In the history of DU there has only been one Democratic President

[cthulu2016]

Whatever notions any DUer has about a current Democratic President will have been voiced about Barack Obama, and only Barack Obama.

There are many anti-Authoritarian positions that are operatively "anti-Obama" positions because he's the only Democratic President we've got.

Some people hated Bush because he was a dictator from the wrong party.

Others hated Bush because he was a dictator. These were the same folks who, back in the day, opposed the Vietnam War under LBJ and under Nixon, and did not see the practical need to support the Vietnam War because it was part-and-parcel of the pragmatic political gestalt that brought us the Voting Rights Act.

Though it was, of course. If everyone had kept their trap shut about the Vietnam War LBJ would have been President from 1969-1973.


Now then, there were some sophisticated people who thought JFK was sophisticated and LBJ was a racist shit-kicker. This was a common view in some circles. It was, of course, shallow regional bigotry. But when Vietnam went south there were plenty of liberals ready to turn on LBJ because they had never liked LBJ.

That's a real phenomenon.

But if you were against the Vietnam War in 1967 for deep principled reasons (or practical reasons like not wanting to die) you might have been dismissed as "anti-LBJ" because he was the only available Commander in Chief escalating the Vietnam War, and thus the guy to complain about.

But being against Vietnam categorically, independent of party, was a real position held by millions of real people. It wasn't "anti-LBJ"... the same people would not have been pro-Vietnam if Chester Arthur was President.

And I am sure there were some Republicans who were against the war only until the day Nixon was sworn in... but the fact that some people lack all principles doesn't mean nobody has principles.



Some folks on the left who criticize Obama might have a special animus for Obama, of course, but a lot more are anti-Authoritarian and have always had problems with authoritarian BS and always disliked the Imperial Presidency.

It does not do to say a position is "anti-Obama" unless someone has favored the same policies from all the other 21st Century Democratic Presidents and is now picking on Obama in particular... which is impossible because Obama is the only recent Democratic President.


Some people do not like power concentrated in the executive... even when the executive is a good guy (Obama is) and the other branches of government suck (which they do these days).

That view is not anti-Obama.

[Tierra_y_Libertad]

1. Holding public servants accountable is the responsibility of the people. Even Democrats.

[nadinbrzezinski]

2. Cause we all know the only history that matters

Is that comprised by the history of an Internet site. Anything and everything before it has no absolutely, non whatsoever, relevance.

George Orwell is doing this from the grave....



Correction, the Dept of Truth just called...Orwell never existed...precedes this site..memory hole and all.

[ProSense]

3. I don't know,

"That view is not anti-Obama."

...you just wrote what amounts to a RW screed over the First Lady's presentation at the Oscars

Our chief executive and his family is not supposed to be the ubiquitous personification of the nation.

It is in very poor taste, and un-American and antiquated and hearkens back to the worst of human history. That doesn't mean it was a tragedy... nobody died... but it was GROSS. The Academy should not have asked, though they have the right to do so, and she should surely have not accepted.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/10022425980

[cthulu2016]

5. You cannot read that piece through the broken lens of your worldview

You cannot comprehend that it is a critique of autocratic trappings because you are hollow.

There is nothing, and can be nothing, Right Wing about a critique of Autocratic Trappings.

I am actually ANTI Right Wing. My ideas are IDEAS, not tactics.

You are provisionally anti Right Wing... you think principles are things worked out backward from Party, and thus cannot conceive of a non-partisan view.

Which is your perfect right, but an odd thing to be boastful about.

[ProSense]

6. "It is in very poor taste, and un-American "

"I am actually ANTI Right Wing. My ideas are IDEAS, not tactics. "

I beg to differ.

[hfojvt]

11. for a President's family

to act and be treated like Royal Family is quintessentially UN-American.

If you don't like the idea of American Royalty than you speak up and object when even a Democratic first lady is treated like a queen.

It is often said that "Power corrupts and absolute power corrupts absolutely."

[ProSense]

12. Yup,

"for a President's family to act and be treated like Royal Family is quintessentially UN-American."

...those un-American Kennedys are proof. Hillary 2016! Big Dawg as First Man.

[hfojvt]

13. "why don't we just call the Senate the 'House of Lords' and end the charade."

Rachel Maddow

Even I am not old enough to remember the Kennedy administration, although I was standing in a crowd waiting to see Bobby in 1968.

[ProSense]

15. Hey, we already have the black "Messiah." n/t

[white_wolf]

18. "Hillary 2016! Big Dawg as First Man."

Dear Gods no! We don't need any more right-wingers in the White House. Give us someone decent like Grayson or Kucinich, but no more New Democratic "Centrists."

[RC]

19. +100 Many here agree with what you said.

Too many here have no clue as to the real political leaning of their... hmmm, errr, heros.
But they have a (D) by their name, and by god, that's good enough!

[Dpm12]

4. The site launched on 1/20/2001

Last edited Mon Feb 25, 2013, 05:27 PM - Edit history (1)

So, we were up for a short time of Clinton's presidency, depending on what time we launched

Shrub was inaugurated at noon on January 20, 2001. If DU launched before noon, then we were around for Clinton

[cthulu2016]

7. Okay, Okay... You are right

Clinton was inaugrated Jan 22, 2013.

[ProSense]

10. I could only imagine

"Clinton was inaugrated Jan 22, 2013."

...what you would have written about Kosovo, Rwanda and the bin Laden bombings during the Clinton years.

<...>

President Bill Clinton lifted the ban on CIA assassinations in 1998, but limited their use to specific targets, such as Osama bin Laden, and only if capture was not “feasible.” George W. Bush dropped the “feasible” limitation and eliminated the need for a specified list of targets. The first CIA drone killing took place in Yemen on November 5, 2002, and included the death of an American citizen, Buffalo-born Kamal Derwish.

http://www.allgov.com/Top_Stories/ViewNews/Obamas_Secret_Assassination_Program_111229

Would you have considered the circumstances of his impeachment as:

Our chief executive and his family is not supposed to be the ubiquitous personification of the nation.

It is in very poor taste, and un-American and antiquated and hearkens back to the worst of human history. That doesn't mean it was a tragedy... nobody died... but it was GROSS. The Academy should not have asked, though they have the right to do so, and she should surely have not accepted.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/10022425980

[Dawgs]

8. Only one President with a D next to his name. ;)

[Demeter]

9. You are right, and don't let them tell you otherwise, Cthulu

If it's wrong when the GOP does it, it's WRONGER when the Democrat does it.

Intentional grammatical error for emphasis.

And as for poor taste, it's universal now....almost nobody brought up right anymore. And no standards universally respected by TPTB: the very definition of corruption, by the way.

[TheKentuckian]

14. Damn straight. We are supposed to know better and leading the way

[woo me with science]

16. Well said. K&R

[bvar22]

17. It is NOT about The Person.

It IS about the POLICY!

The Litmus Test:
Would I have opposed this if Bush did it?

My Personal Litmus Test:
Does this policy move the football toward THESE Traditional Democratic Party Ideals?

"In our day these economic truths have become accepted as self-evident. We have accepted, so to speak, a second Bill of Rights under which a new basis of security and prosperity can be [font size=3]established for all—regardless of station, race, or creed.[/font]

Among these are:

*The right to a useful and remunerative job in the industries or shops or farms or mines of the nation;

*The right to earn enough to provide adequate food and clothing and recreation;

*The right of every farmer to raise and sell his products at a return which will give him and his family a decent living;

*The right of every businessman, large and small, to trade in an atmosphere of freedom from unfair competition and domination by monopolies at home or abroad;

*The right of every family to a decent home;

*The right to adequate medical care and the opportunity to achieve and enjoy good health;

*The right to adequate protection from the economic fears of old age, sickness, accident, and unemployment;

*The right to a good education.

All of these rights spell security. And after this war is won we must be prepared to move forward, in the implementation of these rights, to new goals of human happiness and well-being."--- FDR, Economic Bill or Rights

Please note that FDR specified the above as Basic Human Rights,
to be protected and administered on an equal basis by our Government of The People,
and NOT as Commodities to be sold to Americans who can afford them
by For Profit Corporations.

I don't care WHO is sitting in the Oval Office, Democrat OR Republican.
If a particular policy advances our nation TOWARD the above Democratic Party Values,
I WILL support it.

If a policy moves America in the other direction:
*Privatization,
*Deregulation,
*Conglomeration,
*Secrecy,
*Empowerment of Opaque Corporations,
*Class Stratification,
*Concentration of Wealth & Power at the TOP,
*Giving "Private" Corporations access to Public Monies,
*Exceptions for the Rich/Powerful/Connected,
*Less Transparency & Citizen Oversight,
*Usurpation of Civil Liberties,
*Expanding & Militarizing the Police State,
*Subordination of the Working Class & Poor, etc....
I WILL loudly OPPOSE it.
It makes NO difference WHO is sitting in the Oval Office,
or whether the policy can be spun by the propagandists as a "Political WIN"!

Luckily, I have had the opportunity to see and hear 5 Democratic Presidents,
and a couple of GOOD Republican Presidents.
I CAN Tell-the-Difference.

--bvar22
a mainstream-Center FDR/LBJ loyal Working Class Democrat for over 46 years,
NOW labeled a "Fringe Leftist".
I haven't changed.


[font color=firebrick size=3][center]The Democratic Party is a BIG TENT, but there is NO ROOM for those
who advance the agenda of The Wealthy & The Powerful at the EXPENSE of The Working Class and The POOR.
They already have a party, The Republican Party. [/font][/center]

[woo me with science]

20. ...