Screen Shot 2018-12-16 at 12.31.37 PM
Your host, PM 'Papa' Carpenter


  • ***


« Paul Ryan asks for "a chance" | Main | Turning the debate »

January 28, 2013


The thing is, there are plenty of real things to be afraid of such as what the consequences will be to our economy and society if the income gap keeps widening, or the real time effects of global climate change, yet the GOP refuses to acknowledge these realities and debate with the democrats what to do about them. I guess it's easier for the GOP base to wrap their minds around campfire ghost stories than to face reality.

It is to be hoped that the Dems learned from the fiasco of 2010. art of the problem was that Dem candidates allowed themselves to be cowed by the demonstrations against ACA. By not defending their own votes (and,in fact, avoiding any discussion at all) they ceded the ground to the non-grassroots Tea Pary candidates.

I still believe that a solid defense of the ACA plus some strong reminders of how GOP policies had gotten us into the economic conditions we were in at the time would have definitely reduced the bleeding. The GOP may still have gained control of the House, but I think it wuld have been a much smaller majority which might well have been reversed in 2012.

I live in Melissa Bean's district (used to be) which Walsh took in 2010. She was virtually absent from any campaigning until the last two weeks and when she did finally advertise, it was all on the social issues, not the ACA or the economy.

Obama was the only Dem politician I remember being out there begging people not to give the GOP the keys to the car again.

Voting is kind of important isn't it? Having reliable committed voters at your disposal seems like a wonderful idea until it dawns on you that many of those voters should be committed. And they have no intention of being at your disposal but rather intend for you to be at theirs. Does the answer lie in looking for a batch of similarly committed voters from the left to somehow balance the equation? Certainly not if you've read some of the stuff they believe. Oddly enough it is virtually indistinguishable in many respects from tea party pap. The government is evil and corrupt and virtually every civil servant in the thrall of secret corporate oligarchies...yadda yadda yadda.

^ japa21: The Democrats' 2010 political calculation on the ACA makes no sense at all. I mean, if you run from the vote, you're basically tactitly admitting that it was a mistake or that you know it's a vulnerability. So you'll lose on that issue by default.

This isn't their style, but the Democrats should have settled on some snappy talking points rattling off the benefits the ACA was to provide, and confidently stuck to them. If they lose anyway, so be it. But you can't win a battle when you retreat from the field of battle before the first shot is fired, which is what the swing district and Blue Dog Democrats seemed to think they needed to do. Made no sense.

I understand that by the time the election was approaching, the messaging war over health care had tragically already largely been lost, but it still made more sense to go down fighting, and on principle, then to just hide in the corner and hope somehow it works out.

The comments to this entry are closed.