Exiling Howard Dean and abandoning the blue dogs killed the Democratic majority and allowed the Republicans to control redistricting in 2010. That was a sharp veer back to the left by an entitled Democratic establishment, including President Obama and Speaker Pelosi and it was one of the most short-sighted political moves by a national party in the history of American Democracy. Winning an election (2012 Presidential) and losing a war (2010 Redistricting) was a stupid move made by a branch of the party that misinterpreted Obama's 2008 election as a Watershed election when in fact it was just the result of a strong 4 year strategy by Dean's DNC and an abysmal economy leading into the 2008 election. The only thing that kept that misinterpretation from turning into a total rout was that the Republicans simultaneously moved to the right anyway, leaving a yawning gulf in the middle of the electorate. A gulf that Dean's strategy would have swallowed whole, probably resulting in a historic realignment instead of 6 years of trench warfare with everybody losing in the process.
I am not sure what point you thought you were making, or what the NY Times has to do with it. You failed, in short. In any event the way the Astorino candidacy won against that kind of national campaign by Bramson IS fascinating considering how blue West Co is in the national elections. Imo it was not only the tax issue, since the biggest news items about Astorino have been his fights with HUD. Yes, taxes were and are important. Even liberals do not want to be overtaxed for inefficient purposes. And they don't want zoning overturned by some far away bureaucrat. Cuomo for all his (other) problems overcame any anti-tax argument in the governor's election by advocating AND PASSING the cap on property tax increases. As for your "knowledge" about this subject matter, I am not impressed. You quote Briarcliff Manor as conservative. In fact it voted for Obama over Romney at the same rate as Westchester County as a whole. See http://www.city-data.com/city/Briarcliff-Manor-New-York.html In any event it is not merely changing demographics whatever that is supposed to mean that is behind a wealthy suburban county of about a million people voting Democratic by huge margins in national elections. It is because the GOP does not speak to those people anymore, quite obviously. The GOP now is a patched together, although it seems for not much longer, alliance between the very wealthy, billionaires and those close behind, and relatively poorly educated white people. Upper middle class voters, your typical Westchester voter, knows they are not part of that equation. Plus they don't have love of guns to distract them, and are in any event educated enough to know that no one is about to take away their guns even if they were gun lovers. In particular in blue states with suburbs that have quality public education, those voters know it was the GOP that took away the deductibility of state and local taxes under the AMT. This is a great example of GOP hypocrisy. Why support what amounted to a tax increase for upper middle class people? Because it was intended to hurt blue states as a whole, but more importantly BECAUSE THOSE PEOPLE ARE NOT BIILLIONAIRES. Then there are the social issues. Another huge subject. But then you have people like Romney smugly telling his rich donors that the Democrats are the party of the 47% looking for handouts. If it weren't so sad it would be very funny.
I am sure I don't know what you mean about dean, but how were the blue dogs abandoned? The GOP won in 2010 for a combingation of reasons, not the least of which was younger voters who voted for Obama could not be bothered to get out of bed on election day.
The blue dogs were abandoned when the Democrats chose to force the Affordable Health Care Act through before the 2010 midterms. That created the environment that led to the Republican wave, with blue dogs elected from 2004 to 2008 falling by the wayside in districts that weren't ready to move forward on national healthcare yet and certainly not in an election year in which an angry August produced a wave in November. Dean should have remained DNC chairman in the aftermath of the 2008 election cycle which was the most positive election cycle for the Democrats in a generation. Instead he was pushed aside so that the Obama administration could put their own people in place. Congressional Democrats in the establishment assumed that they had won the day and they marginalized the 50 state strategy instead of doubling down on it, which was the logical thing to do.
I'll tell you why the comment by Cruz was offensive. Because its not new. The right wing of the GOP has been labeling NY and DC as full of "un-American elite liberals" for years. And that pisses me off and not because I'm thin skinned. Here's why. Because the GOP campaigns on national security issues, on "keeping America safe" and protecting America from terrorism. But when terrorist groups like Al Qaeda or ISIS threaten to attack the USA, they always threaten to hit NYC or DC, ,not Omaha Nebraska or Birmingham Alabama or the like. And in NYC, 3000 + lives were lost to terrorism on 9/11. Almost as many New Yorkers lost their lives in a few hours on 9/11 than soldiers in the 10+ years of the Iraq war. In all likelihood, the next terrorist attack will take place in NYC. So these un-American elite liberals in NYC go to work each day on the front line of the war against terrorism, riding the subways, walking through Penn Station and Grand Central and walking on the busy streets on Manhattan on the way to work under this threat. And don't think that we don't think about things like that every day on the way to work. Yet it doesn't stop any of us. And these right wing yahoos like Cruz get off and get votes by calling these people insulting names because they hold different political views? It is a disgrace. Add in that Wall Street is the economic pulse of the USA and it sits in the heart of NYC. There are very few places as patriotic and symbolic of American values than the melting pot and financial capital of the world that is NYC. So I and most people from this area agree that Cruz can shove it. And if that comment got him votes from "places like Iowa and New Hampshire" because those people know what he is talking about, as he said, well screw those people too because that is also disgraceful. Cruz talks about Obama being divisive, but it the right wing of the GOP that is leading the divisive parade that dominates American politics in 2016.
http://gawker.com/sarah-palin-says-...medium=recirculation&utm_campaign=wednesdayPM Sent from my KFASWI using Tapatalk
While I of course think the ACA was a part, even a big part, of what motivated the GOP and their voters in 2010, it was not the only factor. There was also much opposition to TARP, the increase in the budget deficit occasioned by the (quite necessary) stimulus package, the effort to save the auto industry, and perhaps the most significant being bad timing, as people were really suffering and lashed out at the Dems who had not caused the financial crisis but were in power at the time. And it is also clear now that much of the GOP anger is, whether consciously or otherwise, related to Obama being black. We can debate how much the ACA was significant in terms of that mix. But it was hardly the only reason behind the losses in Congress for the Dems that year. On the flip side Obama and the 2008 Congress majority were elected and promised to adopt health care reform. Uniform opposition by the GOP to what was really a program that was developed by a Republican governor and came out of GOP think tanks was a choice of political strategy that was across the board, but certainly did apply to the ACA. Aside from that consideration of political strategy, I to this day to not really understand the visceral hatred of the ACA by GOP base voters. So, to blame that overreaction on the Dems doing what they said they were going to do and were elected to do is a kind of strange argument. As for Dean, you may be right. But I don't think it was a huge factor.
Excellent and no doubt heart felt post. As someone who works in Manhattan, and was here on 9/11, I totally relate. The right wingers are not only divisive in their world view but think it is good politics. I don't know of any Democrats who campaign and literally come out and say we don't want to have any of that Nebraska thinking ruining our country, or wouldn't it be great if we could cut out the red states and go forward with a better country. They don't feel they have a right or a perception that they get to decide who is a real American and who isn't. This despite the fact that as you say it is New York City and places like it, the people who live and come out of these places, that makes America great. Not those who go to church only to go home and clean their guns while complaining about people with different skin color or who live in California and New York. No, it is the right wingers with their us versus them world view who see dividing Americans as good politics who are immoral and disgusting.
Yea - our very own Democratic governor doesn't want conservatives in his own state. Clinton listed Republicans as her #1 enemy. What a nice fantasy land you live in.
You are right NSN, blocker is being too much of a homer. Both parties are too divisive. It isn't just a problem with just one party. They both kinda suck and should try to work better together
Quote me a Dem public figure who condemns all the people in an area of the US. One. And how are the Democrats divisive? I of course don't know what you actually do about politics IRL. But I would caution that cynicism can be an excuse for inaction. OF COURSE there are problems with the Democratic Party. But you don't see the kind of nonsense with them that you are seeing in the GOP race. Assigning moral equivalence to the two parties is nonsense.
I was specifically talking about condemning people across the board from this or that part of the country. I would concede HRC was not smart to say that about the Republicans. But are the Republicans in fact enemies of her? Of course they are.
It's funny how one side deems themselves virtuous and wholier than thou and the other side pure evil. Naivette at it's finest. _
In any event HRC walked back that comment. Bill Clinton says Republicans are not "our" enemies. Cruz never apologizes, including here. Big difference.
I never said the GOP is pure evil. But Cruz is pretty close. Even other GOP candidates than Trump have criticized him for his NYC comment. Btw it is holier, no w. A and B are both imperfect. Are A and B necessarily equally imperfect? Of course not.
Man this is an excellent fucking post, I never really thought about things this way but you are right about all of it, oh and fuck that muppet Ted Cruz.
I like President Obama myself. I support him but lets keep it real, here BB. He has engaged in just as much divisiveness as his republican counterparts. I mean I will give some examples but the President said it himself in the State of the Union address as that being one of the top regrets of his administration.There are numerous examples but the worst to me is that nearly every time he has taken the time to comment on a tragedy in this country he has scolded the American people, a large facet of the American people, in an attempt to divide: San Bernardino gets shot up, we are all appalled watching on TV and ten minutes later he scolds us for anti-muslim rhetoric?? he scolds us for gun support? --Why not just say we are all appalled by what happened and we need to come together and try to prevent these things? The Trayvon Martin incident. There was a lot of division in terms of what happened- who's at fault, protests, etc. He comes out and scolds Americans for racial profiling that exists? He talks about how white women in elevators clutch their purse harder when a black man gets in the elevator....? --Talk about fanning the flames of division. That's more like pouring gasoline on it. Why even do that? Thats not even relevant to what happened. Why not say something to the effect of: "The George Zimmerman case in Florida will be reviewed to ensure that proper procedure was followed by the prosecution and government officials. However, we need to come together and not let isolated incidents like this drive us apart." (by the way- in 1968 when the country was extremely divided, the day of MLK's assassination RFK spoke to a largely African American congregation, breaking the news while other cities were already rioting. He could've resorted to the same divisiveness as the President, bashing people on racial profiling, etc. But hell no he did the opposite. His message was to come together- to not let something like this divide us, etc.) Also, the President has been very divisive in regards to things like gay marriage, climate change, when he can't get something passed. Instead of scratching his plans and trying to get people to compromise he goes to the american people and bashes the counter opinion in public?..? talk about division. Also, a lot of the truly shameful scare tactics that we saw the Bush Administration use over their years, Obama has done the same. Just last week after announcing his plan to end cancer he says something to the effect of "well curing cancer isn't going to matter if we let our climate get a couple of degrees higher we will have more problems than any medical science can cure..." WTF. that's not any different than the scare tactics used on the other side.
Anyone claiming their side is more virtuous, less decisive or less evil is just plain childish. Each side has their own shit and is no better or worse than the other side. Be a man. Own it. Otherwise you sound like a fucking Pats Fag troll. _
