Is this president drifting even farther to the right-of-center almost by the day, or is it just

[indepat]

my idea of the center is out of way out of whack?

[The Velveteen Ocelot]

1. No.

[BzaDem]

2. +1

that should be all that needs to be said.

[deacon]

39. No. Not even close. n/t

[jobycom]

3. Dude, I hear he's a Muslim from Kenya!

But maybe that's because my idea of being a Muslim from Kenya is out of whack?

[MannyGoldstein]

4. Isn't slashing Social Security a traditional Democratic value?

I'm pretty sure that FDR would slash Social Security too.

[Pirate Smile]

6. He hasn't done that.

[MannyGoldstein]

9. Sorry, I'll try again: Isn't appointing a commission to slash Social Security

a traditional Democratic value?

[scheming daemons]

14. The commission hasn't recommended that yet either...

you can speculate.... but until they've recommended it, you can't say it.


And even then.... their recommendations have to be voted on.

[Donnachaidh]

15. a commission packed with people with histories of wanting to slash SS

and put on the commission by whom?

Yeah, they're waiting until after the elections....

[indepat]

49. We can speculate, but can't say it even though that's what the tea leaves and writing on the wall

say loudly and clearly. The only thing that will possibly stop this juggernaut, imo, would be handwriting on the wall that foretells of an impending backlash of mammoth proportions.

[dflprincess]

67. Bernie Sanders as well as the House Progressive Caucus have also

"speculated" about the intent of this commission & I'd guess they just may have more reason to than we do.

And yes, any recommendations will get an up and down, no debate vote by a lame duck Congress in the hopes the public won't even see this coming.

[Name removed]

23. Deleted message

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

[MannyGoldstein]

24. Is "slashing" vs. "attempting to slash" really that big a deal to you?

Wow.

[DCBob]

27. Intentionally misleading posts to score cheap political points is a "big deal"..

especially when is comes from someone who is supposed to be on our own side. We get enough of that from asshole Republicans.

[MannyGoldstein]

46. What did I write that's misleading?

Thanks.

[Name removed]

60. Deleted message

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

[tularetom]

5. I don't watch everything he does but

it seems to me he made a significant course correction today. With his statements about Social Security and his announcement of a ginormous new public works (jobs) program, he has covered a whole lot of my concerns about which way he was moving. Of course I realize one speech does not a trend make, so I will be keeping more of an eye from now on to see how much follow up takes place. But it seems like a good start.

I still wish there would be some acknowledgement and action on the war crimes of the previous administration but I've pretty much given up on that ever happening in this country. If Mr Obama can create and operate an infrastructure program that creates jobs while simultaneously bringing our roads and bridges into the 21st century I won't call him the best republican president ever anymore.

[DURHAM D]

7. All he said about SS was that he would not privatize.

Leaves room for cutting benefits and raising retirement age.

That was a strawman setup.

[MannyGoldstein]

10. Thank God Obama will protect us

from the commission that Obama appointed. After Congress voted to not form such a committee.

[nc4bo]

19. Really. nt

[Inuca]

20. That lovely, loving Congress

You DO know how and why the vote went, don't you? Or just stiring shit (as usual)?

[MannyGoldstein]

21. First off, that's a very rude comment

I don't question your intentions, please don't question mine.

Second, I thought that it was a matter of the scoundrels Gregg and Conrad trying to get a commission to slash Social Security which got voted down by Congress, so Obama, thinking it sounded like a fine "bipartisan" idea, picked up the ball and ran with it. But it sounds like you have other information, please share.

[Inuca]

48. I agree, it was rude, and I apologize

as to the background, it was as you said, with the addition that republicans that initially supporetd it eventually voted against it so it di dnot make it out the Senate. Most (all? I am not sure) Ds voted for it. My point was that the fact that COngress did not approve it does not mean much. But Again I agree that it was poorly made (my point, that is), and I once again aplogize for the rudeness.

[SammyWinstonJack]

59. We can't take much more of his brand of 'protection', imo

[madrchsod]

8. the center has been moving right since reagan.....

[depakid]

11. Only in the minds of politicians and the beltway establishment

the data repeatedly show that the attitudes, beliefs and values held by the electorate to be otherwise.

[jobycom]

17. That explains all the liberals and progressives running the country now.

Sorry, but data that says that is nonsense. I've heard Michael Moore try to claim that, too. No, the nation is not mostly liberal or progressive. They vote overwhelmingly and consistently for conservative ideology and conservative policies. Conservatives run constantly on the campaign that liberals are bad, and they consistently win on those campaigns. Most Democrats who win, except in a fortunate few places, do so by claiming they aren't all that liberal. No one can claim those victories are flukes, they are too consistent. No one can claim true liberals would win because true liberals run in just about every election and can't win. No one can claim they lose because they don't get public funding, because people choose who they fund, and they rarely fund progressives. And no one can even claim that they lose in primaries because the Democratic voters are afraid of liberals and strategically choose moderates, because the Democratic Party is where the largest concentration of liberals is, and progressives don't even win much in the party primaries, anyway.

It's a conservative nation. Staggering numbers of people believe in Creationism. They believe in Reaganomics. They believe it was okay to bomb Iraq. Clicking our heels and chanting that we outnumber them has never made it so, and isn't going to start now.

[depakid]

18. How many times I have to post this data & analysis in order to get it through thick heads?

but here goes for about the 100th time:

The Progressive Majority: Why a Conservative America is a Myth.

Conventional wisdom says that the American public is fundamentally conservative - hostile to government, in favor of unregulated markets, at peace with inequality, wanting a foreign policy based on the projection of military power, and traditional in its social values.

But as this report demonstrates, that picture is fundamentally false. Media perceptions and past Republican electoral successes notwithstanding, Americans are progressive across a wide range of controversial issues, and they're growing more progressive all the time.

This report gathers together years of public opinion data from unimpeachably nonpartisan sources to show that on issue after issue, the majority of Americans hold progressive positions. And this is true not only of specific policy proposals, but of the fundamental perspectives and approaches that Americans bring to bear on issues.

Nor is the progressive majority merely a product of the current political moment. On a broad array of issues, particularly social issues, American opinion has grown more and more progressive over the past few decades. In contrast, it is difficult to find an issue on which the public has grown steadily more conservative over the last 10, 20, or 30 years.

The issues covered in this report include the following ... The role of government ... The economy ... Social issues ... Security ... The environment ... Energy ... Health care...

In short, a look across the scope of American public opinion reveals a public that holds progressive positions and supports progressive solutions on economic issues, on social issues, on security issues - indeed, on nearly all the key issues confronting the country. For years, the conventional wisdom has maintained just the opposite, but the facts are impossible to ignore.

Full report: http://cloudfront.mediamatters.org/static/pdf/progressi...

And there's more:

Pew: Trends in Political Values and Core Attitudes: 1987-2007. Political Landscape More Favorable To Democrats

http://people-press.org/reports/pdf/312.pdf

Summary: http://people-press.org/report/?reportid=312



The reason Democrats lose is that they're perceived time and again as FAILING to stand up and fight for what they (purportedly) believe in- and even when they do attempt to solve the nations problems with policies reflecting the MAJORITY'S attitudes, beliefs and values (e.g. public option) they end up with ineffective, half measures that showcase their own inability to resist pandering to the corporate right and draw a stark contrast between the parties

[Amonester]

25. Yeah, but our friend joby hasn't seen it yet, so he's repeating BS over and over

without providing any link to any credible source of data too (of course, because there isn't any).

And joby probably won't check in his/her My DU folder to see your (1 reply) there also. (Though I hope to be wrong on that.)

[BzaDem]

26. The problem is that what you are saying is logically false, not that people aren't agreeing with it.

People elect conservative governments by and large, decade after decade.

This means that your conception of a liberal America is wrong, literally by definition. It is literally not logically consistent to say that most Americans are liberal, when Americans consistently elect conservative-leaning governments much more often than liberal ones.

You posting data indicating otherwise just means you are using data to try to prove something that is logically false. Of course one could go in and indicate how issue polls are much less reliable and consistent than candidate polls/approval polls, and are highly dependent on small changes in question wording, the state of the economy, etc. One could similarly point out that your piece is from 2007, and if all the polls were rerun now, they would probably produce the opposite answer.

But there is no reason to, because what you are saying is false as a matter of logic. Any data you present to attempt to prove a logical impossibility must either be wrong or not imply what you claim it implies. Data and analysis are important and useful to prove many different hypotheses, but not hypotheses that are wrong by definition. If I tried to produce a proof that 1 + 1 = 3, you wouldn't need to analyze where the proof went wrong to declare it invalid, because the statement that is being proved happens not to be true. Likewise, the idea that in a democracy, an electorate that consistently elects conservatives happens to be liberal is not true (so any proof of the contrary must be wrong by simple logic).

The only way your hypothesis could be true (in which case analysis of data comes into play) is if we don't live in a democracy (false), or if the people of our country don't frequently elect conservatives (also false).

[girl gone mad]

29. People elected Obama, despite the near universal proclamations

that he was a socialist.

[BzaDem]

30. Perhaps because they didn't believe he was a socialist?

After all, he kept talking about bipartisanship at practically every event and speech. He ran ads against single payer.

[indepat]

54. Hope you will be telling this story a 100 x 100 times until it sinks into every head in hearing

distance: then and only then can the constant barrage of lies and distortions perpetuated by neocons/MSM and continuously shouted from every rooftop be countered somewhat.

[bvar22]

31. Here is some data:

Here is what the MAJORITY of Americans (Democrats AND Republicans) want from OUR government!

In recent polls (2005!) by the Pew Research Group, the Opinion Research Corporation, the Wall Street Journal, and CBS News, the American majority has made clear how it feels. Look at how the majority feels about some of the issues that you'd think would be gospel to a real Democratic Party:

1. 65 percent (of ALL Americans, Democrats AND Republicans) say the government should guarantee health insurance for everyone -- even if it means raising taxes.

2. 86 percent favor raising the minimum wage (including 79 percent of selfdescribed "social conservatives").

3. 60 percent favor repealing either all of Bush's tax cuts or at least those cuts that went to the rich.

4. 66 percent would reduce the deficit not by cutting domestic spending but by reducing Pentagon spending or raising taxes.

5. 77 percent believe the country should do "whatever it takes" to protect the environment.

6. 87 percent think big oil corporations are gouging consumers, and 80 percent (including 76 percent of Republicans) would support a windfall profits tax on the oil giants if the revenues went for more research on alternative fuels.

7. 69 percent agree that corporate offshoring of jobs is bad for the U.S. economy (78 percent of "disaffected" voters think this), and only 22% believe offshoring is good because "it keeps costs down."

http://alternet.org/story/29788 /

9. 92% of ALL Americans support TRANSPARENT, VERIFIABLE elections!

[BzaDem]

33. See post 26.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.ph...

[bvar22]

47. See Post #29

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.ph...

[olegramps]

43. Those are interesting facts.

But I believe that the issues of abortion and homosexual rights are two key issues that appear to override everyone of these in importance when it comes to voting. So we end up with some really nitwit representatives who make passing construction legislation impossible. The problem with the silent majority is that they are silent while the extremist zealots never seem to evey sleep.

[indepat]

55. Amazing the effect when neocons/MSM perpetuate the big lies contrary to the results of that poll,

but give them credit for: they learned from Herr Goebbels really well.

[bvar22]

56. I would add the NeoLibs to the group you mentioned.

The "Centrist" Democrats work hard to perpetuate the myth that the US is a conservative nation.



"There are forces within the Democratic Party who want us to sound like kinder, gentler Republicans. I want us to compete for that great mass of voters that want a party that will stand up for working Americans, family farmers, and people who haven't felt the benefits of the economic upturn."---Paul Wellstone

[indepat]

57. And of course the effin' neolibs, DINOs, and their ilk, heirs, and assigns

[sabrina 1]

34. The only thing that gets republicans elected in this country is

money, and a few stolen elections. The country is not conservative, that is another bought-and-paid for myth. Thanks for spreading it around on behalf of the propagandists.

If liberals ever get the kind of money behind them that the rightwing has, the competition would be fair and they would lose. Or if the rightwing lost its ability to buy elections, they would lose.

Even with all the money they have spent, they lost the last two elections and when people are polled on issues, like universal healthcare eg, without any political labels, the support is huge and crosses party lines.

Same thing with SS. It has the support of 88% of the American people.

Now show us some rightwing ideas that have that kind of support. As for the wars, the people were against them by over 70% until the very expensive (over $300 million dollars worth) PR firm began its work and scared the public with lies and threats of mushroom clouds.

Remove the money and the lies, and Liberals win every time.

[BzaDem]

35. That's crap.

People vote. People have the right to vote for who they want, in the primary and the general. People have access to all the information they need to make an informed choice. Just because some people choose not to avail themselves of that information does not mean you can put them on the liberal side of the ledger.

In other words, you can't just take all uninformed people, substitute their actual views for liberal views in your tabulation (just because they are uninformed), and then use that substitution to declare that we live in a majority-liberal country.

And on top of that, your point is empirically false. The amount of money spent is a known figure, and there are plenty of elections where the money spent is roughly on par (or only a slight difference relative to the total money spent) where conservatives win.

If the government BANNED people from taking the initiative to understand both sides, you might have a point. But the government does not do that.

[sabrina 1]

36. Speaking of crap!

You have no clue what your talking about. First there are no Liberals running things in this country. Both parties are funded by the very rightwing Corporations so what we get to choose from is actual Republicans and Republican/lite. The people don't get to choose liberals because our Rightwing Corporations will not fund Liberals. Liberals would make things a lot less comfortable for Corporate America. And they own the media so that keeps liberal views OFF the media, therefore the average person doesn't get to hear them.

This is NOT a Conservative country, the Rightwing Corporate cabals have bought elections on both sides and will continue to do so until we the people decide we have had enough.

I think we are getting close to that time. Four more years of Republican ideas, doesn't matter which party is implementing them, they are not benefiting the people, and some changes may start happening, this time fueled by the people.

[BzaDem]

37. "The people don't get to choose liberals because our Rightwing Corporations will not fund Liberals."

Bullshit!

The people can vote for candidates that rightwing corporations will not fund. That's why we have a primary election. They just go into the voting booth and do it. Done. If uninformed people choose to be swayed by ads, go into the voting booth, and vote for a conservative (or a center-left Democrat in a primary election, as opposed to a left Democrat), that is their CHOICE. That does NOT make them liberal, and it does NOT mean you can just call them liberal. Kucinich did not win the Democratic primary precisely because 99% of the party voluntarily went into the voting booth and chose not to vote for him.

"Until we the people decide we have had enough."

Bingo! When the people decide to elect candidates that corporations do not fund, they will by definition have "had enough" and we will get liberal candidates. The very purpose of a democracy is to allow the people to vote for whatever candidate they want to vote for.

But you cannot plausibly claim that we live in a liberal-majority country UNTIL THAT HAPPENS. Many, many people vote for conservatives (and conservative Democrats) in primaries. That is a voluntary action. No corporation is forcing them to do that. We do not live in a country where thugs force you to vote for the candidate they want. People consume the information they choose to consume, and then vote out of their own free will.

Would it be nice to curtail the influence of corporations? Of course it would! I think it is one of the most important issues today. But there is a HUGE difference between wanting to curtail the influence of corporations, and saying that we don't live in a democracy (where people are responsible for their OWN votes, that they made by their OWN free will) because corporations can run TV ads.

[sabrina 1]

38. You are clearly living in a fantasy world where we have

a system that allows someone to run for office without spending millions of dollars on a campaign. Where are all these Liberal candidates running with no money that the people can choose to vote for?

Where they do exist, they get elected. But there are few Liberals who have the money to spend to run in a primary against a Corporate backed Democrat eg. And few people are so involved in the political process that they can tell the difference between two Democrats in a primary as to which one is the real liberal and which one is pretending to be to get elected. So they vote for the devil they know, the one who has spent the most on making themselves familiar to the people and assume because there is a D after the name they are voting for someone who represents their values.

It's odd that you are so fearful of the idea that this really is not a Conservative country.

[BzaDem]

40. "So they vote for the devil they know"

Who forces them to? Is there a thug outside the voting booth that will knock them out if they don't?

"You are clearly living in a fantasy world where we have a system that allows someone to run for office without spending millions of dollars on a campaign."

You are living in a fantasy world, where there is some law that makes it illegal for a liberal to run for office without spending millions of dollars on a campaign. There is no law that prevents a majority from voting for a liberal. None. Apathy (and being uninformed) might result in people voting for conservative candidates, but there is no law that forces a single person to do so. Everyone who votes for a conservative candidate does so completely voluntarily, as does everyone who votes for a liberal candidate.

We live in a democracy. The people are responsible for doing their homework and voting for the candidate that best represents their point of view. If the people do NOT do their homework and they vote for the conservative, that may make them uninformed, but that does NOT make them liberal (unless and until they start voting liberal). Your analysis of the composition of the country is incorrect, because you take voters who consistently vote for conservatives and reclassify them as liberals, because "money" swayed them. Then, magically, you end up with a liberal majority (after all of your reclassification).

It is functionally impossible in a democracy for the attitudes of voters to be directly opposite those of the candidates they vote for. Their long-term attitudes are defined BY the candidates they consistently vote for.

You aren't just empirically incorrect. Your statement is wrong as a simple matter of logic and the definition of a democracy. Furthermore, your strange conception of democracy (where someone who consistently elects conservatives can somehow be defined as liberal under any reasonable definition) destroys accountability. Ultimately, the people are accountable for making choices that define our government. If someone votes for a conservative candidate, and that conservative candidate produces bad results, it is the fault of the people that elected them.

You would rather blame the corporation or blame money. But it doesn't cost money to vote. It costs very little money to go to a candidate's website and determine all of their positions. Poll taxes were removed decades ago. Over multiple election cycles, the people are responsible for who they elect.

[sabrina 1]

64. Calm down, it really isn't a bad thing that the country is NOT

Conservative on the issues. It's fine. Now all we Democrats have to do is support those candidates who need funding. Which is why I no longer donate to the Party, ever since it was taken over by Rahm Emanuel. I support individual candidates.

I would think you, as a democrat, would be happy to know that the country is more left leaning than Republicans would have you believe.

[bvar22]

61. DCCC Kingmakers:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.ph...

After experiencing the "Centrist" DCCC rigging a Democratic Primary against the Progressive and inserting their own Chamber of Commerce Approved Candidate funded by MY donations, I lost a lot of faith in our Primary system, and lost faith that reform can be achieved by working within the Party.

The White House interference in the Arkansas Primary supporting a virulently Anti-LABOR/Anti-Public Option Blue Dog only reinforced the lesson.

[sabrina 1]

66. Thank you. That is the reason why I would never donate to the DCCC

We do not need them choosing candidates, and since it has been taken over by right-leaning 'dems' it is obvious who they support and why.

Support individual Dems. I believe there is an organization who does that, is it the PDA? In the meantime, it is very important to identify real progressive candidates, like Marcy Winnograd eg., and support them financially. Because we know that Corporate America and the DCCC under the current leadership, will not do so.

[sendero]

41. You really..

.. don't understand much of anything, that much is clear.

[BzaDem]

42. At least I don't go around arbitrarily reclassifying voters who vote conservative as liberal

because of the corporations.

Someone who votes for conservatives over and over again is conservative. Someone who votes for liberals over and over again is liberal.

Someone who votes for conservatives over and over again is not liberal because he simply did what a corporation's ad told them to do. That is an uninformed conservative, not a liberal.

One would think this is so obvious that it should go without saying.

[sendero]

44. Votes are not made..

...on the issues. For fucks sake, this is politics 101. As I said, you don't understand jack shit.

[BzaDem]

45. Whose fault is that?

If the part of the electorate that doesn't want to vote on issues wants to vote on personality or the economy, that is their right and their fault, and they are accountable for the results of that decision.

That does not mean someone who consistently votes for conservatives is somehow a liberal because they are uninformed enough to pick the conservative every time.

You are the one that doesn't understand jack shit.

[bvar22]

62. Gotta give that poster credit for blind enthusiasm.

I wouldn't work that hard unless someone was paying me.

[indepat]

53. The term "liberal" has been so demonized by neocons through downright lies and distortions

that the public has been taught/snookered into accepting that far RW fascism is hunky-dory and glorious and far better for all the people although a monstrous lie: it is better for the relatively few who own perhaps 95% of the wealth and send Uncle Sam a smaller percentage of their total income than do their secretaries. The term liberal is only used in the most slurring manner by pubs running for public office in this state. The more people are told the big lie, the more most of the people will believe that lie, particularly if unchallenged and even Dems rarely even try to refute this scurrilous lie.

[opihimoimoi]

12. Just another sniping of the President...fuck this shit...Obama is doing all he can for the NATION

and its much better than when the GOP was in charge

Can we see a Palin in there?? Or McFuddy?

[uponit7771]

52. +1, the professional sniping from the left then the "give up and don't vote" mantra is old now

[LWolf]

13. I think he's staying his course. He's always been center-right. nt

[xchrom]

16. He's not more center right than he's ever been. Nt

[SidDithers]

22. No, and yes...n

Sid

[johnaries]

28. I dunno - how "right of center" is fighting Wall Street?

[phleshdef]

32. If you think Obama's record is anywhere near the right, you have no concept of where the center is.

[depakid]

51. It bears repeating- you have no concept of where the center is."

None at all.

And that's why you lose.

[Parker CA]

50. No.

[Lost4words]

58. sure seems that way to this LOOOOOOng term democrat

[bvar22]

63. Lets use somethig concrete for comparison:

THIS is where the Democratic Party Used to be:

"We have come to a clear realization of the fact that true individual freedom cannot exist without economic security and independence. “Necessitous men are not free men.” People who are hungry and out of a job are the stuff of which dictatorships are made.

In our day these economic truths have become accepted as self-evident. We have accepted, so to speak, a second Bill of Rights under which a new basis of security and prosperity can be established for all—regardless of station, race, or creed.

Among these are:

*The right to a useful and remunerative job in the industries or shops or farms or mines of the nation;

*The right to earn enough to provide adequate food and clothing and recreation;

*The right of every farmer to raise and sell his products at a return which will give him and his family a decent living;

*The right of every businessman, large and small, to trade in an atmosphere of freedom from unfair competition and domination by monopolies at home or abroad;

*The right of every family to a decent home;

*The right to adequate medical care and the opportunity to achieve and enjoy good health;

*The right to adequate protection from the economic fears of old age, sickness, accident, and unemployment;

*The right to a good education.

All of these rights spell security. And after this war is won we must be prepared to move forward, in the implementation of these rights, to new goals of human happiness and well-being.

For unless there is security here at home there cannot be lasting peace in the world."--FDR

After historic turnouts in 2008, the voters gave the Democratic Party:
*The White House
*A BIG MAJORITY in the House
*A Filibuster Proof MAJORITY in The Senate
*Most Importantly, a HUGE Popular Mandate for "CHANGE".

After a solid year of debate and negotiation, Obama & The Democrats managed to deliver to Americans the OBLIGATION to BUY Health Insurance from a For Profit Corporation.
And The Party calls that "Historic Reform"?

Has the Democratic Party slid to The RIGHT?

Call it yourself.

[lonestarnot]

65. Yeah, I'd say you're outta whack alright.