The Neoliberals have finally got their most desired wish

[Stoic]

A "moderate" Republican in the White House.

Huffington Post: Obama vs. Obama

Let's take a clear eyed look at what President Obama actually has done and said. He placed his supposedly signature health care reform initiative in the hands of those dedicated to thwarting it, he has curried favor with the criminally incompetent financial establishment, he orphaned the proposal to help underwater homeowners through the bankruptcy courts, he stiffed the trade unions on the loosening of rules for organizing workers, he has retained all of Bush's policies on surveillance, he has refused the slightest chastisement of the CIA and their mercenaries, he has retained Bush's practice of Executive statements interpreting legislation, he has followed a behind closed doors style of policy-making, he has followed the Pentagon hawks in escalating the war in Afghanistan, he has made repeated advances toward the evangelical right. This is the behavioral pattern of a deeply conservative personality and conventional thinker who tips his hat to every establishment he encounters.

[wyldwolf]

1. Is that the new "progressive" meme?

I thought that line was reserved for Bill Clinton. :eyes:

[peacebird]

2. Bill was liberal on social matters and conservative on fiscal matters - in true DLC fashion.

Obama is following suit.

Better than Bush, much better than the chance of McLame/Failin, but still far more corporatist than I would like. So was Clinton.

added on edit: Perhaps the reason the M$M tore down Dean was because Dr Dean was not corporatist DLC, and the media always does the corporate boss's bidding.
See the Nations new article:
http://www.thenation.com/doc/20100301/jones/single

[wyldwolf]

3. so the article in the OP is wrong. Correct?

[peacebird]

5. no - it is correct. Obama is a DLC corporatist, and as such can be considered a moderate R

"The evidence supports my thesis that this latter Obama is the truer personality, and that it has liberated itself now that the man is at the apex of his achieved ambition. There is, of course, a more prosaic explanation of Obama's repudiation of the ideas and outlook that won him the White House. It argues that his about faces and incongruous acts merely reflect practical political calculations. That argument does not stand up to scrutiny, though. First, Obama's conduct in the White House has severely weakened his political position to the point where he managed to resuscitate a moribund Republican Party while putting at risk reelection of the Democratic Congress and himself. Second, Obama initiated most of these reversals in the early months of his administration when he was still riding high in the polls and had every opportunity to take the initiative."

[wyldwolf]

6. the OP said neoliberals finally have a moderate Republican... but YOU said...

... Obama was following Clinton. So doesn't the mean neoliberals finally got what they wanted with Bill Clinton? And that Obama isn't the first? So saying neoliberals "finally" have what they want is false. They got it 16 years ago. Correct? Either you're wrong or the article is wrong.

[peacebird]

11. ah - we are talking past each other - I was agreeing with the ARTICLE not the OP headline

"The unhappy conclusion is that we have in Obama a President who is what we used to call a moderate Republican before the species became extinct. Moreover, someone who is very much a man of his times - those times being the 1980s and 1990s. That means suspicions of government programs (last week Obama declared that New Deal thinking wasn't applicable to day's problems), a strong belief that we should always give private interests the benefit of the doubt, an assumption that the rich deserve their riches, and an insensitivity to the plight of salaried Americans (Obama's push for a Bipartisan Commission to recommend budget cutting measures to be voted 'up or down' by Congress clearly had Social Security in its sights). Abroad, Obama is ready to deploy military might in dubious causes defined by the country's hawkish defense establishment."

[creeksneakers2]

38. Left, but not left enough for the far left.

He's proposed raising taxes on the rich and lowered taxes on the poor and middle class. He fought for a health care bill that 35% of the country views as socialist, and is far to the left of what we have now. No new deal? What was the stimulus package? When did Obama say we should always give private interests the benefit of the doubt? He's taken over and controlled major corporations and has drafted limits on Wall Street. What gives you the idea Obama is insensitive? Because he hasn't accomplished all you like to see? Medicare will have to be cut at some point. Everybody knows that. Obama hasn't started any new wars, is ending Iraq and plans to start pulling out of Afghanistan in a few years. He's far from a hawk.

Obama is not a socialist. Neither is anyone else except the fringe. Obama would have had results if he had the votes. Its not what Obama proposed or favored that fell short. Its what he was able to accomplish. If Obama is to accomplish more we will need to spend more time attacking Republicans who stop him and start supporting Obama who is on the side of Democrats.

[stevenleser]

42. Whenever you see the word "Neoliberal" you know you can ignore the article/piece.

When an author uses meaningless pejoratives like "Neoliberal" as a poor substitute for good writing, they have nothing to say that could possibly interest me.

Neoliberal says to me "I'm angry, he/they aren't left enough for me, I'm angry, I don't know how to express it, I'm angry, I don't have any better ideas, and did I mention I'm angry?"

You want to have fun sometime? Independantly ask four people who have used the word "Neoliberal" what it means. If you dont get at least three different answers, dinner is on me.

[stevenleser]

43. And in case it isnt clear, Kicked and UNRecced. n/t

[impik]

41. Hey, at least he called him "moderate".

With the language "progressives" use today, that's a compliment.

[CTLawGuy]

4. More outrage mongering by Arianna

a hit piece mostly containing fact free mischaracterizations.

health care reform in the hands of those who want to thwart it? would that be "congress"? Congress is kinda necessary to pass laws. The Republicans? They want no part of it and they are doing everything to stop it, including abusing the filibuster.

[wyldwolf]

7. I believe the term you're applying to Mrs. "I LOVE McCain" Huffington should be "poutrage."

:)

[CTLawGuy]

8. I remember her

as Arianna "BEEEL CLEEEEEEEENTON should be impeached" Huffington.

[depakid]

9. The author's name is Michael Brenner

A Senior Fellow at http://transatlantic.sais-jhu.edu/ACES/index.htm"> the Center for Transatlantic Relations, who's calling it like he sees it.

He seems fairly accurate with his musings- and the conclusion that we've essentially got a Rockefeller Republican in the Whitehouse is just about inescapable at this point.

[CTLawGuy]

10. the almighty Center for Transatlantic Relations.

well I guess I better believe all of his conclusory and unsupported assertions then :eyes:

another example: He has followed the "pentagon hawks". Umm Obama has, from the beginning, advocated finishing the job in Afghanistan because that is (at least was) where the terrorists actually are. Regardless of whether you agree with his policy, he didn't just decide in middle of his presidency to "follow" some Curtis LeMay-type in the Pentagon.

[depakid]

13. I suppose you can disparage academia now that you've had a go at Arianna

Trouble is- Dr. Brenner is a whole lot brighter, more experienced and has a more substantial curricula vitae to consider.

http://transatlantic.sais-jhu.edu/about/bios/michael_brenner.htm

[CTLawGuy]

14. you couldn't tell from his misinformed writing

that he is that bright.

Unless you want to explain to me how Obama has handed health care reform over to those who want to kill it.

[depakid]

16. "Unless you want to explain to me how Obama has handed health care reform over to those who want to

kill it."

You aren't really serious there, are you?

[CTLawGuy]

17. uh yes I am

humor me almighty wise one.

[depakid]

18. Then you must have been asleep for the past 9 months

[CTLawGuy]

19. Ah, the one-liner quip post

sure sign that the poster is all hat and no cattle, so to say.

[depakid]

22. The minute the matter was turned open ended over to the Finance Committee

with tacit (and frail) acceptance of Baucus, Conrad (and later Lieberman and Nelson's) corrupt influence- and corporate K street backers, the gig was up.

As anyone paying attention last summer could have seen coming.

This of course was before the administration prostrated itself and empowered every two bit extortionist in the Senate for upcoming reform battles.

Brenner (and others) know full well that it didn't have to- and shouldn't have been done that way. If one expected to achieve a responsible bill- and effective result, that is.

[CTLawGuy]

26. the finance committee is a committee with jurisdiction over the subject matter of this bill.

It has to go through them, as well as the HELP committee, and the three committees in the House.

Ok, Obama could have written the bill himself and told the relevant committees and Congress to pass it "as is", a la Bill Clinton, but that didn't work very well last time--so I don't blame him for not using that strategy. Also, if he did that Baucus probably would have changed what Obama sent him to what he wanted anyway.

Your problem is not with Obama, it is with Max Baucus and Joe Lieberman and the Republicans who care more about gaining political advantage than helping people in need.

Obama is not a king, and he never said change would be easy.

[depakid]

31. The process required reconciliation (among other things) to achieve the results

the administration asserted that it (sort of) wanted.

(And no, I don't need a lecture on the Byrd rule- I know very well how it would have applied).

Even that aside- the administration essentially punted the matter with little (or no) effective guidance as t what was acceptable- and this lack of assertiveness and leadership was and IS the main cause of the debacle the nation now faces.

Brenner could well be referring very accurately- to any one of these- and then some.

cf. PhARMA and health insurer backroom deals.

[CTLawGuy]

32. Obama repeated several times what he wanted

lower costs, cover everyone, etc.

See for yourself, from a year ago.

http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0209/19362.html

[depakid]

34. Making weak assertions is very different than asserting the power of the presidency

ESPECIALLY when you've got tons of political capital to expend.

Frankly, it's quite reasonable to question whether the administration was interested in a public option at all -or to conclude that it wasn't.

And I don't simply mean "not a priority."

It's consistent with the record on similar issues.

[CTLawGuy]

35. No, its called letting Congress do its Constitutionally mandated job

you know, to make the law. Obama is wise to let Congress write the bill, because, anything else, and they'll end up writing the bill how they want it anyway and we'd be at the same spot.

As for the public option, they had at most 59 senate votes in favor of the public option, which was not going to get around a filibuster. I suppose Obama could have threatened Lieberman or something, which would probably have driven him into the Republican party and put us up shit creek even further.

Unless Obama vetoes a HCR bil because it has a public option, I'll take his word for it that he supports a public option. You want to blame someone for no PO, blame Lieberman, blame the Rs for their irresponsible filibustering.

[depakid]

37. That may well have been EXACTLY the punt that Dr. Brenner was talking about!

So you've answered your own question.

And no- I don't blame Republicans and corrupt "Democratic" Senators for doing what they'd be expected to do- I blame the administration for FAILING to do what it foreseeably took get the job done- failing to exercise effective leadership and failing to muster populist resentment and anger (which is what drives public policy in America).

Indeed- so wanton and irresponsible were the failings at times that a reasonable person could (and maybe should) question or conclude that the administration wasn't really interested in solving the problem(s) -at least, not at the expense of their new (ideological?) allies in the health insurance and pharmaceutical industry.

Moreover, nowhere does is it provided for a usurpation of power by a minority of the Senate. Quite the contrary- as has been posited many times before and presumably understood by a constitutional law lecturer who publicly criticized (rather than helped to lead) the filibuster against Alito.

The arguments here militate even further for a duty to get legislation through without empowering the likes of Lieberman, et al.

ABOUT the Senate, a college professor of mine used to say, “One day, the Supreme Court will declare it unconstitutional.” He was joking, I think.

But the Senate, as it now operates, really has become unconstitutional: as we saw during the recent health care debacle, a 60-vote majority is required to overcome a filibuster and pass any contested bill. The founders, though, were dead set against supermajorities as a general rule, and the ever-present filibuster threat has made the Senate a more extreme check on the popular will than they ever intended....

... to maintain a filibuster, senators no longer had to keep talking. Nowadays, they don’t even have to start; they just say they will, and that’s enough. Senators need not be on the floor at all. They can be at home watching Jimmy Stewart on cable. Senate Rule 22 now exists to cut off what are ghost filibusters, disembodied debates.

As a result, the supermajority vote no longer deserves any protection under Article I, Section 5 — if it ever did at all. It is instead a revision of Article I itself: not used to cut off debate, but to decide in effect whether to enact a law. The filibuster votes, which once occurred perhaps seven or eight times a whole Congressional session, now happen more than 100 times a term. But this routine use of supermajority voting is, at worst, unconstitutional and, at best, at odds with the founders’ intent.

Here’s why. First, the Constitution explicitly requires supermajorities only in a few special cases: ratifying treaties and constitutional amendments, overriding presidential vetoes, expelling members and for impeachments. With so many lawyers among them, the founders knew and operated under the maxim “expressio unius est exclusio alterius” — the express mention of one thing excludes all others. But one need not leave it at a maxim. In the Federalist Papers, every time Alexander Hamilton or John Jay defends a particular supermajority rule, he does so at length and with an obvious sense of guilt over his departure from majority rule.

Second, Article I, Section 3, expressly says that the vice president as the presiding officer of the Senate should cast the deciding vote when senators are “equally divided.” The procedural filibuster does an end run around this constitutional requirement, which presumed that on the truly contested bills there would be ties. With supermajority voting, the Senate is never “equally divided” on the big, contested issues of our day, so that it is a rogue senator, and not the vice president, who casts the deciding vote.

The procedural filibuster effectively disenfranchises the vice president, eliminating as it does one of the office’s only two constitutional functions. Yet the founders very consciously intended for the vice president, as part of the checks and balances system, to play this tie-breaking role — that is why Federalist No. 68 so specifically argued against a sitting member of the Senate being the presiding officer in place of the vice president.

Third, Article I pointedly mandates at least one rule of proceeding, namely, that a majority of senators (and House members, for that matter) will constitute a quorum. Article I, Section 5 states in part that “a majority of each shall constitute a majority to do business.” Of course, in requiring a simple majority for a quorum, the founders were concerned about no-shows for a host of reasons — not least of all because the first legislators had to travel great distances by stagecoach.

But the bigger reason for the rule was to keep a minority from walking out and thereby blocking a majority vote. In Federalist No. 75, Hamilton dismissed a supermajority rule for a quorum thus: “All provisions which require more than a majority of any body to its resolutions have a direct tendency to embarrass the operations of the government and an indirect one to subject the sense of the majority to that of the minority.”

It would be illogical for the Constitution to preclude a supermajority rule with respect to a quorum while allowing it on an ad hoc and more convenient basis any time a minority wanted to block a vote. Yet that is essentially what Senate Rule 22 achieves on any bill that used to require a majority vote.

So on the health care bill, as on so many other things, we now have to take what a minority of an inherently unrepresentative body will give us. Forty-one senators from our 21 smallest states — just over 10 percent of our population — can block bills dealing not just with health care but with global warming and hazards that threaten the whole planet. Individual senators now use the filibuster, or the threat of it, as a kind of personal veto, and that power seems to have warped their behavior, encouraging grandstanding and worse.

What can be done about the procedural filibuster? There are several promising lines of attack.

More: http://www.nytimes.com/2010/01/11/opinion/11geoghegan.html?pagewanted=all

[jefferson_dem]

61. Oh, in that case...

We have evidence that the ivory towers of academia are not insulated from "teh stoopid".

Nonetheless, I don't doubt that Mr. Brenner relishes the knee-jerk accolades heaped upon him for this polemic. In that sense, "mission accomplished".

[brentspeak]

12. Ariana Huffington didn't write this piece n/t

[CTLawGuy]

15. no but she allowed it on her website

NT

[brentspeak]

20. She allowed Barack Obama to blog on Huffington Post, too

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/barack-obama

[CTLawGuy]

21. yeah, big deal.

it's still outrage mongering bullshit.

[depakid]

23. You seem to be in serious denial

What's wrong with a Rockefeller Republican, anyway?

Seems to me that you and the other poster above would welcome that set of attitudes, beliefs and values.

[CTLawGuy]

24. they believe what they believe

but Obama is a Democrat and not a Republican and to call him a Republican is irresponsible and insulting.

[salguine]

25. Not when he's acting like a Republican, it isn't. Every word of the OP is true. I'll stand

up for truth over party any time. If more people did the same we'd probably have had health care a long time ago.

[CTLawGuy]

27. it is?

Obama "followed pentagon hawks?"

That is clearly untrue. He was in favor of finishing Afghanistan from way back at the beginning of the campaign.

Obama "relishes wealth and what it can buy"?

what is the basis for that statement? Obama did not have Bush's background. He worked as a community organizer and TURNED DOWN Wall St. firm life to do civil rights law (another misleading characterization was that Obama "sought out corporate jobs").

Obama "absorbed the spirit of Ronald Reagan's America he himself has said stands as the model of inspirational leadership."?

He only said in an objective sense that Ronald Reagan was transformative and no serious person can dispute that. He birthed the modern Republican party and he brithed the laissez faire economic culture of the 80s, 90s and the 00s. Nowhere did Obama hold Reagan out as a model of leadership or did Obama endorse his POLICIES in any way.

Obama "he has made repeated advances toward the evangelical right."?

I fail to see where this has happened. It didn't happen in his call for repealing DADT at the SOTU. Did he suddenly become pro-life?

[jefferson_dem]

64. I admire you for actually taking the time to point out the obvious with specific references.

They're all total nonsense - trumped up lies, smears, and fears, of the sort we condemn on the other side. I especially like this one - "...he has made repeated advances toward the evangelical right..." Ohhhh No!!!! Not "advances..."

[depakid]

30. Methinks you may not know what a Rockefeller Republican is (or more accurately- was)

It's been posted numerous times- even prior to the first caucus, that Obama's record seemed to militate in that direction. In one of his first vote in the Senate he crossed over with Republicans to pass the so called "Class Action Fairness Act (CAFA), a pet cause of George W. Bush, which essentially forced most state consumer class actions into the backlogged and Republican dominated federal courts.

Like the bankruptcy bill before it, class action reform was a special interest extravaganza, with the insurance, credit card, banking, pharmaceutical and auto industries hiring so many lobbyists that there was nearly one for every member of Congress.

Obama's state was also the focus of intense media campaigns surrounding the bill sponsored by the U.S. Chamber of Commerce. But when the bill came up for a vote, Obama's fellow Illinois democrat, Sen. Dick Durbin, didn't cave. Potential presidential rival Hillary Clinton voted against the bill. Even John Kerry, who went on national television during the 2004 presidential debates and said, "John Edwards and I support tort reform," voted against it.

More on Rockefeller Republicans: http://en.allexperts.com/e/r/ro/rockefeller_republican.htm

[CTLawGuy]

33. Not sure a "rockefeller republican"

would have handled the economic crisis with a large stimulus bill as Obama did.

Not sure a "rockefeller republican" would have signed credit card reform into law.

not sure a "rockefeller republican" would have gotten health care reform as far as Obama has.

[creeksneakers2]

39. "Rockefeller Republican" is just an insult

It has no basis in reality. Obama is nothing like Rockefeller.

[jefferson_dem]

63. Damn YOU!

You're not supposed to notice that. Not in a world where "truthiness" prevails.

:)

[depakid]

66. Nope- it's a descriptive term in political science, and the shoe fits, as reflected in the record

Sorry that you don't seem to grasp the concept or like the evidence based application of it.

[wyldwolf]

71. "a descriptive term in political science" - lol

Since you appear to be the resident DU expert on "Rockefeller Republicans," how about giving us a list of the issues they stood for and stood against when they ruled the GOP in the 1940s - early 1960s, then show us how Obama falls into that category.

[depakid]

72. Look it up yourself- or take a poly sci class

It's common knowledge and a common term in the field.

As for the evidence- read the OP we're discussing! He lays it right out for you.

[wyldwolf]

73. hmm. Ok. You can claim you have the knowledge but can't demonstrate it.

[depakid]

74. LOL- it's pointless to go round in circles with some folks, but if you'd like examples

two of the most recent representative ones- embodying the approximate set of attitudes, beliefs and values we're talking about, might be Mark Hatfield or Bob Packwood of Oregon- though the further one looks back, the more one finds.

(Of course, Oregon Republicans tended to be sui generis -and so on many issues, they'd likely be more progressive than Obama- and likely you, based on the record).

[wyldwolf]

75. I asked for a list of issues they stood for and against.

:shrug:

Apparently you couldn't deliver that.

They favored New Deal programs and civil rights. They favored balanced budgets and high tax rates. They favored public works programs, public education and state-run college and universities. They were internationalists and firm believers in foreign aid. All in all, they weren't too much different than Roosevelt-Truman-Kennedy liberals or Democrats today - even conservative Democrats.

Except, apparently, they were no fan of health care reform before they essentially became extinct when Barry Goldwater secure the Republican nomination in '64 evidenced by Thomas Dewey's opposition to Harry Truman's plan. That alone disqualifies Obama as a "Rockefeller Republican." Does he share traits with them? Yes. But that also means he shares traits with the Democratic party at it's most successful period - 1930 - 1968.

YOUR problem is a skewed view of history - you seem to believe there was some golden age of progressivism in the Democratic party at some point and everyone is so far right of that movement now. That is a fantasy. In fact, the Democratic party has always rejected the "progressive" movement as has the American electorate. And, like many "progressives," you definitely don't understand the legislative process, believing a socialist-leaning progressive could get elected in this age and get bills passed through the Congress. And before you go "there," it doesn't matter what my personal political leanings are. Your stripe of Democrat is not dead because it was never existed - at least not in any real electoral sense.

[depakid]

76. As I said- pointless. I've provided a link upthread. Begin there and educate yourself.

If you dare.

It's a pretty simple topic, and there's tons written about it.

Other than that- you can continue on with your dishonest apologias, revisionist history and sorry excuses for your own failed, conservative political ideology until the cows come home.

[wyldwolf]

77. you're avoiding the question and sprinkling in that famous "progressive" revolutionary rhetoric

[depakid]

78. No- I've just been around the block with you on these matters one too many times over the years

[wyldwolf]

79. and your argument has always been you don't need to support anything with facts

[jefferson_dem]

62. It no longer surprises me...

the sort of thin-gruel hyperbole that passes for political commentary and analysis nowadays.

[Jennicut]

28. Politics has shifted way right since the days of Eisenhower and Rockefeller.

Essentially, Obama is shifting leftward, but that really puts us back in the middle. I think many people here are missing the point. In politics you usually don't go from extreme right to extreme left. Or vice versa. Obama is conventional but that is not necessarily the worst thing in the world. I am just surprised anyone expected him to be a Sanders or Kucinich type.

[impik]

29. Hang in there. Only three more years and you'll have someone much better in the White House

[Arkana]

44. +1

[Cha]

60. Nah, I say they're going to have to whine and squabble

for 7 more years.

[Name removed]

36. Deleted message

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

[Change Happens]

52. +1

[Name removed]

57. Deleted message

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

[frazzled]

40. What's with the "narcissism" obsession?

I just looked up this guy, and, among other things, he is author of a book titled Narcissistic Public Personalities & Our Times

That would seem to be an obsession that in itself is narcissistic: labeling all others narcissistic.

[Cha]

59. He's projecting his own fucking narcissism on everyone else.

[polichick]

45. Wonder why so few argue the points made. nt

[QC]

46. If this crowd ever does address the substance of a post

rather than trash the person who made it, you should alert the media, for it will truly be an event on a par with the moon landing.

[stevenleser]

47. There's no substance in an article that uses mindless & meaningless pejoratives like "Neoliberal" nt

[polichick]

48. LOL - so if you don't like one word, all the other info is null and void? nt

[stevenleser]

49. Yes. One word can ruin things completely. Let me know if you really need more examples. n/t

[polichick]

50. More examples of what - idiocy? What part of the statement in the op box isn't true? nt

[stevenleser]

51. Exactly. more examples of idiocy like use of the word Neoliberal. Now you are getting it. n/t

[polichick]

53. Your posts here are exceedingly lame - try again. nt

[Name removed]

54. Deleted message

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

[polichick]

56. Lame again. You're avoiding the question about the info in the op box. nt

[stevenleser]

90. There is no info in the op box. There is silliness purporting to be info n/t

[QC]

55. The word actually has a specific meaning.

It's been around since 1938, in fact, and has been commonly used since the 60s all over the English-speaking world to describe a school of economic thought ably represented by quite a few people in this administration.

The fact that you happen not to like the word means nothing in the bigger scheme of things, as does your apparent inability to deal with ideas rather than personalities.

[stevenleser]

84. No, it doesnt. Regardless of its original usage, it is now used as a meaningless pejorative.

Care to post the original meaning and see if it fits the way it was used in the OP?

[Kurt_and_Hunter]

67. Meaningless to people who don't know what it means. n/t

[JVS]

68. Are you familiar with economics?

That term is not meaningless.

[Cha]

58. The writer made sure there was no substance in the article.

[dionysus]

65. hmm, more fail porn....

:rofl:

[LWolf]

69. Yes. nt

[Name removed]

70. Deleted message

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

[Stoic]

80. Ditto for anyone who can't see that Obama is a pro-business conservative

I can't wait until he goes along with the "fixing" of Social Security, etc.

[ProSense]

81. "I can't wait until he goes along with the "fixing" of Social Security" Sounds like media spin

Democrats are using GOP cuts to Social Security to campaign against them.

From the SOTU:

Starting in 2011, we are prepared to freeze government spending for three years. (Applause.) Spending related to our national security, Medicare, Medicaid, and Social Security will not be affected. But all other discretionary government programs will.

Claiming Obama is a Republican is moronic.

[Name removed]

82. Deleted message

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

[democracy1st]

83. kick

[Ildem09]

85. Obama is a Rockefeller Republican

Hell even that is courteous to say. The fact of the matter is that Nixon's Social policies in regards to welfare and health care were to the left of Obama. Nixon favored price control for Milk and Eggs, He also proposed a negative income tax on those making below a certain amount so they would be granted a certain amount of money each year. I'm no Nixon sympathizer though, Lets talk about the Original modern moderate Republican Dwight Eisenhower, who warned about copious defense spending and the military industrial complex.

Your telling me that we need to spend over 500 billion annually to deal with criminals? It's a boondoggle, plain and simple. there is absolutely NO need to spend anything close to what we do now on Defense, It's just indicative of The President and his Administrations quasi- Neo Realist/ Neo Liberal Institutionalist (in an International relations paradigm) view of the world. It's a damn shame, because it didn't have to be like this.


Also, those claims about it's only be a year lay off.... well in modern politics, thats all we've got 1 year! thats it. because in year 2 it's campaign season, and nothing will get done because congresscritters are in self preservation mode. Especially in a year in which Democrats are going to loose seats. Year 3 turns into re-election mode for Obama, and the whole song and dance hit repeat.

The party is a big tent, I realize this, we are coalescing into our natural special interest groups. Upper Class Educated White folks are the newest members of the coalition by and large demographically speaking, The gay community, the latino community, the African american community,and Labor. we have largely lost undereducated working class whites demographically speaking. This tension that is going on in the party is partially the iconic divide in the democratic party.. traditional referred to as it's Presidential wing (the more liberal/affluent/educated) elected officials and their supporters verses the Congressional wing ( the more pragmatic/less affluent/ less educated) elected officials and their supporters- as per LBJ during his railing against Kennedy during the 1960 primaries. that divide I think is still there, it may have changed some but the underlying tension between the 'egghead' upper-class and now union folks V.S the less educated poorer segments of the party


As a Political Scientist. I know booooooo I'm an academic and I'm ashamed that members of our party would start resorting to maligning the Ivory Tower. Just because we are critics of the president on a great many issues, doesn't mean we don't like him personally. I've met him he is a heck of a nice guy. we just take offense when others start criticizing our loyalty to the Democratic Party. Just as much as you are when we call you naive, or blind, or cheerleaders. We need to try and understand each other, where we are each coming from, if we are to move forward

[ProSense]

86. And what was

Rockefeller: the 1933 Economy Act as one of his first major pieces of legislation-an act which cut federal spending by nearly 250 million dollars during the first months of his administration.

A Republican?

[Ildem09]

87. Indeed

however, I was speaking in the broader general concept of a Modern Rockefeller Republican was and what the moniker entailed I.e. Lincoln Chaffee, I through Castle and Mark Kirk in the mix as well, and based on his state voting record Scott Brown. Tell me where Ben Nelson and Lincoln Chaffee Substantially disagreed, that didn't place Chafee to the left of Nelson or hell insert Blanch Lincoln and Lieberman.
I'm Just saying Obama is a Moderate, we could get into a debate on whether or not he mis-represented himself in the primary or not, thats not the issue. the issue is we have to figure out how to put our intra part differences aside to move forward

[ProSense]

88. So Obama is a

"Modern Rockefeller Republican"?

"Tell me where Ben Nelson and Lincoln Chaffee Substantially disagreed, that didn't place Chafee to the left of Nelson or hell insert Blanch Lincoln and Lieberman."

What do any of these people have to do with Obama?

[Ildem09]

89. my last post was

dealing with the confines in which i define the modern Rockefeller Republican. and the overarching idea that moderate malaise that has infected modern politics has bleed over from both sides. though increasingly ours. because the GOP has decided to purge their ranks. what will be interesting will be to see if they can win a majority with their ideological purity intact.