General Discussion
In reply to the discussion: Serious questions for those who are convinced that Obama, Clinton, and Gore are not liberals. [View all]hfojvt
(37,573 posts)When I look at negotiation, I would expect one side to take one position and the other side to take another.
Let's look at the example of Government spending.
In simplest terms, the traditional liberal position has been "tax and spend". Tax from the rich and spend on the poor.
The Republican position has been the opposite. Cut spending on the poor and give tax cuts to the rich.
Now Clinton, for example, as OUR champion in these negotiations should be expected to get as much for our side as he can. As much in taxes and as much in spending.
Yet, Clinton begins the negotiations by publicly taking the other side. He campaigns on the idea of a "middle class tax cut", basically taking the Republican side of the debate. Suddenly our position is weakened when "everybody" agrees that tax cuts are good and tax increases are bad. Clinton attacked Bush Sr. for increasing taxes. But increasing taxes was what the Democratic Party supposedly wanted him to do.
Clinton also begins the negotiations by giving a speech to a national audience where he once again declares "Republicans are right". Is that somehow negotiating for OUR side? Does he strengthen our position by declaring "the era of big government is over".
Because that does not look like negotiating to me - it looks more like capitulating.
Our supposed leader, turned around and used the bully pulpit AGAINST his own team.
[font=32]
WHAT THE FUCK?? [/font]