Short-Sighted Liberals?

[kpete]

Liberals and Obama on the Oil Spill -- continued
By Theda Skocpol - June 16, 2010, 5:53PM

...........................

It is not just right-wing government bashers and wealthy corrupters who have destroyed the nation's capacity for governmental decision-making. It is also short-sighted liberalism that tries to turn everything into a personal crisis, and assumes that presidents are omnipotent commanders. Since the 1970s, liberalism has emphasized rights, identity politics, and action through courts or presidential orders. It has neglected the patient business of building government and creating enduring majorities through Congress.

If liberals do not support Obama and the Democrats for the next two election cycles, a rabid Right will be back in control, and America will devolve further into ineffective gridlock and rising inequality. Even the gains that have been made so far, a pretty good health reform, student loan reforms, improved financial regulations, and so forth, will quickly be weakened and reversed if the Republicans regain Congress and the presidency. Liberals right now should not be joining in Obama bashing on the oil spill. They should be focused on Republican blame and hypocrisy -- and should pressure the Senate to vote for good energy legislation.

There is nothing in this oil crisis in an already oil-soaked region that should prompt liberals to turn against Obama. This crisis was caused by the decades-old oil regime and the evisceration of government by "conservatives" and conservaDems. Bashing
a moderate liberal President who is trying to turn things around, but needs time and patient support, is just plain self-defeating for liberals. People seem to imagine that Obama could somehow "order" a new environmental/energy policy or wave a
wand and clean up the already-dirty Gulf. They are dreaming -- and their childish thrashing based on these dreams is undermining a valuable opening in U.S. politics.

more:
http://tpmcafe.talkingpointsmemo.com/2010/06/16/liberals_and_obama_on_the_oil_spill_--_continued/

(kpete-i agree with her every other day)

[zipplewrath]

1. Yawn

Blame liberals for the problems.

This is getting old.

[dionysus]

4. it doesn't "blame liberals for the problems". it correctly points out that some liberals

are being counterproductive and inadvertantly hurting the cause.

you might think this daily outrage crusade against obama is somehow going to do something other than help republicans back into office, but you would be mistaken.

[RaleighNCDUer]

7. Or, OTOH, it could be that some liberals refuse to accept bad policy

when it comes from our side of the aisle, just as we refuse to accept it when it comes from the other side.

According to some not-so-liberal Democrats any criticism of Obama is 'bashing'. Interestingly, many of these people who deplore the Obama 'bashing' supported other candidates in the election and have consistently bashed real liberals who ran against him.

"...inadvertantly hurting the cause." What 'cause' is that? If the cause is simply getting people elected with a 'D' behind their name, you might be right - but can't we shoot for something a little higher? Like finding Democratic solutions to our problems, rather than re-warmed Republican leftovers? Republican left-overs is not my cause.

[Laelth]

9. +1 n/t

:dem:

-Laelth

[TheWraith]

10. Except that the people complaining refuse to accept ANY policy coming from our side.

They would rather sit there, scream bloody murder, and be morally pure, untainted by compromise or any other aspect of the political process, than get their hands dirty and get 90% of a win. There's people right here on DU who will tell you that somehow, requiring health insurers to give people care regardless of whether they had a pre-existing condition is a win for the insurance industry because we didn't take every single employee of Blue Cross out and shoot them in the head.

[zalinda]

16. No, we lefties would accept policies if

it was a step in the right direction. The HCR was NOT a step in the right direction. Why? Because not only do health insurance companies STILL have a direct connection to whether or not a patient receives CARE, but also it makes people have to buy insurance that they can't afford to use. What we wanted was single payer, but we settled for a public option, which was pulled away from us AFTER Obama got elected.

What we wanted was credit card reform, what we got was a reform that took so long to be implemented, credit card companies were able to raise everyone's interest rate, plus lowered the amount they could charge. This happened all over the country to even people who NEVER missed a payment. The result was that many people could not pay the higher payments. And still, we didn't get a limit to what credit card companies could charge. When you have a credit card company offering a card at 79% interest, something is still terribly wrong.

zalinda

[TheKentuckian]

23. 90% solutions on what? If you see 90% solutions then we don't have the same goals.

There has been no systemic change on anything but student loans and that was a throw in to get the Wealth Care and Profit Protection Act on budget.

Some want to just get back to pre-shrub Reaganomics and they seem fairly pleased but others see great need for systemic change and no we aren't anywhere close to 50%, much less 90%:

You don't see the disconnect at all when you tout an item and others explain (sometimes in excruciating detail) their problems? Not saying you are wrong from you viewpoint but it would seem you'd be able to see that some of these folks really don't like this or that policy.

Also, I have to say that I believe there is some real dishonesty about how much supporters like policies too. Take the Wealthcare fiasco as an example. I know for a fact that my minimum goals for reform we're some of the most minimal on the board, I wasn't even a public option die hard and even moved the goalposts CLOSER but standing still or even lowering expectations, I still ended up way on the left fringe because the herd stampeded to what was served.

I laugh my ass off at the Wealthcare diehards who declared they'd never get behind bills that probably were better than what we got.
I get the only game in town factor but there is no reason at all to get into all the revisionism or pretending that some minor tinker was a game changer.

It's also bullshit that many hardcore loyalists have completely let go of any internal standards and just point at the TeaPubliKlans and say their plan (if any) is worse. We'll no shit! A monkey with a Ouija board and a sheet of acid has better plans than them too,
The GOBP should be extinct, they are not remotely suitable to be a governing party in a liberal democracy and sadly the Democrats barely might fit the bill as an extreme right wing party in about every other democracy in the west and indeed the world.

[liberation]

95. Some people think that numbers and statistics pulled out of their ass become valid with a % sign

Who needs to provide actual citations and references to back their claims, when they can just put a percentage sing. It must then be true, especially for something as hard to quantify as what the previous poster was trying to attach a quantitative metric.

[politicasista]

30. You nail it n/t

[HughMoran]

42. It's a game, the "devils advocate" is on a team and will be kicked off that team if they ever agree

with Democratic policy.

It's pathetic, but an interesting study in human behavior and the need to be 'wanted' as part of a group.

[liberation]

97. As usual... the projection in your posts tells us more about you

than about the people you are supposedly "studying" LOL

[Name removed]

111. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[liquid diamond]

132. Thank you!

:rofl:

[sabrina 1]

144. Do you agree with the lifting of the ban on Offshore drilling? n/t

[ChimpersMcSmirkers]

146. I think they get kicked off the team because they are an extreme minority.

In order to have an effect as such a small minority they must maintain their message and pound it ad finitum. In order to maintain cohesion they must have discipline. What's most ironic to me is that the purist play right along with and vice versa with the freeper trolls and pumas.

[pattmarty]

73. Healthcare "reform" is a 90% win? You are fucking high. I don't...........

........want to shoot anybody, I just want Medicare, what the fuck is bad about that?

[RC]

82. Some does not mean all.

I am another who voted for Obama thinking he was a Liberal. Turns out he is a DLC corporatist. His top picks are insiders who helped cause the problems in the first place.

The win for the health insurance companies is because they get reimbursed by the government for the newly insured that otherwise cannot afford any health insurance.
What should have been on the table the whole time is Single Payer Universal Care. Until that time the insurance companies are still making out like the bandits they are. This countries health insurance profits have not gone down, they just went up, with government approval and tax dollar backing. that should be upsetting more people that it is.

[Grinchie]

112. Actually, it's a quiet Tsunamai of Rage and Disgust.

I think the Tsunami will become noticeable in November...

[liquid diamond]

133. If you thought Obama was a liberal, you did not pay attention during

his campaign. Spare me the "I feel so betrayed" horse manure.

[liberation]

94. Why do moderate conservatives/centrists always assume they're the end all be all of politics?

Be careful when using the royal we. Especially when it comes to something as diverse as politics.

"Your side" is the center-right, why is it so hard for your to grasp that those on the "center-left" and "left" may not have any interest whatsoever in whatever "your side" has to offer? That is why we're on the left and not on the moderate right to begin with.

Plus if you have to recourse to use such monumental straw men, chances are you did not have much of a leg to stand on trying to blame your frustration with liberals having a different ideology and set of priorities than you as a moderate.

[treestar]

139. You think you are like a consumer, to sit there and be "offered" things?

The middle is the middle and is the middle because it is the middle. Naturally those on either extremes are unlikely to see what they want happening.

If you're that far to the extreme, neither of the major parties needs you. You're by definition going to be unhappy all the time, wanting what only a small minority wants.

[Grinchie]

110. Hah hah Hah! One does not Compromise when one has a Mandate such as Obama did.

He compromised from day one. Gitmo, GMO, FISA, Rendition, ABU Ghraib, The Wars... The list goes on..

I believe all that was accomplished in the first four months of this administration...

Morally pure? How about Ethically Pure?

[liberation]

121. No kidding. I think a lot of people are trying to equate being bad at negotiating

with being a "realist."

[uponit7771]

142. +1

[FrenchieCat]

13. If that were the case, that some liberals refuse to accept bad policy,

then those same liberals must be pretty ineffective long term, because if we look back, bad policies have been happening for at least the past 30 years. So if some liberals seriously think that carping at everything this President will give us better policies, and they do not want to
understand the facts of how this country has been operating for a long time, then what can one say.....other than a pile-on on this President ain't gonna get you shit; or looking at it slightly differently; that's all you will get is more of the shit you really won't like. It's really quite elementary....

I'm starting to believe that some really don't really care as much as they claim about policy, but would rather shit on this President for his lack of liberal perfection on every single issue.

So the question becomes how much does one truly care, when one is ready to give up any progress made in order to "feel" right about what they define bad vs. good policies? I'll take decent policies over the shit that the Republicans would rather give us any day. That's why I know I really care about policy; not simply how it all sounds, but what will actually get enacted and the alternative that the Republicans would want to enact in their stead.

[POAS]

57. I am a socialist

I have been one for most of my adult life (probably all of it, just took me awhile to realize it).

I am also a realist. I realize that all change that lasts is incremental. I realize that people get used to a certain way of thinking and living and when sudden change takes them out of their comfort zone they resist.

Therefore I welcome any change that moves us closer to a more regulated mix of capitalism and socialism.

I think most here want change in a "left" direction but are either too idealistic, unrealistic or impatient (probably a mix of all three) to ever accept any degree in incremental change. It's all or nothing. Too often that attitude results in nothing rather than something.

[liberation]

100. Sigh,

Step 1. Claim you are something
Step 2. Redefine what it means to be that which you claimed to be in order to fit your narrative and setup Step 3
Step 3. Announce you have a monopoly on "reality" in order to bad mouth those who really are what you claim to be

Rinse, repeat....

Why is it that some of these new flagged "leftists" and "socialists" make such great "centrists?"

[POAS]

106. I was probably a socialist before you were born

so I don't need a snide lecture from you about that which you could not possibly know squat.

You cannot be civil with your reply then don't reply, I'm too old to have patience with you.

Buh bye.

Don't bother replying unless it really makes you feel like a big bad poster bully.

[liberation]

120. I don't care what you chose to name yourself.

I do care when people are overloading concepts in order to fit their narrative. I actually grew up in another continent, with actual real socialist parties. So I know many real socialists... and you walk, talk, and quack like a centrist. So spare me the hysterics.


If you think there is anything remotely tolerable with a lot of Obama's policies regarding the catering to financial interest, a useless health care reform which does not achieve any basic level of universal coverage, if you agree with the lack of regard for unions by this administration, etc, etc, etc. If you think the way to a meal ticket is one crumb at a time. If you think that a lot of the main tenets which define socialism are somehow either optional or negotiable, your are not being a "realist" nor a "socialist," you're being a centrist.

There is nothing wrong with being a centrist, as long as you chose to be honest about where you stand.

Obama is a center-right politician, again nothing wrong with that... for tastes there are colors. But if you are having trouble understanding why actual leftists, which is what socialists are, do not care much for center-right policies, then again... chances are you are not a socialist.


Sorry it hit too close to home, and you had to pretend it was a personal attack. But in this country a lot of people seem to think they can define concepts as they wish and simply adopt them without having to comply with what those concepts imply.

BTW, no major significant systemic change has ever come in a gradual drop by drop fashion.

[Daveparts still]

103. "other than a pile-on on this President ain't gonna get you shit;"

What will we get if we don't pile-on? Roses? It's not about Obama not being liberal enough its about Obama being a conservative. If I'd had wanted deep water drilling in the gulf and more nuclear plants I could have voted for McCain. Instead I voted for the candidate who said that he was against those things! I voted for the candidate who said he was in favor of single payer and promised to support Card Check.

I got a President who calls himself a Democrat but sides with corporations against Unions. Who sides with health insurers over customers. Who passes out tax breaks to business and wants to cut your Social Security benefits and Medicare in the name of balancing the budget. A President who calls nuclear energy "Alternative" and subsidizes private companies with $9 billion dollars in loan guaranties.

You might think Obama has had a rough go of it but considering he has continued most of the programs from the Bush era I think he's had pretty easy. Take DADT, the president could solve that one with a fifty nine cent ballpoint pen. Just sign an executive order but when pressed Obama starts talking about committees and asking the military for their insights and ancillary BS It's the old Richard Nixon ploy
of saying, "Before I answer that question let me say this about that." then never returning to the subject.

Know how John Kennedy outlawed discrimination on Interstate transport? Executive Order
Know how John Kennedy outlawed discrimination in mortgage applications? Executive Order
Know how Truman desegregated the military? Executive Order

I ordered a cheeseburger and was served a shit sandwich and you're telling me to stop being a complainer.

[Grinchie]

113. Oh yeah, we're just "Haters" that want to see Obama fail..

Nice try Frenchie, but that line is also getting very old and threadbare.

Obama has done a very nice job of "Fail" all on his own, and I'm not sure he is even aware of it yet.

Show me meaningful progress... Please, I beg of you! Iraq? no, people still dying there, even though we hear NOTHING. Afghanistan? Escalating.. Throw more drones at it. Questionable False Flag in Korea? Lets jump behind the faltering economic power of South Korea and rattle sabres against N Korea! Blackwater in Afghanistan for a new 18 month stint? Puh Leez. Gitmo....

It sounds like all you do it Troll DU looking for Obama "Bashers", and less time actually reading the headlines daily.

Your dream policies will get eviscerated regardless of who holds power, it's the sham of the 2 party system, and you've bought it hook line and sinker.

[Raine]

18. EXACTLY! nt

[HughMoran]

41. Disingenuous

Don't you ever get tired of those lame arguments?

If you even once EVER took the side of Democrats, you might have a tiny bit of credibility.

[papadog]

86. Thank you!,

That is spot on NCDUer

[Grinchie]

108. Well said.. My thoughts exactly.

I don't want another turd sandwich, regardless of the PR campaign.

We need excellence right now, not Milquetoast, Chickenhawks, or the DLC.

[treestar]

138. How bad are the policies?

And how high do you want to shoot? So high you have no real chance of hitting anything?

[Jennicut]

22. I have the right to criticize Obama if I want but the piling on sure isn't going

to help his cause.
The fine line between good criticism and support that is needed is always hard to tell, finding the right balance is necessary to keep Rethugs out of control.

[dionysus]

25. some people criticize legitimately, some do it out of a personal grudge. it's often quite easy to

tell what kind of criticism it is.

:hi:

[TheKentuckian]

140. The best way to keep the Republicans out is not to emulate their

failed and repudiated policies.

They didn't fuck up the country worse and worse with each passing day over the course of a couple of generations just on cowboy talk and various forms of bigotry and prejudice.

No, they fucked up because they are wrong on virtually everything and are mentally imbalanced or something similar.

Nobody wants their shitty policies, the bulk of them poll weakly over a period of decades. The few that are popular are usually blatant violations of civil rights or liberties or wars that quickly become despised gone to hastily in a fog of bullshit and ginned up bloodlust.

[Autumn]

24. I would say it is short-sighted politicians

that try to turn everything into a situation that benefits their careers, re elections and golden parachutes, and think they can ignore and blame the people who voted for them. They can reach across the aisle all they want to. So far they still need our votes, but thats subject to change any day.

[DeSwiss]

64. Isn't though?

"The lesser of two evils is still evil." - Anon

[Grinchie]

107. Obama has earned the Wrath of the Old Democratic Party

He is nothing more than a PR shill for the Corporatocracy, and I for one have had enough of Clinton Part 2.

This opinion piece is whiny and overlooks the fact that Obama is clearly Center- Right, and people have noticed.

This abandonement of Obama in regards to the words he spoke, vs. his actions so far are unforgivable to me, and I cannot wait to see this maladministration swept out of the White House, come hell or high water.

This DLC style of Government gives me the creeps, especially since the Cherleaders seem to depend on a base that is whacked out on Anti-Depressants and unable to remember dates, names, actions and makes decisions based on facial recognition and charisma. Phooey!

Us liberals are pissed off, and they know it. Fuck this rally around the Flag BS. We did that for Obama and they squandered it in less than 4 months...

Pretty good healthcare... May I vomit now?

[CBR]

109. He has met the wrath of the Old Democratic Party but

I am pretty sure we are not referring to the same characteristics of that "old" party.

[impik]

2. Yea. short-sighted and short on historical perspective

and the ability to understand that you can't reverse 30 years of extreme right-wing way of life and way of thinking, in 18 months.

[NJmaverick]

3. These are very real and very serious concerns that were raised

[lillypaddle]

5. Kick

Important and serious stuff. Doubt the "yawners" will have a clue.

[Name removed]

6. Deleted message

Sub-thread removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Laelth]

8. Another attack on the left. Yawn. n/t

:dem:

-Laelth

[muffin1]

11. I was angry at President Obama

long before the Gulf disaster. I'm also getting plenty tired of being told to support policies with which I disagree vehemently.

[FrenchieCat]

14. You should continue with the pile-on.......

As long as you are willing to be held responsible when the Republicans take over.....
although I'm sure most on our side who do the daily piling-on will say it is everyone elses fault....
cause certainly working actively against a President on a daily basis couldn't be
the same thing the Oppposition is doing, but just from a different angle. But that's exactly what it is.

[muffin1]

19. Ummm

it couldn't possibly be the fault of those who keep telling him that being a centrist is fine by them.

I (along with the other 'haters') voted for him based on his promise to fight for a public option, to end DADT, to put an end to corporate corruption, to end rendition and torture, etc, et - fucking - cetera. Then, when we 'hold his feet to the fire', his right-hand man tells us we're 'fucking retarded'.

If he was even TRYING to keep his promises, most of us would be fine with him. He is moving in the wrong fucking direction.

[dionysus]

28. funny thing is, you guys aren't any more liberal than anyone else on here. it's just a shield

you hide behind in order to throw these repetative tantrums, day in, day out.

"i'm repeating this tantrum for the 100th time cause i'm a real liberal and all you supporters of the president are centrists!11!1!"

get some new material already wouldja?

[muffin1]

29. How the fuck do you know how liberal I am?

Get over yourself.

[Tarheel_Dem]

49. +1. And anytime the president is in the news for any accomplishment, you

can expect the negative postings to intensify. They're not the least bit interested in "progressivism", this is still very much about 2008 for most of them.

[suzie]

58. +1

[liquid diamond]

134. Actually when Obama makes a major accomplishment I notice

these assholes go into hiding.

[liberation]

101. Obama is a center-right politician under most actual metrics

Claiming that he is a liberal is monumentally dishonest, given most of his policies have been of the moderate conservative persuasion, specially given how the majority of the cabinet he chose for his administration came from the center-right also.


There is nothing wrong with being a moderate conservative, for tastes there are colors. And a working democracy depends on plurality of political thought. But claiming that Obama (or you for that matter) is a liberal is a silly attempt at trying to squash those on the left who may have a reason to disagree with Obama's policies, by overtaking/overloading their political ideology and neutralize/redefine it to your advantage.


If you have to recourse to such disingenuity to make your point and defend Obama's policies, you need to take a long hard look at what you are doing.

Cheers.

[Grinchie]

115. Is that the best you can muster?

Good lord, this is going to be a bloodbath this fall...

[pattmarty]

74. And give me a big fucking A-men to that!!!

[Jakes Progress]

84. So devolves the nation.

Downward only. Sometimes rapidly. Sometimes deliberately. But always downward.

At this rate the only campaign slogan we will have next time is "Not all that bad really." Not very inspiring.

[Grinchie]

116. I agree.. Personally, I'll hold off and not commit on either crappy product

Especially when I can't rely on one single campaign promise made by either party...

[Name removed]

114. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[CakeGrrl]

12. Yes, very short-sighted in some cases

...and some of them will be the same ones scratching their heads over how Republicans got back in power.

[FrenchieCat]

15. They will blame Pres. Obama for that too........

since everything is his fault no matter what.

That's what makes everything easy.

[CakeGrrl]

20. That "Obama MADE me sit home and withhold my vote"

crap? Dumb, dumb argument.

[liquid diamond]

135. How about the "He made me vote for a third party candidate

that had no chance of winning" argument?

[Grinchie]

118. You want to make this into Obama's fault at any cost, don't you?

He's just a spokesman for the DLC/Corporatocracy. He's likeable, but if you actually listen to what he says, and then does, it's pretty clear that you could fall victim to a grifter in the future.

He just happens to be a figurehead.. There are tons more that are toxic that share the blame equally..

[TheKentuckian]

17. Sure am wondering that after two overwhelming Democratic cycles

How did the Republicans get in charge again??? I thought we elected Democrats and the largest minority in like 40 years.

Sure is befuddling for sure.

[Grinchie]

119. Because it is an illusion.

[pattmarty]

76. Oh, so we're going to get the blame for that too? You better wake........

.....up and quit being so goddamn naive.

[CakeGrrl]

131. Which "we"?

If Obama gets primaried and his challenger is successful, so be it.

If he prevails as the Dem incumbent and it's essentially him or the Repub, sitting it out or voting 3rd party is an assist to the Repubs. Would Florida have been close enough to steal if a significant share of Nader's votes had been cast for Gore instead? Basic arithmetic at work here.

[pattmarty]

141. See post #71. That is my honest feeling on this.

[Grinchie]

117. You make it sound like we care... Well here's new for you, we don't

One way or another, change will come. It doesn't matter who crashes and burns, especially when they are virtually identical in the policies they pull out of their asses.

If the political game is rigged, why play?

[amborin]

21. the tired old scare tactics, yet again, I see! Skocpol's arguing for pol expediency

that trumps all......


is this the day you agree with her?


this is a left-bashing article

[Name removed]

26. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Name removed]

27. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Name removed]

38. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[donco6]

39. When you do it in code, it doesn't count.

Like calling someone a DB. No harm; no foul.

[EFerrari]

31. These generic liberal bashing pieces crack me up

especially when an author, like this one who is apparently struggling with literacy, manages to call Obama a liberal AND bashes liberals at the same time.

"Bashing a moderate liberal President who is trying to turn things around, but needs time and patient support, is just plain self-defeating for liberals."

Yikes. TG I don't teach remedial English any more.

[amborin]

32. LOL! +1

[dionysus]

33. yes, TG you don't teach anyone anymore, if you couldn't understand that sentence.

[EFerrari]

34. Where do you get this stuff? Wherever it is, I'd stop shopping there.

:)

[dionysus]

35. come on, you know exactly what the sentence means, you aren't a dummy

[EFerrari]

36. I hope those strawmen make you coffee or do windows or something.

[HughMoran]

46. You don't even know what a strawman argument is?

:rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl:

[DeSwiss]

65. +1

[Grinchie]

122. Touche' Eferrari, The Propagandists are scraping the bottom of the barrel these days aren't they?

[ProSense]

37. No one has to support the President.

Still, I never understood the position that not supporting the President and demanding that he support us will produce the desired results.

Results come via support, which includes pushing, not sitting back and demanding the President support us as if somehow your vote means you own the President. He still needs your support.

You can best believe a lot of people aren't sitting back simplistically demanding the President support them based on their vote alone. They're pushing their ideas and arguments through members of Congress. Does anyone think that Rockefeller would resist supporting climate change if the majority of his constituents were pushing him to support it?

That's the problem with the notion that a vote is all it takes, that this is all about the President, it isn't.

[treestar]

96. Now that's a wise post

I've seen posts here talking about the POTUS as if he is that voter's employee. Employee, wtf? We can't look at a politician that way. It's delusional to think anyone we voted for has only one voter to answer to.

[Grinchie]

123. I guess you'd prefer a pair of socks instead of your promised bicycle

Nice try.. But I actually take offense at being lied to over and over again.

Maybe you can understand that.

[frazzled]

40. Do you guys know who Theda Skocpol is?

She's a political scientist and sociologist at Harvard, who was Dean of the Graduate School of Arts and Sciences for several years. Here are some of her publications. You may not have read them or agree with them. But I think when someone like this writes something, it deserves more than idiotic responses of "yawn" or "centrist crap." See especially her "The New Majority: Toward a Popular Progressive Politics" (with the blurb "Engaging and enlightening" from Robert Reich on the cover), and don't sound dumb:

http://ecx.images-amazon.com/images/I/41VABF0X57L._BO2,204,203,200_PIsitb-sticker-arrow-click,TopRight,35,-76_AA300_SH20_OU01_.jpg

Published works

A Critical Review of Barrington Moore’s Social Origins of Dictatorship and Democracy. Politics and Society, 4(1), pp. 1-34
States and Social Revolutions: A Comparative Analysis of France, Russia, and China, Cambridge University Press (New York), 1979.
Protecting Soldiers and Mothers: The Political Origins of Social Policy in the United States, Belknap Press of Harvard University Press (Cambridge), 1992.
Social Revolutions in the Modern World, Cambridge University Press (New York), 1994.
State and Party in America's New Deal (with Kenneth Finegold), University of Wisconsin Press (Madison), 1995.
Social Policy in the United States: Future Possibilities in Historical Perspective, Princeton University Press (Princeton), 1995.
Boomerang: Clinton's Health Security Effort and the Turn Against Government in U.S. Politics, Norton (New York), 1996, new edition with new afterword published as Boomerang: Health Care Reform and the Turn against Government, 1997.
The Missing Middle: Working Families and the Future of American Social Policy, Norton, 2000.
Diminished Democracy: From Membership to Management in American Civic Life, University of Oklahoma Press, 2003.
What a Mighty Power We Can Be: African American Fraternal Groups and the Struggle for Racial Equality, (with Ariane Liazos & Marshall Ganz) Princeton University Press, 2006.
Edited
Marxist Inquiries: Studies of Labor, Class, and States (with Michael Burawoy), University of Chicago Press (Chicago, IL), 1982.
Vision and Method in Historical Sociology, Cambridge University Press, 1984.
Bringing the State Back In (with Peter B. Evans and Dietrich Rueschemeyer), Cambridge University Press, 1985.
The Politics of Social Policy in the United States (with Margaret Weir and Ann Shola Orloff), Princeton University Press, 1988.
American Society and Politics: Institutional, Historical, and Theoretical Perspectives (with John L. Campbell), McGraw-Hill (New York), 1995.
States, Social Knowledge, and the Origins of Modern Social Policies (with Dietrich Rueschemeyer), Princeton University Press, 1996.
The New Majority: Toward a Popular Progressive Politics (with Stan Greenberg), Yale University Press (New Haven, CT), 1997.
Democracy, Revolution, and History (with George Ross, Tony Smith, and Judith Eisenberg Vichniac), Cornell University Press (Ithaca, NY), 1998.
Civic Engagement in American Democracy (with Morris P. Fiorina), Brookings Institute Press (Washington, DC)/Russell Sage Foundation (New York City), 1999.

[amborin]

56. she's arguing within a Weberian paradigm; she's a state theorist; political expediency trumps all

not denigrating Skocpol, but the criteria she's using are different

[Number23]

59. Wow. Thanks for the info on the author.

[EFerrari]

91. The Missing Middle was interesting, and iirc, you can see her presentation

at the BookTV site. But this article is a knock off, badly thought out and unedited. Maybe she thinks no one on the internets can read.

[mother earth]

43. The trouble is we are way past reaching across the aisle, the

sides have been drawn, there's a line in the sand. I'm sick to death of taking the high road and reaching across the aisle, we are wasting precious time. Time is a luxury we can no longer afford. I wanted a man of action, I wanted action, and I wanted him to strive to win. Instead we got a middle of the road, reaching out to the republicans guy, instead of one who could have been a trailblazer and rode on his overwhelming approval. We needed strength and action, instead we gave our power away for unity. Unity in what?

GW was failure, his policies live on. GW brought us to this chaos, he and Cheney decided corporate power should reign supreme. Obama has allowed it to continue. He should have rallied his own troops, not the other sides, they were never going to sign on. It's all about partisanship, this side against that side. Why should we applaud manners and reaching out, at a time when we need strength that only cunning and overturning can bring?

Our corporate owners have players on both sides of the aisle...it's so easy seeing who still speaks for the people,
and they aren't reaching out to the enemy.

[DeSwiss]

66. YES!

+1

[MannyGoldstein]

44. 'If only Liberals could be Republicans, we could win more Elections'

Marvelous.

[Name removed]

48. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[HughMoran]

50. Strawman

Since when is calling someone's argument a strawman a personal attack?

:wtf:

[nemo137]

62. That's not what's being said here at all.

She's saying that liberals have prioritized judicial and executive solutions at the expense of building up a durable party in the legislature. You can agree or disagree whether than happened, or if it is an unavoidable byproduct of the kind of battles liberals fight, but reducing it to "herp she says Democrats should sell out and hard" does both the author and yourself a disservice.

[girl gone mad]

45. "childish thrashing based on these dreams is undermining a valuable opening.."

Wow, for a bunch of impatient, useless, childish retards, we sure have an amazing amount of power! I love how everything is always the liberals fault. Even when we're right, we're still wrong.

:rofl:

There's that dumb magic wand metaphor, again. I never get tired of that one!

:rofl: :rofl:

K & r for the pure comedy. I haven't laughed this hard in weeks.

Every progressive needs to read this tripe. The attacks against us grow more absurd by the second. I can't wait for the next hit piece.

[HughMoran]

47. You're not a progressive.

[dionysus]

51. !

:spray:

[pattmarty]

77. Okay, then what about me, all knowing one? Now comes the fucking mind reading.

[glitch]

79. But it's from Harvard, it must be good. And you'd better take it seriously, and shape up.

Small, I mean little, people just can't, I mean won't, learn.

I wish it were good for laughs.

[Grinchie]

126. 9 out of 10 Doctors say it's So!

Such impeccable credentials...

[Grinchie]

124. Propaganda 101 -- Make your opponent seem weak...

There is a reason that we see all of the Bashing of the Left, and it's because the Corporatist MUST destroy any perception that individuals can make a difference. They dwell on Identity democratism while discarding the precepts that Democrats have traditionally stood for, like individual right, a good paying job, and a nice place to live, clean air, water, and treating the world with the respect it deserves.

The DLC Clan believes in Corporatocracy, and would like to paint us as naieve dreamers, dinosaurs in the world of cold ruthless Corporate Scheming and unaccountabilty. They think that it's a good thing to continue to enslave the third worlld in debt. That's their primary goal in all this. All they need is 51% and they're in and doing the same thing the last party did, only with new stationary, faces and Corporate executives borrowed from the boardroom.

Unfortunately, they've played their hand too early..

[Dancnkc]

52. Focus on blame?

I don't agree at all... I think it's time the man get out and lead like the leader he is, instead of playing the blame game - which stings him every time he tries it.

He needs to stop being reactionary and more revolutionary... no?

[volvoblue]

53. thank you, kpete. Many keep trying to tell the firebaggers

who worship Hamsher that they are not gaining anything but, will lose alot with their constant undermining.
Why have we been out of power so much, Well, gee.........

[girl gone mad]

55. Well maybe thre's your problem right there:

"Many keep trying to tell the firebagger who worship Hamsher"

You're talking to an audience of precisely zero.

[DeSwiss]

67. And of course dissing liberals and namecalling helps us see your point so much more easily.

Please give us more of your wisdom Obie Wan. More, more!!!

[cornermouse]

69. Keep attacking the liberals and you can expect to be out

of power even longer.

[pattmarty]

78. "Firebaggers"? Well that's going to help unite us all. You could.........

.......have been a tad more original though.

[applegrove]

54. "It is also short-sighted liberalism that tries to turn everything into a personal crisis"

as if it is not a crisis. The GOP certainly wants liberals to keep emotion out of governance..the only way they can keep corporations from being reregulated.


I guess emotion is only for family life and in church.:sarcasm:

[glitch]

81. Sounds like someone who still has a job and a home, doesn't it? nt

[Hawkowl]

60. Fuck Skocpol

Yeah it's also my fault the baby seals are stilled being clubbed to death by Canadians. Oh and because every time I shed a tear, some Japanese eat another whale.

I also am responsible for Wall Street wrecking the worlds economy because I simply refuse to support Independent Democrats such as Lieberman.

It is my simple uncompromising principles that enable such rapacious motherfuckers like W.

NO! THE BLAME IS ON ALL THOSE HAND WRINGERS WHO REFUSE TO DEMAND BETTER FROM THEIR GOVERNMENT AND THEIR FELLOW CITIZENS.

Sheesh.

[DeSwiss]

70. And don't forget to mention....

...those assholes Larry Summers and Tim Geithner who have been at the center of this financial crisis from the start. The same DLC foxes whom our so-called liberal President put in-charge of the hen house. But who am I to argue? Who am I to complain? I'm to sit down and STFU and vote the Dem ticket all the way. No matter what.



on edit: spelling

[theaocp]

83. +1 FTW

[niceypoo]

61. Spoken like a true Reagan Democrat

[DeSwiss]

63. So it's sitdown and shut up, eh? Right. n/t

[cornermouse]

68. Short-sighted conservative democrats?

Just my point of view.

Consider the possibility that the conservative democrats are so fixated on achieving consensus and crowing about whatever watered down bill they can get that they ignore the fact that they fail to achieve any real progress toward capturing traditional democratic goals and ideals and pushing this country back where we were pre-Reagan.

[pattmarty]

71. C'mon get real. We have now sunk to "bad & worse" in our two...........

.......party system. Granted if we stay home in 2010-12 we will get the "worse" party in power. But it is looking more and more that the Dems could lose the House in '10 and possibly lose the Senate too. This IS NOT because "we" sat around and did not support this President. For almost two yrs he had complete control over both Houses and NOW the people are mad because he basically did nothing with the "political capital". That is why Scott Brown won in heavily Dem Mass, because he and the Dems in both houses did nothing. Healthcare, "pretty good healthcare reform", you have got to be fucking kidding. If you want a "pretty good healthcare reform" go back to a REAL liberal President in 1965 who passed REAL fucking healthcare in Medicare. What passed taking almost two yrs with 60 Senators and 255 House members is a fucking disgrace and a joke. Let's now go to "we" picking on his response to the gulf spill; "what response"? For christ sake, it's now 60 fucking days and he's calling for us to fucking pray? A "moderate liberal President" is an outright lie, I won't even bother to call it a misrepresentation. A "moderate liberal" is John Kerry or Hillary Clinton for fucks sake. You obviously wouldn't recognize a real liberal if he/she came up and kicked you in the ass. Up until a couple months ago I referred to Obama as the black Bill Clinton, now I say he is worse than Clinton (a conservative Dem, by the way). Jeez, bash the liberal base why don't you. It's not just the RW wackos that have "morans" in their ranks I now realize. Sorry for the length of the "rant", but I am goddamn sick & tired of getting trashed for daring to criticize a fucking supposed Dem President.

[donco6]

89. Righteous.

:thumbsup:

[Grinchie]

127. Fantastic way to put it.

You are not alone in your thinking, and it gives me hope that real change will come in my lifetime.

If I wanted Bill Clinton again I would have supported Hillary, but that would be a cold day in Hell...

[kurtzapril4]

145. Don't worry.

"Centrist" will begin courting "Liberal" like a horny teen-ager soon. Centrist is dashing, intelligent, handsome and well educated. Lots of slap and tickle at first, but Centrist ramps up his courtship. Centrist makes a lot of promises about a dewy future together, us against the world, I need you by my side! Liberal is completely smitten, helps him out with money, spends time talking him up to the family, tells all the friends about him. In early 2012, he'll ask Liberal to marry him. They get married in November, in a big, splashy manner, fraught with hope and symbolism. By July of 2012, there will be rumblings in the marriage, unrest. "Liberal, you actually believed the promises I made before the wedding? Are you retarded?" By 2013, they will be divorced. Centrist wants to get closer to that purty gal from Alaska he met at an afternoon tea.

[LaFeminist]

72. Rec. Screw the liberals. Go Centrists n/t

[depakid]

75. Wow- the woman completely misses the point of why Democrats are looking down the barrel

of another 1994.

Terminally stupid would be the only words that might apply. Rinse and repeat next time around.

[caseymoz]

80. Obama is hostile to progressive-liberalism.

He's right of Ronald Reagan but left of Sarah Palin.

I'm going slightly off-topic here, because my rupture with Obama has nothing to do with the oil spill.

For restoring liberties destroyed by Dubya, Obama has done just the opposite. He has made it his own centerpiece to prosecute two wars. He has been squelching court cases with government secrecy, he did not close Guantanamo, he has denied people habeas corpus, he has been detaining people at Bagram and apparently other places to evade court rulings over Guantanamo, he has continued renditions, and he has ordered an assassination, a summary execution of a person, and a US citizen.

Meanwhile he continues to use warrantless wiretapping and pressed and justified its use in court, and he has affirmed the power grabbed during the Bush administration to literally arrest and hold anybody for any amount of time without charges.

These aren't matters of just being politically expedient to hold the center. These are major attacks on the very basis of our country's rights.

Everything else I can mention, such as his appointment of Elena Kagan, are by comparison just minor. I'm afraid to break it to you: Obama is right of center and we've been had. Harvard Law School graduates very few liberals, and of those, the conservative Chicago Law School doesn't hire any.

The point is, I have every reason to oppose Obama before this crisis came along. Now that we're looking at this Gulf Crisis I'm afraid my mind is made up: I'm not voting for Obama. Where things stand now, if he wins the primary I'm sitting out the general. I know that throws the game back toward conservatism, but I'm hoping conservatism itself can't hold anyway in the face of the scale of the staggering crises of the economy and this calamity in the Gulf, from which the country away from the Gulf has hardly seen the beginning of the consequences-- mostly economic ones. I voted wishfully last time, hopefully about Obama. I guessed wrong.

[Grinchie]

128. You nailed it K/R

Sometimes it's wiser to stop dumping tons of rock into a bottomless pit, and start moving the belongings threatened by the pit to a safer place.

I sometimes think that the U.S. Government has seen it's demise, and has been forewarned of impending collapse or conflagration, and has been sold a bill of goods on how to maintain control.

Everything you mention supports more federal control at home, and it's worrisome.

I think it's wiser to let it just run it's course and make sure we all have our ducks in a row. The frivolous charade of Politics is a waste of time.

[Kermitt Gribble]

85. "There is nothing in this oil crisis in an already oil-soaked region...

that should prompt liberals to turn against Obama".

Already oil-soaked region?? This author is an imbecile. Making a false argument that the gulf is already oil-soaked, so we should support whatever this administration does (or doesn't do, in this case)? That's the most sickening talking point I've seen yet. Tell that to the coral reefs that will most certainly be destroyed, tell that to the tens of thousands whose businesses will fold and whose property will be worthless, tell it to the millions that may have to relocate...

The fear campaign isn't going to work anymore. You can blame liberals all you want - we haven't left the Party, the Party left us.

[Time for change]

87. I really dislike this liberal bashing

Liberals criticize President Obama, among other reasons, because of his numerous broken campaign promises, such as his abandonment of the public option to create competition with the insurance industry, that was such a prominent feature of his campaign. Once liberals cease to criticize these kinds of things, that will merely facilitate the drifting of our country further and further to the right.

[Grinchie]

129. You dislike it because it's the first step towards Facism

Demonize the enemy at all costs!

[nemo137]

130. Oh, for fuck's sake!

No, the first step towards fascism is the development of an ultra-nationalist populism based on national rebirth. This is people with differing views of what is good and what should be prioritized yelling at each other. They are not the same thing.

[niceypoo]

88. Centrist Dems now identify more with Republicans than Democrats

We now have Democrats spewing basic RW talking points. It's the, 'libruls,' fault! Bizarre timing, given we are in the age of Right Wing initiated economic collapse, ecological disaster and the crackpot tea parties. As the GOP goes further and further into the loonie abyss of the extreme right, these so called, 'Democrats,' fill the vacuum and label it, 'centrist'.

Classic Stockholm Syndrome.

In psychology, Stockholm syndrome is a term used to describe a paradoxical psychological phenomenon wherein hostages (Democrats) express adulation and have positive feelings towards their captors (the extreme right) that appear irrational in light of the danger or risk endured by the victims

[TriMera]

98. +1...n/t

[treestar]

137. Dumb

You ought to meet some real conservatives.

[RufusTFirefly]

90. Wait!! They forgot to blame Nader!!

:sarcasm:

It's remarkable how many excuses people can create to justify the fact that this country has essentially been hijacked by corporate fat cats. It's not that hard to comprehend, just difficult to face.

It's a pity that creativity can't be used to solve problems and make America the model country it can be instead of to dream up pathetic explanations for our present plight.

[BklnDem75]

92. Damn... Too late to rec

100% agreement

[clarence swinney]

93. OBAMA TSUNAMI

OBAMA TSUNAMI
I accept praisetiques not critiques
Any response is appreciated if one uses facts-numbers.
Blarney Blabber generalizations are not read.
“Conservative” ideology gave us the current “Great” Recession the same as the “Great” Depression.
Free the Freak Market Gamblers. Bet on anything.
Rich gets ultra rich trickles down to Middle Class.
From 1946 to Reagan was Great Middle Class Years.
Each percentile increased almost evenly, percent, and economists called it the Picket Fence distribution.
Reagan policies began upward shift.
It became a Step Ladder distribution. Each step gained a little but top step (10%) went into orbit.
Huge Tax Cuts for top (60%)

Huge tax increase on Middle Class. Payroll Tax Increase largest in history. 50% tax on social security checks. 5-cent tax on gas.
Enormous increase in military spending to enrich backers in California and rich shareholders in defense industries
Reagan increased Spending buy 80%. Debt by 170%

Do not try usual conservative spin—“it was congress”.
Reagan 8 budgets spent more than prior 50 years.
He submitted 8 for over 7000b. 1930-1980 spent 6066b—congress returned 8 budgets to Reagan with fewer dollars in total than he had submitted to it.
Go ahead try usual conservative spin—“real” inflation adjusted dollars—no work senor—
From 1948 to 1989 Reagan spent 2.7 dollars in 8 for each “real” dollar spent in other 32 years. Comprehendez amigo? Factoids hurt? Si!

Try usual Heritage spin—Reagan tax cuts paid their way—huh! From 1983 to 1989 federal revenues increased from 599b to 990b. 391b increase. Correct. But-Reagan tax cuts were income tax cuts therefore it seems logical you measure income tax revenue increase.
319b increase. 201b was increase in payroll tax revenue from Reagan huge increase in it.
50b in excise tax increase partial from gas tax. 251b of 391b. Durn! That leaves 140b increase in income tax revenues. My math professor Dr. Hook taught me 140 “in” is smaller than 750 “out”. Factoids are miserable things.
In 1980--86% of employees had Health Insurance-In 2008---31%.
Bush/Cheney did more damage than Reagan.
Increased Spending by 118% and Debt by 100%
Cut Taxes for top 2.7% or four times the amount for bottom 80%.
His 1700B in tax cuts were in 5000b he borrowed

Bush/Cheney led us into two awful Slaughteramas. Hundreds of thousands were killed. Tens of thousands of little children were maimed for life. Tens of thousands of wives lost their meal tickets. What is wrong with Americans?
Ever know a so-called Christian pastor or congregation in America to pray and weep for those people? I WEEP. Millions of tears shed, justly, for the Holocaust. None here.

Bush had worst record since Depression on Job creation. He got 3000 net new jobs per month. Disgusting when compared to records of 218,000 by Carter and 237,000 by Clinton.
The world warned not to invade a destitute unarmed Iraq.
Bush sr. said do not do it.
Leadership of each major religion in America said do not do it. Exception was Southern Baptist.
Polls in major nations said do not do it. Exceptions were Israel-Poland-Australia.
Cheney was heard to tell Rumsfeld the day after 2001 inauguration “prepare to invade Iraq”. Equipment was moved into Kuwait far ahead of Bush “Cheerful” announcement on invasion. It was Bush fulfilling his statement to his biographer ”I will need a war to be a successful president”.
Wall Street was allowed unrestricted gambling. It was unproductive. No jobs were created. It was simply the Rich betting money against other Rich money to get richer. Las Vegas type gambling.
AIG covered any bet. Texas gambler bet on Housing crash and won 1 billion. AIG paid him out of 185B supplied by our taxes. Goldman Sachs loss was paid by AIG out of our taxes.
The Housing Industry sustained our GDP growth but wasted capital-labor-materials in constructing homes to large-too expensive for the middle class incomes. Federal Reserve increased the Total money supply by 4000 Billion in five years which was twice the increase over the prior ten years.

Greenspan gave Clinton a 6.5% Interest Rate and immediately gave Bush a 1%. The increase in money supply and very low interest rate encouraged banks to borrow max and encouraged developers to build build build.
Local Banks were permitted to trade with Wall Street Gamblers. Courtesy Phil Gramn, Republican Congress and Clinton. 1999 elimination of Glass-Steagall.
Shades of S & L in 1981. Remove local ownership. Rich pals of Milken come and get it vaults are wide open. Government assures you no loss.


A feeding frenzy took place on home mortgages, which were sold via securities as high grade investments to unsuspecting investors around the world. Refinancing was a major part of the frenzy. Speculators took part. As of January 2008 twenty-three percent of foreclosures were on homes purchased by Speculators. Some purchased entire developments.
Assumption was correct from history. Homes always increase in value. Always.
History can be wrong..
From 1980 to 2008 was a disaster period for working people. A bonanza for Gamblers on Wall Street And CEOs.
Why did not CEO’s increase income of employees? In one year they made 550 times the average pay of workers. Remember the good old middle class years when it was 40 times? It is irrefutable that 1981 to 2008 was Enrich the Rich Ditch the rest.
SINCE 1980 HERE IS A BRIEF-DISGUSTING
20 YEARS=3 SO CALLED CONSERVATIVE PRESIDENTS
18 YEARS=SO CALLED CONSERVATIVE SENATE
12 YEARS=SO CALLED CONSERVATIVE HOUSE
6 YEARS=TOTAL GOVERNMENT CONTROL BY SO CALLED CONSERVATIVES
2 TERRIBLE ILLEGAL WARS
TRANSFER OF JOBS TO CHINA AS WE COVERED OUR OVER-SPENDING BY THEIR LOANS
LOSS OF OUR JOB PRODUCING MANUFACTURING BASE--
HERE ARE THE RESULTS—SAD-SAD-SAD
600B SPENDING TO 4000B
1000B OF DEBT TO 11,000 +
23M NET NEW JOBS
12 YEARS OF CARTER + CLINTON GOT 33M
8 YEARS OF THE MOST SCURRILOUS ADMINISTRATION IN HISTORY PER HAYNES JOHNSON IN --PRESIDENT REAGAN=SLEEPWALKING THROUGH HISTORY
138 CHARGED WITH CRIMES WAS MORE THAN GRAND TOTAL SINCE 1900
MOST OF THEM WERE CHARGED IN CRIMES INVOLVING MONEY.
THE NUMBERS ARE AVAILABLE. THE HISTORY IS VERY CLEAR.
THE GREAT MIDDLE CLASS GOT THE GREAT BIG SHAFTING.
THE STRUGGLING RICH BECAME THE ULTRA-RICH
SMASHED WALL STREET
SMASHED ECONOMY
SMASHED HOUSING
SMASHED CHILDRENS FUTURE WITH DEBT
SMASHED WORKERS INCOME
SMASHED AMERICAS REPUTATION WORLDWIDE
STARTED THE DECLINE OF THE AMERICAN EMPIRE LIKE ROME-SPAIN-HOLLAND-BRITAIN
DEMOCRATS HISTORY OF BUILDING GOOD THINGS FOR ALL AMERICANS
CONSERVATIVE HISTORY OF FIGHTING THOSE GOOD THINGS
WHY DO YOU SEND CONSERVATIVES BACK TO WASHINGTON?
I AM OLD AND UGLY AND I APPROVED THIS MESSAGE OF DELIVERANCE
FROM CONSERVATIVE FALSEHOODS
I ASK ONLY IF I AM WRONG GIVE ME FACTS AND I WILL CORRECT.
I ERR BUT I DO NOT WRITE WITH INTENT TO DECEIVE
8-26-09 USA TODAY—CBO AND CEA PROJECT DEFICITS OF 9 TRILLION OVER NEXT TEN YEARS. REPUBLICANS, PER USUAL, JUMP ON OBAMA CASE.
REP. BOEHNER “TODAY’S REPORTS CONFIRM WHAT THE WHITE HOUSE HAS BEEN TRYING TO HIDE.
THE DEMOCRATS OUT-OF–CONTROL SPENDING BINGE IS BURYING OUR CHILDREN AND GRANDCHILDREN UNDER A MOUNTAIN OF UNSUSTAINABLE DEBT”.
This is so stupid it is a good laugh. He took us on a Spend-Borrow binge from 1000B of debt to 11,000B. He took us on a spend binge from 600B to 4000B.
These guys have one simple trait—deceive—distract from truth—attack attack
Yes! No question. It is going to take much Spend-Tax-Borrow for years to correct the mess created in prior twenty years of conservative control.
How easy the people forget the Balanced Budgets=Surpluses under Clinton and 8 good years.
WOW—8 YEARS=5000B + INCREASE IN DEBT UNDER BOEHNER-BUSH
1830B IN CLINTON LAST YEAR OF SPENDING TO 4000B UNDER BUSH LAST YEAR OF SPENDING
SPENDERS + DEBTORS + LIARS = CONSERVATIVES
ONE MAJOR TRUTH—IF A CONSERVATIVE LEADER SAYS IT --IT IS PART TRUE.
NEVER TRUST A CONSERVATIVE IN WASHINGTON. NEVER. NEVER. NEVER.
If I err give me facts I will correct. [e-mail]
Political historian since 1991 on Reagan-Clinton-Bush II
Author=-Lifeaholic-Workaholic to Lifeaholic Success
Author-unpublished---ALL AMERICAN PARTY-How Democrats created a Great Middle Class and Conservatives are determined to destroy it

[Radical Activist]

99. I don't think its necessary to show support for Obama.

Simply directing the focus where it's most useful, which right now is on the US Senate, would be more productive than blaming everything on Obama. The US Senate is the hold-up right now, not Obama.

[branders seine]

102. "moderate-liberal President"is a naked assertion that requires

significant proof. As it stands, the thesis of this article begs its own question.

[EFerrari]

143. Thank you. Of course it does. n/t

[colsohlibgal]

104. Apologists On The Attack.

I get math, believe me, but..how long do we have to put up with a choice between wing nuts and republican lite? Nobody made Obama appoint DINOs like Emmanual, Geithner, and Summers to his inner circle.

Oh, I also totally challenge how hard Obama is trying to turn things around when the White House just a day or so ago even went against Nancy Pelosi to lobby for Wall Street over Main Street.

[Bert]

105. Hogwash

Let's see, by trying to hold Obama's feet to the fire we are not supporting him? The only liberal president in my lifetime was Carter and Obama is continuing the clinton tradition of being a 60/40 democrat/republican. I guess this is better than getting a fascist republican but let us not forget that even FDR, the best president we ever had made mistakes, usually those of going too far right and it was unions and others on the left that had to force him into acting the way he did sometimes. So in conclusion, if FDR was not above being reporoached by the left than Obama, who has behaved more like a rockefeller republican than a true democrat, has no room to complain. And whoever wrote this is either deluded or has an agenda which I would like to take a closer look at.

[joe black]

125. Should I just sit down and STFU.

Meanwhile Obamas group kills social security. How is that working in the right direction.

[MisterP]

136. how is she determining that Obama is a liberal and is trying to turn things around?

the "patience" meme should've died in mid-2009, and the fact that it's going after so much bad-faith behavior by the WH shows that it was phony all along! "he's going in the right direction but at too slow a pace for some lefties" is contrary to all the facts, like saying "Ngo Dinh Diem was a democratic leader"; it's what the WH has DONE as well as what it has NOT done that rile up anyone with a heart or a brain

and what's the difference between "moderate liberal" and "conservadem"? both fall under the rubric of conservatism

in my view, the veal pen's task is to serve the global arsonists and slaveowners by 1) undercutting anyone who would stop them when they have a Dem associate in power (counseling calm and patience a la the Gulf of Mexico Foundation) and 2) keep the rage up against the Republican "Them"--make no mistake, 99% of the GOP is insane, destructive, and/or a cynical corporate servant, but the veal pen is busy treating the GOP as Emmanuel Goldstein, with BP always tied to McLump or some empty-sacked wonder from the Heritage Fund or a district in Texas, and never EVER Dem "drill here, drill now" types: the support of "liberal" establishment figures for Cold-War aggression, drilling, global war, torture, mercenaries, live incineration of sea turtles, etc., is not to enter our consciousness

BTW, it's the same people who say NOW that "he's not Superman!!!!111" (when Dear Leader is criticized for not opening airspace over the spill, DADT, or withdrawing troops from the 80% of places they're stationed in where they're not needed or wanted--actions which are by executive fiat) who were saying THEN that "he is not to be criticized OR HE WILL SMITE YOU WITH PLAGUES OF FROGS AND BOILS"

[Winston Wolf]

147. He Was Given A Mandate.

And he squandered it. That’s what, in my opinion, many of the left are upset about. He could have done damn near anything when it comes to governing with a liberal bent when he took office, because he won in a god damn landslide.

Pretty good Health Care Reform? Are you fucking shitting me? When the Republicans suggested insurance mandates back in the 90’s, we told them to fuck themselves. Somehow, a couple of decades later, this shit sandwich of an idea has become the best thing since chocolate chip cookies. And as for financial regulations, the legislation enacted so far has been a token gesture at best. The “Too Big To Fail” policy hasn’t been dealt with in any meaningful way, and there’s still no pay caps for CEOs. And I'd LOVE to see Republicans try to roll back Health Care "Reform". It'd be just as popular as rolling back unemployment insurance and social security.

I’m so tired of claims like, “Well, if you don’t support Obama one hundred percent, you want a Palin Presidency!” It’s never that simple. I voted for Obama, and while he hasn’t been nearly as effective as he could have been, and does shit that absolutely drives me nuts, (like using the oxymoronic phrase, “Clean Coal”, and let’s not even get started on his policy with public education) I’d vote for him again without batting an eye, and depending on how appealing Howard Dean is to the public in 2012, I’d probably vote for him again.

He’s got charm and eloquence up the ass, and a level of patience that borders on the absurd. However, excuses like, “He’s not a king, he’s got a lot on his plate, etc.” don’t cut it. There’s no excuse for DADT and DOMA remaining on the books. There’s no excuse for Gitmo and Bagram. There’s no excuse for remaining in Afghanistan and Iraq, and many other of his policies that rub the left the wrong way. Still, he’ll have my back more than a Republican would any ol’ day of the fuckin’ week.

But just because liberals don’t agree with some of his policies and get disappointed with him from time to time doesn’t equate to a Palin Administration in 2012. The Republicans have shown their true colors, and it’s a shade of malevolence and psychosis that the American people won’t soon forget.

So please, let's put the Republican boogey man meme to rest, and start focusing on governing how the American people want, which, despite popular claims by the MSM, is much farther to the left than they care to admit.