Clinton says nation's been jammed into ideological corner...is in trouble

[bigtree]

13 minutes ago

Clinton: U.S. 'in a lot of trouble'
Former president says right-wing has hurt America

LAS VEGAS - The nation has been "jammed into an ideological corner" by conservative Republicans and is primed for a power shift in the November elections, former President Bill Clinton said Thursday.

"This is an election unlike any other I have ever participated in," Clinton told Democratic supporters at a fundraiser in Las Vegas. "For six years this country has been totally dominated - not by the Republican Party, this is not fair to the Republican Party - by a narrow sliver of the Republican Party, its more right-wing and its most ideological element."

"When the chips are down, this country has been jammed to the right, jammed into an ideological corner, alienated from its allies, and we're in a lot of trouble," he said.

"The Democratic Party has become the liberal and conservative party in America. If you want to be fiscally conservative, you've got to be for us. If you want to conserve natural resources, you've got to be for us," he said. "If you want a change of course in Iraq ... you've got to be for us."

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/15248021/


http://journals.democraticunderground.com/bigtree

[bdamomma]

1. yup we are in alot of trouble.

[no_hypocrisy]

2. No shit. n/t

[bigtree]

3. if everyone got it like we do

we wouldn't be in so much trouble

[bdamomma]

11. very true, and we have to get everyone to vote.

[Warpy]

4. Clinton's right, but his third way aint gonna work, either

we've gotten too far into serious debt for that.

Our system is quite simply unsustainable. We can't keep exporting the paychecks, importing the bills, and restricting the profits to the few. Business owners are already noticing a dropoff in customers (unless they're in the luxury trade) and now the housing market is removing the only way people had left to leverage secured debt. Now it's all plastic debt with sky high interest rates.

We're not likely to see the collapse coming, but it will come. This country reminds me of a big soap bubble, all bright and shiny on the outside, but nothing holding it up but hot air.

We're going to need men and women of great courage in our government, enough courage to reverse decades of insane fiscal policy and to make unpopular decisions about a new direction for this country.

I hope we get them.

[wyldwolf]

5. "decades of insane fiscal policy?"

The 90s hardly qualifies and the Third Way most definitely is a workable solution as it was then.

Certainly the rightwing "smaller government" or the leftwing "make the government fat so it can fix everything" approaches have never worked in regards to fiscal discipline and making government serve the governed.

[Warpy]

8. The third way did nothing about

Wealth concentration.

CEO pay packages approaching embezzlement.

Offshoring entire industries, weakening the country's infrastructure to the point there is no way we can win the next big war.

Downward pressure on wages from globalization.

Deregulation of banking that allows them unlimited interest charges, getting people into debt and keeping them there.

An unjust tax system that favors the wealthy

Taking 40% of the working poor's OASDI and putting it in with income taxes in the general fund while keeping the cap on taxable earnings laughably low.

These are just a few off the top of my head, and it's early. The third way is just another phrase for business as usual, and business as usual is killing this country.

[wyldwolf]

13. ..but it did gives us the largest economic expansion in history...

... a time when all economic classes, gender, and races benefited. THAT is what the Third Way's "insane fiscal policy" did - as opposed to the rightwings's policies of starving government programs and the left's near bankrupting the country on social policy spending.

Yes, let's return to the 60s/70s era of liberal rule with stagflation and gigantic expenditures on goverment programs OR the 80s conservative rule where government programs starved.

Third Way.

[Warpy]

18. ...mostly due to an emerging industry, computers

thanks to something that had nothing to do with the third way, a public project to create the web.

Clinton just got lucky with that.

The third way doesn't work a whole lot better than the GOP way does.

80% of people in this country didn't see the Clinton "boom," although most of 'em still had jobs.

That's what third way apologists never see.

[bigtree]

23. that would assume that there's no other technology or industry

to encourage or support.

Computers were the 'boom' in his time. War is Bush's boom.

Clinton's record of accomplishments speak for themselves. Shrinking gap between the rich and poor, fairer tax scheme which advantaged the poor and middle class, lower interest rates through fiscal responsibility which spurred investments in new businesses (record small business development), record low jobless rate, infant mortality rate down . . . all in an atmosphere of relative peace and prosperity.

All of that from computers?

[wyldwolf]

25. no, that was just a part of it

The 6 million new jobs created by 1994 had very little to do with the late 90s tech boom.

The tax cut on 15 million low-income families, tax cuts available to 90 percent of small businesses, and the raising of taxes on the upper 2% of the wealthiest taxpayers had nothing to do with the late 90s tech boom.

In fact, his 1993 Economic plan reduced interest rates in 1993.

All of this had zero to do with the tech boom.

80% of people in this country didn't see the Clinton "boom," although most of 'em still had jobs.

That's what third way apologists never see.

You did a poll on them? LOL! No seriously - you have a stat on that?

What the third way detractors are always forced to fall back on are the rightwing talking points on Clinton.

[ProfessorGAC]

29. Sorry, But You're Essentially Wrong

First, computers were not an emerging industry in 1992. The PC market expanded by the greatest proportion in the era 1986 - 1990, when businesses began shifting from word processors and mainframe time to PC's. The expansion in the 90's was big, but not as big, and since prices began to fall (per unit) the dollar expansion was far smaller.

In fact, since real wages rose for 7 of the 8 years, and inflation was at a record low for any 8 year period in modern U.S. economic history, that "80% didn't see a boom" is utter nonsense.

Lastly, you are guilty of the same short term focus that i decry in conservatives. The purpose of the economic policy of the Clinton era was to raise added revenue while minimizing increases in spending to get a handle on the deficit. That has massive long term benefits.

Sorry, but your whole basic premise is irretrievably flawed.
The Professor

[marions ghost]

24. RW/LW myths

they've never worked because they are illusions

And what is this mystical "Third Way" between two fog-shrouded poles whereof you speak O sage?

[bigtree]

9. His third way sustained the country (and my family) when he was in charge

Whatever he did in support of the free trade nonsense Clinton balanced with action and support of those of us caught in the way. Minimum wage increases, earned income credit, home mortgage interest deductions that the middle class could take advantage of, his health care initiatives which were actually pressuring the market instead of deliberately inflating the industry over the consumer. Clinton postured like a conservative but he mostly governed like a liberal. Those were the best years of my entire life.

[wyldwolf]

14. damn right it did

[TygrBright]

10. Spot on, Warpy... and a lot of Democrats aren't going to like...

...the medicine required to solve this problem. We will have to embrace austerity in a huge way, and that will mean putting together a coalition that includes folks whose social goals and priorities are very different from many Democrats'.

Repealing the giveaways to the rich, eliminating money-wasting "defense" boondoggles, and getting out of Iraq alone won't do the trick. We won't be able to spend freely on social programs and we will have to make hard choices on restoring the safety net and implementing universal health care. And it won't be fast.

There will be a lot we can do, but it won't be the insta-cure that many Democrats believe should result from undoing everything the GOPpies have done for the last 30 years. Indeed, it's not going to be possible to undo everything, though we can turn many things around. And it will take decades. To sustain the will for that long, we can't be as radical in making changes as many would like. There will be a lot of dissension and carping in our own ranks about "selling out to the DLC" gabblebabblegabble...

I hope we're up to it.

soberly,
Bright

[bigtree]

17. that's the illusion they've created with the new 'security' infrastructure

which siphons billions in hidden appropriations from the treasury every year. If we reduced just a fraction of Bush's military ambitions we could easily fund our country's needs, and begin again to pay off the interest on the debt as Clinton did in his term. I won't even try to peel off the numbers for you. It should be more than obvious when you look at the money wasted for Bush's political occupations that we are being kept 'cash poor' by their hijacking of our defense dollars, which represent nearly 70% of our annual budget along with foreign aid.

[TygrBright]

22. Agreed.... somewhat. Dealing with defense boondoggles and....

...ending corporate welfare could, indeed, fund much of what we need. But the catch is that a very great many ordinary peoples' economic lifelines are now tied into those same boondoggles and corporate welfare schemes. Their daily crusts come from sources controlled by the sleazebags who are getting obscenely wealthy from them, and they know it. They don't especially like the sleazebags profiteering off their backs, but they have little confidence that any other way will result in bigger crusts for them without inflicting crushing economic dislocation that will annihilate their fragile economic well-being. They believe (and with good reason-- they have the bitter experience to tell them so) that if we take away the government teat from the corporate sleazebags, they won't necessarily get anything in return, and the sleazebags will take their marbles and go elsewhere, leaving the ordinary folks with NOTHING.

You can't turn that around in a day, a year, or even a single Presidential term.

realistically,
Bright

[BootinUp]

6. Jammed up and ready to bust out. n/t

[Vexatious Ape]

7. Clinton?

He should know a thing or two about the Democratic Party becoming conservative. "The Democratic Party has become the liberal and conservative party in America." He makes a good point here, however there's something nagging me about that. Maybe it's the fact that when Bill was in office he told the working class, and organized labor to go piss up a fucking rope and he signed NAFTA--a conservative wet dream. Then he preceded to embrace all the other free trade crap placed under his nose.

[bigtree]

12. But he didn't just ignore the resulting effects on the middle class

His Cabinet and his White House was actively engaged in finding ways to give the disadvantaged and the middle class a hand up. Perhaps the most important thing he did was keep interest rates down by being fiscally responsible, setting his priorities in education, technology and science R&D, new business investment, fuel-efficiency for automobiles, clean air and clean water initiatives which actually created jobs and investment by helping clean up the environment . . .

[BootinUp]

16. This is frequently ignored. n/t

[Vexatious Ape]

20. I'm not taking any of that

away from him, he was a far better Prez than the Chimp, but the Party did lurch to the Right when he was in power--because of his embrace of free trade.

[wryter2000]

33. Thanks, you nailed it

I love the message, but I'm afraid he contributed to the move to the right. His love affair with Bush I isn't helping any, either. Neither is warning us not to be "too" liberal. DOMA was a terrible thing to back. He triangulated us into this corner.

I don't want to detract from the many wonderful things he accomplished, but in many ways, he and his wife and the DLC have lent credibility to the other side. I'd rather be hearing this from another source.

[bigtree]

35. He and his wife would be a blessing if they were in the WH today

His two terms advanced many progressive causes and concerns

[karynnj]

37. Tipper and Al Gore or John and Teresa Kerry would be better

[bigtree]

38. It would be nice if they would have been able to get themselves elected

I'd have to judge better afterward. I was a Jesse Jackson Democrat when Clinton came on the scene, meddling along with the DLC with the primary rules after Dukakis lost that election . . . I was ready for him when we finally got to that election against Bush.

[karynnj]

39. All elections aren't equal

Bush couldn't have run against Gore on bring honor back to the WH without Clinton's behavior.

In 2004, W had an approval rating about 10 points higher than his dad did 6 months before their respective races. As Clinton himself said Kerry faced a new media that was not like the one we grew up with. There were no terror codes in 1992. In 1992, the SBVT woukld have hurt Bush because the official record clearly disputed many charges - the burden of proof would be on the SBVT, who had no new proof, just allegations.


This is not duplicate bridge where they played the same hands. I suspect if Clinton had never been President, he would have lost in 2004 as well.

[karynnj]

40. self delete - dupe (n/t)

[Sensitivity]

15. Bill Clinton is more ready than ever to be President - And He Knows it

This is the secret to a Hillary candidacy and its hope.
I Hillary got the title but Bill had the power it could be a very
effective innovation.

[tjwash]

19. I was going to say something really snarky.

Something along the lines of "thank you captain obvious," but I tend to forget that the rest of the nation is not as informed about the real state of our nation as those of us here at DU are.

Just suffice to say that he is right, and I am hoping that everyone in the country who voted for never ending war, the shredding of our constitution, and the intrusion of "smaller government" into our lives, etc...etc...etc... will put down their fucking little plastic flags that they have been waving, and actually look at what a mess the neo-con ideologues have gotten us into.

Damn, there's that snark again...

[Skidmore]

21. Meaning that he wants to jerk us back to the

squishy middle, which is seen now as "far left."

[bigtree]

26. ridiculous. That's not the effect that his presidency had on America

Results matter. In the face of an obstructionous republican majority for most of his term, Clinton managed the most progressive era in my lifetime. Not just great aspirations like Carter may have had, but concrete results that he fought for against the steady wall of resistance from the right-wing. It's a mistake to dismiss his philosophy out of hand. His entire prescription may not fit the present predicament, but I trust him to understand the politics of working against an entrenched opposition.

[Skidmore]

27. I want to recapture the spirit of the Democratic party...

you know, the one that FDR brought in the New Deal, and Johnson in the Great Society. The party that marched for labor rights and civil rights and women's rights. We don't need more NAFTAs.

And, frankly, I'm not interested in the Dems having their very own dynasty either. Once the *'s are gone, I would also like to see the CLintons step aside too and let someone else have a chance to lead. We are a democracy, not a monarchy.

[bigtree]

30. both the New Deal and the Great Society authors had their own faults

which translated into things like court-packing manipulation or reactive, jingoistic militarism. I don't understand the nostalgia which ignores the era these men operated under and the compromises they made between their progressive initiatives and their other more reactive, regressive ones made out of some political bargaining of their time.

[Skidmore]

31. The nostalgia is for a principled stand on major issues that

affect ordinary people. An acknowlegement that there are individual citizens out here on the receiving end of policy. As far as I'm concerned, The civil rights, women's, and labor movements need to go into full swing again and, unfortunately, refight the hard won battles of the last century. Dems are guilty of becoming complacent and not being watchful of their legacy nor as concerned with their constitutency as they should have been. Now we need to fight to regain territory in these areas AND to get civil liberties restored as well. The New Deal and Great Society represent the best of democratic ideals and are still to be sought after.

[bigtree]

32. but this discussion was about Clinton

He stood for, and defended, 'the best of democratic ideals' as well.

[madokie]

28. I believe the Big Dog's feathers have been ruffled

chris wallace done pissed 'im off or was the proverbial straw.

[wryter2000]

34. True

Very true, but my question is "what the F took him so long?" Did he have to wait for a person attack to get angry?

[bigtree]

36. he got press this time

do you really believe this was the first time he's lashed out or struck back with force and enthusiasm? Awful far stretch from you to criticize the man.

[KG]

41. o boy, this is rich.

coming from the guy that gave the right everything it wanted for 8 years. :eyes:

[Disturbed]

42. Al Gore/Hillary Clinton .

That would be a weird ticket. Would that be a winning ticket? If they won America would have Bill Clinton back In WH, Chief of Staff? and Al and Hillary team. Stranger things can happen.