Quote:
|
Originally Posted by guyy
Yes, it's callled "responsible" and "pragmatic", but does it really work? Take Bob Rae. (...Please!) He was so pragmatic and responsible that he's now a Liberal. This is what the Confucians call "rectification of names." And how much progressiveness did Tony Blair's "pragmatism" and "responsibility" win him? He ended up as Bush's justly-despised lap dog. "Responsible" Democrat William J. Clinton was an ineffective president, whose lasting mark on the US was a semen stain.
Bob La Follette, the very archetype of the progressive politician, built his power and reputation by stubbornly sticking to a progressive agenda. FDR didn't sit around trying to prove himself in his first term. The New Deal came almost immediately. And what Tommy Douglas established in the beginning was that he could get his agenda through -- not someone else's.
|
La Follette was a great Senator, but he was a failed presidential candidate.
FDR's New Deal programs rightly benefited from the Great Depression. While many now are worried about the economy, the country is in a far different place and far more divided about the solutions than it was in 1932.
The Democrats will pick up seats in both houses of Congress...but it is the Senate that matters most.... where the Dems need to pick up at least nine seats to gain a true working majority (60+ to prevent filibuster by Repubs). Few predict that is likely. If it does happen, I would expect Obama to be more aggressive in pursuing his progressive agenda while still balancing budgetary contraints abd demonstrating a respect for the minority..something sorely missing for the last eight years..
I love and support how host focuses on
what we should do. That voice needs to be heard...both in Congress with guys like Kucinich and Feingold and among the citizenry like host. I think the country would suffer if we lose those voices in either forum. They remind us of where we should be heading.
I prefer to focus on
what we can do, giving the political climate of 2008.