General Discussion
Related: Editorials & Other Articles, Issue Forums, Alliance Forums, Region ForumsWhat Rahm, Plouffe, and Messina did to the DNC chairman who had just given us big wins.
I'm seeing Rahm in the news a lot lately in not so favorable a light because of the inexcusable death of Laquan McDonald
He has always had an intolerant attitude toward the left in the party.
Jim Messina is a leader of Priorities USA, a super Pac.
David Plouffe is employed by Uber.
Back to the story of how Dean was treated as the new chairman was introduced.
It was January 2009. Howard Dean was in American Samoa fulfilling his promise as DNC to visit all states and territories.
Every Democrat should be alarmed at the way the new chairman, Tim Kaine, was announced at the DNC. It was done without the knowledge of the outgoing chairman, it was done apparently at the request of certain Obama advisors.
It had the effect of sending a message to the many supporters of Dean's campaign that he was not only not going to be rewarded for such a great 2008 win for the party....but he was not even to be around for the announcement as the party moved forward under Obama.
I have never forgotten this incident because it speaks to the careless treatment of those who do not please certain party leaders.
From Herding Donkeys, pp 205-207.
First I quote Berman on why this kind of treatment was so telling. In reality this paragraph follows the others I quote in the book.
Dean's snub didn't matter because of one man's bruised ego or thwarted ambitions. Rather, his shabby treatment would come to represent a broader abandonment of the party's grassroots base, especially as Obama packed his White House with well-worn veterans of previous administrations who embodied longevity over innovation and connections over change...
These are the guys who gave the orders. Did Obama know? He should have known.
On January 7, White House political director Patrick Gaspard, a former top labor organizer from New York, called DNC executive director Tom McMahon. Gaspard told McMahon that Obama planned to name Virginia governor Tim Kaine as his new DNC chair and wanted to make the announcement at the DNC the following day. Gaspard asked if Dean would be around. Dean's planning to be in American Samoa, the last U.S. territory he'd yet to visit as DNC chair, McMahon responded. (He'd logged 741,000 miles on the job.) Should he postpone his trip?
If he's already planning the trip, don't tell him to cancel, Gaspard replied. It would be better, in other words, if Dean wasn't there. Administration officials didn't want Obama to face any questions at the press conference about why Dean hadn't received a plum position in the White House. One snub led to another.
Gaspard, ironically, worked on Dean's campaign in 2004, but now served a higher office. "The decision was made by Rahm and Plouffe and (deputy chief of staff) Jim Messina", said the senior transition member. "I was specifically told by a senior administration official, 'It comes from those three guys. They specifically want to do this to Dean.'"
Even the new Camelot wasn't above a little revenge.
Karen Finney, Dean's communication director was in the back of the room. She was upset. Obama complimented Dean, and thanked him for working with Rahm. Finney wondered, according to Berman, why he could not have said that with Dean beside him.
elleng
(130,895 posts)Nothing 'careless' about it. We saw it then, and we're seeing the same thing now.
madfloridian
(88,117 posts)left out the word deliberate.
ScreamingMeemie
(68,918 posts)remains forever burned in my memory.
emsimon33
(3,128 posts)That strategy won the 2008 election although Obama never gave Dean credit. I knew then thst Obama's hopey changey thingy was a sham and I have told people this story over and over again.
WillyT
(72,631 posts)You are welcome, WillyT.
SoapBox
(18,791 posts)Old and tired...and not interested in us at all...they just want to keep themselves in power and control.
Oh, this Plouffe...
http://www.politico.com/story/2011/02/whs-plouffe-earned-15m-last-year-049842
madfloridian
(88,117 posts)He's an interesting guy. I remember he made up a song about "Deaniacs" which was nothing but ridicule. I thought it was not in very good taste.
George II
(67,782 posts)Plouffe and Messina were still in Junior High School, and Emmanuel was in his 20s.
Damn those entrenched establishment Democrats!!!
CharlotteVale
(2,717 posts)madfloridian
(88,117 posts)Democrats that is.
Baitball Blogger
(46,703 posts)But, I can now see where the Democrats go wrong. There is no conscience, there is no shame on the side of the party that puts business deals ahead of people and process. It's all about buying loyalty, instead of earning it through good stewardship.
And, as if she knows where to find the old guard, Hillary is coming to Central Florida to pitch her 275 Billion dollar public infra-structure program.
http://www.orlandosentinel.com/news/politics/political-pulse/os-hillary-clinton-orlando-rally-focuses-on-economy-20151201-post.html
No one knows better how to dismantle the democratic process in land development than the players in the Florida Real Estate Market-Those that know how to breach professional ethics as they move between the public and private sector, do extremely well.
That's why they don't like boyscouts like Dean.
madfloridian
(88,117 posts)Florida and Real Estate Developers...enough to strike fear in the ordinary person's heart.
Baitball Blogger
(46,703 posts)Let's face it. Realtors only like you two times in your life. When you're looking to buy a house, and when you're planning to sell it.
Betty Karlson
(7,231 posts)raouldukelives
(5,178 posts)Try instead just believing every word they say without pause. Works wonders from what I can tell.
Doctor_J
(36,392 posts)Ignorance is indeed bliss
merrily
(45,251 posts)They want you to know not to confuse them with traditional Democrats, like FDR, HST, LBJ or even Jimmy Carter. No, they are New Democrats.
hedda_foil
(16,373 posts)Octafish
(55,745 posts)Ronald Pruneface called President Kennedy a SOCIALIST in 1961 for proposing universal health care.
Operation COFFEECUP - How Reagan Worked to Stop Universal Health Coverage in 1961
In December 1961, the AMA pulled out all the stops to prevent President John F. Kennedy from proposing universal health coverage. For their effort, they recruited a TV-personality.
Write those letters now. Call your friends, and tell them to write them. If you don't, this program I promise you will pass just as surely as the sun will come up tomorrow. And behind it will come other federal programs that will invade every area of freedom as we have known it in this country, until, one day . . . we will awake to find that we have socialism. And if you don't do this, and if I don't do it, one of these days, you and I are going to spend our sunset years telling our children, and our children's children, what it once was like in America when men were free.
Sounds familiar to Tea Party crapola of today. Ironic: Corporate McPravda avoids mentioning how one has-been B-movie actor took part in the organized opposition to Medicare in the early 1960s. Here's the story, thanks to Mr. Scott E. Starr:
The Campaign Against Medicare
Monday, March 22, 2010
By Scott E. Starr
EXCERPT...
In order to maintain the illusion of spontaneity, the AMA did not announce the existence of Operation Coffeecup or publicize the Reagan recording. The record was to be used, campaign organizers cautioned, only in the groups meeting under the controlled conditions of the informal coffees. Under no circumstances, recipients of the record were warned, were they to permit commercial broadcast of the recording.
Operation Coffeecup was kept deliberately low-key and internal to the AMA, its Womans Auxiliary, and the trusted friends and neighbors of the Auxiliary women. Reagans efforts against Medicare were revealed, however, in a scoop by Drew Pearson in his Washington Merry-Go-Round column of June 17th. Pearson titled his item on Reagan, Star vs. JFK, and he told his readers:
Ronald Reagan of Hollywood has pitted his mellifluous voice against President Kennedy in the battle for medical aid for the elderly. As a result it looks as if the old folks would lose out. He has caused such a deluge of mail to swamp Congress that Congressmen want to postpone action on the medical bill until 1962. What they dont know, of course, is that Ron Reagan is behind the mail; also that the American Medical Association is paying for it.
Reagan is the handsome TV star for General Electric . . . Just how this background qualifies him as an expert on medical care for the elderly remains a mystery. Nevertheless, thanks to a deal with the AMA, and the acquiescence of General Electric, Ronald may be able to outinfluence the President of the United States with Congress.24
Reagans recorded remarks are quite extensive, and reveal a determined and in-depth attack on the principles of Medicare (and Social Security), going well beyond opposition to King-Anderson or any other particular piece of legislation.
My name is Ronald Reagan. I have been asked to talk on the several subjects that have to do with the problems of the day. . .
Now back in 1927 an American socialist, Norman Thomas, six times candidate for president on the Socialist Party ticket, said the American people would never vote for socialism. But he said under the name of liberalism the American people would adopt every fragment of the socialist program. . . .
But at the moment I'd like to talk about another way because this threat is with us and at the moment is more imminent. One of the traditional methods of imposing statism or socialism on a people has been by way of medicine. It's very easy to disguise a medical program as a humanitarian project. . . . Now, the American people, if you put it to them about socialized medicine and gave them a chance to choose, would unhesitatingly vote against it. We have an example of this. Under the Truman administration it was proposed that we have a compulsory health insurance program for all people in the United States, and, of course, the American people unhesitatingly rejected this.25
And what was this frightful threat that Reagan perceived as imminent?
. . . Congressman Forand introduced the Forand Bill. This was the idea that all people of Social Security age should be brought under a program of compulsory health insurance. Now, this would not only be our senior citizens, this would be the dependents and those who are disabled, this would be young people if they are dependents of someone eligible for Social Security. . . .
It should be obvious that Reagans description of the Forand bill is a description of any Medicare-type program, not just a specific piece of legislation.26 The idea that people of Social Security age should be brought under a program of compulsory health insurance, just is the idea of Medicare.
CONTINUED...
http://geotheology.blogspot.com /
This is why we still bother to post on DU, headda_foil. The Truth matters if we want to build a better future for ALL.
madfloridian
(88,117 posts)The truth matters, and that's why I bother.
Octafish
(55,745 posts)Former U.S. Secret Service Agent Abraham BOLDEN was the first African American Secret Service agent to serve in the White House, personally appointed and literally hand-picked by President John F. Kennedy to the White House detail. Agent Abraham Bolden reported overt racism by his fellow agents and outright hostility toward the "n------loving president," quoting fellow Secret Service agents on the JFK detail.
In addition to enduring all manner of personal indignities, he was concerned at the lack of professionalism in those assigned to protect the president and reported his concerns. He was told, "OK. Thanks" by his superiors. When the problems weren't addressed, Bolden requested transfer back to the Secret Service office in Chicago.
Abraham Bolden speaks at JFK Lancer.
The story of a man who told the truth:
After 45 Years, a Civil Rights Hero Waits for Justice
Thom Hartmann
June 12, 2009 11:52 AM
A great miscarriage of justice has kept most Americas from learning about a Civil Rights pioneer who worked with President John F. Kennedy. But there is finally a way for citizens to not only right that wrong, but bring closure to the most tragic chapter of American presidential history.
After an outstanding career in law enforcement, Abraham Bolden was appointed by JFK to be the first African American presidential Secret Service agent, where he served with distinction. He was part of the Secret Service effort that prevented JFK's assassination in Chicago, three weeks before Dallas. But Bolden was framed by the Mafia and arrested on the very day he went to Washington to tell the Warren Commission staff about the Chicago attempt against JFK.
Bolden was sentenced to six years in prison, despite glaring problems with his prosecution. His arrest resulted from accusations by two criminals Bolden had sent to prison. In Bolden's first trial, an apparently biased judge told the jury that Bolden was guilty, even before they began their deliberations. Though granted a new trial because of that, the same problematic judge was assigned to oversee Bolden's second trial, which resulted in his conviction. Later, the main witness against Bolden admitted committing perjury against him. A key member of the prosecution even took the fifth when asked about the perjury. Yet Bolden's appeals were denied, and he had to serve hard time in prison, and today is considered a convicted felon.
After the release of four million pages of JFK assassination files in the 1990s, it became clear that Bolden -- and the official secrecy surrounding the Chicago attempt against JFK -- were due to National Security concerns about Cuba, that were unknown to Bolden, the press, Congress, and the public not just in 1963, but for the next four decades.
SNIP...
Abraham Bolden paid a heavy price for trying to tell the truth about events involving the man he was sworn to protect -- JFK -- that became mired in National Security concerns. Bolden still lives in Chicago, and has never given up trying to clear his name.
Will Abraham Bolden live to finally see the justice so long denied to him?
CONTINUED...
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/thom-hartmann/after-45-years-a-civil-ri_b_213834.html
After the assassination, he went to Washington on his own dime and reported what he saw to the Warren Commission. For his trouble -- and despite an exemplary record as a Brinks detective, Illinois State Trooper, and Secret Service agent -- Bolden was framed by the government using a paid informant's admitted perjury and spent a long time in prison. The government also drugged him and put him into psychiatric hospitals.His real crime was telling the truth.
Americans know the Truth: the country hasn't been the same since Nov. 22, 1963. President Kennedy kept the nation out of Vietnam and started toward the moon. Imagine what the New Frontier could have become for us today? Certainly would not be a time where "money trumps peace."
Peace, love and understanding. Funny. That's what the hippies, said, madfloridian.
madfloridian
(88,117 posts)I had not heard it before. Gives me chills.
TreasonousBastard
(43,049 posts)its players rarely have our interests out in front. Their prosperity and survival is always the point of all they do.
Sometimes, however, we can help engineer a toss of the worst of them, or at least some of them, and even more often we can squeak in the gaps and get some of what we want. Essentially, I'm a Democrat because I like the crumbs we get better than the Republican crumbs.
It's not as bad as it was in the Boss Tweed days, but that's only because they've gotten slicker about it.
madfloridian
(88,117 posts)But it sometimes seems as if they are more worried about keeping folks in line than about winning.
madfloridian
(88,117 posts)cantbeserious
(13,039 posts)eom
Scuba
(53,475 posts)madfloridian
(88,117 posts)When it comes to Super PACs, Democrats talk about "unilateral disarmament" as often as Republicans warn of "another Munich" in foreign policy. Jim Messina, Barack Obama's campaign manager, established the template in early 2012 when he tried to justify the president's belated embrace of the same Super PACs that he once denounced. "We're not going to fight this fight with one hand tied behind our back," Messina said. "With so much at stake...Democrats can't be unilaterally disarmed."
There is more than a dollop of hypocrisy to the Democrats' hatred of Super PACs run by the Koch Brothers and their gleeful acceptance of Super PAC spending by liberals like Tom Steyer. But it is equally true that the Democrats have only resorted to Super PACs in fall campaigns against Republicans. So far, the Democrats have adhered to their own version of the Eleventh Commandment: Thou shalt not use Super PACs to attack a fellow Democrat.
This was undoubtedly Clinton's intention when she launched her campaign in tandem with two Super PACs -- Priorities USA Action (Obama's original 2012 vehicle) and Correct the Record (run by former conservative hit man turned Clinton loyalist David Brock). Since it seemed inconceivable that Hillary would face a well-funded Democrat in the 2016 primaries, these Super PACs were designed to fend off the inevitable Republican attacks.
All these neat calculations were upended when Bernie Sanders (a socialist from Vermont without a single endorsement from a fellow senator) demonstrated the power of small-donor fund-raising for a compelling presidential candidate operating outside the political mainstream. During the third quarter of 2015, Sanders raised a stunning $26 million, just $2 million less than Clinton.
Proserpina
(2,352 posts)whether he knew in advance or not.
madfloridian
(88,117 posts)He had to have been aware of it.
KG
(28,751 posts)rusty fender
(3,428 posts)there was no threat of retaliation on Joe Lieberman to persuade him to support single payer or the ACA. I wondered at that time why they let Lieberman fuck with the "affordable" healthcare push.
madfloridian
(88,117 posts)While people like me are not.
rusty fender
(3,428 posts)Autumn
(45,071 posts)madfloridian
(88,117 posts)My late hubby and I felt the sting of the local democrats after the 2004 election. We had actually had the nerve to think we mattered and could bring change. We learned a hard lesson.
notadmblnd
(23,720 posts)I'm certain that he is the one who said "it is Hillary's turn". Is he working on her campaign now?
madfloridian
(88,117 posts)nationalize the fed
(2,169 posts)And he was "working" in direct opposition to David Axelrod who was pimping the loser Labour "leader" Ed Miliband
there is no principle involved. Money and power only.
Does David Cameron's win mean Jim Messina is better than David Axelrod?
Barack Obamas 2012 campaign manager guided the Conservative incumbent to victory but does Ed Milibands second-place finish apply to Axelrod as well?
In preparation for Thursdays election, both Labour and Conservatives hired top advisers to Barack Obama to help out with their campaigns. Prime minister Cameron hired Jim Messina, Obamas 2012 campaign manager, as a campaign strategy adviser while longtime Obama strategist David Axelrod signed on to guide Milibands campaign
http://www.theguardian.com/politics/2015/may/08/david-axelrod-jim-messina-david-cameron-ed-miliband-barack-obama
At least the Brits don't prolong this agony. A few weeks is all the liars get to bamboozle the British Public.
notadmblnd
(23,720 posts)nt
hedda_foil
(16,373 posts)That would have given Rahm and the boyz an excuse for failing to fully implement Obama's promised agenda. With the huge margin in the House and a veto proof Senate majority, it quickly became evident that there was no real appetite inside the administration for the reforms we expected. instead, we got screwed in the great recession, while the banksters made out like the bandits they are.
I have begun to consider the very real possibility that it was all kabuki theater and Dean's 50 state strategy showed them up by being too successful.
Does that make any sense?
madfloridian
(88,117 posts)imho the way Bernie supporters are being viewed shows me that there is no desire for the new people in the party. Maybe I'm reading it wrong. Seems more about getting along with the other party than being the opposition.
hedda_foil
(16,373 posts)After the Repubs scoop up theirs, of course.
BeanMusical
(4,389 posts)Thespian2
(2,741 posts)zentrum
(9,865 posts)
"careless treatment". These are the guys who pulled the party to the right. And they saw the 50-state strategy as a threat to their centralized power.
And BTWthere's no way Rahm hadn't seen the Laquan McDonald tape long ago. The Mayor of Chicago knows what his police chief is doing. No way would Rahm agree to a pre-emptive 5Million pay out to the McDonald family if he hadn't seen the tape. Isn't Chicago having budget shortfall problems? 5 Million is quite a pay out before you've even been sued. He thought the money would just make it all go away. That's how the entire Dem leadership now regards thingsthose without money and the power money confers, should just sit down and shut up.
madfloridian
(88,117 posts)and about the "careless treatment". Trying to say it nicely I guess. In fact imho the party neither needs or likes us.
Rahm had to know.
zentrum
(9,865 posts).find us a nuisance. Want to weed us out.
ConservativeDemocrat
(2,720 posts)...of corrupt political patronage offered to Governor Dean.
"Administration officials didn't want Obama to face any questions at the press conference about why Dean hadn't received a plum position in the White House."
Followed up by the standard vomiting all over the Democratic party.
Don't you guys have anything better to do?
- C.D. Proud Member of the Reality Based Community
madfloridian
(88,117 posts)This goes deeper than personalities, more involved than Obama, Rahm, Plouffe, and Messina. It's about the way the party feels free to simply push away those who devoted time and effort.
See...that's the problem with things now. Most of us don't believe the party and many of its more conservative members want anything to do with those of us in the peanut gallery...so to speak.
ConservativeDemocrat
(2,720 posts)Put in quite a bit of effort. And I've never felt terribly treated.
There is no obligation for a President to pick people because someone thinks he or she owes them. Personally, I thought Obama was being incredibly gracious to Hillary Clinton after the election by offering her the spot - though that did work out.
And just FYI, if you've ever gone to your local county party, you'd know that nearly all of them are incredibly liberal. So I don't exactly understand how you think "the party" is really pushing anyone on the left out. ( In general, it's the reverse. Candidates stake out far more moderate positions than activists do because they want to actually win. )
- C.D. Proud Member of the Reality Based Community
madfloridian
(88,117 posts)DonCoquixote
(13,616 posts)I know you did not invent that title, so I could attack that without attacking you personally.
Is it reality to pursue more woe and war in Syria?
Is it reality to reject Howard Dean and protect Debbie Wasserman Schultz, whose tenure has seen us not only lose Congress, but many Governor's mansions.
Is it reality to stop talking of government spending, when before Bush;s buddy Merkel shriek for austerity, the Euro was beatign us handily.
That community may be many things, but they seem quite ready to ignore reality.
madfloridian
(88,117 posts)ConservativeDemocrat
(2,720 posts)Which Democrat, exactly, do you think is trying "to pursue more woe and war in Syria?" The man the OP's hit piece attacks, President Obama? Because insofar as I can see, he's done just about everything to keep us out of it.
Which reality do you see Congress not shift against a sitting president as he goes through his term? Are you seriously imagining that Dean Scream and No-drama Obama would really mesh any better?
Which reality do you come from in which the President is a dictator, and can just up spending on his own accord, without Congress? Or is it, in your reality, that the Republicans just need a stern talking to, and they'll start passing bills?
No, I'm sorry my friend, your reality may be a bit more groovy - but after the high comes the crash, and real reality sets in.
- C.D. Proud Member of the Reality Based Community
DonCoquixote
(13,616 posts)remember a book called "Hard Choices?"
http://www.theatlantic.com/international/archive/2014/08/hillary-clinton-failure-to-help-syrian-rebels-led-to-the-rise-of-isis/375832/
http://fpif.org/when-hillary-clinton-pitched-the-iraq-war-to-codepink/
and she was even nice enough to say this when Obama was still in office.
Are you seriously imagining that Dean Scream and No-drama Obama would really mesh any better?
http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2015/feb/23/debbie-wasserman-schultz-circa-2013-was-set-to-pai/
as if painting someone as anti semitic was nice, especially when she supported Bibi Netanyahu try to undermine Obama with the help of the GOP.
Which reality do you come from in which the President is a dictator, and can just up spending on his own accord, without Congress?
Well, he could damned well send a stimulus bill , even if he makes congress make the effort to kill it, he could have force cognress to reveal that yes, they were that bad.
"No, I'm sorry my friend, your reality may be a bit more groovy - but after the high comes the crash, and real reality sets in."
Talk about real reality when your vision of it cannot be crushed with facts. Hillary damned herself with her own book, and no amount of doubletalk will hide the fact that she tried to push war with Syria. If Russian planes go down, then we will see what reality is.
ConservativeDemocrat
(2,720 posts)...FDR wanted "to pursue war and woe" in Europe. Okay.
By the way, quoting the Moonie-times reporting about a rumor from "various media sources" (all unnamed of course, because they're Teaparty blogs) about a supposed smear against President Obama.... isn't reality based. See, back in the actual real world, Representative Wasserman-Shultz backed Obama on the Iran deal -- which not even all Democrats did.
You also seem to think that Obama didn't send them a budget bill that contained a stimulus. Are you really that ignorant? Apparently so.
> Talk about real reality when your vision of it cannot be crushed with facts. Hillary damned herself with her own book, and no amount of doubletalk will hide the fact that she tried to push war with Syria. If Russian planes go down, then we will see what reality is.
This is an absolute word salad. Let me see if I can explain a few things you clearly don't know.
#1 There already is a war in Syria. So no one needs to "push" to get one going in the country.
#2 Russian planes have already gone down. One civilian, one military.
#3 The US public opposes refugees, but thinks Obama isn't being tough enough in Syria. So the idea that Hillary has "damned herself" is just nuts.
- C.D. Proud Member of the Reality Based Community
DonCoquixote
(13,616 posts)See, back in the actual real world, Representative Wasserman-Shultz backed Obama on the Iran deal -- which not even all Democrats did.
Only after she was CRITICIZED for wanting not to back it, or did you forget this:
http://crooksandliars.com/2015/08/reports-dnc-chair-blocked-dem-resolution
as far as as this: you misquote, he sent one that was a tiny stimulus, not nearly enough for the task, in part because Rahm whined about it.
http://www.latimes.com/opinion/topoftheticket/la-na-tt-economic-stimulus-20140219-story.html
as far as "word salad" that is what people summon when they cannot answer facts that are being fed them. But let me make a meal out of the rest.
#1 There already is a war in Syria. So no one needs to "push" to get one going in the country.
and WHO said "assad must go" which not only made things worse, but also brought the Russians into the conflict?
Here is a hint:
or are you goings to say her evil twin said that? or that saying that one of Russia's main allies must go is not a war, gee, look how great that worked with Saddam?
or that this was a different person:
You can play "word Salad" all you want to, but anyone can look up the links I provided and see for themselves, and Hillary;'s followers will have to defend the woman. And if another Russian plane goes down because Hillary has too much of an ego to do something like, OH, work with the Russians like FDR to make a unified front against Daesh fascists (worked great in wwII) , then we will see what reality her supporters live in.
ConservativeDemocrat
(2,720 posts)And even merely saying in a speech that someone is a brutal dictator and it would be better for them to not be in power, is what you call bringing "war and woe" to a region? Not all the actions that the brutal dictator took to directly massacre people, causing them to rise up against him?
LOL. Okay, pal. You're a perfect example of Orwell's "negative nationalist". Carry on.
- C.D. Proud Member of the Reality Based Community
DonCoquixote
(13,616 posts)in Iraq thinking we would be greeted as liberators, we walk right into the same mess. A lot of people died under Saddam, a lot MORE died under us, and right down to the same party, Assad is a clone of that. As far as being a nationalist goes, I care enough about my country to NOT want it to charge headlong into the mistakes and quagmire we have not even begun to recover from, much less add on more. We did nor get out of Iraw, we went into Syria, and Libya, well that was Hillary's war that she got to wage. Then again, I suppose you see Hillary's "we came we saw he died" as a bit of positive nationalism, positive enough that Libyans went and joined Daesh.
Smug people who wrap their heads in illusion because some politician is giving them the ego boost is sad. Then again, a "conservative" likes things as they are, which is sad when paired with democrats, who at the very least should be working on healing the damage done by Ronnie Ray Gun and the Bushes, which of course means to admit that the conservative small government ideas those three espoused were wrong. I do not care of Hillary and Bill want to have a beer with the Bushes after the GOP loses, I just want the Clinton to get right to work dismantling the Bush legacy afterword.
ConservativeDemocrat
(2,720 posts)While anyone who is concerned about governmental overreach and abuse, and the constant use of public funds as a private piggy bank, was against that boondoggle. From the other side of the Democratic party's point of view, grandiose trillion dollar adventures in the middle east are anything but "conservative small government ideas".
The US does best, not when it goes all cowboy/daddy-warbucks like the Republicans want, or all "don't hurt us"/appeasement-of-terrorists like the far left wants, but instead takes a middle path, where we merely threaten military intervention if certain lines are crossed, but pull back if we get compliance. This is what most Democrats want. Yes, even the majority of liberals in the Democratic party.
Obama's getting Assad to eliminate his poison gas stocks is an example, and so are several of President Clinton's interventions. It is also clear what then-Senator Clinton thought she was voting for in her AUMF authorization in Iraq -- as can be explicitly be understood when reading the transcript of her remarks on the subject at the time. She did make the mistake of trusting Bush to keep his sworn word, but once upon a time it used to be very hard for a sitting Senator to believe the word of a brutal third world dictator over that of the President of the United States, even that of an opposing party.
- C.D. Proud Member of the Reality Based Community
TryLogic
(1,723 posts)during my lifetime -- which is not real short. Rahm Emanuel and maybe even the Clintons are among the worst.
redstateblues
(10,565 posts)madfloridian
(88,117 posts)he once might have opposed. Survival.
spooky3
(34,447 posts)olddots
(10,237 posts)thankyou all .