0 - 4
with fear of being a troll or pundit, may I pontificate a bit:
The Dems are in the present condition due their annointing of HRC back in 2008. Eight years later, she was handed the nomination with no serious challenge (if Bernie Sanders had not shown up -- and he did make some waves -- actually stole voters away from Hillary.)
HRC presented a flat platform, was mired in investigations, and considered untrustworthy by many.
Re Pelosi's: her hubris is unbelievable-- the Dems have lost control of the house and senate as well as many governorships and she defended herself as an "astute leader" today!
Dems in office have to energize themselves before trying to energize the voters.
I saw a clip of her today talking about the Senate healthcare bill. She was trying to claim that Medicare/Medicaid would not be cut. It was amusing but sad.
LOST said:
ice said:
I'm no fan of Kelly Ann Conway (she creeps me out a bit), but it was amusing to see a few moments on CNN this morning as she berated the anchor about CNN spending so much time on Russia coverage. The anchor was pretty far back on her heels.
I saw the beginning. She was asked about Russian hacking and replied with the mantra that there is no evidence of collusion or that Trump's election was not legitimate. It wasn't what the anchor was asking.
LOST said:
paulsurovell said:All I see and hear the Democrats talking about is Health Care. The Media wants to talk about Russia.But you fail to understand that the Democrats' obsession on Russia has mangled their message, as Chris Murphy points out. And at the same time, most Republicans have been energized because they see Trump as the victim of Democrats and the media by their constant attacks on him over the Russia issue.
But a foreign government attempting to interfere in our Election is a big deal. The Intelligence Community, not the Democrats, are the ones most upset about it.
Yes, the Intelligence Community is pushing the Russia issue. An issue that it created and through anonymous leaks (often false) has been able to dictate the narrative in the media.
On the issue of whether Democrats are obsessed with Russia, following Chris Murphy's warning, we are seeing the beginnings of protest from below:
http://thehill.com/homenews/ca...
Dems push leaders to talk less about Russia
Frustrated Democrats hoping to elevate their election fortunes have a resounding message for party leaders: Stop talking so much about Russia.
Democratic leaders have been beating the drum this year over the ongoing probes into the Trump administration’s potential ties to Moscow, taking every opportunity to highlight the saga and forcing floor votes designed to uncover any business dealings the president might have with Russian figures.
But rank-and-file Democrats say the Russia-Trump narrative is simply a non-issue with district voters, who are much more worried about bread-and-butter economic concerns like jobs, wages and the cost of education and healthcare.
In the wake of a string of special-election defeats, an increasing number of Democrats are calling for an adjustment in party messaging, one that swings the focus from Russia to the economy. The outcome of the 2018 elections, they say, hinges on how well the Democrats manage that shift.
“We can't just talk about Russia because people back in Ohio aren't really talking that much about Russia, about Putin, about Michael Flynn,” Rep. Tim Ryan (D-Ohio) told MSNBC Thursday. “They're trying to figure out how they're going to make the mortgage payment, how they're going to pay for their kids to go to college, what their energy bill looks like.
“And if we don't talk more about their interest than we do about how we're so angry with Donald Trump and everything that's going on,” he added, “then we're never going to be able to win elections.”
Ryan is among the small group of Democrats who are sounding calls for a changing of the guard atop the party’s leadership hierarchy following Tuesday’s special election defeat in Georgia — the Democrats’ fourth loss since Trump took office. But Ryan is hardly alone in urging party leaders to hone their 2018 message.
Rep. Tim Walz (D-Minn.) has been paying particularly close attention to voters’ concerns because he’s running for governor in 2018. The Russia-Trump investigation, he said, isn’t on their radar.
“I did a 22-county tour. … Nobody’s focusing on that,” Walz said. “That’s not to say that they don’t think Russia and those things are important, [but] it’s certainly not top on their minds.”
Rep. Peter Welch (D-Vt.) delivered a similar message, saying his constituents are most concerned with two things: dysfunction in Washington and the Republicans’ plans to repeal ObamaCare. The controversies surrounding Trump, he said, don’t tally.
"We should be focused relentlessly on economic improvement [and] we should stay away from just piling on the criticism of Trump, whether it’s about Russia, whether it’s about Comey. Because that has its own independent dynamic, it’s going to happen on its own without us piling on,“ Welch said.
"We’re much better off if we just do the hard work of coming up with an agenda. Talking about Trump and Russia doesn’t create an agenda.”
The intrigue over Russian meddling in the 2016 elections and potential collusion with Trump’s campaign has engulfed Capitol Hill since even before the president was sworn in. Both the House and Senate Intelligence committees have launched investigations, and the Justice Department has named a special counsel, former FBI Director Robert Mueller, to lead a third probe.
Democrats have gone out of their way to keep the spotlight on the evolving investigations. Reps. Eric Swalwell (D-Calif.) and Elijah Cummings (D-Md.) are trumpeting legislation to create an independent panel, like the 9/11 Commission, to conduct a fourth investigation.
House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.) has repeatedly used her press briefings and cable news appearances to raise questions about Trump’s “political, personal and financial” ties to Moscow.
“What do the Russians have on Donald Trump?” she asked earlier this month in a common refrain.
And the Democrats, who have few opportunities to force votes on the House floor, have spent a lot of energy pushing proposals that would require Trump to release his taxes, which many Democrats suspect will expose business ties between Trump and Russia. The latest such vote was Wednesday, marking the 10th time this year Democrats have forced the issue.
“It’s important for us to have the returns on tax reform, it’s important to have it on the Russia investigation,” Rep. Lloyd Doggett (D-Texas), the ranking member of the Ways and Means Committee’s tax subpanel, said on the floor.
Democratic leaders have defended their focus on the Trump-Russia affair, arguing that it’s not a distraction from the local economic issues that resonate in their districts.
“We can walk and chew gum at the same time,” Rep. Linda Sanchez (D-Calif.), vice chairman of the Democratic Caucus, said Wednesday.
But even some leaders are ready to acknowledge that the Russia investigation alone won’t lead to a Democratic comeback.
“As much as I think people in Washington tend to focus on the issues of Russia, and the president and the Republicans’ inability to get much of anything accomplished, … we need to focus on the local issues,” said Rep. Joseph Crowley (N.Y.), chairman of the caucus.
“That’s what gets Democrats elected.”
A recent Harvard-Harris poll reveals the risks inherent for the Democrats, who are hoping to make big gains — or even win back the House — in 2018. The survey found that while 58 percent of voters said they’re concerned that Trump may have business dealings with Moscow, 73 percent said they’re worried that the ongoing investigations are preventing Congress from tackling issues more vital to them.
“While the voters have a keen interest in any Russian election interference, they are concerned that the investigations have become a distraction for the president and Congress that is hurting rather than helping the country,” said Harvard-Harris co-director Mark Penn.
With that in mind, many Democrats said they’re going out of their way to focus on the economy — and downplay the Russia saga — when they’re at home.
“If you see me treating Russia and criticisms of the president and things like that as a secondary matter, it’s because that’s how my constituents feel about it,” said Rep. Matt Cartwright (D-Pa.).
“I don’t think anybody wants to give a pass to illegal or unethical activity,” he added. “But in life we all have priorities, and the first priority for my constituents is to their families — as it should be.”
Paul,
The Republicans banged Hillary Clinton over the head with Benghazi and it worked.
Why shouldn't the Dems use the same tactic with Trump and Russia?
Of course Benghazi was nonsense and Russia seems to have a factual basis, but that is really not my point.
sprout said:
Maybe the Democrats need to find a movie star/TV personality to run. Americans seem to vote in people they've enjoyed watching previously. It's worked for the Repubs (Reagan, Bono, Schwartzenegger, Trump), and even for the Democrats (Franken).
OK, so I said this 2 days ago.
Now, I'm not sure how far Colbert will take this... but yesterday he announced on a Russian talk show that he'll be running for President in 2020:
sprout said:
Now, I'm not sure how far Colbert will take this... but he just announced on a Russian talk show that he'll be running for President in 2020:
I know it's not a NATO summit meeting, Stephen, but let's work some more on those discussion skills in your current job first. ("Do you," Scarlett Johansson, "travel all around the world?")
LOST said:
Paul,
The Republicans banged Hillary Clinton over the head with Benghazi and it worked.
Why shouldn't the Dems use the same tactic with Trump and Russia?
Of course Benghazi was nonsense and Russia seems to have a factual basis, but that is really not my point.
Regarding adoption of the Benghazi strategy, to paraphrase Harry Truman -- If voters are given the choice between a Republican and a Democrat acting like a Republican they'll take the real Republican every time. Hillary made this mistake when she tried to beat Trump at his own game of insult, personal attack and scandal. Her attacks didn't stick and in the process she lost her message.
LOST said:
Paul,
The Republicans banged Hillary Clinton over the head with Benghazi and it worked.
Why shouldn't the Dems use the same tactic with Trump and Russia?
Of course Benghazi was nonsense and Russia seems to have a factual basis, but that is really not my point.
You still don't get the importance of Benghazi? The death of our Ambassador and other Americans, and the deliberate downplaying of the event for political purposes remains a stain on our democracy.
Think back to that time -- it marked the beginning and end of Mrs Clinton's relevancy.
You still don't get that it was overblown way out of proportion. It was tragic that people died, but that has happened to others in harms way. No one "downplayed" it. That has been explained to you many times. What do you mean by irrelevant? Hillary Clinton won the nomination and won the popular vote.
Russian interference with our elections is much more than a stain on our democracy. It is an attack by a foreign country. It may actually constitute an act of war.
paulsurovell said:
Regarding adoption of the Benghazi strategy, to paraphrase Harry Truman -- If voters are given the choice between a Republican and a Democrat acting like a Republican they'll take the real Republican every time. Hillary made this mistake when she tried to beat Trump at his own game of insult, personal attack and scandal. Her attacks didn't stick and in the process she lost her message.
I disagree. They did not attack Trump strongly enough. How much did we here about his history as a crooked an sleazy real estate speculator. Did you see one commercial with someone he forced out of their home? Did you see many of the small business people he ripped off in Atlantic City? Did you see any footage of Mussolini?
mtierney said:
You still don't get the importance of Benghazi? The death of our Ambassador and other Americans, and the deliberate downplaying of the event for political purposes remains a stain on our democracy.
Think back to that time -- it marked the beginning and end of Mrs Clinton's relevancy.
While there are certainly criticisms to be made of Clinton, and Obama, in regards to Benghazi, I don't find you qualified to make them. I wasn't on MOL during the Bush years, but I assume you were a supporter of Bush's invasion and occupation of Iraq? Let's put aside the questions of whether it was justified or not, and of whether the case for war was made in good faith or bad. Let's just talk, for a moment, about the execution of it. It was a debacle. Countless lives, American and Iraqi, were needlessly lost.
If you didn't see it when it came out, I highly recommend James Fallows Blind Into Baghdad from the Jan/Feb 2004 Atlantic. Even if you believe the Iraq was justly waged and honestly promoted, this article does a good job of going into how incompetently it was run.
And yet, I'm supposed to believe that you care about the death of four Americans? I'm sorry, but I'm sure you'll understand why I have a hard time believing your concern is anything less than partisan.
But that's all in the past, of course -- maybe we should talk more about the present? While I'm guessing at what your stance was during the Bush years, I can see for myself your continuing support for Trump, and I have a hard time squaring your supposed anguish over the missteps in Benghazi with your support for a man whose incompetence in all aspects of governance makes G.W. Bush look like a paragon of professionalism. In Trump's first counterterrorism operation, he got one command killed and three wounded on a mission his predecessor had found too risky. And rather than learn from this, Trump is ramping this up, essentially removing himself from the chain of command for risky raids and basically guaranteeing more American and civilian deaths.
So again, I'm sure you'll understand if I somewhat cynically read you as complaining that people died under a president of the wrong party, rather than actual concern about how to reduce casualties in foreign operations.
Tom_Reingold said:
@ctrzaska, for better or worse, people form into factions. If one party dies, factions would form in the remaining one. Look at what happened when the Whig party died.
True. Arguably already and recently happened with the Tea Party and Bernie crowds.
LOST said:
ctrzaska said:
Those coastal values seem increasingly popular with the one state that makes up most of the west coast apparently. If CA breaks off and falls into the ocean, it'll be one-party time for the foreseeable future. Good luck with that.
California is not going to break off, but if California were actually to secede who would it hurt more, California or the US? Without the Coasts this isn't much of a country.
The US without New York, LA, San Francisco, Philadelphia and Boston is like France without Paris, Great Britain without London or Italy without Rome.
I wasn't THAT serious. 
LOST said:
paulsurovell said:
Regarding adoption of the Benghazi strategy, to paraphrase Harry Truman -- If voters are given the choice between a Republican and a Democrat acting like a Republican they'll take the real Republican every time. Hillary made this mistake when she tried to beat Trump at his own game of insult, personal attack and scandal. Her attacks didn't stick and in the process she lost her message.
I disagree. They did not attack Trump strongly enough. How much did we here about his history as a crooked an sleazy real estate speculator. Did you see one commercial with someone he forced out of their home? Did you see many of the small business people he ripped off in Atlantic City? Did you see any footage of Mussolini?
https://www.vox.com/policy-and...
Hillary Clinton’s campaign ran TV ads that had less to do with policy than any other presidential candidate in the past four presidential races, according to a new study published on Monday by the Wesleyan Media Project.
[ . . . ]
Beyond overall ad spending, the study also breaks down the content of the attack ads aired on behalf of each candidate. It says about 70 percent of Trump’s ads “contained at least some discussion of policy.” About 90 percent of Clinton’s attack ads went after Trump as an individual — compared with just 10 percent that went after his policies, the study found.
The Benghazi debacle took place a few weeks before the 11/12 election.
The Obama campaign was focused on the Ben Laden death, and the "decimation" of the terrorist threat, with his followers "on the run." Then there was the raid on our Ambassador's consulate .
After that there were the two weeks of lying by Susan Rice on TV and the infamous talking points memo. HRC was damaged by her inconsistent responses as SOS, etc.
Benghazi was a political liability in 2012 and, IMPO, a marker for the chaos that has followed.
PVW said:
mtierney said:
You still don't get the importance of Benghazi? The death of our Ambassador and other Americans, and the deliberate downplaying of the event for political purposes remains a stain on our democracy.
Think back to that time -- it marked the beginning and end of Mrs Clinton's relevancy.
While there are certainly criticisms to be made of Clinton, and Obama, in regards to Benghazi, I don't find you qualified to make them. I wasn't on MOL during the Bush years, but I assume you were a supporter of Bush's invasion and occupation of Iraq? Let's put aside the questions of whether it was justified or not, and of whether the case for war was made in good faith or bad. Let's just talk, for a moment, about the execution of it. It was a debacle. Countless lives, American and Iraqi, were needlessly lost.
If you didn't see it when it came out, I highly recommend James Fallows Blind Into Baghdad from the Jan/Feb 2004 Atlantic. Even if you believe the Iraq was justly waged and honestly promoted, this article does a good job of going into how incompetently it was run.
You do not understand to whom you are speaking. Read and think about the following, but do not think to hard without a supply of aspirin.
mtierney said:
The Benghazi debacle took place a few weeks before the 11/12 election.
The Obama campaign was focused on the Ben Laden death, and the "decimation" of the terrorist threat, with his followers "on the run." Then there was the raid on our Ambassador's consulate .
After that there were the two weeks of lying by Susan Rice on TV and the infamous talking points memo. HRC was damaged by her inconsistent responses as SOS, etc.
Benghazi was a political liability in 2012 and, IMPO, a marker for the chaos that has followed.
paulsurovell said:
[ . . . ]
Beyond overall ad spending, the study also breaks down the content of the attack ads aired on behalf of each candidate. It says about 70 percent of Trump’s ads “contained at least some discussion of policy.” About 90 percent of Clinton’s attack ads went after Trump as an individual — compared with just 10 percent that went after his policies, the study found.
Do discussions of policy include building a wall and getting Mexico to pay for it? Do they include coming out in favor of torture or attacks on NATO? Technically such things might qualify as "discussions of policy".
At Trump's rallies the people yelled "Lock her up". Did the people at Clinton rallies have a chant like that about Trump?
you lost me, Lost!
If you want to point a finger at BHO's handling of the war, let's start with his setting the date well in advance for troop removal. A gift to our enemies.
mtierney said:
you lost me, Lost!
If you want to point a finger at BHO's handling of the war, let's start with his setting the date well in advance for troop removal. A gift to our enemies.
You don't know who set that date?
Hint: it wasn't Obama
LOST said:
paulsurovell said:
[ . . . ]
Beyond overall ad spending, the study also breaks down the content of the attack ads aired on behalf of each candidate. It says about 70 percent of Trump’s ads “contained at least some discussion of policy.” About 90 percent of Clinton’s attack ads went after Trump as an individual — compared with just 10 percent that went after his policies, the study found.
Do discussions of policy include building a wall and getting Mexico to pay for it? Do they include coming out in favor of torture or attacks on NATO? Technically such things might qualify as "discussions of policy".
At Trump's rallies the people yelled "Lock her up". Did the people at Clinton rallies have a chant like that about Trump?
I didn't read the details of the study. Perhaps you could do that if you wish to rebut Vox's conclusion:
https://www.vox.com/policy-and...
Hillary Clinton’s campaign ran TV ads that had less to do with policy than any other presidential candidate in the past four presidential races, according to a new study published on Monday by the Wesleyan Media Project.
And that's why it's so frustrating to have this conversation. Even when such obvious details as Obama honoring President Bush's status of forces agreement to pull troops out of Iraq by the end of 2011 are explained countless times in many different ways Obama gets the blame, because, one presumes, he's Obama. And everyone knows everything was hunky dory in the Middle East until Obama showed up.
I did not bring up Iraq.
Of course the current President and the former President had the same position on the decision to invade Iraq.
ridski said:
And that's why it's so frustrating to have this conversation. Even when such obvious details as Obama honoring President Bush's status of forces agreement to pull troops out of Iraq by the end of 2011 are explained countless times in many different ways Obama gets the blame, because, one presumes, he's Obama. And everyone knows everything was hunky dory in the Middle East until Obama showed up.
It's frustrating to have a conversation with someone who is hard of hearing. Sometimes no matter how loudly you shout or how many times you repeat yourself you are not heard.
I wear hearing aids, for your information! My hearing is just fine.
Do I get a sniff of a discriminatory ageism remark?
Do all hearing-impaired MOLers lack comprehension as well?
ml1 said:
mtierney said:
you lost me, Lost!
If you want to point a finger at BHO's handling of the war, let's start with his setting the date well in advance for troop removal. A gift to our enemies.
You don't know who set that date?
Hint: it wasn't Obama
I don't understand what war(s) you all are referring to which required Obamas involvement. Didn't GWB accomplish the mission before leaving office?
mtierney said:
I wear hearing aids, for your information! My hearing is just fine.
Do I get a sniff of a discriminatory ageism remark?
Do all hearing-impaired MOLers lack comprehension as well?
I did not know you where hearing aids, and I am a senior citizen. And, of course, we don't listen on MOL we read.
And you apparently misread what I wrote since I never mentioned Iraq. But that was not my point.
"It's frustrating to have a conversation with someone who is hard of hearing. Sometimes no matter how loudly you shout or how many times you repeat yourself you are not heard."
Your words, Lost. Seems hearing is involved.
mtierney said:
"It's frustrating to have a conversation with someone who is hard of hearing. Sometimes no matter how loudly you shout or how many times you repeat yourself you are not heard."
Your words, Lost. Seems hearing is involved.
I would like to introduce you to something called a "metaphor".
LOST said:
mtierney said:
I wear hearing aids, for your information! My hearing is just fine.
Do I get a sniff of a discriminatory ageism remark?
Do all hearing-impaired MOLers lack comprehension as well?
I did not know you where hearing aids, and I am a senior citizen. And, of course, we don't listen on MOL we read.
And you apparently misread what I wrote since I never mentioned Iraq. But that was not my point.
In fairness to mtierney, her hearing and vision can be quite sharp when it suits her. She's able to detect the slightest flaw in any given Democratic politician, and magnify to any size you care for. It's only when it comes to Republicans that she suddenly can see no evil, hear no evil, speak no evil. It's a strange, though not so uncommon, sort of deafness and blindness, one which I doubt has anything to do with age.
Sponsored Business
Promote your business here - Businesses get highlighted throughout the site and you can add a deal.
The Republican obsession with Benghazi does not seem to have hurt them. It probably helped by hurting Hillary Clinton. So maybe the fact that Democrats lose elections by 3-4% in Districts where they previously lost by 20+% has something to do with the Russia scandal.