Who will redeem the Dems?

PJABBER

Diamond Member
Feb 8, 2001
4,822
0
0
Sooner or later, the Democrats will redeem themselves.

It may take a decade to overcome the distaste that has been built up for the Obama/Pelosi/Reid triumvirate, especially if they continue in their leadership roles in the government, but the party will likely survive despite all of the damage the "progressives" will continue to try to inflict.

Let's take a moment to consider the Democrat Party of all the non-"progressives" that still linger uncomfortably in its ranks. Oh yeah, those who know what JFK was all about, those who can figure out that the enemies of freedom are not conservative Republicans or Tea Partiers.

The Democratic Party claims to represent the working class even while they undercut the economic incentives for work and entrepreneurship. That has to change.

The Democratic Party claims to be for the common man even while they cater to special interest after special interest. That has to change.

The Democratic Party claims to be above board and righteous in its dealings even while all of their work is held in secret sessions that cut out diverse opinion and knowledgeable perspective. That has to change.

The Democratic Party claims to represent the center even while they ignore the center for the fringe. That has to change.

Some in the Democrat Party get it. They saw the disaster building. They need to step up, grab the wheel from the "progressive" radicals and turn the bus around before it falls completely over the cliff.

Jim Webb: Why Reagan Dems Still Matter

By David Paul Kuhn

November 8, 2010

Jim Webb went to the White House last September. The Virginia senator was meeting with the president to discuss Guantanamo detainees. The conversation soon shifted to healthcare. "I told him this was going to be a disaster," Webb recalls. "The president believed it was all going to work out."

Democratic leaders broadly believed it was all going to work out. The stimulus, healthcare, cap and trade. Americans were to come around to the left side.

We're talking about why voters didn't come around.

Webb is weighing my report the morning after the election: Democrats won the smallest share of white voters in any congressional election since World War II.

"I've been warning them," Webb says, sighing, resting his chin on his hand. "I've been having discussions with our leadership ever since I've been up here. I decided to run as a Democrat because I happen to strongly believe in Jacksonian democracy. There needs to be one party that very clearly represents the interests of working people ... I'm very concerned about the transactional nature of the Democratic Party. Its evolved too strongly into interest groups rather than representing working people, including small business people."

This is a decades-old rebuke, one uttered today by moderate Democrats like Webb. The balkanized coalition never came to recognize the vice of its virtues. Diverse interests sometimes severed it from the majority's interests. That fissure moved political tectonics by the 1980s. And we came to know these migrating voters by the president who won their favor.

Webb is a Reagan Democrat who returned home. He was Ronald Reagan's Navy secretary. Almost two decades later, he was the Democrat who scrapped out a win in Virginia.

Webb seems less at home today. He identifies himself as a Democrat. But he has few Democratic leaders to identify with. He won't say this. His criticism is discernibly girdled. He begins to tell a story about a conversation with a Democratic leader and pulls back. "I don't want to talk about that," he mutters. "I have had my discussions. I've kept them inside the house. I did not want to have them affect this election, quite frankly. I didn't want to position myself in the media as a critic of the administration."

But criticism is in order. Democrats' suffered historical losses from Congress to the state houses last week. It's an apt moment for Webb to step in. He is an atypical politician. Politics is not his alpha or omega. He's authored more than half a dozen books, succeeded as a screenwriter and won an Emmy for his coverage of the U.S. Marines in Beirut. This success outside politics empowers him to be less political. Yet what suits Webb to criticism is not that. It's the political sociology he embodies.

Webb represents an endangered species. It's more than his red state Democratic stature, although that would be reason enough. The moderate House Democratic coalition lost more than half its lawmakers last week. But that Blue Dog set is still more common than Webb.

Webb's one of the last FDR Democrats. An economic populist. A national security hawk. His Democratic politics are less concerned with social groups than social equality (of opportunity, not outcome). His values were predominant in the Democrat Party from FDR to JFK, the period in the twentieth century when Democrats were also dominant.

Webb walks to this older Democratic beat. Today's Democrats' are more McGovern than JFK. (Could a John Kennedy win the Democratic nomination today?)

Democrats looked like McGovern on Tuesday. It was that bad historically, for congressional elections. The election's passage has liberated Webb (a little). He's privately raised issues throughout Barack Obama's tenure. Some frustration is tactical. He told Rahm Emanuel last June that the president should provide a "very specific format" for his vision of healthcare reform. It would have offset the, in Webb's words, "complex amorphous leviathan that bubbled up out of five committees."

"A lot of people in this country, when they look up here, they want to see leadership. They want to see credibility. And they are not always the same thing," Webb says.

"The healthcare issue really took away a lot of the credibility of the new leadership - Obama particularly - the Reid-Pelosi-Obama trio."

Webb swallowed the bitter pill in the end. He voted for the final healthcare package. He quickly notes that he's open to improving the legislation. These issues will dog Webb two years from now, when his term ends.

But is Webb running again?

"Still sorting that out," he replies. "I'm not saying I'm not."

That is not a rousing assurance that he is, however. And it would be a shame for Democrats if he does not.

"In his [Webb's] book "Born Fighting" you see that he understands what a lot of Democrats don't," said Larry Sabato, director of the University of Virginia Center for Politics. "That is the white working class, long time Americans who never made it, who lost jobs. It's really a problem that has existed since the 1960s. Webb is also exactly the kind of Democrat who ought to be showcased and given more visibility and authority."

There are aspects of Webb that liberals' embrace. Many relished his critique of George W. Bush over the war in Iraq. But that critique could never have succeeded without the fight in this man. It takes a hawk to politically challenge a hawk.

Webb is a hawk in the traditionally conservative sense.

He is adverse to "adventurism." And that evokes the wider rub for Webb. The antiwar bloc championed Webb's Iraq fight. But that same bloc, more broadly, has driven hawks like Webb from this dovish, post-Vietnam, Democratic Party. Webb was pushed away himself, after his decorated Vietnam service.

Liberals also admire the populist Webb. The same cannot be said for the Democratic establishment. Webb has pushed for a onetime windfall profits tax on Wall Street's record bonuses. He talks about the "unusual circumstances of the bailout," that the bonuses wouldn't be there without the bailout.

"I couldn't even get a vote," Webb says. "And it wasn't because of the Republicans. I mean they obviously weren't going to vote for it. But I got so much froth from Democrats saying that any vote like that was going to screw up fundraising.

"People look up say, what's the difference between these two parties? Neither of them is really going to take on Wall Street. If they don't have the guts to take them on, and they've got all these other programs that exclude me, well to hell with them. I'm going to vote for the other people who can at least satisfy me on other issues, like abortion. Screw you guys. I understand that mindset."

Liberals don't always favor his tendency to represent that mindset. Earlier this year, writing in The Wall Street Journal, Webb argued that diversity programs are wrongly discriminating against working class whites. He supported abolishing the programs or narrowly limiting them to their historic original intent, to mend the "badges of slavery" forced on blacks.

"In an odd historical twist that all Americans see but few can understand, many programs allow recently arrived immigrants to move ahead of similarly situated whites whose families have been in the country for generations," Webb wrote.

"I needed to write that just so people were sure I still believed it," he says today.

Many Democrats were displeased he wrote that. "Things are tough enough without having people you thought were friends do things like this," said Democrat L. Douglas Wilder, Virginia 's first black governor, at the time.

But who will raise the hard issues other than friends?

This is the same Webb who takes on prison reform, questioning why this country has the highest incarceration rate in the world. It's an issue important to minority groups. It's also not politically expedient.

Yet liberals often seem to view Webb's breed of Democrat more like frenemies. There was Glenn Greenwald, typical among many liberal writers the morning after the election, explaining why he viewed "last night's Blue Dog losses with happiness." This is par for partisan flanks. We saw it on the right this year, when tea party activists savored the defeat of Delaware moderate Republican Mike Castle, though it cost Republicans a critical Senate seat.

But Democrats' problem remains their proximity to their flank. Last week, independents continued their turn against Democrats since 2008. The results were foreseeable. Independents skepticism of big government has long placed them nearer to Republicans than Democrats. These matters led the majority of independents to tell Gallup pollsters last summer that Democrats are "too liberal."

This independent problem returns Democrats to their white problem. Most non-aligned voters are white. White males constitute the plurality of independents. These are the Reagan Democrats. Webb does not see himself as their spokesman. But he is one of the few Democrats able to speak as one of them.
 
Last edited:

OrByte

Diamond Member
Jul 21, 2000
9,303
144
106
WOW PJ. I never thought I would see the day.

I actually don't find much within this OP that I disagree with.

Well, other than your claim that it's going to take 10 years for Dems to overcome voter displeasure. I think our current economic conditions play havoc on who/and how long the parties remain in control.

The economic roller coaster can spell disaster for both parties, OR an economic boom can finally put a party out in front...whether its D or R.

and I don't think you can put an accurate timetable on when the boom or bust is going to happen...something tells me sooner rather than later...shrug
 

OrByte

Diamond Member
Jul 21, 2000
9,303
144
106
Nancy Pelosi. Everyone knows this

Nancy Pelosi is the new "Darth Cheney" for you guys...

You think that if you just throw her name out there in any/every instance you can tarnish any/all issues for libralism.

Its transparent. But I can't blame you for having fun with it, hell I remember the days when it was Cheney/Rice/Gonzalez.
 

RightIsWrong

Diamond Member
Apr 29, 2005
5,649
0
0
There is no one that is going to be able to redeem either party.

Both are so corrupt and power hungry that advancing the causes of society are no longer even options. Both parties are doomed to continue down the path of making the other party out to be the monster, all the while trying to advance an agenda that alienates over 50% of the country because they both know that they have to cater to the fringes because those are the idiots that will be easily subjected to the message and will vote for their party no matter how idiotic the candidate is.
 

PJABBER

Diamond Member
Feb 8, 2001
4,822
0
0
The economic roller coaster can spell disaster for both parties, OR an economic boom can finally put a party out in front...whether its D or R.

and I don't think you can put an accurate timetable on when the boom or bust is going to happen...something tells me sooner rather than later...shrug

You are right about economic impact on elections, but the point of the OP is that there are a number of other factors that will determine when and how the Democrats can redeem themselves.

The Democrats can be a large tent party, but the core value, the traditional value that should resonate is still in great part populism, the representation of the common working man. In fact, that has been abandoned.

Is the modern Democrat Party only the party of government unions? Of anti-capitalism? Of class warfare? When did the Democrats become Wobblies?

I personally would like to see the broad Party base abandon the fringes that have come to represent them and start the internal debate that might bring out a new generation of broadly centrist, broadly populist leaders.
 

MrMatt

Banned
Mar 3, 2009
3,905
7
0
I agree with you OP.
I posted a while back that I felt alienated by the Democratic Party even though I always considered myself a democrat. As time went on it got to the point where I felt like I was very derisively called a conservative by those in my party. This despite the fact that my political leanings have not changed over the past 8 or so years. I was a centrist then, and am still now. Yet the Democratic Party seems to have moved almost bodily to the fringes. I know everyone will retort that the tea-party is more extreme than extreme liberals, or something of that nature. But look how many people actually adhere to tea-party ideals. It's a loud minority within the conservative/Republican parties. Meanwhile, there's been a gravitational shift in the Democratic Party that has pulled a bulk of its members to the outer left fringes, leaving very few towards the middle at this point standing as lonely islands. This is the big reason you saw the Republican blowout this past election; most Americans are not extremely liberal or extremely conservative when you look at their overall political beliefs on ranges of issues. But you have the democrats putting up candidates that are very far to the left, against republicans who may be to the right, but are closer to the center than their democratic opponents. The democratic party has become a caricature of itself at this point. It’s sad, but they remind me of every smarmy college liberal who claims they are free of racist thoughts and are holier than thou because they’ve taken a few courses on diversity, yet when no one is around they cross the street to get away from a black man when they are walking home at night.
 

dank69

Lifer
Oct 6, 2009
37,444
33,145
136
You are right about economic impact on elections, but the point of the OP is that there are a number of other factors that will determine when and how the Democrats can redeem themselves.

The Democrats can be a large tent party, but the core value, the traditional value that should resonate is still in great part populism, the representation of the common working man. In fact, that has been abandoned.

Is the modern Democrat Party only the party of government unions? Of anti-capitalism? Of class warfare? When did the Democrats become Wobblies?

I personally would like to see the broad Party base abandon the fringes that have come to represent them and start the internal debate that might bring out a new generation of broadly centrist, broadly populist leaders.
What you call 'Wobblies' could also be called 'looking at each individual case and examining all evidence to make an informed decision.' As opposed to lock step, brain-dead yes/no party voting.
 

RightIsWrong

Diamond Member
Apr 29, 2005
5,649
0
0
I personally would like to see the broad Party base abandon the fringes that have come to represent them and start the internal debate that might bring out a new generation of broadly centrist, broadly populist leaders.

You will not see this on either side of the aisle because those are the majority of the voting population.

If either party were serious about doing what is in the best interest of the country, there would be no need for attack ads, political grandstanding or Rovian tactics.

Both parties would be able to sit at a table and discuss an issue in a civilized manner; making their case as bluntly yet respectfully as possible while listening to the other side and then trying to find a common ground that will benefit the majority but leaving both the far left and far right pissed off.

Don't expect to see that anytime in our lifetime anymore though.
 

Craig234

Lifer
May 1, 2006
38,548
350
126
This is just more propaganda, with a begged question that Democrats need redeeeming, when the better question is, when will the corrupt right-wing propaganda machine that convinces a lot of people of lies be redeemed - lies like the one that the issue here is 'Democrats need redeeming' - be redeemed? It's called 'framing', where the only answers serve the Republicans.
 

Lemon law

Lifer
Nov 6, 2005
20,984
3
0
What will redeem the democrats are the coming Republican policies in the House.

As the American voters discovers the GOP talked a good game, but flopped in deliverying.

If the we think Pelosi had it hard, wait and see what happens to Boehner as he becomes the most hated man in America.

But joker in the deck may be all those new Tparty faces in the house. Boehner will try to tell them its his way or the highway, initially it may work, but when Boehner loses popularity, the tea party may mass rebel and defect.
 

classy

Lifer
Oct 12, 1999
15,219
1
81
Truthfully who is going to redeem America? Obama has shown little and the republicans were even worse. So now we have turned back to a group who were complete failures, to try and escape a failure. Its like trading a migraine for strep throat. Our political system is just terrible. I know the answer, I know at least the beginning of the solution. We need term limits on everyone in congress not just the President. That would be the beginning, but I know it would never happen.
 

Craig234

Lifer
May 1, 2006
38,548
350
126
I agree with you OP.
I posted a while back that I felt alienated by the Democratic Party even though I always considered myself a democrat. As time went on it got to the point where I felt like I was very derisively called a conservative by those in my party. This despite the fact that my political leanings have not changed over the past 8 or so years. I was a centrist then, and am still now. Yet the Democratic Party seems to have moved almost bodily to the fringes.

No, they haven't. It seems that way to 'conservative Democrats', just as Libertarian Republicans often view Christian evangelical Republicans with horror. Try to list 'far left' specifics.
 
Last edited:

Patranus

Diamond Member
Apr 15, 2007
9,280
0
0
This is just more propaganda, with a begged question that Democrats need redeeeming, when the better question is, when will the corrupt right-wing propaganda machine that convinces a lot of people of lies be redeemed - lies like the one that the issue here is 'Democrats need redeeming' - be redeemed? It's called 'framing', where the only answers serve the Republicans.

Wait, wait, wait.

So independents thought the Democrats weren't far enough left so in protest they voted Republican?

LOL
 

manimal

Lifer
Mar 30, 2007
13,559
8
0
I agree with lemon here-John of Orange is about as corpratist as they come... If the republicans get another chance after the Bush era so quickly the democrats should have no problem with the voters in the coming elections..

Lets not forget that this election cycle was about jobs and jobs and more jobs...

Lets not read too far into the politics of spin coming out of the extreme right wing. The middle of the road republicans know the leash is very short and more of the same old will not do..
 

MrMatt

Banned
Mar 3, 2009
3,905
7
0
No, they haven't. It seems that way to 'conservative Democrats', just as Libertarian Republicans often view Christian evangelical Republicans with horror. Try to list 'far left' specifics.

Ramming massive health care bills down people's throats when a majority of people didn't want them. Moving us closer to a socialist society. Bailout after bailout after bailout. Pumping almost 700B into the economy.

This isn't something I woke up one day and realized. I've remained the same for the last 8 years or so politically, and I've watched month after month as both big and small decisions by the democratic party adhere more towards extreme left ideals as opposed to anything even vaguely appetizing to someone moderate.
 

PJABBER

Diamond Member
Feb 8, 2001
4,822
0
0
What will redeem the democrats are the coming Republican policies in the House.

As the American voters discovers the GOP talked a good game, but flopped in deliverying.

If the we think Pelosi had it hard, wait and see what happens to Boehner as he becomes the most hated man in America.

But joker in the deck may be all those new Tparty faces in the house. Boehner will try to tell them its his way or the highway, initially it may work, but when Boehner loses popularity, the tea party may mass rebel and defect.

The Tea Partiers are not necessarily R's or D's. They are small government and fiscal conservative types. Whichever Party follows those principles will get their loyalty.

Neither Party has adhered to those principles in quite some time, but the R's have been less egregious than the D's and thus the movement gravitated toward the R's and they are now seriously remaking the R's, not the other way around.

LOL at the idea that Boehner will abandon the Tea Party ideals or vice versa. He is one of the main establishment types that has led the R's to accept the Tea Party message and is fighting to move the Party establishment toward implementation, not just lip service.

I started another thread where I questioned Obama's capability to make the hard but necessary choices to reduce the imprint government has on our society. It is beyond credulity at this point, but should he do so, the Tea Partiers can be just at home in a newly fiscally frugal Democrat Party.

The Dems are now defined as a Party of fringe groups, much like the Greens are in Europe. Until they minimize the extreme elements that control their agenda, the Dems will have to accept being in the minority. Should they choose to become centrist, maybe, hopefully, as a party of the non-union working and, more importantly, the middle classes, they can regain the trust of the American people.
 

blackangst1

Lifer
Feb 23, 2005
22,902
2,359
126
Ramming massive health care bills down people's throats when a majority of people didn't want them. Moving us closer to a socialist society. Bailout after bailout after bailout. Pumping almost 700B into the economy.

This isn't something I woke up one day and realized. I've remained the same for the last 8 years or so politically, and I've watched month after month as both big and small decisions by the democratic party adhere more towards extreme left ideals as opposed to anything even vaguely appetizing to someone moderate.

Youre exactly right here. The Dems have completely gone off the deep end in regards to doing the will of the people. They have alienated themselves by breaking promise after promise, yet still refusing to acknowledge they arent responsible. All led by Obama, who even the progressives lable as "used up". The arrogance of the Dems have proven to be their downfall. FFS the Obama administration is far more guilty of brazen "fuck you's" than the GOP is.

For example, there are quite a few great articles on Craig's beloved commondreams site.

http://www.commondreams.org/headline/2010/11/08-4
Obama Administration Claims Unchecked Authority to Kill Americans Outside Combat Zones


The Obama administration today argued before a federal court that it should have unreviewable authority to kill Americans the executive branch has unilaterally determined to pose a threat.

"Not only does the administration claim to have sweeping power to target and kill U.S. citizens anywhere in the world, but it makes the extraordinary claim that the court has no role in reviewing that power or the legal standards that apply,"

And this is well worth the read and I apologize for the wall O' text, but its worth it: http://www.commondreams.org/view/2010/11/07

Barack Obama was used. Of course, he knew he was being used when he made the deal. But what he didn't know was how quickly he would be used up. Now he has to face two years of humiliation knowing that he betrayed the people and the country he claimed to champion - and knowing that everyone else knows it as well - but also knowing that he's gotten what's coming to him.

Obama made a deal to get the job in the first place. The deal was that he would carry on with Bush's bailout of the banks, with Bush's two wars, with Bush's suppression of civil liberties, that he wouldn't prosecute or even investigate any of the enormous fraud that had brought down the country, or the lies that had railroaded it into war.

Even before he took office, he began fulfilling his end of the bargain. He appointed Larry Summers head of the National Economic Council. It was Summers, more than any other person, who was responsible for dismantling the Glass-Steagall regulations that had acted as a firebreak against banks looting the country since the Great Depression. Summers had made millions consulting for hedge funds before taking the office.

Obama appointed Timothy Geithner Secretary of the Treasury. Geithner had been head of the New York Federal Reserve Bank, another central actor in the hear-no-evil-see-no-evil-speak-no-evil dereliction that passed for financial oversight in the Bush administration. He had been a major architect under Bush of the financial bailout that passed trillions of dollars to his former banking cohorts on the pretext of saving the system.
Obama re-appointed Ben Bernanke chairman of the Federal Reserve Board. Before becoming Fed Chair, Bernanke had been Bush's Chairman of the Council of Economic Advisers. Together with Geithner, Bernanke is the person most responsible for the collapse, the one person who could have slowed the asset bubble while it was still possible. He had been at the helm of the Fed since February 2006 and a member of its board for years before that.

Obama re-appointed Robert Gates, Bush's Secretary of Defense, signaling that there would be profitable continuity with Bush's wars, gulags, and other military expressions of empire. And then, of course, he quickly tripled the number of U.S. forces in Afghanistan even without a coherent strategy or even statement of goals.

He put together a "stimulus package" of $787 billion when reputable economists were screaming that the collapse in demand from the Great Recession was at least four times that amount. Then, in an attempt to appease the Republicans, he made one third of it business tax cuts, despite the notorious ineffectiveness of such policies in generating jobs. When states cut back their payrolls and spending in the slump, it effectively neutralized the impact of Obama's program. Yet he never seriously attempted to get more.

He proposed no jobs program to employ the seven million people who had lost their jobs. No infrastructure program to repair the failing roads, bridges, tunnels, water and sewerage systems of the country. His anti-foreclosure program was a joke. Some three million homes will go into foreclosure this year alone while one in four mortgages are under water. The share of equity that middle class Americans own in their homes is now lower than it was before World War II.

And now the conspicuous, embarrassing truth is that he's not needed any more except as a tilt-up dummy sustaining the illusion of democracy. And you can see why. The rich owners of the country who put him into office in the certainty that he would be a smooth liar, able to sell the masses on the empty opiates of "hope" and "change" - they certainly don't need him any more. Do the rundown.

The owners of the banks don't need him. They got their buddies, Obama's appointees Geithner and Bernanke, to buy their trillions of dollars of toxic sludge with taxpayer money, saving them from imminent bankruptcy. They've got the Fed loaning them money at zero percent interest so they can loan it back to the government at three percent and to payday borrowers at hundreds of percent. It is literally a free, no-risk license to print money.

The same bankers, the ones who caused the Great Collapse, got Obama to create the fiction of financial reform that left them bigger than they were before the collapse and with their exotic derivatives - Warren Buffet's "financial weapons of mass destruction" - untouched. They are making the largest profits in their history and paying themselves the biggest bonuses on record. What do they need Obama for any more?
The insurance companies don't need him. They got him to create the fiction of health care reform by requiring 32 million Americans to buy their intentionally defective products and getting middle class chumps to pay for it. Their stock prices doubled as soon as the reform bill was enacted, a pretty clear sign of what the smart money boys knew about the deal.

They got Obama to abandon his campaign promise of enacting a public option that would have actually brought down the cost of health care. So we still have a system that costs twice what any other industrial nation's system costs and which delivers inferior results. It is still on track to bankrupt the country by consuming one out of every six (soon to be one out of five) dollars spent in the economy. What do they need Obama for any more?

The weapons makers don't need him. Since Eisenhower, they've been the king makers in American politics. They've gotten a continuation of the never-ending wars they have always been able to engineer. In fact Bush's Secretary of Defense Gates, now Obama's, commented recently that the U.S. was never going to leave Afghanistan. It's clear who's running that show. What do they need Obama for any more?
The oil and gas companies don't need him. They got the collapse of climate change legislation that they wanted at Copenhagen. Even as their products hurtle the earth toward inescapable calamity, they are left with effectively no restrictions on their poisonous products. What do they need Obama for any more?

Not having the guts to raise taxes on the rich who now corner a larger share of the nation's income than at any time since 1929, Obama has appointed a commission to recommend changes to Social Security. He loaded it with people who, even before it started, made it clear they would recommend gutting the most successful public program of the past 80 years. If past is prelude, they will likely try to turn it over to the renowned stewardship of the finance industry and the stock market, just as Bush had tried to do. It's like when only Nixon could go to China, or when only Clinton could end welfare as we know it.

From the minute he took office, he has carried out his designated role of pacifying a rightly restive populace about their economic security while shifting ever more of the nation's wealth to those who are already the most wealthy; of continuing the country's program to impose its empire on other nations by force; of dismantling historic constitutional protections of the people against intrusive and abusive government; of subordinating the people to their new corporate masters.

For a guy who's billed as a "Great Communicator" he has utterly failed to articulate any narrative whatsoever of national transformation or renewal, of rescuing the nation from the precipitous downward spiral begun under Bush, his predecessor. He couldn't even manage to pin ownership of the failed economy on Bush, even though the Great Recession started in December 2007, more than a year before Obama took office.
And finally, with legislative gridlock the only certainty for the next two years, the Federal Reserve has taken control of the nation's economic policy. Its new policy of "quantitative easing" (printing money) is not only despicable in its own right, the recourse of scoundrels and national failures (think Weimar Germany in the 1920s), it is completely undemocratic, carried out in secret by the most notoriously elitist, private institution in America. It is a capitulation to a self-anointed feudal-like autocracy without modern equal, an undisguised admission that it is the banks and their owners that run the country. And it is the inescapable result of Obama's policies.

It's hard to feel sorry for Barack Obama. When all the politics, posturing, posing and pontification are over, his party lost because he betrayed his base and they could not stomach voting for his people or his party again. He's proven himself a duplicitous executive and a feckless "leader" who has "led" the Republicans to their biggest pick-up in the House in decades. Now he has to live with it. But the damage is incalculable. It will last for generations. It will be an embarrassment to watch him try to pretend to be effective the next two years, with everyone - himself included - knowing that he is used up. But he is. Good riddance.
 

Scotteq

Diamond Member
Apr 10, 2008
5,276
5
0
Thanks for the articles, Angst - The first is a tolerable piece. But that second one sends my common sense meter screaming into the red. Purely an opinion piece, and clearly written by someone with a FAR left agenda looking to blame the President for not being far enough away from the center. And quite frankly, I think it's beyond asinine to opine the (Repubs/Right) are somehow in control of the President as some kind of backroom deal made in exchange for the Office. So right there, any credibility the author may have goes straight out the window.

My opinion of this little piece of...(nvm)... is that it's merely proof the Far Left aren't afraid to eat their own(more centrist) babies if/when they think it serves their purposes.
 
Last edited:

Craig234

Lifer
May 1, 2006
38,548
350
126
Ramming massive health care bills down people's throats when a majority of people didn't want them.

The public WANTS healthcare reform. A majority wanted what liberals want as their compromise position, at least a public option, if not what liberals want first, single-payer.

A lot of the 'flaws' in the compromise bill are not the Democrats going to the left, they're moving to the *right* because of the power of the healthcare insurance industry.

The people aren't crazy about NOT passing any healthcare reform and leaving the terrible, wasteful, expensive stats quo in place, either. A liberal plan would be best.

You aren't showing the Democrats moved too much to the left by showing that they moved too much to the right on this bill.

Moving us closer to a socialist society. Bailout after bailout after bailout. Pumping almost 700B into the economy.

First, this is small potatoes compared to the other, wasteful, spending Republicans brought us - but you fixate on the smaller issue as an attack on Democrats.

Which is just how it's marketed to you.

Let's take the quote from the Commondreams article I ran across in this thread:

He put together a "stimulus package" of $787 billion when reputable economists were screaming that the collapse in demand from the Great Recession was at least four times that amount. Then, in an attempt to appease the Republicans, he made one third of it business tax cuts, despite the notorious ineffectiveness of such policies in generating jobs. When states cut back their payrolls and spending in the slump, it effectively neutralized the impact of Obama's program. Yet he never seriously attempted to get more.

Some bailouts were essentional to preventing economic collapse - and were started under Bush and ideological right-wingers who knew enough to go outside their ideology on this.

But the right's versions were much more 'free handouts' for the financial industry, lacking the controls Democrats forced. It was Democrats who passed a 'no more bailouts' bill too.

Take Bush's architect for the bailouts, Hank Paulson, former CEO of Goldman Sachs - his version gave him complete dictatorial power over where the money went, and banned even the Supreme Court from having any say - a radical approach that the Democrats blocked and changed.

No, the Obama policies here were far from 'left' much less 'far left', either. Primarily infrastructure, whice Republicans claim to support, and tax cuts.

This isn't something I woke up one day and realized. I've remained the same for the last 8 years or so politically, and I've watched month after month as both big and small decisions by the democratic party adhere more towards extreme left ideals as opposed to anything even vaguely appetizing to someone moderate.

I'm still waiitng for the 'far left' policies.
 

PJABBER

Diamond Member
Feb 8, 2001
4,822
0
0
PELOSI PLANNING PARTY FOR ACCOMPLISHMENTS
Mon Nov 08 2010 16:34:33 ET

Nancy Pelosi Speaker of the United States House of Representatives requests the pleasure of your company at a reception honoring the Accomplishments of the 111th Congress on Wednesday, the tenth day of November, two thousand ten at three thirty in the afternoon Cannon Caucus Room 345 Cannon House Office Building

Like I said, it is going to take some time for the Dems to wake up.
 

blackangst1

Lifer
Feb 23, 2005
22,902
2,359
126
Thanks for the articles, Angst - The first is a tolerable piece. But that second one sends my common sense meter screaming into the red. Purely an opinion piece, and clearly written by someone with a FAR left agenda looking to blame the President for not being far enough away from the center. And quite frankly, I think it's beyond asinine to opine the (Repubs/Right) are somehow in control of the President as some kind of backroom deal made in exchange for the Office. So right there, any credibility the author may have goes straight out the window.

Well, yes! You've got it right. Which comes full circle to the point of the OP: the Dems have fucked themselves. Discounting the specific broken promises of Obama's campaign, he ran on a general platform not of "here's what I can do for you" but rather "look what Bush did to you, and Im not Bush". People are finally waking up to realize that everything they hated about the GOP has been magnified and exemplified in the last 2-3 years of Democratic rule. And who was once the darling of the far left, is now looked at with disdain. In 2006, the people wanted someone other than the GOP. In 2008 they wanted someone other than Bush. Well, they got it, in spades.
 

shira

Diamond Member
Jan 12, 2005
9,500
6
81
Yet another moronic pjabber thread. The Dems have nothing to redeem themselves for. Except in the minds of morons like pjabber, the election result wasn't about policy choices or legislation. It was about the fact that the economy sucks and that the electorate vote out of fear.

You can pretend that voters are perspicacious and that the results of this election mean something substantive. You can believe the talking heads whose increasingly absurd theories are merely attempts to justify their useless existence. Or you can once again remind yourself of that age-old adage: no one has ever lost a dime by mistakenly underestimating the intelligence of the American people.
 

jihe

Senior member
Nov 6, 2009
747
97
91
Sarah Palin, by being the absolute moron that she is, will redeem the democrats