For those that believe Obama acts like a Republican, let's take a look at what Republicans propose.

[BzaDem]

Unfortunately, much of the discussion about Obama gets clouded and obfuscated by the fact that it is about a personality rather than about policy. It is very easy to make the indefensible statement that Obama is merely a Republican in sheep's clothing, because to that person, it isn't even logically possible that the statement is false. Whatever Obama does, there will always be some theoretical outcome to the left, which means (to them) Obama is ipso facto a Republican. The same rhetorical tactics were used against Clinton, and Gore as a candidate. For that matter, the opposite argument was made about both Bushes from the right, and even Reagan at the time of his presidency. It's nothing new.

So instead of arguing over whether Obama is or is not a Republican, it's instructive to look at what Republicans are actually proposing. What is their vision for the country?

For example, many here at least voice support for Supreme Court decisions like Roe v. Wade, and voice opposition to decisions like Citizens United. But for some, these decisions are really not all that important -- MUCH less important than "making a point" by allowing the Republican nominee to win in 2012. Preserving abortion rights and abolishing corporate control of elections are topics they tend to support in the abstract, but when it comes time to actually do something about it, those issues take minuscule importance compared to the supposed indignity of participating in the two party system we have in this country.

So rather than talking about where Republicans want to take us on judicial issues such as abortion rights or corporate electioneering (which have sufficiently low priority for some when it actually comes time for action), let's talk about something that perhaps for some hits closer to home. Medicare. What do Republicans plan to do with Medicare? And I don't mean to be asking what the most extreme Republicans would like to do. I mean what do mainstream Republicans plan to do -- and will likely successfully do -- the next time they have the Presidency and Congress?

The short answer is that we will find out when they release their budget in the coming weeks. But this much we already know -- they propose to end Medicare as a single-payer system, and instead give vouchers for private insurance. These vouchers will not grow at the rate that health costs grow -- they will instead only grow at inflation, which means the value will gradually approach zero (relative to the cost of treatment). They plan to attempt to politically insulate themselves from attacks by ensuring that their proposal only harms those 55 and under (a voting block that votes at a lower rate than those 65 and over). They will argue that they are doing this to "preserve benefits" in the future (especially for those 65 and over, attempting to pit groups against each other).

So in reality, Republicans really do want to abolish Medicare -- gradually, over many years/decades, so the boiling frog doesn't recognize it. And they will likely have the power to do it, as unlike with Social Security legislation, Medicare legislation can be passed with reconciliation in the Senate. (Their plan for Medicaid is similar -- just cap it off and watch it wither away and die -- but they would like have that take effect immediately, rather than in 10 years, since they don't believe the poor pose a political threat to them.)

So for those that say that "it has to get worse before it gets better" -- are you really willing to take that gamble? Perhaps it will get worse, but rather than getting better after that, it will stay worse?

[MineralMan]

1. But...but...but...

Here it comes!

Recced.

[Name removed]

2. Deleted message

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

[Marblehead]

8. WTF

I thought people on this board where above name calling.

[iamjoy]

3. Death Panels

That is what the Republicans are proposing. Only instead of it being an apocryphal government run death panel it will be an actual corporate run death panel.

It works like this. I turn 65. There's no single payer medical care. I am given a voucher for $3,000 to get my own insurance. But, the only policy available for that amount doesn't cover much of anything. Or maybe I can't find any policy within my budget. The doctor tells me I need some type of expensive treatment to live. If I have insurance, this life saving treatment isn't covered. The doctor says, "I'm sorry to hear that. Here's the number for Hospice."

[AndyTiedye]

4. Thing Always Get Worse Before They Get…

…really, really, really, bad.

Letting things get even worse in the hope that they will be better some day
makes no sense. You just have a deeper hole to try to climb out of.

If the Republicans win, we will certainly lose Roe v. Wade.
We would also lose Griswold v. Connecticut and Lawrence v. Texas.

We are at most one wingnut justice away from losing all of them.


Kicked and Recommended

[Posteritatis]

5. I wish more posters here could wield the Bat of Perspective as well as you just did. (nt)

[Modern_Matthew]

6. I don't refute any of that. I just wish he were FARTHER left. nt

[inna]

13. he's not anywhere near left. nt

[BzaDem]

22. He is as left a president as we are ever going to have during your life.

Regardless of your disagreement as to label.

[inna]

27. miss crystal ball. never say "ever". i may live another 70 years, and your prediction

is plainly ridiculous.

regardless of your disagreement.

[BzaDem]

31. What's sad is that you actually believe what you are saying.

You actually think that there will be a president non-negligably further to the left, and that "it has to get worse before it gets better" to get there. Eventually, you will figure it out, but at that point we will be much worse off than we would have been otherwise.

[inna]

37. where can i get crystal ball like yours? lol

- but seriously, i think your perspective on this is extremely rigid and limited.

[BzaDem]

40. For one, you could look at our Constitution

and see how it structurally prevents change. (Any system that requires three separate bodies/branches to pass legislation and a willing executive to implement it will necessarily limit the potential outcomes, since the default position when people disagree will often be to do nothing. Our system makes it incredibly easy to block change, but incredibly difficult to pass it -- unlike the systems of most countries.)

In addition, you could look at history. No Democratic President has been as liberal as Obama going back at least 4 decades. And beyond that, you will find that the only reason FDR and LBJ got ANYTHING passed was because of an alliance between racists Southern Democrats and actual Democrats. That is what gave FDR and LBJ their majorities (which were MUCH, MUCH bigger than Obama's majorities).

[inna]

33. major social changes are going to take place during my life; that is a fact.

The system is unsustainable as is; hopefully, things will change toward more people-oriented system of government (although that is far from certain).

[BzaDem]

35. Oh I don't doubt that there will be changes.

If some people on DU get their way, there will be significant changes. For example, healthcare costs are indeed unsustainable for the budget. If some people on DU get their way, Republicans will be able to make it sustainable for our budget by simply having the federal government stop paying for anyone's healthcare, bit by bit over decades.

[socialist_n_TN]

7. Define Republican.........

When I speak of Obama enacting Republican policies, I mean just that. He's enacting moderate Republican policies from the 90s. Now does that mean he's as bad as the batshit crazy Republican Party of today? I really don't think that anybody is arguing that.

I can say I'll probably vote for Obama as the lesser evil, but NOT be happy that I'm voting for the 90s version of Mitt Romney.

[BzaDem]

9. I think there are different types of "moderate Republican policies from the 90s."

For example, there are indeed policies that back in the 90s, a few moderate Republicans supported. But I don't think that is super relevant, since much of the time, the moderate Republicans were just supporting it to insulate themselves politically. It isn't something that the Republicans would ever have enacted if they had the power.

Another example would be something like Romneycare. But liberal opposition to something like Romneycare is somewhat curious. For one, Romneycare might have been signed by Romney, but it was passed by a legislature whose makeup was something like 8-1 Democratic. But more importantly, in terms of goals such as access, Romneycare at least moves in something approximating the correct direction. I can completely understand people feeling it does not go far enough (it certainly didn't, nor did Obamacare, and nor would anything Obama could have passed). But it did increase access, and it didn't do so by cannibalizing public programs like Medicaid. (In fact, it INCREASED Medicaid coverage significantly.)

So I don't think it's necessarily wrong to enact policies that might be "moderate Republican"-ish in how FAR they go (i.e. not far enough), but nevertheless go in the correct direction (such as increased access versus decreased access). On the other hand, "moderate Republican"-ish policies that go in the WRONG direction (such as lowering access) should indeed be opposed. But many of the policies people are criticizing Obama for go in the correct direction -- they just don't do so as much as some would like. (Same on financial reform.) Is that really a good reason though to oppose doing anything, or to oppose Obama for trying to do something?

[socialist_n_TN]

26. RE: your third paragraph:.........

What about people like me who have NEVER been a "moderate Republican"? I want somebody who will actually FIGHT FOR something that actually does some good, not just stop the bleeding. IF you fight FOR something and are outvoted in Congress, well at least you TRIED to get something done. After you've done all you can to get something REAL accomplished, THEN going in the right direction will have to be enough. I even think that if you fight FOR the correct policies, the compromises you wind up having to make to get ANYTHING accomplished just MIGHT be further toward correct than when you compromise PRE negotiation.

When you compromise pre negotiation, you just wind up encouraging the bullies and dispiriting you supporters.

BTW, I'm not a knee jerk Obama detractor, even though I agree with the general sentiment that we have two wings of the Corporatist Party in the Dems and the Reps. Just the other day when he said he would veto any bill that came to his desk overturning the right to organize for federal employees, I posted congratulations on the position he took and hopes that he wouldn't "compromise" on this position. I'm also not one that has disparaged him for not getting involved in the state union issues in the last few months. He should stay out of it UNTIL he can do something LIKE HE DID WITH THE FEDERAL POSITION.

[BzaDem]

39. Why do you feel that passing policies in Congress has anything to do with "negotiation?"

Negotiation occurs when two sides both WANT a particular outcome, and they therefore have an incentive to remain at the negotiating table. For example, in a labor negotiation, both sides want to avert a strike (among other things).

But in a healthcare negotiation, it is NOT the case that both sides want a bill passed. The other side is more than HAPPY to walk away from the table and let the whole thing die in a ball of fire. Even the conservative Democrats really couldn't have cared less if a bill passed -- and they certainly weren't going to let anything pass that didn't conform to their exact specifications. They were willing to walk away from the table because they didn't care about healthcare at all.

If the legislative process resembles anything like a negotiation, it resembles a hostage negotiation, where the hostage taker faces no consequences (and possible benefits) from shooting the hostage.

You say that compromising rewards hostage takers by "encouraging the bullies." But in reality, the EXACT opposite is true. FAILURE to compromise (and having the plan collapse) is what encourages the bullies -- it shows the world that they are willing to shoot the hostage, and makes everyone take them more seriously the next time. It gives them FAR more power in the future -- at no consequence to them.

In reality, the "fight" occurs on election day, and on basically no other day. The make-up of Congress is what decides what bills pass and what they say. When the elections determined that Ben Nelson was the 60th vote in the Senate, and a blue dog was the 218th vote in the House, no "fight" was ever going to change that. In fact, the healthcare debate was proof positive of that. Obama called for and pushed for a public option in event after event, day after day after day. Much of the August Recess was spent arguing over the public option. Yet Obama kept pushing, got the House to pass it, and even got it into the bill that hit the Senate floor. Only at the last moment, where healthcare was literally going to die if they didn't compromise, did they compromise.

In other words, Obama did exactly what you wished he would do. But then you claim he didn't even fight for it. While I think "fights" are mostly irrelevant to the outcome (outside of election day), Obama did exactly what you wanted (in terms of technique).

[socialist_n_TN]

44. No he didn't. There was no bully pulpit used...........

in the health care debate. I didn't hear Obama saying on TV that 70% of the population wants at LEAST a public option in this health care bill, so call and write your Reps and Senators about this. GO TO BAT FOR THE FUCKING THING. He ALWAYS takes the most left position off the table BEFORE any negotiation begins. Then negotiates THAT away. THAT IS HIS M.O. Or it has been his whole Presidency.

[timtom]

10. Democrats? Republicans?

Bah! Try corporatists vs the common man.

[BzaDem]

11. Is there anything in this post from a policy perspective that you can refute?

The whole point of moving towards policies (instead of people) is so the argument could be less about labels and more about reality.

[timtom]

14. How about : we're still in Iraq.

Is that Democrat or Republican?

[BzaDem]

20. The existence of a similarity does not prove (or even hint at) the abscence of a difference. n/t

[timtom]

41. Well, since you've taken us into the wonderful world

of pettifoggery, I should point out that your post is unclear. Did you mean "abscess" or "absence?" See? Isn't tripping over a dollar to save a dime fun?

[BzaDem]

42. I think my point was actually substantive.

In general, showing similarities does not show that no differences (or no significant differences) exist. It just doesn't.

[timtom]

45. I guess my primary contention is the degree of importance

accorded to party labels. The REAL substantive issue is: what the hell are we still doing in Iraq and Afghanistan and on the verge of going to Libya, anyhow? And DEMOCRATS (yes, Democrats) on this board, even, support, right now, our staying in Afghanistan. But we are really in those places at the behest of the corporatocracy. It is not Republican/Democrat sort of dichotomy.

[BeFree]

15. Any day now....

....Obama is sure to put those damned republicans in their place.

He's just hugging and kissing the pukes for now. Just for show.

[TheKentuckian]

16. Toward your limited and contained perspective of reality.

Meanwhile, Bush and the baggers aren't the first Republicans that some of us can recall.

He doesn't pass Teabagger policies but the "Third Way" bullshit is Republican enough as to make no difference other than rhetoric used to sell corporate exploitation.

[BzaDem]

19. You contradict yourself in the same sentence. You say he doesn't pass Teabagger policies

which is by definition a difference. (Not passing teabagger policies is different than passing teabagger policies). But then you say there is "no difference other than rhetoric."

Which is it?

This is kind of precisely my point. People use rhetoric like "no difference" even when they know there are significant differences. But rarely do they contradict themselves and admit there is indeed a difference in the very same sentence.

[hfojvt]

12. here's another example

original Obama proposal (which he didn't fight for)

(average tax cut and percent going to various income levels)

Lowest 20% $ –507 * 4.7%
Second 20% –993 * 9.2%
Middle 20% –1,348 * 12.5
Fourth 20% –2,074 * 19.3
Next 15% –3,996 * 27.7
Next 4% –7,151 * 13.2
Top 1% –28,728 * 13.3
Addendum:
2011 cost ($-billion) $ –301

a comparison of the Republican proposal with the final surrender-compromise

Lowest 20% $ –241 (1.6%) $ –396 (2.6%)
Second 20% –851 (5.8%) –992 (6.6%)
Middle 20% –1,443 (9.9) –1,521 (10.1)
Fourth 20% –2,517 (17.2) –2,544 (16.9)
Next 15% –5,059 (25.9) –5,065 (25.2)
Next 4% –9,878 (13.4) –9,878 (13.1)
Top 1% –76,949 (26.1) –76,949 (25.4)
Addendum:
2011 cost ($-billion) $–413 $ –424

http://www.ctj.org/pdf/taxcompromise2010.pdf


Let's see, Republicans wanted 26.1% for the wealthy, but thanks to Obama, they only got 25.4%. 97.3% of what they wanted. Liberals, on the other hand, wanted 13.3% (or less) for the wealthy, but got 25.4%. Only 52.4% of what they wanted. 25.4 is just a lot closer to 26.1 than it is to 13.3.

Now, on the other side. Conservatives wanted 1.6% for the bottom 20%, but got 2.6%. Only 61.5% of what they wanted. Liberals, otoh wanted 4.7% for the bottom 20%, but got 2.6%. Only 55% of what they wanted. Again, 2.6 is closer to 1.6 than it is to 4.7.

The President managed to make a deal that was surprising close to the Republicans' original plan.

If you consider that Obama's original plan was a "compromise" or "moderate" plan rather than a liberal plan that would include even higher taxes on the rich, such as Robert Reich and myself (among others) have proposed, then there does not seem to be a big difference, when all was said and done, between Obama and the Republicans when it comes to tax breaks for the rich. Except that Obama promises that "next time I will actually do what I promised to do last time".

Uh huh. How does that saying go "fool me once ..."

[BzaDem]

28. "If you consider that Obama's original plan was a "compromise" or "moderate" plan rather

"rather than a liberal plan"

As I said, it is ALWAYS possible to take ANY position and find a position to its left. It is easy, and mechanical. For example, I can take Reich's proposal, and say that Reich's proposal is very similar to the Republican position, because it allows the upper 1% to keep ANY of their wealth.

In other words, under your proposal/Reich's proposal, the wealthy can keep all of their previous wealth, and under the Republican proposal, the wealthy can similarly keep all of their previous wealth! STOP SUPPORTING REPUBLICAN POLICIES! </sarcasm>

Similarly, some Republicans claim Bush is a closet Democrat, because he didn't close a single executive department (let alone half of them like they wanted).

"Uh huh. How does that saying go "fool me once ...""

How would Obama be fooling you? It's not like we're going to have a more liberal President than Obama.

[Toucano]

17. Oh, that familiar Roe v. Wade boogy man.

The Democratic Party has been riding that dead horse for 40 years, while they continue to represent the plutocracy day in and day out.

It's their version of School Prayer and the Flag Burning Amendment.

"If you don't vote for us, you'll lose the right to choose."

Thank you, but that record needs to be changed. We have a right to demand that our representatives represent us on ALL the issues.

[BzaDem]

21. How is it a "boogy man?" How is "riding that horse" a bad thing AT ALL? Isnt the truth a GOOD thing?

I assume you wouldn't dispute the fact that a Republican replacement of Justice Kennedy would once and for all end Roe v. Wade.

So given that, wouldn't repeating this from the rooftops be unambiguously a good thing?

You are basically saying "stop bringing up unquestionably true points, because they destroy my argument!"

[Armstead]

30. Okay here's part of the problem with that

Whenever there is a vacancy on the Supreme Court, it ALWAYS boils down to whether a nominee is pro-choice or not. The whole debate centers around that.....Meanwhile the actual stance of nominees on such issues as consumer/worker rights vs. corporate rights and public vs. privater rights in economics and resources gets shoved under the carpet.

The Democrats are as complicit in that as the Republicans are.

I am NOT saying the issue of Choice is not important. However, it is often used to deflect attention from the core issues of wealth and power.

[BzaDem]

32. My point is that anyone who would even think of not voting for the Democratic nominee necessarily

puts Choice at a low priority.

This is so obvious it should really go without saying. If Choice is such a low priority that one is willing to sacrifice it on the alter of "making it worse so it can get better later," then it is (by definition) a low priority.

You are correct that there are other issues that are important as well. (And you will find that Democratic nominees tend to vote differently than Republican nominees on all the issues you mentioned.) But that doesn't argue against my point.

[Armstead]

38. My point was not that that issue is not one important factor...

But in watching the process over the years and the media coverage, there is seldom much attention paid to those other issues.

Therefore judges are called "liberal" or "moderate" if they are pro-choice, regardless of whether their record might also showe a distrubing tendency to support corporate power.

[Toucano]

53. Who's sacrificing choice? "Roe" is not the only avenue to maintaining choice.

Republicans have seen the statistics.

They've analyzed the incidents of abortions performed by ethnicity in the United States.

http://www.time.com/time/health/article/0,8599,1843717,00.html

White, non-Hispanic: 11 per 1,000 women
Hispanic: 28 per 1,000 women
Black: 50 per 1,000 women

If there's anything Republicans are committed to, it's bringing more minority babies into the world. Did you miss the placards at the last rally?

Ending abortion is not in their self-interest which is why they've done so very little about it, other than use the issue to rally the base.

[Toucano]

52. Not at all. What do you mean "unquestionably true"?

There's nothing about your case that's "unquestionably true". The very notion means you've put dogma over thought.

A Republican appointed David Souter, if you'll recall.

So, no. I'm not convinced that a Republican president's replacement of Kennedy would once and for all end Roe v. Wade. I'm not even sure Republicans want that. Having controlled Congress for so long, when was the last time they passed a constitutional amendment banning abortion? Maybe it has something to do with only 28% of Republicans polled in 2003 having said that abortions should not be permitted.

But I'm not sure that's even the point. Would overturning Roe would end the right to choose? Our would it just require people to be active on the state level to protect the right to choose there?

We already live with no federal funding for a supposedly constitutionally protected procedure. Maybe it's a matter better left to the states?


What I do know - beyond any doubt - is that every time the Democrats are in trouble for betraying their base an every single other issue, they raise the specter of Roe v. Wade. It's their version of ginning up fear among the base. It's their boogy man to get soldiers moving.

I reject that.

As important as I think unrestricted access to medical care is, I am unconvinced that maintaining Roe v Wade is among our highest priorities and our only avenue to achieve that unrestricted access.

[sufrommich]

58. You must be male. No democratic woman would dismiss

defending Roe v. Wade as "beating a dead horse".

[Curmudgeoness]

18. The teabag Republicans right now are not the same horse

that the Republicans of just a few years ago were. The proposals that they are making are extreme far-right. But just a few years ago, no self-respecting Democrat would agree with policies that are now considered Democrat policies.

The battle seems to be Republicans policies vs. Teabagger nut cse policies. The left does not exist except for a few brave souls.

[leftstreet]

23. You make a great case for questioning Obama's obsession with bipartisanship

As you point out, these people are extreme

Yet Obama wants to reach across the aisle...

weird

[BzaDem]

25. Of course, you would define "reach across the aisle" in a way that would include keeping the

government operating. And then you would take that weak definition and pretend that it implies he wants to work with them to destroy Medicare.

As you said, "Weird." (Though expected -- it is difficult to legitimately refute points that are unquestionably true.)

[leftstreet]

29. The Democrats had two years to do amazing things

Starting in 2006, and again in 2008, voters handed them a mandate - destroying the Republican party and repudiating Reaganomics

But, then...




Yes, "weird" is the only polite term I could think to use

[BzaDem]

34. Any time anyone mentions that an election signals the "destruction" of a major political party

it usually shows they know very little about political science.

Though in truth, Obama went WAY out of his way to run as a post-partisan, moderate candidate. This was apparent based on basically every decision he took. He literally tried to out-moderate Clinton in the primaries (let alone the general). Yet only now, when there is no longer Bush to whine about, have people looked for something new to complain about and found Obama.

[Armstead]

36. The fact that he "went WAY out of his way...etc" is a legitimate "complaint

Moderation in the face of extremism is no virtue (to slightly change the words of Barry Goldwater, who actually did prove to be a foreshadowing of where the country was headed).

When Republicans are throwing out a bunch of crap that is crap at its core, then it is not helpful when the Democrats simply echo that with slightly less crappy crap.

[leftstreet]

47. Bullshit. Obama ran as a leftist

Universal (wink-nudge) healthcare for all

Rescind Bush's tax cuts

Jobs! Jobs! Jobs!

blah, blah, blah

FFS even Fox News painted him as a SoCIalIsT - and he won anyway


The truth is, now that there's "no longer Bush to whine about" the Democrats and the Obama Admin don't know how to look like an opposition party

[BzaDem]

51. You should have read his healthcare plan. While it was different than the one he passed, it was

definitely not universal, relied mostly on private insurance, and left fifteen million people out on its own terms. This was an issue in several primary debates.

[Armstead]

24. He's not a Republican but he is a Centrist Corporatist

A kinder and gentler version of the same old, same old.

Why shoot the wad on Health Care Reform that enshrines the Insurance Monopolists as the only source of coverage for average Americans -- and which doesn't really contain any teeth in terms of regulating price-gouging and the behavior of those insurance oligarchs?

The Centrist Corporatists -- and Obama is one -- are trying to put lipstick on a pig and call it "reform."

[I Drink Water]

43. Sorry, but I don't see a revolutionary paradigm shift occuring. I don't believe Obama has

rolled back the Reagan Revolution, which has been a dominant force in American political landscape for over three decades. I can agree that there have been minor changes and Obama does not always act like a Republican, but nothing revolutionary is occurring. For the large part, Obama is continuing, not overturning the hard right movement that has been occurring for over three decades.

[pnwmom]

46. That's a straw man. Obama may not have rolled back the Reagan revolution,

but he's still pulling against it -- as opposed to many in the Rethug party, who want to go further than Reagan even dreamed.

[I Drink Water]

48. I did not misintepret anyone's opinion. I see no major shift or any attempt

of a major shift in polices that have been occurring for the past 30 years. I certainly agree that there have been some marginal changes and that there is a clear difference between Obama and the hard right elements of the GOP. However, I see no fundamental change in policies. Unless, we undergo a paradigm shift, then we are going to continue in this groove of antagonistic class warfare of the rich capturing the productivity gains and politicians for their own narrow interests. Then combined this fact with a love of neo-con foreign policy and we arrive at modern day America.

I certainly agree that there are some stark difference between Obama and Republicans. However, I also believe that there is considerable overlap between the policies that are being enacted by this administration and Republicans policies that have dominated the America's political landscape for the past 30 years.

[Tom Rinaldo]

49. Nah, he's a Bob Dole Democrat

and that is still measurably to the left of current Republicans.

[Armstead]

50. Yay -- Haven't seen a post by you in a while

Missed your common sense

[Paradoxical]

56. Being to the left of the extreme right does not make you a leftist.

[JackRiddler]

54. That's not the measure. Let's look at what CANDIDATE Obama proposed...

and how much of it he bothered with once in office.

Because when he came in most of it turned into continuing the Bushian status quo, from Guantanamo to the bankster bailouts to the untouchable war machine budget to offshore drill, baby drill. Not even the Gulf disaster changed that.

And even his biggest achievement began with a preemptive cave-in on single-payer and public option and ended as a bonanza for private insurance and drug companies.

Look at what Bush did, so much of it criminal, so much of it extreme. Now tell us how much of it Obama has moved to reverse. (Note I'm saying, MOVED to reverse; it's about direction, not speed.) The criminals of the prior administration run free.

[BzaDem]

57. Why isn't it EXACTLY the correct measure? Why isn't your measure totally wrong?

Let's assume for a second that you are correct. (You are not correct at all, but let's assume you are for the sake of argument.) Let's say Obama didn't reverse most of what Bush did.

But what if the alternative is to reverse all of what LBJ did, and much of what FDR did? What if the alternative makes Bush himself look like LBJ or FDR, in relative terms?

In that case, in terms of making a choice between voting for Obama or the alternative (the only two candidates that have a chance at winning), the only thing that matters is which is better. Any other metric is pointless naval gazing.

[JackRiddler]

61. You are only interested in partisan points for Obama, and ignore how Democrats enable Republicans.

I refuse to play your hypotheticals.

Democrats have lived in terror of Republicans and most of them have enabled the Republican program since 1980. If they had fought, it would be different. I cited a number of specific ways in which Obama continues the Bush program. This is paving the way for the next Bush, or the next Republican. Obama didn't even try to break the cycle. You let them get away with crime, they come back. Obama saving the Bush agenda will be the reason for the next Republican president, and not your imagined failure of the left to kowtow sufficiently.

[MilesColtrane]

55. Latest Republican Party Platform I could find on short notice.

http://www.gop.com/2008Platform/

It reads like so: Increase defense spending, Repeal the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act (HCR, or "Obamacare"), No carbon cap & trade, Increase offshore drilling, Vouchers for private schools, Less business regulation, Cut tax rates for the wealthiest, No stem cell research, Phase out Medicare, etc..

(Funny that they've got stuff in there about worker's rights to join a union and collectively bargain. Bet we're not going to be seeing that stricken come next year's convention.)

[Angry Dragon]

59. It is sad that we have few good choices

[Chris_Texas]

60. Obama has fought harder to betray his "beliefs" than he has fought for them

[krabigirl]

62. I noticed you mentioned nothing about the wars, nt

[walldude]

63. Yes Republicans are much worse.

Woo Hoo. That's a huge comfort for some and meaningless to others. All depends on your situation and your perspective.


This next election for many people out here is the equivalent of a punch in the face or a kick in the stomach.

Congratulations on your kick in the stomach you might feel bad but you'll still look good.

[marmar]

64. I think the mainstream of the Democratic Party acts like Repugs circa 1988

...... the left has moved further to the right.