Declare Defeat But Promise To Fight

Yikes!

The loss was guaranteed some 30-35 yrs. ago when the Democratic Party junked their philosophy of defending the middle class and working for a better environment and better public services, and chose as its No. 1 goal: acquiescence to corporate power and the corporate state. It will not fight corporate power, and all must conform to that outlook. The rank 'n' file of the Party cannot fight because there is little to fight for; how could anyone fight for health care reform when no one knew what it would be until the final day of grotesque compromise; how can anyone fight when there is nothing clear to fight for.

Peggy Noonan may be closer to the truth than some Dems want to admit: Obama is a loser, and America does not like a loser.

Put another way, in the argot of many of our friends, the GOP knows how to "bully." I don't agree with that term as it is too light duty for what the GOPers are doing, and merely suggests a stylistic characteristic (which may be all one has without a philosophy to fight for). But using the term, remember back to the schoolyard days when we saw bullies operating against the bullied: The bully was the second most loathsome actor in the yard.

Let's capitulate and then fight? Seriously, that's the most ridiculous premise ever.

There is no guarantee that Republicans will vote for any deal. They voted down Reid's, and the House will likely vote down McConnell's.

The GOP is in civil war, the teabaggers are on the ledge, Boehner just faced a series of embarrassing defeats and their position is: do it our way or we'll blow up the country.

In the face of this, Democrats should declare defeat and promise to fight!

Absurd!

"Peggy Noonan may be closer to the truth than some Dems want to admit: Obama is a loser, and America does not like a loser."

Not feeling it!

"Peggy Noonan may be closer to the truth than some Dems want to admit: Obama is a loser, and America does not like a loser."

Did you expect Noonan to praise Obama or are you using Noonan's words so you don't have to use your own?

To clear up any misunderstanding you may have, she is "closer to the truth." She characterizes Obama as a loser, I see him as a modern Democratic centrist who has become extreme in his adherence to finding "balance," a murky term at best. "Loser" is a pejorative I would expect her to use. I just don't think he is much of a leader. Further, he has miscalculated the aims of the Far Right or is kidding himself about its power. More importantly, the American people (she theorizes) do not like losers. Here, she is close to the truth, as most Americans are impatient with delineating between "balance" and "compromise" on the one hand, and a loser on the other.

I find it strange that MSM is couching the argument between Obama and the two "extremes of right and left." This is a complete miss-reading of the situation. What constitutes the "Left" in this country are a rather small number of rather moderate liberals, moderate especially when compared with liberals of even the recent past. The MSM is even off base when it comes to the "right," characterizing Boehner, McConnell and his ilk as the "moderate conservative" part of the GOP, while (presumably) the Tea Party as the "Right." No, the Republican Party is well to the right of its standard bearers, even as these folks were in office while Donna Summer was charting. And the Tea Party is even more extreme. I really don't see many old-line conservatives in the Republican Party.

Personally, the GOP would vigorously oppose Obama even if everyone agreed that he was actually a center-right president (I happen to agree with this), simply because the GOP has moved so far to the right, they can't stand themselves, let alone someone in the opposition!

capitulation have made this very difficult. Hopefully the third way crowd will take note (except this might be their desired outcome).

because anarchy didn't break out in the streets.

thats a victory.. even for Democrats.