Democrats' Move to the Right Profoundly Affects our Young People and Our Future.

[Le Taz Hot]

Last edited Tue Aug 6, 2013, 08:34 AM - Edit history (1)

As a Boomer I lived through one of the most liberal times this country has seen. The policies of the New Deal were still in place and Johnson's Great Society, which included Medicare, was enacted. Civil Rights legislation was passed. Women won the right to have power of their reproductive organs as well as gaining their social and financial independence. In California, if you wanted to go to a public college, your tuition was free, books were affordable and part-time jobs were aplenty. The G.I. bill afforded MILLIONS of people to go to school, start businesses, and buy houses. Strong labor unions ensured families needed only one breadwinner to have a comfortable life. Pensions were a given in virtually all businesses as was health insurance, life insurance and, in some cases, dental and optical. These were ALL liberal policies and they benefited everyone. We benefited as a nation.

But it all changed with the Reagan presidency. Reagan was the perfect front man for the capitalist vultures. He gave the bloodsuckers cover with all that down-homey, ah shucks routine. He told the witless that gummit was the cause of all their problems. (Scapegoats are important when there is a power takeover.) They began one of the most successful campaigns to this day and that was to re-define the word "liberal" as a pejorative. Meanwhile, the Democratic Party, who didn't exactly love Carter and criticized him just as vociferously as did the Republicans, ran to the nearest corner, pulled their binky over their heads and looked frantically for their "passies." They accepted the narrative and we've lived with he consequences ever since.

But I think about the people who were born after the Reagan Era. The above experiences are foreign to them. They think shrinking jobs, wages, rights, safety nets, education, home ownership, etc., is the norm. They've nothing with which to compare. Further, there seemed to be nothing that would really get them up and work for changes as we watched more and more of our liberal world disintegrate. For a long time I didn't see many young people at rallies or political gatherings. But, in 2008, here comes Barack Obama. The young people seemed to relate to him. The fact that he was bi-racial was a plus and the prospect of electing the first African-American president was exciting and I think made them feel like they were part of history. And they were.

Then Obama takes office and takes a sharp right turn. Five-and-a-half years out young peoples' positions are more precarious than ever. Not only can't they find jobs with a living wage, education has fast become the impossible dream as has home ownership. Obama promised them and us a great many things and delivered on almost none of it. The disillusionment was apparent in the 2012 election as far fewer young people and other disenfranchised people who worked for Obama in 2008 were present.

So Obama's failures are two-fold: 1) He sided with the corporations at a pivotal point in our history. We could have begun to reverse so much had the desire by this administration been there. But he had to dance with them who brung him so virtually everything coming out of this White House has been corporate friendly. 2) Just as important -- he disillusioned millions of our young people. This was a population that was apathetic to begin with and here we have an opportunity to engage them and they WERE engaged for awhile until virtually none of the promises were fulfilled. This generation is a instant-grat generation and they see no grats for them. How in the HELL will we ever get them back and engaged again after this?

[Octafish]

1. K&R for Truth Tellers

Only thing worse than being raised on Reagan was being raised on Bush -- either one.

This nation is so different than what it was, people who know realize just how much different this world would be if the Democratic vision for the future was the one we followed.

Instead, it's been the War Party, where "Money trumps peace."

Thank you for putting it into words, Le Taz Hot.

[forestpath]

2. K&R

[daleanime]

3. K&R....

[mick063]

4. Young folks simply don't know any better

And they never will with the likes of Hillary or Obama.

This is what they think the Democratic Party is.

It is a shame that greed let the Kochs in, if only momentarily, to leave that lasting impression.

Then there are the defenders of it all. They have to be young. I don't understand how they could think this is better unless they never experienced better.

[Le Taz Hot]

5. The defenders are partisans

which requires no critical thinking. All that's required is mindless cheerleading.

[democrank]

6. The older folks here know exactly what you`re writing about.

What a profoundly disappointing move the Democratic Party has made. With the center constantly being moved to the right, I hardly recognize the party anymore. Now we support personalities....at all cost, no matter what....rather than stand on long-held Democratic Party principles.

One thing for sure, the older folks here, without the benefit of a computer or cell phone, gathered to march against the Vietnam War, march for civil rights and march for women`s rights. We stood for what was right....no matter what. And we did it by the hundreds of thousands.

Today, many, many Democrats willingly support programs and policies they were against under George W. Bush....just because a "Democrat" is in the White House. It`s "win" at all cost, even if that means you flush your principles down the toilet. As far as I`m concerned, a hell of a lot has been flushed, because Washington is now a cesspool....with very, very few clean boots.

[deutsey]

9. Yep, the Reaction that began in the mid-'70s has been wildly successful

It's almost rolled back every progressive gain made since the New Deal and tilted the American political landscape so far to the right that many people aren't even aware of the history that led to the New Deal and the social movements of the '60s.

Down the memory hole, as Orwell called it in 1984.

[Skittles]

191. THANK YOU

I am SICK of the swooners telling us we are Obama haters simply because we can CLEARLY see the direction America is headed

[L0oniX]

215. Clinton moved center right too ...Obama the same ...and some want a repeat of that with Hillary. WTF

[Fumesucker]

7. Obama had an army in 2009, he told them to sit in the corner while the grownups ran things

Remember Smirk's inaugural in 2001? How the limo got pelted with eggs?

Obama's was different, he had the power and deliberately let it lie unused.

[Le Taz Hot]

10. Jesus Christ, what a missed opportunity.

The country was behind him. The world was his. Historians will look back on this time as one of those pivotal moments in history that could have reversed this country's, and the world's fortunes. Instead, it hastened its demise. Truly tragic.

[Fumesucker]

30. He had the Nobel Peace Prize before he ever actually did anything

Just from the anticipation that he would somehow change the dysfunctional business-as-usual.

I took a picture on the morning of Jan 21, 2009, the first morning after the inaugural, and posted it on DU at 7:09 AM that very morning that summed up my hopes for Obama.

See my comment on my feelings in the second reply.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=280x49419

Here is the picture.

[ctsnowman]

62. I feel your pain.

[Egalitarian Thug]

186. The greatest failure in a century, maybe in our entire history.

He could have created legacy on the scale of Washington and Lincoln, instead he chose to save billionaires from their own choices and leave us the bill.

[AZ Progressive]

189. Isn't that whats wrong in America? No real patriotism and honor anymore...

And fraud is the norm, and people are so easy to sell out.

[Egalitarian Thug]

190. Along with the loss of ambition to do great things. We'd rather not try than risk failing anymore

and that's exactly what the President did and he ended up failing anyway.

I don't think that patriotism, as it is used and understood today, is an asset as it is most frequently used to justify crimes.

[duffyduff]

222. That's because he is their puppet. No vote rigging needed anymore.

It was always clear what he was from the beginning. He's a neoliberal, which means he's another enemy of the American people.

He's only one out of hundreds who are messing this country up in order to lower it to third world standards.

[L0oniX]

218. Those young Dem voters represented the future of the real Dem party ...thrown under the bus.

IMO they won't be back.

[AngryOldDem]

18. I'll be even more base with my comment.

I feel like I fell victim to the old bait-and-switch.

[zeemike]

203. That's cause we did.

And I admit I bought it...I guess I thought that a cool black dude would never sell us out.

[ctsnowman]

61. This ^^^^

[leftstreet]

72. +1

[bvar22]

177. THAT will be the epitaph for the Obama Administration:

Last edited Tue Aug 6, 2013, 07:50 PM - Edit history (1)

[font size=5]Oh What COULD[i/] Have Been![/font]





You will know them by their [font size=3]WORKS.[/font]

[blkmusclmachine]

197. Fooled ya!!!

[Zorra]

195. In fairness, the Third Way/DLC/Blue Dogs in the House and Senate, Harry Reid in particular,

share in this tragic, devastating, heartbreaking sell out of all of us who believed the Democrats we elected would work to repair the destruction left behind by 8 dark years of Bush and neocons.

We had a it all, the chance to finally get it right, and they gave it all away.

[blkmusclmachine]

198. Fooled ya!!!

[L0oniX]

217. Loosing that Obama Dem youth vote will be the worst mistake in the history of the Dem party. n/t

[hobbit709]

8. Both the 2008 and 2012 Democratic party platforms were well to the right of the 1956 Republican one.

[RC]

11. The bare, unvarnished truth on DU. Whodathunk, huh?

Rare lately. Even the comments tell it like it is, so far anyway.

[Le Taz Hot]

13. Oh, "they'll" be along.

They're meeting in the Blue Link Room as we speak, I'm sure.

LOL! You called it. See below.

[L0oniX]

216. There's no point in responding to the nonsense. They are not real Dems anyway.

Clinton moved the party center right and Obama has done the same so now it's so far to the right it isn't really the old school traditional Dem party. When you see all the worship and "can do no wrong" crap you know there isn't any introspect going on so there is no going back to the left. With Obama the left got immediately thrown under the bus along with the youth voters. Now they, the center right, right and more right want our votes for another Clinton right. I'll tell ya "right" where the party is going ...they are becoming what republicans used to be IMO. Even the mention of changing SS for the worse is enough to see where the party has gone. After going thru and actively participating in the 60's changes this shit makes me sick.

[ProSense]

12. What policies demonstrate a "sharp right turn"? n/t

[Le Taz Hot]

14. Those policies have been enumerated on this board,

literally, hundreds of thousands of times. By now, it's pretty much a moot point anyway. The situation speaks for itself.

[ProSense]

15. You can't name them because there are no such policies. n/t

[RC]

21. They are so obvious to people who have lived it, or has paid attention.

Reread the OP again, your list is there. This time read it with the idea of learning something. That OP is exactly correct. It is history written by someone that has lived through it, as have I.

Today, many, many Democrats willingly support programs and policies they were against under George W. Bush....just because a "Democrat" is in the White House. It`s "win" at all cost, even if that means you flush your principles down the toilet. As far as I`m concerned, a hell of a lot has been flushed, because Washington is now a cesspool....with very, very few clean boots.
http://www.democraticunderground.com/10023413012#post6

[ProSense]

22. That's not a policy. Name the policies that demonstrate a "sharp right turn." n/t

[RC]

35. Apparently you can only understand Black and White.

The real world is not Black and white. Maybe someone else can explain color (nuances) to someone who has a hard time processing fine detail.

[ProSense]

49. I prefer

"The real world is not Black and white. Maybe someone else can explain color (nuances) to someone who has a hard time processing fine detail."

...to deal with reality, not to create grey areas that don't exist.

Obama Spouts Populism As His Party Tacks Left
http://www.democraticunderground.com/10023413308

Bernie Sanders Exposes The Republican Goal of Abolishing The Minimum Wage
http://www.democraticunderground.com/10023413272

[RC]

50. Just because you can't see them, doesn't mean they do not exist.

And that is my point.

[Marr]

78. Maybe no one wants to get bogged down in your sophistry here. /nt

[gulliver]

181. That's not what "sophistry" means.

Asking for a real world example is not sophistry. Trying to get by without a real world example is an example sophistry. Not coming up with such an example after multiple requests is called "folding."

[Marr]

187. I'm aware of the definition.

I'm also aware of the tactics used by the person I was addressing. He/she asks for some specifics, then responds with a PR-approved counter "argument" that amounts to sophistry and some exotic combination of logical fallacies. It's very good for misdirection, but little else.

[JDPriestly]

168. It started with leaving single payer Democrats out of the talks about health care.

It can now be observed with Obama's threats to cut Social Security and Medicare and the lies of some in his administration, perhaps also implicating him in the lying, to the American people about the surveillance programs.

[duffyduff]

223. It started with focusing on health care without doing a thing about the economy

We are in an economic crisis, but Obama does not care. Neither does Congress.

That's because they are engaging in a systematic dismantling of EVERYTHING we hold dear in this country in order to lower it to the standards of the Chinese and other emerging economies.

"Globalism" or neoliberalism is totally evil. Governments no longer matter; all that counts is what the multinational corporations and what the parasitical class of billionaires want.

Anybody who spews this globalist shit--are you listening, Bill Clinton--needs to be run off the political stage.

[JDPriestly]

224. Actually, after reading the article I cite in the following post, I realized

it started with the bank bail-out.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/10023422535

Total lack of understanding about how money works. It is frightening. How could both the Republicans and the Democrats make such a colossal mistake in handling the financial crisis.

That homeowners should and could be bailed out, not the banks, occurred to me as soon as Bush's Secretary of the Treasury went to Congress with his unconstitutional, stupid plan to hold a coup by taking over the economy. Why Congress could not understand what was going on I do not know. It seemed so obvious. And Obama is well educated and intelligent, but intelligence is not just defined clearly as one set of capacities. I think that there are many, many people who think more logically than Obama. Obama's intelligence is in other areas. He just does not understand economics. I don't think he can put the puzzle pieces together when it comes to how finance works.

[ann---]

36. Drones

Caving to the right-wing regarding banking regulations, etc.

[burnodo]

68. student loan rate increases

military interventionism, Feds raiding MMJ businesses, etc.

[blackspade]

80. Are you serious?

Take your pick.

Energy policy, environmental policy, foreign policy, civil liberties, poverty, income equality.....
Maybe it's a generational thing.
You likely haven't lived in a time that was not saturated with right wing propaganda.
I feel for you, I really do.

[ProSense]

97. Yes,

Are you serious?

Take your pick.

Energy policy, environmental policy, foreign policy, civil liberties, poverty, income equality.....
Maybe it's a generational thing.
You likely haven't lived in a time that was not saturated with right wing propaganda.
I feel for you, I really do.

...I'm serious, and anybody can say anything without presenting fact.

<...>

Perhaps the best prism through which to see the Democrats’ gains is inequality. In the 2008 campaign, Mr. Obama said that his top priority as president would be to “create bottom-up economic growth” and reduce inequality...In the 2009 stimulus, he insisted on making tax credits “fully refundable,” so that even people who did not make enough to pay much federal tax would benefit. The 2010 health care law overhaul was probably the biggest attack on inequality since it began rising in the 1970s, increasing taxes on businesses and the rich to pay for health insurance largely for the middle class.

http://www.nytimes.com/2013/01/03/us/politics/for-obama-fiscal-deal-is-a-victory-that-also-holds-risks.html

Krugman: Obama and Redistribution
http://www.democraticunderground.com/10022224304

The Consumer Financial Protection Bureau gets busy
http://www.democraticunderground.com/10023372682

Also as the health care becomes more accessible and affordable, and the effects will become even more noticeable.

The data presented here are from the Current Population Survey (CPS), 2012 Annual Social and Economic Supplement (ASEC), the source of official poverty estimates. The CPS ASEC is a sample survey of approximately 100,000 household nationwide. These data reflect conditions in calendar year 2011.

• In 2011, the official poverty rate was 15.0 percent. There were 46.2 million people in poverty.
  
  
• After 3 consecutive years of increases, neither the official poverty rate nor the number of people in poverty were statisti¬cally different from the 2010 estimates1
  
  
• The 2011 poverty rates for most demographic groups examined were not statistically different from their 2010 rates. Poverty rates were lower in 2011 than in 2010 for six groups: Hispanics, males, the foreign-born, nonciti¬zens, people living in the South, and people living inside metropol¬itan statistical areas but outside principal cities. Poverty rates went up between 2010 and 2011 for naturalized citizens.
  
  
• For most groups, the number of people in poverty either decreased or did not show a statistically significant change. The number of people in poverty decreased for noncitizens, people living in the South, and people living inside metropolitan statistical areas but outside principal cities between 2010 and 2011. The number of naturalized citizens in poverty increased.
  
  
• The poverty rate in 2011 for chil¬dren under age 18 was 21.9 per-cent. The poverty rate for people aged 18 to 64 was 13.7 percent, while the rate for people aged 65 and older was 8.7 percent. None of the rates for these age groups were statistically different from their 2010 estimates.2

http://www.census.gov/hhes/www/poverty/about/overview/

Go to the "Publications" tab for more information.

Income, Poverty and Health Insurance Coverage in the United States: 2011
http://www.census.gov/newsroom/releases/archives/income_wealth/cb12-172.html

Sex

• The poverty rate for males decreased between 2010 and 2011, from 14.0 percent to 13.6 percent, while the poverty rate for females was 16.3 percent, not statistically different from the 2010 estimate.

<...>

Health Insurance Coverage

• The number of people with health insurance increased to 260.2 million in 2011 from 256.6 million in 2010, as did the percentage of people with health insurance (84.3 percent in 2011, 83.7 percent in 2010).
  
  
• The percentage of people covered by private health insurance in 2011 was not statistically different from 2010, at 63.9 percent. This was the first time in the last 10 years that the rate of private health insurance coverage has not decreased. The percentage covered by employment-based health insurance in 2011 was not statistically different from 2010, at 55.1 percent.
  
  
• The percentage of people covered by government health insurance increased from 31.2 percent to 32.2 percent. The percentage covered by Medicaid increased from 15.8 percent in 2010 to 16.5 percent in 2011. The percentage covered by Medicare also rose over the period, from 14.6 percent to 15.2 percent. The percentage covered by Medicaid in 2011 was higher than the percentage covered by Medicare.
  
  
• In 2011, 9.7 percent of children under 19 (7.6 million) were without health insurance. Neither estimate is significantly different from the corresponding 2010 estimate. The uninsured rate also remained statistically unchanged for those age 26 to 34 and people age 45 to 64. It declined, however, for people age 19 to 25, age 35 to 44 and those age 65 and older.
  
  
• The uninsured rate for children in poverty (13.8 percent) was higher than the rate for all children (9.4 percent).
  
  
• In 2011, the uninsured rates decreased as household income increased from 25.4 percent for those in households with annual income less than $25,000 to 7.8 percent in households with income of $75,000 or more.
  
  <...>

- more -

http://www.census.gov/newsroom/releases/archives/income_wealth/cb12-172.html

Dire information, but I would say a decrease in the poverty rate among most groups between 2010 and 2011 is big news, as is the information on health insurance coverage.

Single Payer movement in the era of Obamacare
http://www.democraticunderground.com/10023372091

Lisa Jackson to Leave EPA: Earthjustice Statement

Statement from Earthjustice Vice President of Litigation Patti Goldman:

“America owes Lisa Jackson a debt of gratitude for her work to protect the public's health from polluters and their allies in Congress. For her efforts to clean up pollution and better protect the environment and public health, she faced a steady barrage from members of Congress and the industrial polluters who back them. Her detractors are the same people who told us taking lead out of gasoline in the 1970's would break the economy and that taking acid out of acid rain in the 1990's would ruin the country. In both cases, the environment and economy were strengthened and this is the approach Lisa Jackson took. There is a lot of unfinished business started by Jackson that the next EPA director will need to attend to. Whoever it is, they'll need the support of the President and they'll need to be ready for a non-stop barrage of attacks from the chemical, industrial and fossil fuel industries and their allies in Congress.

“After 17 years of Earthjustice litigation it was Lisa Jackson who finally regulated mercury and other toxic pollutants coming from power plants. After a decade of litigation from Earthjustice and others, it was Lisa Jackson who supported and implemented regulations aimed at curbing greenhouse gases. After more than a decade of Earthjustice litigation it was Lisa Jackson who finally implemented the first regulation of mercury from cement kilns all over the country.”

http://earthjustice.org/news/press/2012/lisa-jackson-to-leave-epa-earthjustice-statement

BREAKING: Gore's Climate Reality Project Joins Forces with President Obama's Organizing for Action
http://www.democraticunderground.com/10023390504

Obama First POTUS in History to Publicly Support Divestment Movement
http://www.democraticunderground.com/10023144219

NYT editorial: Sentencing Reform Starts to Pay Off
http://www.democraticunderground.com/10023393947

That hopey changey thing at the Department of Justice
http://www.democraticunderground.com/10022933401

[Phlem]

144. ...I'm serious, and anybody can say anything presenting SKEWED facts.

Whatever Nonsense.



-p

[ProSense]

150. "Whatever Nonsense."

Well, at least I don't have to play silly word games with your screen name, Phlem.

[Phlem]

153. OOO

Well I guess you got me. Excuse me while I go home and cry in my soup.

-

[blackspade]

148. Ah, the usual self-aggrandizing blue links

None of which address the big-picture issues that plague this nation.

Thanks for trying.

[ProSense]

151. OMG..."blue links"

"None of which address the big-picture issues that plague this nation. "

Yeah, I'm sure the you thought this comment (http://www.democraticunderground.com/10023413012#post80) addressed the "big-picture issues that plague this nation."

[blackspade]

156. More nonsense from ProSense

You asked a question, I provided an answer.
See how that works?

[ProSense]

157. And I responded with facts, and then you invoked "blue links"

Speaking of "nonsense."

[blackspade]

159. Your 'facts' link back to your own posts...

which selectively quote portions of articles that seem to support your positions.
Unfortunately for you, in most cases articles in their entirety do not support you.
But that is business as usual for you.

[ProSense]

160. LOL! What a nonsensical red herring.

[blackspade]

166. You would know.

red herrings being your specialty.

[QuestForSense]

98. His capitulation on the extending the Bush tax cuts

Last edited Fri Aug 9, 2013, 12:26 AM - Edit history (1)

was the first gigantic disappointment for me. That was the first "sharp right turn." I'm no expert, but I think that was the single, worst mistake he ever made. It set him up for all that has ensued.

Like it or not, he won big with votes cast against the disastrous policies of Dubya and the neocons. Those policies continue. The change people voted for remains unfulfilled. His policies have expanded Rumsfeld's drone program and all the so-called 'collateral damage' they entail; they have allowed Guantanamo to remain open and remain a national disgrace; they still have us going strong in Afghanistan; domestically and economically, they press for 'austerity' and even continue to support a chained CPI, which he PROPOSED; they led to abandonment (by silence) of the labor movement in Wisconsin, and I can't even mention monetary policy/the banks/too big to prosecute without writing a thesis. His policies have expanded surveillance by the NSA, and have given us the appointment of countless Bush era has-beens to key positions in his administration (why?); and the list goes on.

What I notice is that people who jump to defend Obama never jump to defend his policies; they jump to defend him, which I get. But how is that any different from the goofs who continue to defend Dubya, or Reagan? It isn't. Obama's a nice, smart guy, but I think the reason he's been ineffectual is because of his right-leaning policies. They don't work.

[bvar22]

124. Here is just ONE of many:

[font size=3]A Mandate to BUY Health Insurance from Private Corporations
without a Public Option.[/font]
He RIDICULED Hilary's Plan of Mandates with NO Public Option in the Campaign Debates.

THAT is a Hard Right Turn from what he "promised" in 2008,

and NO, it wasn't "All Joe Lieberman's Fault"

I CAN keep going.

[ProSense]

129. So

"He RIDICULED Hilary's Plan of Mandates with NO Public Option in the Campaign Debates.

THAT is a Hard Right Turn from what he "promised" in 2008, "

...Hillary and Edwards were running on a "hard right" policy? At least he didn't propose garnishing wages.

Naked Blackmail

It turns out that in the final stages of the debt negotiations, Republicans suddenly added a new demand — a trigger that would end up eliminating the individual mandate in health care reform.

This is telling, in a couple of ways.

First, the health care mandate has nothing to do with debt and deficits. So this is naked blackmail: the GOP is trying to use the threat of financial catastrophe to impose its policy vision, even in areas that have nothing to do with the issue at hand, a vision that it lacks the votes to enact through normal legislation.

Second, this is a demand Obama can’t accept, unless he plans on changing his party registration. Health reform doesn’t work without a mandate (remember the primary? Maybe better not to). And if health reform is undermined, Obama will have achieved nothing. So by adding this demand, Republicans were in effect saying no deal — unless, I guess, they believed that Obama is a total pushover.

Awesome.

http://krugman.blogs.nytimes.com/2011/07/23/naked-blackmail/

[bvar22]

133. Oh, You want more?

During Campaign 2008, Candidate Obama promised Organized LABOR that:

*he would make EFCA (Card Check) "The Law of the Land"

*he would "immediately re-negotiate NAFTA" to protect American Jobs

...but these NEVER mentioned again after his election.
In fact, he has implemented MORE American Job Killing "Free Trade",
and is working on "NAFTA on Steroids" as we speak.

THAT is a Hard Right Turn from Campaign Obama of 2008.

I have the Video of the above promises,
and MORE if you want.

On Edit:
Since I really don't expect YOU to ever admit something like,
"Yeah. That was a disappointment"
I've decided to add the Video for the rest of the readers of this thread:

Remember, YOU asked for it.

[ProSense]

140. LOL! How is

"*he would make EFCA (Card Check) "The Law of the Land" "

...something not yet accomplished a "hard right" turn?

The Senate votes, and the National Labor Relations Board will function again
http://www.democraticunderground.com/10023375536

Steelworkers praise Obama for executive order upgrading regulations on chemical plant safety
http://sync.democraticunderground.com/10023388348

[bvar22]

147. Excuses...excuses.... but clearly you want MORE examples

...of "policies" that demonstrate a Hard Right Turn.

Here is a Tangible POLICY Position will keep you scrambling, dodging, and obfuscating in another failed attempt to deny and catapult.

In 2008, Candidate Obama said he would Raise-the-Cap on FICA Deductions to protect Social Security.
This is also something he used to ridicule Hillary during the debates:

..but NOW, he is championing the "Chained CPI",
and pushing CUTS to BENEFITS into the pot at every opportunity.

When is the LAST time YOU have heard President Obama MENTION "Raising-the-Cap"?
It is going to be hard to blame this on poor old Joe Lieberman.

I have more.
You can keep spinning your wheels and kicking dust and gravel into the air,
but I am more than happy to let the readers decide if this represents a Policy Based hard turn to The Right.

[ProSense]

149. Not

Here is a Tangible POLICY Position will keep you scrambling, dodging, and obfuscating in another failed attempt to deny and catapult.

In 2008, Candidate Obama said he would Raise-the-Cap on FICA Deductions to protect Social Security.
This is also something he used to ridicule Hillary during the debates:

<...>

..but NOW, he is championing the "Chained CPI",
and pushing CUTS to BENEFITS into the pot at every opportunity.

When is the LAST time YOU have heard President Obama MENTION "Raising-the-Cap"?
It is going to be hard to blame this on poor old Joe Lieberman.

....my style. I don't know if this is the "last time," but he does mention it. (I figured I post the go-to source for "scrambling, dodging, and obfuscating.&quot

President Barack Obama revived a 2008 campaign promise on Friday, telling the crowd at an AARP forum that he would be open to raising the level of income on which Americans pay Social Security taxes.

“You know, I do think that looking at changing the cap is an important aspect of putting Social Security on a more stable footing,” Obama said, via satellite feed.

http://news.firedoglake.com/2012/09/21/obama-re-endorses-raising-social-security-payroll-tax-cap/

Others have noticed the conspicuous absence of entitlement reform in Obama’s speeches. Until recently, the White House had talked up the importance of using chained CPI — a less generous measure of inflation than the existing system—to determine Social Security payments. This olive branch to Republicans designed to help reduce future budget deficits only provoked an uproar from Democrats such as Iowa Sen. Tom Harkin.

http://www.thefiscaltimes.com/Articles/2013/08/01/Obama-Spouts-Populism-As-His-Party-Tacks-Left.aspx?p=1

http://www.democraticunderground.com/10023413308

[bvar22]

162. Now THAT wasn't very convincing, was it.

It is very difficult to deny something when everybody can see the Video of Candidate Obama himself arguing AGAINST the spurious claims you are trying to catapult.

You are way less convincing than VIDEO of Obama himself saying that he'll Raise the Cap to protect Social Security, and EVERYBODY knows where he is on that issue today.

I'm having fun, and like I said,
this is for the other readers of this thread,
because you are the MOST PREDICTABLE poster at DU.

Here's another "POLICY" Before & After.
This one doesn't get much exposure,
but [font size=3]Healthy Food & Sustainable Farming[/font] is a MAJOR issue for MILLIONS of Americans. This is such a BIG issue for my Wife and I that we moved to The Woods and started Growing our Own Healthy Food in 2006.

[font size=3]YOU asked For It![/font]
Lets see what Candidate Obama had to say to us about Healthy Food "POLICY" in 2008:

Aside from the Window Dressing of Michele's "Organic" Garden at the White House, lets look at policy:

*Well, we ALL know what happened to the POLICY of "IMMEDIATELY" implementing Country of Origin Labeling.
It hit the Trash Can on Day One along with "Implementing EFCA", "Renegotiating NAFTA", and "Raising the Cap on FICA deductions" to protect Social Security.

*But HERE is the REAL hard Right Turn.
On Day One, newly inaugurated President Obama appointed Tom Vilsack as the HEAD of the Department of Agriculture, and EVERYBODY in the Healthy Foods & Farms Movement KNOWS about Vilsack's TIES to Monsanto and Iowa Factory Farm Mono-cropping.

If THAT isn't bad enough, he also appointed Monsanto Lawyer and Lobbyist Michael Taylor as the head of the FDA. (and I though there wouldn't be any "lobbyists" in the Obama Administration?)
I strongly encourage everyone reading this thread to
GOOGLE Michael Taylor and Tom Vilsack's "TIES to Monsanto."

If President Obama had appointed ANYBODY from the Healthy Foods and Farms Movement to balance the hoard of Monsanto employees and lobbyists that infest the USDA and FDA, it wouldn't be so bad,
but he didn't. He appointed NONE to counter-balance the domination of Monsanto in these critical departments that protect OUR FOOD.

The USDA & FDA BELONG to Monsanto,
and advocates for Healthy Foods and Farms are LOCKED OUT of the Obama Administration.

Please explain HOW the Republicans Forced the president of the United States to do THAT,
and that DOES represent a solid "Policy" hard Turn to The Right.

Your Turn,
and remember,
[font]You Asked For It![/font]

[ProSense]

164. Have you ever

heard of the Senate?

Senate rejects GM food labeling amendment to farm bill

Bernie Sanders of Vermont says he will continue to push for declaration on packaging of genetically modified ingredients

The Senate on Thursday overwhelmingly rejected an amendment that would allow states to require labeling of genetically modified foods.

Senator Bernie Sanders of Vermont said his amendment was an attempt to clarify that states can require the labels, as several legislatures have moved toward putting such laws into place. The Vermont house and the Connecticut senate voted this month to make food companies declare genetically modified ingredients on their packages.

The Senate rejected the amendment on a 71-27 vote, during debate on a wide-ranging, five-year farm bill that includes generous supports for crops like corn and soybeans that are often genetically modified varieties. Senators from farm states that use a lot of genetically modified crops strongly opposed the amendment, saying the issue should be left up to the federal government and that labels could raise costs for consumers.

<...>

The Senate may consider more amendments to the farm bill this week, including others dealing with genetically modified foods. The legislation sets policy for farm subsidies, other rural programs and domestic food aid.

- more -

http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2013/may/23/senate-gm-food-labeling-farm-bill

http://www.senate.gov/legislative/LIS/roll_call_lists/roll_call_vote_cfm.cfm?congress=113&session=1&vote=00135

[bvar22]

169. I didn't say I would implement Country of Origin Labeling,

Last edited Wed Aug 7, 2013, 02:28 PM - Edit history (1)

Candidate Obama said THAT in 2007.

...and THEN to stack his administration with Monsanto Lobbyists, employees, and lawyers... not very inspiring to us Americans who "deserve to know whats in our food."
Did you forget your [font color=blue]Little Blue Links[/font] for THAT too?

Why don't you post some [font color=blue]Blue Links[/font] to President Obama using the Bully Pulpit to advocate FOR Healthy Foods and Labeling,
or appointing Healthy Food Advocates to his administration????
Oh, can't find any?


And then there is THIS Policy Issue because,
[font size=3]YOU Asked for IT!!![/font]

Boy, Candidate SURE knew how to sound like he was a Friend-of-LABOR during the campaign, but everybody knows:

* what happened when LABOR was being denied the Right to Organize in Wisconsin (and everywhere else). Not a [font size=1]peep[/font] from the White House. Guess he had trouble finding those "comfortable shoes".

*Wall Street Bankers "contracts" for the huge Bonuses after the Wall Street Bailout were SACRED to the Obama Administration,
but Union Contracts with General Motors?.... not so much.
Deep Contract Concessions from Union Workers were DEMANDED before any "bailout" was even considered.

*Quickly implemented three NEW Union Busting Free Trade Treaties with Right Wing Corporate States in Latin America

*The 2012 Democratic Convention was held in a Right-to-Work-for-Less State at a Non-UNION facility built by Non-Union minimum wage workers

*Pushing for MORE "NAFTA on Steroids" Union Busting Free Trade Treaties that are being "negotiated in secret" with NO representative of UNIONS, Worker Rights, or Environmental Protections advocates attending because they just get in the way.

*But ALL anyone need to know about this White House's "Support for Labor" policy was exposed in the Arkansas Democratic Primary of 2010 where the White House RESCUED virulently Anti-LABOR Blanche Lincoln's failing Democratic Primary Campaign at the Last Minute against a LABOR backed Pro-UNION Pro-Health Care Democratic challenger.

"So what did the Democratic Party establishment do when a Senator who allegedly impedes their agenda faced a primary challenger who would be more supportive of that agenda? They engaged in full-scale efforts to support Blanche Lincoln.

* Bill Clinton traveled to Arkansas to urge loyal Democrats to vote for her, bashing liberal groups for good measure.

*Obama recorded an ad for Lincoln which, among other things, were used to tell African-American primary voters that they should vote for her because she works for their interests.

*The entire Party infrastructure lent its support and resources to Lincoln — a Senator who supposedly prevents Democrats from doing all sorts of Wonderful, Progressive Things which they so wish they could do but just don’t have the votes for.

<snip>

What happened in this race also gives the lie to the insufferable excuse we’ve been hearing for the last 18 months from countless Obama defenders: namely, if the Senate doesn’t have 60 votes to pass good legislation, it’s not Obama’s fault because he has no leverage over these conservative Senators. It was always obvious what an absurd joke that claim was; the very idea of The Impotent, Helpless President, presiding over a vast government and party apparatus, was laughable. But now, in light of Arkansas, nobody should ever be willing to utter that again with a straight face.

Back when Lincoln was threatening to filibuster health care if it included a public option, the White House could obviously have said to her: if you don’t support a public option, not only will we not support your re-election bid, but we’ll support a primary challenger against you. Obama’s support for Lincoln did not merely help; it was arguably decisive, as The Washington Post documented today:"

<much more>

http://www.salon.com/2010/06/10/lincoln_6/

At the last minute, President Obama cut an Oval Office Endorsement of Anti-LABOR Lincoln that played 24/7 in Arkansas.
he even sent the Old Dog (Bill Clinton) back to Arkansas to BASH Organized LABOR. Working together, (and with the help of some suddenly closed voting stations in Halter strongholds) they managed to "save" virulently Anti-LABOR DINO Obstructionist Blanche Lincoln's Failing Primary Campaign.

If THAT wasn't enough, after Lincoln squeaked by,
the White House just could NOT resist the impulse to add insult to injury by ridiculing and taunting Organized LABOR.

Ed Schultz responds to White House Insults to LABOR after the Arkansas Democratic Primary
http://videocafe.crooksandliars.com/heather/ed-schultz-if-it-wasnt-labor-barack-obama-

Out of ALL the Hard Right Turns committed by this White House detailed so far today,
*Raising-the-Cap
*Renegotiating NAFTA
*Making EFCA the Law of the Land
*Healthy Foods
.....actively working AGAINST Organized LABOR hurt the most.

One thing about us Union Thugs,
we NEVER forget a Sucker Punch,
and if I sound bitter about THIS betrayal of Organized LABOR,
I am.

[font size=3]We did EVERYTHING right in Arkansas in 2010.
We did EXACTLY what the White House asked us to do to "give the President Progressives in Congress that would work with him."[/font]
The White House chose Blanche Lincoln, the wicked witch who crowed about Killing the Public Option over Progressives in Congress that would work with him.

THAT is a "hard right turn" from Campaign Obama of 2008.


I know..I know,
[font color=blue]The Republicans MADE him do all that and he doesn't have a Magic Wand[/font]

[ProSense]

170. "YOU Asked for IT!!!" (in big type)

I can dig up stuff too.

EPI applauds new Labor Department immigration rules that protect U.S. and foreign workers

By Ross Eisenbrey and Daniel Costa

Today the U.S. Department of Labor released a set of comprehensive regulations that will govern foreign labor certification in the H-2B guest worker program. We strongly support the new regulations and commend Labor Secretary Hilda Solis, the Department of Labor and the Obama Administration for acting to protect the interests of unemployed U.S. workers and H-2B guest workers. The rules are an important measure that will help fix a program in which instances of abuse, fraud and exploitation have been common, as revealed by government reports and investigations, as well as media coverage.

“The updated H-2B program will help put unemployed U.S. workers back to work by requiring employers to do more to recruit them before the department approves requests for foreign workers. The rules will also protect foreign H-2B workers from exploitation in the recruitment process by banning foreign labor recruiters from charging certain fees and requiring employers to pay visa and travel costs.

<...>

“In May of last year, we submitted detailed public comments to the Labor Department in support of the new rules. Hundreds of other organizations and individuals submitted public comments, and the department has carefully and meticulously reviewed them. The department’s lengthy analysis, released today in conjunction with the rule, does an excellent job of considering and addressing the concerns of employers and worker advocates. The final rule strikes a fair and appropriate balance between the concerns of all stakeholders involved in the H-2B program.”

The following are some of the most important elements of the H-2B rules:

• Employers will be required to provide U.S. workers in similar positions at least the same wages and benefits provided to H-2B workers, including transportation costs.
  
  
• An online H-2B job registry for U.S. jobseekers will be created.
  
  
• U.S. and foreign workers will be protected from retaliation for engaging in concerted activity.
  
  
• Employers will be required to guarantee workers a total number of work hours equal to at least three-fourths of the workdays in each 12-week period.
  
  
• Employers will be required to keep records documenting their recruitment of U.S. workers and to accept referrals of unemployed workers from state workforce agencies.

http://www.epi.org/publication/epi-applauds-labor-department-immigration/

Hoffa Praises Obama For Crackdown on Unfair Trade Practices
February 28, 2012

Statement of Teamsters General President

(WASHINGTON) – The following is a statement by Teamsters General President Jim Hoffa on President Obama’s executive order today creating the Interagency Trade Enforcement Center:

“President Obama did exactly the right thing by ordering a new panel to crack down on trading partners – including China – that break the rules established by our trade agreements.

“The President is making a serious effort to curb the abuses that have harmed millions of American working families. Wages are falling and jobs are going overseas because of practices such as intellectual property theft and illegal subsidies.

“The Interagency Trade Enforcement Center involves a significant commitment of resources and expertise to stop unfair trade practices. Congress must give President Obama strong bipartisan support as he tries to combat this problem, which is such a concern to America’s middle class.”

Founded in 1903, the Teamsters Union represents 1.4 million hardworking men and women throughout the United States, Canada and Puerto Rico. Visit www.teamster.org for more information. Follow us on Twitter @TeamsterPower.

http://www.teamster.org/content/hoffa-praises-obama-crackdown-unfair-trade-practices

Executive Order -- Establishment of the Interagency Trade Enforcement Center
EXECUTIVE ORDER

- - - - - - -

ESTABLISHMENT OF THE INTERAGENCY TRADE ENFORCEMENT CENTER

By the authority vested in me as President by the Constitution and the laws of the United States of America, and in order to advance U.S. foreign policy and protect the national and economic security of the United States through strengthened and coordinated enforcement of U.S. trade rights under international trade agreements and enforcement of domestic trade laws, it is hereby ordered as follows:

Section 1. Policy. Robust monitoring and enforcement of U.S. rights under international trade agreements, and enforcement of domestic trade laws, are crucial to expanding exports and ensuring U.S. workers, businesses, ranchers, and farmers are able to compete on a level playing field with foreign trade partners. To strengthen our capacity to monitor and enforce U.S. trade rights and domestic trade laws, and thereby enhance market access for U.S. exporters, executive departments and agencies (agencies) must coordinate and augment their efforts to identify and reduce or eliminate foreign trade barriers and unfair foreign trade practices to ensure that U.S. workers, businesses, ranchers, and farmers receive the maximum benefit from our international trade agreements and under domestic trade laws.

- more -

http://www.whitehouse.gov/the-press-office/2012/02/28/executive-order-establishment-interagency-trade-enforcement-center

Obama launches trade case against China over raw materials
http://www.democraticunderground.com/1002419556

The Senate votes, and the National Labor Relations Board will function again
http://www.democraticunderground.com/10023375536

Steelworkers praise Obama for executive order upgrading regulations on chemical plant safety
http://sync.democraticunderground.com/10023388348

[bvar22]

173. LOL

*Department of Labor released a set of comprehensive regulations
Still in the Hope-This-Helps Someone Wishful Thinking pipeline.
Call me when they are implemented and we have some actual statistics or something concrete in the REAL WORLD.

*“President Obama did exactly the right thing by ordering a new panel to crack down on trading partners
OH GOOD! Another [font size=3]"new panel"[/font] to crack down on something. THIS is a TREMENDOUS VICTORY for LABOR......not.
It is political theater....nothing more.

Hoffa and Trumka know what it takes if they want access to the White House.
They are UNION "Management",
and apparently got the message from the White House in Arkansas.
This is a great example of marketing window dressing and political fellatio,
nothing more.
"Formed a Panel"....yeah! That'll Fix It!!!

You are HILARIOUS.
Do you ever bother to actually READ this stuff you Cut & past.

Lets look at the next one:
*Section 1. Policy. Robust monitoring and enforcement of U.S. rights under international trade agreements, and enforcement of domestic trade laws, are crucial to expanding exports and ensuring U.S. workers, businesses, ranchers, and farmers are able to compete on a level playing field with foreign trade partners.

Just another pretty promise to do something, isn't it.
I've showed you Video Clips of lots of "Policy Statements" from prior to Jan 21st 2009, and we've ALL seen how THOSE turned out.
This one belongs with those others filed under "Wish It Was True" until you can find something to post that actually produced RESULTS in the Real World

In fact, if one has any critical Thinking Skills at ALL,
this just released "Policy Statement" BEGS the question:
"You mean we aren't ALREADY doing THIS???!!!!
Where have you been for [font size=3]FIVE FU**ING YEARS[/font]???!!!
How Can It Be that YOU are JUST NOW figuring this OUT?


Promises, "commissions", and forming panels.
REALLY?

You really don't read this stuff you cut & paste, do you?
If you did, you wouldn't post such transparent nonsense and marketing "Press Releases" as Facts and Accomplishments. You would be too embarrassed.
This melange of speculation, promises, and "Panels to crack down" is NOT a counterbalance to the recorded HISTORY I posted above.






You will know them by their [font size=3]WORKS.[/font]

[ProSense]

174. "Hoffa and Trumka know what it takes if they want access to the White House. "

That post is a lot of hilarious nonsense.

[Egalitarian Thug]

204. Are you really that far gone? Day one; before being sworn into office Barack Obama appoints

what will be known as the Goldman-Sachs White House.

Looking forward....

Single Payer is off the table...

Backroom deal with top pharmaceutical lobbyist before any input from anyone...

Reappointment of Ben Bernanke...

[WillyT]

16. HUGE K & R !!! - THANK YOU !!!

[HereSince1628]

17. As a boomer living in WI, I often feel the earth has shifted beneath my feet...

like one of those powered sidewalks in airports. It's taken me to a place that seems and probably is very unlike the country I was raised in.

BUT, I see the history that surrounded my life a bit differently, often with the worst turns of events lagging far behind the early signs of trouble.

It's undoubtedly true that the Reagan administration marks a time when the backlash against progressive policies was very well underway and openly discernible.

American manufacturing and desperate to develop local governments in the south had been at work for decades--aggressively shifting the geography, and power, of American economics...since the 1950's decades. Subtle changes like the need for nearby parking for a now ubiquitous and growing fleet of private family cars had big box department store chains like K-Mart murdering retailers in small town businesses.

By the 70's the shift in economic power was taking hold, resentment against changes in civil rights, the anti-movements against women's rights and the environment, a sense of US failure in Vietnam, and the humiliation of the Embassy hostages, and perhaps most importantly resentment against a post-war period characterized not by expansion but by economic stagnation really created the stage on which the Reagan administration played.

The bankruptcy crisis of New York, the abandonment of northern steel manufacturing, the resurgence of Atlanta, blossoming of "the" Research Triangle etc were already historic events when Reagan's administration started pushing Laffer curves to explain them.

The changes since Reagan, largely are reactions to reactions. Reactions based on attitudes and stories about labor and 'what killed' northern cities. You know those attitudes that grew like rust on purposefully abandoned buildings and equipment left for someone else to clean up by the capitalists' in pursuit of profit.

It's true that the DLC and 3rd Way democrats came to adopt those attitudes as inevitable truths. But you know, like contemporary politicians of all ilks, they mostly negotiated life trying to keep the buttered side of their bread from falling face down on the floor.

If this disillusions a generation and dissuades them from a path of supporting such politicians, there is yet space for hope.

[Le Taz Hot]

29. Excellence response!

You're right, of course, about the "reaction to the reaction." It's interesting how it played out in different parts of the country. My memory is of my classes being cut from 7 a day to 6 under Governor Reagan with dire predictions of more to come. I don't think California was affected economically in any serious way until the base closings and that was under Bush I. Luckily Silicon Valley was there to take up the slack. Other Californians may remember it differently.

"If this disillusions a generation and dissuades them from a path of supporting such politicians, there is yet space for hope."

True, but I'm afraid that disillusionment has/will turn to apathy and we'll just sink further and further into the abyss. As Boomers, we're starting to travel off to that Great Sit-In In the Sky and I'm concerned about who will take over. While we're still here, how we can help motivate them?

[Junkdrawer]

46. Good post. The problems which came to full bloom in the late 70s.....

and the maladaptive reactions to those problems are the root causes of the crisis we find ourselves today.

See my posts below.

[Bluenorthwest]

19. I agree with the exception that I don't see today's youth as much different from us.

I mean, 'instant grat'. No grats. You think we were better when we were young?

"Instant gratification takes too long." Carrie Fisher, 1987. Ms Fisher is currently 56 years of age.

[Le Taz Hot]

37. I don't remember it that way at all.

Fully recognizing that I could very well be guilty of selective memory here, I think we were pretty damned tenacious. If you think about it, there wasn't much that we started out to do that we didn't eventually accomplish. (Btw, that "we" isn't limited to Boomers but to the people who participated.) And one movement spawned another which spawned another, etc. and most of those organizations survive, in some form, to this day.

The one thing that we had that the current generation doesn't have is the draft. It was central to the activist movements and it unified us.

[Bluenorthwest]

69. I'm offering the literature of the times. I think that which you claim is 'today's youth'

is actually a human condition. If you think about it, your generation was wildly homophobic and when LGBT rights came up, that was left to LGBT people. No 'spawning' at all, we were left to our own devices, funding, spaces.....the entire pov of that time was 'you guys can get out of the draft, that's cool'.

[Le Taz Hot]

71. I'm the last one to claim perfection here.

Christ, far FAR from it. Homophobic, largely bigoted (as taught to us by our society), and misogynist. Women in the Movements were pretty much relegated to typing and filing. Rarely were we allowed into the decision-making process. And I would say the Women's Movement and the LGBT Movement shared one thing in common: Both movements were on their own. We, as in the Women's Movement didn't get any discernible help either but I recognize the LGBT movement had far less support. It took us awhile to re-train ourselves. We had the entire 50's culture to buck. It took us awhile but we got there. Well, most of us anyway.

[AngryOldDem]

20. Thank you for this.

K&R. Although it probably won't do any good, I hope a lot of the cheerleaders here stop by and read this, and think about it.

[RC]

26. Oh, they'll stop by alright, but will read just enough of it, to post some BS why is is wrong.

Their meeting is about ready to break up now, get ready for the excuses and talking points as to why the OP is wrong.

[AngryOldDem]

41. Oh, I know...

...I got a beat down by one of them yesterday in a thread about the terrific job numbers this administration put up, just by daring to look behind the curtain to see the reality of those "great" numbers.

[Orrex]

23. Your argument is invalid because "binky" and "passie" are the same thing

[Bluenorthwest]

25. What is this word 'passie'? Never seen or heard it....

I figured it was 'security object' from the context but I'm unfamiliar with the term.

[RC]

28. I think he means 'passé' (French)

1. No longer current or in fashion; out-of-date.
2. Past the prime; faded or aged.

[Orrex]

31. Pacifier

See how the entire argument falls apart with this revelation?

[blackspade]

86. Nice one.

[Fumesucker]

34. Pacifier

[Le Taz Hot]

40. LOL!

Orrex, you're always good for a laugh!

[Orrex]

44. :evilgrin:

[G_j]

24. It's a tragedy

that should not have happened. We had a window of incredible opportunity. It was thrown away.

[kenny blankenship]

83. Almost as tho' they made SURE it would be thrown away

They saw the window coming in Bushler's second term. They picked some guy they knew they could manipulate and rely on, someone we would be sure mistake for "change" and would reliably fall for, and made sure he had all the money needed to win. A Democrat was going to win 2008 - as everyone knew. If Hillary won, well the Clinton years were very good times for the overclass. If the Outsider won, they'd have a ideologically loyal servant who also would be fatally weak in office, so they could bully and boss him around should he suddenly get any "notions".

[Broward]

27. K&R, great post

[Enthusiast]

32. Kicked and Recommended! nt

[ann---]

33. Which is why

I will not vote for another Democrat. l never have voted for a republican, but I won't be voting Dem until they move back to the left - or at least to the center. Obama brought us too far to the right. Very, very sad.

[SunSeeker]

85. Advocating not voting for ANY Dems on a Dem site is sickening.

It is folks like you who will enable the election of the next Republican president.

[Fuddnik]

95. Give us some real Dems to vote for, and we'll oblige.

I've seen the likes of Harold Ford, Rahm Emmanuel, and Debbie Wasserman Schultz ALL actively undermine progressive Dems in both the primaries (for a repuke they recruited to switch parties) and in the general elections.

That's real DCCC leadership for ya. Not to mention the Wall Street Schumers of the DSCC.

It's folks like them, and enablers of them, like you, that will enable the next Republican to be elected.

People need an incentive to vote, and more of the same old shit, or worse, ain't an incentive.

[SunSeeker]

107. If keeping wingnuts out of those seats isn't incentive enough for you, how about the SCOTUS?

How about YOU running...local school board would be a good start.

[LWolf]

102. It is "folks like you"

who enable the election of the neo-liberal Democrats that have destroyed the party.

Any worthy Democrat on my ballot will get my vote. Neo-liberals aren't worthy of it.

Are you going to work to make sure we get a worthy Democrat on the ballot?

[SunSeeker]

106. Of course I'll work. And donate.

I always have and I always will.

[LWolf]

108. But what for?

Work and donate for a NON-neoliberal candidate, or for whoever tptb deign to declare acceptable to them?

[SunSeeker]

110. At the very least, to elect Dems because they will not force women to have their rapists babies. nt

[LWolf]

120. Can you answer the question? nt

[SunSeeker]

123. I did. In other words, to preserve my ability to control my own body.

To not be forced to give birth to my rapist's baby seemed pretty clear though.

ANY Dem is better than ANY Republican in that regard.

[LWolf]

125. THIS question:

Are you going to work for donate to a NON-neoliberal candidate, OR for whoever tptb deign to declare acceptable to them?

Which?

[SunSeeker]

126. I am going to work to get DEMS elected, whether you think they're "neoliberals" or whatever.

And for the reasons I stated.

[LWolf]

130. Okay.

So you are willing to continue to enable the disenfranchisement of the Democratic base, to enable the moving of the Party to the right, to enable the eventual and inevitable irrelevance of the party when it becomes more Republican than Democrat, just to make sure that someone with a "D" next to their name "wins," whether or not that "D" means anything when it comes to issues.

Okay.

[SunSeeker]

131. No, the disenfranchisement of the Dem base is caused by Republican voter ID/suppression laws.

Which are flourishing thanks to the 2010 elections that brought in a flood of Republicans in the state legislatures. No Dem, whether they meet your standard of perfection or not, would pass such laws.

[DonCoquixote]

146. if D's are keeping abortion legal

then D does mean something when it comes to issues.

[DonCoquixote]

141. as for me

I plan to support progressives, but if progressives fail to win the primaries, i will go with whoever is left. I will not throw my vote away on a third party candidate whose only effect will be to get a few minutes of airtime on free speech Tv.

[LWolf]

143. And thus the march continues. nt

[DonCoquixote]

145. so

if, after a progessive loses I do not vote third party, I am supposed to lie down and take it while the GOP laughs, because they get exactly what they want, my vote being useless?

I really wish I could half this board hear my radio on that balck day in 200, when all the "left leaning" types called the radio station and bragged about how they pretended to be left wingers, supported nader and won the election for Bush.

[frylock]

115. no, it's the folks that accept republican policy from a democratic admin..

that will enable the election of the next republican president. sure, the centrists will do anything and everything to deflect the blame to the pony pouting progressives, but that dog don't hunt.

[SunSeeker]

118. The time to make that choice is in the primaries, not in the general election.

Vote for the more progressive candidate in the primaries. But once it's the general, and the Dem, ANY Dem, is up against a Republican, it is self-destructive to vote third party. You WILL get the worst of all worlds--a right wing Republican--since they have a steady 40% of the electorate, even in blue states.

[frylock]

132. i live in california..

the 12th largest economy on the PLANET. by the time the primaries roll around to my state, i'm left with the opportunity to vote for shit, or slightly less than shit. I have never ONCE voted for a candidate in either a primary or a general. instead, i'm left to vote AGAINST candidates. Obama and Clinton were quite literally at the bottom of my list of preferred dem candidates in 2008, just above larouche. and now i'm supposed get enthusiastic about electing Hillary? FTS.

[SunSeeker]

134. I do too. And no one said you're supposed to get enthusiastic about Hillary.

But you should vote for her if she's the nominee. As a progressive, I have never had my ideal candidate, and probably never will. But the difference between Dems and Republicans is so huge that I enthusiastically work to get the Dem elected, whoever it is. In California, the Dem is generally pretty progressive anyway.

[frylock]

137. living in california affords me the opportunity to vote my conscience..

Kerry was the first democratic candidate for president that I ever voted for in my nearly 30 years of voting. I also voted for Obama, twice. I cannot, in good conscience, continue to vote for the lesser of two evils. I have no doubt that California will vote blue, and as such, I plan on going back to voting third-party. democrats will continue to receive my vote in local elections, if they have earned it.

[SunSeeker]

212. And that's how Republicans get elected.

[frylock]

214. i don't owe you or the democrats jack shit..

it's real fucking simple; stop enacting republican policy and i'll vote for dems. earn. my. vote. i'm fucking sick and tired of having my vote held hostage by the spectre of a republican president. nothing, repeat, NOTHING will change if we keep enabling shitty politicians and their shitty policy just because they have a D appended to their title.

[SunSeeker]

228. You owe your country a vote that assures a Republican not be elected President.

Every Republican president from Ronald Reagan to George Bush have had devastating effects on our country. And the world.

[bvar22]

219. It is clear that you do NOT understand Presidential Elections.

Presidential Elections are Winner Takes All, State by State.

In Presidential Elections, very FEW states are In Play.
In MOST states, the Democratic Presidential Candidate has either NO CHANCE,
like most of The South and Mid-West,
or an overwhelming guaranteed victory, like in the above poster's state of California.

In those states, one CAN and SHOULD vote their conscience
without helping the Republicans do a damned thing.

The Democratic Party Leadership has made it CLEAR
that they will keep Moving to the Conservative Right chasing Republican votes by adopting Republican Policy until someone, or some group of someones MAKES THEM STOP.

So the above poster, choosing to vote his conscience in California,
does NOT "help Republicans get elected".
but YOUR misunderstanding of Presidential Elections,
and blind support for anything with a "D" after its name,
DOES help implement Republican Policy.

[SunSeeker]

226. It is clear you do NOT understand how Republicans get elected in CA

Which is what I was obviously talking about, since the poster was talking about CA elections.



A lot of our districts are very close races. A few votes to the Green candidate would have put Dan Lungren back in Congress, for instance.

[bvar22]

234. Oh, I see what your problem is.

You didn't READ before Posting.

That poster CLEARLY Stated that he was talking about Presidential Elections

frylock (20,437 posts)
132. i live in california..

the 12th largest economy on the PLANET. by the time the primaries roll around to my state, i'm left with the opportunity to vote for shit, or slightly less than shit. I have never ONCE voted for a candidate in either a primary or a general. instead, i'm left to vote AGAINST candidates. Obama and Clinton were quite literally at the bottom of my list of preferred dem candidates in 2008, just above larouche. and now i'm supposed get enthusiastic about electing Hillary? FTS.

SEE?

Don't feel bad.
A lot of posters do that around here.
For a more enjoyable experience at DU, I have always advised:
[font size=3]READ[/font]... before posting a reply!

No Charge!


You will know them by their [font size=3]WORKS,[/font]
not by their promises, excuses, or how many Panels they appointed to study the problem..


[font size=5 color=firebrick]Solidarity![/font]

[SunSeeker]

235. LOL. No, you're describing YOUR problem.

My post 212 was replying to frylock's post 137, not frylock's post 132. In frylock's post 137, he explicitly refers to local elections, stating, "democrats will continue to receive my vote in local elections, if they have earned it." Hence my reply that that is how Republicans get elected. Then you had to jump in, blindly, without reading.

To quote you:

SEE?

Don't feel bad.
A lot of posters do that around here.
For a more enjoyable experience at DU, I have always advised:
READ... before posting a reply!

No Charge!

Your tenacious efforts to insult me and make this personal belies your "Solidarity!" sig line. Sad. I wished you really believed in Dem solidarity.

[bvar22]

236. Please Proceed.

I'll Stand Pat,
and let the readers of this thread decide for themselves WHO is trying to obscure the issue.


To make things perfectly clear, you CAN post a statement admitting that
[font size=3]Democrats who vote for 3rd Parties in Presidential Elections
in Safe States are in NO WAY "Helping to Elect Republicans".[/font]

[SunSeeker]

237. There's very few "safe states," especially with Republicans changing winner take all in blue states.

"If Pennsylvania and other swing states that tend to back Democrats move to the proportional model, while big states such as Texas and Georgia that have been voting Republican stick with a winner-take-all plan, they will lock in a national advantage for the Republicans."

http://www.thenation.com/blog/172659/new-new-scheme-rig-electoral-college-divide-dem-votes-winner-take-all-gop#

[Maedhros]

127. I disagree that advocating for a non-Democratic vote is "sickening."

It is (or should be) of great concern to the Democratic leadership as well as the rank-and-file, but when someone puts up a post saying they won't vote Democratic because of the Party's right-leaning stance the most useful reaction would be to view the post as a bellwether. How many people feel this way? How can the Party bring them back into the fold? What planks can we put in the platform that will accomplish that goal?

Denigrating the sentiment as "sickening" is simply a tribal response that does nothing but further push away left-leaning voters.

[SunSeeker]

128. Why would you come to this site if you don't want to vote for Dems? nt

[Maedhros]

138. Because I believe in Democratic principles.

And there are like-minded people here with whom I find common cause.

And there is value in people like me who provide a counterpoint to the tribalism that has poisoned the Party.

[SunSeeker]

211. If you believe in Democratic principles, you should vote for Democrats. nt

[Maedhros]

220. I'm inclined to vote for Democrats who believe in Democratic Principles.

The Third Way types? No.

[SunSeeker]

225. ANY Dem is better than a Republican.

And a vote given to a nonviable third party candidate is in essence a vote for the Republican in the race.

[Maedhros]

227. No - some Democrats are indistinguishable from Republicans.

That's just the reality.

[SunSeeker]

229. No, that is not reality. No Dem wants to force you to have your rapist's baby. nt

[Maedhros]

230. And not all Republicans want that, either.

You'd never find Olympia Snowe, for example, pushing for that kind of legislation.

[SunSeeker]

231. Her party does, and she supports her party. nt

[Maedhros]

232. Here is Olympia Snowe's voting record on abortion issues

http://www.ontheissues.org/social/Olympia_Snowe_Abortion.htm

She earned an 83% score from NARAL. Her colleague, Susan Collins (R-ME) scored 95%.

Here's Harry Reid's record:

http://www.ontheissues.org/social/Harry_Reid_Abortion.htm

He earned a 29% score from NARAL.

Here are some other Democratic Senators and Congresspersons that scored less than Olympia Snowe (based upon 2009 positions):

Mark Pryor (D-AR) 55%
Jim Costa (D-CA) 50%
Sanford Bishop, Jr. (D-GA) 50%
John Barrow (D-GA) 50%
Daniel Lipinski (D-IL) 0%
Richard Neal (D-MA) 50%
Stephen Lynch (D-MA) 50%
Mike Michaud (D-ME) 50%
Colin Peterson (D-MN) 0%

So in your mind we should never support legislators like Snowe or Collins because they are Republicans despite the fact that they are voting the right way on some issues, and that we should always support legislators like Lipinski and Peterson because they are Democrats despite the fact that they are voting the wrong way on some issues.

That's nonsense. We should support any of those people when they do what we want, and hammer them when they do not.

[SunSeeker]

233. A DINO would not run against Snowe (she's not running again anyway). But she still supports the GOP

Harry Reid was a way better choice than the teabagger that was ran against him. Remember Ms. "Second Amendment Remedies"? She believed women should be forced to have their rapists babies. Harry Reid does not. Yes, there are some anti-choice Dems in red districts, but invariably, they are better than their Republican opponents. And they would vote with the Dems, and not filibuster attempts by fellow Dems to cover, say, birth control.

[SunSeeker]

210. It is fine as long as you are not doing it on a DEMOCRATIC site.

Pushing for third party candidates here seems like trolling to me.

[Maedhros]

221. I haven't pushed for third party candidates.

I've just argued against electing neo-liberal corporatists simply because they sport a "D" next to their name.

[Egalitarian Thug]

205. How is it that none of you ever think to look in the mirror when assigning blame

for your own failures? President Obama and the party leadership directly caused the 2010 election by stabbing us in the back while on their knees fellating Wall Street, period, endline.

People are going to do what they are going to do and there's nothing you can do about it except to try to entice them. The Democratic Party, or at least it's most ardent supporters, seem to believe that "if you don't like it, fuck you" is a viable campaign strategy.

There's still hope, however. Maybe the republicans will nominate Palin for every office in the country next year.

[SunSeeker]

209. It does not sound like you're a member of the Democratic party. nt

[sorefeet]

38. I have been waiting for big change

like single payer or end to lobbying or legal marijuana or end to Guantanamo or prison for bankers. All that Obama could do with the swipe of a pen. It ain't gonna happen. America is now in the hands of the corporates.

[BlueManFan]

65. YOur Mouth To God's Ear!!!

I'm not a religious man, but I prayed for "Medicare for All" during the healthcare debate. I understand Obama couldn't go after the crooks who bankrupted the economy because the democrats had, in many cases, just as much blood money on their hands. "Friends of Angelo" loans from Countrywide to moany senators Ds as well as Rs, Insider stock tips. All legal, but grift that made them beholden to wall street Banksters. But Obama could have looked forward and not picked "Tax Cheat TImmy" as Treasury Secretary. And so help me God if he picks that clown Lawrence Summers this time, that will be it. He will deserve every iota of scorn and derision he gets. We have to promise the world we won't torture a person we suspect of treason. Lt. Calley did prison time for the massacre at Me Lai. Dick Cheney tours the country giving speeches justifying torture. How far we've fallen. But let me be clear. I am not an "America Hater" so please don't turn me in for a jury trial here on du.

[Junkdrawer]

39. Reagan was a Reactionary. It's critical to understand what he reacted to as these issues remain...

In a nutshell:

After WW II, when the best and brightest in Europe and Japan rebuilt their industrial infrastructure, our best and brightest built better weapons.

After WW II, when the capitalists in Europe and Japan invested their industrial infrastructure, our capitalists invested in the arms industry and discovered the financial rewards of Empire.

By the late 70s, these trends caught up with us and our basic industries became uncompetitive. Reagan sold the idea that an advancing social safety net was the problem and that a return to unregulated capitalism was the answer.

It's not working.

[Le Taz Hot]

43. Did you see Post #17?

Both of you make very similar and very valid points. Excellent observations.

[Junkdrawer]

45. Thanks for pointing out that post.

Reaganism is the external manifestation of the disease. The very real problems he mis-reacted to are the root causes.

Of course now, the mis-reactions are causing their own problems.

[geek tragedy]

42. Young people had no idea what politics and governing were really like.

They figured they'd show up, vote for Obama, party afterwards, and you could roll the credits since the show was over.

[BeyondGeography]

56. You could drive a truck through the massive gaps of history lacking in this OP

Where, pray tell, did Ronald Reagan's majority come from? The roots are in Nixon's very successful appeal to white resentment in '68 and '72. By then, he had the tacit and in many cases overt support of the unions that are lionized in the OP. Racism, misogyny, jingoism...all of these were rampant in the white male dominated unions, which helped to tear the Democratic party apart.

The wounds were not healed for decades, not by Carter's one-off, narrow, post-Watergate win, which of course had strong elements of conservative-style Southern Christian morality subsequently fully appropriated by the GOP.

To your point, the degree of difficulty for Democrats on a national scale is so much higher than the keyboard left makes it out to be. Straightforward economic appeals are not a slam dunk, if they were, working class white male voters would never have defected when they had it much better than they do now.

[geek tragedy]

57. assuming this was meant for the OP nt

[BeyondGeography]

58. Guess you missed the last graph nt

[geek tragedy]

59. as a favor, could you pretend that I'm an idiot and explain

so that an idiot could understand what your post had to do with mine? I'm not getting it, perhaps I'm just dense this morning.

[BeyondGeography]

60. To quote our convalescing friend George W. Bush

American politics is hard work, for a lot of reasons.

[geek tragedy]

64. Yes it is. Takes work and patience.

Progressives could learn something from disparate movements like the conservative ideological movement and the gay rights movement.

The long game is what counts, and getting hung up on personalities is foolish.

The last President who wasn't a disappointment was . . .

[antigop]

47. Thanks, Le Taz. K&R.

[annabanana]

48. A sad k&r from this boomer . . .n/t

[democrank]

51. Kick

[antigop]

52. Don't forget continued job offshoring ...gotta wonder about cheerleaders

What do they do for a living that can't be offshored?

[Overseas]

53. Sad K&R. Too much to say.

The Clinton Era was also pivotal. "New Democrats" who were pro-corporate, raised taxes on the top brackets which improved the economy, but deregulated and privatized far too much and promoted "free trade" and NAFTA which really hurt our long term economy. And the remarkable right wing PR machinery attacked Clinton mercilessly, knowing that enough Democrats would tell others not to attack the president's policies because he was already under attack by the Republicans. And if Republicans were in power things would be much worse. That has been a very effective technique in moving the country to the right. Because it is still true.

But I honestly thought that after the Bush-Cheney torture regime and rampant war profiteering, and with the very real dangers of runaway climate change ahead, the Democrats could still turn things around. Truth and Reconciliation hearings could slow down the war machine. But Democrats took impeachment off the table. Even after our guy had been subjected to impeachment over much less offensive behavior.

Then I thought the Bush crash could still provide an opportunity for the new president-- we could fight a war on climate change with massive infrastructure projects that would give work to the millions devastated by the financial crimes. I even thought Single Payer would have a chance, given the hundreds of thousands of people losing their homes. Surely our legislators would use basic compassion as leverage to push it strongly.

But I was too naive about the strength of the multi-faceted right wing PR machinery. Hundreds of millions of dollars against the will of the people, defending the cruel fossil fuel economy governed by multinational corporations.

[matthews]

54. At least it's possible for some people to speak the truth here. KUDOS!! nt

[justiceischeap]

55. I voted for President Obama twice

but I was never excited about him. I've always viewed him as Republican light. For the most part, I view the entire Democratic party these days as Republican light. Things have shifted so far to the right for republicans that St. Ronnie would never be elected in this day and age. He'd be seen as too liberal.

Of course, I put my tinfoil hat on and am convinced that republicans have run and been elected as democrats but that doesn't have much to do with your observations. I don't know how we get them engaged in politics again unless we can somehow convince them that finding and running their own candidate is worthwhile.

[fredamae]

66. "Ronnie the Saint"

Absolutely Would win today! But he'd be running and elected by the Dems!

[justiceischeap]

70. Too true! nt

[LWolf]

103. Yes.

RR forward has seen the total devolution of the Democratic Party and progressive successes in the nation.

[90-percent]

63. I'm also a boomer

One profound point I learned somewhere on DU is the absolute height of middle class prosperity in America was in 1965. I was 11 years old and took everything in my middle class existence for granted.

My generation now runs almost everything and I'm amazed at how much they wrecked it. Can't get much worse than creating the impending doom of global climate change. Not to mention just how miserable life is currently for the non-wealthy.

One thing in the 60's that made us all activists is THE DRAFT and the Viet Nam war.

But, in the boom years there was a lot more FAIRNESS in all our institutions. Post WW2 was the job-for-life social contract and jobs for anybody that wanted them.

We should be advancing. Collectivism I'm convinced is the natural order of things for the human animal. We enjoy the most prosperity working as groups. This everyman for himself and I got mine and screw you is a complete aberration in the order of things.

Obama's extremely corporate friendly actions are disappointing, but we must not be discouraged. We simply have to work harder to make things right and advance the well being of the species. The clear goal is simply life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. Remember, the PTB WANT US TO GIVE UP AND STOP PARTICIPATING AND BE WELL INFORMED.

To quote my hero Frank Zappa; "First, don't stop. Second, keep going."

You never know what effect your chat at the check out line or your liberal bumper sticker is going to have. It was not until the Berlin wall came down that Zappa and the west found out how crucial his records were to the eastern European revolution. Mothers music was an anthem to them and his music was violently repressed. "We're going to BEAT THE ZAPPA OUT OF YOU"

This is a center left country. The people that run it are merely servants of the selfish wealthy that have captured our government. And I still have hope for the Occupy movement.

-90% Jimmy

[Le Taz Hot]

67. If I've somehow conveyed to you

that I was giving up please let me assure you I wasn't. I'll be an activist, literally, 'till the day I die. I'll keep talking and posting and organizing and marching and doing all the stuff I learned to do 40 years ago because it's ingrained in me. I wouldn't know any other way to be.

The Democrats MAY have one more chance with me in 2016 if Warren or some other equally liberal liberal throws their hat in the ring. Otherwise, my political activism will be spent advancing causes and candidates that I believe will make a difference and won't compromise EVERY god-damned principle I have.

And yes, Occupy is awesome. It will be interesting to see how it evolves with time.

[90-percent]

79. Wasn't directed at you in the least

Your OP is awesome.

It's just that Americans are being played by a barrage of corporate propaganda designed to make us docile and ignorant.

It is our duty as citizens to right these corporate wrongs any way we know how. While holding down perhaps two jobs, raising kids, mowing the lawn, going to night school and doing volunteer work.

As a boomer, I have lived to see America become everything they said was wrong with USSR totalitarianism in the course of my entire public education, (1960-1972). It is my duty as citizen to do what I can to right this wretched state of affairs, no matter how ineffective I am at it.

Being a Liberal in America in these times must feel a little like being a Communist in the McCarthy era in the 50's.

-90% Jimmy

[Lifelong Protester]

135. I enjoy and agree with a lot of your posts

I'm another boomer here, wondering and hoping (yes, hoping!) that today's young folks will pick up the activist banner. I am given hope by observing the dreamer movement in Florida, still have hope the Occupy will continue in some form or another, and think the demonstrations in NC are uplifting. Heck, I wish I lived closer to Madison so I could sing! (I have been a part of many demonstrations and not yet arrested).

I can't recall exactly what prompted my thinking this, but one day I was getting out of my car at work and thinking "Wow, I think things (institutions were on my mind) have really declined since my youth. Have I lived through the peak of America?"

Now I know that it is not unusual for adults to look back and see things as rosier in their youth, and notice a decline, but really. Is the best we have now is an "You're on your own" mentality?

I can't get anything (appliances, TV, or whatever) fixed as now we live in a throw away culture, where it's cheaper to buy new and one is laughed at if they wish to have something repaired as opposed to new! new! new! . The response to any technical ailment is "turn it off, then turn it on again". Really? Is this some progress?

Do we have to 'turn off' the US and start it again to make it work? I don't think it's working. For a majority of us.

Sorry for the rambling rant.

[Maedhros]

136. I see the lesser-of-two-evils voting strategy to be exactly what you describe.

I have a close friend with which I debate politics on a regular basis. He sees himself as a left-wing Liberal crusader, but his answer to every problem we're currently facing - expanding surveillance/police state, undeclared war operations across the globe, dismantling of the social safety net - is the same:

"Meh. Every Republic collapses into Empire. We can't stop it, we can only slow it down."

He votes a straight Democratic ticket, in every election, for no other reason than the seething hatred he holds for Republicans. He doesn't realize that the oligarchs have him by the balls. They're very good at stoking that hatred - look at any theoretically-liberal web site, and you'll find article after article detailing how some particularly heinous Republican threw some repulsive red meat to his base during a fundraiser. There is much less discussion of the actual problems we have to try and fix, and when those discussions DO arise the Blue Link Brigade descends to splatter it with sneering acrimony. Then, when the elections roll around we end up in the same position time and again, with only a false choice to make at the ballot box - a false choice that seems legitimate, because we are conditioned to hate the other guy.

None of that helps solve the problems. But voters are so demoralized, so convinced that progressive or liberal policies can't win that they don't even try.

The first step has got to be convincing Democratic candidates that they cannot abandon Democratic principles and get away with it. And that means not voting for them if they do.

[blackspade]

73. +1000

As a gen-Xer, I span the time of liberal America and the it's usurping by the Reaganites.
I have been frustrated with Obama to no end because as a member of my generation, he has seen the slow motion reversal of all that made America great and has done little to reverse it.
I feel so bad for young folks today knowing that even the eroded privileges that I enjoyed are a dream.
Obama has taken the shit sandwich that Gen-X was handed and added a second patty.

It was a real, historic opportunity, but under this administration it is all but gone.
Hope and change....

[treestar]

74. The most oversimplified overview of American History

over the last 40 years ever written.

And you manage to boil it all down to being Obama's fault, of course.

[90-percent]

82. Obama is indeed a big factor

Like the assassination of JFK was a big factor in how the course of American history changed.

Think of what America would be like if Obama worked to make all of his campaign promises reality.

I still support Obama, but now it's more because the alternate will be much much worse. It's horrifying to think Nate Silver could be right about a Republican majority in the Senate in 2014. It's also horrifying that Republican obstructionism since 2009 makes people think of Obama as ineffective. Republican intransigence has been close to treasonous since Obama took office.

The aggressive sociopaths are winning. The representatives of the 1% in Congress are beating those in the 99% and these 1% are flat out bad for the overwhelming majority of us.

-90% Jimmy

[treestar]

112. The assassination of a President and mere election of one

are different things entirely. Obama has worked to make his campaign promises reality. He's just subject to push-back from Congress. He doesn't get to rule it alone. That's the separation of powers.

He might also have been able to get further without the purity left holding his feet to the fire rather than supporting him. It's been all critique of how Obama handles things with no support behind him anyway. You guys withdrew your support and thus may have been part of the problem.

Frankly I am starting to think the purity left just wants to be discontented, thinking it's cool to be above it all, criticize everyone truly active and perversely gets some enjoyment out of it.

[on point]

75. The absolute truth. 1000 x rec! If I could!

[MotherPetrie]

76. K&R

[Jackpine Radical]

77. Yeah. I lived it.

Born in 1944, joined the antiwar movement after I got woken up to the state of the world by infantry service in Vietnam. Still in the trenches. I remember, and I'm still in a sort of PTSD shock over what has happened in the past 50 years, since--say--Selma.

[TM99]

81. You are writing the truth

and while I do feel for the upcoming generations, I particularly lament my own - Generation X.

I remember these things as well. I was a young boy - born in the late 1960's - to parents and grandparents who lived this reality you describe. It wasn't perfect. Nothing ever is, but I watched as a young knowing teen when Reagan wormed his way to power. It was bad under him, Bush Sr. and Clinton. Bush Jr. brought war and bankruptcy to this nation. And now Obama is part of the crew who will finish it off.

I am not of the instant-grat generation. I still worked hard. From summer jobs to pay for school to driving an old clunker into the ground because I couldn't yet afford my first 'new' car. I let the military pay some of my school in exchange for shit I wish I had never experienced or seen. Moving back in with my parents would never have been an option for me or any of the friends I ever knew.

I do not envy Boomers. I do not begrudge Millenials. I do fear for those of us who are now in our late 30's to early 50's. Will there be Social Security for us when we reach retirement age? Will there be Medicare? I wasn't career military so I can't expect that pittance. How many of us will own our houses? I have always rented. Where is the retirement? I and so many of us will be working till we die. After all, we are saddled with house, education, and credit card debt as much as the 20 year olds are today. After I lost my savings to disease, chemotherapy, and recovery, I have had to accept that I may never, no matter how hard I work, get back what I lost. I am expecting to be paying on student loans alone till I am 75!

My parents, though very old now, have a hard time understanding how radically different my and my partner's 40's and 50's are compared to their own. They had secure jobs. They had a secure home & mortgage. They had pensions to look forward to as well as Social Security and Medicare. My parents are hardly wealthy, but I know they do not worry about their base security needs as they approach death. Will I? Will my love? Will my best friend and my sisters?

Obama and Democrats moving beyond the concept of even Right or Left straight into corporate totalitarianism affects all of us...not just the young. I was right not to vote for him in 2008. I had no choice in 2012, I tell myself. What a damned disappointment 'hope and change' turned out to be, eh?!

[totodeinhere]

84. Instead of talking about young people and speculating about what they think perhaps

you should try talking directly to them. You might be surprised what you might learn. I find your tone both patronizing and condescending toward younger people. And I find this a lot at DU. Too often it seems like a bunch of old people taking to each other at this forum.

But I think about the people who were born after the Reagan Era. The above experiences are foreign to them. They think shrinking jobs, wages, rights, safety nets, education, home ownership, etc., is the norm. They've nothing with which to compare.

What a bunch of nonsense. Do you think we can't think for ourselves and read? I know full well the situation we find ourselves in today vis-à-vis the economy and jobs etc. is not the norm. And so do most of my friends.

And when we voted for President Obama we did so with our eyes wide open knowing that it would take a long time to work ourselves out of this mess. And actually contrary to your claim that far fewer young people voted in 2012, actually the percentage of the electorate comprised of voters aged 18-29 rose to 19 percent in 2012 from 18 percent in 2008. And it was the highest percentage of young voters in the past five presidential elections.

http://www.civicyouth.org/early-exit-polls-youth-represent-19-of-voters-up-1-point-from-%E2%80%9808/

Yes Romney got a slightly higher percentage of the youth vote than McCain did, but he also got a higher percentage of the vote in the overall electorate. The 2012 election was not an indictment of Obama's policies on the part of younger voters. They simply went with overall trends in the election.

[Le Taz Hot]

88. Good grief!

Where in the HELL did you get that I'm condescending to them. I'm CONCERNED for them and, as an elder, want to help get them back in the process.

I'm not even going to address the rest of your post because your premise is entirely and completely, 100% off the mark and it would be a waste of my time.

But for the record, let me assure you that I LOVE young people. I'm here ready to pass the torch. To implement THEIR ideas. To guide when asked to do so. I can't EVEN believe you got that I have contempt for young people. Jesus Christ on a pogo stick!

[totodeinhere]

92. What about your false claim that support for President Obama among younger voters declined in

2012? What I found offensive was the fact that you seemed to be talking about younger people rather than talking to them. As I said, you might be surprised at what you might learn, including the fact that we are not as clueless as you let on. As I already said, most of us know full well that the current economic situation we find ourselves in is not the norm.

[Number23]

183. Beautiful posts from you. Very well said.

[Safetykitten]

89. No really? So there is a reason for all the young right leaning kiddies? Who woulda thunk!

[LittleGirl]

90. boomer here

I'll give you my niece's perspective. She's 28, makes less than 9 bucks an hour and has a college degree that she paid for with help from her parents and the two jobs she had in college. She was on the dean's list every semester. She has no insurance and a life long pre-existing condition that will need to be treated on a regular basis. She can't save a dime even living with her boyfriend and drives a beater. I asked her if she was going to vote last November and she said, I'm not even registered! She doesn't think that politics matters to her but she's starting to realize that it does. She has girlfriends that had kids because they thought they could live on welfare to pay their living expenses and found out the hard way, how untrue that was. She thinks they are fools because now they are trying to raise a kid with no education and no liveable wage. She is living in a dead end Midwestern town that has no jobs. It was once booming with manufacturing jobs that my parents had with a pension, health care and a livable wage. But not anymore! Those jobs left in the 80s to the southern states with no unions and then in the 90s to NAFTA. Those companies were General Motors, Bendix, Honeywell, Singer and Motorola and they are gone. Empty shells of buildings that need to be torn down and the city has lost 50% of their population because there are no jobs. Crime is rampant.

That's her reality. I told her to leave that godforsaken town with her 32 yr old boyfriend (who also has a degree) and don't look back. They know that they will never be able to start a family without livable wages, health insurance for her maternity someday and job security. They are just trying to survive.

[Hydra]

91. Good OP Taz

And I can answer your question, as a child who grew up in the Reagan Era.

I'm being pushed out of the Democratic Party towards pure socialism, social justice and other "radical" thinking.

It won't happen this elections cycle or even in 2016...but sometime soon, a lot of people are going to recognize that our system doesn't work, and that we'll need to tear this one down and build a new one.

I'm not worried about the people who aren't involved in politics- it's a suckers game. I do work to make people more aware and pay attention to what's happening though, because eventually those people will be players in the new system.

If we don't all die first(quite possible with the way things are going) there's going to be a massive "opt out" at some point, and things will get interesting. I'm liking where the things Snowden shook up are going, for instance- opting out of the "terra" meme.

[LWolf]

104. I hope I live to see that opt out.

As a tail-end boomer, I grew up filled with idealism, and have seen the death throes of that idealism and any hope I once entertained. For decades I truly believed I would live to see the gains made in my childhood extend into more and more positive evolution of society.

That belief died a painful death in '08-'10, when I watched the nomination and election of a neo-liberal, and then had to bear witness to the devastating waste of opportunity that followed.

If you, as a younger person, still have some hope and determination, I can get behind that, whether I live to see it come to fruition or not.

[Hydra]

121. We have to try

This system seems invincible...but it requires you to opt in, even if you don't believe it. You have to vote, and by doing so you are convinced you "own" what happens. You have to work and pay taxes, supplying the machine with energy.

It exists because we allow it to. It takes a lot to keep a tyranny going, and I see the enthusiasm dying out. If climate change or the police state don't get us first, then people not supporting the system itself will kill it.

[HenryWallace]

93. The issue is one of Trajectory!

Reagan would not recognize the current Republican Party yet, he is one who sent us down the dead-end alley that we find ourselves.

The really brilliant, and insidious, nature of the ALEC legislative agenda is that it is incremental and long-term in nature. Innocuous provisions are small steps toward the real and articulated goals that these right-wingers hold.

[hay rick]

94. Obama's failures.

Thank you for a thoughtful post.

Obama's apologists make the excuse that he couldn't and can't advance progressive legislation because of obstructionist Republicans. That's half the truth. The other half is that he hasn't really tried. The biggest failure of his presidency, for which no one else is accountable, is his failure to use the bully pulpit.

I was particularly saddened to see Obama, in the fifth year of his presidency, finally getting around to mentioning that median incomes have been declining for over a decade. Worse, he shoehorned it into his remarks as a footnote to the Trayvon Martin case. This is a situation which he inherited and he could have made a central issue on day one of his presidency.

But that's not him.

[CrispyQ]

213. I'm reminded of a line in the movie "The American President."

The Michael Douglas character (the president) tells the Annette Bening character (a lobbyist) that an environmental bill won't pass. She replies, "How do you know until you put the full weight of the Presidency behind it?" This president didn't put the full weight of the presidency behind many of his campaign promises. Too often, he went to the negotiating table with an already compromised position. WTF, Obama? It doesn't matter if you don't have a chance of winning, you still fight for it!

Then you negotiate.

The president is a great orator & many of us mistook that as a fire in the belly to fight. We were wrong.



OTOH, perhaps the machine is such a monstrous apparatus now, as to be beyond the ability of our government to fix itself. Certainly beyond the ability of one man to change, perhaps even influence?

A lot of people are losing hope. When you keep voting for the lesser of two evils & eventually you end up eating the very shit you were voting against, you gotta wonder, who are the sheep?

[Fuddnik]

96. Kick and Rec!

[AngryOldDem]

99. Kick n/t

[Fearless]

100. It's the Jon Stewart generation

It's not that they don't know but that they go about things in their own ways and currently lack centralized power and representation. As they age this will change. Obama was an attempt at this. Eventually they will find a route. It just takes time.

[Bryn]

101. K&R Sadly this is true

Baby boomer here. I remember how nearly everyone had healthcare..rarely see homeless..even poor people had plenty of food to eat. Plenty of middle class people. I never made much money yet was able to buy new cars and houses. Not so today. I thought I'd retire to great times, but I am looking around me..things really suck in USA now. Bad economy for regular people like most of us, but WONDERFUL, AWESOMMMMEEEEE for the Rich. They have gotten richer and richer, sucking more stuff from us like parasites..thanks to deregulation and NAFTA. We used to have millionaires and middle class. Now we have billionaires and working poor. Great job, USA, USA, USA!!! (blah)

[kentuck]

105. "Of all the words of mice and men, the saddest are 'It might have been".

I ask myself "Why?".

Why did the President continue the illegal and criminal activities of the "war on terror"? Is not war itself terror?

Why did he not see that we were at a crossroads and the people were ready for the change?

Why did he rely so heavily on "taxcuts" to revive our economy? Why does he continue to do so? Most educated people understand that taxcuts do not create jobs. Why doesn't the President?

Why has he delved so deeply into secrecy and drone warfare?

The answers that I come up with are not the ones that supporters want to hear.

[TBF]

111. Exactly -

It has nothing to do with chess. Our president was hired to do a job and he has performed admirably (at least in the opinion of the folks that hired him). The kicker of course is that the game is rigged, as George Carlin reminded us so many times:

[LWolf]

119. I ask myself why

so many Democratic voters did not see this coming. Truly.

He campaigned on doing away with divisiveness and working with Republicans. Republicans are still gleefully attacking him on every front, while they gain concession after concession after concession, and divisiveness within the Democratic party grows.

He told us, among other things, that Republicans "got" education better than Democrats. And that he sometimes "gets in trouble" with teachers' unions. Not enough trouble, in this teacher's opinion.

He told us that Republicans were better on regulation of industry.

He left unilateral action in Pakistan open. That told me that he was not against the war on terror, and was willing to continue it.

He expressed admiration for Ronald Reagan, for the way he "changed the trajectory of America." He said, "He put us on a fundamentally different path because the country was ready for it. I think they felt like with all the excesses of the 1960s and 1970s and government had grown and grown but there wasn't much sense of accountability in terms of how it was operating."

Look at those bolded words. Who could not recognize those "excesses" as the gains made by progressives? Who doesn't recognize "accountability" as code for privatization?

What self-respecting Democrat admires Ronald Fucking Reagan?

He also said, "And I do not consider Democrats to have a monopoly on wisdom."

Frankly, if he were a DUer, there would be some posters complaining that he was attacking Democrats "on a Democratic website!!!"

I saw it coming, and was attacked repeatedly here for pointing it out. I lost my sigline privileges until recently because I was blunt enough to use a sigline that said "I told you so" and link to an old post of mine predicting what would go wrong...which, incidentally, was correct. I guess that sigline incensed enough DUers that thought happy days were here again to get a bunch of protests, even though the post it linked to had not been, and never was, deleted.

I get that we couldn't wait to see the last of GWB. I get that it was exciting, and felt like progress, to put a black man in the WH. I don't get why so many people would let those things blind them to the obvious.

But I'm glad that some have taken the blinders off. I only hope they will stay off when it comes to '16.

Obligatory disclaimer: I was not a supporter of HRC in '08, and my pov has nothing to do with her.

[Egalitarian Thug]

206. +1 Well said, my friend. n/t

[JRLeft]

109. If you go back and look at some of his old video clip he was always pro business. A lot of people

including myself saw what I wanted to see. Even now he some good attributes, but has bad ones are overwhelming at the moment. A little off topic, I always rally too defend him racism is used against him though. i cannot stand that shit.

[Myrina]

113. Not to slam the OP because on the whole, I agree ...

.... but it always makes me when I see someone/something that says "women won the right to ..." or "blacks won the right to ..." etc.

IMHO, Human rights can't be 'won' or 'lost'. We all have them - all of them, equally - from the moment we take our first breath.
Those rights are either respected or not respected by groups in power.

That's all.

[NAO]

114. Lyndon Johnson was remarkable, yet is relatively unknown

He was by FAR the most progressive president the US has ever had. I have been absolutely ASTOUNDED when reading biographies about him. I cannot believe he is not as venerated among progressives as Reagan is among conservatives.

Even if you exclude Medicare, Civil Rights Act, and Voting Rights Act, he STILL passed more progressive legislation in EVERY SINGLE year he was in office than Obama has in his ENTIRE 5 years.

Have a look at what laws were passed in LBJ's years (pdf)
http://www.utexas.edu/lbj/sites/default/files/file/Landmark_laws8.5x14.pdf

Excerpt from the PBS Presidents series on the Great Society

Awesome 10 min documentary on "The Great Society"

[Le Taz Hot]

117. The Problem with Johnson's legacy is that it's tied to

the escalation of the Viet Nam conflict and he can't really run from that legacy. He inherited the war, of course, although had Kennedy not been assassinated I think he would have pulled out of the war. But Johnson listened to the war hawks. He was of the WWII generation and had that 'muricans can take on the world zeitgeist.

Having said that, he was a KICK ASS legislator and presided over and signed into law the most progressive legislation this country has ever seen or likely will see again.

[bvar22]

139. AMEN!

We WERE moving in the Right Direction as a Progressive Nation
There was inspiration and hope for everybody.
We could HONESTLY tell our children that THEY will be able to do better than we did!

It is very sad to realize that [font size=3]LBJ WAS the Most Liberal President in the last 1/2 Century,[/font]
and, unless you are OLD, you have NO living memory of what a REAL Democratic President sounds like.

I am ashamed of the World we are leaving for our children today.

"Johnson was the catalyst, the cajoler in chief. History records him as the nation's greatest legislative politician. In a great piece on the Daily Beast website, LBJ aide Tom Johnson, writes about how his old boss would have gotten a health care reform bill through the current congress. It's worth reading to understand the full impact of the "Johnson treatment" and how effective LBJ could be in winning votes for his legislation."

http://thejohnsonpost.blogspot.com/2009/08/johnson-treatment.html

You WILL know them by their [font size=3]WORKS.[/font]

[cascadiance]

116. I recall feeling the fix was in during the 2008 primaries...

[blkmusclmachine]

199. No change.

He's not working for the 99%.

Fooled ya!!!

[quinnox]

122. Yep, K&R. Obama blew a golden opportunity

[leveymg]

152. I wish you were wrong on so many levels.

But, I'm afraid you hit it straight out of the park. Brave and sobering assessment of the terrible long-term political and social consequences of the failures of nerve and ideas by Democratic centrists.

[kentuck]

154. "Never let a good crisis go to waste."

I'm afraid that is what we have done. We have only been placeholders for the real "agents of change", the extremists of the Republican Party.

[bowens43]

155. The usual apologists are furiously spinning

Obama is right of center on nearly every issue. His presidency has been a disaster for liberals and progressives. He purposely mislead us.

[WCGreen]

161. Yep, talks the talk with eyes on the bold and the daring...

And governs with steady and mundane....

I'm not that disappointed, however. It's the cynical time we live in with no one of stature or power to say we have to go forward, strike out beyond the frontier. Instead we get platitudes and budgetary restrains.

[Skittles]

193. PUT THEM ALL ON IGNORE!!!!

it does wonders - puts DU back to the way it used to be

[Tiredofthesame]

158. K and R

This needs to stay up for awhile.

[democrank]

163. Kick

[BrainMann1]

165. I'm ten years behind you so I don't know what they call us

But before I criticize your article being a Progressive Democrat. I had to read it twice. Obama is the first president in the history of the United States that had a political group that wanted to destroy him and his presidency. Get the fill of that first. Now lets see if we can get something done in our government and see what you can do. As he said recently he 's going to use every act as president to get some thing done. He only failure is that he gave the republicans to much time and look at what we have to look forward to. Nuff said, schools out, give me my check, bye.

[Zorra]

167. Standing Ovation K&R!!! nt

[Sarah Ibarruri]

171. ok, correct me if I'm wrong.

I was under the impression that this was not a monarchy or a dictatorship. In other words, that the president cannot simply do what he desires. The Congress is an equally important part of this govt, and what do we have there? Republicans digging their heels in, and refusing to work with Democrats or the President. Did I somehow miss something by not paying attention?

[locks]

172. Hope, change and disappointment

This is just the kind of discussion DU and liberals need and I thank LeTazHot and all who have taken the time to read and post. It is helpful partly because most of the posters have not condemned those who are profoundly disappointed with the times or those who feel Obama and the Dems are doing the best they can in these hard times.

I have voted Democratic since 1951 and I will continue to work and vote for Democrats. But I am sad that some of the time it is only because I know well how bad off the country would be with Republican presidents and legislators; all we have to do is recall Reagan and Bush years and look at the House today.

This does not mean that it was better in the olden days; our beloved country has committed the most heinous crimes under all administrations, against Native Americans, African-Americans, women, gays, workers, immigrants and allowed millions of Americans to live in poverty, poor health, and fear.

Many of us were not proud that hundreds of thousands were killed in our wars; we thought the McCarthy era was shameful; and we hoped that LBJ would resign so that the horrendous Vietnam War would end. But we had hope after Vietnam that if people like Carter and Obama were elected the country would turn away from war and toward the Democratic principles we believed in.

So far during the Obama administration we have not seen those hopes realized and I'm afraid, as are many of the DU posters, that our children and all the world's children are disillusioned and will never know the kind of world we so want them to live in. It does not help to blame Obama because we are all part of a society that has been built on greed, success, power and love of money. But I still have some hope that our planet can change direction before it's too late.

[bl968]

175. Getting time for a new party for Democrats

The Progressive Party, teach these Republican Lites that Americans will vote for progressive ideals.

[Notafraidtoo]

176. I am in my early 30's..

And it is easy for me to see how far right the party has become on labor, education, environment and economic issues, everything we do in these areas now is to benefit wall street at the expense of the american people.

It is nearly imposable to get any economic information from US media sources today with out it being right wing propaganda, everything is just a twist on milton friedman trickle down bullshit, we have been spoon fed this shit for so long now that even liberals on this board are buying it.


Mean while in Australia they are booming by simply being as liberal as American Democrats used to be 40 years ago.

[bvar22]

179. Bravo!!!

I'm in my 60s, and because of the isolation of our Rural, Place in the Woods,
I haven't had much exposure to people your age over the last few years.
Thanks for your post.

I am delighted by your words, knowledge, and confidence to Think for Yourself. This has NEVER been so important since the US MSM is not to be trusted on ANY level.



Are you uncommon among your peers?
or is this thinking pretty mainstream?

Keep-the-Faith!

[Logical]

178. Kick n-t

[YOHABLO]

180. Start the military draft .. again. That seems to get young folks engaged .. pretty quickly too.

[DeSwiss]

182. Their move to the right will be w/o me. - K&R n/t

[nashville_brook]

184. very well said!

[woo me with science]

185. K&R

Thank you.

[AZ Progressive]

188. Obama and Hillary should've gotten out of the way, We NEEDED a REAL HERO

We NEEDED a Theodore Roosevelt (who took on the big corporations of his time and broke them up)




or an FDR (especially since he took maximum advantage of the congressional majority to put millions of people back to work (The CCC and the WPA together created 10.75 million jobs) and to enact many things, including Social Security, regulating the Banks, creating the SEC, etc...)



or a Truman, who could never be accused of being weak and wasn't afraid to take on the Do Nothing Congress and win




And all we got was a phony, and is not even half the leader that these people were.

[Civilization2]

192. truly sad failure this president has been, retrograde in so many ways,..

and yes this is even worse for how it "awakened" so many younglings to the harsh realities of the campaign promises and hype vs the historical realities of the corporate-military system we currently suffer through.

Corporate healthcare for all, or most,.. or whatever.

[Skittles]

194. corporate health INSURANCE

wait until people find out exactly what health CARE they get

[blkmusclmachine]

196. The phony Democrats we've been allowed to vote for have been selling us out for decades.

Their phony cries for "triangulation" and "bi-partisanship" are only their most recent iterations of a poisoned view of the future of America.

They run in the circles of the DLC, the Third Way, the "New" Democrats, and the Blue DOGS.

And they worship at the altar of Reaganism and "trickle down economics" for their paymasters, the 1%.

IMHO

[Doctor_J]

200. Although it's not all his fault (Pelosi and Reid "helped"), Obama's time in office

will be regarded as the biggest disaster in history for the party. All of those voters from 2008 could have been locked down for a generation if he'd just attempted to fulfill some of his campaign prmises. alas, I'm convinced now he never intended to try for SP Health Care, EFCA, strengthened labor, growing Medicare, and so on. Those were lies. He's just another republican politician.

[tiredtoo]

201. As another old timer

I think this op is right on. have heard many in the past month or so that say they are giving up there is no hope and no reason to vote at all. this can be depressing and i tell them if they fail to get involved and vote they have lost for sure.
Personally i think things are looking better. the actions in N.Carolina and Wisconsin are just two things that give me hope. Two senators just called for an expansion of social security. these are things we must vigorously support not only here on these boards but also on the streets of America. get out and do something we can make a difference.
Damn insomnia i should be sleeping not ranting on this board.

[DirkGently]

202. Opportunity squandered. Great post. n/t

[Douglas Carpenter]

207. I knew in 2008 that he was the largest receipient of Wall Street cash of any candidate in history

for a reason. I knew there was a reason why the mainstream media and entire political class talked him up as a future President when he made his debut on the national stage at the Democratic Convention in 2004 - until then a nationally unknown State Senator. So, frankly it is not much different than what I expected. Still I wonder if ever in all of a American history - if there had ever been such a clear mandate for change that was so incredibly disregarded.

[deancr]

208. Exactly

Le Tax Hot's observations are on the money.

If you want to see the dem/rep convergence on the right, look no further than Carper joining his right hand to Issa's in his version of postal reform. The bill is crafted for his corporate sponsors and will help consolidate privatization and crushing some of the largest functional public unions.

At some point the lesser of two evils is no choice at all.