Batman v the occupy Wall Street types
Stephen on the other side quoted Rush Limbaugh complaining that the Batman movie was anti-Romney because they villain was called Bane. I went to see the Batman movie today and boy was Rush wrong. My take on the movie was that you could interpret it as an attack on the Luddite thinking that goes into the Occupy movement and the liberal attacks on success. In fact, were I a leftist, I would suspect that this movie was made as an antidote to the populist sentiment expressed by left wing activists.
The movie is comic book-like in the super villain against the hero. What the villain does, however, is to appeal to the "have-nots" to take away from the rich what they have been deprived of. The poor sack the homes of the rich and move in (as we saw the Soviets in real life and portrayed in Dr. Zhivago). The "disenfranchised" hold kangaroo courts to punish the rich. Gangs of thugs are let of our jail because they are oppressed. Sounds a lot like the Occupy Wall Street dystopia if those clowns had their way
In the end of the movie, the police kick the asses of the mobs occupying the city and reestablish order. Of course, Batman has to save the city too.
Overall, the Batman movie is a good lesson that we cannot/should not allow the emotions of hatred for the rich to take over our minds and that bad guys with ulterior motives can manipulate the envy of the masses to their own and the general doom.
So unlike many other movies, I think this one firmly stands on the side of order and against the idea of class based revolution.
I did not like the violence portrayed etc, but I have to say that this one is not one for the leftists.
BTW - intentions sometimes don't matter. I recall the Francis Ford Coppola intended his helicopter attack by the air cavalry on the Vietcong in "Apocalypse Now"to be anti-war. But young men watching it thought it was just cool and exciting. Whatever the intention, the message of Batman was - order good, mob rule bad, politics of envy very bad. And I think that is good.
Posted by Christine & John at July 29, 2012 5:37 PM
Does the opening comment have anything to do with slimming the size of government and is the comment timely in the Batman movie. lol
“What the villain does, however, is to appeal to the “have-nots” to take away from the rich what they have been deprived of.”
Perhaps we could view Romney as played by Bruce Wayne/Batman, coming to the rescue.
Metaphors, go figure.
Yawn — how tedious.
I was going to go see Batman, but following on the horrible massacre in Aurora, I’m not even interested.
If anyone wants to see a really great film, check out Moonrise Kingdom. I totally loved it.
By the way Jack, the nation is sick of the class warfare being waged by the wealthy on the middle class and the poor. You conservatives, and the conservative congressional majority, and your multimillionaire candidate can try to keep pushing that austerity policy and all those attempts to try to shame people into silence regarding their struggles (not to mention the gross and ever growing inequality) if you really think you can win with that — but don’t expect people to ignore the fact that poverty has now reached its highest level since 1965.
I will simply add to your point -
poverty has now reached its highest level since 1965 - under the presidency of Barack Obama, with a Democratic Senate.
So I do indeed hope people remember on November. As far as I am concerned, they should vote against all incumbents.
We would expect that the Obama “jobs bill” would do as good a job as the Obama stimulus, i.e. cost billions and produce nothing.
I know that according to you President Obama, the most powerful man in the world, is not responsible for anything. If he is that powerless, perhaps we should replace him instead of making excuses for him.
I think your interpretation is no more accurate than Rush’s, really.
I’m going to try and keep this as spoiler free as possible, but the fact is, Bane’s not some socialist. “When Gotham is Ashes, you have my permission to die!”, a line from the trailer, should tell you what you need to know.
Severing Gotham City from the Outside world and bringing in that means to destroy Gotham is all meant to be part of this gambit to increase the suffering of Gotham, punish it for its corruption, and Bruce in turn for having prevented the success of the attack in the first film.
Peace in Gotham City came from a lie, and that lie meant that many of the conditions that the League of Shadows used to manipulate things in the first film are still present. So when Bane comes in, he’s not merely rabble rousing, he’s manipulating the rich, using their corruption against them.
In other words, everybody’s played for a fool, nobody comes out clean. Heck, Bane’s appeal wouldn’t have been too seductive if the upper class of Gotham hadn’t kept a lid on a lot of ugliness under the surface.
The message I would take would be that when corruption and injustice pervade a society, it makes it easier for extremists to come in and exploit things for their own purpose, to destroy that society.
When you try and force people to accept a terrible status quo, you typically end up creating tensions and pressures in society that need release. By rushing back to power and doing your plum best to sabotage relief, you haven’t prevented change from taking place, you’ve pent it up.
I see Republican commentators trying to discredit the OWS protestors, and what they fail to realize is, that the OWS protestors were just the tip of the iceberg in terms of the discontent. The discussion’s already changed, and as things wear on, and as the newer generations take dominance, there’s going to be a shift in thinking.
Republicans have to realize that they cannot talk people out of wanting change from what just went on, and all they’re acheiving at this point is increasing the weight with which they’ll be faced in trying to stop this.
Bane already had a base force of loyal soldiers, to which he added the disaffected homeless driven under ground, and a bunch of hardened criminals from where the Dent Act was keeping the violent offenders. These weren’t folks with bad hygiene in drum circles, protestors with a message.
Really weak Jack.
I wonder why you bother to lie? It’s not like everyone with half a brain isn’t aware that the GOP kept our economy from recovering, and that they’ve done so on purpose in order to hurt Obama in November. Come on — just own it — I’m sure all the people on the right here already understand that this has been the case. They don’t even mind either, since just like you they think it’s all worth it as long as intentionally depressing the economy can remove Obama from office.
It’s not a secret that after running on “Jobs, Jobs, Jobs” the GOP proceeded to block every single jobs bill in the Senate. And, that blocking the last one was particularly egregious and that there was no excuse for it.
So drop the pretense, and just own it, okay? Since we’re all political junkies here, you’re really not fooling anyone.
Here’s a couple of links folks on the left might find interesting:
5 Ways Republicans Have Sabotaged Job Growth
After Stonewalling Obama’s Jobs Package, Republicans Complain About GDP Growth
Bane is a comic book bad guy with all that means. He is not a socialist, but he uses very openly the rhetoric of class struggle and envy.
The thing that I found seriously nasty (not comic book) is how the take over resembled what the Bolsheviks did in real life during the communist revolutions. I don’t know if the producers used Bolshevik models or they just stumbled on it, but the oppression and the fear were very communist.
Democrats took control of both houses of Congress in 2006. They took the presidency in 2008. They controlled the whole show with super majorities. If they cannot do anything with those conditions, they cannot do anything in general.
BTW - I had never lied on this blog. Don’t project on to me your own sins. You don’t agree with my opinions. For me, that is actually a point of pride. But opinions you disagree with are not lies.
They controlled the whole show, eh? Then what happened to four out of five Democratic Party bills? What exactly were you praising when you said that it was only right that the minority protest by filibustering? If they were all in control, none of that happened.
Fact of the matter, 60 votes, for the brief period the Democrats had them, was BARELY able to prevent a filibuster. One less, and it was effectively no better than being in the minority, despite the fact that votes were the other way.
Your side willingly sabotaged, undermined the legislature. You corrupted its function with unprecedented obstruction. And why? Because you couldn’t take the verdict of the American people in good grace.
Your people didn’t even wait to start this ridiculous behavior.
You want it both ways, to defend and glorify the way you used your votes in the senate to stall Democrat’s plans, yet blame them for the impasses, yet at the same time claim you were powerless, so as to further blame them.
Here’s the thing, though: Republicans had to keep all forty votes lockstepped, no defections, in order to maintain the blockade of the Senate. That’s a deliberate, calculated act. The fact we got Arlen Specter, to begin with, only came because you successfully drove him from the party after he voted in favor of the Stimulus.
The question here was whether the division in the Democratic party was enough so that votes that went against cloture would have also gone against passage, and in many cases that was not true.
Your side, despite being a minority, used an element of the Senate rules to impose an extraconstituional ten vote margin over a majority vote in order to pass legislation. This wasn’t a case of the Republicans standing aside, and letting the Democrats fail of their own accord, this was a deliberate, unified political response that manipulated Senate rules in order to leverage greater power in order to ensure that most Democratic legislation died, where it would otherwise have the votes to pass.
And no, the President cannot unilaterally approve legislation, so if you cut things short at the Senate level, Obama had no remedy besides what powers congress had already given him. So don’t talk about this as if it represents something inherent in our party, because even with this impediment, we were still able to create far more legislation than the Republican Party could. You want a truly dysfunctional Congress, look at the one that your ultrapartisan, uncooperative, political radical Tea Party’s run. And look what’s come of it: their greatest policy contribution is that God-forsaken fiscal cliff, and all the economic chaos that you put this country through in order to get that deal.
As for the nastiness of certain revolutions, my sensibility is, you’ll find that with just about any strong-arm sort of insurrection You say the oppression and fear were very communist, I say they’re very much what you get when you don’t have constitutional, reasonable restraints on power, and you have radicals of any kind, left, right, or just plain eccentric, in charge. It’s when people push an agenda where human beings are just inconveniently in the way.
I’m a big believer in this country, and I want to keep the constitution the touchstone for both how government is empowered, and how that empowerment is kept focused where it ought to be, and not on arbitrarily messing with our lives.
Yes, Bane uses the rhetoric of class warfare. But I hear Republicans and Conservatives, especially in the Tea Party pushing their own brand of populism, shouting loudly to people about ditching the elites who have too much control over their lives.
If you really look at it, faux populism is part of the toolkit of many different flavors of politician, of tyrant and corrupt officials.
True freedom doesn’t come from not taking care of the interests of the people, though. The OWS, and even your tea party, to a certain extent, represent symptoms of the rupture of the benefit of the doubt that Wall Street types and their policies once enjoyed. People looked at the economy and said, things are growing, this is just a case of people moving my cheese, and I need to suck it up and get going.
But when the financial crisis and everything hit, folks reconsidered that, and I don’t think even being successful in trashing the OWS, and throwing accusations of class warfare and everything at people will renew that trust. People believe that the elites who told them to just let Wall Street do what it wanted lead them astray.
The best you can do is get people to wallowing in cynical resignation, but cynical resignation is one step away from having somebody who has Obama’s charisma, but not his conscience about manipulating people taking advantage of that simmering resentment. You’re missing one half of the message. It’s not enough to sit on the failings of the elite, the very reall failings. You have to resolve the problem, ultimately.
Adrienne, I just saw your “multimillionaire candidate” comment. You are so right I mean what would a multimillionaire know about the economy? Wait a minute….
That’s a good question, considering many government officials are multimillionaires, and many Wall Street Bankers who torched their own banks were as well.
People inherit multimillions without any necessary understanding of the economy, too, so why do you need to understand economics properly to be a multimillionaire?
Some problem with your theories. First, your villains were far from luddites, employing some sophisticated methods, technology, and understanding of technology in order to achieve their plan. Second, the OWS protesters weren’t luddites either, employing today’s sophisticated real world computer technology to get their message out, especially when the major networks weren’t yet paying attention.
As for Attacks on success? Success?
You have to define the term pretty broadly, or specifically to some Wall Street types who made their money betting against the economy to define what happened as success. The Market failed on a catastrophic level, and almost nobody’s been punished for what they’ve done in a court of law. People don’t have a problem with folks succeeding, they have a problem with folks either succeeding at the expense of the rest of the economy, or with folks cratering the investment banks and the traditional banks, socializing the losses through the government, and then rewarding themselves.
Or, if we’re looking back far enough, they have a problem with somebody whose idea of success is buying up weakened companies, loading up their books with debt, paying their investors big dividends off the cash raised, and then ditching the company. They’d like to see some creative construction, as well as creative destruction.
They’d like to see an economy where success is not attained by pushing people towards failure.
You want to avoid class based revolution? Then don’t make our economy depend for its growth on the parasitizing of the middle class. Don’t allow the undermining of the many to become the main means of enriching the few. People will be more satisfied with letting the rich have what they have when they’re not losing so much to line their pockets.
Or put another way, if you make the interest of the poor and the rich mutually exclusive, you will get class warfare, and if things go far enough revolution. If people can look at policies, and see that they gain from those policies, if they can make real gains working with the rich to further their ambitions, then the motivation for such things will be less.
The rich dug their own graves in Gotham City, some conspiring with the bad guys to take power in their own way, others simply ignoring how bad it was getting for people until it was too late. People can do that in real life, although its more likely we will see more stringent laws, rather than people being carried out of their homes.
I didn’t feel any particular shots aimed at the left there. What I saw was an opportunistic powermonger telling one set of people one thing, and another set of people another, setting up events to where everything played into his hands.
Oh, and the rich didn’t save Gotham. It wasn’t Bruce Wayne’s wealth that rescued him. It was his wits, his courage, his skills, his willingness to sacrifice for others. He was a ruined man when Bane defeated him, and later on in the story. But he fought back both times and did extraordinary things. People don’t consider Bruce Wayne a Hero because he’s one of the one percent. They consider him a hero because of his virtues.
If the Rich and the Republicans want to be considered heroes, they’ve got to do right by other people, and not push them away in the name of not giving in to class envy or whatever. They’ve got to recognize problems, and help solve them, and by that I mean real problems, not merely the ideological problems they drone on about these days.
I know Democrats cannot seem to get anything done unless they have complete control, but I will point out again that no Republican has had the kind of control Democrats and Obama had for more than eighty years.
Actually Obama and the company passed what they thought was most important, i.e. ObamaCare and the stimulus. These were their priorities, not jobs. And they got what they wanted.
The stimulus was a direct jobs bill, so you fail on your basic premise. That, in fact, is the Republican objection, in a nutshell. You say you would like to see us forward and actual jobs bill, but what you mean by that (if your Congress’s actions are any guide), are additional efforts at deregulation, destruction of environmental protection, further tax cuts, and maintenance of tax cuts, passage of Paul Ryan’s radical restructuring of Medicare, repeal of Obamacare, and so on and so forth.
In other words, your notion you’ve been passing jobs bills while we haven’t is based on what is effectively a circular argument about the economic value of your policies.
Now, you didn’t have the numbers in the last few years, but in all but a few rare cases, you had our cooperation. You had a somewhat sympathetic centrist and conservative wing of the Democratic Party to help you push policies like the Tax cut, the wars, and everything else. I suppose Obama’s biggest error in his Presidency was believing that when the shoe was on the other foot, the Republicans would be bipartisan, too.
Instead, Republicans choose not merely to fail to cooperate, but instead actively obstructed, to the point where 80% of our legislation died on account of both lockstep Republican behavior, and the fact that some of our people still persisted in trying to be “bipartisan” even when we had the power. Many of those people have been rewarded either with being succeeded by actual Republicans, or with the complete alienation of the Democratic base, making their future prospects less certain.
There’s formal power, and then there’s its informal shadow, and the key to understanding why Democrats didn’t perform as solidly as Republicans did when they had both majorities and the Presidency is the legacy of the years of conservative preparation.
Understanding that this legacy exists allows me to consider Obama, Reid, and Pelosi’s achievements in their proper context. They are fighting the very establishment of the last thirty years. They are trying to change a rather rigorously and expensively defended status quo, beating back the crest of the Republican’s movement. I look at our current situation as an inflection point, a turning point, and I believe that the difficulties inherent in that explain much about the situation.
We didn’t have all the power. The voter put us in charge, but the Democrats were never as ideologically together before they took power as the Republicans are now.
But the thing that strikes me as I look at what the Republicans are doing is that they don’t realize that there is a price to using power this way.
They’re killing the golden gooses, the cooperative Democrats on the other side of the aisle, the deference among many Democrats, the President included, that had them trying to cooperate, rather than compete with them.
They’re trying to win every political fight, rather than choosing their battles. I think you probably have a lot of emotionally exhausted people out there.
They’ve become so static, so lacking in real, compelling, plausible ideas, that people would be hard pressed to name a program or idea that anybody thinks will actually be carried out. The tax cuts for the rich aren’t that popular, and the whole notion of further deregulation, after one disaster after another, has lost its edge of innocuous appeal.
Republicans are wearing themselves out, in my opinion, trying to stop change from taking place, rather than adapt to it, and the net result, I think, will be a party that is more insular, taken less seriously, and seen as a more musty, dusty approach as time goes on.
I’m not saying the party is dead or dying, but it’s going to have to molt its old shell and evolve to something new, or its going to lose a lot more. You can’t muster a Tea Party Light Brigade Charge every election, people are not going to remain undisillusioned long enough for that to work. Sooner or later, Republicans will be drawn into an equilibrium with the rest of society, or the rest of society will begin to ostracize them, characterize them as the old fogeys holding everybody back.
After all of that, we get the same thing we always do:
“It’s all somebody elses fault!”
Taking a page from the leftist agenda, Bane uses envy to condemn success. Weak people who would rather pity themselves than take care of themselves, fall in lock-step with their blind support.
Obama has taught you guys well.
You do not mention the Senate which has a democrat majority and has failed to bring to the floor dozens of jobs bills. Must be those minority republicans, but oh wait a moment. Harry Reid has control. So he can bring to the floor or do not bring to the floor those bills he deems as whatever he deems them to be. So how does this blame thing work? You make no sense at all. You keep stretching the blame game into a rubber band that will snap and sting you in a way you don’t want to know.
Here is the real thing. Your party is in trouble. You think you can blame the others to get out of this trouble, but the truth will win out. This Marxist president you have and which you have locked step with, is bring the country to such debt that the failure is just right aroung the corner unless drastic steps are taken to pull us back from the brink, or as you people say the clift.
It seems to me that we went over the cliff a long time ago. Given the notion that those who sent us there seem to have no inclination to help us back up, perhaps they would be more motivated if they were forced to move a bit closer to the edge. How long must the cliff dwellers languish while those on firm ground make significant gains? Should we simply accept our cliff residence as the new norm? Or do we demand some parity in accountability? I believe I know what those who have never accepted responsibility for their economic malfeascance would prefer. It certainly does not resemble a formula in which everyone covers an equitable share of the burden.
Oh, I will gladly admit that Democrats were too friendly with the Republicans, undermined their own ability to legislate. Too many of the legislators made themselves look like part of the problem.
But the problem is, I see your people doing precisely what you accuse me of doing here. I am not so much trying to deflect blame from Obama, as to keep blame that doesn’t belong there from being placed on him. Republicans don’t get to kill eighty percent of legislation through lockstep use of the filibuster and get away with it. There was only a brief period where Democrats could pass anything they wanted without a Republican crossing over. It began in July 2009 with the final seating of Al Franken, and ended just six months later, with the seating of Scott Brown.
Six months out of two years. Beyond those several months, all Republicans had to do to win those votes was just not have a single defection, a dubious achievement Republicans managed again and again.
As for condemning success? If you won your millions by essentially borrowing millions on the credit of a company you forcefully took over on borrowed money, hell yes I condemn it.
Why don’t you?
If you won your millions and billions by swallowing up a huge portion of the banks in this country, then engaging in irresponsible levels of leveraging that nearly destroy your too-big to fail bank, and the rest of the economy, of course I condemn it.
Why don’t you?
If you won your millions and billions by defrauding your customers, betraying their interests to enrich yourself, of course I condemn your success.
Why don’t you?
I don’t care for an economy that is more based on one set of people sucking the rest of us dry, than the healthy arrangement of the economy. This isn’t about envy, this isn’t about me wanting what other’s got without doing something for it. This is about wanting the system to be just, the rewards for the good, the punishment for the wicked. If you think that’s peculiar or indicative of Marxism, read your bible. What your side is pushing is an economy based on a lack of moral scruples, and that I can’t support.
Riddle me this, riddle me that: how is the Stimulus, which directly provided for billions of dollars in program and job creating contracts not a jobs bill, yet bills that have nothing else to do with the economy than killing environmental protections and medicare as we know it are called jobs bills.
Why is it our job to pass hundreds of bills whose very provisions are poison pills to any Democrat who takes his or her beliefs seriously?
No, the Tea Partiers just want to radically reconfigure the government, and like Republicans have claimed for years, cloak their wealthy-benefiting programs in the guise of jobs bills. I know you folks love to make hay of the quotation by Rahm Emmanuel, but Republicans have been constantly exploiting our nation’s economic crisis to get their agenda pushed through.
They even exploit the fact that all their programs busted the budget to slash social spending and all kinds of other things. Too bad that none of their programs will actually reduce the deficit as promises, especially with their fiscal-sanity killing tax cuts.
“based on one set of people sucking the rest of us dry” - this is the oft repeated line but it is meaningless. Who are “the rest of us.” I think the most interesting group that repeated that was the occupy people,who as a rule didn’t work. Those that don’t produce anything cannot be ripped off by society as a whole.
In fact, you can only be “sucked dry” to the extent you have produced something first. You cannot rip off a non-producer.
President Obama is a real hero, because he always doing respectful things. It is so kind and nice of him to be supporting the marriage of the same sex. He respects everyone, no matter if he loves the same sex or not, this do not affend law, so I think that we should prove same sex’s love and marriage. Our essentials need is happiness.
All the people should be respected, this is human rights, this is the shining points of being a human. What we should pursue is living together well and happy. Only in this occasion, You will be really happy, from the bottom of the heart, real happiness.
So now you are blaming others for making you have to blame others? Give me a break and spare me the sob stories.
The fact is that Republicans DO get to filibuster legislation their constituents don’t want and it is the Presidents job to work with all to pass legislation all can live with. He has not done that. You blame Republicans for not ignoring their constituents and not bowing down before Obama and I blame Obama’s severe lack of leadership.
“There was only a brief period where Democrats could pass anything they wanted without a Republican crossing over”
You aren’t supposed to be able to “pass anything” you want and that is the problem with your guys, Stephen. You know Republicans don’t want more government, but you still offer more government and then you act surprised and blame Republicans when more government is rejected.
Defending against unfairly placed blame is fine, but you guys have gone off the deep-end trying protect Obama. You ignore concerns and make excuses for everything. You have to reinterpret what he says so that Americans know what he “really” meant. And you resort to name-calling and labeling in order to deal with us “dumb rednecks” who dare disagree with the great one.
I do not resent success, so I do not condemn the success of a businessman who legally makes money. I do not envy the wealth of others, so I do not care how they choose to distribute their wealth. I do not believe in having two sets of rules and treating one person unfairly in order to treat another person “fairly,” so that I feel all warm and fuzzy inside.
“If you won your millions and billions by defrauding your customers, betraying their interests to enrich yourself, of course I condemn your success.
Why don’t you?”
Defrauding your customers is illegal, so of course I “condemn” it.
“This isn’t about envy, this isn’t about me wanting what other’s got without doing something for it. This is about wanting the system to be just, the rewards for the good, the punishment for the wicked.”
BS. You want the system to be “just” in the way that you define what is “just.”
You want rewards for those that you define as “the good.”
You want punishment for those that you define as the “wicked.”
And, not surprising in the very least, you use money instead of rights to create those definitions.
“If you think that’s peculiar or indicative of Marxism, read your bible”
I am not religious so I don’t really care what the Bible says. Believing those with wealth are wicked and deserve punishment is not American. Forcefully taking from one and giving it to another is wrong.
“What your side is pushing is an economy based on a lack of moral scruples, and that I can’t support.”
So it’s ok to use morals to determine economic policy but not ok to use to determine social policy? Or are you saying it’s ok as long as it is your morals that are being used?
Why are your morals more valid than mine? How are your morals mandated in the name government good, but morals in the name of a God, bad?
What “your side” is pushing is a country based on your morals, your beliefs and your views, and that is something I cannot support.
Stephen, please don’t reply to comments with such broad generalities. We can go back and forth all month long about bad people that are democrats and republicans; dishonest employees and employers; crooks that are both rich and poor. That is a human condition that applies to so many so please spare us from your melodrama in an attempt to paint people that oppose your party as supporters of thieves. As far as these “people” that you so vaguely mention that make millions that don’t understand the economy, I’m also sure these people exist. However, this particular person, named Mitt Romney I’m sure has some semblance of an idea as to how the economy works. You know if I worked for a publicly held company and did a crappy job and my constant excuse was the mess that was made by the previous guy that held the same position at some point I would get fired because the stocks would be going down the toilette. Kind of like our economy.
“However, this particular person, named Mitt Romney I’m sure has some semblance of an idea as to how the economy works.”
Perhaps he does. However, he certainly hasn’t been clear about what he thinks is wrong with the economy or what he would do differently.
What is his analysis? What are his alternative policies? I challenge you to provide something more than vague general statements from Romney on almost any topic. How about health care? Its the leading economic problem in the US. He would repeal Obamacare even though its what he proposed and implemented in MA. Why? He says that while its good for MA., its not good for the nation. Why? I don’t know. Do you? He praises the Israeli socialized universal health financing system. Does he want to replace Obamacare with an Israeli type system? What is his alternative?
My sense, fellows, is that if you’re having to invoke heavy duty party discipline in order to get an outcome, you deserve the “credit” for your effort, because you’re making a deliberate choice, not merely accidentally following principle along with others. Under normal circumstances, you would have folks who would cross over for one reason or another.
Their lack is deeply artificial. Maintaining such an artificial, deliberate policy means an exercise in political power, both in that you can block Obama’s bills (preventing changes to the law), and in that this skews what does get through towards the conservative end of things.
You were never clean of this, even when we were talking about nominal “filibuster proof numbers” for that brief six month period.
Why should Obama be blamed for what they are deliberately and strategically doing? Why should he be blamed for the Republican blockade of his policies, and the consequences thereof? Why should Republicans be let off the hook for the consequences of policy, when they did so much and worked so hard to make it happen?
What you need to realize is that this system is built on everybody having their own view on what is right, and then coming together in some kind of rough agreement or compromise on what who we will have govern, and what principles we will have them govern by.
I know my opinions are subjective, but as you do with your opinions, I believe strongly in them, and they form part of my picture of what is real. Of course, as time goes on, I’ve learned that our picture of reality is always evolving, always flawed, but very necessary for us to actually make decisions about things.
The key is being able to walk back a decision when it doesn’t turn out the way we want it to. But Republicans and conservatives these days won’t let themselves admit anything is wrong, despite the failure of many of their policies to perform as promised. Irony was dead after 9/11, but it resurrected after this last decade as Republican policy makers achieved the exact opposite of many of their intentions. And why? Because admitting defeat with liberals ready to step in and try alternatives was tantamount in their ideas to betraying what they believed, betraying the causes for which they fought.
Who wants to do that?
As for the filibusters, I thought majorities were supposed to rule. That’s what we teach our kids, right? That in the Senate, if fifty plus one senator voted for something, it passed that chamber. Except, a politically desperate party has redefined that, and defends it with rhetoric it would have blasted as un-American back when they were facing much more minor frustrations with the filibuster and a handful of judges.
The right and wrong of things needs more stable definition. The quest for power can’t be all that defines right or wrong, no matter how much you believe in your cause.
At the time Obama ran for office, Health Care was one of the primary, if not the primary issue, The second major issue was the war in Iraq.
Seems to me that Obama has kept both of his major campaign promises, and now all the Republicans can do is complain and say “You haven’t done enough”. It’s the blooming Republicans that keep getting in his way.
Well folks, how about helping him out. Pass a jobs bill. Create a bill yourselves that will help and pass that one. Just lay off Obama because he’s did what he said he would do. None of us knew the recession was gong to be this bad. Not even the idiot Bush, who started the blasted thing. Obama is trying to get things under control
So take your blooming football home, and come back when you’re ready to start playing ball. In the meantime, shut up, unless you actually have something worth listening.
Both parties are guilty of the spending that has placed us in this position and neither side is willing to admit they were wrong. Whether it’s all talk and no action or not, Republicans are at least now acting serious about curbing the out of control spending.
Voters flipped the House in order to stop the liberal alternatives you speak of. You can keep pretending and promoting that Republicans are obstructing because all of them are racists or just hate Obama, but you won’t gain any ground until you acknowledge the fact that they simply do not agree with liberal policy. No matter how much you think it is better for the nation.
“As for the filibusters, I thought majorities were supposed to rule. That’s what we teach our kids, right?”
No, they do not rule and that is not what I teach my kids. I teach my kids that all rights and the views of a minority are protected under the Constitution and that there is a Constitutional process to take away those rights and force the minority to live according to others.
As far as your 51+ comment: It is the Presidents job to represent all of the people. When a piece of his legislation that transforms the country and takes it down a completely different path, only passes by one or two votes, it is obligation to step back, listen to the people and acknowledge this is not what is best for the country. Especially when the people send a clear message as they did in 2010.
Right and wrong has a stable definition, the Constitution. It only becomes unstable when we start redefining it in our quest for power.