hillary and with a bit a sadness said she would like to see a woman president in her lifetime. She is one that may have crossed over to vote for her.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to artislife (Reply #11)

Sun Sep 27, 2015, 06:32 AM

52. I'm not all that concerned about Fiorina, especially as the "woman president" thing goes.

She has a bona fide nightmare of a business history. Have you seen the commercial Barbara Boxer ran during the Senate race against Carly? It was devastating.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Vinca (Reply #52)

Sun Sep 27, 2015, 09:56 AM

56. I remember reading about her and HP

 

Don't have a tv so I don't get to see a lot of commercials. Which keeps me sane, probably.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to nashville_brook (Original post)

Sat Sep 26, 2015, 04:37 PM

4. Il Douche will implode.

 

But not for a while.

DWS should be gone a year ago. She stumps for her repig buddies. I can't decide whether she's working solely for HRH or for HRH AND the Repigs. She's more useless than a submarine with screen doors.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to nashville_brook (Original post)

Sat Sep 26, 2015, 05:25 PM

6. Apparently, DWS has one of those Cush jobs where she is accountable to no one.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to world wide wally (Reply #6)

Sat Sep 26, 2015, 05:58 PM

9. accountability is lacking for sure

i know that some think the party is a joke and deserves to stay that way, but i see that a loss of resources that we don't have the luxury of squandering. it's not only infuriating that our leadership is allowed to get away with this - it delegitimizes the Democratic brand which hurts Dems everywhere.

DWS really needs to be held to account on this.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to world wide wally (Reply #6)

Sat Sep 26, 2015, 06:11 PM

12. OR who she is accountable to is fine with it all! nt

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to world wide wally (Reply #6)

Sat Sep 26, 2015, 06:26 PM

16. Like a County Clerk? nt

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Tommymac (Reply #16)

Sat Sep 26, 2015, 07:16 PM

22. shazam.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to nashville_brook (Original post)

Sat Sep 26, 2015, 05:37 PM

7. She needs to pull a Boehner.

I wish she would.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to nashville_brook (Original post)

Sat Sep 26, 2015, 05:39 PM

8. Perhaps this was the plan all along? If so, it's a dangerous gambit.

I've got news for you, folks: Although Trump's part of the One Percent, there's no way that the Powers that Be are going to let him in the White House. He's too much of a loose cannon. Besides, the folks at Citi, Goldman Sachs, and Morgan Stanley have already put their money where their mouth is, and they're delighted that a Trump candidacy will scare folks into voting against him and for their candidate instead. Suddenly corporate Democrats and corporate Republicans will be joining together as one, assisted by progressives who have long ago learned how to hold their noses and vote at the same time. As America heaves a collective sigh of relief, having dodged a Donald Trump bullet, the corporate cash registers will be ringing. Unfortunately, what they didn't bank on is Bernie, who could ruin their well-financed plans.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to RufusTFirefly (Reply #8)

Sun Sep 27, 2015, 11:00 AM

58. +1000

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to nashville_brook (Original post)

Sat Sep 26, 2015, 06:01 PM

10. Just remember this

It is always the candidate who is behind who stamps their feet for more and more (upon more) debates.

If the tables were turned I'm sure the candidates positions would be reversed accordingly.

In fact, in 2008 it was Hillary who demanded more debates when her nomination started slipping away and she fell behind Obama.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to bluestateguy (Reply #10)

Sat Sep 26, 2015, 06:16 PM

14. that actually doesn't apply here b/c it's the whole Dem brand vs the GOP

that's at issue, rather than the horse race between candidates.

that will likely become an issue (dem candidates seeking differentiation between themselves) in 2016, and people realize they haven't seen enough of the candidates.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to bluestateguy (Reply #10)

Sat Sep 26, 2015, 07:10 PM

21. Debates benefit everyone.


The process is supposed to be about comparing views and having a discussion about policy and how we can do things better.

Therefore frontrunners trying to minimize the discussion is the cynical tactic here, not the other way 'round.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to DirkGently (Reply #21)

Sat Sep 26, 2015, 07:27 PM

23. yeah! that too...

the "thumb on the scales" thing is the party acting on behalf of the perceived front-runner. it's not inconceivable that the Hillary campaign would be pushing this strategy. i'm sure it's all in a day's work. but it's highly cynical, and exactly what is turning off so many people to the democratic process.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to nashville_brook (Original post)

Sat Sep 26, 2015, 06:14 PM

13. Schwarzenegger....

There ya go...in one word...WORST Govenor in California...ever.

And the majority of those that actually voted (which was as usual, a low amount) put that shithead into office, thinking it would be "funny" with Ahnold in Sacramento...it was anything but funny.

So...anyone that thinks Rump is a joke and can't win...

Get Out The Vote!

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to SoapBox (Reply #13)

Sat Sep 26, 2015, 06:18 PM

15. I'll go you one better...

Jesse Ventura, Minnesota Governor from 1999 to 2003


Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to nashville_brook (Reply #15)

Sat Sep 26, 2015, 08:32 PM

36. That was a three-way race,

 

so all Jesse had to do was win a plurality, which he did. The Democrat was the earnest but dull Skip Humphrey and the Repig was Smarmy Norm Coleman. He didn't beat titans.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to hifiguy (Reply #36)

Sat Sep 26, 2015, 08:47 PM

38. Trump could run indie

that little pledge he signed will only serve to give him a bigger bump in media coverage if he decides to run as a third party.



Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to nashville_brook (Reply #15)

Sat Sep 26, 2015, 09:11 PM

39. I'll go you one better

Ronald Reagan, California governor, 1967-75

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Art_from_Ark (Reply #39)

Sat Sep 26, 2015, 09:26 PM

41. the Reign of Error.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to nashville_brook (Reply #41)

Sun Sep 27, 2015, 11:49 AM

60. ^^^^This!^^^^

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Enthusiast (Reply #60)

Sun Sep 27, 2015, 01:50 PM

67. this

i nearly memorized this book

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to nashville_brook (Reply #67)

Sun Sep 27, 2015, 08:23 PM

71. I shall check that one out!

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to nashville_brook (Original post)

Sat Sep 26, 2015, 06:46 PM

18. Kicked and recommended.

Thanks for the thread, nashville_brook.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to nashville_brook (Original post)

Sat Sep 26, 2015, 07:27 PM

24. Does anyone REALLY think

 

that just because we aren't having a zillion debates very early on, that voters will totally forget there's a Democratic Party?

No matter who the two nominees end up being, there will undoubtedly be debates between those two, and unless we wind up nominating a gerbil and they go for a Jesuit priest, our nominee will most likely dominate the debates. Really.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to SheilaT (Reply #24)

Sat Sep 26, 2015, 07:37 PM

25. to allow the Rs a combined primetime audience of 50 million viewers +

domination of the airways in pre- and post-debate analysis, along with all the Republican framing...this does incredible harm. imagine if you had to buy that media.


what's worse is it allows the normalization of the Republican world-view, where the ongoing discussion occurs in GOP-approved language and sensibilities. so, our national discussion is not about providing safe healthcare access for women, it's about how soon to close down Planned Parenthood. it's not about how to expand Social Security, it's about how "save the program from insolvency" which is Republican nonsense.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to nashville_brook (Reply #25)

Sat Sep 26, 2015, 07:39 PM

27. So you're telling me that you

 

essentially think people are pretty dumb. And that "out of sight, out of mind" will influence the final outcome of the election?

I don't happen to agree.

Of course, my view on this topic is largely shaped by the fact that I don't own a TV and so don't watch things like debates. Least of all clown debates.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to SheilaT (Reply #27)

Sat Sep 26, 2015, 08:10 PM

31. people don't have to be stupid -- they just have different frames they use

like you say, i don't watch TV either. I have big stretches of pop-culture ignorance b/c i didn't watch TV or see movies for most of the time i was in college, starting my first businesses and getting on in life. still, now i only watch what i'm utterly required to watch. and even then i'm distracted with work, email, and all sorts of intrusions from my other electronic devices.

but i think it's a mistake to believe that all people who are getting turned on to Trump do so out of stupidity. they probably believe they have solid, intelligent reasons for their beliefs. Same way "reagan democrats" thought they had some kind of reasonable excuse.

In trying to make sense of this I've found this book pretty helpful.

http://www.amazon.com/Invisible-Bridge-Fall-Nixon-Reagan-ebook/dp/B00HXGD5CE/ref=tmm_kin_swatch_0?_encoding=UTF8&qid=&sr=




(here's a review from the New Yorker)

http://www.newyorker.com/magazine/2014/08/11/uses-division

The Uses of Division

Anyone old enough to have lived through the nineteen-seventies knew them as a long and often embarrassing anticlimax—a shapeless, burned-out interregnum between the high dramas of the sixties and the bright, hard edges of the Reagan era. Unlike the decades that preceded and followed, the seventies seemed to have no plot: a mishmash of musical styles and fads, a blur of failed Presidents, a series of international fiascoes, a mood of cynicism and farce. Preparing for a thoroughly ironic fin de decade party, Zonker Harris, of “Doonesbury,” raised his mug: “To a kidney stone of a decade!” “Try to retrieve the seventies and memories crumble in one’s hand,” the critic Irving Howe wrote in his autobiography. “The decade itself lacks a distinctive historical flavor. It’s as if the years had simply dropped out of one’s life and all that remains are bits and pieces of recollection.” In my memory, the seventies began in an atmosphere of antic nihilism—Mad, “ratfucking,” Richard Pryor—and ended on the downer of “malaise” and the hostage crisis. I mainly remember longing to be somewhere else—it didn’t matter whether it was the future or the past. (Admittedly, I was a teen-ager.) If there was any theme to that decade, it was the lack of a theme, of any higher meaning to events.

(snip)

In other words, the seventies were important because of what’s happened since. At the time, Americans weren’t conscious of a great shift, pivot, or crisis. The nature of historical writing, of memory itself, is to distort by selecting and compressing events, making the past seem more dramatic and coherent than it ever was, but this is especially true of accounts of the seventies. Back then, only true believers saw those years as the final way station on the conservative movement’s path to victory. In histories of the seventies, that destination now seems to have been obvious all along—maybe even inevitable. Narrative history, in bringing the past to life, asks us only to forget about the other turns we might have made.


Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to nashville_brook (Reply #31)

Sat Sep 26, 2015, 08:29 PM

34. A great book.

 

All three of Perlstein's books, Before The Storm, Nixonland, and this one, are required reading for understanding the last 50 years.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to hifiguy (Reply #34)

Sat Sep 26, 2015, 08:43 PM

37. every time i hear him give an interview i think how hard it must have been

to immerse himself in that material for so long. at some point it has to weigh on your soul.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to SheilaT (Reply #27)

Sat Sep 26, 2015, 11:45 PM

50. Yes the capacity for human stupidity is enormous.

We see this over and over. Most people in the country don't even vote. Most of those who do have no idea what's going on. They either don't have enough time or they don't care enough to pay close enough attention to things. We elected Shrub because people thought he would be fun to drink a beer with.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Alittleliberal (Reply #50)

Sun Sep 27, 2015, 10:04 AM

57. i can't blame the person "on the street" that much b/c the system is manipulated

to make it as difficult as possible to vote.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to SheilaT (Reply #27)

Sun Sep 27, 2015, 11:04 AM

59. Smart people don't watch debates?


Think you have that backwards.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to DirkGently (Reply #59)

Sun Sep 27, 2015, 12:10 PM

63. But whether it's smart or dumb people who are mostly watching debates,

 

I just think the hysteria here over the Dems not having a whole lot of debates already is misguided. And silly.

No one is going to totally forget about the Democratic Party while the Republicans bloviate. Neither party has had the first primary or caucus yet, either. In fact, we may be much better off with a more limited debate schedule, because our people are going to come across as absolute paragons of sensibility when they take to the stage.

And then there will be the real campaign, after the nominees are decided on, and probably debates then. People, dumb or smart, will watch those debates -- even I might be bothered to watch -- and depending on exactly who the nominees, things will shake out then. There is a lot of disagreement here as to who will make the best nominee, but most of the Republican choice are bad and worse. So please everyone, stop fretting. We haven't lost the election just because we haven't had debates already.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to SheilaT (Reply #63)

Sun Sep 27, 2015, 01:00 PM

64. We had 25 primary debates in 2008.

The majority were "unsanctioned." But what's interesting about just this year is that the DNC is also threatening to bar anyone who participates in unsanctioned debates from from the sanctioned ones.

As far as silliness and "hysteria" goes, I'd say being so scared of debates as to threaten people for even participating in them ranks a bit higher than objecting to this drastic, unexplained reversal of Democratic practices.

“Left unchecked, the superior RNC schedule could easily reach 50 to 100 million more eyeballs than the current Democratic schedule — meaning tens if not hundreds of millions of dollars of lost opportunities to persuade, engage and excite the audiences all Democrats will need to win in 2016,” argues Dem strategist Simon Rosenberg.

(SNIP)

UPDATE: It’s worth noting that while the six DNC-sanctioned debates this time is in keeping with precedent, in 2008 there were far more debates that were not sanctioned by the DNC. This time, the DNC has also instituted an “exclusivity” clause: If a candidate participates in a non-DNC-sanctioned debate, he or she is theoretically forbidden from participating in DNC-sanctioned ones, making it a lot less likely that non-sanctioned ones will take place.



https://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/plum-line/wp/2015/09/21/how-democrats-got-bogged-down-in-a-messy-dispute-over-debates/

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to DirkGently (Reply #64)

Sun Sep 27, 2015, 01:55 PM

68. this hits state parties particularly hard -- those 25 debates, they were spread out

among state parties so that programming, fundraising, engagement and mobilization could all happen at the same time. limiting debates gives even more power to these early states that aren't representative of modern, urban America.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to SheilaT (Reply #24)

Sat Sep 26, 2015, 09:31 PM

42. The handwringing is way overblown

The Republicans are doing their usual thing. Trump is already slipping. They are going to rotate the nut of the month until everyone is fed up with all of them.

Internecine backbiting hurts a party's impression more than trotting out a quiz show every couple of weeks more than a year before the election.

Plus, the House GOP is getting ready to shit the bed again.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to jberryhill (Reply #42)

Sat Sep 26, 2015, 10:21 PM

48. 'Nut of the month" That is a good one. Reminds me of Herman Caine.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to leftofcool (Reply #48)

Sun Sep 27, 2015, 01:57 PM

69. Reminds me of George W.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to jberryhill (Reply #42)

Sun Sep 27, 2015, 01:47 PM

65. the hubris is what will seem the most tragic in hindsight.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to nashville_brook (Original post)

Sat Sep 26, 2015, 07:37 PM

26. dws and her ilk

would much rather see a pres trump/rubio/anyone rather than a pres sanders

their first choice might be hillary

but lets face it.... their second is not bernie or om it is an R

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to restorefreedom (Reply #26)

Sat Sep 26, 2015, 07:40 PM

28. No. There is no version of reality in which

 

they would rather a Republican President.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to SheilaT (Reply #28)

Sat Sep 26, 2015, 07:51 PM

30. i disagree

bernie is a much bigger threat to the status quo than any repub.


Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to restorefreedom (Reply #30)

Sat Sep 26, 2015, 08:13 PM

32. +10000000

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to SheilaT (Reply #28)

Sat Sep 26, 2015, 08:30 PM

35. DWS has actually campaigned for her Repuke friends in the House.

 

She is despicable.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to restorefreedom (Reply #26)

Sat Sep 26, 2015, 07:42 PM

29. that's an interesting idea...

i imagine there's plenty of people who work in Dem politics professionally who would benefit more from a Republican administration, than from a Dem who intends to shake things up.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to nashville_brook (Reply #29)

Sat Sep 26, 2015, 09:32 PM

43. It keeps the gravy train flowing.

 

If the democrats (small d) take the Democratic Party back from the corporatists, the corporations will pull the plug. What good is the DLC to Wall St if they can't even rule over the Party?
If Bernie is elected, he'll appoint a DNC chair willing to rebuild the Party around people, and who'll back progressive candidates wherever possible. That scares the crap out of the corporatist wing of the Party.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to HooptieWagon (Reply #43)

Sat Sep 26, 2015, 09:50 PM

47. it stretches up and down the food chain, too

from partisan political consultancies to labor-funded C-3s and other social justice orgs that are accustomed to playing in a certain political environment. change simply changes things.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to nashville_brook (Original post)

Sat Sep 26, 2015, 09:40 PM

44. Trump vs. Reagan and Bush

Reagan and Bush were both governors--of very large states, no less. Reagan was a skilled orator, and even Bush was much better than Trump at articulating policy positions. Trump is a bombastic bigot, a caricature, incapable of articulating a substantive policy position. The couple of comprehensible and sensible things he's said (like raising taxes on hedge fund managers, opposition to free trade agreements) won't endear him to the moneyed interests. The RNC will find a way to ensure he doesn't get nominated.

Count me among those who say Trump has zero chance of being nominated, much less elected POTUS. And the same goes for Sanders.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to nashville_brook (Original post)

Sat Sep 26, 2015, 09:42 PM

45. K&R'd. Frustrating and pathetic.

I also get the impression that the Dem p.t.b. are working hard in the background to muster additional Dem candidates – both so as to have another, more controllable fallback if Clinton keeps losing ground to Sanders, and also so that, to the extent debates are unavoidable, Sanders doesn't get too much air time.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to snot (Reply #45)

Sat Sep 26, 2015, 09:48 PM

46. it feels like that's what the Biden talk is about.

Biden come close to Bernie's likability numbers, so that makes a kind of sense. right now the field is pathetically narrow.

i think the addition of a candidate or two would also provide political cover to add debates without seeming like anyone is "changing course."

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to nashville_brook (Original post)

Sat Sep 26, 2015, 11:19 PM

49. The tragedy is

even if Debbie crashes the Titanic dead on into the Iceberg, it will NOT hurt her. Hillary can be left doing a talk show circuit, and she will be dealing with her "friends" like Marco and Jeb. She will still hamstring any liberals in Florida, which means my sad state will lean right.

and the people that enable it are the people trying to make sure any criticism of Hillary is counted as heresy, as if they were a bunch of Maoist Red Guards.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to DonCoquixote (Reply #49)

Sun Sep 27, 2015, 09:07 AM

55. i'm in FL too

things can change quickly -- right now, you've summed up precisely where we are. i *hope* things can improve, but i don't believe that change will come from within the party structure without a lot of agitation.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to nashville_brook (Original post)

Sun Sep 27, 2015, 12:21 AM

51. Wasserman Schultz is a corrupt liar who plays with lives for political gain.

 

http://www.politico.com/story/2015/02/debbie-wasserman-schultz-medical-marijuana-115338

Democratic National Committee Chair Debbie Wasserman Schultz’s office offered to change her position on medical marijuana if a major Florida donor recanted his withering criticism of her, according to emails obtained by POLITICO.
The proposal to Orlando trial lawyer John Morgan was straightforward: retract critical statements he made to a reporter in return for Wasserman Schultz publicly backing his cannabis initiative that she had trashed just months earlier. Morgan declined the offer with a sharp email reply sent to a go-between, who described the congresswoman as being in a “tizzy.”

“No,” Morgan responded. “She is a bully. I beat bullies up for a living.”

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to DisgustipatedinCA (Reply #51)

Sun Sep 27, 2015, 08:35 AM

54. private prison $$ -- she opposes MMJ b/c private prisons support her

in my opinion, it's the most corrupt form of bribery in existence.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to nashville_brook (Original post)

Sun Sep 27, 2015, 11:51 AM

61. Kicked and recommended!

Way to go, nashville_brook!

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Enthusiast (Reply #61)

Sun Sep 27, 2015, 12:00 PM

62. thanks -- needs to be said. :)

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink

Reply to this thread