revelette1
 
  1  
Reply Fri 10 May, 2019 09:16 am
@blatham,
One of the perks we have getting older. Don't worry, the other is wisdom. lol.
RABEL222
 
  1  
Reply Sat 11 May, 2019 12:43 pm
@revelette1,
It don't feel like I'm getting smarter.
Lash
 
  -1  
Reply Sat 11 May, 2019 12:52 pm
@RABEL222,
That’s the way it looks from over here, too.
RABEL222
 
  2  
Reply Sat 11 May, 2019 08:00 pm
@Lash,
But I am much smarter than you.
0 Replies
 
Lash
 
  1  
Reply Sun 12 May, 2019 07:49 am
Conservative Joe and his conservative adherents
https://www.truthdig.com/articles/joe-biden-doesnt-deserve-your-nostalgia/
If there is one thing we can take away from the first two weeks of Joe Biden’s 2020 presidential campaign, it’s that the former vice president is feeling nostalgic. Uncle Joe is longing for the good old days, before President Trump happened and before the Republican Party went completely off the rails. The days when Democrats and Republicans could be friends, when compromise wasn’t a dirty word, and when civility prevailed. The days when the center held strong, and pragmatic statesmen like him and his friend Dick Cheney could cut deals behind closed doors. The days, in other words, when things were normal.

As some have already pointed out, Biden is essentially running a backward-looking campaign of restoration based on Democratic nostalgia for the Obama years, which in itself will get him a long way in the polls (at least in the Democratic primaries). But it is also clear that Biden’s nostalgia goes much further back than the heyday of the Obama administration.

The former VP embodies a kind of baby boomer nostalgia for the era during which what is now called neoliberalism prevailed. That period started around the time Biden was elected to the Senate as a young man in 1972 (technically, Biden is a few years too old to qualify as a boomer, but he fits right in with that generation). That he harbors a certain romantic longing for the days of old, when the best and the brightest acted like adults and bipartisan centrism was the only game in town, is all one really needs to know about Biden in order to get an idea of how he will govern if elected president. Those who thought Barack Obama was too much of a centrist will miss him once Biden becomes president.

According to Biden’s own rhetoric, once he is elected, all will basically return to normal and, after a period of healing, the country will continue on its previous course. “Limit [Trump’s presidency] to four years,” he recently said in Iowa, and “history will treat this administration’s time as an aberration.” For good measure, Biden went on to defend Republicans from their own president (which they seem unwilling to do themselves): “This is not the Republican Party,” he remarked, before pointing to his “Republican friends” in Congress.

It is hard to imagine that the man who served as Obama’s second in command for eight years can’t seem to grasp that the current GOP is now, in fact, the party of Trump (and has been for a long time). Yet we have to remember that Biden served close to four decades in the Senate before he became Obama’s VP. Biden’s time in Congress obviously shaped who he is today far more than his time in the White House, and, contrary to what his apologists now say, that aspect of his background does matter. As a senator, Biden frequently sided with his Republican colleagues on major issues—from his championing of NAFTA, welfare reform and financial deregulation to his support for the Iraq War (and the war on drugs). Admittedly, Republicans and Democrats agreed on far more than they disagreed on during the ’90s, but this is exactly the problem that progressives are trying to correct today.

When we consider Biden’s neoliberal legacy in full, his current restoration campaign makes perfect sense. His nostalgia is ultimately based on the idea that, all things considered, we were headed in the right direction before Trump came along. He seems to believe that his generation (with the leadership of great individuals like him, of course) achieved unparalleled progress over the past 40 years, right up until the Orange Menace appeared out of nowhere and threatened to reverse it all.

This attitude was evident in a 2018 video clip that recently went viral, in which Biden criticizes millennials for complaining too much, while discussing the brave activism of his own generation. “The younger generation now tells me how tough things are—give me a break. No, no, I have no empathy for it, give me a break.” The clip didn’t fully show what Biden said next, which is, in some ways, even more revealing: “Because here’s the deal, guys. We [the boomer generation] decided we were going to change the world, and we did. We did. We finished the civil rights movement to the first stage. The women’s movement came to be.”

This isn’t just a classic case of an older, out-of-touch person disparaging youths and condescendingly telling them to toughen up without hearing a word they say. Biden goes further than that, essentially telling millennials to be grateful to members of his generation for all they did to make the world a better place. While there has obviously been progress in many areas over the past few decades, one has to be remarkably obtuse not to see how the past 40 years of neoliberalism have hurt the younger generations and left the very future of the planet in jeopardy (as David Wallace-Wells documents in his brilliant but depressing new book, “The Uninhabitable Earth”), and no generation bears more responsibility for this state of affairs than Biden’s does.

The real irony of Biden’s boomer nostalgia is that Donald Trump, that great enemy of progress, is the ultimate product of the self-absorbed boomer mentality that flourished in the late 20th century, concurrent with the rise of neoliberalism. Trump encapsulates all of the worst qualities of the Me Generation: his narcissism, his greed and crass materialism, his selfish disregard for posterity, his shallow hedonism. Contrary to what Biden says, Trump—the man and the political phenomenon—is not an aberration, but the natural outcome of political, economic and cultural trends of the past half-century.

Of course, focusing too much on Trump as an individual distracts us from the reality that his election was part of a much larger trend that has engulfed the entire planet over the past decade. It is no coincidence that the explosion of populism took place in the decade following the Great Recession, when the gaps between the rich and poor have grown even wider and the dire effects of climate change have become clearer. Populism is a direct response to the growing contradictions of capitalism and the failures of the status quo, and only those who have greatly benefited from this status quo can possibly think that Trump came out of nowhere (then again, Biden has never been much interested in causes, only in symptoms).

According to the latest polls, Biden has a strong lead in the Democratic primaries, and there’s no doubt that partisan nostalgia for the Obama years is the main reason for this. To take on Biden, the other candidates will have to make the case for why returning to the way things were is neither a viable nor desirable option. Currently in second place is Bernie Sanders, who has directly challenged the notion that Trump is some kind of anomaly. In a recent campaign email, Sanders’ campaign manager, Faiz Shakir, wrote that it is a mistake “to think that this election is simply about beating one man—an aberration of a president—and that everything will simply return to ‘normal.’ ”

“The reality,” Shakir continues, “is that ‘normal’ in our country before there was a President Trump still meant an immoral lack of health care, unlivable low wages, rampant corporate greed, a racist criminal justice system, and a corrupt political system.”

The rise of populism in America and elsewhere over the past decade represents a clear rejection of neoliberalism, but among many liberals and Democratic voters, there is a strong desire for normality. Political nostalgia, however, is ultimately a conservative and even a reactionary yearning, and while it may be true that the previous state of affairs was preferable to the current state, the latter would never have been possible if it weren’t for the failures of the former
0 Replies
 
Setanta
 
  2  
Reply Sun 12 May, 2019 04:13 pm
Whether or it will be Biden, or someone else, the cause of liberal politics, or progressive politics if one prefers, will not be served by libel, or any other form of personal attack. As they said back in the day, keep your eyes on the prize.
0 Replies
 
Brand X
 
  1  
Reply Mon 13 May, 2019 07:08 am
LOBBYISTS WORKING TO UNDERMINE MEDICARE FOR ALL HOST CONGRESSIONAL STAFF AT LUXURY RESORT

'The event was hosted by a group called Center Forward and featured a lecture from industry lobbyists leading the charge on undermining progressive health care proposals. Center Forward was originally known as the Blue Dog Research Forum, a think tank affiliated with the conservative Blue Dog Coalition of House Democrats; the coalition has pressed the caucus to oppose social welfare spending, taxes on the wealthy, and regulations on business.

The organization’s website is filled with bromides about giving “centrist allies the information they need to craft common sense solutions” that paper over an agenda designed to enrich powerful corporations.

Center Forward’s big idea on Medicare Part D, for instance, is to maintain lobbyist-authored provisions of the law that bar the government from bargaining for lower prices for medicine. Such restrictions cost taxpayers and patients as much as $73 billion a year while boosting the profits of drugmakers. Center Forward endorses the idea with a testimonial from Mary Grealy, a lobbyist for a trade group that represents pharmaceutical companies.'

https://theintercept.com/2019/05/11/health-care-lobbyists-luxury-retreat/
blatham
 
  3  
Reply Mon 13 May, 2019 12:36 pm
Biden continues to rise in the polls and stretch a substantial lead over all others it appears. That surprises me a bit. I presume familiarity is a big factor along with general good feelings about the prior Obama era. In any case, it's too early to base any predictions on today's polling.

Except one: any candidate who appears to be surging past Sanders will be decried by Lash as a right wing toady of some sort.
georgeob1
 
  1  
Reply Mon 13 May, 2019 01:08 pm
@blatham,
I don't think that rising above the current collection of declared Democrat candidates, from Beto, to Inslee is much of an achievement. Biden's main appeal, in my view, both to the public and the current Democrat leadership, is that he is not one of them, and is a known and relatively moderate figure, who just might obscure the current extreme left wing agenda of the Party. Whether he will be able to sustain that in the likely unruly process of developing the Party Platform for the coming election, remains to be seen. The election is also still a long way off and Biden hasn't demonstrated the ability to keep his foot out of his mouth for that long. Finally the intense and often hostile scrutiny that attends campaigns can reveal bad stuff: some has already emerged regarding possible improper political influence for large foreign financial payments to his son's business.

I'll readily agree that, all that considered, Biden is a better bet than any of the others.
0 Replies
 
RABEL222
 
  2  
Reply Mon 13 May, 2019 01:17 pm
Ill still wait 6 months before I back anyone on the Dem side. But I say anyone but that crook Trump.
0 Replies
 
revelette1
 
  1  
Reply Mon 13 May, 2019 03:12 pm
@RABEL222,
Which is why I put lol. I had to tell my dad a few years ago what that meant, so, lol means "laugh at loud." He just now these last few years broke down and started texting and was mystified about it.
0 Replies
 
revelette1
 
  1  
Reply Mon 13 May, 2019 03:13 pm
@Brand X,
Blue dog democrats have always been almost republicans. Usually they are in republican states.
0 Replies
 
revelette1
 
  1  
Reply Mon 13 May, 2019 03:20 pm
@blatham,
I will admit I wish there was a younger face for the democrat ticket. I kind of like that fellow from Colorado, from what I have read and seen of him. Which I admit has been very little. I also admit, one reason is because he seems more moderate while still maintain most democrat agenda.

https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/2020-election/colorado-sen-bennet-enters-presidential-race-after-prostrate-cancer-treatment-n1000971
0 Replies
 
Lash
 
  -2  
Reply Mon 13 May, 2019 03:33 pm
@blatham,
The polls are skewed, and everyone running against Sanders IS a right wing toady.

Lash
 
  -2  
Reply Mon 13 May, 2019 03:35 pm
@Lash,
Biden gets about 30 geriatric idiots everywhere he goes.
blatham
 
  2  
Reply Mon 13 May, 2019 07:13 pm
@Lash,
Quote:
Biden gets about 30 geriatric idiots everywhere he goes.
To be fair, it's 31 if Sanders pops in to visit.
blatham
 
  2  
Reply Mon 13 May, 2019 07:40 pm
Quote:
The next secretary of Education should be a former public school teacher, Senator Elizabeth Warren said in a Monday email to supporters. Warren’s campaign released the email hours before the Massachusetts Democrat was scheduled to participate in a televised town hall with members of the American Federation of Teachers in Philadelphia later in the afternoon.
https://nym.ag/2HiTtgN

That sounds rather prudent, doesn't it.
0 Replies
 
blatham
 
  3  
Reply Mon 13 May, 2019 08:55 pm
Elizabeth Warren and Her Party of Ideas
She’s what a serious policy intellectual looks like in 2019.

Almost 40 years have passed since Daniel Patrick Moynihan — a serious intellectual turned influential politician ­— made waves by declaring, “Of a sudden, Republicans have become a party of ideas.” He didn’t say that they were good ideas; but the G.O.P. seemed to him to be open to new thinking in a way Democrats weren’t.

But that was a long time ago. Today’s G.O.P. is a party of closed minds, hostile to expertise, aggressively uninterested in evidence, whose idea of a policy argument involves loudly repeating the same old debunked doctrines. Paul Ryan’s “innovative” proposals of 2011 (cut taxes and privatize Medicare) were almost indistinguishable from those of Newt Gingrich in 1995.

Meanwhile, Democrats have experienced an intellectual renaissance. They have emerged from their 1990s cringe; they’re no longer afraid to challenge conservative pieties; and there’s a lot of serious, well-informed intraparty debate about issues from health care to climate change.

You don’t have to agree with any of the various Medicare for All plans, or proposals for a Green New Deal, to recognize that these are important ideas receiving serious discussion.

The question is whether our media environment can handle a real party of ideas. Can news organizations tell the difference between genuine policy wonks and poseurs like Ryan? Are they even willing to discuss policy rather than snark about candidates’ supposed personality flaws?

Which brings me to the case of Elizabeth Warren, who is probably today’s closest equivalent to Moynihan in his prime.

Like Moynihan, she’s a serious intellectual turned influential politician. Her scholarly work on bankruptcy and its relationship to rising inequality made her a major player in policy debate long before she entered politics herself. Like many others, I found one of her key insights — that rising bankruptcy rates weren’t caused by profligate consumerism, that they largely reflected the desperate attempts of middle-class families to buy homes in good school districts — revelatory.

She has also proved herself able to translate scholarly insights into practical policy. Full disclosure: I was skeptical about her brainchild, the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau. I didn’t think it was a bad idea, but I had doubts about how much difference a federal agency tasked with policing financial fraud would make. But I was wrong: Deceptive financial practices aimed at poorly informed consumers do a lot of harm, and until President Trump sabotaged it, the bureau was by all accounts having a hugely salutary effect on families’ finances.

And Warren’s continuing to throw out unorthodox policy ideas, like her proposal that the federal government be allowed to get into the business of producing some generic drugs. This is the sort of thing that brings howls of derision from the right, but that actual policy experts consider a valuable contribution to the discussion.

Is there anyone like Warren on the other side of the aisle? No. Not only aren’t there any G.O.P. politicians with comparable intellectual heft, there aren’t even halfway competent intellectuals with any influence in the party. The G.O.P. doesn’t want people who think hard and look at evidence; it wants people like, say, the “economist” Stephen Moore, who slavishly reaffirm the party’s dogma, even if they can’t get basic facts straight.

Does all of this mean that Warren should be president? Certainly not — a lot of things determine whether someone will succeed in that job, and intellectual gravitas is neither necessary nor sufficient. But Warren’s achievements as a scholar/policymaker are central to her political identity, and clearly should be front and center in any reporting about her presidential bid.

But, of course, they aren’t. What I’m seeing are stories about whether she handled questions about her Native American heritage well, or whether she’s “likable.”

This kind of journalism is destructively lazy, and also has a terrible track record. I’m old enough to remember the near-universal portrayal of George W. Bush as a bluff, honest guy, despite the obvious lies underlying his policy proposals; then he took us to war on false pretenses.

Moreover, trivia-based reporting is, in practice, deeply biased — not in a conventional partisan sense, but in its implicit assumption that a politician can’t be serious unless he (and I mean he) is a conservative, or at most centrist, white male. That kind of bias, if it persists, will be a big problem for a Democratic Party that has never been more serious about policy, but has also never been more progressive and more diverse.

This bias needs to be called out — and I’m not just talking about Warren. Consider the contrast between the unearned adulation Ryan received and how long it took conventional wisdom to recognize that Nancy Pelosi was the most effective House speaker of modern times.

Again, I’m not arguing that Warren should necessarily become president. But she is what a serious policy intellectual looks and sounds like in 2019. And if our media can’t recognize that, we’re in big trouble. Paul Krugman
0 Replies
 
blatham
 
  2  
Reply Mon 13 May, 2019 09:20 pm
This is interesting - Sanders is more popular with Fox viewers than MSNBC viewers

https://pbs.twimg.com/media/D6faTPDWkAAvXtq.jpg:large
Lash
 
  0  
Reply Tue 14 May, 2019 12:50 am
@blatham,
Because Fox hasn’t decided to squew the polls.
 

Related Topics

Obama '08? - Discussion by sozobe
Let's get rid of the Electoral College - Discussion by Robert Gentel
McCain's VP: - Discussion by Cycloptichorn
Food Stamp Turkeys - Discussion by H2O MAN
The 2008 Democrat Convention - Discussion by Lash
McCain is blowing his election chances. - Discussion by McGentrix
Snowdon is a dummy - Discussion by cicerone imposter
TEA PARTY TO AMERICA: NOW WHAT?! - Discussion by farmerman
 
Copyright © 2024 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.1 seconds on 04/25/2024 at 04:40:56