Saturday, April 02, 2011

Jim Messina: Weimar Democrat in a growing civil class war

This article in The Nation about Obama's re-election campaign manager, Jim Messina, tells us pretty much everything we need to know about Obama's re-election strategy. And the strategy is both pitiful and scary for one reason: The tone-deafness regarding job creation is stunning at top of the re-election campaign, whether that is Jim Messina or Obama himself. The other takeaway from the article is how much Messina protects people like his one time boss, the odious Max Baucus (Big Pharma-Montana).

As Bill Maher's latest New Rules segment makes clear, television, not Democrats, moved the gay marriage issue forward in our culture. Republicans, for worse and even worse, move their agenda no matter what the majority of Americans say they otherwise want. As I recently said to someone, Bush II was far more effective in pushing through his policies, and what was so ironic was that the destruction of our economy, the endless deficits and debt, and the human, economic and environmental waste from the imperial wars in Iraq and Afghanistan are the direct result of those policies.

What is so frustrating is that Democrats such as Messina are merely carrying water buckets for the most crass and selfish parts of the wealthy economic elite, even when individual wealthy elite donors to the Democratic Party tell Messina and Obama that they better start fighting back on behalf of the middle class. This is particularly true when the Republican leadership across this nation have found traction in their promotion of the civil war among the declining middle class.

And as a bonus, there is a gender bias when we consider the harmful effects of government budget cuts in social programs. Perhaps one of the right wing or libertarian women commentators on television might want to try and explain that away...I don't think such people will rest in their dogmatic nonsense until we are back to the sort of Dickensian economic temper of the 1830s. "Are there no poor houses? Are there no prisons?"

But let's not mix our historical references. Make no mistake. If the civil class war becomes more pronounced, and fascism does become our nation's future, then History will see Obama as a Weimar Democrat.


At April 4, 2011 at 6:47:00 PM PDT, Anonymous hip703 said...


What is the POINT of having a Democrat president, and a Democrat Congress (the first two years of the Obama Administration) if they cannot deliver on Single Payer or, at the very least, Medicare for all? Heck, what is the point of even having a Democrat Party?

At April 5, 2011 at 2:38:00 PM PDT, Blogger Mitchell J. Freedman said...

DemocratIC party is the correct spelling, which is something of a pet peeve of mine.

Still, I'm with you on this, or I guess you're with my initial post. What is the point of having a Democratic Party if it only behaves like nicer Republicans?

At April 6, 2011 at 9:29:00 PM PDT, Anonymous hip703 said...

Interesting point your raise. I say Democrat party. My thinking is this: to suggest otherwise is tantamount to saying that non-Democrats are monarchists. There is nothing grammatically incorrect about using one noun to modify another noun, e.g. "Senate election," "antitrust lawyer." or "peace movement."

At April 14, 2011 at 3:24:00 PM PDT, Blogger Mitchell J. Freedman said...

Except for one thing: The proper name is Democratic Party.

To call deliberately mispronounce the name of a person or an official organization is to disrespect it.


Post a Comment

<< Home