Let's not underestimate how much a photo op can change the narrative and demonstrate leadership. pic.twitter.com/oJqMCCZ5Dl
— LOLGOP (@LOLGOP) July 10, 2014
Jonathan Chait, in NYMag:
Ohio Senator Rob Portman spoke with Bloomberg yesterday, showing a little leg on his potential 2016 presidential candidacy. Portman started explaining that Republicans should not be afraid to run against Hillary Clinton. One reason he offered is that Clinton might lose the Democratic nomination. That’s when the talking points started to go wrong:
I mean, the Democratic Party is more populist and more liberal than it was when she ran last time, and yet she’s more mainstream, if anything. So… it is no longer the party of Bill Clinton…
Chait wonders whether the idea of a candidate being too “mainstream” is really good optics in a general election. But, especially after I listened to the 3-minute clip at Bloomberg — the quote is from the very end, most of it’s Portman slamming HRC’s record as Secretary of State — what interests me is Portman’s idea that the Democratic Party has become “more populist and more liberal” than in 2008. I mean, I would be extremely happy if that were true… but as a political wonk, all I’ve been seeing so far is that the Dems’ head honchos are cautiously, tentatively, even reluctantly beginning to explore the horrifying-to-centrists-and-Villagers possibility that Democratic voters are maybe not entirely opposed to the concept of moving the Overton Window somewhere to the left of Pat Buchanan or Rahm Emmanuel. There is absolutely a market for a Democratic Party that stands less obeisant to the One Percenters (or the Point Zero One Percenters), but Elizabeth Warren and Bernie Sanders just aren’t the toast of “Our Town”, at least not yet.
Which suggests, to me, that Portman’s problem is not the Democratic Party’s onset of ‘populist liberalism’ so much as it’s the redshift effect of his own Republican Party moving rightwards at what seems to be an ever-faster rate. It’s not that the Democrats are moving farther from the center (unfortunately), but presumably that’s what it looks like when you’re on the GOP spaceship to the edge of rightwing authoritarianism.
KG
I think Obama has moved the Democrats a bit to the left, but mostly in a superficial way. He has undone one of the main legacies of the Reagan era – liberal is no longer a dirty word in politics. Dems now have the luxury of offering center left proposals without being run out of town, they have the option of play offense rather than defense.
Republicans, on the other hand have become reactionary in a way I don’t ever remember seeing. Which, as a general rule, is very much a bad thing
Violet
No. What he means is the President is black.
Hunter Gathers
Portman’s the political equivalent of a mayonnaise sandwich. He’s just hoping to receive some sweet, sweet Jon Huntsman type love from the Villagers. It would be funny to watch him pull a T-Paw, though.
Belafon
Markos does point out that Democrats in Congress are actually further left than they were back in 2008 because there are fewer blue dogs and more liberal members. It hasn’t moved as much as we’d like, but the 2008 group wouldn’t have talked about raising the minimum wage even if their salaries were tied to it.
Violet
@Hunter Gathers: You mean launch his campaign, release a video where he’s portrayed as an action hero, then promptly withdraw from the race?
Liquid
A “Seriously do not ever bother looking up a collective term for” balls of dough have decided that their best interests might just reside in the purview of the sane.
Shit, it was “C” wasn’t it? Well there goes three and half years of work.
David Koch
Portman is extremely boring.
I also don’t think he’ll be able to raise money.
But aside from that, he supports gay marriage, which makes him toast with the Teatards.
divF
AL: Love the relativistic metaphor. Sounds like a keeper.
amk
How many klowns will be there for the 2016 klowns show?
Mnemosyne
@Belafon:
My Congresscritter left the Blue Dogs caucus somewhere between 2008 and the PPACA fight, and he’s been sliding left ever since.
(Sadly, though, he’ll never stop being in the wrong on copyright and electronic rights. When your district includes Disney, Warner Bros., NBC Universal, DreamWorks, and innumerable smaller companies, asking him to do the right thing on electronic rights is like asking a congresscritter from Detroit to stop supporting cars. Ain’t gonna happen.)
AA+ Bonds
Hey, as someone who correctly believes that Hillary Clinton is an imperialist murderer and war criminal who should spend the rest of her life in jail for the crimes committed against the Iraqi people, I concur. The Democrats are going to nominate her anyway.
MikeJ
@David Koch:
That’s a good thing among people who want to call themselves Republicans but hate all that yelling and screaming. The Republicans generally nominate the most boring white guy running.
Omnes Omnibus (the first of his name)
@AA+ Bonds: So, vote for the GOP non-war criminal. I am sure that it will work out well for you. No one with painted nails will be fucked with by the new GOP majority.
Thymezone
I am not really interested in discussing politics with anyone who thinks that a self described economic socialist (Sanders) is even remotely electable on a national ticket in this country.
The “toast of our town, at least not yet?” Give me a fucking break.
mclaren
@KG:
Nothing says “liberal” like signing off on extending the Bush tax cuts, authorizing the murder of American citizens without a trial and without criminal charges, signing the NDAA authorizing indefinite detention of Americans for non-violent political protests, murdering wedding parties in third world countries with drones, and letting criminal bankers and Wall Street financial crime lords go free from the consequences of their criminal fraud.
Yup, whenever I think of the great liberal presidents, like FDR or JFK, tax cuts for billionaires and the extrajudicial murder of U.S. citizens immediately comes to mind.
KG
@mclaren: heh, yeah, because JFK never cut taxes… oh, wait…
mclaren
@AA+ Bonds:
Of course the Democrats are going to nominate HIllary. Both parties have been taken over by the 1%er billionaires, so the essential qualification for the presidency has now become the approval of the billionaire financial crime lords who run America, the Jamie Dimons and the Koch brothers and the rest of that crew.
HIllary Clinton has the single most important prerequisite for the presidency: her daughter is married to a major Wall Street financial crime lord, a hedge fund trader at Goldman Sachs. Her additional qualifications include an eagerness to wage endless unwinnable wars against the rest of the world and sign off on more tax cuts for billionaires. She’s a lock. She’s in.
Terms like “imperialist murderer” and “war criminal” have an old-fashioned sound to them. Here in the 21st century, those descriptions are now subsumed under the general umbrella term “American politician.” In order to rise to prominence in American politics, a person must advocate burning brown babies and invading third world countries. That’s just a given. In the society of Forever War, anyone who advocate peace is a traitor.
mclaren
@KG:
JFK never cut taxes primarily for billionaires.
Once upon a time, America’s tax system used to be steeply progressive. Unbelieveable, I know. But do the research. You’ll find it’s true.
Liquid
This argument is about =
liberal
@mclaren: maybe, but you can’t claim that by just looking at marginal rates. You could have a very progressive set of marginal rates rendered toothless by what gets defined as AGI. Also, capital gains have been treated leniently for a very very long time.
liberal
@mclaren: JFK wasn’t liberal.
AnonPhenom
The people who run the Democratic Party have their eyes on the Republican Party at the moment because they see the potential to grap huge amounts of donor money if the teaparty base winds up driving policy instead of the Chamber of Commerce. In fact if they had their druthers they would love to see the Republicans become some neo-confederate rump party on the right and allow the DFH of the ‘Elizabeth Warren/Bill DiBlasio wing of the Democratic Party’ go mainstream with the Working Families Party so that they could triangulate into the Great Centerist Business Friendly Very Serious Persons Party that would get all the donor monies and sit on the Sunday shows saying how silly the left and the right are.
This has been another edition of SATSQ and why everything we want starts with public financing of elections.
askew
I think the Democratic Party has moved pretty significantly to the left on social issues and somewhat on economic issues since 2008. It’s one of the reasons I don’t want to see Hillary as our nominee. I don’t think she has the leadership abilities to continue the push to the left.
AnonPhenom
@AnonPhenom:
This is also why Raul Grijalva should be taking to the non-astroturfed true believers on the teaparty side about reform of election financing because in the wake of McDaniels’ defeat they might see that big monied interests are not their true friends.
Davis X. Machina
@AnonPhenom:
There are seventeen of them. There were eighteen, but they’re pretty old and one of them died.
Davis X. Machina
@efgoldman: Hell, there were people on DKos who opposed the auto bailout….
Citizen_X
“Too mainstream“?!?!?? What the fuck, Portman, it’s not like we’re starting a goddam band.
@AnonPhenom:
God, yes.
RaflW
I think the base of the Democratic Party has been moving left since the crash. Our elected pols in D.C. have not, and remain terrified of anything non-Broderist, but look at the state of Minnesota, for example: Both houses and governor are Dems and passed a nice assortment of modestly progressive items such as a minimum wage hike, new taxes on wealthier folks, and the first baby steps on marijuana reform.
Not exactly communism, but far more progressive that D.C.!
I do enjoy the idea that he sees Hillary as “too mainstream.” What a problem in the 2014 general election, Rob. So smart, he.