Left In Lowell

To Tear Up or Not To Tear Up?

12 Responses to “To Tear Up or Not To Tear Up?”

1. Peter Says:
   January 8th, 2008 at 2:58 pm

   Hillary takes way too much misdirected s&!^ for being part of the “old guard.” Unfortunately, the chuckleheads who bounce from party to party every 2-4 years are the ones who get to pick our presidents. They are the ones who will associate a repeat of a Clinton with the horribly failed repeat of a Bush, Hillary will be lumped in with “the last 20 years” pay for W’s mistakes. The only thing I really think we can count on is that the chuckleheads are so irritated right now that whoever the Democratis nominee is, will be our next president.

2. Lynne Says:
   January 8th, 2008 at 4:53 pm

   I dunno, she walks like a neoliberal, talks like a neoliberal, and votes like a neoliberal. So you’re saying she’s not a neoliberal?

   I think Clinton would be a damn sight better than a Republican of any stripe, don’t get me wrong, but she shows now evidence that she will go far enough to right the inequities of the ever-expanding corporate powers of domination. After all, her husband started the free trade debacle, didn’t he? And she votes to continue failed neoliberal economic policies, all while failing to reneg on her vote to let Bushie have his war, when she damn well knew better (hey, *I* did, and I’m no Senator nor superbly well-informed). That side of the Democratic coalition caved in to Republicanism a long time ago, and she’s got a record now to prove she is firmly in their camp.

3. Peter Says:
   January 8th, 2008 at 5:17 pm

   Have you read her book? It’s all right there in black and white. You can be as ideal as you want to but if you refuse to bargain you’ll never get anywhere. It’s all about achieving results in the end-game. Simply put, I’ve read enough to know I can trust her, but the other choices aren’t bad either.

4. Lynne Says:
   January 8th, 2008 at 5:25 pm

   Great, so she wrote a book. I look at what she actually has done. And Republican Lite has lost us elections. After the Reagan “revolution” Dems thought that’s what it took to win, and Clinton (Bill) did, but only because of his personal brand of “I feel your pain.” It’s populism, not capitulation, that the American people go for, whether that’s on the campaign trail or in the halls of Congress. Selling your soul for some watered-down legislation only gets you a half hearted “all right, whatever” from the people.

   Sure, in Hillary’s experience of the neocon/paleocon/religioncon battles in the 90s and under Bush, she was shown that THEY are not willing to capitulate, so the only choice appears to be WE must, but in reality, the only thing those righties are going to listen to is an iron fist. Unfortunately. Not capitulation.

   Meanwhile, the country snakes ever to the right, while the public polls decidedly left. The disconnect is so large you need the Golden Gate Bridge to cross it.

   Time for a new political generation, one that hasn’t been tainted by giving in to the Republican extremism for decades.

5. waittilnextyr Says:
   January 8th, 2008 at 7:56 pm

   “In the Cayman Islands, Romney was listed as a general partner and personally invested in BCIP Associates III Cayman, a private equity fund that is registered at a post office box on Grand Cayman Island and that indirectly buys equity in US companies. The arrangement shields foreign investors from US taxes they would pay for investing directly in US companies.

   Romney still retains an investment in the Cayman fund through a trust. Campaign disclosure forms show the investment paid him more than $1 million last year in dividends, interest, and capital gains.”

   Excerpt from Boston Globe article.

6. waittilnextyr Says:
   January 8th, 2008 at 7:59 pm

   Dec. 17 (Bloomberg) — Former President Bill Clinton’s decision to reconsider a business relationship with California billionaire Ron Burkle reflects concern those financial dealings may embarrass his wife’s presidential candidacy.

   Securities and Exchange Commission documents and financial- disclosure forms filed by Hillary Clinton show that Bill Clinton, 61, has a financial stake in three investment entities registered in the Cayman Islands by Burkle’s Yucaipa Cos. LLC

7. Peter Rollins Says:
   January 8th, 2008 at 9:37 pm

   So you didn’t read it. Do yourself a favor and go to the library.

8. Michael in Pawtucketville Says:
   January 8th, 2008 at 10:47 pm

   > You can be as ideal as you want to but if you refuse to bargain you’ll never get anywhere.

   Absolutely. If you want to play the “uniter” game, tell me how you reconcile the abortion debate. The economy. Taxation. Vouchers. And on and on. How do you bring people so diametrically opposed thinking the other side is evil together? Wave a wand? As much as we complain about Washington, it is still a tug of war.

   From what I can tell, conservatives have more kids than liberals. One way to get your views into legislation is to have more kids.

9. Mr. Lynne Says:
   January 9th, 2008 at 12:00 am

   At the risk of being redundant with a comment on a salient post on BMG:

   I think Krugman illustrated part of the problem with bargaining with this crew in the introduction to his earlier book “The Great Unraveling”:

   … Surely, says the conventional wisdom, we should discount the rhetoric: the goals of the right are more limited than this picture suggest. Or are they?

   Back to Kissinger. His description of the baffled response of established powers in the face of a revolutionary challenge works equally well as an account of how the American political and media establishment has responded to the radicalism of the Bush administration over the past two years:

   Lulled by a period of stability which had seemed permanent, they find it nearly impossible to take at face value the assertion of the revolutionary power that it means to smash the existing framework. The defenders of the status quo therefore tend to begin by treating the revolutionary power as if its protestations were merely tactical; as if it really accepted the existing legitimacy but overstated its case for bargaining purposes; as if it were motivated by specific grievances to be assuaged by limited concessions. Those who warn against the danger in time are considered alarmists; those who counsel adaptation to circumstance are considered balanced and sane…. But it is the essence of a revolutionary power that it possesses the courage of its convictions, that it is willing, indeed eager, to push its principles to their ultimate conclusion.

   I haven’t seen the GOP be “assuaged by limited concessions” since Reagan, unless “kicking and screaming bloody murder” counts as being “assuaged”.

   I highly recommend reading the entire introduction.

10. Michael in Pawtucketville Says:
    January 9th, 2008 at 12:25 am

    In looking through the city/town results, it looks as though Clinton was strong in Manchester and Nashua, two large cities (by NH standards) feeling a wave of immigration. It looks like it was a dogfight as Obama won one town and Clinton the next. It looks like Clinton had a lot of
    quiet support. Obama was very strong on the ground in Southern NH over the weekend. I guess I’ll have to check the Telegraph and Union Leader in the morning to get their take.

    Regarding Mr. Lynne, demographics matter. For whatever reason, religious folks seem to have more kids and perhaps that explains the gradual move to the right.

11. Mr. Lynne Says:
    January 9th, 2008 at 9:49 am

    Sure demographics matter, but the leadership of the party has to contend with the leadership of the GOP, not their demographics, in order to institute anything resembling bi-partisanship. This group has lead the GOP down the path of no compromise, thus they are a revolutionary power.

12. Lynne Says:
    January 9th, 2008 at 1:06 pm

    Uhhh…not when the polls show Americans are overwhelmingly liberal when it comes to actual issues. The move to the right is really very artificial.

    Actually, the hunger for populism on the religious right was demonstrated by the Evangelical vote for Huckabee - he appeals to both a sort of gut feeling that everything’s gone horribly wrong for the lower end of the income scale, while appealing to their fundy religious views.

    The “slide to the right” of the country is a total myth. The country hasn’t moved. The politics has, but again, that’s an artificial shift that doesn’t reflect this nation as a whole, even the South.

Leave a Reply