What Was Obama HINTING At In HIS Speech?

[Segami]

While the bulk of President Obama’s Galesburg talk was a progressive one, as I indicated in “Obama Scores with Econ Speech,” he did sneak in one passage that should raise concerns among progressives.


Here it is:

“....I will be saying to Democrats we’ve got to question some of our old assumptions. We’ve got to be willing to redesign or get rid of programs that don't work as well as they should. We’ve got to be willing to -- we’ve got to embrace changes to cherished priorities so that they work better in this new age. We can't just -- Democrats can't just stand pat and just defend whatever government is doing. If we believe that government can give the middle class a fair shot in this new century -- and I believe that -- we’ve an obligation to prove it. And that means that we’ve got to be open to new ways of doing things....”

Now, on the face of it, that might sound perfectly reasonable. After all, who could be against making programs “work better” or being “open to new ways of doing things”? But which programs is he talking about here? Is he again pushing his “chained CPI” proposal, which would devastate the elderly, the disabled, and veterans?


Or does he have some big new concession he’s about to give Republicans that might have disastrous implications for poor people, as Bill Clinton’s “end welfare as we know it” pledge did?


Beware: Obama might pull another fast one.




http://www.progressive.org/troubling-passage-in-obama-speech

[vi5]

1. Does it matter?

No matter what it is, the usual suspects will be on here yelling at the rest of us for not thinking whatever shit sandwich he's trying to serve us tastes like prime rib.

[limpyhobbler]

65. yuck

[yurbud]

67. which is SUCH an effective way to persuade us. The one consolation of those suspects doing that...

is that someone is wasting their money paying them to do so.

[Skittles]

68. have you noticed some new hires lately?

[yurbud]

75. No, because the talking points seem to be the same. They haven't figured out "persona management"

http://www.dailykos.com/story/2011/02/16/945768/-UPDATED-The-HB-Gary-Email-That-Should-Concern-Us-All

[Laelth]

82. Thanks for that link.

Has it been posted to DU as an OP? If not, that might be very valuable to us, here.



-Laelth

[Catherina]

84. I made an OP and sent Yurbud a PM about it

My OP is here http://www.democraticunderground.com/10023358242

I hope that's ok. If it's not, I'll take my licks for swiping someone else's DU scoop like an adult.

The reason I made an OP is because stuff is moving so fast that it doesn't even matter if there are duplicate OPs about particular subjects anymore. If Yurbud wants me to edit or delete my OP, that's all good. I sent him/her a PM about it.

I agree that this is very important information.

[Laelth]

85. Awesome. Thank you. n/t

-Laelth

[MannyGoldstein]

83. Holy cow. That's awful stuff.

Should be an OP, I think.

[bemildred]

87. It occurs to me that sockpuppets would be an excellent way to run up your post count.

And I wonder about "sleepers" too?

[yurbud]

91. who post inoffensive stuff to get their count up until needed?

[bemildred]

92. Something like that. So long as you don't say anything, just moan or cheer or yell,

you don't have to respond to what anybody else says either. You do not have to understand or respond to what other posters say in a flame war, that's why it's a flame war, no communication is occurring. So it's easy to automate.

Look at all the Snowden threads that amount to nothing more than shit-slinging, that they can do. Reasoned discourse requires a human in the loop. That's the point of the Turing test. Computers don't do critical thinking.

[yurbud]

93. I didn't even think they were bots, just lazy shills copying and pasting from a list of talking

points and insults.

like "and I want a pony."

[bemildred]

95. There are humans n the loop, the bots allow them to handle more connections.

Sort of like auto-dialers, I would think, some guy sitting there and he gets alerts from a stumped bot and has to decide how to respond.

[Generic Other]

88. So this "persona"?

Will it be "above average" like someone from Lake Woebegon?

[yurbud]

90. "where all our posts are above average"

in put downs and glibness yet uniquely devoid of content and depth.

[bemildred]

96. +1. nt

[diabeticman]

2. When he says things like that my first thought is Social Security I don't like the Chained CPI thing

but I worry for people on welfare.

[snappyturtle]

3. Cherished priorities? That scares me...I smell social security, Medicare,

Medicaid, etc.

[Segami]

5. Thats 'Obama-code' for Change is a comin'.

[emulatorloo]

10. It is Obama-Code to general public for "I am not an ideologue Boehner-Teabag"

Aimed at general population, has said it many times.

"Republicans are CRAZY, Dems are not".

It is one paragraph in a larger context. However DU fixates on the one paragraph and goes off on wild speculation.

[yurbud]

94. wild speculations that are about as bad as Obama's pre-compromised proposals

that he ultimately puts forward.

[MuseRider]

19. I was hoping

for different change. Not this change.

LOL, I hoped for much but never expected it. He is who he is and he has never inspired me with progressivism. He does give a good speech though.

[snappyturtle]

25. His speech giving talent could have been used to really

change things. I think he could talk the white off of white socks....but his
focus changed. Maybe it's the realities of the job but then he owes us that
explanation.....and not use the repukes as his scapegoat.

[Myrina]

41. Cherished Priorities = The 1st and 4th Amendment ...

[snappyturtle]

60. OH! Hadn't thought of that. How awful. I hope not.

[forestpath]

4. Obviously he's still going after Social Security - and probably other programs

that help the 99%.

So much for helping the middle class.

[geek tragedy]

6. That's his standard throwaway line to look reasonable--he's been using

it for years and years now.

[emulatorloo]

8. Pretty much his boilerplate "I am reasonable unlike Republicans"

Has been used over and over, but DU has no memory and has some kind of speculative freak-out every time.

[hfojvt]

26. except that is not the line he is using

Last edited Thu Jul 25, 2013, 02:05 PM - Edit history (1)

He says "I am reasonable unlike Republicans AND PROGRESSIVES" (see, Obama is the 3rd way. Neither right, nor left - 3rd way.)

Thus, apparently people who want to keep 100% of the Bush tax cuts are no more unreasonable than people who want to get rid of 100% of the Bush tax cuts.

In that manner, we end up keeping 85% of the Bush tax cuts - a policy which happens to mostly benefit the rich. But why be unreasonable and expect policies to benefit the majority of people instead of just the rich?

It's also his "meet Republicans half way right from the start" negotiating strategy that has been having us tear our hair out for years. Instead of starting at zero and compromising at 50%, he starts at 60%, "compromises" at 80% and then calls it a victory for progressives.

He's like a coach whose team has given up 8 field goals and he thinks that is a "success" because the other team has yet to score a touchdown. Yet neither has our team even scored a field goal and the score late in the 3rd quarter is now 24-0 in favor of the other team. And the damned coach STILL won't change his strategy, and tries to tell us that we are winning.

[emulatorloo]

33. You are entitled to your opinion just as I am entitled to mine

OTHO I think the example you use to support your opinion that Obama is "equating" Progressives with Republicans may not be the best one out there:

You write:

=======

"He says "I am reasonable unlike Republicans AND PROGRESSIVES"

Thus, apparently people who want to keep 100% of the Bush tax cuts are no more unreasonable than people who want to get rid of 100% of the Bush tax cuts."

===========

As you know getting rid of 100% of the Bush tax cuts would result in an increasing taxes on the middle class. Best plan is to get rid of Bush tax cuts for top percents and leave cuts in place for the majority of Americans. Probably something most progressives agree on. Rates on wealthy have been increased but not enough.

ON EDIT: Oh sorry, I see from your post below you think the middle class are wealthy. Never mind.

[hfojvt]

34. so I see from your post here

that you agree with Obama that many of the rich are actually middle class.

As for taxes going up on the real middle class.

There were ways to prevent that besides keeping a huge portion of the Bush tax cuts. See, for example,

http://www.democraticunderground.com/10021880321

But as for taxes going up on the poor - we can fix that. And we can fix that in much better ways than the 78% Bush tax cuts. Here are some suggestions

1. Increase the standard deduction by $5,000 per couple. This will save people at the bottom about $750 a year without being a windfall for the rich.

2. bring back the making work pay credit (without the extra damn form). That was a refundable $400 per person, $800 per couple, phased out for higher incomes.

3. increase the personal exemption by $500. Unfortunately the rich will benefit from that, but not by much more than the poor. It means $75 for the poor and only $197 for the rich. It would be a $2,000 automatic deduction for a family of four.

4. Re-introduce lower brackets. Say, a 5% bracket on the first $3,000 and a 10% bracket on the first $7,000 for individuals. The first would be a $300 tax cut for most taxpayers and the second would be another $200 for most taxpayers.

Of course, those proposals would NEVER be accepted by Republicans, but the trouble is, they were never even proposed by Obama and the useless Democratic Party which refused to even TRY to aid the bottom 80% except in trickle down fashion.

And NO, I never said that the middle class was wealthy. I just have a different definition of "middle" apparently. I only include the 20-80% group as the middle. That 80-98% group is part of the top 20%, not part of the middle 60%, and much less do they belong with the bottom 20% like the fools at OWS seem to think.

[HumansAndResources]

81. How About No Tax of Any Kind on incomes below $30K + 100% rent/mortgage deduction to $1K/mo?

Stop "income-taxing" poor people, who already pay the other taxes on transportation / gas, etc.

Get rid of all the picking who gets benefits based on family size and punishing people based on family decisions - which is not anyone's business - but raise the exemption so poor families aren't worse off. If you are a couple, so what - every INDIVIDUAL gets $30K tax free and the "government" doesn't need to know your "marriage status."

Include the rent-deduction for people living in high-rent areas. Include "to work transportation costs" as another deduction. Those making $30K and less + work-expenses and rent should get to keep all of it - no?

[Drunken Irishman]

78. Exactly. But where's the outrage in an answer like that?

ANGER!

[AllINeedIsCoffee]

7. Called it yesterday. I knew the blogosphere would find one little tidbit

to feed the people that didn't even bother listening to the speech and sell it as the end of the world.

[snappyturtle]

27. Can you tell me with certainty what he was referring to with

the words, "cherished priorities"? That's a jumbo tidbit in my life.

Wonderful photo BTW.

[morningfog]

40. Obama served it on a platter. What do YOU think he meant?

[Boom Sound 416]

9. It could be a setup for the debt ceiling battle coming

Or like the above post. Just a shout out to "moderates"

[OilemFirchen]

11. Purity Patrol takes the gold in conclusion-jumping!

Not that there was much competition, but congrats anyway.

BTW, do you believe that no liberal constructs are subject to scrutiny?

[nadinbrzezinski]

12. Social security and Medicare are back on the table

[snappyturtle]

28. For sure! Dang...scares me to death. nt

[MotherPetrie]

13. He's saying, "Prepare to be screwed. Now just sit back and enjoy my soaring rhetoric

and earnest delivery."

[Schema Thing]

14. He's instituting a one child policy

[KoKo]

15. I read transcript his speech last night...and that stood out at me also...

And that not only means SS but that we should give up "cherished priorities" like freedom of speech and rights to privacy...in "this new age."

Reading Carefully:

We’ve got to be willing to -- we’ve got to embrace changes to cherished priorities so that they work better in this new age.

He's said that since he was elected and before...but, most of us didn't take it literally until he set up the Bowles-Simpson Commission and then started to attack SS with Chained CPI.

After that I decided that he gives strong "hints" in his speeches that are magnificently crafted to distract from his true intentions. That's why he gives almost the same speech over and over. It's the clever lawyers way of never actually saying anything that can't be interpreted another way on further inspection later on in his policies. He never describes what "this new age" is in his mind. But, if trashing the Constitution and Bill of Rights is what we do in "this new age" then we better be noticing.

[Segami]

16. How quickly people forget his past actions.

[snappyturtle]

30. +1 Absolutely on all points. nt

[Myrina]

39. ^^ This ^^

x 1 Brazillion.


Thank you.

[leftstreet]

53. +1

[hfojvt]

17. I don't think his talk was THAT progressive

it was all "middle class", "middle class", "middle class"

He also sneaked in a Reaganomics line "we made tax cuts permanent for 98% of taxpayers."

Thank you President Reagan!!

Aren't tax cuts just great? Isn't it great that BOTH parties are now always in favor of tax cuts?

And that 98% number illustrates the problem with all the talk about the "middle class".

Because Obama apparently includes the 80-98% group as part of the "middle class". Even though they are economically better off than 80% of the rest of us. Those permanent tax cuts that Obama was bragging about - 65% of the benefits goto the top 20%. I call that trickle down. I call that a policy that favors the rich over the masses.

I remember when Democrats used to oppose tax cuts that favor the rich. Now they brag about them.

My, how things have CHANGEd.

Just not in the way I HOPEd for.

[bemildred]

18. I know which "old assumptions" I'm going to question. nt

[dmosh42]

20. When he pushes for 'real' equality among the classes, I might believe what he is saying....

but for now he's all about me giving up something while the wealthy elite go on their merry way.

[MisterP]

86. that just means that both rich and poor alike shall be forbidden to sleep under bridges

(Anatole France)

[bahrbearian]

21. Social Security for sure.

[Progressive dog]

22. Another fast one

There must be someone keeping records on fast ones. Another could just be two, I'd like to know the tally to this point.

[woo me with science]

23. More of the same predatory shit.

Austerity, corporate education policy.

Screw the 99 percent, the country, and the Constitution. I got mine.

[ProSense]

24. Maybe

"We can't just -- Democrats can't just stand pat and just defend whatever government is doing."

...he's aligning with "the new breed of small government conservatives"

http://www.democraticunderground.com/10023337088

It's a thought.

[Tierra_y_Libertad]

29. Politics as usual.

[NCTraveler]

31. Not sure what you are concerned about.

Right after the speech he got on the phone to discuss trickle down economics with Larry Summers. Wall street will be rocking and rolling. You will get yours down the road. Won't be too long now. Wait....hold up.....still trickling.

[Enrique]

32. Matt is being disingenuous, imo

he criticizes Obama from the left quite a bit, maybe he's getting tired of it and he decided to let his guard down for this speech. The way I read it, that is just the same standard triangulation Obama has been doing all along, which Matt has written about plenty of times. Suddenly he's playing dumb, is how it looks to me.

[datasuspect]

35. BUT WAIT . . .

aren't you glad mitt romney isn't the president?

i mean, things ARE SO MUCH BETTER because mitt romney isn't the president.

[Garion_55]

36. Hypocrite thy name is obama

“....I will be saying to Democrats we’ve got to question some of our old assumptions. We’ve got to be willing to redesign or get rid of programs that don't work as well as they should. We’ve got to be willing to -- we’ve got to embrace changes to cherished priorities so that they work better in this new age. We can't just -- Democrats can't just stand pat and just defend whatever government is doing."




"Here's what's up: What I specifically said was that we were not going to prioritize prosecutions of persons who are using medical marijuana. I never made a commitment that somehow we were going to give carte blanche to large-scale producers and operators of marijuana � and the reason is, because it's against federal law. I can't nullify congressional law. I can't ask the Justice Department to say, "Ignore completely a federal law that's on the books."

[Maedhros]

45. The Justice Department can't "ignore completely a federal law that's on the books"

Unless the perpetrators are Wall Street CEOs and former Republican Administration officials, then it's OK to completely ignore the law.

[Myrina]

37. Might "pull another fast one"? We are screwn.

Time for the torches and pitchforks, average working folk. Nobody's got our backs anymore (If they ever really did).

[Spitfire of ATJ]

38. How about cutting the military?

FYI: A cut in the INCREASE doesn't count.

[MADem]

76. That's coming. Then he'll be a bad guy for booting all those heroes out on their asses.

http://www.reuters.com/article/2013/06/25/us-usa-army-idUSBRE95O1IR20130625

Army to eliminate 10 brigades at U.S. bases in drawdown: Odierno



http://www.moaa.org/Main_Menu/Take_Action/Top_Issues/Serving_in_Uniform/Compensation/Army_Outlines_Drawdown.html

GEN Ray Odierno, the Army Chief of Staff, announced Tuesday that the Army would institute its largest organizational change since World War II by eliminating combat forces from 10 bases across the United States.

The decision is part of a planned drawdown of 80,000 active-duty troops over the next five years, resulting in an Army end-strength of 490,000 by 2017.

These reductions do not reflect additional reductions that will be required if sequestration-driven funding reductions remain in place.

Brigade Combat Teams (BCTs) will be deactivated at each of the following locations by 2017: Fort Bliss, TX; Fort Bragg, NC; Fort Campbell, KY; Fort Carson, CO; Fort Drum, NY; Fort Hood, TX; Fort Knox, KY; Fort Riley, KS; Fort Stewart, GA; and Joint-Base Lewis-McChord, WA.

Two BCTs stationed at Baumholder and Grafenwoehr, Germany, will complete their inactivation this year...General Odierno said that these force reductions are only a precursor to further action. “There is going to be another reduction,” he said at the Pentagon news conference. “There is no way around it.”
- See more at: http://www.moaa.org/Main_Menu/Take_Action/Top_Issues/Serving_in_Uniform/Compensation/Army_Outlines_Drawdown.html#sthash.LpJpf221.dpuf

[Spitfire of ATJ]

79. We still have 40,000 troops in Japan....

Last time I drove down the street I noticed a lot of Nissans, Hondas and Toyotas.

[KittyWampus]

42. Oh goodie, a guessing game. Where the most over-the-top guess wins a prize.

[Andy823]

58. Yes it happens every time

Why people just can't wait and see what he meant instead of setting their hair or fire and running around trying to "figure" out what he "really" meant by that comment, they just jump on the old "we can't trust Obama" band wagon, and pretty soon all the right wing trolls will be coming by to help make things even crazier. Yep just another of trashing the president, nothing new!

I wonder who will be the most over the top guesser this time?

Is there a record someplace of previous winners?

[Liberal_Stalwart71]

43. Oh, noes!! Obama=BAD and might do some things...

...with absolutely no evidence. Everybody freak out!! YIKES!!!

[judesedit]

44. Medicare fraud is at the top of the list. I, myself, have been a victim. The system's broken. Period

A doctor whom I NEVER saw, the hospital, that I was NO where near on the date of alleged service, NOR Medicare gave one hoot that they were being ripped off. The hospital had a collection agency contact me to collect an amount (a bogus amount), years later, I might add, and threatened to put it on my credit report. They had MY name and MY social security number on the bill. I never heard of the doctor. When I called the doctor's office they weren't interested. When I called Medicare to report the fraud, they weren't interested. When I called the hospital and told them to correct the bill, they refused, and said they would mark it paid. When I said I wanted it wiped out, they flatly refused. Wake up, Americans! Stop listening to the bs and start doing your own research.

Thank you, President Obama, for trying to put this country on the path to recovery. I can't believe you've accomplished as much as you have with this obstructive, greedy, mentally challenged Congress.

[WinkyDink]

97. Mistakes happen. One anecdote hardly damns an entire program.

[alfredo]

46. He's framing the debate. He is trying to appear reasonable. If the Republicans continue to

act like spoiled brats, they will reinforce the childish and stubborn image.

A talking point I heard. It went something like this:
Obstruction to the point of hurting our economy is Anti American. (or un American)

[zipplewrath]

47. Unions, international treaties, and environmental restrictions

He's been negotiating in secret a new trade agreement that is supposedly going to piss off progressives. I'd bet that unions won't be too fond either. And you can bet it doesn't push global warming or protect the environment, and may actually provide the mechanism for undermining our own environmental regulations.

[Cha]

48. Beware! Freaking profiteering left is starting another conspiracy

theory. Quick Donate.. they need money. Better hurry up!

Beware! you're fooking hat is on way too tight.

[Segami]

49. Cha,...I would rather wear a hat than blinders.

[Cha]

51. No worries you have both.

[Segami]

52. Insults?....great....what else should I have expected.

[Lady Freedom Returns]

69. I know.

Instead of thinking about the programs that are not needed, and there are some that people don't use due to them being not what people need out there, and working to make better and new to help, really help. There are those that rather try to come up with some sort of thing one would expect from Republicans.

People need to start seeing and stop being herded by the other side.

[Cha]

70. Oh yeah, same ol same ol.. and haven't you heard.. there's no difference

between Dems and repubs. Or so says greenwald so they regurgitate that. BLINDERS.

"Pres Obama doesn't help the poor." Well, I just did the research into an OP that cites his record which makes a liar out that statement

that's how the profiteering left makes their money.. off Pres Obama.. freaking scavengers.

[bigwillq]

50. He's hinting he will give free ponies. To you! And YOU! And YOU!

And you! And you!And you!And you!And you!And you!And you!And you!And you!And you!And you!And you!And you!And you!And you!And you!And you!And you!And you!And you!And you!And you!And you!And you!And you!And you!And you!And you!And you!And you!And you!And you!And you!And you!And you!And you!And you!And you!And you!

[JoePhilly]

54. So Obama is going to kill Social Security again.

What's this, the 20th time he's killed it so far?

[leftstreet]

57. He offers but the GOP won't take it

[JoePhilly]

62. Maybe he wants too much in return.

I mean, he could just give it to them given that he wants to kill it and all.

[ProSense]

55. Krugman on the speech:

Stiglitz, Minsky, and Obama

<..>

I haven’t commented so far on the president’s economic speech, except to mock the journalists demanding “new ideas” for a very old-fashioned economic crisis. And as many people have pointed out, there weren’t any actual policy proposals.

What we got instead was a narrative, which is no small thing, since it was very much not the narrative that has been dominating Washington discourse — including Obama’s own pronouncements — for three and a half years. Gone was the deficit/Grand Bargain obsession; instead, this was about a depressed economy, suffering mainly from inadequate demand, and how to fix it.

<...>

The president came down pretty much for what we might call a Stiglitzian view (although it’s widely held): debt was driven by rising inequality. The rich were taking an ever-larger share of the pie, but not spending to match, while working Americans took on ever more debt to make ends meet.

What’s the alternative? Minsky: debt exploded because the Great Depression was receding into the mists of forgetfulness, and both lenders and borrowers — enabled and encouraged by financial deregulation — forgot the dangers of leverage...I’m more of a Minskyite than a Stiglitzian, although not 100%; although things like subprime lending were, I believe, mainly about forgetting the past, Elizabeth Warren’s old work on bankruptcy pretty clearly shows that at least some families took on excess debt as a result of rising inequality. But I’m inherently suspicious of any story that makes economics a morality play in which all bad results come from things you consider bad for other reasons too; making soaring inequality the cause of our macro woes too is a bit too, well, comfortable for us liberals.

- more -

http://krugman.blogs.nytimes.com/2013/07/25/stiglitz-minsky-and-obama/

[Cha]

72. Mahalo for Krugman's view, ProSense..

I wouldn’t make too much of these differences; in practice Stiglitzians and Minskyites agree on what should be done,and it’s good to see the president finally talking about the right things. Still, it is interesting to see where he put his emphasis.

.

[Safetykitten]

56. When he does damage to SS his followers will point to this. SEE!!!

He TOLD you he was going to do that!

[sabrina 1]

59. Well, why did he not state which programs he is talking about. The Old Cold War policies maybe?

Can't be that, those are Republican policies.

We’ve got to be willing to redesign or get rid of programs that don't work as well as they should. We’ve got to be willing to -- we’ve got to embrace changes to cherished priorities so that they work better in this new age.

I'm going to go out on a limb, considering he used the word 'cherished' that he is talking about the New Deal Programs. And if he doesn't 'cherish' some of the only programs that have worked over the past six decades, then why is he a Democrat? We KNOW how Republicans feel about those programs, Democrats have been protecting them from Republican assaults since their inception, but a Democrat talking like this about those programs??

Of course I could be wrong and he could be talking about Wall St, or Surveillance Programs, or the great WOT or our Foreign Adventures.

[liberal_at_heart]

61. I am not willing. I will fight it every step of the way with everything I have.

[Segami]

64. And then some...

[DirkGently]

63. A reasonable interpretation. n/t

[Fantastic Anarchist]

66. Nice and Reaganesque, like his hero.

[Hekate]

71. No good deed goes unpunished

As per usual

[nashville_brook]

73. "most cherished programs" -- if they're cherished, then they're working. leave them alone.

how about that?

[Segami]

74. They want to save 'other' cherished programs,...like Miltary Budgets, BankBailouts, Bush Tax Cuts,..

[MADem]

77. You might be interested in post seventy six. nt

[napoleon_in_rags]

80. Nah, he's just a great politician.

He understands exactly that for government to be something great, we the people have to shape it, that means shutting down certain programs, and powering up other ones. This idea is actually correct, and Obama having his finger on the pulse of the correct, makes him a love magnet for all of us, even with us seeing all the bad things going on. Hope springs eternal.

My only wish is for the rubber to hit the road with this guy. He's been president for years, but with policies that have been constantly blocked. It really would be something to know what Barack Obama's America looks like, for better or worse, but so many forces are bent on "correcting" him, and directing the outcome of his policy, that Americans may never see what his policies would bring into place. Why are conservatives so afraid to sit back, drink a lemonade, and let America learn from Obama's policies? Could it be that they are afraid Obama isn't actually wrong, and the people would love his policies if they were allowed to pass? And if that is the case, what BUSINESS do they have, trying to create an America where we the people hate the policies, when we could love them? Wouldn't it be best for them to sit back, let progressive policies pass, so Americans could see the "flaws" for themselves?

These are crazy times, the times of the fireside chats are long behind us, and we feel disconnected from our leaders, even to the extent we question if our leaders really ARE our leaders. But love, morality, and truth have a value that a billion propagandist voices can never crush. Let's hope the real fight in DC is for all leaders, right and left, to align themselves with the people's moral cause, and to be first in aiding the people of this great nation, that we may become an even greater union.

Peace.

[kentuck]

89. You have to keep a close eye on Republicans.

n/t...