Is the President's "progressive" talk helping or hurting the Democratic Party?

[kentuck]

Is it helping to unite the Democrats or will it divide the Party?

Will it make the Democratic Party stronger in the next election or weaker?

Will the President get credit for defending the programs of the New Deal and the Great Society or will he get blamed for losing them?

If President does manage to save Medicare and Social Security from these radical right-wingers, how would history accord him?

Is it good we stand together to defend these programs?

Or should we simply let the Republican right-wingers dismantle them without a fight?

If the President wants to lead in this battle, I stand behind him.

[FiveGoodMen]

1. Progressive talk is the ONLY thing that will help the party.

It's what's been missing for three decades.

[walldude]

2. +1 Can't argue with that! n/t

[Vincardog]

4. No we need progressive I mean LIBERAL ACTION.

[FiveGoodMen]

5. Well, true; talk without action won't win the day

But the pukes have been getting their memes shoved into everyone's heads for 30 years without any real opposition.

Fox may be the most glaring example, but the 'liberal media' -- :banghead: -- have been favoring the RW lies for quite a while.

One reason: There haven't been many sound bites coming from the (mostly absent) left so the public has been fed the same slanted story for their whole lives.

A little left-wing talk (call it progressive, liberal, whatever -- just so it favors the truth and the average citizen) is sorely needed.

[Vincardog]

10. TRUE THAT

[craigmatic]

8. Actually we need socialism but I'll take what I can get.

[Vincardog]

3. If the President wants to FINALLY lead in this battle, I stand behind him. As long as he steers a

true LIBERAL course. I am TIRED of being lied to.

[Ozymanithrax]

6. The answers to your questions.

Is the President's "progressive" talk helping or hurting the Democratic Party?

Supporting changes that improves the lives of middle class and poor will help the party. I'm not sure if that is progressive in a historical sense. Progressives detested Social Security and considered FDR a Banker.

Is it helping to unite the Democrats or will divide the Party?

The Conservadem/Blue Dogs, DLC, Bushdems. Boll weevils, Dixicrats. Bipartisans wings of the democratic party may be concerned that his rhetoric will not encourage the Compromise that has historically been seen as necessary for running government. But unless they are going to vote Republican or for a third party it is unlikely to be a problem.

Will it make the Democratic Party stronger in the next election or weaker?

I think it will make the party stronger by appealing to the independents who do not pay attention to the election until a week before it happens.

Will the President get credit for defending the programs of the New Deal and the Great Society or will he get blamed for losing them?

He will be blamed for anything he doesn't veto that weakens these programs. Some people (on the left and right) will blame him for a rainy day, so they won't matter.

If President does manage to save Medicare and Social Security from these radical right-wingers, how would history accord him?

As one of the great Presidents, assuming he doesn't blow it in some other fashion.

Is it good we stand together to defend these programs?

It is better to hang together, especially since if we don't we will hang separately.

Or should we simply let the Republican right-wingers dismantle them without a fight?

I don't believe in laying down like a whipped dog, even if we are doomed to lose. It is better to burn then to fade away. Johnny Rotten got that much right.

If the President wants to lead in this battle, I stand behind him.

I stand behind him as long as he does something besides talk. Actions speak louder than words. Giving a good speech and then surrendering never occurred to Custer. Even if this is the liberals Little Big Horn, it should not occur to us.

[craigmatic]

7. It helps cuz he's not proposing anything new except taxes and combining it with protecting programs

people need and care about.

[MannyGoldstein]

9. They'll be gutted, but saved

I'd love to believe that Obama will lead a real fight, but tigers never change their stripes.

The "compromise" will be Simpson-Bowles, which Obama's own bipartisan commission voted 11-7 to approve. Among other things, Simpson-Bowles calls for more than 22% in lifetime cuts to the average Social Security recipient, more than $50,000 per recipient.

These recommendations were always Obama's end goal, as the commission's recommendations were essentially set in stone when Obama announced his appointments - his appointees had been very vocal about what they'd do prior to being appointed.

[notesdev]

11. It ain't the "talk" that's the problem

it's the "do"... or not do, as it were.