Biden antitrust enforcers and bank regulators are cracking down on the powerful. Pete Buttigieg is doing the opposite. This administration is a contest between real governing and fake governing.
I wish this wasn't happening again...People being impressed with shiny Hollywood "public relations" package Obama style. This man is all ambition. He is getting away with the latest public relations ploy which is the social elevation of two fathers having a baby. How sensitive, how nice and aren't we all so tolerant and good...but there is no real discussion of anything including his conduct while being Mayor Pete. It is all kept very banal and superficial. Why would anyone be impressed with his six
languages when he nothing of value to say in his first language English. (I'm probably out of line)
I spent the first few years in DC as a budding lobbyist for the airline industry in the 1980's, "The Partnership for Improved Air Travel" co-chaired by Bob Crandall of American and Herb Kelleher of Southwest. Our purpose was to lobby for more runways, more capacity, more competition. We were a waste of money. I did not get rich but soon found other clients. The airlines soon learned that the road to solvency and profits was LESS capacity, less runways and less competition. There were something like 12 real national airlines then, today there are 4 and half the hubs.
"Airlines are so confident in their control of the political sector that they even canceled flights that Buttigieg himself was scheduled to take, a veritable wedgie given to the substitute teacher."
The problem with "electing competent people" is that the competent people are rarely allowed to get anywhere near the general election. Both parties know how to suppress funding and media for undesirable candidates. Once in a generation the parties fail in their mission, and we get a competent leader like FDR or DeSantis.
‘’He also said, sternly, they concluded ten separate investigations on refunds, while neglecting to mention there were no results from those investigations’’
All talk no action, like Obama who let the banks off the hook. Democrats assume that lip service is enough, because with the mainstream media in their pocket it comes down to ‘’messaging’’ and nothing else is needed. - no governing and no results.
Eventually voters will discover that the pantry is bare and they’ve been robbed blind. Actually many have already figured that out and that’s why the democrats will lose in landslide(s). There is no shortcut to power. Forget about rolling up your fancy shirt sleeves - just get your hands dirty, get to work and do your f* job for once.
The Democrats don't want to govern. Then they would be expected to accomplish something. You can raise more money from the outside claiming you need it to "fight for" what the people want, but as long as you're on the outside you can't be expected to actually make those things happen.
Obama was the "Great Black Hope" but he hurt the black community more than many of his predecessors of both parties, IMNSHO. His most celebrated accomplishment, Obamacare, has hurt more people than it has helped (with a couple of exceptions, e.g. Medicaid expansion).
His other accomplishments included "foaming the runways" for the banks when the GFC hit, and "standing between [the banks] and the pitchforks" of the ten million homeowners who lost their homes to mortgage and foreclosure fraud.
Biden isn't any better. He made it quite clear when he said that "fundamentally nothing will change". And it hasn't for the wealthy elites, although many things have changed for the worse for the 99%.
Good one this week Matt. So much ‘easy living’ under the hood. I point the finger at the Fourth Estate as I always understood their job was to hold our public leaders to account - to report back the genuine progress or genuine failure. Sadly they’ve morphed into cheerleaders for those governing rather than the referee. Owned by elites with vested interests means reality and performance get distorted to fit the agenda of politics rather than objectively inform for functioning democratic system.
There’s an article in the Economist claiming that democrats will lose unless they embrace the ‘’moderates’’ and shun the leftist extremists. The definition of ‘’moderate’’ seems to be a government official who does whatever big business and the ruling class wants. Maybe that’s what Pete is doing (by doing nothing) signalling that he’s a ‘’moderate’’.
Moderates’’ who want to get rid of things like social security, trade laws and transportation regulations are far more extreme than populist democrats who want things like a higher minimum wage and the possibility to purchase baby formula. Shunning the ‘’moderates’’ would be a better strategy.
Fascism is the fusion of government and business and it’s considered by many to be an extremist ideology.
And this is why liberal Democrat politicians, as a class, are useless. They lack the capacity to govern. Trump handed them a winning hand with vaccines and Warp Speed as a business model, and instead we got a failed vaccine-only approach to the Pandemic and no further investment in vaccines, treatments, or other mitigations, and domestic N95 producers are going out of business or on the brink of doing so.
These people are useless at governing in the public interest, and wouldn't know how if they cared to try.
Bless you for this! I can't believe the number of Democrats who seem to be swooning for the fake governance Buttigieg is offering. All they seem to know is he speaks six languages, or however many he allegedly has mastered.
Buttigieg is doing for gay people’s popularity in the 2020s what AIDS did in the 1980s. He couldn’t care less as long as he personally lives his best life.
Since I started using years as references, I might as well say I think now I will live to see a 1789 solution to 2022’s problems. The professional and managerial class is irredeemable. Every normal avenue to change is closed.
The governing point with relation to Obama is important. Nowadays, both lefties and neoliberals like to claim Obama as a moderate/neoliberal sellout, the former in a negative way and the latter to make their own brand look better. But, Obama didn't see himself as anything of the kind! He talked about repudiating "triangulation" and even if he fudged on gay marriage he took a more assertively liberal stance on cultural issues than Democratic presidential candidates had previously. Then, he was elected, he showed a single-minded focus on passing healthcare expansion, even though it was unpopular pretty much from the start and did huge damage to the Democrats in 2010 midterms. He had a brief turn towards negotiating after those midterms, but then in his second term picked up an assertive style ("pen and a phone") while also making his cabinet more liberal (HRC, Geithner, Arne Duncan and probably some others out).
The problem, as Matt noted, was that while Obama loved liberal *politics* and genuinely believed himself to be bringing about major change, he wasn't actually interested in governing. So, on issue after issue, he ended up deferring to people who told him "nah, can't do that." This got the most attention with regards to finance (e.g. not doing sufficient mortgage relief, not prosecuting bankers), but really that was just the the most prominent of many examples.
So much difference between being fluent in saying what voters want to hear, and knowing what levers need to be played inside the system. Such confusion between prima fasciae popularity and actual votes.
One of the things that's been highlighted about Fetterman's run is that he's less about policies and more about perception. I think that is a shame but it seems to be the winning strategy - we'll see about PA. While I'd love to see effective politicians who want to govern and lead by fixing things, I don't think they can get elected (or won't stay in office long) as they are beholden to lobbyists and special interests. Another issue is the SCOTUS might put a thumb on any federal regulations. I guess you could say I'm cynical.
I wish this wasn't happening again...People being impressed with shiny Hollywood "public relations" package Obama style. This man is all ambition. He is getting away with the latest public relations ploy which is the social elevation of two fathers having a baby. How sensitive, how nice and aren't we all so tolerant and good...but there is no real discussion of anything including his conduct while being Mayor Pete. It is all kept very banal and superficial. Why would anyone be impressed with his six
languages when he nothing of value to say in his first language English. (I'm probably out of line)
I spent the first few years in DC as a budding lobbyist for the airline industry in the 1980's, "The Partnership for Improved Air Travel" co-chaired by Bob Crandall of American and Herb Kelleher of Southwest. Our purpose was to lobby for more runways, more capacity, more competition. We were a waste of money. I did not get rich but soon found other clients. The airlines soon learned that the road to solvency and profits was LESS capacity, less runways and less competition. There were something like 12 real national airlines then, today there are 4 and half the hubs.
"most of our elite institutions are increasingly dedicated to cheating people"
Boy, that puts it in a nutshell, doesn't it? Whatever happened to making an honest buck?
"Airlines are so confident in their control of the political sector that they even canceled flights that Buttigieg himself was scheduled to take, a veritable wedgie given to the substitute teacher."
Just had to see that again. Thanks!
The problem with "electing competent people" is that the competent people are rarely allowed to get anywhere near the general election. Both parties know how to suppress funding and media for undesirable candidates. Once in a generation the parties fail in their mission, and we get a competent leader like FDR or DeSantis.
‘’He also said, sternly, they concluded ten separate investigations on refunds, while neglecting to mention there were no results from those investigations’’
All talk no action, like Obama who let the banks off the hook. Democrats assume that lip service is enough, because with the mainstream media in their pocket it comes down to ‘’messaging’’ and nothing else is needed. - no governing and no results.
Eventually voters will discover that the pantry is bare and they’ve been robbed blind. Actually many have already figured that out and that’s why the democrats will lose in landslide(s). There is no shortcut to power. Forget about rolling up your fancy shirt sleeves - just get your hands dirty, get to work and do your f* job for once.
The Democrats don't want to govern. Then they would be expected to accomplish something. You can raise more money from the outside claiming you need it to "fight for" what the people want, but as long as you're on the outside you can't be expected to actually make those things happen.
Obama was the "Great Black Hope" but he hurt the black community more than many of his predecessors of both parties, IMNSHO. His most celebrated accomplishment, Obamacare, has hurt more people than it has helped (with a couple of exceptions, e.g. Medicaid expansion).
His other accomplishments included "foaming the runways" for the banks when the GFC hit, and "standing between [the banks] and the pitchforks" of the ten million homeowners who lost their homes to mortgage and foreclosure fraud.
Biden isn't any better. He made it quite clear when he said that "fundamentally nothing will change". And it hasn't for the wealthy elites, although many things have changed for the worse for the 99%.
Good one this week Matt. So much ‘easy living’ under the hood. I point the finger at the Fourth Estate as I always understood their job was to hold our public leaders to account - to report back the genuine progress or genuine failure. Sadly they’ve morphed into cheerleaders for those governing rather than the referee. Owned by elites with vested interests means reality and performance get distorted to fit the agenda of politics rather than objectively inform for functioning democratic system.
There’s an article in the Economist claiming that democrats will lose unless they embrace the ‘’moderates’’ and shun the leftist extremists. The definition of ‘’moderate’’ seems to be a government official who does whatever big business and the ruling class wants. Maybe that’s what Pete is doing (by doing nothing) signalling that he’s a ‘’moderate’’.
Moderates’’ who want to get rid of things like social security, trade laws and transportation regulations are far more extreme than populist democrats who want things like a higher minimum wage and the possibility to purchase baby formula. Shunning the ‘’moderates’’ would be a better strategy.
Fascism is the fusion of government and business and it’s considered by many to be an extremist ideology.
And this is why liberal Democrat politicians, as a class, are useless. They lack the capacity to govern. Trump handed them a winning hand with vaccines and Warp Speed as a business model, and instead we got a failed vaccine-only approach to the Pandemic and no further investment in vaccines, treatments, or other mitigations, and domestic N95 producers are going out of business or on the brink of doing so.
These people are useless at governing in the public interest, and wouldn't know how if they cared to try.
Bless you for this! I can't believe the number of Democrats who seem to be swooning for the fake governance Buttigieg is offering. All they seem to know is he speaks six languages, or however many he allegedly has mastered.
Buttigieg is doing for gay people’s popularity in the 2020s what AIDS did in the 1980s. He couldn’t care less as long as he personally lives his best life.
Since I started using years as references, I might as well say I think now I will live to see a 1789 solution to 2022’s problems. The professional and managerial class is irredeemable. Every normal avenue to change is closed.
Thank you for expressing so clearly what I have long thought: we have politics but little to no governance. All talk, no walk.
The governing point with relation to Obama is important. Nowadays, both lefties and neoliberals like to claim Obama as a moderate/neoliberal sellout, the former in a negative way and the latter to make their own brand look better. But, Obama didn't see himself as anything of the kind! He talked about repudiating "triangulation" and even if he fudged on gay marriage he took a more assertively liberal stance on cultural issues than Democratic presidential candidates had previously. Then, he was elected, he showed a single-minded focus on passing healthcare expansion, even though it was unpopular pretty much from the start and did huge damage to the Democrats in 2010 midterms. He had a brief turn towards negotiating after those midterms, but then in his second term picked up an assertive style ("pen and a phone") while also making his cabinet more liberal (HRC, Geithner, Arne Duncan and probably some others out).
The problem, as Matt noted, was that while Obama loved liberal *politics* and genuinely believed himself to be bringing about major change, he wasn't actually interested in governing. So, on issue after issue, he ended up deferring to people who told him "nah, can't do that." This got the most attention with regards to finance (e.g. not doing sufficient mortgage relief, not prosecuting bankers), but really that was just the the most prominent of many examples.
So much difference between being fluent in saying what voters want to hear, and knowing what levers need to be played inside the system. Such confusion between prima fasciae popularity and actual votes.
One of the things that's been highlighted about Fetterman's run is that he's less about policies and more about perception. I think that is a shame but it seems to be the winning strategy - we'll see about PA. While I'd love to see effective politicians who want to govern and lead by fixing things, I don't think they can get elected (or won't stay in office long) as they are beholden to lobbyists and special interests. Another issue is the SCOTUS might put a thumb on any federal regulations. I guess you could say I'm cynical.