General Discussion
Related: Editorials & Other Articles, Issue Forums, Alliance Forums, Region Forums''Over the last 30 odd years, Democrats have moved to the right and the right has moved ...
Happy Birthday Bill
djean111
(14,255 posts)madrchsod
(58,162 posts)as much as i dislike bill i have to admit he`s right.
grahamhgreen
(15,741 posts)JDPriestly
(57,936 posts)antigop
(12,778 posts)kairos12
(12,882 posts)Kablooie
(18,644 posts)the Democrats will divide into liberal and conservative parties while the Republicans go the way of the Know Nothings.
yurbud
(39,405 posts)creeksneakers2
(7,476 posts)Democrats were caving in to Ronald Reagan.
hibbing
(10,110 posts)Yes, and it hasn't stopped since.
Skittles
(153,226 posts)I certainly never fell for his con job
Bettie
(16,132 posts)The whole dialog has moved to far to the right that he's now what passes for 'liberal'.
We need to move the whole thing back to center so people can see what a real liberal is, because there are precious few in the actual Democratic party.
bvar22
(39,909 posts)This should illustrated that point.
sucked.
The "Welfare Queen," The "Homeless By Choice": Reagan's Toxic Legacy
http://www.dailykos.com/story/2013/10/06/1243243/-The-Welfare-Queen-The-Homeless-By-Choice-Reagan-s-Toxic-Legacy
Clearly, he managed to convince some people that he stood up for Social Security.
Reaganomics was/is a failure
http://www.democraticunderground.com/10022096027
bvar22
(39,909 posts)...but is a clear & unambiguous statement pledging to not EVER cut
Social Security too much to expect from the "Centrist" Democratic Party Leadership today?
Isn't mixing talks of cutting Social Security in with the debate on "The Deficit" and "The Budget" more than a little dishonest since Social Security is funded from an independent source?
Doesn't mixing Social Security in with those talks imply that Social Security is responsible for the Deficit & Budget problems?
Yes?
.
.
.
.
.
Waiting to see how you will try to avoid giving a clear answer to the issues raised,
or will try to divert with more spurious Blue Links that are not relevant to the topic,
like you did in your first reply.
ProSense
(116,464 posts)bvar22
(39,909 posts)Responses that begin with "So, you are ....." are nearly always StrawMen,
as your response perfectly demonstrates.
If you wish to brand supporting NO CUTS to Social Security as "hypocrisy",
then Please Proceed.
You have become so boringly predictable,
and if anyone looks right up ^there^ they will see that I predicted your evasion
and diversion.
Pro refuses to answer the simple question:
[font size=3]Is a clear unambiguous statement to NEVER cut Social Security too much to expect from our Democratic Party Leadership?[/font]
As conservative as Reagan was, pledging to NOT cut our Social Security wasn't too much for HIM.
Less than 5 years ago, Social Security was the deadly 3rd Rail of Politics,
but the "Change" President has certainly changed THAT.
He has shown no inhibition against tossing it onto The Table.
Now, the cornerstone of the modern Democratic Party is just another chip on the table.
---bvar22
a loyal, mainstream-center FDR/LBJ Working Class Democrat.
I haven't changed.
ProSense
(116,464 posts)Did he keep his pledge?
Or is just saying stuff good enough for you?
creeksneakers2
(7,476 posts)but he was the first one to tax it, which was in effect a cut.
ProSense
(116,464 posts)Yes, it was "in effect a cut."
bvar22
(39,909 posts)Not THAT would be a cause that would unite the Democratic Party
AND garner support from Republicans.
A WIN/WIN for everybody.
I wonder WHY in 13 years of a Democratic Presidents and (at times) Democratic Majorities in both the House & Senate,
NO "modern" Democratic President has ever mentioned untaxing Social Security?
Welcome to the "New Normal" as the Democratic Party cosigns and endorses former Republican Policy.
ProSense
(116,464 posts)"...and neither Clinton nor Obama has seen fit to "untax" Social Security."
...it's interesting that you're attempting to blame Obama for Reagan's policy, especially after hyping Reagan's hypocritical bullshit.
colsohlibgal
(5,275 posts)About the best proof of how nuts the new right is comes when they call Obama a socialist/Marxist. That's astonishing.
Maedhros
(10,007 posts)RC
(25,592 posts)There is something about that (D) that is sacred, no matter how far to the Right the person claiming that (D) actually is.
The often get away with shit, that if they had an (R) instead, they would be condemned for.
Maedhros
(10,007 posts)They vote for the candidate that makes them feel good about themselves, and do not look too closely at that candidate's policies beyond the campaign boilerplate. If policies later emerge that are antithetical to the ideals of such a voter, it is easy enough for them to rationalize the discrepancy with a variety of tried-and-true intellectual balms.
nomorenomore08
(13,324 posts)Maedhros
(10,007 posts)I understand the "lacking a better option" part, let's just be honest: Obama is a Moderate Conservative. It's okay to prefer a Moderate Conservative to a Radical one.
nomorenomore08
(13,324 posts)policy-wise. As I said, though, it's not as if there was a realistic better option on the ballot.
Maedhros
(10,007 posts)El_Johns
(1,805 posts)otherwise. It's insane.
blkmusclmachine
(16,149 posts)And we're supposed to CLAP LOUDER:
Myrina
(12,296 posts)Most succinctly-stated assessment of our situation I've seen.
zentrum
(9,865 posts)...Emmanuel, Terry McCauliffe and others of DLC fame that ended the Democratic party from within. They ran the country like old style, competent, moderate Republicans--not Democrats. FDR and JKF would not recognize them. Hell, even Dwight Eisenhower would not recognize them.
xxqqqzme
(14,887 posts)Hillary Clinton. She was a founding member of the DLC along w/ the others you named.
zentrum
(9,865 posts)I just didn't mention her b/c I consider them both one. It's sort of "The Clinton".
I hope she doesn't run. And that we can have Warren as the candidate.
truedelphi
(32,324 posts)The centrist leaders and centrist followers of either party as belonging to either party.
And I think he would be horrified to find out how well the Military, Industrial, Governmental, Surveillance society is flourishing, far beyond his wildest dreams.
bvar22
(39,909 posts)....and had a seat on the DLC Executive Council.
http://americablog.com/2010/08/koch-industries-gave-funding-to-the-dlc-and-served-on-its-executive-council.html
MISSION ACCOMPLISHED!!!
zentrum
(9,865 posts)Thanks.
bvar22
(39,909 posts).....and explains a a lot.
MindMover
(5,016 posts)HAPPY BIRTHDAY BILL MAHER ...
progressoid
(50,000 posts)Sadly, this is the new paradigm.
rhett o rick
(55,981 posts)This wasnt an accident. Obama ran as a progressive and got support from the left. But immediately, starting at his inauguration he leaped right. I saw it with his choices of Rick Warren and Rahm Emanuel and the dismissal of Howard Dean. Couldnt wait to distance himself from the left.
Technically it's still a two party system but one party is conservative and the other party is wacko. This is the perfect system for the Powers To Be. They use the wackos to scare the hell out of us, then we are grateful for the party of Gen Clapper, Penny Pritzker, Tim Geitner, Lawrence Summers, Ben Bernanke, William M. Daley, Jeff Immelt, Dave Cote, Robert Gates, Gen Stanley McChrystal, Jacob Lew, Jeremiah Norton, Gen Petraeus, John Brennen, Chuck Hegal, Michael Taylor, James Comey, Robert Mueller, Rahm Emanuel, Gen Alexander.
And what is in our future? Eight more years of pro-Wall Street administrations and the sinking of American workers. How ironic that Citizens United may play a major role in getting H. Clinton-Sachs elected.
It's time we run the conservatives out of our party and back to the Republican Party where they belong.
Enthusiast
(50,983 posts)I think the owners of the nation cultivate the far right craziness. Well obviously they do cultivate the wacko, just tune in to Limbaugh or Beck for an example of the nurturing.
rhett o rick
(55,981 posts)of town. I find that very unusual unless they were "convinced" it was for the better good. In 2008 the Republican Party, with all their big money backing, and all their think tanks, ran a worn-out "has been" with wacked female for President and VP. I dont believe the Republicans are that stupid. Many here would love to believe they are, but while you are laughing at their clown antics, keep your hand on your wallet.
As I remember, and I might be wrong, the Republicans didnt try to steal the 2008 presidential election. After their successes in 2000 and 2004, the question would be "why?"
I read recently in The Nation a quote that I dont have the author for at my finger tips right now, but it went like this: "The Republicans are trying to run the nation into a wall at 100 mph, while the Democrats at only 50 mph."
This is my conspiracy theory so watch out, the CT posse will be by soon to smite me.
questionseverything
(9,663 posts)charnin says Obama margin of victory was reduced from 23 million votes to 9.5 million in 08 by fraud denying Obama the landslide
rhett o rick
(55,981 posts)Enthusiast
(50,983 posts)a completely unqualified airhead bimbo was not much of a presidential ticket. Your theory isn't much of a stretch. And we are victims of this very ruse today as it continues.
We probably pay for this elaborate ruse with our tax dollars. The ultimate irony.
They're keeping the world safe from communism. I have never felt more safe from communism in my life.
rhett o rick
(55,981 posts)Booz-Allen uber alles.
unblock
(52,387 posts)the shrub administration was a disaster even before the financial crisis hit, and then it was inconceivable that a republican would win.
in shrub's eight years, the dow actually went down. i don't think that has ever happened for any two-term president. he was a disaster through and though and there was just no way any republican was going to overcome that.
this also explains the huge money in the democratic race, because clinton vs. obama became the only effective contest for president. the general election was little more than a formality, mclame was essentially reduced to hoping obama would self-destruct.
gtar100
(4,192 posts)And infuriating how they abandon them so quickly once they're in office. Yes, let's keep electing more progressives into the Democratic Party and dump the DLC types.
dreamnightwind
(4,775 posts)and sadly, entirely accurate.
That list of names who are part of this administration is devastating. No way in hell I would have supported Obama as a candidate if I had any idea I would be voting for those people too. Of course Hillary was the other choice, pretty much the same list would have been working for her.
So, here's to doing whatever we can to have better choices.
rhett o rick
(55,981 posts)But when your choices are Thing 1 or Thing 2, both chosen by The Powers To Be, that's not freedom.
dreamnightwind
(4,775 posts)And don't bogart that gif, where did you get it? Sweet.
pampango
(24,692 posts)rhett o rick
(55,981 posts)Americans wouldnt fall for that, so we get two candidates to choose from. Both chosen by our corporate masters.
Maedhros
(10,007 posts)"And always twirling, twirling, twirling toward freedom!"
Egalitarian Thug
(12,448 posts)BodieTown
(147 posts)You saved me from composing the same thing.
I don't even think there are two parties. That "wacko" sector is just an invention to scare everybody into voting for the conservative/corporate "dems".
The whole thing is a con, and whoever called for a permanent republicon majority a few years back (Rove?) has seen his wish come true.
Titonwan
(785 posts)Saviolo
(3,283 posts)You should make this into an OP.
sulphurdunn
(6,891 posts)has one play: Fake left in campaigns. Go right in office. Progressive fans take the fake every time, and team Third Way happy dances into the end zone.
Enthusiast
(50,983 posts)We have to rely on comedians for the truth in this nation of smoke screens, subterfuge and lies. The USA has become one gigantic CIA black operation.
rhett o rick
(55,981 posts)marmar
(77,097 posts)TBF
(32,111 posts)lol
happy birthday!!
RoverSuswade
(641 posts)the card-carrying right has as members Steven King, Michelle Bachman, Steve Stockman, Louie Gohmert, Sarah Palin, VIrginia Foxx, Colonel West, and about 55% of Ted Cruz and 88% of Rand Paul. Mental, I say, MENTAL!
TBF
(32,111 posts)xchrom
(108,903 posts)valerief
(53,235 posts)Douglas Carpenter
(20,226 posts)considerate a moderate to moderate conservative Republican agenda is radical leftist. And the irony is the rightwing is so extreme that moderate conservative is radical leftist in relative comparison.
Scuba
(53,475 posts)When surveyed on issues rather than labels, the majority of Americans support Medicare, Social Security, regulation of Wall Street and corporations in general, etc., etc., etc.
However, the oligarchs own the media and have taught Americans that "liberal" and "Democrat" are dirty words, so even those who hold liberal views call themselves conservatives and vote Republican.
It's one giant mind-fuck.
Douglas Carpenter
(20,226 posts)supporters who support most liberal and progressive positions. I don't think most right-wing supporters base their support on an issue by issue analysis or really have any clue what they are voting for. I'm sure many if not most Democratic Party supporters simply assume the Democratic Party are championing a lot more progressives causes then they actually are and taking far more progressive positions than the record actually shows.
A Simple Game
(9,214 posts)President Obama wants, or is at least willing, to change Social Security for the worse even when his own words, on multiple occasions, say that he does. They think he is trying to fake out the Republicans. So what happens if they take him up on his fake offer?
ConservativeDemocrat
(2,720 posts)1. The GOP voting base will be outraged that Congress actually voted to cut Social Security.
2. The President will then go around the country saying, "Boy, to get the GOP to pass a program to help the middle class, they're demanding I should cut Social Security. Should I do that?" He will then follow the will of the electorate on that matter.
3. Next election there will be very few elected members of the GOP left.
This is why the GOP won't vote to cut Social Security.
- C.D. Proud Member of the Reality Based Community
A Simple Game
(9,214 posts)the GOP will say we don't want to cut Social Security, but to show our bipartisanship we will go along with President Obama's proposed cuts only this one time.
Or:
1. The GOP voting base will be outraged that Congress actually voted to cut Social Security. Every Republican in a safe district and some not in safe districts will vote for the cut.
2.The President then goes around denying he proposed the cuts, no one believes him, Republicans win the next election in a landslide.
3. Democrats are an endangered species.
This is why the Republicans may take him up on his offer!
DLevine
(1,788 posts)pangaia
(24,324 posts)Liberalynn
(7,549 posts)Bloody Brilliant!
freebrew
(1,917 posts)and it's totally on track.
It seems that anyone referencing FDR or Kennedy's ideals for the nation is now a Leftist.
Our president admires a 'middle -of-the-road' publican(the guy that started this shite).
WOW! And to think I belonged to YIP.
Demenace
(213 posts)The Republicans demonize Government's role in maintaining the social contract via the 'Government is the problem' mantra.
DU Progressive demonize Government's role in maintaining social order via the 'Government is tyranny' mantra.
At some point, we are on the same side of the 'Government is the problem' coin and I see that here.
Scuba
(53,475 posts)Certainly there are many of us who hold government officials feet to the fire on civil rights, economic, military and other issues, but I think you'll find DU'ers in support of government where it is FOR THE PEOPLE.
ConservativeDemocrat
(2,720 posts)Demenace
(213 posts)Just like the Right is not aware of their anti-government nature and consequently discount it, those on the Progressive side will not acknowledge their anti-government sentiments, I suppose!
Scuba
(53,475 posts)I don't see any anti-government or anti-Democratic Party bashing, but I see lots of "let's make our government and Party better" posts.
Do you not understand the difference?
ConservativeDemocrat
(2,720 posts)Maybe you have a different definition of "government" than I do.
Mind you, it is perfectly acceptable to advocate for changes in governmental policy, including saying you don't want the U.S. to be doing something⁺. It is entirely different, however, to be accusing people, and especially Democrats and President Obama, of grand evil conspiracies trying to hurt the American people, inventing complete made up B.S., and or petulantly declaring that if you don't get your way 100%, you'll let the Republican win.
-C.D. Proud Member of the Reality Based Community
⁺ Which it is possible that I may not agree with, and will debate.
Scuba
(53,475 posts)noiretextatique
(27,275 posts)when progressives have a faux-style 24/7 propaganda organ and two billionaire brothers bankrolling campaigns for progressives... perhaps you will have something approaching equivalence. funny how the "both extremes are the same" meme benefits the mushy middle and the rw.
Demenace
(213 posts)I said we have development our own 'the government is the problem' outlook. That you are arguing the point is in itself the proof you need to say, maybe we are becoming like the other side.
reformist2
(9,841 posts)Nye Bevan
(25,406 posts)Bearing in mind that Clinton signed NAFTA, "ended welfare as we know it", and signed the Defense of Marriage Act?
Scuba
(53,475 posts)Nye Bevan
(25,406 posts)given that over the last 22 years (1992 to 2014) they have pretty much stayed in the same place economically and definitely moved to the left socially.
dreamnightwind
(4,775 posts)Your question was about Bill Clinton and Barack's relative left-right alignment, then you use that as the position of the entire party at those points in time. I suppose the OP uses the same tactic, but it's a larger and more complex dynamic than just who is at the top of the ticket.
30 years ago was '84. I'm not aware of exactly when the DLC took over the party. Clinton came out of the DLC in '92. Carter in '76 was the more conservative Dem in the primaries IIRC. Now he looks like a flaming liberal (in my eyes that's a compliment).
Anyway it has changed, fairly significantly. The time period might more accurately be the last 40 years, I don't know. The change might be more evident in the House and Senate Dems, and in policies that our party is backing. But the change is very real, the rest is just arguing about details.
I think our party's leadership has been dragged to the left on social issues recently, rather than going there because of their own principles. Those are the bones the powers that be have decided to let us have, since in their cost-benefit analysis they realized it doesn't cost them anything to allow gay marriage, gays in the military, or, perhaps, cannabis (the jury's still out on that one, and there are some large corporate interests who feel their revenue streams are threatened by it, such as police, prisons, alcohol, tobacco, and even big pharma, so we'll see), while it keeps the party base from realizing to what extent we've been sold out.
Scuba
(53,475 posts)truedelphi
(32,324 posts)During Clinton's time as President, except for those of us who were avid early usenet users, we didn't have the internet, so we didn't have the scoop on so many different things.
We basically had the news papers and TV news and radio to tell us what was what. A momentous piece of legislation, like the TPP, would not be exposed for what it is until years later. Now we can watch videos from a variety of sources, including Chris Hedges, RT, Democracy Now, and a dozen others and find out what the Corporate-controlled and CIA run media does not want us to figure out.
dreamnightwind
(4,775 posts)The mainstream media was probably less controlled then than it is now, so there was some actual discussion and debate about things like NAFTA. Also community radio stations were more vibrant back then, at least where I lived.
But finding out anything on our own was really hard. I remember working with an activist group during the run-up to the first Iraq war when poppy Bush was POTUS, trying to get to the bottom of what was happening, spending time in the public library loading microfiche into those little reader machines to see old newspaper articles.
Amazing how things have changed since then. now the larger problem is info overload and separating the mis-info from the info.
Sadly this is very truthful. The Democratic party has been largely infiltrated with ring wing operatives at all levels of governance. It speaks badly for the future of this country
Titonwan
(785 posts)But we shouldn't criticize our president because change/hope.
[URL=.html][IMG][/IMG][/URL]
And that wouldn't be patriotic. (sarc/off)
INdemo
(6,994 posts)We have Elizabeth Warren, that would need a few million just for security if she ran, but she would be the one that could bring liberals to the polls..
....Obama gives one hell of a speech and when he talked about things like Soc. Security not being cut as long as he was President etc. ,and we believed him. I at least wanted to ,now as it turns out he is allowing it in the Budget Negotiations..
The Healthcare law was written by the insurance lobbyist's and we pretend to like it but in reality it just gave him bragging rights to say he passed healthcare. (except for the pre-existing )
So yes Bill Maher I agree, Obama is no liberal and he is swinging farther to the right. In Congress except for a few its one big party and its one hell-of-a-show
harun
(11,348 posts)and both sides are eating from that troff.
reddread
(6,896 posts)hardly the moral authority on anything, but certainly a bad example of what is up.
Much like James Carville and whats her name,
and Jerry Brown and Arianna Huffington before she bearded her namesake.
But nowhere near Dennis Leary on my hate list.
these cretins are fornicating and partying at our dire expense.
Not someone I would celebrate.
Tierra_y_Libertad
(50,414 posts)As in, a little bit of arsenic isn't as bad as a lot of arsenic with a strychnine chaser.
ProSense
(116,464 posts)''Over the last 30 odd years, Democrats have moved to the right and the right has moved into the mental hospital."
...never agreed with this premise as it relates to Democrats. Sure, Republicans have moved into insanity territory.
Everytime the Republicans gain ground (enough to influence), they move further right, and Democrats are put in the position of having to deal. Do you think if Democrats had retained the WH in 2000 the country, our politics would have moved further right?
Look at the policies Obama has managed to reverse from the Clinton years: DADT and the repeal of Glass-Steagall (implemenatation of the Volcker Rule). DOMA (which even Wellstone voted for) is only supported by Republicans.
By mid 2012, there were 22 Democratic Senators pushing for marriage equality (http://www.democraticunderground.com/1002380566), which is definitely not more conservative than say the 1990s.
More pro labor Senators in contrast to the 1980s.
The Democratic Party isn't more conservative. It's that the Republicans have been testing the electorate with every right wing policy they can advance. Keep electing them, and Democrats will have to continue dealing with them. If Republicans continue to win, public opinion isn't going to translate to policies because Republicans have shown they don't care about public opinion.
The Progressive Caucus is larger that it ever was. Thirty years ago, Bernie Sanders and Elizabeth Warren, positioned as they are now, would never have been elected.
Thirty years ago, Republicans sucked.
The "Welfare Queen," The "Homeless By Choice": Reagan's Toxic Legacy
http://www.dailykos.com/story/2013/10/06/1243243/-The-Welfare-Queen-The-Homeless-By-Choice-Reagan-s-Toxic-Legacy
He managed to convince some people that he stood up for Social Security.
Reaganomics was/is a failure
http://www.democraticunderground.com/10022096027
You couldn't get a Democrat to support Reagan's economic policies today, even as the Republican are doing their best to makes Reagan look moderate.
Scuba
(53,475 posts)... do they move further left, and put Republican in the position of having to deal?
"Question: When the Democrats gain influence (e.g., the House and the Senate) ... do they move further left, and put Republican in the position of having to deal?"
...impact has Senator Warren had? Yes, they do, which is why DADT was repealed.
Scuba
(53,475 posts)Meanwhile we get a twice-elected Democratic President entertaining Chained CPI, we get too big to fail or jail, we get Geithner, Duncan and on and on and on.
"That's it? DADT and one good Democratic Senator?"
...Sanders isn't a "good" Senator? There are no others? No, that's not it, but I could provide more examples (links) if you likes.
There is no question that Dodd-Frank was a strong billthe strongest in three generations. http://www.warren.senate.gov/files/documents/AFR%20Roosevelt%20Institute%20Speech%202013-11-12.pdf
Scuba
(53,475 posts)And Sanders isn't even a Democrat.
ProSense
(116,464 posts)You do know that characterization is still a shift to the left, don't you?
Scuba
(53,475 posts)... ergo, right of the old center.
You're going to look silly if you try to portray the current White House and Senate majority as having tried to move to the left. They haven't.
ProSense
(116,464 posts)The OP claim is that Democrats "moved to the right," but Glass-Steagall was repealed in the 1990s. So Dodd-Frank is a move back to the left.
Regulators Finalize Stricter Volcker Rule - Reuters/HuffPo
http://www.democraticunderground.com/10024158305
Scuba
(53,475 posts)I asked "Question: When the Democrats gain influence (e.g., the White House and the Senate) do they move further left, and put Republican in the position of having to deal?"
You've been trying to make the case that they do, but your evidence is scant. When has the current Administration/Senate advocated for positions to the far left? How about the middle left? Maybe a couple on the near left.
But compare that to the Republicans staking out positions on the far, far, far right (ending income, estate and corporate taxes, privatizing Social Security, ending the EPA, ending the Dept of Energy, ending the Department of Education, killing the USPS, etc.
One doesn't negotiate by starting in the middle, and the first rule of negotiation is "You gotta ask for it." We'll never strengthen and expand Social Security starting with a position of "Chained CPI is on the table."
Fact is the federally-elected Democrats have not been good advocates for the People who voted for them.
ProSense
(116,464 posts)Scuba
(53,475 posts)ProSense
(116,464 posts)"To the left of a far-right absence of regulation, yes. To the left? No, Dodd-Frank's still right."
...to the left of the repeal, which happened in the 1990s, and makes the OP point nonsense.
Scuba
(53,475 posts)250+ DU'ers agree.
ProSense
(116,464 posts)You could probably get 250 DUers to agree to impeaching Obama, repealing Obamacare or advocating that Democrats lose in 2014 based on some scenario.
The number of recs don't change the fact that Dodd Frank, the "strongest" financial regulations in "three generations," is a move to the left. Nor does it change the fact that this example runs counter to the theory that Democrats have "moved to the right."
whatchamacallit
(15,558 posts)I have republican neighbors who lean further left than many DUers.
fredamae
(4,458 posts)Maher said it much better than I ever could--but wow--that is exactly the source of my sadness, anger, frustration, worry and motivated my departure from being a Registered Dem--54 years of Loyalty to "my party" - 30 years of reaganomics - two Dem POTUS' empty promises of great change to bring the Extraction of our wealth and resources under control and Multiple layers of legislators from Both sides breaking their word/contract with the people, decades later - here we are.
30% of Oregon Voters do not identify with either major party.
boomerbust
(2,181 posts)Seems to be chugging northward at a good clip since 2010. But that could just be my imagination.
bvar22
(39,909 posts)...spent a lot of my money & time to defeat "Moderate Republicans" because I strongly disagreed with them on POLICY.
If I liked "Moderate Republican" Policy,
I would have voted FOR Moderate Republicans in the 80s.
I didn't, because I was, and still AM a DEMOCRAT.
I want to vote for someone who would have been considered a DEMOCRAT back in the 80s.
I haven't changed.
That is the problem I have with "Centrist" Democrats.
They agree with Republicans too damned much,
and the American Working Class & Poor have paid the price for the last 25 years of Moderate Republican Policy.
OTOH, Wall Street & The 1% have done very well under Moderate Republican Policy,
because THAT is the class that Moderate Republican Policy is designed to "help".
[font color=firebrick][center]"There are forces within the Democratic Party who want us to sound like kinder, gentler Republicans.
I want a party that will STAND UP for Working Americans."
---Paul Wellstone [/font][/center] [center] [/font]
[font size=1]photo by bvar22
Shortly before Sen Wellstone was killed[/center][/font]
democrank
(11,112 posts)I can not understand how anyone....anyone....can call President Obama a progressive or a liberal or a left-leaning Democrat. He is not. Looking at the overall picture, with very few exceptions, President Obama is center to center-right.
ProSense
(116,464 posts)"I can not understand how anyone....anyone....can call President Obama a progressive or a liberal or a left-leaning Democrat. He is not. Looking at the overall picture, with very few exceptions, President Obama is center to center-right."
...were Carter (pro-life, pro-deregulation) and Clinton? Teabaggers?
robertpaulsen
(8,632 posts)Along with some great commentary on it from Cenk Uygur:
whatchamacallit
(15,558 posts)bvar22
(39,909 posts)Maher and Cenk NAILED IT!!!
Thanks for the clip.
great white snark
(2,646 posts)Crappy birthday Bill.