Democratic Underground Latest Greatest Lobby Journals Search Options Help Login
Google

The President is on the side of Progressives/Liberals??

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
 
SHRED Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Sep-16-09 06:29 AM
Original message
The President is on the side of Progressives/Liberals??
A Progressive/Liberal President would not have brought Larry Summers and Tim Geithner aboard.
A Progressive/Liberal President would have began with Single-Payer Insurance as the starting point in health care reform.
A Progressive/Liberal President would have been far less inclined to continue bailing out multi-billionaires (TARP) and would have proposed are far more robust Revenue and Recovery Act (Stimulus Package).
A Progressive/Liberal President would not utter these words, "They should be free to make a profit...." when referring to the private health insurance sector because he would realize that health care and profits don't mix very well for the patients.

But you all know this already...correct?

---
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
DrDan Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Sep-16-09 06:34 AM
Response to Original message
1. .
:popcorn:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
cali Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Sep-16-09 06:41 AM
Response to Original message
2. you haven't a clue as to what a purportedly progressive president would do
in any case, a Dennis Kucinich will never be nominated, let alone elected. you want to live in fantasy land, in the glow of your made up progressive president, feel free, honey. Some of us don't waste our time indulging in fantasies, but prefer to deal with cold, hard reality.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Forkboy Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Sep-16-09 08:12 AM
Response to Reply #2
6. Nothing you said actually speaks anything to the content of the OP.
But you knew that, didn't you, honey?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
stray cat Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Sep-16-09 06:42 AM
Response to Original message
3. Why isn't someone you consider a real progressive president?
Edited on Wed Sep-16-09 06:43 AM by stray cat
You have to get your real progressive into national office but you can't even get a majority of your progressives elected to the senate. So far the US doesn't elect your progressive to national office.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Ian David Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Sep-16-09 06:45 AM
Response to Original message
4. The President is on the side of his 2012 campaign. n/t
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
T Wolf Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Sep-16-09 08:08 AM
Response to Original message
5. Those who attack you for your quite true statements are missing the point. Whether it is
possible for a liberal to be elected to the White House in these times (the obvious answer is NO) is not what you are talking about.

What you are saying IS that Obama is nowhere close to being the wild-eyed, radical liberal he was portrayed by the media. In fact, he has done very little that could be considered even moderately progressive. At best, he mouths liberal platitudes at times while he is governing from way right of (what should be) the middle.

Those who support him unconditionally are settling for less-reich-then-Bush and are so happy about that that they refuse to acknowledge the facts. We simply are not speeding reichward as fast as we were for the last eight (or more) years.

Your points are what someone who pretends to be "liberal" would not do what Obama has done on those issues, and many others.

They are correct in saying that you do not know what a progressive Prez would do because there has never been anything close to one in office. Maybe using the term "should" instead of "would" would enable them to understand. Pity that we will never know what a true Lib would do.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Nicholas D Wolfwood Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Sep-16-09 09:21 AM
Response to Original message
7. The imaginary President you talk about would get absolutely nothing done.
Much like the man depicted in your avatar.
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 Sat Oct 25th 2014, 09:42 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