Person #2435: 263 Posts

Recommended: 566 times

Posts   |   Comments

  1. This is a logic twist of epic proportions (0 Replies)

    Are we against the free press now? Or do we still support it, but don’t expect writers to be paid?

    Reminder, Obama was President. The comparison to Yglesias falls horribly flat.

    Or, we’re underpaid. Should we demand raises?

  2. Indeed (1 Reply)

    The idea that President Obama will be forever in debt to an evil monolith named “Wall Street” because of one speech at a Cantor Fitzgerald conference strikes me as very silly and naive.

    That would indeed be silly and naive. Of course, no one on this thread had said anything remotely like that, but let’s not let that get in the way of our point.

  3. I'm not quite following your point (1 Reply)

    DLC had some short-term successes, notably Bill Clinton. But that didn’t translate to Al Gore, and their legacy (welfare reform, for example) damaged us.

    Mondale was a traditional Democrat. Dukakis was a moderate in his time. Both had uphill battles. A lot of people (not me) believe Clinton would have lost if Ross Perot didn’t run. But anyway — no DLC presidents since, and massive losses at state levels.

  4. Innocent until proven guilty (1 Reply)

    I agree with you that the DLC was a disaster. And look at its legacy — we had much more power in 1984 than we do today.

    But I think it’s too soon to write off this group, and for the moment I’m inclined to err on the side of Big Tent, to mix a metaphor.

  5. I didn't make an analogy petr (0 Replies)

    And I’ve exposed my “hand” in every comment I’ve made on this thread.

    I was positing extremes, to make a point.

    Speaking TO Wall Street is something Obama can do whenever he wants. Getting paid $400K BY Wall Street is speaking FOR Wall Street, no matter what he says during the speech.

    I decline to reply further. Last word is yours if you want it.

  6. Fine (1 Reply)

    Where would you have him draw the line? Cantor Fitzgerald is one of the most important bond trading firms. They’re fine, they do their job. But they are as “Wall Street” as one could get. The proverbial optics are bad.

    I assume you’d object if the President became a lobbyist for the Taliban. So where’s the line? Can he work for Roger Goodell? How about Roger Ailes or Roger Stone?

  7. I did (0 Replies)

    I dispute your interpretation.

  8. Viciously brutal attacks? (0 Replies)

    We can’t even object to this anymore? If we do, we get “Democrats” in quotes?

    Not helpful.

  9. Strawman (2 Replies)

    No one said Obama is being paid to be obsequious.

    He’s being paid to rent out his prestige. THAT is what I object to, because if $400K is the market rate, most of us are priced out.

    For the record I have the same problem with $1,000 fundraisers where $15K gets you to a cocktail reception so you can avoid the poor folks who can only afford a grand. If we object to big money in politics, and I think most of us do, this is part of it.

  10. Shame on the Democratic Party? (1 Reply)

    What did we do? Seriously, why generalize this?

  11. Reveal what? (2 Replies)

    I dread this thread, but I do think someone should object when one long-time poster implies that another long-time poster is a closet racist. You can impose the standard you’re imposing on yourself, but if you seek to impose that on others I think it’s a bit high.

    Therefore, I object. Caveat ad hominen, to use bad Latin.

  12. Fair points (0 Replies)

    I have no objection to the President making money.

    But he can WHATEVER HE WANTS, and it would be lucrative. He could write books on constitutional law, and they’d sell.

    Seeing him take money from Wall Street is disappointing. I don’t blame him, and I don’t flatter myself that I wouldn’t do the same. But he has options most of us don’t, so I think it’s OK to ask him to aim higher.

  13. Eh (1 Reply)

    I agree that it bears explaining, and it also wouldn’t be the biggest deal in the world for the progressive caucus to challenge the speaker, but “single most regressive vote” seems a bit much.

  14. I meant to add (0 Replies)

    If people want to gamble, I’m OK with that. I just think there are plenty of options, including online options.

  15. I'd rather not have them (1 Reply)

    The state has its both ways with gambling … we claim to be horrified, but we have a massive lottery, soon three casinos.

    I’d almost rather we took a free market approach to it, but that would bring its own problems.

  16. That drink aint free (1 Reply)

    You order from the charming waitress, and she takes a long time to bring it to you, and you sit at the table … continuing to play. Maybe you would anyway, but maybe you wouldn’t.