"We do not want to go back to the policies of George W. Bush."

[edhopper]

Why is it that the Dems cannot say that? I understand the Repugs not wanting to mention the worst President in History. But why have the Dems decided to join them in this mass amnesia?
This is a big piece of heavy artillery that they have decided not to use. And it has the added benefit of being absolutely true. There is no difference between what the Republicans are advocating today, and that includes its Presidential candidates, and the agenda of GWB.
Do the Dems want to lose?

[leveymg]

1. . . . particularly, no more "optional wars" in the Mideast/Persian Gulf.

That kinda answers your first question. To that and the second question, maybe they do, maybe they don't.

[Systematic Chaos]

2. "...back to" them would imply that at some point we actually left them.

[HughBeaumont]

3. Reaganomics hasn't left since 1981.

Ain't no president gonna cure that at this point. Corporations and the wealthy rule America, and as long as that is the case, nothing's going to change.

Money and politics go together like carp jerky and dark chocolate for the average citizen.

[GreenPartyVoter]

5. True enough.

[woo me with science]

21. Thank you.

Good grief.

[RC]

4. Because the DLC has turned the Democratic party into Republican Lite?

Because Obama has continued so many of bu$h's policies?
Keep bringing up bu$h and you run the risk of too many people noticing the similarities between then and now.
The Democratic Party is full of DINO's, with more than a few being ex-republicans.
No matter who gets elected, the Right still wins. That is how they can get away their Clown Car Show of Crazies. It makes the Democratic Party look good in comparison. If we had a real Center/Left of Center Democratic Party, the Right would then lose all around. And we would get "We the people..." back in the Constitution and corporations as persons a footnote at the bottom of the page, instead of as the case is now, the buying and running of our government.

[Mnemosyne]

6. That and voter ignorance, apathy and cross-filing. Good OP! n/t

[TheWraith]

13. Why should anyone trust your view when you're so wrong?

Coming from someone who seriously believes that there's no difference between Bush and Obama--a wonderful echo of the claims that there's no difference between Bush and Gore--along with thinking that the Democrats and Republicans are at all similar, and that Elizabeth Warren could "easily" win Nebraska, frankly if you told me the sky was blue, I'd double check.

[RC]

20. There is a major difference between Obama and bu$h.

Obama is much smarter, more educated and more honest.
It is just that Obama did continue so many of bu$h's policies.
I would suggest you read up on the DLC and the DNC and their differences.
This no difference between Obama and bu$h shit is used to cover up the blindness of those that can't of don't remember a more Liberal Democratic party.

[woo me with science]

23. +10000 Reality is reality, and collusion is collusion.

The truth hurts, but acknowledging it is the only way we will bring about meaningful change.

There is great efficacy in purchasing two parties, as we have seen in so many ways over the past three years. You can put forth one candidate who will move rightward, and another candidate who will SPEED rightward, and the people will select a candidate moving rightward.

We will continue to hear the (true) argument that the Democrat is a less immediately destructive choice than the Republican. But people need to stop deluding themselves that by merely choosing the Democrat they are doing a damned thing to *reverse* the path we are on. At the most, it keeps the train to corporate fascism from speeding up.

We need people to understand that we are in serious, serious trouble in this country, and it has very little to do with the old red and blue labels. It has to do with the fact that the one percent have purchased our government, our media, and our electoral system. Of course most people here will choose to vote Democratic in the Presidential, once we are down to the two corporate choices. But our most passionate efforts, in terms of time and finances, absolutely must be aimed at getting the money out of our political process.

That is why it is so desperately important that we Occupy.

[edhopper]

7. The responses make me depressed

people here just don't believe in the Dem leadership. (not that they are wrong) it is just disheartening.

[tledford]

9. No need to believe in that which doesn't exist. eom

[Motown_Johnny]

8. President Obama has been saying something like that

but not calling out W by name. I think he is trying to drag the entire (R) party down instead of giving them the chance to simply throw the Shrub under the bus.


Pres. Obama makes a point of saying that we can't go back to the economic policies that got us into this mess in the first place. I think it is safe to assume that he will assert this more strongly once he is in debates with his opponent.

[mick063]

10. President needs help from the legislative body

Picking on Bush is secondary to picking on the current House of Rep.

[loyalsister]

11. "we can't go back to the economic policies that got us into this mess"

is a key point. The reference should be left there.
People are trying to blame Obama for anything and everything that has gone wrong in their lives. Blaming Bush gives that notion legitimacy.

We should also remember that most people had a better quality of life under Bush. The fact that there was something working in the background to destroy it is not relevant to people who blame the president for everything and vote with their emotions.

[edhopper]

12. "People" sure is stupid.

[loyalsister]

14. I would be more inclined to say busy

and inattentive. Not everyone has the time to give politics the kind of attention I and many of my friends do.

[kentuck]

15. Too direct.

It wouldn't be polite (as in politic) to mention George W Bush by name. Democrats prefer to pussyfoot around the truth and work from ambiguities. Not only do they confuse their own, they even confuse their enemies, who would not hesitate to mention Jimmy Carter by name, for example.

[JoePhilly]

16. NONSENSE!

I hear Obama, and other Dems saying that we do not want to go back to the same GOP policies that created the financial mess we are in.

And it is MUCH smarter to frame those as "GOP policies" because there is no one named "George W. Bush" running this year.

Obama and the Dems are running against the ENTIRE GOP and its ENTIRE platform of insane policies.

Focusing on any single Republican, particularly one who is not running, fails.

[Marrah_G]

17. Maybe they will once the primaries are done.

Friggin santorum scares the shit out of me. He makes W look completely logical and rational. I was not planning to assist Obama this time with anything except my vote, but if santorum is the nominee I'll be rethinking that.

[Generic Other]

18. I can tell you why

It's too late. Our silence these past few years has made our party complicit. It aint pretty to look at, but whoop there it is.

[Major Nikon]

19. "We do not want to go back to the policies of the last three failed Republican administrations."

[Swede]

22. Anyone that sees no difference is an idiot.

After the twelvteenth Republican debate horror series,can there be any doubt that there is a difference?