When Did Being An Ardent

[MineralMan]

supporter of a Democratic President and Democratic candidates become a bad thing? When did that start? Does anyone remember?

Everyone seemed to be in full support back in 2008, and a huge crowd turned out to welcome President Obama to the Presidency. Now, it seems like a large number of people who supported him then are actively doing the opposite. I know that all of us are disappointed in the results we got, due to an obstructive Republican minority in the Senate, but when did that turn into active deriding of President Obama? I'm truly saddened by that result, and fear that we may lose everything we gained in 2008 in the election in 2010.

[LWolf]

1. When did it become okay for Democrats to adopt Republican

reforms, strategies, and positions on issues?

:shrug:

[MineralMan]

4. Oddly enough, the Republicans have worked very hard

to obstruct everything President Obama has tried to do. Why do you believe that Democrats have adopted Republican policies? They're fighting everything tooth and nail, obstructing every piece of legislation, blocking judicial appointments and more. Seems to me that we're doing just the opposite of what the Republicans want. I guess I don't see what you're talking about.

[ThomCat]

38. Democrats passed welfare "reform" that permanently

kicked people off of public assistance and permanently limited access to public assistance. That was a long-time goal of republicans, not democrats.

Democrats passed NAFTA and free-trade. That was a long-time goal of republicans, not democrats.

Democrats have accepted the Republican ideas of Privatizing public schools, blaming teachers for all the problems in education, and limiting educational policy to only what can fit on a bubble test, and those are now the entire basis of Obama's educational policy. All of those are just re-hashes of NO CHILD LEFT BEHIND.

Over and over again, Democrats have have moved ahead not by advancing traditional democratic policy planks, but by co-opting Republican policies and taking them over as the new Democratic ideas. That strategy BETRAYS the people who have always been the BASE of the democratic party.

[hfojvt]

58. You may wanna check the facts there

"Democrats passed welfare reform"

uh, wrong. Here's the welfare reform bill that you say "Democrats passed" http://clerk.house.gov/evs/1996/roll331.xml

Well look at that. Democrats voted, uhm, AGAINST it by 165-30 and Republicans voted FOR it by 226-4. It's totally a bill passed by Democrats. Or not. You may be really upset at those 30 "traitors" in the Democratic Party, but you might also note that even without their betrayal, the bill passes by 226-200 and thus their votes really did not matter. Near as I can tell, Democrats voted against it in the Senate by 23 - 22, although it is interesting to see people like Feingold and Harkin voting for it and Levin and Kerry. The rest are sott of the "usual suspects" Baucus, Nebraska, ND, LA, AL, SC - red state senators as well as the millionaire DINO Herb Kohl of Wisconsin.

"Democrats passed NAFTA"

wrong again. How many times do I need to post this fact? http://clerk.house.gov/evs/1993/roll575.xml
Democrats in the House voted AGAINST NAFTA by 156 - 102. Republicans voted for it by 132 - 43.

Is 40% really the same as 75%? In the Senate 30 Democrats voted against it, compared to only 8 Republicans. 27 Democrats voted for it, compared to 34 Republicans. 27 - 30 vs. 34 - 8. Is 47% the same as 81%? (BTW, in this case Kohl voted against it while liberals like Harkin, Kennedy, Bradley and Mosely-Braun voted for it. Go figure.)

About NCLB. Well, that came from Kennedy and he was not a known-DLCer, but as for Obama-Duncan, it seems to me that much of the resistance to them is coming from Democrats. So when you say "Democrats have accepted" that is wrong again because it is only true of SOME Democrats, not of Democrats in general.

[ThomCat]

85. Democrats were a minority at the time, and that was a very

significant number of the democrats at the time. Clinton was also the one who signed both of those pieces of legislation, instead of vetoing them.

So in both cases, the legislation passed passed only because it had substantial support within the Democratic party, and because the Democratic President supported it and signed it.

Clinton considered both to be Signature Pieces of Legislation.

So bringing up the vote count is a wonderful bit of misdirection. Republicans didn't make those bills happen. Democrats did. Even though we were the minority party, we controlled the white house, and we controlled the veto, and OUR Party was publicly proud at the time of triangulating on these issues and taking them away from the Republicans, making them Democratic issues.

[democracy1st]

99. not only did he sign those he lied to get them passed! telecommunications act ...

[hfojvt]

105. there was not substantial support in the House for Welfare Reform

and Clinton did veto it - once. http://www.rules.house.gov/archives/98-147.pdf

Republicans certainly did make those bills happen, much more than Democrats did. Why do you want to deny the numbers?

As for Clinton, well I never did vote for him. To me, they sounded like three Republicans Bush-Clinton-and Perot and I really did not care which one won. http://journals.democraticunderground.com/hfojvt/74

Clinton is not the Democratic Party and neither is Obama. Clinton always seemed to be trying to out-Republican the Republicans, but it was not "The Democratic Party" doing that it was the Big Dawg and those in his DLC orbit. You might want to concede the Democratic Party to the DLC as if the two are one and the same, but I don't.

[ThomCat]

111. Vetoing a different simlar bill doesn't absolve him for signing

this one and taking credit for it publicly, nationally for years afterward.

Democrats CAMPAIGNED on the Welfare Reform Act they were so proud it, because it was supposedly a big part of lowering government spending and creating the surplus. Which, if true, would meant that poor people created a large part of the surplus by going into poverty. :(

Dodging by saying that Clinton vetoes SOMETHING ELSE doesn't mean shit!

saying that the republicans are only to blame because there were more of them is disingenuous, when Of course there were more republicans, they were in the majority at the time. That doesn't absolve Democrats for voting for this bill, a Democratic President for signing it, and Democrats for taking credit for it at the time.

[hfojvt]

119. it has nothing to do with more of them

it has something to do with the fact that only 16% of house democrats voted for it, whereas 98% of house republicans voted for it, and to you this means that Democrats passed it.

It seems to me that by that logic, Republicans passed the Matthew Shepard act since 10% of House Republicans voted for it and the 90% support by House Democrats does not mean any more than the 98% of support by House Republicans for welfare reform means anything.

I am having a hard time seeing how Democrats campaigned on welfare reform when 84% of them voted against it. Clinton might have, but again, he is not the Democratic Party, just a President from the Republican wing of the Democratic Party.

[democracy1st]

98. He's correct bill Clinton pushed for Welfare reform,1996 telecommunications act and Nafta!

and just like this president does the democratic presidents continue to ignore democratic values.

[hfojvt]

100. Bill Clinton is not, and never was, the Democratic Party

and Bill Clinton vetoed Welfare Reform http://www.rules.house.gov/archives/98-147.pdf

Democratic Presidents are not the Democratic Party.

[democracy1st]

103. link

http://www.google.com/search?q=bill+clinton+welfare+reform&rls=com.microsoft:en-us&ie=UTF-8&oe=UTF-8&startIndex=&startPage=1

[hfojvt]

107. and that proves what?

That the veto never happened? That Bill Clinton really IS (whatever that means) the Democratic Party?

[democracy1st]

108. Presidents are leaders of the party,give it a break this Goldman Sachs admin has been wrong from the

beginning.

[hfojvt]

117. got it, only the fuehrer counts, le etat, c'est moi

thank goodness then that we will have more Republicans in Congress next term to stop the Democrats from passing alot of crap just like they did in 1995. Huh? http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EPP6L1_ooaQ&feature=related

[LWolf]

47. You are correct about the Republicans.

I was shocked, at first; they SHOULD have been happy with his policies. Then I figured that it was a "team" thing. Just as so many Democrats now are cheering things from the Obama administration they would be screaming about under a Republican administration, Republicans have to oppose anything that comes from a "Democrat," even if it aligns well with their stated goals.

The propaganda machine has certainly been working overtime during the Obama administration. I sometimes think that the more attention the media, and the general public, give ludicrous charges of socialism, birth certificate irregularities, etc., the more ignorant people become about socialism itself, and the more people are conditioned to accept those charges as somehow normal and reasonable.

Why do I believe that Democrats have adopted Republican policies?

One example couldn't be clearer: Public education. It comes straight from Republican playbooks all the way back to Ronald Reagan. As a matter of fact, they could not have moved as fast to push their education agenda as Obama has; Democrats provide some obstacles when they do. They've been working on that agenda since the Reagan administration, taking small steps forward over time, and marching steadily forward. The Obama administration has charged full steam ahead.

Privatization. Union-busting. Neoliberal education favoring neoliberal economics.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=219x28157

And Obama TOLD us this back in 2008, when Chris Wallace asked him what he thought Republicans had better ideas for than Democrats. His response? Regulation and Public Education. He almost sounded like Reagan himself.

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,352785,00.html

NAFTA. How is free trade, instead of fair trade, not a republican policy? It benefits corporations, hurts labor.

Health "care." Single-payer not allowed at the table, by DEMOCRATS. Reforms crafted by and for insurance companies. Public option thrown out.

You are an intelligent and reasonable man. I know that you really didn't need to ask that question.

[sabrina 1]

84. Republicans forced him to lift the ban on Offshore drilling?

And without even a fight in Congress? So what's the point of defeating them if, after we win, they end up with so much power?

I thought winning gave you an advantage over the losers. You don't invite the defeated party into your administration and hand them power the people took away.

Who forced him to nominate Republicans to positions in his Cabinet? Who forced him to make that rightwing criminal, Gates, Sec. of Defense?

What you are saying is that winning means nothing, as Republicans have so much power even when we control all three branches of government, that it doesn't make a difference.

Not a very good argument for Democrats imo. I would prefer to see them fight and lose than cave right at the beginning in awe of the power of the defeated party.

[democracy1st]

101. 2 days stick out in my mind,the day his economic team was announced and the day he let Joe Leiberman

off the hook. That was when I began to call this WH the Goldman Sachs admin. If a liberal so much as mutter the wrong word it's over, pack your bags before nightfall and get out. While repubs get away with name calling,betrayal,and much more.

[JackRiddler]

115. Really? Did they obstruct the escalation of war in Afghanistan and Pakistan?

Did they stop the expansion under Obama of the bankster "bailouts" (plunder for pirates) begun under Bush? (Trying to attack him for it after the fact is not the same.)

Have they been howling about the Obama-Duncan expansion of the War on Teachers?

The only big thing he fought for was the inadequate health insurance bill. And oh, look, that battle was won. You want to win, you fight.

Stop excusing Democratic stands favoring corporatism and imperialism as products of Republican "obstructionism."

[BeFree]

5. Really?

The R strategy is to just say no. No to reform and NO as a policy.

Democrats are trying to make progress, there just are not enough of them to bust free.
Maybe after this election we will be so lucky?

[MineralMan]

8. That's my hope, too. I just hope that enough people turn out

and encourage others to get to the polls and vote for Democratic candidates. What I'm reading here and other places, though, sure makes it sound like many are actively opposed to Democrats increasing their majority. Maybe it's just a tiny group that won't really effect the elections. Lots of noise but not much movement. Reminds me of an old motorcycle I had that had a bad clutch. Lots of noise and no movement at all.

[BeFree]

13. Every two years we get this chance

It would be really stupid to blow this chance to increase the numbers of Dems.

[MineralMan]

16. That's what I'd think too, but I worry that inaction among people

who are normally very active may miss getting some lazy voters out to the polls.

[BeFree]

26. Yeah

That is what a very influential activist tells me. Go After Lazy Voters. GOAL! V!

Right now, the worst one can do is discourage voting for Dems, eh?

[LWolf]

39. Really.

When did it become okay, for example, for Democrats to favor corporations over labor? To favor privatization and union busting? To favor tax cuts over investment in domestic programs and policies that benefit the non-wealthy?

[BeFree]

45. When electronic voting machines got going?

Basically, when the Dems deserted Carter and reagan was put in power, the Dems began moving that way.

Now were headed back to the left. We're making some progress again. Keep pushing.

[LWolf]

48. A sincere question:

What progress are we making? I'm not seeing it. I'm seeing republican reforms embraced by Democrats. Education. Economic policies. Health "care" reforms for insurance companies. The democratic-appointed cat-food commission attacking social security. Where are we making headway?

[BeFree]

51. Not much now

Come January, when the R's are a real small minority, you will be surprised.

You want Boehner as speaker? McConnel as Majority leader?

Do you see what it is you seem to want? It is opposite of my desires, if true.

[LWolf]

54. I want Democrats that act like Democrats, not neoliberals.

I don't think Obama will ever act like that Democrat. He IS a neoliberal.

As for the rest, I will happily give my D Senator a vote this November; he's earned it. I will be voting for the D challenging my R rep in Congress; he's certainly earned my opposition.

I won't be voting for ANY neo-liberal Democrats, at any time. That's not the way to foster the changes in the party I want to see.

[EFerrari]

23. When was the DLC formed?

:shrug:

[LWolf]

41. Exellent question, and I think you've nailed it. nt

[MineralMan]

2. Please Check if You Are Still Ardent

in your support of Democrats and President Obama. I know I am, and will continue to be. Less than halfway through his first term, we've only seen the beginning of what can be done if we help elect more Democrats to Congress.

[rug]

20. Nope, not yet.

http://2.bp.blogspot.com/_YgroRTJmh_4/Syl6k2BDI_I/AAAAAAAABRw/75rqHxxHfPg/s320/Looking+Down+Pants.jpg

It's still early though.

[tavalon]

36. Nope, I have bile in my throat

But they've given us a little breather and that's just good enough. Not what I wanted but what we needed.

[bvar22]

61. I am an ARDENT supporter of the following:

*Medicare for anyone who wants it

*The immediate break-up (Trust Busting) of everything "Too Big to Fail".

*Fair Competition Legislation that lets Mom&Pop (small locally owned businesses and farms) compete with Big Box and Factory Farms on a level playing field.

*An end to "Free Trade" (Race to the Bottom)

*Organized LABOR and local co-ops.

*An end to the two-tiered Judicial System

*Prosecution of rich American War Criminals and War Profiteers. (Oh yes they did!)

*An END to "Corporate Personhood"

*Strictly Enforced Publicly Financed Elections (severe penalties for criminals)

*Transparent and Verifiable elections (Why isn't this a front burner issue with the Democratic Party?)

*Re-Regulation with strict oversight of Banking/Investment, Transportation, Communications, Trade, Energy, Utilities, Insurance.

*NO Public Money for private Prisons, armed Private Police, armed Defense Contractors, private intelligence agencies, or For Profit Health Insurance Corporations.

*Immediate Civil Rights and Equal Protection for ALL. (No Exceptions)

*Free Quality Universal Public Education to everyone who wants it.

*Strong Social Safety Net and Consumer Protections.

*An end to The Patriot Act and a return to The Constitution.(especially Habeas and privacy protections)

*A refutation of the "Unitary Executive", and legislation to ensure it NEVER happens again.

*An END to Republican/Corporate influence INSIDE The Democratic Party !
(NO! They DON"T deserve a seat at the table!)

It is an "Issues" thing, not a matter of Political Personalities.
When politicians move toward the above, I will support them.
When they move away, I will oppose them.
I don't expect to get everything, but I DO expect some respect for these values, and a voice in the Party that is asking for my money and support.
If a Political Party does not at least acknowledge these values and give them a seat at the table, I will find another Party that will.

I find that my FDR/LBJ values are increasingly unwelcome in the "New Democrat Party".
FDR Democrats have been branded "Fucking Retards" by the White House, and the Progressive Caucus has been effectively neutered by the "Centrist" Obama Administration in pursuit of Republican/Corporate/ Policy.

These are values I strongly believe in. I have fought for these values long before I ever heard the name "Obama", "triangulation", or "Centrist" Democrats. I will keep fighting for these values no matter who is in the White House.

[Art_from_Ark]

110. It might be a generational thing

It seems to me that many of us here who can remember what it was like before Reagan, tend to be rather unimpressed with the way things are going with today's Democratic Party, while people whose memories do not go past Reagan may have a more favorable view. Personally, I remember the Great Society days and consider the ideals of the Democratic Party of that time to best represent my own political views.

[Fumesucker]

3. Rick Warren at the inauguration didn't help..

A lot of us felt that was unnecessarily divisive of the party, there were plenty of ministers that could have done the inauguration that didn't carry Warren's homophobic baggage.

I recall the atmosphere here got pretty heated at the time.

[MineralMan]

7. So, you think people started working against Obama on

Inauguration Day? That seems so strange, but I guess some are simply not willing to even give him a day in office before jumping on his case. I find that incredibly sad. What his reasons for having Warren there, I do not know. I suppose he was trying to enlist some support from fundamentalists. It didn't work, but that's my guess about why Warren was there. You may remember there were others who also participated in the Inauguration. I'm sure I could find a list for you, if you don't remember.

[Kurt_and_Hunter]

18. Could you be more specific about "working against Obama"?

I am a pretty big critic of Obama here but I do not consider myself to be working against him.

I have no interest in the election of Republicans. One of my chief criticisms of Obama is that he has made the election of Republicans more likely, not less.

I oppose Republicans.

I believe that ardently supporting a series of catastrophic errors cannot be the right answer.

And there have obviously been a series of catastrophic errors because we are going to lose more than 50 seats in Congress and the economy is a basket-case.

If I thought that waving a flag would defeat any Republicans or create any jobs I would wave a flag.

This is key.

My analytic stance is that waving that flag hurts more than it helps.

I think that Obama's ardent supporters have done more harm than his critics have. But since I recognize that they are not trying to harm the nation with their ardor I don't post a lot of OPs calling them out as the big problem.

[EFerrari]

25. MineralMan is including thought crimes like recognizing that Rick Warren

is a morally bankrupt, homophobic, misogynistic, anti-Semitic grifter who has no place in a day of national celebration.

That sentence right there -- working against Obama.

[tavalon]

37. I am guilty of thought crimes

Many thought crimes. I suck at this lockstep thingy. I think that may be why Republican was not a good fit. My father was an adamant Republican as is my stepbrother. But they were both very black and white thinkers and in the case of my stepbrother, not very deep thinkers. I do a bit of that critical thinking thingy that I see you and many others here utilizing. It rarely allows for lockstep.

[LostinVA]

125. +1

[Fumesucker]

22. There are even fundamentalist ministers that are not raging homophobes..

There was not a necessity to put an outspoken homophobe front and center at the inauguration, even to have a fundamentalist minister.

It seems strange to you because it's not your issue, not your life, not your pony being gored if you will.

It's not really my personal issue either since I'm not gay but I recognize that Warren was extremely hurtful to those who are gay or have gay loved ones.

[EFerrari]

52. Warren is just as bad for women and for Jews.

But gay folk got hung out to dry for raising the issue during the honeymoon.

[QC]

70. "YOU ARE NOT GOING TO RUIN THIS FOR THE REST OF US."

Remember that one?

[EFerrari]

81. You bet I do.

How could I forget. It's the same team building spirit we have here today.

[LWolf]

49. Working against? No. Losing faith? Yes.

I think that some people started losing faith even before inauguration day. It was easy to lose faith when we looked at his appointments; easy to predict what direction his administration would take.

Of course, we were told to give him time. That time simply confirmed those predictions. No one would have been more thrilled than I to be wrong.

[LostinVA]

124. Criticism of Obama ="Working against Obama"

:rofl:

[jaxx]

50. OMG I forgot about Rick Warren.

Highly ineffective wasn't he? Just a blip on the radar. I bet 90% of the public never heard of him....then or now.

[Fumesucker]

59. Warren was highly effective..

At alienating and discouraging teh ghey, an overwhelmingly Democratic constituency.

Mission Accomplished, eh?

I think Obama should have had a Klan leader up too, in order to win over the racists to his way of thinking.

Then he could have alienated the other most consistent Dem constituency..

It's eleven dimensional chess and Obama's a world champion.

[jaxx]

62. You give Warren way too much power.

[Fumesucker]

64. Obama's the one who gave Warren the power to alienate a solid Dem constituency..

I didn't put Rick Warren on the inaugural stand, Obama did that.

Those who wouldn't have cared never noticed, those who are in Warren's culture war sights definitely noticed. The damage done to the Democratic party by Warren far outstripped any possible gain.

Edited for speling.

[jaxx]

65. I certainly can't change your mind, but I didn't see it that way.

But then, Warren is just another preacher man to me, not someone who has one bit of power.

[QC]

69. If you were gay, and Warren had just successfully campaigned to strip you of a basic civil right,

you might feel differently about this issue.

In fact, you might feel hurt or even betrayed, as many people did.

[jaxx]

74. I'm not gay, but my transsexual sister is.

Again, it goes to the power thing. Warren has no power over us. How could one insignificant man have the ability to hurt or betray us on the biggest day of the Democratic Party in our history? Our eye was on the President.

She knows about hurt and betrayal, and it doesn't come from this WH.

[QC]

78. Like you said, you're not gay, but you know how you would feel about this issue if you were.

Whatever....

[jaxx]

79. Well I'm very close with my sister and know what she has been through.

She and her partner are also very political. So yeah, I do know how she feels about it.

[Kurt_and_Hunter]

6. If we lose everything we gained in 2008 in the election in 2010 it won't be because of DU

There seems to be a common theme on DU that since we are in a disastrous situation that the fault for that must lie with whoever on DU we disagree with.

In reality, nothing said or done on DU is going to win or lose congress or budge Obama's national ratings 0.001%.

The "blame Obama's critics for failure" thing is an understandable psychological effect, perhaps, but it isn't based on any sort of reality.

DU is a narrow community. There are no out-Republicans here so who is available to scape-goat? But Obama detractors on DU are not actually the cause of the fact that the Democratic Party is in serious trouble.

Speaking only for myself here, I do not consider supporting the president or the party to be a bad thing. I consider authoritarianism, delusion, bullying and witch-hunting to be very bad things. Some ardent supporters of the president show their support through that sort of behavior. In that case the problem is not simply supporting the president. It is important to not conflate the two things.

[alarimer]

94. Democrats will lose because they are NOT PROGRESSIVE ENOUGH

In particular, Obama's wishy-washy handling of health care for one. The public option would be very popular AND would also reduce the deficit but the corporate powers (the REAL power in this country, not the voters) decided we couldn't have that so Obama caved.

Plus appeasing Republicans is indicative of having no spine, so the Democrats will lose because of that as well. Why in hell voters thing Republicans will be any better (clearly history says no) is beyond me. Tons of people are discouraged by this administration and will sit it out and I cannot blame them. Obviously for any real change to occur, we have to get rid of both parties, since the are both part of the problem. But that's a long-term goal.

[lunatica]

9. How could you forget the Hillary vs Obama vs Edwards factions?

Going anywhere on DU except the Lounge was like visiting a bloodbath most days. It was like the slasher movies.

[MineralMan]

15. I didn't join until late in the game, so I must have missed a lot

of that. Still, when President Obama won, did that still persist. I'm usually only on GD.

[Name removed]

10. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[emilyg]

12. +10

[ismnotwasm]

11. What I've noticed

Is that many who consider themselves left are very disappointed in Obama, for any number of reasons. The right despises Obama for any number of reasons. It's a surreal situation when the two meet with basically the same opinion of President Obama, just with near polar opposite reasoning. Are they all right? Or are they all wrong?

I know they are not 'the same' as one another, how did they end up with the same basic emotional response?

For me, I'm voting Democrat.

[MineralMan]

17. That's a good sign. Thanks!

[tavalon]

42. I'm voting a straight Democratic ticket too, but you might not like my reasoning

I'm doing it out of spite. The Democrats had a thousand stupid reasons for why they couldn't get much worthwhile accomplished while having majorities in the House, the Senate and of course, in the White House. I want to elect supermajorities in both houses and watch them bend themselves into pretzels trying to come up with valid reasons why that still isn't enough. Since I no longer believe they have our interests truly at heart (with some notable exceptions) I'm going for the comedy value of keeping them in the majority. Letting the Republicans get the majority gives Democrats cover, something I don't want them to have. That and Republicans are, for the most part, batshit crazy.

[MineralMan]

134. I really don't care why you're doing it. Every vote helps.

See ya.

[tkmorris]

31. It's rather meaningless because Repubs despise EVERY Dem

It really doesn't matter who they are or what they do in office. Witness the current complaints R's make about Obama. He's a Socialist. He's a secret Muslim. He's really a Kenyan spy. He's a terrorist. It's all inane, with no grounding in reality at all. It makes no difference who he actually is, the fact that he is a Democrat is enough for them. Thus, gauging a Democratic president in any way based upon what Republicans say about him is pointless.

Democrats generally do not do this, not to the same extent R's do. I didn't like Bush Sr much, but he was certainly a better pres than his idiot son was. Bob Dole was also a candidate I'd never vote for, but wouldn't feel the need to jump off a bridge if he had won.

When Democrats criticize Obama you will notice that they have reasons for doing so. They may not be reasons you agree with, but there are reasons, as opposed to being stories made up out of whole cloth. Many in the gay community are frustrated with Obama due to his perceived lack of support for their causes. People who are suffering the most due to the economy are often upset by Obama seeming to have something of a tin ear when it comes to helping them, instead supporting big business and banks. And so on. Now you might say these people aren't being entirely fair or objective in their criticisms, but you CANNOT say they don't have any justification for them.

Contrast this with the "Obama faked his birth certificate" crowd and you can see there is really no comparison at all.

[ismnotwasm]

53. I thought of that

I'm actually not talking about the teabagger/birther/racist crowd. They're dangerously nuts.

I'm thinking more of some military folks and certain conservative small business owners, or even small town folk who feel that the direction Obama is going in is terrible, some of them are fairly articulate, although wrong of course by everything I believe in. I've heard many anecdotal stories from patients of mind for instance. (There I'm in a position to listen and not argue--it's very hard) While I don't agree with any of them, many are vehemently anti-Obama.

I agree Democrats in general critisize from a far more stable point of view, but some do the same thing repukes do, how does that line in Sherlock Holmes go? 'Insensibly one begins to twist facts to suit theories, instead of theories to suit facts'

There are several people here at DU who critizise from well researched data and experience, but not all.

[EFerrari]

55. The same could be said for people who support the president

as an individual. How many of them do that from well reasoned data and experience?

[ismnotwasm]

63. Not very many is my guess

Given the surprise and disappointment. We had a cult of personality for sure.

What I'm talking about is people in general, I see very reasoned criticism, as well as knee jerk destructive paranoia. I would like to think those last are trolls. I see well argued support as well as emotional clinging. On a discussion board, one can quickly dive into google or however one does research to see if what someone says is true or not.

What we can't do, or shouldn't do I mean, is tell someone how to feel about a topic.

[EFerrari]

68. Agreed. n/t

[Steely_Dan]

14. The Same Level...

of support for the president during the campaign is the same level of disappointment in the way he has governed.

There is no limit to the wrath one feels when the very people we expected to represent the "people" continue this death march to the right.

Betrayal is a powerful word.

Having said this...I will vote for Dems and I will contribute. What choice do I have? What choice do any of us have?

-P

[MineralMan]

19. But that doesn't represent the ardent support needed to

turn this around, I'm afraid. That's what worries me.

[Steely_Dan]

24. Indeed n/t

[socialist_n_TN]

30. It's hard to be an ARDENT supporter when

you don't feel like your positions are even being REPRESENTED, much less enacted. I could live with not enacted, but it REALLY pisses me off when my position is not even represented at the table.

That said, I'll vote in November and I'll vote Dem. As Steely Dan said, what choice do I have? But ardency? Not so much.

[tavalon]

43. Yeah, I've lost my ardent

I have choiceless anger. But I'm voting for the ones who only neglect me, rather than the ones who actively beat me.

[Marr]

44. Then you should stop making excuses for right-of-center "Democrats", and start

trying to push them left.

It makes zero sense to blame the voters for a party's losses. It's like blaming movie critics for negative movie reviews.

[MineralMan]

132. I'm not blaming the "voters."

I'm saying that the activists need to get the voters to the polls. That's what I'm doing. Without those voters we can't win. It's a very, very simple equation. So, I'm blaming those who claim to be activists who are only active in discouraging voters, rather than getting them out to vote for some alternative to a Republican takeover. It's very, very simple.

As for pushing elected Democrats further left, I do that all the time. Right now, there's an election looming. Time to put the focus on that. It's too late to choose a new slate of candidates, you see. The names are already on the ballot.

Just holding your nose and voting isn't enough. We need to get other people to hold their noses and vote, where that's necessary. It's all so simple to understand.

[Marr]

137. Yeah... that's blaming voters.

Calling them "activists" doesn't change the fact that you're blaming voters for the results of politicians' policy decisions.

[CBR]

21. I am an ardent supporter of the President.

I have worked on several projects and with several agencies that do not receive national attention but are directly a result of administration policy. For example, a small nonprofit in Philly that I write grants for is receiving much needed funding through the Strengthening Communities Fund. I did some consulting work on the new Homeless Prevention and Rapid Re-Housing program which provides rental, utility and other assistance for households who are homeless or at-risk of homelessness (50% or less of AMI). A good friend of mine is involved with Amnesty and worked on their campaign to change rape laws on Native American reservations. The Act was delayed until July 2010. It passed.

[TreasonousBastard]

27. It's not a bad thing. Never was. There is, however, a small but highly vocal crew of...

miserable people who have nothing but their self-proclaimed "ideals" who incessantly call attention to them as if the world, or even normally sympathetic DUers, could possibly care. Could it be that perhaps they have so much time to post because they have no influence in the real world.

These paragons of pugnacious political purity seem to find that Republicans, Conservatives and the like are hopeless and not worth complaining about-- they are what they are and can be expected to do the worst. Our own people, however, liberal Democrats, must be condemned for far worse sins-- selling out their ideals for cheap and tawdry political or commercial gain. Imperfection will not be tolerated.

Or, maybe it's just so much easier to trash your friends than battle your enemies.

(It is worth remembering that for several months a high-level Kerry campaign worker was posting here until driven off by the local "experts" who claimed said campaign manager had no knowledge of campaigns-- the noise level in the attacks just got too high to deal with.)

[Fumesucker]

32. Spiro Agnew, is that you?

[EFerrari]

35. Lol.

[PassingFair]

28. When a small group of rude people who want to make it impossible to hold our...

own representative's feet to the fire.

It has always been the progressive plan to
first have democratic control, and then to
clean house of the democrats who voted with,
and abetted the pillage of our country under
the Bush administration.

There are those, apparently, who thought
the struggle was a game that ended with the
election.

It's not about being on the winning team.

It's about the continuous struggle for human
rights.

[VMI Dem]

29. When did ardent supporters start belittling and minimizing the concerns of oppressed citizens?

Probably around that same time.

[DevonRex]

33. I am an Ardent

supporter. I'd say there are at least 15 of us left. Maybe even 17. We just don't spend much time on DU anymore since other boards are much more fun to participate in.

In addition, there are other boards that actually welcome Democrats.

[EFerrari]

73. You're confusing the category "Democrats" with something else.

"Control freaks", maybe. DU has never been big on being told what to say or think, let alone, being castigated for independent thinking.

[Name removed]

34. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Name removed]

40. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[paulk]

46. because it often blinds the follower

zealots too often see the world in binary terms

and that is not a good thing

[bobbolink]

56. Actually, if you had been willing to LISTEN to people instead of criticising them, you would have

learned the answer to your question.

[SoxFan]

87. ?

[dionysus]

104. says the guy who lashes out at people on his own si.... oh never mind.

:rofl:

[Subdivisions]

57. Look at what you wrote...

You said it yourself: "...a huge crowd turned out to welcome President Obama to the Presidency. Now, it seems like a large number of people who supported him then are actively doing the opposite."

What does that say about how people feel about the results so far? If they did support him then and now they do not, doesn't that, in and of itself, indicate that maybe there's a problem? Some people may not agree with those whose support has waned, but it is lost support nonetheless and complaining about it isn't constructive. And unless the President and Democratically-controlled Congress deliver on the policies that will win back that support, we're going to have a hard time convincing enough of them to bother voting at all or at least hold their noses and vote Dems for the sake of continued control of Congress.

[jaxx]

60. I actively support President Obama.

Where ever I go in conversations I make sure I correct the misinformation that is out there, the supposition, the blatant lies. People deserve better than being lied to, either by their media, their acquaintances, their co-workers, or anyone else.

I own up to being an ardent supporter, since I have supported him from his IL days, pre-US senate run. So when I voted for him to be the president I knew what he was, what he stood for and what to expect. He's a good and decent man who will work for the betterment of this country of ours.

Yes We Can!

[MineralMan]

67. Thanks!

[Morning Dew]

66. It's hard to ardently support an adminstration and candidates

who are either working against us or are so dilatory that it nearly amounts to the same thing.

I couldn't look myself in the mirror if I started passionately cheering for the things I hated under the Bush administration.

How can anyone?

I can hold my nose and vote for crappy Dems but someone else will have to carry water for them.

[Peacetrain]

71. Damned if I know. Democrats have been talked about like dogs

for quite a while now.

[ecstatic]

72. I'm hoping that a silent, sensible majority exists

I don't really say that much anymore. It's not worth arguing about it.

[JoseGaspar]

75. You seem to enjoy conflating entirely independent subjects.

"Ardent supporters of Obama are bad" is the result of "disappointment... due to an obstructive Republican minority in the Senate" which ends with "active deriding of President Obama".

Is that how it works?

1) The only "ardent supporters of Obama" who seem to be called "bad" are those who alternate between calling left-critics "the Party of Spite" and demanding that they tow the line. In other words, it is not "ardent supporters" who are at issue; it is you.

2) There are some who may be "disappointed with an obstructive Republican minority", but there are many others who are disgusted with a neoliberal Democratic majority.

3) There is not necessarily a detour through "disappointment with Republicans" to arrive at "deriding President Obama". For many, it is a direct path, due to Obama's positions and actions themselves... quite independently of what Republicans think. So too, many on the Left will conclude that any Democratic losses in 2010 will also be the sole responsibility of Obama and the Congressional Dems.

You, of course, can continue to string disconnected subjects together. Perhaps something will stick.

[Name removed]

76. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[BzaDem]

83. Why are people disgusted with a "neoliberal" Democratic majority that doesn't actually exist?

Seems kind of odd that people would spend so much time attacking something that has no basis in reality, doesn't it?

I mean, we clearly have over 50 progressive minded Senators. Sure, that might not be enough to pass legislation in our system, but that doesn't turn an obvious progressive majority into a "neoliberal" majority, anymore than it makes the earth flat or the sky purple.

I think that rather than the problem being with the OP, the problem is actually with you, and your inaccurate characterization of events.

[JoseGaspar]

86. Let us consider the question, shall we?

First of all, you have raised not a single objection to my post, though your conclusion assumes that you have. You have actually only taken issue with my use of the simple adjective "neoliberal". If I had removed that adjective, you have no objection... or you have none that you have bothered to articulate.

So, let's deal with your objection to my adjective.

You want to make my adjective the equivalent of a declaration that the earth is flat. It is obvious (to you) that "we" have "50 progressive minded Senators". I have no idea what that is supposed to mean. This is what my adjective implied:

In current usage, the term "neoliberal" refers to policy which favors exclusively private, "free-market" solutions. Tax policy, financial incentives, temporary "bailouts", privatization, NGOs ... these are the substance, and the only possible extent, of neoliberalism.

In turn "neoliberalism" contrasts with traditional "liberal" policies which accept the use of independent government initiatives where the free market has failed to produce the desired social result. Most of these descend from the New Deal.

Regulation and deregulation are largely neutral, determined in the end by their content and effect. Both have been used by neoliberals and FDR Democrats alike.

Now, let's explore whether I am a flat-earther for using my adjective. I will name a subject and you explain to me why I am unfair for characterizing this administration and this Congress' solutions as neoliberal.

1) TARP (both parts)
2) Stimulus
3) Education Reform
4) Privatization of the military
5) Health Insurance Reform
6) Housing policy (including the fate of Fannie Mae)

In fact, forget all that. In the face of the worst recession since the Great Depression, with between 20 and 30 million real unemployed and 8 million houses subject to foreclosure, name a single new government initiative or jobs program. Where is there anything comparable to the CCC, the WPA, or even the TVA (in the face of "massive" infrastructure spending)? Where is there anything which compares to Nixon's "job training"?

As far as "progressive" goes, Barney Frank is clearly "progressive". He is also on record as supporting the dismantling of Fannie Mae. "The government must get out of the housing business", he says. Well, that also means that the middle-class gets out of the home ownership "business". This is probably the second most important contribution of the New Deal (behind Social Security) and it is being jettisoned with barely a whimper... by your "progressive" Congress... and it is an exception... because most of the "neoliberal" items on my list were the result of Executive actions alone... totally or partially independent of legislative initiatives... whether by "obstinate" Republicans or "progressive" Democrats.

I think I will stick with my characterization, thank you very much.

[BzaDem]

93. Just because I don't use time to respond to every one of your obvious mischaracterizations

does not at ALL mean that I agree with you, or even take any of them seriously. For example, you just called the stimulus "neoliberal." That is so obviously false on its face to any objective person that I don't need to spend any time on it. There isn't enough time in the day to respond to every obvious falsehood made here (especially ones that would make most people laugh even without a response pointing out the truth). Not responding to ridiculous statements is not logically equivalent to agreeing with them.

Your characterization fails on its own terms. 56 senators supported a public option. A public option is not an "exclusively private, "free-market" solution," as your definition of neoliberal would suggest. Rather, it quite obviously falls into the category of "use of independent government initiatives where the free market has failed to produce the desired social result" (your definition of liberal).

56 suported the option, and 56 is a clear majority. Likewise, 220 House members supported a public option, and 220 is similarly a majority of that legislative body. The fact that a majority is not allowed to enact certain legislation unilaterally in our government does not mean that a majority did not want to enact the legislation.

If you are going to make up characterizations, you should at least do so without conceding your point with the very definitions you use.

TARP is also a great example. Last time I checked, favoring a new great depression with 25-30% unemployment (not even including underemployment, those not seeking work, etc.) is not "neoliberal." It is, in fact, much more of a product of a social darwinist philosophy. Perhaps it isn't just a coincidence that most of the social darwinist, libertarian-leaning, "fuck the poor" members of the House voted against TARP, even the ones from safe districts.

On the other hand, doing everything possible to prevent that level of human suffering can obviously be considered "liberal" (regardless of whether it fits into your narrow definition of the term). Perhaps this is why even the most left-leaning economists (who advocate for things like single payer, a WPA, etc) thought the need for a bailout was obvious and beyond serious argument.

You are of course free to stick with your characterization. But that just means that you are sticking with a false characterization, not that the characterization bears any resemblance with reality.

[JoseGaspar]

96. "Crickets" would have been a better response...

One half of the "stimulus" was tax cuts. The remainder consisted mainly of aid to states and municipalities and a little bit to high visibility, privately implemented projects. Not even "infrastructure" played a big part. By the time all of the "shovel ready" talk was finished, it amounted to one fortieth of the original Democratic Party infrastructure proposals. Don't believe me? Review Joseph Stiglitz's Vanity Fair article in the Fall of 2008.

And, oh... the total amounted to one third of the shortfall of aggragate demand which was projected then... when the actual shortfall was vastly underestimated... and this before Republican opposition had even gelled.

And the architect of all this was whom? Why, it was Robert Rubin, the "father" of Democratic Party neoliberal economics.

Please...

As far as a Senate vote on the "Public Option", such as it was, when did that happen? How do you know how Senators voted in a vote that never occurred?

What I know is that the only vote was on a Bill expressly supported by the Administration and largely identical to the Senate Finance Committee's Bill. And that one passed through reconciliation... just as a public option could have been passed if "56 supported the option", as you said.

My "characterization" fails on nothing but "intent", known to you but invisible in any of the results.

I would end here but I see you edited on a sizable addendum on TARP. Let me thank you for taking the time to elaborate on questions which you yourself raised and then declared you had no time for.

TARP was architected by Paulson, a known neoliberal tending towards reactionary Libertarian. I don't think Paulson himself would strongly dispute that. And how was TARP altered by the "new" team?

Banks are "bailed out" but no nationalizations occur, government "participation" amounts to simple debt without any but cosmetic conditions ("bonuses"), new classes of preferred stock are accepted in place of control, the original too-big-to-fail institutions are restored to their former status without alteration... except that they are now Zombies.

All in all, it is a repeat of the Japanese "Lost Decade". Now, do yourself a favor and Google the "Lost Decade" and neoliberalism. TARP defines neoliberal economic policy.

Finally, as far as "suffering" goes, that is just a bullshit charge.

One trillion dollars would have hired 20 million people at $50,000 each for one year... and there would have been no shortfall in demand at all...

...but, that would not have been a private, "free-market", neoliberal "solution", would it?

[BzaDem]

102. Once again, you fail on your own terms.

Aid to states and municipalities (to support government programs like Medicaid and prevent layoffs of teachers and other public employees) is not a private solution. Even you admit that only a little bit when to privately implemented projects.

In addition, do you have any evidence at all that Robert Rubin was the architect of the stimulus? I'm very curious.

The Senate voted on a motion to proceed to the Reid merger of the Finance committee and the HELP committee bills. This merger had a public option. There were 60 votes for it, 4 of whom said their vote was contingent on the public option from being removed. The rest supported the public option in the Reid merger according to various progressive organization whip counts.

It wasn't added in reconciliation because the Senate promised in writing to the House that they would vote on exactly the same bill that the House passed (to the extent provisions weren't stricken by the Byrd rule). Even if this weren't true (and it is), the public option itself would likely have been stricken due to the Byrd rule (or at least cut through so much that nothing resembling the public option would be left).

"My "characterization" fails on nothing but "intent", known to you but invisible in any of the results."

It is invisible in the results because MORE than a simple majority was REQUIRED to pass HCR. This is not a hard concept.

"TARP was architected by Paulson, a known neoliberal tending towards reactionary Libertarian."

Paulson is a conservative, but in no way a libertarian. That is just false. Libertarians were essentially uniformly against the bailout -- it is in fact one way they define themselves. Paulson did not want the human suffering that plenty of people here seem to have no problem with ("short term pain, long term gain" and all of that), but he wasn't about to nationalize the banks or ask for such authority to be written into TARP. Of course you are blaming Obama for that.

"One trillion dollars would have hired 20 million people at $50,000 each for one year... and there would have been no shortfall in demand at all...

...but, that would not have been a private, "free-market", neoliberal "solution", would it?"

So now neoliberal is defined as anything that isn't a Soviet-style planned economy?

:rofl:

And of course, your "solution" again fails on its own terms. It would be for one year. In case you didn't know, the depression of the 30s (caused in part and exacerbated in large part by letting the banks fail) lasted longer than one year. Even assuming that the US government can plan (Soviet-style) enough of the economy to instantly support 10 times the number of workers it has now, that would leave unemployment at 12-17% for one year and have it return to 25-30% after the one year was over. Perhaps this is why you put "solution" in quotes.

[JoseGaspar]

120. You are fading...

...and not gracefully either.

Now I am Joe Stalin and you punctuate your points with little yellow cartoons. Your argument, however, is missing.

1) Aid to States and municipalities does nothing to "stimulate" (stimulus/stimulate) the economy when commercial crisis causes a fall-off of demand. At best, it prevents (or as it turns out, postpones) a further contraction of the economic base due to reductions in local government spending. It has been common Republican and Democratic Party recessionary policy for decades. It is SOP. What else was in there? Tax cuts and private initiatives...

2) What evidence is there that Rubin architected the Stimulus? Well, Rubin said it... many times. And there were many commentaries on how the "Stim" was patterned on the 1997 Asian Crisis' half-measures and implemented by Rubin's "disciples" (the fabulous Mr. Summers and the strange Treasury Secretary who looks like a rodent). I believe that to be true, as I implied up-thread. So does Paul Krugman:

http://krugman.blogs.nytimes.com/2010/08/08/advising-like-its-1999/

3) The only "failure on your own terms" that you prove is your own. Your discussion of Health Insurance Reform once again relies on your interpretation of "intent" and says nothing to contradict "my" result. In fact, you once again want to explain why that intent was "invisible".

4) Paulson is most certainly a neoliberal. He is one of the main architects of the current China trade policy and it is his views on this subject which originally brought him into the Bush Administration. His free-marketeering on U.S. China Trade is pure neoliberalism and enough so as to be offensive to many paleo-conservatives. He is also a huge fan of Alan Greenspan, the "radical Libertarian" in my commentary. I seem to have dropped an "a", if it makes you feel any better.

5) You took a position on the stimulus that is ridiculous: either it was this stimulus or 35% unemployment. I merely pointed out that the same trillion dollars could have gone to the unemployed directly (by employing them)... and I pointed out that the scale of the Stimulus was sufficient to eliminate all unemployment. The issue was not what current Democrats, or you, consider "practical" but what was actually possible.

Now you do ridiculous one better. That would be Communism, you say.

Really?

Then, what would that make FDR, because he clearly hired the unemployed directly? More, how would that differ from extending unemployment benefits indefinitely, but on better terms and easier qualifications then exist today? And how does that differ in substance from the run-up to the Second World War when the military was expanded from several hundred thousand to 10 million, finally ending the Great Depression?

Is it just because I pay well that I become Uncle Joe?

6) The math that ends your presentation is simply incomprehensible, as is your understanding of "recession". Recessions are temporary commercial crises, and anti-recessionary activity is precisely based on substituting aggregate demand until commercial equilibrium returns. There is absolutely nothing which says that high unemployment must be maintained in order to allow a commercial crisis to run its course. Quite the opposite.

More to the point, if my modest proposal is flawed for only running one year, then so is the Stim for exactly the same reasons... And if it is not a simple commercial crisis that we are addressing, but a structural one... then the Stim has precisely the same problem...
...except that it is neoliberal in both substance and form.


And with that, we are done. You have had enough bites at the apple and tomorrow is a work day. You have proven nothing except that your assertions are anything but "obvious", as you claimed.

It occurs to me though... I thought you had risen to defend the Man of Minerals. Could it be that you rose to defend neoliberalism itself?

That would make this "debate" worthwhile.

The last word is yours.

[BzaDem]

123. More bullshit.

1. Whether a policy changes the effect on demand from - to 0 or 0 to + is not relevant to whether or not it is stimulative. A policy is stimulative if it raises demand relative to what it would be without the stimulus. There is not a SINGLE progressive economist that doesn't call aid to states stimulative, because by definition it is stimulative.

2. You claim Rubin said it, and produce no evidence. You then claim it is designed by people who at one point worked for Rubin, which doesn't even claim to prove your point that Rubin wrote it. You then link to an article by Krugman that doesn't at all say that Rubin was its architect. Way go go.

3. More bullshit conflating the two separate issues of whether or not a majority supports something and whether or not a majority is able to pass something (leaving out the fact that in any event the House EXPLICITLY passed a public option). Under your logic, it is impossible to have a progressive majority in the Senate when there are fewer than 60 progressives in the Senate, since you will just whine about the RESULT caused by not having 60 progressives.

4. I never said Paulson wasn't a neoliberal. I said that Paulson wasn't a radical libertarian. No one other than you would claim that Paulson is a radical libertarian (his like or dislike of Alan Greenspan notwithstanding). Paulson was appointed by Bush, not Obama.

5. You are now just making up what I said. I said it was a bailout or 35% unemployment. Not stimulus or 35% unemployment. And again, this is really not disputed by progressive economists. Maybe the exact value of unemployment could be off by a few points, but the idea that we would have 1930s-level unemployment without a bailout is not really even disputed by progressive economists.

6. Your modest proposal is valid for only a year, because you would not have enacted TARP, and that would have caused massive economic carnage that hiring 20 million for one year would not remotely solve. Your proposal without TARP wouldn't just be a half-measure -- it would be a hundredth of a measure. The stimulus is valid for more than one year because the combination of stimulus and TARP prevented that magnitude of carnage from happening. The magnitude of the stimulus relative to the hole we faced is orders of magnitude greater than the size of your stimulus relative to your hole caused by no bailout.

"Could it be that you rose to defend neoliberalism itself?"

Let's see now. You define as "neoliberal" enacting TARP to stave off a great depression with great depression-levels of unemployment (as essentially all progressive economists agree would have happened had there been no bailout). You further define aid to states (what people like Krugman and Delong and Reich consider the MOST stimulative aspect of the stimulus bill) as not stimulative, and "neoliberal" in any event. You then declare that a majority of Congress favored "neoliberal" health care policies when majorities of both houses supported a public option (where one house explicitly voted on one and the other house implicitly did so).

I have no idea if I am defending "neoliberalism" per your definition, as your definition keeps changing to become more and more absurd (relative to the actual definition). If you want more of a guidepost, what I am saying generally does not differ from the general consensus of progressive economists. As one reads your posts, it becomes clear that you just make up definitions as you go along, gradually moving the goalposts as you are called out on your crap point by point (making up what I have said out of whole cloth as necessary to further peddle your narrative). This makes further debate unworthwhile.

Have a nice day.

[Panaconda]

127. This might help

Neoliberalism and Bottom-Line Morality
Notes on Greenspan, Rubin, and the Party of Davos
By Edward Herman

From the Reagan era onward I have been impressed with how regularly liberal and left-leaning economists I knew, who went to work in industry and finance, very soon became pro-business, anti-labor, and politically right wing. I think that what got to them was not only the impact of association with businesspeople, but the fact that business profitability became central to their own performance. As business economists, wage increases would seem bad—as encroaching on that profitability and threatening inflation and business growth (and stock prices). Tough environmental rules would also hamper profitability; their relaxation by law or friendly (non-)enforcement would enhance it. It was therefore easy to slide into what we may call "bottom-line morality," with positions on key issues dictated by prospective bottom line effects, but of course rationalized with an ideology that made this all benevolent—in the long run—and made these bottom-line moralists into Good Samaritans as they collected their fat salaries and bonuses while the vast majority waited for trickle-down. (On the fraudulence of this ideology, see David Harvey, A Brief History of Neoliberalism, and Ha-Joon Chang, Bad Samaritans.)

...

Greenspan, Rubin, Summers, et al

Both the New York Times and Washington Post had substantial articles on Greenspan's heavy responsibility for the ongoing crisis, in a way beating a dead horse after both papers had treated him with great deference as "the Oracle" for many years (Peter Goodman, "The Reckoning: Taking a Closer Look at a Greenspan Legacy," NYT, Oct. 9, 2008; Anthony Faiola, Ellen Nakashima, and Jill Drew, "What Went Wrong," WP, October 15, 2008). The articles feature the struggle for and against derivatives regulation in the 1990s, with Brooksley E. Born, the head of the Commodity Futures Trading Commission (CFTC) as the pro-regulation protagonist and heroine, and Greenspan as principal villain.

But both articles also call attention to the support given Greenspan in his anti-regulation fight with Born by the leading financial officials of the Clinton administration: Robert Rubin, Larry Summers, and Arthur Levitt, Jr., the first two heading the U.S. Treasury, Levitt the SEC. Rubin looks particularly disingenuous in these articles, claiming to have favored regulating derivatives in 1998, but believing that this was politically unfeasible because of industry opposition and because "there was no potential for mobilizing public opinion." The Times article then paraphrases a former CFTC official that "the political climate would have been different had Mr. Rubin called for regulation."

It should also be recognized that Rubin and Summers are no slouches when it comes to supporting the bailout of fat-cat investors. In his superb book The Global Class War, Jeff Faux features the fact that the corporate establishment which dominates both U.S. political parties is part of the "Party of Davos," that gets together periodically at lush facilities in Davos, Switzerland to party, hob-nob, and plan in the interest of the global business elite. The book focuses heavily on the character and passage of the North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA) and then the immediately following Mexican crisis and bailout. NAFTA was a corporate project, strongly opposed by a great majority of Democratic Party voters and by a majority of Democratic legislators. But with Robert Rubin's urging, Clinton put passage of this legislation ahead of health care reform, put a huge political effort into getting it passed, and thereby set the stage for both the failure of health care reform and the Democratic Party's political debacle in 1994. Of course the business community appreciated Clinton's service and here and elsewhere he justified their earlier vetting of his candidacy, organized by Rubin himself.

...

http://www.zcommunications.org/neoliberalism-and-bottom-line-morality-by-edward-herman

[BzaDem]

129. Except progressive economists that NEVER went into industry and finance

consistently support the policies that the poster declares "neoliberal." They support the stimulus, and specifically aid to states. They support the public option (which a majority of Congress supported), and the ultimate HCR bill over the status quo. They universally supported TARP.

I'm talking about people like Krugman, Delong, Stiglitz, etc (who did not go into industry or finance).

[bvar22]

135. When someone punctuates their points "with little yellow cartoons" on DU,

it is an open admission that they realize they have LOST.
Especially the little rofl cartoon.
Whenever I see that one, I KNOW the poster using it isn't really laughing.

[BzaDem]

141. Not really.

Usually, the little rofl cartoons means the poster getting replied to has moved from obviously wrong to laughably obviously wrong.

[JoseGaspar]

144. Thank you for the translation...

I do understand the usage, but thanks for your help all the same.

It just hits me as odd when, in what is supposed to be a "serious" discussion, one party unexpectedly goes for silly...

--- sort of like a political debate in which one candidate suddenly screams, "stop... do you want to smell my farts?"

[philly_bob]

77. "The Democratic Party is the graveyard of progressive ideas."

That's what a friend of mine of the Socialist persuasion said to me recently. It stung.

It's a particularly colorful expression of the disappointment many of us feel. But I'm still voting Democratic, despite my disappointment.

And I am cheered by the possibility raised by the infrastructure program: that Obama's going to start acting like a FDR Democrat.

[GeorgeGist]

80. It started when Obama became President ...

and spent his honeymoon chasing Republicans.

[readmoreoften]

82. Funny you should ask: how about when they started keeping Bush era policies.

Or when they became Republicans to beat Republicans. Or when they stopped supporting unions, even.

[lonestarnot]

88. Don't be scared. You've been watching too much TV.

[angee_is_mad]

89. Not quite correct

There are many who reluctantly supported him after the primary, because he was the democratic nominee. I have a feeling those are the ones who are raising the most hell now about what he isn't/is doing, and what he should/shouldn't be doing.
He didn't have their initial support and everything he does now is held to a higher standard than the recent democratic Presidents. Surprising since his political record is more progressive than theirs. For some dems, no matter what the POTUS does it won't be progressive enough because they are just not into him like that. They will vote for him, but they DON'T like him. Makes you wonder why, I have my own suspicions, but I've learned DU can't handle the truth.
Thank God Obama's base is different from the so-call democratic base. This will be proven in 2012 when he is re-elected.

[dflprincess]

90. When did personalities become more important than principles?

Blind loyalty to a person or party is never right.

[depakid]

91. Supporting politicians over policy and party over principles has always ben a "bad thing"

[johnaries]

92. Here's something that I find very "telling" about current perceptions

of Obama:

Many extremists on the Right call him a "Socialist". Many extremists on the Left call him a "Corporatist". Simply, that means he must be doing something right!

Through my many years of experience, I have found that the most important goal in all things is finding "balance". Too many people on both extremes see things in black and white. Some can at least see varying shades of grey.

But the "Truth" is more like a multi-faceted diamond, with many faces. And they all reflect the person that is looking at it.

Obama was not my first choice, nor even my second choice. But there are many things I like about Obama. One of them is his understanding of the need for compromise.

In a better world, the opposing party would be one that was willing to work toward compromise for the betterment of all. Unfortunately, we're stuck with Republicans, instead. But Obama still believes that we can make compromise work and do what it is intended to do - illuminate all sides of an issue. Perhaps he is naive in that belief. Perhaps, with perserverance, he can help rekindle it. There are a few "flickers of hope" that indicate that may be possible. Only time will tell.

Unfortunately, there are many who lack patience. There are many who are so convinced that "they are right" that they refuse to see flaws in their arguments that could be fixed with a simple compromise.

Also, unfortunately, there are those who see any kind of call for "balance" as being DLC, or even right-wing.

There are many people who refuse to listen to others over their own shrill protests when the world turns out to be more complicated than there fantasies.

"There are more things in Heaven and Earth, Horatio, than are dreamt of in your philosphy."

The really sad thing is that rather than learning from their experiences, these people simply become more shrill.

[MineralMan]

130. Thanks for the well-reasoned post.

[bkozumplik]

95. fail

"I know that all of us are disappointed in the results we got, due to an obstructive Republican minority in the Senate"

No, not due to obstruction by a minority. Due to epic failures in leadership by Reid and Obama. period.
and that's why people are pissed. Come on, keep up. Read some news, maybe some blogs. Or just watch the fricking daily show if you cant read those.

unrecced for lazy reasoning.

[jobycom]

97. When did you stop beating your wife?

Why are there so many leading questions posted on DU with no purpose other than to cut off all discussion before it happens?

:shrug:

Being an ardent supporter of Obama or an ardent supporter of the belief that he could do better, or an ardent supporter of a set of values that you believe are or are not being met by the current government, is not a bad thing. Bad is when a poster tries to shut up all discussion by making broad rhetorical statements instead of specific arguments or points of discussion about issues they care about. Bad is blindly following any point of view, pro or anti Obama, on principle without consideration or debate of the facts. Bad is saying "My president/country/party/ideology/flag/team/religion/belief/credo, right or wrong." Good is supporting what you believe is right, even if it calls for adjusting attitudes towards your president/country/party/ideology/flag/team/religion/belief/credo. People on both, on all, sides of the Obama debate fall too often into that trap. (Yes, me included).

Worse, by far, though, is supporting a Republican. There ain't no salvation after that.

Just my thoughts, which I'm sure will horrify everyone and make me invisible to a couple more people. Probably wrong, as always.

[dionysus]

106. looks like he struck a nerve.

[jobycom]

109. Yes, but I think you miss which nerve. nt

[metapunditedgy]

112. Look if you can't move past this talking point:

"due to an obstructive Republican minority in the Senate"

then don't expect any constructive responses from people. Frame the issue correctly, or expect it to devolve into a flame war. What are you really trying to accomplish here?

[LoZoccolo]

113. I think I've finally figured out what goes on here.

People want what they want; it's why they're in politics. People have figured that an easy way to try to get what they want is make it sound like the Democrats are in trouble by constantly throwing fits. It takes almost no effort, and has (to them) almost no consequences, as they are virtually anonymous. To them, there's no reason to stop. I've learned to not take it as a reflection of what they think is reasonable as a set of beliefs, but what they think is effective as a manipulative tactic.

Of course, they distract the rest of us, but we can somewhat innoculate the effect it has on us. I worry about the other people getting distracted, though, or people getting demoralized.

[LoZoccolo]

116. I'll add another unfortunate thing.

I think people are playing this game to the exclusion of real-life activism. My reasons are:

1. I doubt that people who really worked to get this set of Democrats elected would be so eager to tear their own work down.
2. I think people who are actively involved get a good appreciation of what it really takes to get political change done, and would be talking about how to practically effect it.
3. My threads where I ask people what they are doing for the election and to share what others can do sink like rocks.
4. There's a notion that the "netroots" are some separate group of activists and react strongly to any criticism of them; ideally all activists should be involved in real-life activism and be using the most effective tools for it, which could be the Internet in some cases.
5. A subtext that everything is in the hands of people more powerful than them with no opportunity for the citizen to change the course of things.

[BzaDem]

118. While I agree with most of what you said, I don't think they are doing it to the exclusion of

real-life activism. Not because I think they are also helping to elect Democrats in real life -- but because I don't think they would be doing so EVEN IF they weren't simultaneously posting on message boards about how we are all doomed because they didn't get everything they wanted.

[LoZoccolo]

114. duplicate

[DireStrike]

121. When "ardent" came to mean "unthinking".

When party comes before policy.

[grantcart]

122. Some are more ardent than others. Chad has always been very ardent.

[SidDithers]

139. Does Chad have a Facebook page?...nt

Sid

[annabanana]

126. The troll infestation at DU is in direct proportion to it's perceived

influence.

[Vinca]

128. There would be the same number of ardent supporters

if the result of the last election had not amounted to a long exercise in trying to hand hold and sing kumbayah with Republicans. Months and months and months of wasted time. And what's Harry Reid now muttering about? A bipartisan business bill. Golly . . . wonder if the Republicans will vote "yes" this time?:banghead:

[JoePhilly]

131. The bandwagon encountered a significant GOP obstruction, and lots of folks fell off.

[MineralMan]

133. So it seems. Time to load that wagon back up, I think, or

the GOP will gain significant strength and things will get worse...much worse.

[JoePhilly]

142. Agree completely ... the GOP has gone nuts ...

And while the Dems are cowards who fail us regularly, they don't intentionally attempt to F**K the American people on a daily basis.

The GOP would LOVE, LOVE to F**K us ... take every damn nickle from every working person.

Meanwhile, we on the left bicker ... makes me crazy.

[leeroysphitz]

136. When did it become ok for republicans to take my vote for granted just because

Rahm Emanuel talked them into running with a little "D" after their names instead of little "R's"?

[Swamp Rat]

138. Perhaps you mean well, but the rhetorical questions in the OP are divisive and misleading.

Partisan politics and 'cult of personality' diminish and suppress independent, creative thinking, which may contribute to Democratic losses this November.

[Ignis]

140. +1. We don't need Brownshirtesque loyalty oaths, we need Change.

[Hekate]

143. Kick

How interesting