HomeLatest ThreadsGreatest ThreadsForums & GroupsMy SubscriptionsMy Posts
DU Home » Latest Threads » Forums & Groups » Main » General Discussion (Forum) » President Obama can easil...

Sun Dec 30, 2012, 09:28 PM

 

President Obama can easily satisfy and silence liberal critics

Some folks have said that President Obama’s liberal critics are purists, and that we will accept nothing less than progressive perfection. That, like the Tea Party folks on the right, anything less than this leaves us frothing in self-righteous rage.

I disagree. In my opinion, silencing the critics is easy.

Your liberal critics are not fools. We understand that politics is the art of the possible, and that it requires compromise. We knew this when we voted. But the promise, the expectation, was that we were sending a champion of our beliefs to the negotiation table. Someone to fight for our principles.

We voted for someone to demand and fight for…

* Ending the wars.
* Drastic cuts in military spending.
* Closing Gitmo and all the secret prisons.
* Eliminating the Patriot act and all domestic spying.
* Removal of the cap on social security.
* Lowering the age of eligibility and increasing benefits.
* Increasing safety net spending.
* Massive and necessary infrastructure investment.
* Radically increasing the tax rate on affluent Americans.
* Taxing capital gains as income.
* Significant efforts to address wealth inequality.
* A champion of civil rights for ALL.
* Eliminating so-called Free Trade Agreements.
* Blanket amnesty for illegal immigrants.
* Serious action to address global warming.
* Single payer healthcare.

Obviously, being intelligent people, we knew we would not get everything we wanted; we might not get anything we wanted. We knew our champion might have to compromise, but our beliefs would be represented.

President Obama asked for that job. Now he is refusing to do it. He is positioning himself, not as the champion of liberal democratic voters (or even the majority of Americans), but as the voice of rational conservatism.

President Obama, silencing your liberal critics is easy. Stop representing the GOP and start representing the people who voted for you. That’s the job you said you wanted, so do it.

166 replies, 8743 views

Reply to this thread

Back to top Alert abuse

Always highlight: 10 newest replies | Replies posted after I mark a forum
Replies to this discussion thread
Arrow 166 replies Author Time Post
Reply President Obama can easily satisfy and silence liberal critics (Original post)
Demo_Chris Dec 2012 OP
Igel Dec 2012 #1
Recursion Dec 2012 #6
pnwmom Dec 2012 #11
marlakay Dec 2012 #14
CincyDem Dec 2012 #88
Demo_Chris Dec 2012 #61
MADem Dec 2012 #26
Demo_Chris Dec 2012 #66
Tarheel_Dem Dec 2012 #126
think Dec 2012 #2
uponit7771 Dec 2012 #3
One of the 99 Dec 2012 #63
RobertEarl Dec 2012 #4
Pretzel_Warrior Dec 2012 #5
snot Dec 2012 #7
Liberal_Stalwart71 Dec 2012 #101
starroute Dec 2012 #8
Demo_Chris Dec 2012 #67
Liberalynn Dec 2012 #83
pnwmom Dec 2012 #9
CheapShotArtist Dec 2012 #21
rhett o rick Dec 2012 #22
pnwmom Dec 2012 #38
sabrina 1 Dec 2012 #59
Demo_Chris Dec 2012 #68
Liberal_Stalwart71 Dec 2012 #102
woo me with science Dec 2012 #114
sabrina 1 Dec 2012 #131
rhett o rick Jan 2013 #158
Drew Richards Dec 2012 #139
rhett o rick Jan 2013 #159
rhett o rick Jan 2013 #160
hfojvt Dec 2012 #58
patrice Dec 2012 #29
Egalitarian Thug Dec 2012 #30
pnwmom Dec 2012 #40
Demo_Chris Dec 2012 #69
pnwmom Dec 2012 #123
Demo_Chris Dec 2012 #137
RC Jan 2013 #151
socialist_n_TN Jan 2013 #164
Egalitarian Thug Dec 2012 #134
pnwmom Dec 2012 #135
Egalitarian Thug Jan 2013 #155
Egalitarian Thug Jan 2013 #156
Egalitarian Thug Jan 2013 #157
rhett o rick Jan 2013 #161
obxhead Dec 2012 #10
patrice Dec 2012 #12
pasto76 Dec 2012 #13
think Dec 2012 #15
Summer Hathaway Dec 2012 #48
think Dec 2012 #51
Summer Hathaway Dec 2012 #52
think Dec 2012 #54
Summer Hathaway Dec 2012 #55
think Dec 2012 #109
Summer Hathaway Dec 2012 #132
LineLineReply .
Capt. Obvious Dec 2012 #57
boxman15 Dec 2012 #110
Capt. Obvious Dec 2012 #116
Demo_Chris Dec 2012 #70
annabanana Dec 2012 #82
timesamillion Dec 2012 #112
DisgustipatedinCA Dec 2012 #124
RC Jan 2013 #152
NashvilleLefty Dec 2012 #16
Demo_Chris Dec 2012 #72
MotherPetrie Dec 2012 #17
Drunken Irishman Dec 2012 #18
bama_blue_dot Dec 2012 #19
DisgustipatedinCA Dec 2012 #125
Drunken Irishman Dec 2012 #20
Cha Dec 2012 #23
bama_blue_dot Dec 2012 #24
MADem Dec 2012 #27
bhikkhu Dec 2012 #31
davidpdx Dec 2012 #89
bhikkhu Dec 2012 #120
babylonsister Dec 2012 #37
Summer Hathaway Dec 2012 #53
One of the 99 Dec 2012 #64
Demo_Chris Dec 2012 #73
ProSense Dec 2012 #75
ProSense Dec 2012 #74
davidpdx Dec 2012 #100
annabanana Dec 2012 #85
LWolf Dec 2012 #115
great white snark Dec 2012 #133
RC Jan 2013 #153
rhett o rick Jan 2013 #162
patrice Dec 2012 #25
samsingh Dec 2012 #28
graham4anything Dec 2012 #32
pnwmom Dec 2012 #41
Demo_Chris Dec 2012 #78
ProSense Dec 2012 #80
graham4anything Dec 2012 #105
ProSense Dec 2012 #106
graham4anything Dec 2012 #119
Demo_Chris Dec 2012 #138
graham4anything Dec 2012 #141
bama_blue_dot Dec 2012 #90
Demo_Chris Dec 2012 #95
bama_blue_dot Dec 2012 #97
Demo_Chris Dec 2012 #140
babylonsister Dec 2012 #33
LineLineReply .
ProSense Dec 2012 #81
Fumesucker Dec 2012 #34
think Dec 2012 #35
pnwmom Dec 2012 #42
Demo_Chris Dec 2012 #44
Fumesucker Dec 2012 #46
SammyWinstonJack Dec 2012 #76
Demo_Chris Dec 2012 #79
bvar22 Dec 2012 #118
Demo_Chris Dec 2012 #142
Agony Dec 2012 #145
buzzroller Dec 2012 #94
woo me with science Dec 2012 #62
patrice Dec 2012 #36
bama_blue_dot Dec 2012 #39
Demo_Chris Dec 2012 #43
bama_blue_dot Dec 2012 #45
Demo_Chris Dec 2012 #84
think Dec 2012 #47
treestar Dec 2012 #49
Demo_Chris Dec 2012 #87
bama_blue_dot Dec 2012 #96
eilen Jan 2013 #149
treestar Dec 2012 #104
Demo_Chris Dec 2012 #143
Summer Hathaway Dec 2012 #50
Demo_Chris Dec 2012 #92
eilen Dec 2012 #107
Summer Hathaway Dec 2012 #147
still_one Dec 2012 #56
woo me with science Dec 2012 #60
djean111 Dec 2012 #65
ProSense Dec 2012 #71
BlueStreak Dec 2012 #91
bvar22 Dec 2012 #121
woo me with science Dec 2012 #130
SammyWinstonJack Dec 2012 #77
Demo_Chris Dec 2012 #93
BlueStreak Dec 2012 #86
Hotler Dec 2012 #98
Bad_Ronald Dec 2012 #103
JoePhilly Dec 2012 #99
raouldukelives Dec 2012 #108
Demo_Chris Dec 2012 #144
CakeGrrl Dec 2012 #111
Oilwellian Dec 2012 #113
Generic Other Dec 2012 #117
bvar22 Dec 2012 #122
ann--- Dec 2012 #127
bowens43 Dec 2012 #128
Tarheel_Dem Dec 2012 #129
Demo_Chris Dec 2012 #146
Tarheel_Dem Dec 2012 #148
bvar22 Jan 2013 #154
Tarheel_Dem Jan 2013 #165
indepat Dec 2012 #136
DiverDave Jan 2013 #150
CakeGrrl Jan 2013 #163
DiverDave Jan 2013 #166

Response to Demo_Chris (Original post)

Sun Dec 30, 2012, 10:03 PM

1. The Tea Party folk have a mistaken belief.

They believe that among the American population there are far, far more people like them than is usually thought to be the case. I've met more than one convinced that they were a clear majority.

It's not uncommon for people to think that they're a majority when they're not. Their reference sample is composed mostly of people like them. All they have to do is assume that their reference sample, the set of people that they assume are representative of the US population as a whole, is randomly chosen. They forget that it's not. Work friends, social groups, Internet haunts are all carefully chosen. Those who disagree tend to be quiet (e.g., at work) or vanish. It's a nice illusion, a mistaken belief.

51% of the voters voted for Obama. This is a victory, to be sure. But those voting for him had a lot of particular agendas. One overriding theme was higher taxes for the rich. Another was some sort of immigration reform. Health care. There were other threads that tied up his majority.

But a lot of the people that wanted higher taxes on the rich don't want the kind of immigration reform he wants. Some who wanted higher taxes also wanted deficit reduction. Some of wanted immigration reform wanted more stimulus spending. After a few big issues that carried a majority of his majority, the percentages start heading down into the 30% and 40% range of the electorate, and after that into the 30% and 40% of those who voted for him.

Some voted for the laundry list you presented. Certainly not a majority of the voters. More than a few would want much of what's on your list. But by the time you get to that magic 48% of the electorate number needed to beat Romney, you're down to a few points.

The Tea Party's illusion isn't just the Tea Party's. It's what happens to every group that forgets that its reference group, those that it takes to be mainstream, is self-selected or somehow limited.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Igel (Reply #1)

Sun Dec 30, 2012, 10:33 PM

6. ^ This. +1000. (nt)

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Igel (Reply #1)

Mon Dec 31, 2012, 12:03 AM

11. Excellent post. That laundry list applies to the poster, but millions of other Obama supporters

had their own set of reasons for voting for Obama.

And it's Obama's job to be the President for 100% of Americans, not the most consistently liberal subset of those who voted for him.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to pnwmom (Reply #11)

Mon Dec 31, 2012, 12:17 AM

14. Your right, people vote for their own personal reason

I voted for him for many reasons but number one was worried about if Romney got a supreme court judge.

I have a feeling like me its many things but one in particular if pushed to it.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to marlakay (Reply #14)

Mon Dec 31, 2012, 09:10 AM

88. ^^^ ditto x 100. nt

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to pnwmom (Reply #11)

Mon Dec 31, 2012, 07:16 AM

61. Thanks. My response below.

 

President Obama was elected to be the leader of ALL Americans, but he was nominated by our party. This would certainly suggest to me that he should at least propose and fight for the principles of that party.

For example, I do not recall even once seeing Bush arguing out of the blue that we need to increase spending on social security, lower the retirement age, and why not jack up taxes on the wealthy to pay for it. Nor would I expect him to.

I read an article a while back in which they interviewed some people that knew Obama in Harvard. In it, the folks interviewed discussed Obama's gift at bringing people from wildly different points of view together -- he was apparently a master at finding common ground. I would suggest that this remains true to this day. The problem, however, is that he was nominated by democrats, and elected by democrats, and throughout this process he was promising to bring democratic positions to the table.

MY complaint, and I believe it is shared, is that he has not done so.

Thanks for reading, and thanks for your response!

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Igel (Reply #1)

Mon Dec 31, 2012, 01:14 AM

26. +1 nt

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Igel (Reply #1)

Mon Dec 31, 2012, 08:02 AM

66. Very true, and well said, but... (response below)

 

I believe it is probably fair to say that everyone, whether they voted for President Obama or not, expected him to fight first for the positions he campaigned on, and to at least give a nod to the positions adopted by the party caucus.

Right?

Everyone in the country expects a Democratic President to fight for Democratic positions. And with Obama we expect more, both because he was a Washington outsider and activist, and because we have spent the last two decades doing things the GOP way, and the result was (and remains) a freaking disaster.

Instead of proposing and fighting for Democratic party solutions, Obama is dismissing those out of hand and fighting for modifications of existing GOP policy. He's the enlightened Republican. "You know how doing XYZ destroyed the economy in a way not seen since the Great Depression? Well my guys want to do ABC instead, and I campaigned on that, but now I think W+XYZ sounds better."

Seriously, President Obama didn't fight for single payer healthcare, he didn't fight for a medicare buy-in for all, he blew all that off before negotiating even began and instead fought for a plan written by the freaking Heritage Foundation and first proposed by Newt Gingrich -- a plan that he ridiculed while campaigning.

As I said in my original post, no one expects Obama to WIN all these fights, but we do expect him to try. If a Democratic President refuses to fight for Democratic positions who will? You think Limbaugh is gonna suddenly change his tune? Or Boehner? Of course not! They never change, they never surrender the debate before it begins, they leave that to us.



Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Igel (Reply #1)

Mon Dec 31, 2012, 02:03 PM

126. I wish there were an award for "Post Of The Day"!!!!!

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Demo_Chris (Original post)

Sun Dec 30, 2012, 10:09 PM

2. Great post. Kick and Rec.... /nt

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Demo_Chris (Original post)

Sun Dec 30, 2012, 10:19 PM

3. and others understand how the United States Congress works...

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to uponit7771 (Reply #3)

Mon Dec 31, 2012, 07:25 AM

63. It is a shame

that so many on the left think that the President is a dictator and can do anything that he wants. The OP may have well put a pony for everyone on the list.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Demo_Chris (Original post)

Sun Dec 30, 2012, 10:24 PM

4. OMG!

Obama is THE compassionate conservative. Bush lied but Obama has taken up his cause.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Demo_Chris (Original post)

Sun Dec 30, 2012, 10:27 PM

5. Oh, is that all? Why didn't you say so?

 

I'm sure he will erase over 30 years of legislation in his 8 years.

I mean, what's stopping him?

Why don't you at least rank this Santa wish list so we know where your priorities stand?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Demo_Chris (Original post)

Sun Dec 30, 2012, 11:17 PM

7. A few more:

Prosecute miscreant bankers.
Break up the "TBTF" banks and re-regulate banking.
Restore restrictions on media consolidation.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to snot (Reply #7)

Mon Dec 31, 2012, 09:47 AM

101. Except for the first item, these are under Congress's authority not the pres

Please learn what the Constitution says.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Demo_Chris (Original post)

Sun Dec 30, 2012, 11:33 PM

8. I see a much simpler way of putting it

Progressives are people who want progress. They want a society that is more fair, more just, and more equal. They want to take action against poverty and deprivation. But they know these things take time, and they're willing to accept small increments.

On the other hand, progressives are dead set against giving up the gains of the last 80 years. It's not being a purist to want to hold onto what already exists and is working properly. If anything, that's small-c "conservatism."

But that's what the GOP is asking. They have a radical agenda of creating a free-market, oligarchic, banana republic in the heart of the United States. And their idea of compromise is to dismantle the legacy of the New Deal a little more slowly than they would prefer.

Opposing that with every breath in our bodies is not purism. It's at best maintaining the status quo -- and hoping for better times to come.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to starroute (Reply #8)

Mon Dec 31, 2012, 08:03 AM

67. Thanks! You said it much better than me. (nt)

 

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to starroute (Reply #8)

Mon Dec 31, 2012, 09:02 AM

83. Very well said

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Demo_Chris (Original post)

Mon Dec 31, 2012, 12:00 AM

9. Bull. There will always be critics on the left and the right, no matter how good a job he does.

A President over a divided government can't "demand" anything -- and he's the President of all Americans, not just the people who voted for him.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to pnwmom (Reply #9)

Mon Dec 31, 2012, 12:43 AM

21. Your post right here should be reiterated again and again on DU.

We did not elect a king. The Prez can't get Jack done without the help of both a willing House and Senate. It would be a different story if we at least didn't have about 47% of the voting population that sees government assistance for the disadvantaged as somehow a bad thing.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to CheapShotArtist (Reply #21)

Mon Dec 31, 2012, 12:50 AM

22. I think he could do a lot to see that the Patriot Act isnt continued forever.

He could do a lot more to eliminate FICA domestic spying and indefinite detention. IMO he chooses not to.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to rhett o rick (Reply #22)

Mon Dec 31, 2012, 02:04 AM

38. And that's just one item on the laundry list of things he should be "demanding,"

according to the OP.

Of course we are all going to have things that have disappointed us. But we don't all have the same priorities, and Obama can't demand anything -- he has to work with people representing the full spectrum of view in the U.S.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to pnwmom (Reply #38)

Mon Dec 31, 2012, 06:59 AM

59. Civil liberties is not an option for a Democratic society. It's not something on a

'laundry list'. You're thinking of countries that have never had any freedom, dictatorships eg, who have laundry lists and on them will be such items as Civil Liberties, an end to Government spying on them etc. But in a Democracy like this one, those items should not need to be on any laundry list, they were ticked off long ago when people died fighting to make sure we had them.

I love the cavalier way some people speak about rights that should never be in dispute here in this country and without realizing it, when they claim that these items are 'ponies' or whatever all they are doing is confirming how bad things have become. And when they try to defend a Dem president for continuing policies that have removed some of those rights we used to take for granted, they fail, miserably.

I have a laundry list of things that would be nice but I'm not going to be terribly disappointed if I don't get everything on that list.

Then I have the Constitution. Nothing in that document should ever be on any laundry list. That is a guarantee, already fought for, already established as a list of rights Americans are entitled to.

Please do not put our Constitutional Rights on any 'pony list' and then try to claim we should not be pressuring our leaders to reinstate them or to protect them. That is what they swear to do when they accept the jobs we give them. And any leader who signs away those rights or does nothing to protect them should not be in a position of power at all in this country.

Some of the posts in this thread so far seem to think our Constitutional rights are negotiable, that they are 'ponies' or 'laundry lists'. When did this happen that people on the left started thinking like this?

How sad for this country, the propagandists did their job very well if even on the left now people no longer understand the difference between rights and ponies.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to sabrina 1 (Reply #59)

Mon Dec 31, 2012, 08:06 AM

68. That may be so...

 

But it took Vice President Biden speaking out on Gay rights, and forcing the President's hand, before President Obama would even touch it.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Demo_Chris (Reply #68)

Mon Dec 31, 2012, 09:49 AM

102. Yeah because you know what goes on in the president's mind.

Trashing this thread. Please learn what the Constitution says.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to sabrina 1 (Reply #59)

Mon Dec 31, 2012, 12:00 PM

114. Sabrina, please consider making this an OP.

This post is devastating to the Third Way propaganda that always tries to claim that this or that crumb means we are being represented.

People need to think about the difference between ponies or laundry lists, and the bedrock values and principles of our country.

This is the most important post I have seen today.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to woo me with science (Reply #114)

Mon Dec 31, 2012, 03:36 PM

131. I am sick to death of the covering up of these issues, or the attempt to do

so by those who think we should be willing to quietly accept the destruction of our rights. I know they think it is clever to not actually address these issues and that no one will notice, but that is not the case anymore. I am encouraged by the huge organizations joining forces now to challenge members of Congress from now on who are not working for the people.

Thanks for comment WMWS, if I have time later I will write try to write an Op on the subject.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to woo me with science (Reply #114)

Tue Jan 1, 2013, 08:09 PM

158. And I second that. nm

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to sabrina 1 (Reply #59)

Mon Dec 31, 2012, 06:52 PM

139. I LOVE YOUR MIND

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to sabrina 1 (Reply #59)

Tue Jan 1, 2013, 08:11 PM

159. Somehow I am just now reading this post. You said what needs to be said. I think that's called

integrity. Bravo.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to pnwmom (Reply #38)

Tue Jan 1, 2013, 08:15 PM

160. Tax rates, unemployment benefits, SS and Medicare benefits are things that might "disappoint" me.

But my Constitutional freedoms should not be on the table, esp during a Democratic Presidential administration. He could end the Patriot Act, he could have ended illegal FICA spying, he could have stopped indefinite detentions, but he didnt. The economy doesnt mean shit if we are not free.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to CheapShotArtist (Reply #21)

Mon Dec 31, 2012, 06:40 AM

58. actually he can kill the Bush tax cuts without any help at all from Congress

Just let them die as scheduled.

That Obama does not WANT to let them die is NOT the fault of Congress, and it never was. It is HIS choice.

Obama claims to want to preserve the parts of the Bush tax cuts that give money to the middle class. Yet by doing so, he advocates continuing to give the majority of tax cuts to the rich - to give far more to the top 5% than he does to the bottom 20%.

Again, that is NOT the fault of Congress. And CHOOSING to help the top 5% more than the bottom 60% also has NOTHING to do with "being the President of all Americans". It is simply not representing all Americans to pursue policies which largely benefit only 5% of Americans.

Also, for Obama to LIE to the American people and claim that tax cuts which favor the rich are "middle class tax cuts" is again, NOT the fault of Congress.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to pnwmom (Reply #9)

Mon Dec 31, 2012, 01:24 AM

29. That's one of the problems with emo progs: emotions are completely fungible & transferable . . .

You can do exactly what people want and, since it's based upon emotions NOT FACTS, you end up with no support anyway. You can even be successful for them, but, once again, it isn't about facts, so whatever the current pissing match is about is where all of your "support" goes no matter what you sacrificed to get them what they want.

FACTS matter.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to pnwmom (Reply #9)

Mon Dec 31, 2012, 01:25 AM

30. So, which of the listed goals is he fighting for?

 

Take your time. I'll wait...

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Egalitarian Thug (Reply #30)

Mon Dec 31, 2012, 02:10 AM

40. The very first one, for example.

He ended the war in Iraq and he's in the process of leaving Afghanistan.

He's also been fighting for civil rights for all, which apparently you didn't notice. He got DADT overturned and he's refused to let the Justice Department defend DOMA. He's also endorsed gay marriage in the states.

And he fought for the only health plan that had a chance of getting through the divided congress. It wasn't the single payer plan liberals dream of, but it's the only universal plan any President has ever been able to manage.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to pnwmom (Reply #40)

Mon Dec 31, 2012, 08:28 AM

69. Are we rewriting history here?

 

FOUR YEARS later we are still at war. Four years. The entire time we were engaged in WWII. During that four years we found and killed OBL living in a completely different country. Four more years of mangled soldiers and civilians. For nothing. We don't even have a plan that incorportes winning, just leaving... eventually. I guess that even Democrats have become so casual about war that four more years no longer matters.

And as for Civil Rights, President Obama didn't even dip his toe in the water until Vice President Biden snuck up behind him and shoved him into the pool.

Finally, helthcare. President Obama never asked for single payer, he never fought for single payer, he never even proposed a medicare buy-in. He fought instead for a plan first proposed by the Heritage foundation. A plan he ridiculed while campaigning, and for good reason. Could he have gotten something else through Conrgess? We'll never know.

But we do know this: Twenty years from now Americans still won't have single payer or affordable healthcare, and we will still be forced to buy insurance from parasite corporations. FDR gave us the new deal, Obama gave us a mandate.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Demo_Chris (Reply #69)

Mon Dec 31, 2012, 01:47 PM

123. You are.

We're out of Iraq now. President Obama has the strong support of the LGBT community for his actions on civil rights. And we DO know what would have happened if Obama had pushed single payer -- it would have failed. We only avoided a filibuster by getting a handful of Republican votes in the Senate, and that wouldn't have been possible if the plan had been single payer.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to pnwmom (Reply #123)

Mon Dec 31, 2012, 06:46 PM

137. Response

 

We are NOT out of Afghanistan.

FOUR YEARS later and we are still there. Why do you ignore four years of war?

And yes, the LGBT supports President Obama today, now that he is supporting them openly. It is equally true that they were not happy campers prior to this.

Finally, healthcare. The reality is that you don't know. No one knows. Getting anything passed required salesmanship. The President managed to get Congress to pass a Heritage Foundation proposal which forces the American people -- by law -- to purchase insurance from one of the most despised industries in the nation. A precident unmatched in our nation's history. And while today the majority of American's no longer favor repealing this nightmare law, it still only has the support in the low-forty percent range.

Could Obama have sold the American people on single payer? He never tried. The insurance companies wanted this mandate, so that's what Obama pushed for.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Demo_Chris (Reply #137)

Tue Jan 1, 2013, 07:22 AM

151. We are not really out of Iraq either.

 

We left behind our mercenaries.


The US State Department had reportedly announced in August 2010 that the Pentagon would replace American troops in Iraq with private mercenaries, who call themselves private security firms or security contractors, on grounds of ensuring the security in the war-torn country.

>SNIP<

aqis will also take it as America's unwillingness to end the occupation of their country where since 2003 the US-led invasion and subsequent occupation caused one million deaths, according to the California-based investigative organization Project Censored.
http://www.presstv.ir/detail/215338.html

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to RC (Reply #151)

Tue Jan 1, 2013, 08:43 PM

164. Yeah that was my thoughts too.......

OFFICIAL American presence is out of Iraq, but we've still got a presence with all those corporate mercs there. I kind of wonder what would happen if they got in some sort of real trouble with the Iraqi nationalists. Would we go back in to save them?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to pnwmom (Reply #40)

Mon Dec 31, 2012, 05:37 PM

134. Do you pay any attention to the news beyond the pablum fed to you by the American infotainment

 

industry? Iraq is an ongoing disaster. But that wasn't the President's fault. What is entirely his fault is that his "process of leaving Afghanistan" entailed throwing tens of thousands more soldiers into it and taking longer to get out of it than all of WWII took from begging to end.

You also have a hysterically funny definition of fighting. Gay marriage is great, but he didn't come close to fighting for it, he just didn't fight against after the Vice President made his comment. Similarly, directing the DoJ to slow prosecutions of DOMA is not fighting for its abolition. And as far as the Health Insurance Industry Profit Protection Act, there are several books already out there, as well as several hundred court cases that specifically demonstrate that he did not fight for anything except to keep any real reform out of the debate.

You have demonstrated absolutely no objective judgment, nor even concrete examples of the points you espouse, you are simply a fan.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Egalitarian Thug (Reply #134)

Mon Dec 31, 2012, 05:57 PM

135. You have demonstrated absolutely no objective judgement, you are simply

another DUer determined to find fault no matter what President Obama does.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to pnwmom (Reply #135)

Tue Jan 1, 2013, 01:44 PM

155. That's funny. I listed specific facts while you resorted to

 

the "I am rubber, you are glue" argument.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Egalitarian Thug (Reply #155)


Response to pnwmom (Reply #135)

Tue Jan 1, 2013, 06:23 PM

157. What? No diabolical "Look! your shoelace is untied!" comeback?

 

I'm very disappointed, you're letting the team down.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to pnwmom (Reply #40)

Tue Jan 1, 2013, 08:20 PM

161. Let's be clear about DOMA. What he has done hasnt helped anyone. His agencies are still enforcing it

Federal employees that are married and the same sex, do not get the benefits offered to the non-gay married employees.

What he said about DOMA was pure rhetoric. All he has to do is tell his agencies to stop implementing it.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Demo_Chris (Original post)

Mon Dec 31, 2012, 12:00 AM

10. Compromise

Compromise should be the middle ground that is found between 2 or more extremes.

Just start with a Democratic position and move right as little as possible. Starting in the middle or to the right and hoping everything will work out well is not what the voters have demanded.

Welcome to DU. You're sure to be flamed for this one. Stick with it though, it's a good enough place for the most part.

Pony! (bet ya read that a few times in this thread)

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Demo_Chris (Original post)

Mon Dec 31, 2012, 12:09 AM

12. Like it or not, it's politics, they can't do anything for anyone who won't support on anything but

their own issues, because they need numbers of persons (that is, they can't do that, unless they're doing it for the 1%, but we're trying to break that and since it IS politics, a body count, we can't do that by ourselves. We need numbers.).

For a centrist, not-doing-anything-for-anyone-who-won't-support-anything-but-their-own-issues is the criteria for everyone at the table. If others at the table get wind of the possibility that another faction can be pressured to walk away by getting them to reject that criteria, they can deliberately work on building that pressure, to force you out. If the dealer expresses any specific concern about that, s/he reveals to those who are doing it 2 things: 1. how, precisely, to build even more pressure on the faction that is likely to make themselves ir-relevant by breaking the criteria; and/or 2. what, specifically, that same pressuring faction can do to threaten to break the criteria themselves. In either case, a centrist-hand is damaged.

This means that the factions need to prioritize for themselves (don't expect the dealer to do it) if/how/when their strategy might or might not include breaking the criteria for a political deal, which, process-wise, is constituted in the fact that everyone who IS actually at the table recognizes that they are NOT the only ones there. If they don't actually actively support one another, they must at minimum not try to destroy one another. If they choose to make themselves ir-relevant by refusing to support, or at least not antagonize, anything that is not theirs, that's their own business, but they should at least be aware of how other players at the table will create various kinds of pressure on their decision points (if they know what they are) in order to get them to walk away from the table.

The first round of this thing went to us Liberals, because it was established that the opposing hands are quite willing to work against our agreement to any kind of deal, by attacking Social Security (they broke the DEAL rule that you can't act like you're the only one at the table) and, not only attacking SS, but also attacking it with NOTHING in the pot. IOW, they broke the criteria for even being at the table: they must not refuse to support everything that is not specifically theirs. Our opposition made it zero-sum; the centrist, BO, doesn't play that game and that's why he was hired in the first place.

. . . or something like that.

P.S. I'm not particularly happy about any of this. I wish being right was enough. It's not. We also have to beat them at this political game.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Demo_Chris (Original post)

Mon Dec 31, 2012, 12:16 AM

13. call yourself whatever you want. you're a purist and a radical

youre bullet point list is a liberal wet dream. Sorry, you elected a democrat. not a liberal. Kinda shoulda figured that out last term.

'you can easily silence your liberal critics, all you have to do is kow tow to us in every way shape and form'

you've been confused by the language favored by the right; LIBERAL is NOT -democrat-. Liberal is the far left edge of democrat. Sorry you feel that everything is 'centrist', but these are the same values that I was taught as a youngster. You're values have always been waaaay left.

'single payer healthcare'. yeah right. You DO KNOW that a tea party controlled house would have to vote for that, right? who wouldnt love to have single payer? this guy sure would. but im not going to hold my breath, or cut off my nose to spite my face....as you LIBERALS are trying to convince others to do.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink



Response to think (Reply #15)

Mon Dec 31, 2012, 03:01 AM

48. "The truth of the matter is that my policies are so mainstream ...

... that if I had set the same policies that I had back in the 1980s, I would be considered a moderate Republican."

To state that one's policies would have been perceived in the 80s as those of a moderate Republican is NOT the same as declaring oneself as 'knowing' they ARE a moderate Republican.

Is your reading comprehension that poor, or are you just being willfully ignorant?

I ask because mistaking one for the other is a common misunderstanding.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Summer Hathaway (Reply #48)

Mon Dec 31, 2012, 03:46 AM

51. It was sarcasm but we'll pretend you comprehended that.....

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to think (Reply #51)

Mon Dec 31, 2012, 03:54 AM

52. Ooops! My bad ...

Last edited Mon Dec 31, 2012, 04:25 AM - Edit history (1)

I thought you were replying to my post at #50. Edited for that reason.

And it would seem obvious that you don't comprehend what sarcasm is.

But you DO understand how obvious you're being, don't you? (And no, that ISN'T sarcasm.)

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Summer Hathaway (Reply #52)

Mon Dec 31, 2012, 04:49 AM

54. Yep. I must really think Obama thinks he's a moderate Republican.

That's got to be it. Obviously I wasn't being sarcastic at all......

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to think (Reply #54)

Mon Dec 31, 2012, 05:05 AM

55. Yes, you very obviously weren't being sarcastic at all ...

But claiming to have been after-the-fact is pretty SOP for certain posters.

You still haven't responded to my query as to why you felt a sudden need to sign-up on a Democratic website to tell everyone how Obama isn't doing his job.

Patriotism? An surge of they-need-to-know-ism? An overwhelming urgency to share your wisdom?




Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Summer Hathaway (Reply #55)

Mon Dec 31, 2012, 10:52 AM

109. Been here since March 2008. But this is sudden in your books?




I guess voting for Obama and supporting his policies that I agree with are just part of some grand conspiracy to suck people in right?

Disagreeing with the president on some issues isn't a thought crime. It is called having an OPINION.

Good grief.

Oh. and by the way. How long have you been here?:

Member since: Wed Dec 14, 2011, 11:28 PM Wow. Now isn't that a surprise!

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to think (Reply #109)

Mon Dec 31, 2012, 04:28 PM

132. I guess it was the fact

that you K&R'd this particular OP, which states that Obama is 'refusing to do his job' and is 'positioning himself ... as the voice of rational conservatism' that led me to believe this is not a matter of 'disagreeing with him on some issues'.

Yes, I registered here a year ago - a relatively short time in the lifespan of this website. And what I've seen in that one short year is an influx of posters (especially since November) who, like the OP here, rattle off lists of things Obama didn't do (many of which are impossible or not within his control) as support for their contention that 'Obama is refusing to do his job'.

That notion is, IMHO, right up there with the other popular meme I now see here regularly, i.e. "Obama has accomplished nothing in four years."

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to pasto76 (Reply #13)

Mon Dec 31, 2012, 06:28 AM

57. .

'single payer healthcare'. yeah right. You DO KNOW that a tea party controlled house would have to vote for that, right? who wouldnt love to have single payer? this guy sure would. but im not going to hold my breath, or cut off my nose to spite my face....as you LIBERALS are trying to convince others to do.


That's why we didn't even try in 2009-2010 - because they knew the Tea Party was coming in 2010.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Capt. Obvious (Reply #57)

Mon Dec 31, 2012, 10:57 AM

110. It never would have passed the Senate.

There was a 60ish day window when the Democrats actually had 60 votes in the Senate, between when Franken was finally elected and Kennedy died. Before or after that, expect filibuster after filibuster. But even in that window, the Blue Dogs made it difficult to get anything done. You really think Joe Lieberman would vote for single payer? Most of the concessions made in those first 2 years were to get Blue Dog Democrats on board, which is much easier to do than getting a Tea Partier on board, but that's what happens when people stay home to "send a message."

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to boxman15 (Reply #110)

Mon Dec 31, 2012, 12:50 PM

116. So why even try is what you're saying

Let's take it off the board and start at the halfway point. That way we may get a quarter of what we want.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to pasto76 (Reply #13)

Mon Dec 31, 2012, 08:37 AM

70. So Obama proposed those things then?

 

He made the case for them to the American people? Urged them to call Congress?

Obama was elected with the greatest mandate of any President in modern history. The GOP and the nation were in SHOCK. Their policies had imploded the world's economy, and not only did everyone know it, they were mad about it. They were so mad, so insistent upon real change, that they elected a freshman Senator.

They wanted change.

And the Teaparty? In 2008 the Teaparty was booing Republicans off the stage. It hadn't been coopted yet. They too wanted change, and there were no Teaparty congressmen except Ron Paul.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to pasto76 (Reply #13)

Mon Dec 31, 2012, 09:02 AM

82. correction.. We elected a Democrat,.. capital D. . . . n/t

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to pasto76 (Reply #13)

Mon Dec 31, 2012, 11:08 AM

112. Absolutely

And I hope that our party never gets hijacked by such radicals the way that Republicans were hijacked by the Tea Party. Let history be a lesson to us all of what happens to your party when you give too much of the platform to people like that.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to pasto76 (Reply #13)

Mon Dec 31, 2012, 01:56 PM

124. what kind of nasty piece of work does it take to try to make "liberal" a bad word here?

Liberal isn't a bad word. Come back when you've learned that lesson.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to pasto76 (Reply #13)

Tue Jan 1, 2013, 07:42 AM

152. The ONLY reason Liberal is on the far left edge of Democrat, is because the Democratic Party

 

has moved so far to the Right, as to be the Left wing of the Republican Party!
Many long time, main stream Republicans have switched parties and still kept their position on everything. What changed is both parties have gone way to the Right.
Not only were Democrats at one time Liberal, but the Republicans were once much more Liberal, also. The Republicans, were up until Ronald Reagan, far to the Left of the current Democratic party.
It is you that is confused by the language favored by the Right, or something.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Demo_Chris (Original post)

Mon Dec 31, 2012, 12:28 AM

16. WTF? "We understand that politics is the art of the possible"

You are asking for the impossible!

There are some possibilities, but they will take some time. Some of the other propositions are also possible eventually, but they will take even longer.

Patience, grasshopper.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to NashvilleLefty (Reply #16)

Mon Dec 31, 2012, 08:39 AM

72. Expecting a Democratic President to fight for Dem positions is not impossible (nt)

 

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Demo_Chris (Original post)

Mon Dec 31, 2012, 12:29 AM

17. K&R

 

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Demo_Chris (Original post)


Response to Demo_Chris (Original post)

Mon Dec 31, 2012, 12:38 AM

19. I've seen a few of your posts on here

and this last one confirms that you have absolutely no idea how the political system works.. This list you gave sounds more like a wish list for Santa Claus..

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to bama_blue_dot (Reply #19)


Response to Demo_Chris (Original post)

Mon Dec 31, 2012, 12:42 AM

20. I think your post proves he'll never be able to silence you critics...

So, let's stop bullshitting here and admit that you're never going to be satisfied.

* Ending the wars.

In the process of this as we speak. By the time he leaves office, the U.S. will not be in any major overseas conflict.

* Drastic cuts in military spending.

The president can only propose spending cuts - he can't actually do it. That's all in the budget and the responsibility of Congress.

* Closing Gitmo and all the secret prisons.

Obama has indicated his support for closing Gitmo, but can only get so far with a Congress hellbent on denying him that chance.

* Eliminating the Patriot act and all domestic spying.

He could veto this - I agree here.

* Removal of the cap on social security.

President can't do that - Congress, can, tho (see a pattern).

* Lowering the age of eligibility and increasing benefits.

President can't do that - Congress, can, tho (see a pattern).

* Increasing safety net spending.

President can't do that - Congress, can, tho (see a pattern).

* Massive and necessary infrastructure investment.

The President has already proposed this multiple times since taking office. But, as I'm sure you know, he can't do that - Congress has to pass legislation.

* Radically increasing the tax rate on affluent Americans.

What's radical? And he can't do that. Congress has to.

* Taxing capital gains as income.

He can't do that. Congress has to.

* Significant efforts to address wealth inequality.

I agree. But what do you propose?

* A champion of civil rights for ALL.

I think he pretty much is - at least more so than any president in U.S. history.

* Eliminating so-called Free Trade Agreements.

Only Congress can do that.

* Blanket amnesty for illegal immigrants.

Only Congress can do that. But he did do more than any president since Reagan when it came to the Dream Act-LITE, you know?

* Serious action to address global warming.

I actually agree with you on this one. But of course, serious action is vague.

* Single payer healthcare.

I'm sure if the votes had been there in '10, we would have that system. They weren't.

So, most of what you proposed is impossible without the help of Congress and I'm sure you're acutely aware of how this congress has acted over the last two or so years. It's not been pretty! What you're saying is that the only way you'll be satisfied is if Obama can somehow turn himself into a dictator and advance a radical agenda that has no chance of passing a Republican-controlled House, is that right? C'mon now. These ridiculous parameters are so unachievable that no president could ever get anything like this done - especially no president with a divided government that is hellbent on opposing him at every turn.

And some of this stuff doesn't even make sense. Eliminating free-trade agreements? Really? I'm not a free-trader, but I even know that trade is vital to our country. Let's get real.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Drunken Irishman (Reply #20)

Mon Dec 31, 2012, 12:53 AM

23. Thanks for the lesson, DIrish.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Drunken Irishman (Reply #20)

Mon Dec 31, 2012, 12:53 AM

24. Great post!

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Drunken Irishman (Reply #20)

Mon Dec 31, 2012, 01:18 AM

27. Outstanding refutation. nt

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Drunken Irishman (Reply #20)

Mon Dec 31, 2012, 01:26 AM

31. Some details there:

Ending the wars: On schedule, we should be all out and done in 2014. We can argue the details, but you have to step back and think about what a luxury it is now to argue over the little details, instead of being stuck.

Defense spending - on the way down, and only getting better with the war-ending draw-down:



Closing Gitmo - great idea, and Obama ran on it, but the repugs have the house and have been all hellbent and crazy-eyed against it.

Safety Net Spending - this is from a RW site, where of course they like to exaggerate, but here it is by the numbers:



Much of it does come down to congress, and a legacy of decades of gerrymandering is what we are really up against here. I think on many things Obama has done absolutely the best that was possible - the ACA, for example. On social issues, if you told me in 2008 that we'd have seven states with legal gay marriage, and that DOMA would be all but dead, I'd be pretty happy with that. That's the biggest civil rights issue for me.

I'm ,with Drunken Irishman on "free trade". That's a phony epithet, btw, as free trade is what exists where trade isn't regulated - what we have are trade agreements that regulate trade. Bad things have happened, but "going back" isn't an option, and nwhat we need are better trade agreements, which is what Obama has had as a priority. US exports have been quite healthy, whether looked at in raw numbers (where we have consistently set new records under Obama) or as a percentage of GDP:



Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to bhikkhu (Reply #31)

Mon Dec 31, 2012, 09:14 AM

89. The graph on defense spending is fascinating

I like how it puts WWII in perspective with what we are spending now. The drop off after WWII and before the Korean War was huge.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to davidpdx (Reply #89)

Mon Dec 31, 2012, 01:27 PM

120. Yes, though note the Heritage Foundation bias there -

there is the "Carter Neglect" followed by the "Reagan Build-up", the "Clinton Holiday" followed by the "Bush Catch-up".

In the long term the world is on a trend toward more peaceful co-existence, however, and there's no reason for the numbers to stay so high.



...or let us hope.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Drunken Irishman (Reply #20)

Mon Dec 31, 2012, 01:57 AM

37. Thank you and I love you, D I. nt

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Drunken Irishman (Reply #20)

Mon Dec 31, 2012, 04:47 AM

53. Wel done!

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Drunken Irishman (Reply #20)

Mon Dec 31, 2012, 07:29 AM

64. Thanks for the reality check.

We need more of that here.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Drunken Irishman (Reply #20)

Mon Dec 31, 2012, 08:41 AM

73. Reread my post.

 

I did not say that his critics on the left would be easily satisfied by him accomplishing these things, all on his own, without Congress.

I said they would be satisified to see him fight for these things.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Demo_Chris (Reply #73)

Mon Dec 31, 2012, 08:48 AM

75. "President Obama can easily satisfy and silence liberal critics"

President Obama can easily satisfy and silence liberal critics...President Obama asked for that job. Now he is refusing to do it. He is positioning himself, not as the champion of liberal democratic voters (or even the majority of Americans), but as the voice of rational conservatism.

That is what one calls bullshit.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Drunken Irishman (Reply #20)

Mon Dec 31, 2012, 08:46 AM

74. The OP is nonsensical drivel

Apparently, lists are only good for making broad generalized demands that ignore reality and the things that have been done and are likely impossible in this, past and likely future Congressional environments.

"* Closing Gitmo and all the secret prisons."

ENDING TORTURE = Three Torches
  • Ordered an end to the use of torture and cruel, inhuman, and degrading treatment, withdrew
    flawed legal analysis used to justify torture and applied the Army Field Manual on interrogations
    government wide.
  • Abolished the CIA secret prisons.
  • Says that “waterboarding is torture” and “contrary to America’s traditions… contrary to our ideals.”
  • No reports of extraordinary rendition to torture or other cruelty under his administration.
  • Failed to hold those responsible for past torture and other cruelty accountable; has blocked
    alleged victims of torture from having their day in court.
http://www.aclulibertywatch.org/ALWCandidateReportCard.pdf


The Democratic Platform specifically address civil rights and civil liberties. People are outraged that it doesn't read exactly like the 2008 platform. This document is more comprehensive and reflective of the administration's record.

As for the rest, shorter OP: Obama can "easily satisfy and silence liberal critics" by being the most perfectest uber progressive President unlike any we've ever seen before.

"* Eliminating so-called Free Trade Agreements."

FDR’s Comprehensive Approach to Freer Trade

by David Woolner

<...>

The driving force behind this effort was FDR’s Secretary of State, Cordell Hull, who considered the passage of Smoot-Hawley an unmitigated disaster. Hull had been arguing in favor of freer trade for decades, both as a Democratic congressman and later senator from Tennessee. Given the long-standing protectionist tendencies of Congress — which reached their zenith with the passage of Smoot-Hawley, the highest tariff in U.S. history — Hull faced an uphill struggle to accomplish this task. He also had to overcome FDR’s initial reluctance to embrace his ideas, as the president preferred the policies of the “economic nationalists” within his administration during his first year in office. By 1934, however, FDR’s attitude began to change, and in March of that year the president threw his support behind Hull’s proposed Reciprocal Trade Agreements Act — a landmark piece of legislation that fundamentally altered the way in which the United States carried out foreign economic policy.

Convinced that the country was not ready for a truly multilateral approach to freer trade, Hull’s legislation sought to establish a system of bilateral agreements through which the United States would seek reciprocal reductions in the duties imposed on specific commodities with other interested governments. These reductions would then be generalized by the application of the most-favored-nation principle, with the result that the reduction accorded to a commodity from one country would then be accorded to the same commodity when imported from other countries. Well aware of the lingering resistance to tariff reduction that remained in Congress, Hull insisted that the power to make these agreements must rest with the president alone, without the necessity of submitting them to the Senate for approval. Under the act, the president would be granted the power to decrease or increase existing rates by as much as 50 percent in return for reciprocal trade concessions granted by the other country.

The 1934 Act granted the president this authority for three years, but it was renewed in 1937 and 1940, and over the course of this period the United States negotiated 22 reciprocal trade agreements. Of these, the two most consequential were the agreements with Canada, signed in 1935, and Great Britain, signed in 1938, in part because they signaled a move away from Imperial Preference and hence protectionism, and in part because they were regarded as indicative of growing solidarity among the Atlantic powers on the eve of the Second World War. It is also important to note that Hull, like many of his contemporaries, including FDR, regarded protectionism as antithetical to the average worker — first, because in Hull’s view high tariffs shifted the burden of financing the government from the rich to the poor, and secondly, because Hull believed that high tariffs concentrated wealth in the hands of the industrial elite, who, as a consequence, wielded an undue or even corrupting influence in Washington. As such, both FDR and Hull saw the opening up of the world’s economy as a positive measure that would help alleviate global poverty, improve the lives of workers, reduce tensions among nations, and help usher in a new age of peace and prosperity. Indeed, by the time the U.S. entered the war, this conviction had intensified to the point where the two men concluded that the root cause of the war was economic depravity.

<...>

Of course, it is important to remember that the Roosevelt administration’s efforts to expand world trade were accompanied by such critical pieces of legislation as the National Labor Relations Act and Fair Labor Standards Act, which vastly strengthened the place of unions in American life. The 1930s and ’40s were also years in which the government engaged in an unprecedented level of investment in America’s infrastructure and industry — largely through deficit spending — that helped vastly expand our manufacturing base and render the United States the most powerful industrialized country in the world. Our efforts to expand trade and do away with protection were only part of a broader effort to reform the U.S. economy in such a way as to provide what FDR liked to call “economic security” for every American.

- more -

http://www.newdeal20.org/2011/10/13/fdrs-comprehensive-approach-to-freer-trade-61632/

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to ProSense (Reply #74)

Mon Dec 31, 2012, 09:44 AM

100. I agree, protectionism killed us in the last 20s and early 30s

I see people scream about free trade and it taking away jobs and that we should stop participating, but I have to wonder if they really know what the hell they are talking about.

There is no doubt that free trade does eliminate some jobs, but it also frees resources to be used in more efficient ways. As Obama has said we need to start creating high tech jobs that pay well. US businesses do well selling our goods in their countries as well.

It reminds me of the episode Game On from The West Wing:

"The President knows Chinese political prisoners are going to be sewing soccer balls with their teeth whether we sell them cheeseburgers or not, so let's sell them cheeseburgers."

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Drunken Irishman (Reply #20)

Mon Dec 31, 2012, 09:04 AM

85. THIS response is why I rec'd & tweeted the thread.. . . .n/t

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Drunken Irishman (Reply #20)

Mon Dec 31, 2012, 12:42 PM

115. "I'm sure if the votes had been there in '10, we would have that system. They weren't."

This statement can't be verified, since single-payer wasn't even allowed on the table for consideration.

That reinforces the point of the OP.

Right-wing wish lists, like chained cpi, cuts to medicare, medicaid, ss, etc., further privatization of public education, ramped up abuse and misuse of student test scores in federal education policy, etc. are on the table.

Left-wing wish lists aren't.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Drunken Irishman (Reply #20)

Mon Dec 31, 2012, 04:43 PM

133. Nicely said.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Drunken Irishman (Reply #20)

Tue Jan 1, 2013, 07:49 AM

153. So why do we have a President at all, if he can't do anything?

 

He could however, at least advocate everything on that list. Has he? Mostly no.

Please do not confuse fair trade and Free Trade.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Drunken Irishman (Reply #20)

Tue Jan 1, 2013, 08:24 PM

162. I am proud to say that I will continue to push him to fix this mess we find ourselves in.

I am a Democrat and I will not sit down and shut up. I will continue to push and push and push until we have no children in this country going to bed hungry. I will push and push until we dump the fucking Patriot Act, domestic spying, and indefinite detention.

And to those that would try to make me into a repuke by telling me to get in line and worship the leader, I say puck you.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Demo_Chris (Original post)

Mon Dec 31, 2012, 01:12 AM

25. So, the basic question here is: Do YOU have the numbers to accomplish your goals?

Last edited Mon Dec 31, 2012, 01:48 AM - Edit history (1)

If you do, then, by all means, go ahead and act as though you are the ONLY player at the table and demand the cards you want from the dealer, for however much you are willing to put into the pot.

If you don't have the numbers, right! now!, you have to play the political numbers game and understand the roles that others play in that process.

That means that you cannot expect, especially this early, and with a lame-duck Congress, for PO to get those numbers for you, because anything he does telegraphs to your opposition what they need to do or not do to defeat you. Later in the process, after you have triangulated your own position more or less successfully, he could act kind of like a bank for you, if all that has preceded that point supports the possibility that you can deliver the numbers and are a good bet to back against other players, but if he does that too early, before your position has been built with and/or against other players, you can be screwed.

PO's job is to manage the pot/numbers-of-persons ponied up and to deal the cards. Our job is to decide what our priorities are, how to use the cards (our own AND those of others), and how we are going to play this game to get the numbers/votes we need to force Congress to do what WE want them to do.

Congress is our REAL problem, because as corrupt as they are, they represent bodies who vote for or against OUR policies and with the wrong kind of pressure AT THE WRONG TIME they can aggrandize ($$$$$) their positions against ours. From this perspective, it's actually a good thing that PO lead with CPI, it's an issue that speaks to the Republicans' 47%, so he lead with something that produced numbers that they couldn't stand against and he, thus, showed the power of the Social Security & Medicare position. That's a good thing.

And, though I said earlier that I wish all of it were easier, I must say that I actually do agree with the principle at work around a centrist administration: the PEOPLE must go to the PEOPLE to make it work, cut out the middle-wo/men as much as possible. Decide our own positions and then "take it to them".

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Demo_Chris (Original post)

Mon Dec 31, 2012, 01:20 AM

28. kick

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Demo_Chris (Original post)

Mon Dec 31, 2012, 01:27 AM

32. Go see Lincoln the movie. Demanding 100% of your personal laundry list is well, self-serving to you

 

your list, quite honestly reminds me of Kojak, the tv show starring Telly Savalas.
And week in, week out, there were situations where the bad guys presented a laundry list or else

Politics don't work like that

Our system is based on compromise and always was.
Not threats of voting for the other side to punish, which is so backward in thinking.

For me personally, I am a liberal NOT a progressive, and life has shown
100% of nothing=NOTHING

10% of something is a 10% gain forward


personally, I don't give a shit about 1/2 the items on your MUST HAVE OR ELSE list.

You act like the President is a dictator, and whine and whine

instead of finding candidates in 100% of the districts of America to challenge the tea party and rightwing candidates who obstruct this particular president for 4 years.

If not for the other side, the legendary presidents of the past never would have gotten their bills signed.
LBJ would not have been able to pass the historic civil rights acts
Lincoln not gotten the 13th

etc.

and Fracture did alot of good in 1968, 1980 and 2000. How's that Ralph Nader thingy doing which directly led to Nader electing Bush president because of NH.
At least, Thank God, due to Nader and 2000, never again will real democrats have to worry about any third party candidate taking away democratic votes, while hoping there is civil war on the right so that we can keep winning Presidential elections.

My vote already is being cast for Hillary45 to CONTINUE the entire Obama presidency another 8 years after his 8 years are over.

The most major item I would love is 100% amnesty, 100% citizenship, and then with the tax money of the new hard working citizens, we will solve the budget problems, and hopefully 90% of the new citizens will be thankful and vote Democratic forever.

And a national Gay Marriage legal law for all.

Those two would be what I want, but if congress doesn't allow for it, so be it.

I know Jeb Bush in 2016 won't achieve anything forward, but take us another 50% backward like his brother and father before him did.

and I wish the whiners would stop demanding anything, then laying the blame on the wrong people.


Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to graham4anything (Reply #32)

Mon Dec 31, 2012, 02:12 AM

41. +1. n/t

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to graham4anything (Reply #32)

Mon Dec 31, 2012, 08:54 AM

78. Would you expect Hillary to fight for them if she said she would?

 

I would.

I expect that Hillary would fight for them even if she thought she might lose. I think she would go to the American people and make her case there. I think she would fight beyond exhaustion. And if she lost, well, no one would say she didn't try.

You know what I wouldn't expect from President Hillary?

I wouldn't expect her to campaign as the defender of social security then a month after reelection propose cutting it. I don't know Hillary personally, but she strikes me as someone who means what they say. I suspect that if Hillary promised to end the wars, she would end the wars. Not four years down the road, not five, but immediately. If she campaigns on gay rights I believe that you can take it to the bank that she means it -- she won't need vice president Warren to give her a shove.

Hopefully we find out! She has my absolute support.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Demo_Chris (Reply #78)

Mon Dec 31, 2012, 08:57 AM

80. "I expect that Hillary would fight for them even if she thought she might lose. "

You know what I wouldn't expect from President Hillary?

I wouldn't expect her to campaign as the defender of social security then a month after reelection propose cutting it. I don't know Hillary personally, but she strikes me as someone who means what they say. I suspect that if Hillary promised to end the wars, she would end the wars. Not four years down the road, not five, but immediately. If she campaigns on gay rights I believe that you can take it to the bank that she means it -- she won't need vice president Warren to give her a shove.

Hopefully we find out! She has my absolute support.

Wow! Just wanted the people who rec'd this OP to see how they were duped.



Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to ProSense (Reply #80)

Mon Dec 31, 2012, 10:34 AM

105. As Bing Crosby said Everybody has an angle, and we know yours

 

you lose your crediblity because you have said 100 times over you do not like Hillary and you don't have much use for Obama

therefore every time you post a negative remark about either, well, that is your personal opinion of them, so it is meaningless when you put them down.

Neither needed one vote of any negative person voting for them.

Hillary45 is so far ahead of any other candidate on either party that there is simply no challenger to her when she runs unless her health doesn't allow it.

Also as said, the only other person who could insure a democratic victory if the gun issue is presented as the top issue, and if he runs as a democrat, would be Mike Bloomberg.
If he was running as a democratic candidate and Hillary for whatever reason was not, he has my 100% support, because the one issue candidates CAN NOT win a national election against Jeb Bush. Nor would the vast majority of them run.

And I note in the past you yourself keep saying Warren- she is in the perfect job right now for her one issue- why in God's name would you wish her to give it up, unless you don't think she can produce? As her committee is where change for that issue will come. Not the president.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to graham4anything (Reply #105)

Mon Dec 31, 2012, 10:39 AM

106. Isn't there

"As Bing Crosby said Everybody has an angle, and we know yours you lose your crediblity because you have said 100 times over you do not like Hillary and you don't have much use for Obama"

...a song about being in la-la land?

Your comment is completely divorced from reality.




Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to ProSense (Reply #106)

Mon Dec 31, 2012, 01:08 PM

119. No, it was about everybody having an angle

 

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to graham4anything (Reply #105)

Mon Dec 31, 2012, 06:51 PM

138. Where have I EVER said I don't like Hillary? Find ONE example! (nt)

 

Hell, I even like her husband -- President NAFTA.

I actually really like President Obama and think he is going to do a great job if we stop wriggling like over-excited puppies no matter what he does, and instead start calling and emailing demanding that he represent us.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Demo_Chris (Reply #138)

Mon Dec 31, 2012, 06:57 PM

141. the post didn't quote your post

 

it was to the responder of your post

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Demo_Chris (Reply #78)

Mon Dec 31, 2012, 09:18 AM

90. This is hillarious!

Hillary is more to the right than President Obama! She hasn't come out in favor of gay marriage, she is definitely more content with starting wars (Iraq) and potentially Iran, but you think she would FIGHT!!

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to bama_blue_dot (Reply #90)

Mon Dec 31, 2012, 09:26 AM

95. I don't know Hillary's policy positions. I do know...

 

She has done a remarkable job as Secretary of State, and she has always struck me as someone who will fight for what she believes.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Demo_Chris (Reply #95)

Mon Dec 31, 2012, 09:33 AM

97. You don't know her policy positions?

Maybe you should look into that before you just assume she will "fight" for you..

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to bama_blue_dot (Reply #97)

Mon Dec 31, 2012, 06:55 PM

140. Did she not work hard for Obama? To the point of physical collapse?

 

What more evidence do I need?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Demo_Chris (Original post)

Mon Dec 31, 2012, 01:27 AM

33. Unrec. and bite me. Where did you come from?

"President Obama asked for that job. Now he is refusing to do it. "

Go away. Do you know anything about politics?

Would you prefer Romney, or magic? Ugh.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink



Response to Demo_Chris (Original post)

Mon Dec 31, 2012, 01:28 AM

34. A lot of posters evidently didn't make it all the way to this part of your OP

Obviously, being intelligent people, we knew we would not get everything we wanted; we might not get anything we wanted. We knew our champion might have to compromise, but our beliefs would be represented.


Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Fumesucker (Reply #34)

Mon Dec 31, 2012, 01:33 AM

35. +1

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Fumesucker (Reply #34)

Mon Dec 31, 2012, 02:13 AM

42. I got to that part. But it didn't overcome the "demand" part. nt

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Fumesucker (Reply #34)

Mon Dec 31, 2012, 02:31 AM

44. Which tells me it was poorly written on my part.

 

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Demo_Chris (Reply #44)

Mon Dec 31, 2012, 02:44 AM

46. Not really

People see what they want to see, your post was longer than a single sentence so the chance that everyone would see and/or understand every part of it was as close to zero as makes no practical difference.

DU is a very "tough room", anything that can be remotely construed as criticism of Obama will get piled on by one or more cliques here. The fact you have a low post count only increases the fury of the reaction (it must be said there are substantial reasons for this).

Nailing Jell-O to the wall is child's play compared to posting on DU without creating a shitstorm.







Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Fumesucker (Reply #46)

Mon Dec 31, 2012, 08:50 AM

76. ...

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Fumesucker (Reply #46)

Mon Dec 31, 2012, 08:55 AM

79. So I have learned. I won't be in a hurry to do this again. (nt)

 

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Demo_Chris (Reply #79)

Mon Dec 31, 2012, 01:08 PM

118. Don't sweat it.

There are people here who will twist and torture your words to make it appear that you have said something you didn't say,
and THEN attack their own distortions.
(That is called the "Strawman Logical Fallacy")

Your OP was perfectly clear to everyone who bothered to read it.

ALL that bunk upthread about needing Congress, and demanding 100% purity are Red Herrings. NONE of that prevents a Democrat from standing in the Bully Pulpit and lobbying for Democratic Party Values.

The most pathetic excuse for Non-Action I have ever read on DU is:
"We didn't have 60 votes".

We don't know how many votes we would have had.
A more proper wording of that particular excuse would be:
"We might not have had 60 votes,
so we were too afraid to try."


It is one thing to threaten to vote against a President's agenda,
it is an entirely different thing to stand up in the House or Senate and actually cast that vote. Doing THAT, especially on popular issues like the Public Option (+70% support) have a way of following you home at election time.
Other presidents have known this and used this.

...but instead of "disciplining" those Party Members who threaten to vote against his agenda, the Obama Administration actually REWARDS them:
"The run-off between Democratic Senate incumbent Blanche Lincoln and challenger Bill Halter, which culminated on Tuesday night in Lincoln’s narrow victory, brightly illuminates what the Democratic Party establishment is. Lincoln is supposedly one of those “centrist”/conservative/corporatist Senators who thwarts the good-hearted progressive agenda of the President and the Party.

She repeatedly joined with Republicans to support the extremist Bush/Cheney Terrorism agenda (from the the Protect America Act to the Iraq War and virtually everything in between), serves the corporate interests that run Washington as loyally as any member of Congress, and even threatened to join the GOP in filibustering health care reform if it contained the public option which Obama claimed he wanted. Obama loyalists constantly point to the Blanche Lincolns of the world to justify why the Party scorns the values of their voters: Obama can’t do anything about these bad Democratic Senators; it’s not his fault if he doesn’t have the votes, they insist.

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

Bill Clinton traveled to Arkansas to urge loyal Democrats to vote for her, bashing liberal groups for good measure. Obama recorded an ad for Lincoln which, among other things, were used to tell African-American primary voters that they should vote for her because she works for their interests. The entire Party infrastructure lent its support and resources to Lincoln — a Senator who supposedly prevents Democrats from doing all sorts of Wonderful, Progressive Things which they so wish they could do but just don’t have the votes for."

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



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

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







Can you imagine little Joe Lieberman standing up and telling LBJ that he was going to vote against Medicare?
LOL
We would STILL be finding little pieces of Lieberman's ass spread all the way from Connecticut to Texas.





"A genuine leader is not a searcher for consensus but a molder of consensus."
-Rev Martin Luther King Jr.



There is nothing wrong or naive in expecting a Democratic Party President to fight for Traditional Democratic Party Values, or even his own campaign promises,
though some here will demonize you for having this simple expectation.

DURec for your post.


"If we don't fight hard enough for the things we stand for,
at some point we have to recognize that we don't really stand for them."

--- Paul Wellstone


photo by bvar22
Shortly before Sen Wellstone was killed


Solidarity!




Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to bvar22 (Reply #118)

Mon Dec 31, 2012, 06:58 PM

142. Thanks. I wish I had said it half as well as you just did. (nt)

 

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to bvar22 (Reply #118)

Mon Dec 31, 2012, 07:28 PM

145. Happy New Year!

Solidarity.


Cheers,
Agony

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Fumesucker (Reply #46)

Mon Dec 31, 2012, 09:24 AM

94. I wish I had read your post before I started posting

Some people do overreact and jump to conclusions. I will do my best not to do the same.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Fumesucker (Reply #34)

Mon Dec 31, 2012, 07:19 AM

62. Indeed.

The attitudes here are very telling.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Demo_Chris (Original post)

Mon Dec 31, 2012, 01:36 AM

36. Just do it? Do you happen to know why sooooooo many people think Presidents are KINGS?

Curious about this pattern.

It might help if people repeating this would specify a little who/what/why/when/where/how any of this is supposed to happen.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Demo_Chris (Original post)

Mon Dec 31, 2012, 02:06 AM

39. There is no point in wasting your time

trying to provide credible evidence of any progress this President has made.. This OP makes a nonsensical post, then never bothers to reply to any comments.. You obviously have an agenda here, and it is becoming crystal clear..

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to bama_blue_dot (Reply #39)

Mon Dec 31, 2012, 02:30 AM

43. My "agenda" is reading and thinking about what others have to say.

 

I could start "defending" myself or arguing petty points, but that accomplishes nothing and it is disrespectful to the people who took the time to read and respond to my first original post.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Demo_Chris (Reply #43)

Mon Dec 31, 2012, 02:36 AM

45. So when others provide detailed responses

to your post, they don't deserve to be acknowledged at all? That seems unfair.. Do you ever intend on replying to any of the well thought out responses that were given?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to bama_blue_dot (Reply #45)

Mon Dec 31, 2012, 09:04 AM

84. My apologies. (nt)

 

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Demo_Chris (Original post)

Mon Dec 31, 2012, 02:58 AM

47. Extend the Bush tax cuts for the rich another four years

That would really show them who's boss.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Demo_Chris (Original post)

Mon Dec 31, 2012, 03:09 AM

49. Why do you need someone else to demand and fight for these things?

We are a self governing nation.

Total cop out. Just sit back and expect someone else to do it all.

Separation of powers. Some people fail to appreciate the beauty of this. It's what lets us be involved. We don't sit back and let others rule us. This is a good thing.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to treestar (Reply #49)

Mon Dec 31, 2012, 09:06 AM

87. I am not the President. My part was working to see Obama elected

 

Anything else, including talking about politics here, is comparatively unimportant.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Demo_Chris (Reply #87)

Mon Dec 31, 2012, 09:30 AM

96. Actually, the President has said many times

that if the people want change, they have to fight for it.. You don't just "fight" to get him elected, and then quit the job after that.. Nothing changes in Washington without the public pushing for that change..

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to bama_blue_dot (Reply #96)

Tue Jan 1, 2013, 12:57 AM

149. We saw what happened to OWS... but I guess there is no point in electing a champion to your cause

in Washington where the actual laws are written. lolol

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Demo_Chris (Reply #87)

Mon Dec 31, 2012, 09:54 AM

104. What about the governor of your state

your congressman, your Senators, your state representatives? All of these people are involved.

The left focuses on the US Presidency as if it were the only power in the office.

And no you can't just sit back after the election. You still have to fight.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to treestar (Reply #104)

Mon Dec 31, 2012, 07:01 PM

143. I am.

 

I even register here at the Gladiator College, then jumped into the arena to say hello to the lions.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Demo_Chris (Original post)

Mon Dec 31, 2012, 03:24 AM

50. It's so heartening to see

so many new DU members joining the site in order to educate all here as to what a lousy job President Obama is doing!

Was it a sudden feeling of overwhelming concern for your countrymen that prompted you to sign-up and speak your piece? Or was it something else that led to your political epiphany, which in turn led to a passionate need to share your thoughts?

Just curious.



Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Summer Hathaway (Reply #50)

Mon Dec 31, 2012, 09:20 AM

92. Did I need a special reason to register or post?

 

Respectfully, your post comes across as if this were some exclusive private club and I am an uninvited and unwelcome intruder.

I registered because I wanted to chat with fellow Democrats who I believe share my vision for what America might one day become. I posted this thread because I wanted to share my thoughts.

I completely understand if my thoughts are uninteresting to you or anyone else. That's the risk you take any time your put something in writing. In any case, thanks for taking the time to read and respond.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Demo_Chris (Reply #92)

Mon Dec 31, 2012, 10:41 AM

107. Yikey, that was probably your first mistake. You should have lurked for a while.

Then you would have noticed that people who disagree about the way Obama does things gets gang-jumped. This is a fan space. There is some kind of talking points that one of those cliques puts out fairly frequently -- You will always see it on the front page. Any divergence brings out the 3rd Way/DLC Shitstorm. This is property owned by an individual with his own agenda, not a free speech free thinking platform for exchanging ideas and respectful debate--just look at the rules. We have a few bomb-throwers that try to keep it real but there have been many that were run off or left in disgust. You should have better luck with some other sites. I will probably run foul of the rules here but FDL might be a friendlier place.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Demo_Chris (Reply #92)

Mon Dec 31, 2012, 07:32 PM

147. No special reason required.

I'm just curious as to why there are so many new posters who are registering on a Democratic message board in order to tell everyone what a lousy president Obama is.

As for being an 'unwelcome intruder', far from it. The way this site operates now, you'll fit in quite nicely. There are now many posters here who are anxious to point out that Obama is "refusing to do his job", and is "representing the GOP" rather than those who voted for him, etc. - and more signing-up every day now.

That wasn't always the case - but then this is no longer the site it once was.

It is I, as a supporter of a Democratic president and the party as a whole, who is the unwelcome one here - unless, of course, I restrict my postings to the BOG, a small corner of a "Democratic" website where those who are cognizant of this President's accomplishments, along with being realistically aware of the limitations of his office and the political obstacles he faces every day, are supposed to keep to, so as not to upset the anti-Obama crowd on the rest of the board.

BTW, Obama was not elected to represent his party, but to represent all Americans and do what is best for the country as a whole. And apparently the majority of voters think he's doing just that.



Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Demo_Chris (Original post)

Mon Dec 31, 2012, 06:22 AM

56. I had no illusions about President Obama. The only thing I knew for sure was the Supreme Court,

anything else would be just luck

As I read somewhere else these are not the same Democrats as FDR and LBJ. It is doubtful that Social Security and Medicare could be passed by today's Democrats, and that says everything.

It is up to us to change the party within if we want to see real progressive programs take hold

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Demo_Chris (Original post)

Mon Dec 31, 2012, 07:11 AM

60. Threads like these always fascinate me,

because they expose so well the Third Way lies that we are all on the same side here, that Obama fights for the same values and principles we do but is merely obstructed by Republicans, or that he is playing a grand chess game that will strengthen Democratic goals in the end, or that he has been fighting for us all along but we are too stupid to understand it.

The implicit defense of corporatism and right-wing policy expressed here, along with the absolute scorn heaped on traditional Democratic values, principles and policy goals and those who would seek them, should be an eye-opener to any Democrat who doubts the real purpose and goals of the corporate Third Way and their mouthpieces.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to woo me with science (Reply #60)

Mon Dec 31, 2012, 07:55 AM

65. +1 Thank you.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to woo me with science (Reply #60)

Mon Dec 31, 2012, 08:37 AM

71. Why don't you

ever show up in posts like this one:

New Affordable Care Act tax hike for high earners kicks in with the new year
http://www.democraticunderground.com/10022093669

...to tell everyone how much President Obama loves the one percent?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to ProSense (Reply #71)

Mon Dec 31, 2012, 09:19 AM

91. Granted, it is something -- a tiny bit of something

It certainly is nothing like universal care, or even a public option. It isn't anywhere close to asking the rich to pay their fair share of taxes. It isn't even much compared to simply raising the income cap on the payroll taxes, which is a no-brainer.

But it is something.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to BlueStreak (Reply #91)

Mon Dec 31, 2012, 01:30 PM

121. Look MA!!!

I traded the family cow for this handful of beans!!!
...but I got a good deal because the guy said they might be MAGIC!!!

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to bvar22 (Reply #121)

Mon Dec 31, 2012, 03:03 PM

130. Well said.

Don't miss Sabrina's excellent post above about how we are propagandized to confuse laundry lists and ponies with issues that are fundamentally important for our nation:
http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1002&pid=2101942

The waving of beans gets so very old.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to woo me with science (Reply #60)

Mon Dec 31, 2012, 08:52 AM

77. +1000!

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to woo me with science (Reply #60)

Mon Dec 31, 2012, 09:21 AM

93. Thanks. It has certainly been an eye opening experience for me. (nt)

 

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Demo_Chris (Original post)

Mon Dec 31, 2012, 09:06 AM

86. People on the Right should realy just shut up and enjoy. They won.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Demo_Chris (Original post)

Mon Dec 31, 2012, 09:35 AM

98. Your list is a few short. Let me add........

Prosecuting past administrations for their crimes. (war crimes). Prosecuting Wall St. for their crimes. Enforcing the rule of law.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Hotler (Reply #98)

Mon Dec 31, 2012, 09:51 AM

103. Since this administration has opted to continue many of the criminal policies of

 

past administartions, I guess they can start by prosecuting themselves.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Demo_Chris (Original post)

Mon Dec 31, 2012, 09:35 AM

99. Then you better get busy finding the uber Progressive candidate for 2016 ... or ...

You'll be posting a new list of grievances in 2017.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to JoePhilly (Reply #99)

Mon Dec 31, 2012, 10:50 AM

108. Amen to that.

Just discouraging someone would have to be uber Progressive, the most far out radical of liberals, to want to end wars, drone strikes, repeal the Patriot Act and prosecute Wall St criminals.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to JoePhilly (Reply #99)

Mon Dec 31, 2012, 07:10 PM

144. Question: Since when is "ending the wars" and what not uber-progressive?

 

If so, then most of the country is uber-progressive. This applies equally to a great many things on that list. Not all, but many. Things like ending the wars, ending the patriot act, and even real healthcare reform are popular -- even many Republicans hate Patriot and wars. So is fixing our infrastructure, actually taxing our royalty and addressing wealth inequality, and even reducing our hillariously bloated military.

These things are not radical.

Obviously some of the things on the list are more controversial. Amnesty for example. But that does not mean that a Democratic President shouldn't at least propose this as the starting point for negotiation.







Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Demo_Chris (Original post)

Mon Dec 31, 2012, 11:04 AM

111. Fine. Get the House and Senate in line, then.

Let Teabaggers infest the House and they have to be dealt with. You can't just program them to vote the will of the opposition party any more than those reccing your post would vote a GOP president's agenda.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Demo_Chris (Original post)

Mon Dec 31, 2012, 11:22 AM

113. Millions of Democrats have the same goals

Don't be discouraged by the Third Way fans. 2010 was a clear indication that their power over the Democratic Party is waning because their ideals are fascist in nature and have been a catastrophic failure for the average American. They can't win without the liberal vote, so I'm not sure what they think they're accomplishing by mocking and ridiculing fellow liberals who are fighting against right wing policies (like cutting SS & Veterans benefits) that have so insidiously made their way into Democratic party dogma. You know things are pretty messed up within the party when you see "Democrats" attack fellow Democrats for doing so, and then defend the right wing policies we're fighting against. We're just one presidential Bill signing ceremony for SS cuts away from a party in total disarray, just as we're witnessing in the Republican party today.

Be careful who you mock, Third Wayers. You can't win any election without the liberal base vote. When we have a president who is willing to make benefit cuts for the most vulnerable in society, we will not remain silent about it. Perhaps it would be a smart move on your part to join us in attacking those devastating policies because I can guarantee you, if Obama and enough blue dogs join the repubs and make cuts in SS benefits, the party is fucking OVER.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Demo_Chris (Original post)

Mon Dec 31, 2012, 01:02 PM

117. Bush dismantled decades of progress in 100 days

It's taking Obama a bit longer, but he is certainly trying as hard as he can to continue in that direction.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Demo_Chris (Original post)

Mon Dec 31, 2012, 01:46 PM

122. DURec!

...and Welcome to DU.
Despite the gang attack from the "moderates" above,
everything in your post falls inside the framework of Traditional Democratic Party Values, and there are plenty of Traditional Democrats here at DU.

"In our day these economic truths have become accepted as self-evident. We have accepted, so to speak, a second Bill of Rights under which a new basis of security and prosperity can be established for all—regardless of station, race, or creed.

Among these are:

*The right to a useful and remunerative job in the industries or shops or farms or mines of the nation;

*The right to earn enough to provide adequate food and clothing and recreation;

*The right of every farmer to raise and sell his products at a return which will give him and his family a decent living;

*The right of every businessman, large and small, to trade in an atmosphere of freedom from unfair competition and domination by monopolies at home or abroad;

*The right of every family to a decent home;

*The right to adequate medical care and the opportunity to achieve and enjoy good health;

*The right to adequate protection from the economic fears of old age, sickness, accident, and unemployment;

*The right to a good education.

All of these rights spell security. And after this war is won we must be prepared to move forward, in the implementation of these rights, to new goals of human happiness and well-being.

America's own rightful place in the world depends in large part upon how fully these and similar rights have been carried into practice for all our citizens."
--FDR, Economic Bill of Rights


Note that FDR specified the above as Basic Human Rights to be owned and administered by our Government OF The People,
and NOT as Commodities to be sold by For Profit Corporations to those Americans who can afford to BUY them.

I can remember a time when voting FOR The Democrat
was voting FOR the above values.
Sadly, this is no longer true,
but as a Mainstream-Center FDR/LBJ Working Class Democrat,
I have no problem with pointing this out,
and advocating a return to the Policies and Values
that built the Largest, Wealthiest, and Most Upwardly Mobile Working Class the WORLD has ever seen!!!

Your list fits nicely with the above values,
and I have no problem STANDING for them.

* Ending the wars.
* Drastic cuts in military spending.
* Closing Gitmo and all the secret prisons.
* Eliminating the Patriot act and all domestic spying.
* Removal of the cap on social security.
* Lowering the age of eligibility and increasing benefits.
* Increasing safety net spending.
* Massive and necessary infrastructure investment.
* Radically increasing the tax rate on affluent Americans.
* Taxing capital gains as income.
* Significant efforts to address wealth inequality.
* A champion of civil rights for ALL.
* Eliminating so-called Free Trade Agreements.
* Blanket amnesty for illegal immigrants.
* Serious action to address global warming.
* Single payer healthcare.


Cheers, and have a happy, healthy, and productive New Year!
---bvar22
a mainstream-center FDR/LBJ Working Class UNION Democratic Party activist
labeled by some here as a "Fringe Leftist".
I haven't changed.


"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


photo by bvar22
Shortly before Sen Wellstone was killed



You will know them by their WORKS,
not by their rhetoric, promises, or excuses.
Solidarity99!

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Demo_Chris (Original post)


Response to Demo_Chris (Original post)

Mon Dec 31, 2012, 02:10 PM

128. sure , all he has to do is do what he says he will do instead of what the cons tell him to do...but

that's not very likely

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Demo_Chris (Original post)

Mon Dec 31, 2012, 02:15 PM

129. I don't know that he's trying to "silence" them, I just think the American people stopped.......

listening to them. When OWS began to fall in on itself, it was an eye opening experience for many of us. Liberals should & do make all the noise they want, but they must understand that this president built a huge coalition of voters, and "liberals" were just a fraction of that coalition. Post election polling shows that only 20% of the electorate self identified as "liberal", and I think that statistic speaks volumes. And if that weren't enough, you only have to look at the performance of liberal alternatives like The Jill Stein Party, The Roseanne Party, The Rocky Anderson Party who couldn't even muster 1% of the electorate COMBINED. That puts things in perspective for many of us, and that perspective is not good for this new Green/Libertarian/Whatever hybrid that calls itself "liberal". Who the hell even knows what it means anymore?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Tarheel_Dem (Reply #129)

Mon Dec 31, 2012, 07:28 PM

146. True, but...

 

True. Most do not self-identify as liberals. Most do, however, support many of the things on that list, and they are not that far off on the ones they disagree with.

They are like someone who plans to buy a new vehicle, they are learning towards a Honda or Toyota, but that doesn't mean the guy at the Ford lot cannot convince them to buy a Mustang. He has to sell the benefits of his car. He has to sell it.

Right now, the American people are bombarded 24/7/365 with the GOP sales pitch straight for FOX and radio. Everyone has heard the right-wing mantra. Everyone has heard about the job creators, and everyone is familiar with the GOP plan: "Give all our money to the noble job creators, let them do anything they want, and they will build a factory and hire people!"

And our plan? Our ideals? Who is selling that? Hell... what is our plan? So far our rallying cry seems to be: "It's like the GOP plan only less."

I do not believe it would take a lot of selling to convince the American people that their healthcare sucks and we need to actually fix it. I don't think it would be hard to selling the benefits of repairing or dams and bridges before they collapse and wipe people out. I don't think it would require massive selling to convince people that our society will be BETTER if we build things here, educate our children, and take care of one another.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Demo_Chris (Reply #146)

Mon Dec 31, 2012, 11:29 PM

148. They only have to tune in to MSNBC, or KTLK, etc. There are liberal options.

So, let's not blame this one on the media, mmmmkay? I'm sorry, but you're a prime example of why rank & file Dems may be moving to the center. I can tell you this, there isn't going to be a civil war inside the Democratic Party. People are certainly free to voice their displeasure, but they're also free to join Jill Stein, Roseanne, or Rocky anytime they want.

The problem with the disgruntled activists is they spend so much damned time on the internet griping, instead of Occupying Congress, that they are as ineffective as an upside down umbrella in a torrential downpour. Pick your "liberal" candidate, back 'em to the hilt, and get 'em elected.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Tarheel_Dem (Reply #148)

Tue Jan 1, 2013, 01:02 PM

154. in post 148, Traheel_Dem says:

"Pick your "liberal" candidate, back 'em to the hilt, and get 'em elected."

Seems like a good plan,
and we tried that in the Arkansas Democratic Primary in 2010.
The Grass Roots, Pro-HealthCare Democrats, and Organized LABOR
came together to back a Democratic candidate to replace Blue Dog, Anti-LABOR, Anti-HealthCare Blache Lincoln.
Blanche was actually campaigning as "the one who Derailed the Obama Agenda.

We had a very popular Pro-LABOR, Pro-HealthCare, Democrat with a record of winning elections, and an Up & Running Political machine, LtGov Bill Halter, who was polling better against the Republican than Lincoln was.

Guess What Happened?
Our biggest enemy turned out to NOT be the Republicans,
but the Obama White House. To rescue Lincoln's faining campaign, the White House gave her an Oval Office Endorsement,
and even sent the Big Blue Dog (Bill Clinton) back to Arkansas to Rally, Stump, and raise funds for Lincoln's failing campaign.

"The run-off between Democratic Senate incumbent Blanche Lincoln and challenger Bill Halter, which culminated on Tuesday night in Lincoln’s narrow victory, brightly illuminates what the Democratic Party establishment is. Lincoln is supposedly one of those “centrist”/conservative/corporatist Senators who thwarts the good-hearted progressive agenda of the President and the Party.

She repeatedly joined with Republicans to support the extremist Bush/Cheney Terrorism agenda (from the the Protect America Act to the Iraq War and virtually everything in between), serves the corporate interests that run Washington as loyally as any member of Congress, and even threatened to join the GOP in filibustering health care reform if it contained the public option which Obama claimed he wanted. Obama loyalists constantly point to the Blanche Lincolns of the world to justify why the Party scorns the values of their voters: Obama can’t do anything about these bad Democratic Senators; it’s not his fault if he doesn’t have the votes, they insist.

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

Bill Clinton traveled to Arkansas to urge loyal Democrats to vote for her, bashing liberal groups for good measure. Obama recorded an ad for Lincoln which, among other things, were used to tell African-American primary voters that they should vote for her because she works for their interests. The entire Party infrastructure lent its support and resources to Lincoln — a Senator who supposedly prevents Democrats from doing all sorts of Wonderful, Progressive Things which they so wish they could do but just don’t have the votes for."


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


BTW, the above effort at replacing Blanche Lincoln with a "Democrat" took a lot more than spending " so much damned time on the internet griping, instead of Occupying Congress," as your unsupported fantasy slur about The Left implies.
It required a lot of hard work and organization,
and we did everything we had been asked to do by the White House to give him Progressives in Congress.
Who would have ever guessed that our biggest enemy would turn out to be the Obama White House?

Adding insult to injury, an "anonymous White House Spokesperson" later ridiculed us for our efforts and wasted money trying to give Obama a more Progressive Congress.
Turns out, the Party Leadership likes things the way they are....Just Fine.


So it is not as easy as you would have everyone believe,
or are you advocating that everyone to the Left of Ronald Reagan start voting for a 3rd Party? You are a little unclear about that.



You will know them by their WORKS,
not by their rhetoric, promises, or excuses.
Solidarity99!


Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to bvar22 (Reply #154)

Tue Jan 1, 2013, 09:43 PM

165. Aren't you precious? Hopefully, the poster I actually responded to knew that I....

meant a NATIONAL campaign. Show me that you can pick, back, and elect a NATIONAL candidate to the left of Obama.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Demo_Chris (Original post)

Mon Dec 31, 2012, 06:16 PM

136. Seeing how little those priorities have become, or are likely to become, realities

is but a microcosm of how extremely far right our politics have become. The Congress spends most of its time doing the bidding of the 2% and large corporations, most often to the detriment of the 98%. It ensures massive funding for the MIC so global hegemony can be exerted and no Americans die on US soil at the hands of foreign terraists while thousands of its inhabitants are massacred/maimed each year because of a ludicrously ridiculous interpretation of the Second Amendment while, at the same time, passing legislation to further erode, eviscerate, or trample most of the rest of the Bill of Rights. The infrastructure crumbles, public health and food safety are neglected, the standard of living erodes, income inequality soars, the US falls to or near the bottom in all quality of life ranking factors among industrialized nations, tens of millions are without access to medical care, the minimum wage is ludicrously low, we could go on and on. All of this is because public policy almost solely promotes the interest of special interests instead of the general welfare, i.e., an extremely virulent right-wing cancer has metastasized and spread all over the body politic and we the people get royally f*c*ed. Off rant.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Demo_Chris (Original post)

Tue Jan 1, 2013, 02:30 AM

150. Yeah he can BY DOING WHAT HE PROMISED

Now ban me.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to DiverDave (Reply #150)

Tue Jan 1, 2013, 08:30 PM

163. So easy to say. How would you work with the Congress in place?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to CakeGrrl (Reply #163)

Wed Jan 2, 2013, 05:55 PM

166. How about not nominating rethugs for cabinet posts?

How about throwing the wall street criminals in JAIL??
You mean you dont see any of that?
Blinded by the light.
I've been working since I was 14, FOURTEEN, thats 41 years, and I dont think I will see a dime of it.
It IS an entitlement, MY MONEY.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink

Reply to this thread