Great Ideas But Sucky Execution

I have been voting since 1972 and in that time I have only voted for one winner, 1976….not something to be proud of I realize but it also says a lot about the quality of the candidates……basically the quality sucks!


I have said over the years that liberals have great ideas but truly suck at the game of politics.  They seem to not have the balls to go after the prize with gusto they sit back and pray for bi-partisanship….a pipe dream.


The New Republic tries to explain why liberals are such pansies when it comes to politics.

The editors ask if today’s liberalism is equipped to win “this battle,” too sprawling a question rooted in too runny a concept. We have more than just one current battle! Then, after the mystery of the “battle,” there’s the gooey concept of “today’s liberalism.” For this historian, “today” reaches back into the early twentieth century, where “liberalism” as a living, breathing, inspiring-but-myopic phenomenon resides in my own historical imagination. I know histories of liberalism date its origins to anti-monarchy, to the Enlightenment of the eighteenth century. But in American history, where monarchy was a foreign idea and slaveholding handicapped the Founding Fathers’ civic imagination, liberalism only truly starts to come alive in the Progressive era. The founding of The New Republic in 1914 embodied liberalism institutionally. While definitions of liberalism vary tremendously, The New Republic and its history offer means of thinking about a concept with a political history that is, in large part, a partisan history.


Erstwhile TNR editor Franklin Foer sees former Republican President Theodore Roosevelt as a crucial figure in The New Republic’s birth. Roosevelt’s 1912 National Progressive Party presidential campaign did not succeed, but his campaign platform called for including a minimum wage and “a single national health service.” Roosevelt’s blessing signaled TNR’s founders of the approval, Foer says, of “T.R.’s social set—Harvard and Yale men with an intellectual proclivity and a progressive bent.” At the time, they were most likely Republicans.


TNR’s founders were the crème de la crème of American “progressivism,” a description they initially preferred to “liberalism,” which they associated with Democratic President Woodrow Wilson’s Southern, states’ rights, small government creed. TNR’s founders’ book titles broadcast their optimism: Herbert Croly, a Harvard man married to a wealthy wife, had published The Promise of American Life in 1909 and Progressive Democracy in 1914, both with the Macmillan Company, among the most prestigious publishers of the time. Walter Weyl, a Wharton School-Penn man who also married into wealth, published The New Democracy: An Essay on Certain Political and Economic Tendencies in the United States with Macmillan in 1912. Another founder, Walter Lippmann, also a Harvard man, had published his influential A Preface to Politics with the New York publisher Mitchell Kennerley in 1913. These were no obscure, self-publishing radicals, and they received sizable and repeated infusions of money from the cotton-gin-Whitney heiress Dorothy Payne Whitney and her investment banker husband, Willard Straight, a Cornell man.


The Progressive Party’s 1912 platform included a brief “Equal Suffrage” plank advocating voting rights for women but made no mention of the disfranchisement of Black men in the South. This omission carried over in the Progressive Party’s credentials committee’s recognition of white Southern delegates and its refusal to seat Southern Black delegates. This is where early-twentieth-century liberalism gets personal for me.



https://newrepublic.com/article/182384/liberalism-race-gaza-trumpism


A very nice trip down memory lane but it did not address the lack of backbone of liberals once elected.


I think the Progressive Party had great ideas and a goddamn shame they did not get a chance to prove it…..their ideas translate well into the 21st century….and then money happened.


There has always been money in politics I am not naive but the court allowed boat loads of it to travel through the political system…..and when you have that much corruption you get the system as it is today….broken and dysfunctional.


But that is what I think.

Educate, Agitate

I Read, I Write, You Know

cognito ergo agito

What Is That Sucking Sound?

Dunno?  It is coming out of Washington.  Want some help?  It is the GOP!

Susan Estrich of http://www.creators.com wrote:

The Republicans in Congress are irrelevant — either because, in the smallest number, they go along with the Democrats, or because they just say no and lose. Either way, they’re part of the problem and not a place to find an answer. Lately, most of the Republican talking heads I see are so busy trying to figure out whether Rush Limbaugh is or is not their leader that they lose any claim to being leaders themselves.

Not one of the Repubs have anything to offer as an alternative to the Dem agenda.  All I have seen and heard are from memos sent out with their daily talking points and they all stick to them like good little puppies.  My fav is their new talking point that the recession be renamed the “Pelosi Recession”.

The conservative Dems are doing a better job at opposing the prez than the GOP.  But beyond that, where were the concerns with spending when GW was throwing money away like a drunken sailor in Sinapore?  They are just , as usual, playing politics.  They have NOTHING to offer the people as an alternative to the economic situation the country is facing.  The best they can do is to just say NO to everything Democratic.

If Washington is a circus, then GOP the Clown is the main attraction, for now.

What Is That Sucking Sound?

Dunno?  It is coming out of Washington.  Want some help?  It is the GOP!

Susan Estrich of http://www.creators.com wrote:

The Republicans in Congress are irrelevant — either because, in the smallest number, they go along with the Democrats, or because they just say no and lose. Either way, they’re part of the problem and not a place to find an answer. Lately, most of the Republican talking heads I see are so busy trying to figure out whether Rush Limbaugh is or is not their leader that they lose any claim to being leaders themselves.

Not one of the Repubs have anything to offer as an alternative to the Dem agenda.  All I have seen and heard are from memos sent out with their daily talking points and they all stick to them like good little puppies.  My fav is their new talking point that the recession be renamed the “Pelosi Recession”.

The conservative Dems are doing a better job at opposing the prez than the GOP.  But beyond that, where were the concerns with spending when GW was throwing money away like a drunken sailor in Sinapore?  They are just , as usual, playing politics.  They have NOTHING to offer the people as an alternative to the economic situation the country is facing.  The best they can do is to just say NO to everything Democratic.

If Washington is a circus, then GOP the Clown is the main attraction, for now.