That's because Righties going on about Dems not creating enough jobs is like a serial killer raving about a motorist who accidentally hit a pedestrian.
If the point being made here were a pitch in baseball, you wouldn't even be in the right ballpark. "Schumer may be right, but that doesn't change the fact that Repubs have been wrong every inch of the way & are still wrong today-" You cannot even get one lame ass pathetic sentence out with criticism of the left that doesn't include "BUT" followed by something the repubs did.
Ahhhh those poor Dems, those mean ole righties saying bad things about them. Seems like now there's more in fighting after the mid-terms. Noticed Howard Dean said pretty much the same thing as Schumer.
That's because Righties going on about Dems not creating enough jobs is like a serial killer raving about a motorist who accidentally hit a pedestrian.
Well I'm glad we have a thriving and growing middle class with increasing job security and income. I haven't seen that backed up. Can you link to how well the middle class is doing compared to the last 20 years or so? That's awesome news.
Dems engage in some introspection & it's infighting?
I suppose it looks that way to ideologically hidebound people incapable of introspection. You sure as Hell won't see Repubs saying that they could have done more to create jobs. The idea never entered their minds.
No thanks.
No thanks. I'll just compare the results for the U.S. middle class compared to that of other developed countries over the last 5 years.
Now, presumably, you see what I mean. We were able to accomplish a lot despite rabid opposition from conservatives. Imagine the damage that could have been caused if we let them get their way.
Ahhhh those poor Dems, those mean ole righties saying bad things about them. Seems like now there's more in fighting after the mid-terms. Noticed Howard Dean said pretty much the same thing as Schumer.
[/B]
I saw Dean's comments and they were not quite the same
His point was they spent too much time on it and got too little. He blamed Leiberman for playing the fences, torpedoing the public option in favor of the ins CO's that dominate his state, and causing the process to drag out for months. In the end they spent their capital infighting and ultimately passing a Conservative plan.
I think many hated Lieberman after that (and his little bromance with the Iraq war and McCain)
I'm not sure about Dean in regard to the ACA, but he ran on a platform which was highly critical of the lumbering "business as usual" Democratic party. Whether one liked Dean or his policies he wasn't the round peg for the round hole and when he foolishly shot off his mouth both sides jumped on him resulting in the "revolutionary" John Kerry and yes that's sarcasm. Large institutions including the Big Two political parties want the status quo as a rule but will sometimes come up with an agenda that no one dare question.
The flight from Dean to Kerry is one I will never understand. Dems got what they wanted with that.
His Aca comments are consistent with the above. The decision to delete the public option basically cements the HC system as being dominated by private ins CO's. That had always been the criticism from the left. The ACA wasn't the HC reform they were looking for.
I think you're being a bit too generous in ascribing some noble motive to Schumer's comments. If anything, he was being rather cynical, saying that the ACA was a poor political investment for the Dems because there were only a few million voters who recognize substantial benefit from it. He's suggesting Dems should have put on a bigger show for the working class instead, since that's a much bigger pool of voters. Until Schumer actually starts submitting such worker-friendly bills, however, it is only a show.Of course "no thanks". In too many ways the so called Liberals and Conservatives are virtually identical in mindset, which makes Schumer's attitude refreshing. Rather than looking how real people's lives are affected you pull up aggregate statistics from other nations which do not pay the bills of our citizens here. Republicans have been oppositional, but the Democrats have no imagination and no real concern what happens in the real world. In essence they'll just ignore what the US middle class has to deal with by selecting other nations we have no say in. It isn't about "other developed countries", it's about us and what has really been done. It's about addressing the very real concerns of the nation, not just their party faithful. What was done is nothing compared to what is needed and they didn't even stop to think what that was. You can compare us to other developed countries and out of office as a result. Frankly neither side is worth two cents so if we could get rid of the lot of I'd be thrilled. Instead we'll hear more about conservatives/republicans and how the opposite side can pat themselves on the back and oh how awful they are being talked about in negative terms. The peasants never appreciate their lord's noblesse oblige.
At the time, Dean wasn't a DNC insider. He was a party maverick and a threat to the status quo. The DNC couldn't allow him to win, and they didn't.I never understood that either. I don't agree with Dean's policies all that much but I thought the speech that did him in showed the kind of enthusiasm we need in the White House.
I think you're being a bit too generous in ascribing some noble motive to Schumer's comments. If anything, he was being rather cynical, saying that the ACA was a poor political investment for the Dems because there were only a few million voters who recognize substantial benefit from it. He's suggesting Dems should have put on a bigger show for the working class instead, since that's a much bigger pool of voters. Until Schumer actually starts submitting such worker-friendly bills, however, it is only a show.
That said, I think this whole notion that it's worker legislation vs. ACA is a false dichotomy. Congress has enough cycles to do both, and they did both. They did too little on both fronts, but it's not due to a lack of focus. It's because they didn't want to do more, or at the very least, couldn't get the votes to do more.
Re. workers and jobs specifically, I see no evidence the Democrats as a party really want to do much more than they already have. We may see a national minimum wage increase and a few small changes, but I don't expect the Dems to do anything really substantial to return America's middle class to its glory days. The Dems are largely pursuing the same few deep-pocketed interests as the Republicans, and those interests don't want increased labor costs. That would hurt profits. So the Dems will tinker around the edges for show, but they're not going to push for truly high impact changes that will curtail off-shoring, increase domestic wages, or force those deep pockets to share their windfall of the last few decades.
At the time, Dean wasn't a DNC insider. He was a party maverick and a threat to the status quo. The DNC couldn't allow him to win, and they didn't.
It wasn't the Party. It was the so-called Liberal Media-
http://rabbit-hole-journey.blogspot.com/2007/11/truth-about-howard-dean-scream-and.html
Did they also blow up the WTC? Rabbit hole indeed.
That's an interesting opinion piece, and I agree the media played a major role in killing Dean's campaign, but it curiously glosses over all of the anti-Dean rhetoric coming from within his party. Dean may have threatened the media status quo, but he was a much greater threat to the DNC status quo. For example, Dean was vocally anti-Iraq (one reason he received so much grass roots support), yet most of the Dems' big names had supported the invasion of Iraq. Awkward, to say the least, and a threat to the war profiteers' golden goose.It wasn't the Party. It was the so-called Liberal Media-
http://rabbit-hole-journey.blogspot.com/2007/11/truth-about-howard-dean-scream-and.html
That's an interesting opinion piece, and I agree the media played a major role in killing Dean's campaign, but it curiously glosses over all of the anti-Dean rhetoric coming from within his party. Dean may have threatened the media status quo, but he was a much greater threat to the DNC status quo. For example, Dean was vocally anti-Iraq (one reason he received so much grass roots support), yet most of the Dems' big names had supported the invasion of Iraq. Awkward, to say the least, and a threat to the war profiteers' golden goose.
In short, IMO, the media was far more tool than instigator. Here's an opinion piece I found that generally matches how I remember the rise and fall of Dean: http://www.garlicandgrass.org/issue7/Mary_Greenberg.cfm
Much what I said before. Dean was a relatively unknown outsider that caught the DNC insiders by surprise. While they initially liked all the anti-war young people Dean was attracting, their enthusiasm turned to concern as Dean rose in the polls and became the front runner. He was considered too independent and too liberal. even though as a governor he had a moderate record and was considered pro-business. The DNC wanted the nomination to go to a pro-war, old guard insider like Kerry (who was then way down in the polls, at 7% IIRC). So the party machine turned on Dean and began promoting Kerry.Ugg, you got the short version of that?
Much what I said before. Dean was a relatively unknown outsider that caught the DNC insiders by surprise. While they initially liked all the anti-war young people Dean was attracting, their enthusiasm turned to concern as Dean rose in the polls and became the front runner. He was considered too independent and too liberal. even though as a governor he had a moderate record and was considered pro-business. The DNC wanted the nomination to go to a pro-war, old guard insider like Kerry (who was then way down in the polls, at 7% IIRC). So the party machine turned on Dean and began promoting Kerry.
You seem to have missed the point. The major concern wasn't health care but "job care". Downsizing, losing jobs to overseas, wage disparity, the very existence of a middle class was what people were mostly concerned with. Through the entire " recovery ", all that supporters focus on are percentage points in hiring, while skilled people are worked to death and if they are in their 40's or 50's and lose that job they might as well drop dead because their chance of being rehired at like wages and not be ruined aren't great. The Republicans are fine with that and the Democrats don't do a damned thing but stick to obamacare and ignore the real fears and concerns. We're redundant, not needed. We're being freed from our livelihoods but while we may lose everything no one cares.