Democratic Underground Latest Greatest Lobby Journals Search Options Help Login
Google

What Does "Moderate Democrat" Really Mean?

Printer-friendly format Printer-friendly format
Printer-friendly format Email this thread to a friend
Printer-friendly format Bookmark this thread
This topic is archived.
Home » Discuss » Archives » General Discussion: Presidential (Through Nov 2009) Donate to DU
 
TheBigotBasher Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Jun-01-09 02:31 AM
Original message
What Does "Moderate Democrat" Really Mean?
The term became popular as a result of the Clinton / Blair "Third Way" philosophy. The UK has had a massive expansion of State spending but very little of that has helped the poor. In fact, according to research done by the Guardian the chances for the poor are worse than at any time in history. New Labour has left no way out of poverty as a result of imposing effective tax rates of 70%.

Expenditure has been directed on creating a Police State, more deeply involved in the privacy of individuals than the Chinese. In fact the Chinese Government is now able to criticise the UK for Human Rights abuses.

someone who is equivalent to Tony Blair. This is what the UK has had as a result.

A real attempt at scrapping Parliamentary discussion of legislation.
Ballot Boxes are interfered with

Audit trails of how many and who voted go missing

An Opposition MP is raided by Anti Terrorist Police supposedly without the knowledge of the Home Secretary.

The Police can kill innocent people and get away with it

You can be put in prison for 42 days on pure suspicion

You can be put in prison indefinitely on the word of a politician

The State can torture people; it will just be denied.

The behaviour of your children is logged on a State database for their entire lives

Your fingerprints, iris scans and biometrics are held by the State

You do not have the right to remain silent

You are watched on 4 million CCTV cameras

You may not photograph the Police

You do not have the right to protest peacefully

Curfews exist for entire communities

Your travel movements are logged and monitored

Your shopping habits are studied and logged by the State

Your emails and telephone conversations are recorded by the State

Your passport can be withdrawn at the whim of the State

Local Councils can use lie detector tests on you.

To me "Moderate" Democrats are Republicans who want to be in Office when the Country votes against them. Being a "moderate" means supporting compulsory private health insurance as a "social gain", it means cutting the welfare programmes and tax cuts for the ordinary citizen from the Recovery Act to replace them with tax cuts for the rich, it means telling lies about the closure of GITMO.

To me American Politics start from the far right and go further right. So in that case "moderate" means far right and the GOP means very hard right.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
Drunken Irishman Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Jun-01-09 02:41 AM
Response to Original message
1. I think Pres. Obama is a true moderate Democrat.
Which isn't a bad thing.

Unfortunately, many classify Obama as a liberal and everyone to the right of him as a moderate. That isn't true. Many to the right of him are conservative Democrats.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
TheBigotBasher Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Jun-01-09 02:55 AM
Response to Reply #1
3. Look at the Political make up of the UK
It is probably quite hard to tell who is "right" and who is "left", which is why those labels are not necessarily appropriate, but it does show why the term "moderate" democrat is completely inappropriate.

"New Labour" under Blair removed civil rights built up over 100s of years of legal precedent. Gordon Brown has continued that process.

"Call me Dave" Cameron is to the left of them in terms of civil privacy issues but is an unknown force in terms of where he stands compared to Brown economically. He opposes more "public private partnerships" which have left the UK Government unable to define how much actual debt it has, but supposedly supports cutting expenditure during a giant depression (I still have doubts about how the US and UK will get out of this one).

How can you be "moderate" on healthcare? You have the most expensive public healthcare system in the World, that covers only a small percentage of the population?

How was it moderate to say if you are poor, you only have six months benefit? As if poverty was a choice. (If I remember it was not a Repug that signed that one).

How can you have the highest costs for employong someone as a result of the State failing to provide decent health care, but have the lowest levels of holiday leave?

"Moderation" in the face of such great inequalities seems wrong. And no this is not just about the President as Harry Reid has proven time and time again.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
depakid Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Jun-01-09 03:03 AM
Response to Reply #1
5. It depends on the policy area with Obama
In some areas, he's clearly center right (economic, trade and financial policies and criminal justice being representative examples).

In other areas, such as diplomacy and foreign policy- he strikes me very much as center left.

The upcoming health care debate is however, where we really get to see his mettle- and what he's made of.



Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
TheBigotBasher Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Jun-01-09 03:07 AM
Response to Reply #5
8. Still the most "left wing radical" idea
is compulsory privatised health insurance. HR 676 has been slapped underground.

That idea is so far to the right of ANY mainstream European Party it would not get coverage. Yet there are Republican voting Democrats who would block even that and they call themselves "moderate".
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
depakid Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Jun-01-09 03:43 AM
Response to Reply #8
19. It might be wiser to consider how to get there
Edited on Mon Jun-01-09 03:44 AM by depakid
rather than whether or not it's the most sensible and economical thing to do (that's obvious to any objective observer of health care systems). Passing a public option that isn't neutered is a good first step- followed by redoubled effort on the ground and across the web to ostracize and defeat corrupted Democrats, if not via a primary, then in a genral election (even if that means the seat migh temporarily be held by a Republican).
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
TheBigotBasher Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Jun-01-09 04:00 AM
Response to Reply #19
24. OK on healthcare
(of sorts given that the number of people left without in the US represents the size of a reasonably large industrialised nation). However the US as a result of its drugs policy, which will continue because of "moderate" democrats imprisons more people than China. Prisons are no longer a place just to keep people they are now an economy in themselves.

The US dictates drug policy of almost every nation on this Earth. As a result it feeds the top of the tree drug criminal while imprisoning the poorest. It says something that the President who slowed this increase of Prisoners was Bush because he wanted the very same people to fight his illegal wars.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
depakid Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Jun-01-09 04:08 AM
Response to Reply #24
26. The Aussies have a lesson for us there
Edited on Mon Jun-01-09 04:10 AM by depakid
Most folks don't realize what a fine, intelligent, pragmatic and successful people that they are:

Truce on hardline sentencing

THE NSW Opposition has pledged to end the "law and order auction" in a dramatic break with the tradition of promising to increase punishments and fill jails that has characterised every state election campaign since 1988.

The Coalition's justice spokesman, Greg Smith, who entered Parliament in 2007 with a reputation as a tough criminal prosecutor, said hardline sentencing and prisons policies - including those of his own party - have failed.

In an exclusive interview, Mr Smith told the Herald he would invest more money and resources in rehabilitation to break the cycle in which almost half of all NSW criminals re-offend after their release.

"I know that for a series of elections there was one side bidding against the other in what they called a law and order auction," Mr Smith said.

"While I think there are some areas where the law could be even tougher, such as showing more concern for the families of victims of homicide, in terms of the harm done to them, there are other areas where I am concerned that prisoners are not properly being rehabilitated, not given a chance to go straight in a community that really would want them to go straight."

Mr Smith likened his move to "Nixon in China". Just as it took an anti-communist US president, Richard Nixon, to open relations with communist China in 1972, it might take a politician with Mr Smith's conservative credentials to push for a bipartisan position on criminal justice.

Before becoming the Liberal MP for Epping, Mr Smith was the state's deputy director of public prosecutions for five years. Three years ago he persuaded an appeal court to keep the notorious killer Katherine Knight, who stabbed, decapitated and skinned her partner, locked away forever. He also led a successful appeal to increase the sentence of a pedophile murderer from 30 years to the term of his natural life.

While he remains "very keen on punishment and deterrents" for crimes of cruelty, especially against children, Mr Smith said with 10,000 inmates in NSW jails and a recidivism rate of 43.5 per cent, the punitive approach was not working.

"So far as enforcement of the law and prisons are concerned, I think I am a pragmatist, based on the experience I have gathered over the years as a prosecutor. Prosecutors generally try to be as fair as possible so we're not likely to just want head-kicking decisions all the time. It seems to me that our prisons are full of people who suffered learning difficulties in their youth or had a deprived upbringing or have drug addiction or mental problems. There's a lot of those people in our jails. I am not excusing the conduct that got them into jail but I think that some of them need more of a kick along from the system.

More: http://www.smh.com.au/news/national/truce-on-hardline-s...


Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
TheBigotBasher Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Jun-01-09 04:15 AM
Response to Reply #26
27. As a result of Mrs Nazi Reagan
can you ever imagine any serious politician having a discussion on legalising drugs (and the Libertarian Party does not count).

De-criminalising does not count. That is what happened during alcohol prohibition.

Maybe a second term President could review drugs laws but on;y if they ignored the short term consequences for their Party.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
depakid Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Jun-01-09 04:22 AM
Response to Reply #27
28. California certainly looks to be an interesting situation from the incarceration perspective
Not only do they have a profoundly dtsfucrional probation/parole system that sets people up to fail- but they're ever keen to put people in prisons for life.

Unfortunately for folks in the state, they're discovering the hard way that running part of the world's largest prison system is expensive, and takes money away from other pressing priorities.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Bluenorthwest Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Jun-01-09 09:54 AM
Response to Reply #27
32. Let's be honest here
Any politician who blames his or her cowardly behavior on a First Lady from 20 years ago is a liar. Oh, that ancient old bag of bones is going to call me out! She was so powerful that even now she can not be crossed! Please.
On the State level, many serious politicians are discussing legalization, some out of pure need for funds. Oddly, one of the States leading in that discussion is the very home State of Nancy Reagan. So some politicians, even Arnold, are opening that conversation right in Nancy's back yard. Those who are afraid are just afraid. We have Govs and Reps and even a couple of Senators who are discussing, who introduce bills, who speak to the press. Maybe they are not serious, just elected to run states and sit in Congress, all unserious and all.
Some folks are cowards and others are not. Blaming Nancy for the craven actions of current officials is just silly. One has to blame individuals for what they do, not rationalize for them. Every coward ever born has a solid reason to be a coward. In the end, it is the cowardice that will remain in memory.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
TheBigotBasher Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Jun-01-09 10:28 AM
Response to Reply #32
33. Very well put

Every coward ever born has a solid reason to be a coward. In the end, it is the cowardice that will remain in memory.


Love it.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
bornskeptic Donating Member (951 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Jun-02-09 07:15 AM
Response to Reply #8
47. You're mistaken. Both Switzerland and the Netherlands have mandatory private insurance
as a basis for their healthcare systems. These are the systens that Democratic politicians have been looking to in formulating their proposals. Not many Europeans are laughing at the Dutch system, which seems to be currently the best in Europe as far as consumer satisfaction and cost-effectiveness.

http://www.medicalnewstoday.com/articles/81787.php
http://www.euractiv.com/en/health/dutch-healthcare-syst...
http://www.minvws.nl/en/themes/health-insurance-system/... /
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
iamthebandfanman Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Jun-01-09 05:18 PM
Response to Reply #5
37. in my opinion, health care will decide where loyalty lie
Edited on Mon Jun-01-09 05:19 PM by iamthebandfanman
the american people, or the american corporations.

thus far, its been the corporations...
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Jennicut Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Jun-01-09 11:03 AM
Response to Reply #1
35. I agree totally. I consider myself to be moderate to liberal.
Or maybe just a moderate liberal...LOL.
Nelson, Bayh etc, are conservative Dems.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Skittles Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Jun-01-09 02:48 AM
Response to Original message
2. it means a Democrat with no courage
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
TheBigotBasher Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Jun-01-09 03:02 AM
Response to Reply #2
4. No courage for whom?
It takes a lot of courage to try and feed a family on minimum wage with little or no healthcare.

It takes a lot of courage to feed a family when your unemployment is about to run out and there are no jobs you can take to replace it.

It takes a lot of courage to convince your child everything will be ok when you lose your home and you have no real place to go.

The idea that there is a serious right of centre, never mind left wing, presence in the US seems increasingly remote (if not laughable). Especially given recent votes in the Senate.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Skittles Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Jun-01-09 03:07 AM
Response to Reply #4
7. I have no idea what you are talking about
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
TheBigotBasher Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Jun-01-09 03:10 AM
Response to Reply #7
10. The everyday Democratic supporter hardly lacks courage.
Their politicians do.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Skittles Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Jun-01-09 03:20 AM
Response to Reply #10
11. I think the OP refers to politicians
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
TheBigotBasher Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Jun-01-09 03:26 AM
Response to Reply #11
14. I am the OP
I was highlighting the difference between those that gave the Democratic Party, the House, Senate and Presidency and those now in position.

I see a complete disconnect in the name of "moderation".
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Skittles Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Jun-01-09 03:28 AM
Response to Reply #14
15. LOL; whoops
I plead fatigue, been up 22 hours

All the "moderate Dems" I know are total assholes
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Clio the Leo Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Jun-01-09 08:16 AM
Response to Reply #14
31. So then can you expand on your theory.....
... that those who gave the Democratic Party power are more left than those they elected ... if that's what your saying.

Obviously, a lot of votes/policy decisions are made based on someone trying to reelected, but does that not also mean that their respective constituents are more in the center than they are in the extreme? Or at least are comprised of a large number of centrists?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
MrModerate Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Jun-01-09 03:05 AM
Response to Original message
6. I guess it's where you stand.
If you consider that American politics starts at the right (and you presumably are to the left of all that), then that means you reject the legitimacy of all American politics.

OK, fine, but that's not very helpful or illuminating. Doesn't leave much room for political discussion.

So, how about that Susan Boyle? Should she have won BGT?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
TheBigotBasher Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Jun-01-09 03:22 AM
Response to Reply #6
12. In European Politics I am Probably "Right Wing".
I see US Politics as somewhat to the right of that position. That most certainly does not mean I reject the legitimacy of US Politics. It means I fail to understand those who are elected as Senators and Representatives on the back of a President who campaigned for change and then vote against his programme in Congress.

It means I do not accept that when it comes to tackling the root issues of poverty, Democratic members of Congress should not stand in the way.

I know what my position is - I want to find and understand the position of so called "moderate" Democrats.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
MrModerate Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Jun-01-09 04:51 AM
Response to Reply #12
30. I suspect you know this already, but here goes . . .
The relationship between the president and Congress is entirely different than the relationship between the Prime Minister and Parliament in the UK. Congress has no input to whether the president continues to hold his office, and the President typically does not select his ministers ("Cabinet") from Congress -- and if he does, the cabinet officials must resign from the Congress.

Which is to say that, even though members of the same party, the president and Congress are substantially more independent of each other. Congress is much more dependent upon the goodwill of its constituents on a day-to-day basis. The President has huge leeway in keeping his constituents (basically all Americans) happy with his rule. He can, if he so chooses, disregard the people entirely (at a price of course).

This combination of presidential/Congressional independence and the sway of local influence over Congresspersons gives rise to Congressional opposition to presidential programs. Happens all the time. Add in the lamentable way Americans fund elections (and the duration of election campaigns), which gives a huge amount of influence to special interests, and you end up with Congress often at loggerheads with a president of their own party.

With regard to the general rightwardness of America as a society, that's only sort of true. What is true is that the American people have always been reluctant to surrender their autonomy to the government to the same extent that European peoples do, and consequently the American Federal government has always been closer in parity to governments in localities and states. Is that right-wing? I'm not so sure. It's definitely different.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
TheBigotBasher Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Jun-01-09 05:55 PM
Response to Reply #30
41. Thoise marginal Swing States
How much consideration has been given to the fact that Democrats promise a clar agenda, with clear programmes and their own side - never mind the GOP then votes them down (or cuts them (Make Work Pay)).

That would tend to leave a voter annoyed enough to vote for the other side again.

Party loyalty amongst Rethugs is almost absolute, even amongst their Senators. That is not the case with Democrats.

"Moderate Democrat" appears to apply to those who are not actually loyal to the Party machine that elected them.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
TheBigotBasher Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Jun-01-09 03:35 AM
Response to Reply #6
17. With Regard to Susan Boyle
I watched her at a Bear Club. No. The dance act was better, although I do not discount phone rigging.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
MrModerate Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Jun-01-09 04:37 AM
Response to Reply #17
29. Phone rigging is an issue for me as well . . .
In relation to that other Simon Cowell show, "American Idol."
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
FrenchieCat Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Jun-01-09 03:08 AM
Response to Original message
9. It is a Democrat that the Media kind of leaves alone........
most of the time....
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
AllentownJake Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Jun-01-09 03:53 AM
Response to Reply #9
22. Goes with the Corporate Whoring thing
Gotta remember who the media are and who their customers are.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Selatius Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Jun-01-09 03:25 AM
Response to Original message
13. When you see "moderate Democrat" think of "center-right Democrat" instead.


Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
TheBigotBasher Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Jun-01-09 03:29 AM
Response to Reply #13
16. The second map
Edited on Mon Jun-01-09 03:33 AM by TheBigotBasher
which better explains political positions also explains why the US system is far from democratic. (If I could kick your individual post I would)
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Selatius Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Jun-01-09 03:36 AM
Response to Reply #16
18. I never really felt a two party system was that democratic to begin with.
Edited on Mon Jun-01-09 03:37 AM by Selatius
It actually punishes an electorate that half-heartedly votes for a third party candidate by giving victory to an incumbent party candidate instead. Only time it doesn't happen is if the electorate is so insanely disgusted with the two pre-existing parties that they throw the plurality of the votes to the third party person. It's rare but it does happen, but again, it's very rare.

Furthermore, when you have the DSCC or the DCCC playing kingmaker in local politics and trying to push out Democrats who are running against their "preferred" Democrat, it's another example of dictating from the top-down, rather than letting people decide which candidate should win in a party primary. This is what pushes a lot of Democrats into not voting or switching to Independent status.

The joke is that the two-party system is just a one-party dictatorship with two wings.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
TheBigotBasher Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Jun-01-09 03:45 AM
Response to Reply #18
20. What is clear from that map
is that the Two Party System does not even have two wings, they simply have different ways of expressing the same opinion.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Selatius Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Jun-01-09 03:56 AM
Response to Reply #20
23. I know, it absolutely kills me. In the primaries, I was behind Dennis Kucinich.
The thing was that by the time my state had gotten the chance to vote, Kucinich had already dropped out due to lack of support and funding. Edwards was my runner-up, and he was with the big three in the early part of the primaries with Hillary and Obama being the other two.

If I were living in France, Spain, or the UK, my views would be a lot more at home politically speaking. This country is so stifling at times it sort of feels like a prison for the mind.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
TheBigotBasher Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Jun-01-09 04:05 AM
Response to Reply #23
25. I am not sure about the UK
have a look at the original post. We have had a Labour leader so closely tie himself to the most Right Wing Authoritarian President ever that they have completely destroyed themselves. Even to the extent o following him down the same economic path (actually sorry for this the City of London created yours).

Where politics is in the UK is no longer easily summarised.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
AllentownJake Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Jun-01-09 03:53 AM
Response to Original message
21. Corporate Whore
That's what it means to me :shrug:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Honeycombe8 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Jun-01-09 10:39 AM
Response to Original message
34. It's insulting, IMO, to say that those who disagree with your views are the same as the
opposition, and call them in essence mild freepers.

Moderate freepers are not the same as moderate liberals. But they are not as far apart as progressives and far right wingnutters.

Just as it's not fair to label far lefters as extremist activists who don't have their thumbs on the pulse of the average American...it's not fair to label moderate liberals as being against you and the same as those who are in the Republican corner.

Moderate Dems are to the left of center. They are moderate liberals. They are not moderate conservatives.

As far as politicians go, they reflect their constituencies. They have to, or they wouldn't get elected. If you have a Dem. elected in, say, South Carolina, s/he will not be able to be as liberal as one elected in CA or Massachusetts, even if s/he wanted to be. James Webb is a good example. Just thank your lucky stars that the area has crossed over from the right and elected someone left of center.

Moderate Dems, for the most part, support Democratic bills, policies, philosophies. They signed on to the Dem. Party platform, altho they may disagree in a couple of areas. They are generally MORE environmentally friendly, MORE likely to support women's and minorities' issues, MORE likely to support bills that support the middle class and poor, LESS likely to wage war.

The Dems are not your enemy. There are plenty of enemies around without having to denigrate those on your own team.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
TheBigotBasher Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Jun-01-09 05:29 PM
Response to Reply #34
40. "Moderate Democrats" Were Responsible for the Following Cuts From the Recovery Act.
Partially cut:

$3.5 billion for energy-efficient federal buildings (original bill $7 billion)

$75 million from Smithsonian (original bill $150 million)

$200 million from Environmental Protection Agency Superfund (original bill $800 million)

$100 million from National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (original bill $427 million)

$100 million from law enforcement wireless (original bill $200 million)

$300 million from federal fleet of hybrid vehicles (original bill $600 million)

$100 million from FBI construction (original bill $400 million)

Fully eliminated

$55 million for historic preservation

$122 million for Coast Guard polar icebreaker/cutters

$100 million for Farm Service Agency modernization

$50 million for Cooperative State Research, Education and Extension Service

$65 million for watershed rehabilitation

$100 million for distance learning

$98 million for school nutrition

$50 million for aquaculture

$2 billion for broadband

$100 million for National Institute of Standards and Technology

$50 million for detention trustee

$25 million for Marshalls Construction

$300 million for federal prisons

$300 million for BYRNE Formula grant program

$140 million for BYRNE Competitive grant program

$10 million state and local law enforcement

$50 million for NASA

$50 million for aeronautics

$50 million for exploration

$50 million for Cross Agency Support

$200 million for National Science Foundation

$100 million for science

$1 billion for Energy Loan Guarantees

$4.5 billion for General Services Administration

$89 million General Services Administration operations

$50 million from Department of Homeland Security

$200 million Transportation Security Administration

$122 million for Coast Guard Cutters, modifies use

$25 million for Fish and Wildlife

$55 million for historic preservation

$20 million for working capital fund

$165 million for Forest Service capital improvement

$90 million for State and Private Wildlife Fire Management

$1 billion for Head Start/Early Start

$5.8 billion for Health Prevention Activity

$2 billion for Health Information Technology Grants

$600 million for Title I (No Child Left Behind)

$16 billion for school construction

$3.5 billion for higher education construction

$1.25 billion for project based rental

$2.25 billion for Neighborhood Stabilization

$1.2 billion for retrofitting Project 8 housing

$40 billion for state fiscal stabilization (includes $7.5 billion of state incentive grants)


Also worth noting that they blocked full finding for Make Work Pay - a key election Promise for November.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
depakid Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Jun-02-09 04:31 AM
Response to Reply #40
46. "$40 billion for state fiscal stabilization (includes $7.5 billion of state incentive grants)"
Edited on Tue Jun-02-09 04:32 AM by depakid
Which, btw has not only been a HUGE drain on the economy and worked to serious undermine economic stimulus- but has also put tons of Democrats in a potition that they've had to raise unpopular taxes during a recession, which is CERTAIN to damage their chances during the next election.

Yet another of the 999 reasons that so called "moderates" are a cancer on the party and an even WORSE enemy to the American people, to the party- and especially to its traditional values and goals.

Nothing more than Vichy types who'd be better off replaced, even if it means turning over the seat to a Republican.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
solstice Donating Member (278 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Jun-01-09 04:03 PM
Response to Original message
36. The same thing as Republican.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
rug Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Jun-01-09 05:22 PM
Response to Original message
38. A Democrat who will countenance unprincipled policies in the name of election.
Often seen accusing other Democrats of being purists.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
QC Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Jun-01-09 05:27 PM
Response to Original message
39. A polite Republican. n/t
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
TheBigotBasher Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Jun-02-09 01:20 AM
Response to Reply #39
42. A Republican who lies
Refuses to deliver the agenda they were elected on and then wonders why they lost office. So they think oh go with the Rethugs.

NO DELIVER WHAT YOU PROMISE.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
leftstreet Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Jun-02-09 01:34 AM
Response to Original message
43. They want poor people below them to hate, and rich people above them to emulate
n/t
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
ecstatic Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Jun-02-09 02:50 AM
Response to Original message
44. Lieberman/Harold Ford types
Edited on Tue Jun-02-09 02:51 AM by ecstatic
The types who you might wonder which party they're in when they're doing interviews on TV.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
struggle4progress Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Jun-02-09 03:56 AM
Response to Original message
45. All American politicians call themselves moderate. Calling someone else moderate means
"Like me, they hide in the middle of the pack"
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
whistler162 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Jun-02-09 08:08 AM
Response to Original message
48. One question......
do you bash yourself?

TheBigotBasher, YEAH RIGHT!!!!
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Better Believe It Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Jun-02-09 09:43 AM
Response to Original message
49. Answer: A conservative Republican who can only win by running as a "moderate" Democrat?
Edited on Tue Jun-02-09 09:43 AM by Better Believe It
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
kenfrequed Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Jun-02-09 10:16 AM
Response to Reply #49
50. I would buy that.
The real problem with 'centrist' or 'moderate' labels is that they exist as categories without a clear definition. They are meaningless terms that do not really explain where you stand or what you are in favor of. Because of this the corporatists and crypto-conservatives can masquerade and bleat along with the democrats using pseudo-populist language while backing the corporate masters that pay for their reelections and provide them with private work after their service to them.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Kaleva Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Jun-02-09 10:41 AM
Response to Original message
51. It's someone who isn't drunk on Kool-Aid
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
WI_DEM Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Jun-02-09 10:44 AM
Response to Original message
52. What does liberal democrat mean? you're either a democrat or your not.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
ChiciB1 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Jun-02-09 11:08 AM
Response to Original message
53. I'm A Boomer, So Need To Preface... Moderate Democrats Are Basically
much to the RIGHT of me! I'm not even sure "moderate" is what I would call them! But then, so much has changed! I guess THIS is the CHANGE Obama was talking about!

HOPE?? Well that's another thing all together! I don't use the word, ONCE AGAIN!! Stopped with BFEE, started during Obama campaign... back to wishing and NOT HOPING again!!

I'm NO leftist, marxist whack job... but I do call my self LIBERAL! For all of you Christians... Jesus was a LIBERAL!!

Feingold, Sanders, Kucinich... anymore? Not too many... oh, Conyers! Add to the list if you want... THESE are my kind of Democrats! But then I am one of those "hippie" types who ACTUALLY DID protest and raise some HELL!!!
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Romulox Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Jun-02-09 11:30 AM
Response to Original message
54. "Former George H.W. Bush-style Republican" nt
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Romulox Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Jun-02-09 11:30 AM
Response to Reply #54
55. "Rightwinger hiding out amongst Dems until the Republicans are ascendant again." nt
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
leftofthedial Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Jun-02-09 12:59 PM
Response to Original message
56. "republican"
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
anonymous171 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Jun-02-09 03:10 PM
Response to Original message
57. Socially liberal, "fiscally conservative." nt
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Dr Fate Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Jun-02-09 03:42 PM
Response to Original message
58. It refers to those who agree w/ far Right wing Republicans more than they agree w/ the DEM base. n/t
n/t
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
TheBigotBasher Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Jun-02-09 03:49 PM
Response to Reply #58
59. I think you hit that for 6
Especially as the "base" gets called extreme, leftist. I can go on.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Forkboy Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Jun-02-09 03:50 PM
Response to Original message
60. Pragmatism to the left's idealism.
Edited on Tue Jun-02-09 03:50 PM by Forkboy
The two combined would be deadly, alone they're both often useless in action.

My father once said I was too idealistic. I said he wasn't idealistic enough. We were both right.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Jakes Progress Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Jun-02-09 03:55 PM
Response to Original message
61. It means a 1970's republican. nt
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
DU AdBot (1000+ posts) Click to send private message to this author Click to view 
this author's profile Click to add 
this author to your buddy list Click to add 
this author to your Ignore list Mon Nov 24th 2014, 07:41 AM
Response to Original message
Advertisements [?]
 Top

Home » Discuss » Archives » General Discussion: Presidential (Through Nov 2009) Donate to DU

Powered by DCForum+ Version 1.1 Copyright 1997-2002 DCScripts.com
Software has been extensively modified by the DU administrators


Important Notices: By participating on this discussion board, visitors agree to abide by the rules outlined on our Rules page. Messages posted on the Democratic Underground Discussion Forums are the opinions of the individuals who post them, and do not necessarily represent the opinions of Democratic Underground, LLC.

Home  |  Discussion Forums  |  Journals |  Store  |  Donate

About DU  |  Contact Us  |  Privacy Policy

Got a message for Democratic Underground? Click here to send us a message.

© 2001 - 2011 Democratic Underground, LLC