Have the Democrats Blown it for a Generation?

Categories: ,

Independent’s Eye by Joe Gandelman

It would be bittersweet for Democrats to rewatch HBO’s “By the People: the Election of Barack Obama” which details the 2008 election and the high hopes raised — and tears joyfully shed — on an election night seemingly a lifetime ago.

Cartoon by Hajo de Reijger - Cagle Cartoons (click to reprint)
Cartoon by Hajo de Reijger – Cagle Cartoons (click to reprint)

Things haven’t worked out according to their hopes and dreams. And, in fact, the question should now be asked: have the Democrats blown it for a generation?

On election night Democrats dreamed of a post-partisan era (in which their party would be dominant), more liberal Supreme Court justices, major Iraq and Afghanistan war policy changes, massive environmental policy shifts, scuttling Don’t Ask Don’t Tell regarding gays in the military, and an economic recovery from the Bush administration’s failures that would deep-six conservatism and the polarizing talk radio political culture once and for all.

Many Democratic Party liberals (OOPS! the word now is “progressives,” which is to “liberals” as “pre-owned cars” is to “used cars”)  felt the election was a triumph of their policies, ideas and dreams even though polls indicated voters really wanted to boot out the party that seriously messed things up.  And now?

Every day seems to bring smellier poll number news for the Democratic Party. For instance a new Mason Dixon Poll finds that in Missouri Obama’s approval rating is 34 percent and 27 percent among independent voters. Nationally, there are fears Obama could drag down Senate candidates.

The worst news for Democrats: independent voters have been generally turning against Obama and company, although there has been something of a see-saw effect.

What has happened?

Once again the Democrats ““ particularly the party’s liberal wing — considered winning power in 2008 a big ideological “mandate” rather than what it was:  Democrats being provisionally rehired and closely watched while on job probation. Obama faced a bumpy ride — but own party has made it bumpier.

This isn’t the first time Democrats misinterpreted their candidate’s victory as consolidating a long-term majority and winning the ongoing partisan national argument. Hopes that elections meant the party and its policies had  “won” were dashed during the presidencies of Lyndon Baines Johnson, Jimmy Carter, and Bill Clinton.

In each of these presidencies the liberal wing overreached in proposals and/or rhetoric, imprinting an image of a party craving to veer left even though Democrats won national elections by winning over moderates, independents, centrists and disgruntled Republicans. There were other factors, to be sure, but this was one constant.

The party’s image took a 2009 hit when some Congressional Democrats saw the stimulus as a way to try and get pork. The party’s liberal wing — sneering at Democratic moderates like Republican conservatives do at Republican moderates — became a major headache for an Obama attempting to be centrist on some issues via compromise and consensus.

Democrats also correctly blame their poll erosion on bad job numbers, talk shows hosts such as Rush Limbaugh for successfully cajoling GOP party elites not to compromise, a strong Republican info machine, the race issue, tea party movement, Republican Party discipline and Obama’s surprising communications problems. Now some disappointed liberals threaten to not vote in 2010 to teach their “corporatist” party a lesson — just like they taught “it” a lesson in 2000 by not voting or voting for Ralph Nader (which allowed the GOP to make strong inroads in the judiciary and bureaucracy). Senator Al Franken warns about waking up to find a GOP Congress.

If you tune in a liberal talk show you’ll invariably hear some callers go on and on about how mad they STILL are that Obama didn’t support “the public option” (three words now as obnoxious as chalk screeching on a blackboard), or a liberal talk show host lace into Obama in a way that will discourage Democrats from voting.

Liberal Democrats should remember that sitting on your hands on election day doesn’t give you a leg up on your foes: when you sit on your hands you lose and you later find it’s one, swift, political pain in the neck.

—–

Copyright 2010 Joe Gandelman

Joe Gandelman is a veteran journalist who wrote for newspapers overseas and in the United States. He has appeared on cable news show political panels and is Editor-in-Chief of The Moderate Voice, an Internet hub for independents, centrists and moderates. CNN’s John Avlon named him as one of the top 25 Centrists Columnists and Commentators. He can be reached at [email protected] and can be booked to speak at your event at www.mavenproductions.com. Follow Joe Gandelman on Twitter at www.twitter.com/joegandelman


Comments

33 responses to “Have the Democrats Blown it for a Generation?”

  1. Murray Avatar
    Murray

    I think he nailed it. Obama did not run as a radical liberal, he ran as more of a centrist–and flipped hard left as soon as he got into office. Not surprisingly, folks feel lied to. And the nation did not want to be radically remade, they just wanted to be fixed.

    As for blowing it for a generation? that is probably a little long. How long will depend on the competency of the Republicans once they get into office; if they blow their chance too Democrats will get another soon.

  2. Steve Krulick Avatar

    Obama ran as an amorphous blank slate upon which many self-deluding "liberals" projected a raft of unsupported hopes and dreams. Yet when one actually reviewed his thin record and his actual statements during the campaign, any objective observer saw a corporatist, centrist-right go-along-to-get-along hack who was (just like McCain) for increased military spending and adventurism, pro-death penalty, not particularly for gay rights, was not going to work to promote universal single-payer health care, would promote nuclear energy and offshore drilling, would keep military bases in Iraq and add troops in Afghanistan, would keep spying on Americans in violation of the Fourth Amendment, would keep the Patriot Act and Homeland Insecurity, would increase our debt and deficit, and would take no serious action to deal with global climate chaos or peak oil before it’s too late (which it already may be). In other words, maintain much of the Bush agenda and policies. So, just which actions "as soon as he got into office" represent a "hard left flip"? I see little if any evidence of that.

    On the contrary, those who feel most "lied to" are the progressives who THOUGHT he was going to be the second coming of FDR, when he turned out to be the second coming of GWB. Since I was never so deluded, I was not surprised, though he continued and continues to be part of an ongoing string of presidential disappointments going back decades.

  3. Murray Avatar
    Murray

    The hard left flip involves the expansion of federal executive power–taking over GM, appointing czars with increased power, passing health care and financial reform that seem to increase more than just those things (16,000 new IRS employees included in the health care bill–WTF?)

    That is hardly centrist. On the other hand, yes, GWB started down some of those roads, so in that sense there is an ironic similarity.

  4. Steve Krulick Avatar

    "Expansion of federal executive power" has been going on for decades, certainly from Johnson and Nixon onward, through Reagan, Clinton, and Bush; it's hardly a "left" thing to make things less democratic, power-separated, and checks-and-balanced as all these pro-Imperial presidencies have done.

    "Taking over GM"? Hardly what was done, and hardly a "leftist" action to protect a "too big to fail" mega-corps against the so-called "free market" RIGHT to fail. But all that began under Bush, and "appointing czars" was going on for several presidents, again, hardly a "left" thing, unless you think GWB's many czar appointments were "hard left flips"!

    The "health care" that passed was hardly what the majority of American's, including the majority of doctors, wanted, but was really a "Private Insurance Industry Protection Scam Bill," which true progressives like Nader, and Kucinich before he folded, demonstrated was bogus and just a handout to the insurance industry, which wrote it and made sure NO "public option," much less single payer, would ever be allowed. Obama never fought for anything truly "left" on this.

    The so-called "financial reform" bill is so full of sops and loopholes, and doesn't really change ANY of the true crimes and structural weak links that could prevent more of the same, that it is just more Wall Street protection, seeing as how most of Obama's major economic team are Wall Street honchos protecting their own.

    Obama is a centrist in that he likes to be liked by everyone, and so doesn't show the guts to stand up to bullies on the right (still trying for some moist-eyed "bipartisanship" with Repubs who, as Bill Maher said, "aren't that much into you, Barack"!), or fight for his deluded supporters on the left. He is a good, centrist, corporatist puppet who is expanding the executive power against constitutional limits, as the centrist, corporatist, Business Duopoly Party (the Repubs and Dems) woosies in Congress aid and abet.

    Terms like "left" and "right" are probably obsolete and, as Orwell said in the forties, just buzz words that have no real objective meaning, but are just used to slur and smear and avoid thinking and actual distinction of positions. Is it better to live in a totalitarian "left" regime or a totalitarian "right" regime if they both restrict the same freedoms and let a select few prosper at the expense of the many?

    Obama, Bush, Clinton, Reagan, and several Congresses were and are all working for the same BOSSES — the Big Money that comes from and controls Big Oil, Big Pharma, Big Banking, Big Wall Street, Big Agriculture, Big Arms, Big Prisons — and is simply the increasing merger of Business and Government, with Business calling the shots as it steals from the Treasury, the Middle Class, and ultimately the Future. This is the very definition of FASCISM, as Mussolini AND FDR defined it. Sorry you can't, or refuse to, see it.

  5. dale Avatar
    dale

    Abandon all hope ye who enter here.

  6. Ann Avatar
    Ann

    What's wrong with the word liberal? I like both liberal and progressive. It's good to know my generation is mostly liberal than conservative. He hasn't let me down.

  7. Ed Brown Avatar
    Ed Brown

    The problem is that Obama HAS no ideological mandate. What is he saying? NOTHING!

    Perhaps I should not say this in the same post as above. But let us, as a USA people, go to war with the world. Don't drag us down with your European bull crap. We do stuff American style. Your style is not befitting of us. Americans smack and beat the crap out of you rather than endure your bull crap.

    Stupidly, our legislative officials haven't done that! Why have they not introduced legislation that will keep jobs here?

    What are they? Stupid!

  8. Rob Avatar
    Rob

    Three strangers strike up a conversation in the passenger lounge in the Bozeman, Montana airport, while waiting for their respective flights..

    One is an American Indian passing through from Lame Deer, another is a Cowboy on his way to Billings for a livestock show and the third passenger is a fundamentalist Arab student, newly arrived at Montana State University from the Middle East .

    Their discussion drifts to their diverse cultures. Soon, the two Westerners learn that the Arab is a devout, radical Muslim and the conversation falls into an uneasy lull.

    The cowboy leans back in his chair, crosses his boots on a magazine table, tips his big sweat-stained hat forward over his face, and lights a cigarette. The wind outside is blowing tumbleweeds around, and the old windsock is flapping; but still no plane comes.

    Finally, the American Indian clears his throat and softly he speaks, 'At one time here… my people were many… but sadly, now we are few.'

    The Muslim student raises an eyebrow and leans forward, 'Once my people were few,' he sneers, 'and now we are many. Why do you suppose that is?'

    The cowboy removes his cigarette from his mouth and from the darkness beneath his Stetson says in a smooth drawl . . .

    'I reckon that's 'cause we ain't played Cowboys and Muslims yet, But I do believe it's a-comin'.'

  9. Stug Avatar
    Stug

    Oh man, if only you could have gotten the them from The Good, The Bad and The Ugly to have played.

  10. Stug Avatar
    Stug

    Oops, theme, not them.

  11. Glen Avatar
    Glen

    Those who took Obama's election as a liberal mandate were self-deluded. He won largely because he had not started two wars and brought about a financial collapse, i.e., he was not a Republican. Had Mrs. Clinton been nominated, she also would have easily carried the day.

    President Obama has always been a pragmatic centrist. So far he has done reasonably well, his major weakness has been a lack of experience. Positive accomplishments so far include preventing the meltdown of our financial institutions and a modest health bill. As he becomes more acclimated to his present position, he should should do better. One can reasonably anticipate a second term for him, should he so desire.

  12. scott Avatar
    scott

    Obama is an empty suit with a Teleprompter. He has a lot of campaign favors to pay for and that's his agenda. The country can go to hell. One columinist called him the "Great Pretender". I liked that one!

  13. everton Avatar
    everton

    Sound analysis, Glen; the Republicans destroyed the country and people expect Obama to wave a magic wand and fix it overnight.

    In spite of the challenging economic climate, Obama will win in 2012 as people will come to realize that the tired Republican mantra of tax cut for the rich, unrestrained laissez faire capitalism and chichken hawk militarism have been disastrous for the country.

  14. Stug Avatar
    Stug

    "The country can go to hell."

    – Yes, that does seem to have been the Republican mantra for 30+ years now.

  15. WhiteH20 Avatar
    WhiteH20

    Obama ran a great campaign as a centrist, although I believe, deep down, he is a liberal, and he filled his administration with liberals. He chose a cabinet as weak as Jimmy Carter's cabinet, particularly in their abject lack of understanding of business and free markets. Then Obama chose a liberal agenda that attacked business/free markets, the very sector so necessary to creating jobs, which is the key to turning around the economy. This is not the agenda the independents, who effectively elected him, wanted or expected.

    Obama had no experience running anything and as a result, he/his cabinet have put the ship on the rocks. Obama did not listen to the people (healthcare, cap and trade, big government, union preferential treatment, etc.), and now his ship is sinking. The independents have abandoned Obama in droves, and moderate Democrats are beginning to flee the sinking ship.

    Obama's presidency, absent a miracle, will effectively end with this November's election, and the GOP takeover of one or both houses of Congress. Obama's liberal agenda will be taboo over the next 2 years. Any suggestion that Obama could win a second term in 2012 is just wishful thinking. There are not enough African Americans and liberals to elect a President, and he has run off the independents with his liberal agenda/policies.

    Thereafter, it could be a generation of governing for the GOP if they choose good candidates, and they don't screw up … but that seems to happen with regularity. Reagan/Bush Sr. made it 16 years, so that would be my bet. But the then successor Democratic President will be a centrist. Liberals are done for a generation, if not longer.

  16. Bill S. Avatar
    Bill S.

    Centrist, Leftist, flip flop Rightist – all miss the crux of the issue; which is: A competent executive knows what his priorities are and does not waste energy on picayune and mundane affairs. Read, the cop and the uppity prof; who was a jackass and who was not a jackass and the ideological morass of middle eastern muslimism versus Western civilizations crazy quilt of beliefs.

    What is impeachable and inexcusable for this POTUS is to have: ordered the DOJ to interfere in Arizona's business, to send the message to a nuclear power (Iran) that 'we should all be able to get along', to push through health care reform that the majority of citizens did not want, to expand the IRS and the government to behemoth proportions and to to have ordered our young men into that God forsaken desert called afghanistan. It goes without saying that he utterly failed when he did not get our young men out of Iraq – that he has no idea what he is doing.

    And now it is too late. Our sleep deprived POTUS is incapable of stopping the juggernaunt (sp) of collapse and calamity that is upon us.

  17. Paco Avatar
    Paco

    Obama's election like many of the comments above show how peoples perceptions often depend as much on their wants and attitudes as on any understanding of reality. During his campaign, Obama made as few commitments as he could and those he kept as vague as he could. This is what any sensible politician would do if not pressured to take a stand, because it allowed the voters to imagine he would do all of the contradictory things they hoped for.

    Those on the left, hoped that by change, Obama meant progressive change and they have been disappointed by how little has really changed and how little of that change was progressive/liberal. On the other side, conservatives wanted Obama to be a flaming liberal that they could attack with hyper-anger and no matter what he did, that is how they would perceive his administration. Having FOX to slant, distort and even lie to them makes it easy for them to see this administration the way they want to see it.

    The fact is that the Obama Administration has been pretty centrist, overly cautious, and has chosen to take advantage of any of the many opportunities that Republicans have offered him to make political points with the voters. This seems surprising for someone who was honored with so much praise for his political prowess, but perhaps he still has some tricks up his sleeve.

  18. Sasha Avatar
    Sasha

    Funny, when Bush won, he thought he had a mandate. And he acted upon it.

    But Dems are not allowed to have a mandate, you see.

    Oh well, the only weakness of Obama is to have tried to reach consensus when swift and decisive action was needed even if it meant stepping on the elephant's belly.

  19. Steve Krulick Avatar

    "What’s wrong with the word liberal?" Phil Ochs's prescient song "Love Me, I'm a Liberal" notwithstanding, the word has gone through too many wash-and-rinse cycles to have held up. This is the problem with these knee-jerk terms that have been used by proponents and opponents until they mean either nothing or whatever each person wants them to mean, absent any objective consensus.

    Perhaps when one gets around to actually defining "liberal" to some objective standard that actually has some useful meaning for political discourse, this might turn into something that isn't just mindless name-calling or knee-jerking.

    The words "liberal," "progressive," "left," etc. are essentially meaningless in this context. I again refer you all to George Orwell's brilliant essay, "Politics and the English Language," which should be required reading for every student (excerpt):

    "The word Fascism has now no meaning except in so far as it signifies "something not desirable." The words democracy, socialism, freedom, patriotic, realistic, justice, have each of them several different meanings which cannot be reconciled with one another. In the case of a word like democracy, not only is there no agreed definition, but the attempt to make one is resisted from all sides. It is almost universally felt that when we call a country democratic we are praising it: consequently the defenders of every kind of régime claim that it is a democracy, and fear that they might have to stop using the word if it were tied down to any one meaning. Words of this kind are often used in a consciously dishonest way. That is, the person who uses them has his own private definition, but allows his hearer to think he means something quite different. Statements like Marshal Pétain was a true patriot, The Soviet Press is the freest in the world, The Catholic Church is opposed to persecution, are almost always made with intent to deceive. Other words used in variable meanings, in most cases more or less dishonestly, are: class, totalitarian, science, progressive, reactionary bourgeois, equality."

    So, what does "liberal" mean?

    1. Look it up in the dictionary. There you will find, depending on the size and thoroughness of the tome, a history of the word over hundreds of years. You will find that it's meaning has evolved, changed, even meant contradictory things over time. You will find references to political, economic, and social applications of the word. Most, but not all, of the dictionary denotations are positive and noble.

    2. It means whatever people think it means. And their definition may have nothing to do with the dictionary's, or yours. Therefore, two people can use the same word, in the same discussion, and be referring to two different things, which minimizes the discussion's value considerably.

    3. It means something bad. Most of the current usages connote negatives. The word has so much baggage, including being a repository for all the bad, stupid, and evil things someone wants to project on another, that is ceases to be anything more meaningful than putting your thumb to your nose and wagging your fingers at someone.

    4. It means nothing. It, like its siamese twin "conservative," cannot be used in rational discourse anymore unless you know what the "other" person thinks it means. Even then, any connection to the dictionary meaning may have long since been lost.

    My recommendation is not to use the word at all, or, if you must, use something like "liverall," "librium," and, for its twin, "preservative," "concernative," so as to shake up the hypnotic trance the original words induce in the reader/listener, where thought is replaced by reflex.

    I resist all labels to describe myself, and will not let any be pinned on me; life and beliefs are too complex for one or two simplistic, out-dated, dualistic, either/or labels terms to encompass one's entirety.

  20. Steve Krulick Avatar

    Obama may be an "empty suit" as far as his ability to truly be his own man and set his own agenda (whatever it is), when he is just a puppet/front/lackey for the corporate overlords who own and run just about everything worth owning/running (see George Carlin's comments about the "club" that WE are not a part of), but he is certainly not stupid or slave to a teleprompter. Anyone who has seen him speak extemporaneously at length without notes OR teleprompter must give him due credit for the range of his knowledge and ability to think and respond on his feet. He and Clinton stand far up on that ladder, while Shrub was somewhere near the very bottom.

    I don't think he is so much a "Great Pretender" as much as a "Projected Zelig," in which each person sees on his blank slate what each projects onto him; he's a commie, fascist, socialist, hitler, chavez, etc, all at the same time, while actually is none of the above.

    I don't think anyone seriously expects Obama or ANY one person to wave a wand and fix things overnight that took years to go sour. But he surely has NOT addressed the most serious of problems, like peak oil and global climate chaos, or even the reality of a permanently collapsed and contracted economy (compressive deflationary contraction, or Long Emergency, to use James Kunstler's terms), to which there IS NO FIX, nor recovery in the conventional sense, because it requires an entire revolution in our thinking about resources, wealth, labor, value, planning, community, etc. Obama is simply too conventional and mired in old-style parameters to think outside that box, or, if he can think about it, too afraid that there's a grassy knoll response to any attempts to upset the plutocratic apple cart.

    WhiteH20, what is your foundation for this belief that "deep down, he is a liberal, and he filled his administration with liberals."? What in his words or deeds supports that? At least you didn't, as some have, suggested he has filled his admin with "commies," but even liberals is laughable, when you look at the Goldman Sachs crowd he has cocooned with. To the extent he has continued or even expanded Bush/Cheney policies certainly suggests otherwise. It's hard to imagine a Kucinich or Nader administration doing this. Just repeating that Obama has a "liberal agenda," absent any substantiation for that claim, doesn't make it more real. I can't imagine anyone with any progressive leanings, much less a radical, seeing much of anything "liberal" coming from Obama, not yet and not likely forthcoming.

    Bill, Iran is hardly a "nuclear power"! Other than being composed of atoms and molecules, like the rest of us, that is! The majority of Americans wanted a single-payer universal health care system like most of the rest of the developed nations have, or at least a public option sop; that most didn't want what came out was because it didn't go far enough, NOT that it went too far! But none of that is impeachable, certainly compared to Bush/Cheney and their actual crimes. That Obama didn't pull out of the occupation of Iraq and Afghanistan immediately is lamentable; that he has expanded the illegalities of it, and may be seeking further incursions, might be complicity in the ongoing war crimes of the previous several administrations. But a Nobel Prize in Peace? My irony meter has exploded.

  21. Eric Avatar
    Eric

    I love the new "progressive" moniker. It's so much better than liberal (which is inaccurate) and says even less (progress in worsening the economy? adding bureaucracy? wasting taxpayer money at a faster rate? all of the above…?). I also like that you can change it to a more accurate label: regressive.

    Dubya and Obama are very similar regressives. I'm a bit shocked that Obama has been even more regressive, but if history is any indicator, he might be the Hoover of this generation followed by our FDR. This person could easily change the political landscape for 60+ years…

  22. mrarizona Avatar
    mrarizona

    If the Republicans can come back after only 2 years of the worst President in history & supposed conservative policies that nearly destroyed this country, why would the awful liberals suffer for years? Just because the current administration has been unable to repair, what the Bush & Company screwed up?

  23. Jim Avatar
    Jim

    Bill S., I sure hope you are wrong.

    I hate all the labeling. I hate the partisan stances. I hate the partisan politics.

    I love America. I love a well-crafted compromise that works for the benefit of as many people as possible, and screws no one in the process.

    I love when Americans put aside their differences and work together, like the fine young men and women in our Armed Forces do on a daily basis.

    I love when everyone stops looking at what went wrong as if a disaster has befallen us, and instead takes look at what went right and does more of that.

    I love it when we show the world how a Purely Peaceful Nation behaves, the way we used to do.

    I love it when we do our businesses in ways that enliven, enlighten, and energize everyone involved.

    I love it when our beautifully created and manifested system of government does what it does best, leaves us alone to do what we do best, and everything gets done in the most efficient and inexpensive manner possible.

    Anyone else down with that?

  24. Glen Avatar
    Glen

    Jim. In a Democracy,WE ARE a part of THE GOVERNMENT. What you are describing, a "government" that "leaves us alone..," could exist only in some other form of government, such as a monarchy or oligarchy. Of course, in some ways, you already have your wish in that our "Democracy" is not all that healthy, the wealthy certainly are influential far beyond their numbers. It may well be that the principal weakness of American society is our failure to effectively educate the children of all social classes, not just those whose parents are well to do.

  25. Rob Avatar
    Rob

    Due to the popularity of the "Survivor" show, Wyoming is planning to do one entitled, "Survivor: WyomingStyle."

    The nine contestants will all start in Cheyenne, then drive to Laramie, Casper, Gillette, up to Sheridan and over to Lovell……. They will then proceed to Cody, Jackson Hole, Afton, Rock Springs, and Evanston.

    From there they will go midstate to Lander,Riverton, Worland, Greybull and finish back in Cheyenne.

    Each will be driving a pink Volvo with bumper stickers that read:

    "I'm a Democrat"

    "I'm Gay"

    "I love the Dixie Chicks"

    "Boycott Beef"

    "I Voted for Obama"

    "George Strait Sucks"

    "Hillary in 2012"

    and

    "I'm Here to Confiscate your Guns"

    The first one to make it back to Cheyenne alive wins.

    God Bless Wyoming!

  26. Glen Avatar
    Glen

    Rob. I suspect that you underestimate the commitment to free speech in Wyoming. In Wyoming, they are Americans, not caricatures.

  27. Cal Avatar
    Cal

    Spot on. The misread of a mandate in 2008 is precisely right. That, coupled with a cadre of the most radical politicians in US history controlling the executive and legislative branches emboldened the "progressives" to push through as much of their agenda as they could no matter how unpopular it may be with the general public. That is precisely why a grass roots movement has sprung up all across the country in opposition to the policies and philosophy of liberalism. People were fed up with big-spending Republicans who let a moderate president take them down the road to expanding government and running up the debt. Looking for something, indeed anything different, they turned to the generic theme of "hope and change" not knowing that meant "the fundamental transformation of America" or that we would have to "change the conversation and our traditions and our history" to implement it.

    Many young Americans don't remember sitting in gas lines for an hour to get 10 gallons of gas on odd/even days during Jimmy Carter or his weakness in the face of the oil embargo. He told us we'd have to "wear sweatuhs" to stay warm rather than doing what Americans do. Solve the problem. His misery index was the worst in US history and he allowed our military to be hollowed out. Obama is another Jimmy Carter. Weak and indecisive on important issues and quick to react on the trivial. (The Cambridge police acted 'stupidly.') He will not pursue black on white voter intimidation and he is suing a sovereign state that is trying its best to force him to do his job and enforce the border. He is on the wrong side on all counts wrt the economy as he is an ardent believer in and practitioner of "bubble up" or Keynesian economics. Spending tax dollars removes money from the economy. It weakens it and it does NOT create jobs. While unemployment steadily rose, Obama focused on HIS priorities. Health care reform, cap and trade, and strangulating financial regulations. As a result we have a sluggish economy with no jobs created, and trillions of dollars of new debt with nothing to show.

    Small businesses will not hire because of the high levels of uncertainty about projecting future costs. Health care costs, the expiration of the Bush tax cuts, increases in capital gains rates, and the mountains of new regulations have employers skittish. And yet we hear talk of even spending to spur growth.

    Liberals simply don't understand economics and they will forge ahead with failed ideas as long as they have political power. Granted, Bush et al, screwed the pooch by acting like Democrats. So no, we don't want to "return to the 'failed policies' of the previous administration'" but we DO want to return to the fiscal responsibility of the 1994 congress led by Newt Gingrich that turned Clinton's behavior around and gave us balanced budgets. The answer to our fiscal woes lies in electing conservative law makers. Not Republicans. Conservatives. I don't know about you but I've had more than my share of Jimmy Carter, part deaux, and am ready for real change. November elections are only 90 days away and if the economy gets any worse in the next 60 days (and it is forecast to slow even more) then Katie bar the door as we'll see a blowout in the House and possibly even see the Senate change hands. But if the GOP doesn't force Obama to stop spending AND reduce the size of government, what's the difference? Whether lite beer or regular, beer is still beer. And America needs to get off the beer and onto the wagon and do so right now.

  28. dEd Grimley Avatar
    dEd Grimley

    Obama ran as a Centrist, and has remained a Centrist the entire time. Where IS this Communism/Socialism? Health Care yielded about as capitalist a result as one could imagine. Financial reform did nothing. The bailouts were apolitical – a question of whether or not one believed that the immediate impact of the loss of a gigantic institution was worth letting go or not.

    When Obama ran, I was under the impression that what Obama meant by "Change" was that he was going to propose legislation that the left wanted, and temper it all with what the right wanted up until the point that they would be able to vote for it. I've always thought that, and I've been right. But the GOP has turned him into the devil (Several Christian leaders have proposed that he may be or is the actual anti-Christ), and thus they refuse to vote yes on virtually anything, regardless of the issue, because to vote along with Obama is to vote yourself out of office.

    As for whether or not we're becoming a Fascist state, I'd propose something else. I've just finished reading The Republic by Plato, and in the book, they discuss what an Oligarchy is, at least within the confines of that time period. I think Glenn Beck may have actually been right, for all of the wrong reasons. An Oligarchy, as described by Socrates/Plato is a form of government in which wealth is the literal equivalent of power, and the wealthiest would make decisions. They'd hoard their wealth in order to maintain power, spending money only to maintain power. Now, it's been observed that politicians in general win elections when spending and raising the most money, much of which comes from corporate donations, from some of the institutions mentioned by Steve above. I've heard some pundits point out that it's almost imperative to have a sort of "sponsor", like Big Banks, Big Pharma, whatever. And as a result, politicians represent the interests of their "sponsors". So that is to say that corporations, ie, the wealthiest citizens, hold power directly over politicians, who need that money in order to win their elections and keep their jobs (and let's face it, the more important thing to them, the feeling of power they get from having a job in politics), and in many cases to put in a good record with their patron to get a job as a lobbyist, speaker, etc. later on. The bigger industries in essence run the country.

    I prefer Oligarchy, personally, to Fascism, because Fascist states have more class layers. With the biggest industries having the power to crush their smaller competitors without anything to slow them down or stop them, our society has shifted too far towards the "haves and have-nots", or at least continues to lean that way, to be considered Fascist.

  29. MomWantedAustralia Avatar
    MomWantedAustralia

    What the writer would have you believe in my reading of his writing is that the democrats are the lesser of two evils. Well I cannot wait for 1000 years for them to get it right. No, many would say it is a corporatist party, with just a democratic and republican wing. Quite frankly I do not intend to vote for either of the major parties and if that's wasting a vote then so be it but I will be comfortable in following my principles. To get change you need crisis and electing one of two versions of the same party is not doing crisis. Put so many of one party in power that if they fail they will give the other party a chance and if they fail like the Democrats have then vote them out. Vote your conscience. Its not a game and putting people who only care about the rich and that is democrats and republicans is not the answer.

  30. geoff Avatar
    geoff

    Are you sure it is the republicans?

    Check out the latest news.

    http://finance.yahoo.com/news/SPIN-METER-Program-

    Enjoy guys, So much for the party of the poor.

    Yeah right.

    This mess has been created by the Dems after 2006 and now they are trying to blame the retarded republicans for the shit.

    And all of you educated, inexperienced tikes started howling as soon as a dem pointed fingers at you.

    These dems are jackals in the hide of sheeps.

    Grow up.

    Look at the root of the problem, not at what these professors and teachers want you to see.

    Get knowledge from them, but also learn to use it. Don't just rely on them to show you everything in the world.

  31. DHFabian Avatar
    DHFabian

    Well, think a minute. Since the 1980s, the Democratic Party passed more Republican legislation than the Republicans. It was President Clinton who took the first ax-chop to the New Deal (AFDC), and it appears that Obama is sharpening the ax for Social Security. On one policy after another, the end result is that the Republican agenda has been embraced by our government, obviously to the great harm of the United States. We keep repeating the same cycle. We vote for some Democrat who promises a return to democratic values, he gets into office, and promptly enact Republican legislation. Dems can have a solid majority in Congress, but as sure as night follows day, there will be just enough Dems voting with the Republicans to ensure a 100% Republican agenda.

    We haven't done anything about it, and it doesn't look like we will, so get used to single-party government and stop whining about it. You'll only get what you're willing to fight for; if you won't fight, you'' have to settle for what you get.

  32. click1947 Avatar
    click1947

    The jokes show nothing but hatred, vile bigotry, intolerance, violence, inhumanity. Oops, did I just describe the attributes of the teabaggers, the ultra right, the talibanists of the GOP?

  33. joana Avatar

    Earning money has online never been this easy and transparent. You would find great tips on how to make that dream amount every month. So go ahead and click here for more details and open floodgates to your online income. All the best.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *