He never even tried. He sold out to the South when it came to jury trials on the civil rights act of 1957, and courted the support of racist Southern Democrats on that basis. He was a genius for PR, though. He invited black entertainers to the White House when he got elected. Meanwhile, Lyndon Johnson, who got the work done, gets no credit. Oh... but John Kennedy was more handsome. The John Edwards of his time.

Democrats will be as much as saying that they’ve been wrong about the tax issue all these years and have just been punishing the rich, even at the expense of hurting the overall economy. And since the Democratic position on the economy depends on having tax money to spend, ceding the tax issue will mean largely surrendering on economics. Democrats will be left to fight it out on hot-button social issues, and to hope that Republicans save them by nominating the likes of Sharron Angle and Ken Buck. That’s an unenviable position.

It’s also radically unlikely that a two-year extension of the top bracket tax cuts will be allowed to expire when the time comes. Republicans’ numbers in the Senate are only going to increase in January, and probably again in 2012 and 2014, 2006 and 2008 having been big Democratic years. Why believe Democrats will accomplish from a weaker position in the future, what they can’t from a stronger position now? Plus, they will be left to argue incoherently that tax cuts for the rich were good then, but are bad now. That, or admit openly that they cut taxes for the rich simply out of weakness, even though they knew it was wrong. Democrats are in a world of hurt if they cave on taxes.

Thanks to the DUers who encouraged me to turn a (short) reply into an OP.

 
Loyal viewers of Democracy Now! with Amy Goodman are familiar with, and hopefully share, her love of weird indie music. For those who aren't regular viewers, or who just missed the show one day, here's a fine and very topical example.

Democrats will be as much as saying that they've been wrong about the tax issue all these years and have just been punishing the rich, even at the expense of hurting the overall economy. And since the Democratic position on the economy depends on taxes, ceding the tax issue will mean largely surrendering on economics. Democrats will be left to fight it out on hot-button social issues, and to hope that Republicans will save them by nominating the likes of Sharron Angle and Ken Buck. That's an unenviable position.

It's also radically unlikely that a two-, three-, or even five-year extension of the top bracket tax cuts will be allowed to expire when the time comes. Republicans' numbers in the Senate are only going to increase in 2012 and 2014, 2006 and 2008 having been big Democratic years. Why believe Democrats will accomplish from a weaker position in the future, what they can't from a stronger position now? Plus, they would be left to argue incoherently that tax cuts for the rich were good then, but are bad now. That, or say openly that they cut taxes for the rich simply out of weakness, even though they knew it was wrong. No, Democrats are in a world of hurt if they cave on taxes.

Rec +1 for a discussion worth having, though I strongly disagree with the view expressed.

Angela McGlowan, a Fox News contributor who left to compete in the GOP primary for Mississippi's First Congressional District and ended up getting crushed with just 15% of the vote, returns to the network.

http://is.gd/dWU12

Pat Buchanan would not have lasted as a White House press corps front-bencher. His odious remarks would have gotten him turfed out of that position. However, he is not a White House press corps front-bencher but a commentator, and a lot more is tolerated in that line of work. By contrast, if Helen Thomas had been been not a White House press corps front-bencher, but a mere tv commentator, I suspect she'd have skated by with a week's mandatory vacation, as Buchanan has after loathsome remarks.

The following statement is mistaken:



While the Democrats like new faces (JFK, McGovern, Carter, Dukakis, Clinton, Obama) the Republicans are royalists and dislike upstarts; they usually nominate the person with the most standing, often one who's run previously and lost, even if he's a charisma-free sure loser (like Dole or McCain in 2008): Nixon 1960 after eight years as vp, Nixon 1968 after having lost the general election in 1960, Reagan 1980 after having placed a close second in the 1976 primaries, Bush I after eight years as vp, Dole 1996 after placing second in the 1988 primaries, Bush II largely as a legacy, McCain 2008 after finishing second in the 2000 primaries. The combination of precedent plus acceptability to the GOP's big money interests suggests Romney.

Several months back Thompson said he'd been raking it in pretty well since leaving public office but still hadn't piled up as much money as he'd like. Returning to public office would curtail that, so I figured he and Pataki would most likely not run for Senate. Love these fake patriots who wibble and dribble about how America means everything to them and they'd do anything for America--well, except serve in public office and take the pay cut. That goes for Glenn Beck and Rush Limbaugh (who's candidly admitted it), too. These characters will wax poetic about the boys who sacrificed their lives in the first wave at Omaha Beach and Iwo Jima, but won't sacrifice mere pelf, themselves. Low-minded greedy scum, they are.

He should give up the faux-populist rhetoric and be a frank conservative Democrat. Better to be known as a conservative, than a conservative and a phony.

Democrats need to make 2010 a successful Senate election year because in 2012 and 2014, our many freshmen from 2006 and 2008 will be facing their first reelections. The 2010 Senate election is for us what 1982 and 1984 were for Republicans. They needed to do well in those cycles to increase their chances of holding the Senate in 1986 after having gained 12 seats in 1980, but gained only one* in 1982** and lost two in 1984 despite Reagan's landslide win, thus setting them up to lose their majority, as they did in 1986.

It's also relevant that in 1986, Republicans managed the weird feat of losing more Senate (8) than House (5) seats, including the defeat of seven incumbent freshman Republican senators. This was largely due to Senate Republicans having been stupid enough to pass a 1986 budget freeze that included freezing even Social Security! The House never even took it up, and Republican senators were left twisting slowly in the wind. The takeaway for Democrats here is the need not to take votes that swing constituencies will see as screwing them.

------------------------------------------
* Even that gain was largely illusory for Republicans because it depended on the replacement of retiring Democrat-turned-independent Harry F. Byrd, Jr., who remained in the Democratic caucus and retained his seniority despite voting a conservative line (shades of Joe Lieberman), by the Republican Paul Trible.

** No doubt the biggest Senate election of 1982 was in California, where one of the all-time mean Republican SOBs, Pete Wilson, defeated the outgoing Democratic governor, Jerry Brown.

Whether of his own volition, or because Congress clips his wings. It may even look better from their POV to have a Democratic president in office while they consolidate their control than be so brazen as to go hell for leather and install a Republican. That would set people's radar off, and they have good reason to try and operate below the radar to the extent possible.

I wouldn't be surprised if his personal popularity holds up. He's credible as president, not a maniac, reassuring after Bush, and has a basic humanity as evidenced by his response to Haiti. That's not to say people are impressed with his policy initiatives on controversial issues--few are. But I think his reelection chances are good even if people remain dissatisfied with the policies--congressional Democrats look like they're going to get thrashed in the midterms, especially if Democratic Senators continue meekly deferring to the 60-vote rule and deliver diddly-squat. At the same time, though, that could help Obama politically--he could run as a check on crazy Republicans in 2012--as Bill Clinton largely did in 1996.

Those who self-identify as progressive have strong ideological commitments, while there's a larger group of voters in the center, or who at least think they're in the center, who favor more public power to offset private greed, which has them in a rage. There's a distinct cognitive dissonance between their insistence that they hate socialism but love Medicare and Social Security and any such program that betters their lives and delivers them from the clutches of private capital. Democrats have a natural advantage with such voters, but we've largely frittered it away with things like NAFTA and a crony capitalist health care reform bill and PhRMA deal. These voters have less ideological commitment, and no matter how much we party-line Democrats stomp our feet and gnash our teeth, they are liable to sit on their hands on election day or fall for Republican pseudo-populist BS in a fit of cynicism, if we do not address their legitimate economic concerns in a way that's pleasing to them.

The business of lashing out at someone nearby, say, obstreperous progressives at DU, may give catharsis to some, but it serves no good purpose. If Democrats are losing progressives on the bread-and-butter issues, we're losing "moderates" in greater numbers.

All congressional Republicans have to do to turn out their base, which hates Democrats in general and Obama in particular, is say No to everything. They've been doing that. Meanwhile, our Senate Democrats have blandly and cravenly accepted that they "need" 60 votes to pass anything, and have been constantly watering down legislation to get to 60, and that naturally disenchants the Democratic base. You do the math. By my calculations, the answer is 1994.

 
For Obama to get his preferences is not as meaningful as, say, FDR or LBJ (whom she references), because Obama's preferences are an easier sell and relentlessly corporate-friendly, from Wall Street bailouts to a cosmetic credit card bill to health care, where Obama's crony capitalist preferences do not compare with the public, single-payer boldness of LBJ's Medicare. Even the Lilly Ledbetter Act is overrated: it continues to allow employers to treat women like shit provided they treat men like equal shit (now, EFCA would impress me, but that appears to be off the table). Obama's a couple inches to the left of the GOP, where FDR and LBJ were a good few yards. The way things are shaping up, it looks like the best we can hope for is for Obama to have a moderate conservative success rather in the mold of Bill Clinton and coast largely on personal popularity, the lunacy of the opposition, and hopefully a recovering economy--while cutting the legs out from under congressional Democrats by blurring differences with Republicans, as Bubba did.

I'll continue to look to Rachel for thorough reportage and smart analysis, whether or not I agree with her emphases--I sure as hell don't, here.