Under Obama, the Democratic Party has moved further to the right since Reconstruction

[blackascoal]

and we're shocked? Not a bit.

Admitedly, I am a bit shocked by the level of incredible hypocrisy.

 

[Airstrip One]

bac, I thought of you when I saw this Politico headline with Ralph Nader calling Obama a war criminal. Now there were people who attacked Bush from the right just as there are people who attack Obama from left. While it's easy for partisan Republicans and Democrats to dismiss each other I often find it interesting to hear complaints when they come from the same "side".

I'm not posting this because I believe Nader is right I just think it adds a different dynamic to the discussion. Then again if you agree with Nader bac maybe apple will call you a "downer" again because you know, Obama can do no wrong.

http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0912/81649.html

Ironically, Nader is responsible for Bush becoming president.

 

[Haiku]

How can you be when the entire country is being dragged right. I wonder about how these questions are asked because the majority of Americans regardless of affiliation are against these things. Surely we could talk about how the government on all levels is not responding to what the people want. We made it clear to the point of being abused and incarcerated but the media is LOUD and people are strapped and stressed. All of this is acknowledged but I think we need to be clear about where the failure is. Shouting from rooftops and then blaming people for not shouting back won't do a lot of good in my view. Even when people take to the streets it isn't reported. There were WMD's in Iraq right?!?!

We aren't going to be able to undo all the corruption that has been inserted in the system overnight, it will take decades and even then without someone willing to be assassinated I don't see it happening without a lot of turmoil and disruption.

 

[Haiku]

Ironically, Nader is responsible for Bush becoming president.

No he isn't. Gore won the popular vote and the SC chose Bush.

 

[SmarterthanYou]

Admitedly, I am a bit shocked by the level of incredible hypocrisy.

I feel for you brother. sadly, I came to the realization years ago that the majority of major party followers are dyed in the wool hypocrites, willing to vote for their party no matter the level of criminality or atrocity that they commit.

 

[SmarterthanYou]

How can you be when the entire country is being dragged right. I wonder about how these questions are asked because the majority of Americans regardless of affiliation are against these things. Surely we could talk about how the government on all levels is not responding to what the people want. We made it clear to the point of being abused and incarcerated but the media is LOUD and people are strapped and stressed. All of this is acknowledged but I think we need to be clear about where the failure is. Shouting from rooftops and then blaming people for not shouting back won't do a lot of good in my view. Even when people take to the streets it isn't reported. There were WMD's in Iraq right?!?!

We aren't going to be able to undo all the corruption that has been inserted in the system overnight, it will take decades and even then without someone willing to be assassinated I don't see it happening without a lot of turmoil and disruption.

how can the entire country be dragged to the right, if by your claim the majority of americans are against those things?

 

[canceled.2021.1]

Admitedly, I am a bit shocked by the level of incredible hypocrisy.

Why are you shocked? I came to the realization when I watched Bush grow government with the Medicare drug benefit, impose steel tariffs, push for amnesty, bloat the federal bureaucracy an watched supposed conservatives applaud. I watched as he signed McCain/Feingold into law. Unfortunately I didn't fully see the light and voted for him again in 2004. 2008 was a different story. I would have held my nose and voted for McShamnesty solely because of Palin, but it was clear McShamnesty wasn't interested in winning as a conservative so I voted for Calvin Coolidge and I will do so again this year.

But it isn't so much hypocrisy as it is cognitive dissonance. You see both sides have it ingrained into their systems that thier side is good and the other side is bad. The left will twist themselves in knots to defend Obama and Gitmo. They will say "he is only one man" or "this is hard". To do otherwise would force them to admit they made a mistake and that is extremely difficult particularly if you have expended a tremendous amount of emotion on the individual in question. Obama voters have a lot invested in him

 

[Haiku]

If people are asked about the Affordable Healthcare Act using the various parts they like it but if you just ask about Obama care many on the right will say NO even when they like the individual parts. That's just an example.

The country has been pushed right for 40 years...look at our history and tell me it hasn't.

 

[cawacko]

If people are asked about the Affordable Healthcare Act using the various parts they like it but if you just ask about Obama care many on the right will say NO even when they like the individual parts. That's just an example.

The country has been pushed right for 40 years...look at our history and tell me it hasn't.

Does that mean one must either support 100% or be against 100% all major legislation? I don't think it uncommon or unreasonable that individuals may like certain parts of a bill but not like the bill as whole.

 

[Mott the Hoople]

At one time in our history it was republicans who fought for humanity, then it shifted to democrats who fought for humanity. But today, neither of them do. They only fight to win elections.

The Democratic Party has been slipping to the right since Clinton, but Obama has moved the democrats further to the right since the days of Reconstruction when republicans were the good guys.

Today's Democratic Party is pro-war and as callous about human life as they were during the days of slavery. Think Muslims as the slaves.

Today's Democratic Party supports NDAA .. which is far worse than the Patriot Act that many democrats where against when Bush was in office. Far removed from the Democratic Party that fough FOR civil liberties and AGAINST unnecssary government intrusion.

Today's Democratic Party supports the killing of American citizens without trial .. just because a president says to kill them. Light years from what the democratic stand would have been if a republican was in office.

Today's Democratic Party supports the murders of innocent children, women, and men just as callously as any fire-breathing hate-filled right-winger would. I guess they call them collateral damage to ease the spot where their conscience used to be.

Today's Democratic Party has little to nothing to say about how Wall Street buys republican politicians .. and they have just as little to say about bailouts and nobody going to jail for the frauds that the American people paid for with their homes, investments, and pensions.

But that's just the beginning. All signs point to Obama's 2nd term being even further to the right than his first.

War with Iran is almost inevitable. There is no telling how deep that rabbit hole will go, but one things for sure, democrats will fall in line like sheep..

Social Security will be cut .. there will be no talk of restoring the billions that have been stolen from the program. Election will be over, who needs old people?

And this will continue ..

For Romney to get to the right of Obama's foreign policy, he has to go all the way to Looneyville. Obama is to the right of George Bush on foreign policy.

I know, Obama supporters don't want to talk about it and republicans have nothing to grip about because it's what they would do.

It is interesting how in the last 40 years the political land scape in our country has turned almost 180 degrees.

in 1970 Democrats were the far left party of progresives and social welfare state liberals and Republicans were the center right party. Now Republicans are the far right party and Democrats are the center left party.

 

[Mott the Hoople]

Amen!!! Preach on!

The Obama supporters should be angry as hell that they tried to elect a liberal/progressive president and got what they got.

Speak for yourself. I voted for a left leaning centrist and that's what I got. The fact that he's villified as much by the far left as by the far right is proof positive of that.

 

[Mott the Hoople]

LOL! "Did you hear what Clinton said..." He's a lying politician just like Obama is just like Romney is. Is Clinton to be held as some gold standard that is above reproach?

At least bac has principles that don't change based on the letter next to the politicians name.

Sorry Wacko. It's ok to be an ideologue when you're on the sidelines second guessing but rigid ideologues usually make terrible Magistrates (look where W's eschewing pragmatism got him and look where Reagans embracing pragmatism got him.). I'll take a pragmatist any day and that's exactly what Obama is.

 

[Mott the Hoople]

And Democrats lie all the time about Republicans. You either choose not to see it or just ignore it when you do because you support their agenda. Like I said it's a big world out there when you take off the partisan blinders.

However I do understand those who are fed up with the two party system and the constant partisan bitching back and forth while the two parties often act in the exact manner.

It's not the two party system that's responsible for the hyperpartisanship which has become the cancer on our body politics. It's our closed primary system that is responsible for that. It desperately needs to be reformed into an open primary/runoff election system. That way politicians won't have to run from the fringes to get elected.

 

[Mott the Hoople]

Ironically, Nader is responsible for Bush becoming president.

I'd like to think that it was Al Gore running a weak assed and whimpy campaign against an opponent who had holes in his platform you could drive an aircraft carrier through that was responsible for Bush becoming President. Even then Gore still managed to win the popular vote but history never was one of your strong points, was it?

 

[Mott the Hoople]

Does that mean one must either support 100% or be against 100% all major legislation? I don't think it uncommon or unreasonable that individuals may like certain parts of a bill but not like the bill as whole.

That's why crafting legislation gets so ugly. That's the inevitable truth.

 

[blackascoal]

It is interesting how in the last 40 years the political land scape in our country has turned almost 180 degrees.

in 1970 Democrats were the far left party of progresives and social welfare state liberals and Republicans were the center right party. Now Republicans are the far right party and Democrats are the center left party.

I beg to differ a bit.

Needless wars and the NDAA are NOT center-left positions. Obama and todays Democratic Party are center-right.

 

[blackascoal]

I'd like to think that it was Al Gore running a weak assed and whimpy campaign against an opponent who had holes in his platform you could drive an aircraft carrier through that was responsible for Bush becoming President. Even then Gore still managed to win the popular vote but history never was one of your strong points, was it?

Gore couldn't even win his own state.

 

[Mott the Hoople]

I beg to differ a bit.

Needless wars and the NDAA are NOT center-left positions. Obama and todays Democratic Party are center-right.

So the ACA is a center right position? Ending Iraq was a center right position? Bailing out GM/Chrysler was a center right position? I have to question your objectivity here.

 

[Mott the Hoople]

Gore couldn't even win his own state.

I know. Gore was the first Time I ever voted for a Democrat for President. It left a sour taste in my mouth. I think political scientist for years to come will use his campaign as the great example of how to snatch defeat from the jaws of victory in politics.

 

[blackascoal]

So the ACA is a center right position? Ending Iraq was a center right position? Bailing out GM/Chrysler was a center right position? I have to question your objectivity here.

The Status of Forces Agreement ended the Iraq war .. and Obama followed it to the letter. The signature on the Status of Forces Agreement is that of George Bush. You can claim Obama ended the war if you want to .. but it will be your objectivity called into question, not mine.

The ACA could be called a center-left position, but even that was not the position or product that those who voted for Obama expected. They did not expect that the product would benefit health insureres more than it benefitted the American people .. a definate center-right position.

Bailing out GM was the best thing he's done as president in my opinion.

But you left out the NDAA, needless wars for profit, and a host of most definate center-right positions that are Obama.