For John, BLUF: Looking at the two parts of the Democratic Party. Nothing to see here; just move along.
Politico writers Jonathan Martin and Maggie Haberman, back on 18 January, wrote about possible future struggles within the Democratic Party, "Up next for Obama: A looming Democratic divide". While this post is not current, it may well be timely.
The lede:
As President Barack Obama approaches his second inaugural on Monday, he presides over a party that has largely papered over its divisions for the past four years thanks to the president’s commanding popularity.The authors set it up this way:But almost as soon as the echo of Obama’s inaugural address fades and he instantly becomes a lame duck, Democrats are going to have to face a central and unresolved question about their political identity: Will they become a center-left, DLC-by-a-different-name party or return to a populist, left-leaning approach that mirrors their electoral coalition?
As 2016 grows nearer, and their presidential hopefuls begin openly maneuvering, Democrats must decide whether they want to be principally known as the party of Rahm Emanuel or the party of Elizabeth Warren.But, it is really about Secretary of State Hillary Clinton and if she will run for President in 2016. But, that means it is really about Bill Clinton and his understanding of how to lead this nation. (I almost changed "understanding" to "vision", but with Bill Clinton it is a fingerspitzengefuhl♠ for the electorate.)
Regarding Senator Warren, we discussed 2016 here. If President Obama can catapult into the Presidency with less than two years in the US Senate, then surely Elizabeth Warren can do it with more than three. After all, Senator Warren taught at Harvard.
Regards — Cliff
♠ From Dead Carl, finger-tip feel for the actual situation on the ground.
Democrats? Somewhere between George Herbert Walker Bush & Occupy Wall Street?
ReplyDeleteWhile the Republicans struggle to find their way between extreme Tea Party and radical Tea Party? And, by Tea Party, I mean "Corporate Feudalism."
Regarding "Corporate Feudalism", I checked the dictionary definition linked to and it really sounds like Mussolini after he abandoned Communism and moved to Fascism.
ReplyDeleteI think of Tea Party folks as main street capitalists; people who believe "too big to fail" should be allowed to fail. That and a foreign policy that supports supporting Israel—one of the few remaining socialist nations, especially now that Cuba is evolving.
But that is just me.
Regards — Cliff
Is that the "Tea Party" you imagine in your head, or the one the Koch Bros bought and paid for?
ReplyDeleteOh puleeeze!!! Really??? The Koch brothers. That has grown so trite and tiresome. The vast majority of "tea party" folks....as if there was an "organization" called the Tea Party....are actually small business people or even wage earners....hardly the fabled "feudal lords of corporation" that the libs love to shriek about.
ReplyDeleteBut then, the libs really don't want to play the quid pro quo game.....as in....the DNC being bought and paid for...along with the current Administration...by George Soros.
I get it....Koch brothers are bad....George Soros is good. Sure!!
Since the only Koch Brother I have dealt with, and them indirectly, are Murray and William, I am not sure about these other Koch Brothers. But, I will say, the Koch Fittings for the F-4 integrated harness (parachute canopy releases) are excellent.
ReplyDeleteI have seen absolutely no money from Murray or William, or any other Koch Brothers with regard to the Greater Lowell Tea Party. I think the idea of the Koch Brothers underwriting the Tea Parties is like the idea of George Soros meeting the criteria for the Anti-Christ. It is a "dog whistle" for some, but not for those of us living in Realville.
Regards — Cliff