Serious questions for those who are convinced that Obama, Clinton, and Gore are not liberals.

[Buzz Clik]

1. Can you name any elected officials who are truly liberal?

2. From that very short list, can you name one that could ever be elected president?

3. Does the simple act of negotiation and compromise with the right automatically disqualify any politician from being a "true liberal"?

4. Does the complete failure of the Tea Party and their similar stances about conservatism bother you at all? Are we holding up the Tea Party as role models with the willingness to emulate their failures?

[Scuba]

1. 1. Yes, 2. Yes, 3. No, 4. Huh?

[Buzz Clik]

4. cute, but total fail

[MH1]

7. What is your answer to #2, and do you expect that person to run in 2016? nt

[Scuba]

24. Mine's not a short list, and "ever" is a very long time.

We may see a President Elizabeth Warren or Tammy Baldwin someday. I'd go for Bernie Sanders any day.

[Sekhmets Daughter]

105. Sanders is already 71...

While you and I would go for him, as a self-identified Social Democrat he would have little chance of winning a national election withi the foreseeable future.

[tledford]

191. Actually, Senator Sanders calls himself a "Democratic Socialist." eom

[Sekhmets Daughter]

201. Thanks for the correction.

[bluethruandthru]

153. Bernie is the best!!! I wish we had a hundred of him! n/t

[graham4anything]

166. Elizabeth Warren said EVERYTHING is on the table regarding Iran.oops there goes another

and she is in her perfect job, thanks to Obama.
Were she to run for President, Jeb Bush would Dukakis her from day one.
Without Obama's coattails in this years, she would have lost so it would not be possible

as for the other two, thanks for the entertainment

Bernie speaks up because he is free knowing he ain't ever getting close to the presidency


actually Hillary has it clinched, if not her, our only hope would be if Mike Bloomberg became a democrat again, like he was 90% of his life

[flamingdem]

2. Anyone with a good education is or should be

liberal. The rest are feigning the middle ground to be able to govern or are right wing due to a personality disorder or family influence.

[Buzz Clik]

5. Do you really think you answered any of my questions?

[tledford]

192. Do you really think anyone perceives your questions as anything other than rhetorical? eom

[Buzz Clik]

195. My reply is number 195. Yeah, more than rhetorical.

(Maybe you don't understand the meaning of "rhetorical&quot

[tledford]

199. Oh, I understand what "rhetorical" means and every single response you've made in this thread...

...proves that your OP was never intended as anything other than trolling.

Been on DU since 2005 (don't post much, obviously) and (drum roll) going to use "ignore" for the first time! There are MORE than enough serious posts to read on this forum.

Buh-bye.

[Buzz Clik]

200. 846 posts in 8 years. Awesome.

Gee. I'm about to be ignored.

[Puzzledtraveller]

16. Huh?a good education equates to liberalism?

[Scuba]

26. Conservatism is fed by ignorance. The more one is educated, the more one rejects conservatism.

[AgingAmerican]

101. College educated people tend NOT to vote Republican

Hence the GOPs anti-education stance. A good education definitely makes people swing to the left.

[HiPointDem]

232. actually, people with less education are more likely to vote democrat. college-educated =

dead heat & post-grad goes to democrats.

the real dividing line is income. rich people (who are typically well-educated) vote for republicans. the poor vote for democrats. and the middle class swings both ways kind of idiosyncratically.

http://www.cnn.com/ELECTION/2006/pages/results/states/US/H/00/epolls.0.html

[AgingAmerican]

242. The tendency of people

to be racist or bigoted is inversely proportional to their parents education level. Parents with a secondary education tend to be less racist. Parents with little education tend to be more racist.

Uneducated people tend to vote republican. Once upon a time, the working class tended to vote Democratic along with the academics. Not so anymore.

http://www.wiredtoshare.com/estelles/the_strained_correlation_between_school_and_political_affiliation

Hence the GOPs disdain for higher education.

[HiPointDem]

254. in the last election, people with less education were more likely to vote democratic.

http://seattletimes.com/html/edcetera/2019626817_how-people-voted-for-obama-romney.html

no high school diploma = 64% obama.
high school only = 51% obama.

college grads = 51% romney.

post-grad = 55% obama.

sorry, you're just wrong.

[Skidmore]

190. That response is just outright bigoted.

[Botany]

3. Here is a quote by a famous liberal President

“As Mankind becomes more liberal, they will be more apt to allow that all those who conduct themselves as worthy members of the community are equally entitled to the protections of civil government. I hope ever to see America among the foremost nations of justice and liberality.”

[Buzz Clik]

6. Alrighty then!

[Fumesucker]

8. I see constantly moving to the right as a failure, yes.

The Democrats definitely should not emulate the Tea Party in moving to the right, the Tea Partiers are wrong about *everything*.

[Report1212]

9. Why would anyone think pols behind Nafta and Welfare Reform arent liberals?

That doesn't make them inherently terrible people, but it makes them not liberals obviously.

[Sekhmets Daughter]

102. So it is antithetical to liberalism

to wish to raise the standards of living in nations other than America?

[FredStembottom]

116. It is antithetical to do so....

....in a way which ruins life for millions in this country by implementing the extreme inequality of wealth now seen here, yes.

[Sekhmets Daughter]

141. So it is American liberalism to which you refer....

We would have seen less outsourcing had corporations had to pay more realistic wages to those workers in foreign countries who have taken American jobs. That would have grown the middle classes in those nations and made them capable of buying American made products. That was the premise sold to Reps and Senators by corporate America. Of course, we now know the corporations lied, they had no intention of building a middle class anywhere. I think the problem is less governmental, or even ideological, and more due to unrestrained capitalism. I often wonder how many posting here on DU own iPhones, iPads, or iPods. Or foreign cars. I wonder how many of the older DUers purchased SONY televisions while Zenith was still manufacturing them in the US. In my opinion, the root of the problem is the desire of average Americans to have as many 'things' as possible causing them to always hunt for the lowest price. Corporate America has taken advantage of that and disproportionately advantaged itself by creating ever higher profits and share price. I don't believe anything will change in this country until most Americans just stop buying stuff. That will happen voluntarily or it will eventually become necessary in order to buy food, fuel and clothing.

[FredStembottom]

205. I agree with most of what you said but....

I think buying stuff would power us out of our economic collapse IF our economic borders matched our political borders.

Economies are like steam engines. They require a build-up of internal pressures (supply and demand) to run. We now ship our demand to other countries, puncturing our borders (our steam engine).

There are billions of Chinese.... Why are they selling here instead of to the billions of Chinese? Because it would require raising Chinese workers' wages up enough to allow them to buy their own output. That would spoil the magic profit margin machine. You know, pay the worker a dollar per hour. Charge a "rich" American the usual American price... and pocket the huge difference.*

We need Americans producing for Americans and Chinese producing (and being paid better) for the Chinese.

*a now exhausted process as the attractive wattage of American incomes has now declined so significantly.

[Sekhmets Daughter]

237. This recovery has been so slow

because too few Americans have any real buying power today. After 9/11 Bush told the nation to go shopping...and the nation did. Low interest rates inflated the housing market whose only purpose was to encourage too many homeowners to treat the equity in their homes as disposable income. Whenever you hear someone talking about "poor people buying homes they couldn't afford" , aside from being able to identify a fool, you should respond with "No, too many Americans refinanced their homes too many times. Middle and Upper Middle class people." The tragedy of the housing market is that there are people who lost their homes after 10, 15 and even 20 years of
always paying their mortgage on time. Some stripped so much equity out of their homes that when the bubble burst they went 'underwater' and now have nothing left upon which to fall should they have an emergency, nor is there anything left to help finance retirement. Today on Up w/ Chris Hayes someone expressed concern that in 2013 we will begin to re-inflate the housing bubble. Good Grief.

We have tried the "buying" solution...it failed over the long run. Corporations only respond to decreased profit...nothing else will move them. I don't have much hope that Americans will stop buying until they must. That's really sad and it is going to be really painful.

[Union Scribe]

233. Lol. Yeah that's the goal of globalism.

It's to raise the standards of living for the people. Wow. I can't believe I just read that here.

[Sekhmets Daughter]

238. That's how the idea of globalization was sold.

You can't honestly believe that politicians in the developed countries knew they would be harming their own economies by going down the path of globalization.

However, we were discussing the goals of Liberalism not globalization.

[stevenleser]

260. A lot of people, me included, didnt realize NAFTA would do what it did. Those people were mistaken

but it does not make a statement on their ideology, it just makes them wrong about the decision on that particular issue.

[Bonobo]

10. You need to think about what "self-fulfilling prophecy" means.

All the candidates that are supposedly "non-viable" are only that way because people (such as yourself?) decide that it is so.

It is a trick, played against us. The media is only partially responsible. Part of the blame also lies at our feet.

[Buzz Clik]

13. So ... you have no answers to any of my questions?

[Bonobo]

15. If you want a pet monkey, go to ebay.

I ain't it.

[Buzz Clik]

17. I was asking your opinion.

jeebus.

[Bonobo]

21. Read my response. It is an answer to your push-poll type questions.

Your argument is easy to see. It is that anyone that we can really define as Progessive is also non-viable.

What I am saying is that we need to quit that self-fulfilling prophecy and do the hard work of electing someone that IS progressive and we need to do that by STARTING with giving up on believing that narrative.

[tblue]

34. Good one, Bonobo. They forget Lincoln.

The bar is set so low anymore. It was easier to take on slavery? I can envision Julian Castro or Eliabeth Warren as president. If we stop pushing from the Left, there is only pushing from the Right.

[Buzz Clik]

42. My questions were serious, and I gave full context for them.

Not answering the questions was an option you exercised in a pretty foul fashion.

[liberal_at_heart]

170. by the responses you are giving to people's answers and the attitude in which you are giving them

I would say you are not interested in a serious conversation.

[Buzz Clik]

175. You would be wrong...

... but thanks for adding to the serious conversation.

[tavalon]

208. Full context

Your conclusion was not bolstered by any of your questions. The questions are bait, not truly requests for information.

[Buzz Clik]

213. You have the ability to read my mind?

Bullshit. Over two hundred responses and my request for information was not serious?

You were about 199 posts late for that observation to have any merit.

Care to answer my questions?

[tavalon]

223. The number of responses indicates a strong desire by Duers to show you

the error of your ways.

To believe that to be a sign of the worthiness of your questions is, at best, delusional.

[Buzz Clik]

226. Yet, many thoughtful people gave me serious responses.

But not you.

Yet you continue well after declaring this a waste of time.

I will do us both a favor: you get the last response.

[laundry_queen]

128. Self-fulfilling prophecy is exactly right

I bring this up here every so often - during the 2008 primaries, I was on a non-political board that naturally leaned to the right. Someone posted a quiz that identified the candidate (Democrat or repub) that most closely represented your views. Lo and behold, a sizeable chunk of hardcore conservatives started posting, "Who is Dennis Kucinich? Apparently I match his views." these were people who loved George W. When you go directly for people's views on issues, the US leans left.

You'd never know it by watching cable news, though. IMO the media IS to blame for a lot of it, but also the Democrats for shitty messaging and for standing up for exactly NOTHING. Conservatives are a funny lot - they'll hate you for what you stand for, but they will respect you for standing firm on your views. Unfortunately modern Dems have shit the bed in that regard. Conservatives and the mushy middle will pick a socialist who is PROUD of his views and stands firm, over a wishy-washy moderate every time.

[truebluegreen]

162. Another illustration of this is at the website

politicalcompass.org

You can take a test there (10 minutes) regarding your positions on various issues and then you will be placed on a graph with a left-right economic axis and a top-bottom social axis.

What's fascinating is that EVERY person I've sent there, including some of what I call the Bubbas of the World, found him or herself far to the left, and less authoritarian, of almost all American politicians.

Then, typically, the lefties open their eyes wide, and the righties go into denial.

[Bake]

123. I think he was confused by your username

Even though a bonobo isn't a monkey.



Bake

[tavalon]

207. LOl

That was a great response Bonobo, and anyway everyone knows that Bonobos are far more fun than just any old monkey!

[Scuba]

27. +1

[quaker bill]

231. Not exactly

Some are in fact "non-viable" because they do not possess political skills in sufficient quantity. Interestingly, one measure of political skills is perception or image management, in short having some control over how people perceive them. Successful politicians broadcast an air of competence and confidence, losers don't.

It is not all the media or us, sometimes they just aren't up to the job. Now the media, no doubt, will misquote and create false narratives, and do enjoy bringing a political figure down. There is a large flock of wannabe Woodward and Bernsteins out there. We on the other hand are complicit by being swayed through shoddy journalism and 90 second hit pieces.

The point remains, some candidates are non-vaible because they are non-viable and always were. Some are so non-viable that the media does not even bother to do a hit piece on them.

[Buzz Clik]

11. So far, everyone is missing the idea: ANSWER THE QUESTIONS.

Or, answer just the first question.

It isn't hard.

[Lydia Leftcoast]

39. People ARE answering your questions

They're just not giving you the answers that you're trying to elicit.

I have reasons for recognizing that approach.

[Buzz Clik]

45. LOL! Despite several efforts to derail this conversation, the conversation is happening.

[Marr]

157. I can practically see you sitting on the edge of your seat, getting more and more frustrated as

no one seems interested in grabbing the bait. It's kind of funny.

[Buzz Clik]

161. Your post is #157, and you were responding to post #11.

Did you glance through the rest of the thread? You know, the other ONE HUDRED AND FIFTY FIVE responses?

[Marr]

171. I did! My favorite part was where someone thanked you for admitting that Clinton and Gore

weren't liberals, and you had a short circuit. Thanks!

[Buzz Clik]

182. Ah. You're just fishing for a response.

Thanks for playing.

[tavalon]

209. Your questions aren't relevant to the position you take that Obama, Clinton

and Gore are liberal. Not a one of them.

[Buzz Clik]

211. Sure they are.

I got plenty of excellent responses.

[tavalon]

224. I already spoke to this,

so I refer you to my previous response about your delusional thinking, if it can be called thinking.

[JaneyVee]

12. The number of blue dog Democrats in office is at an all time low.

In fact, the once-powerful Blue Dog Caucus, a coalition of moderate Democrats, will have only 14 members in the new Congress. Most of the Democrats who remain in the House are quite liberal.

http://fivethirtyeight.blogs.nytimes.com/2012/12/21/in-house-of-representatives-an-arithmetic-problem/

[Buzz Clik]

14. That's interesting.

Do you have answers to any of my questions?

[ananda]

18. Well, I think..

.. that Bernie Sanders and Alan Grayson are liberals.

I'm a liberal and proud of it, not a wishywashy progressive.

No, Obama is not close to liberal, but he's less of a righty than the Reeps.

[Buzz Clik]

20. Thank you!

[frazzled]

32. I think you're missing the OP's point

Can you answer the question as to whether Bernie Sanders or Alan Grayson could ever be elected president? If your answer is anything other than an honest "no" you're probably living under quite an illusion, not just as to the ideologies involved but to the personalities and politics as well.

It's easy for someone to cling tenaciously to their ideologies when the stakes are very low: if you're one of 435 or one of 100 whose oppositional vote doesn't matter. For the president, the stakes are always sky high. The president doesn't represent a small district like Grayson or even a small state like Sanders. (S)he is president of all the people, left and right, and of the entire country, which if you've noticed lately, is not of one mind. The president must find solutions to things to keep the country going. That takes a steady hand and a willingness to give up certain things in order to obtain others. And if Bernie Sanders or Alan Grayson were somehow magically to become president, you'd probably be yelling about how they too were wishywashy center right.

The last question had to do with the Tea Party tactics. Are we going to emulate them in the way they cling to their principles and ideologies, to the point that they practically shut the country down? Is "my way or the highway" a liberal stance? Is part of being liberal also being flexible? Or should we all be little Robespierres who believe so strongly in liberty that we're willing to guillotine people right and left for looking less than fanatic? These are serious questions for serious times.

[Marr]

158. Surely you must see what a silly argument that is.

Whether or not Sanders or Grayson in particular are electable on a national ticket is irrelevant. Most politicians aren't electable on a national ticket-- that's why we have primaries.

The Republicans had a collection of potential nominees that were unelectable on the national stage last time around. Do you think that means the GOP is now defunct, and anyone to the right of Obama is unviable? Or does it mean that those particular individuals didn't pass muster for a variety of reasons? I'd say it's very obviously the latter.

[frazzled]

168. If I thought it was silly I obviously wouldn't have made it

I was simply addressing the OP's questions, and also pointing out that the possibilities for Congresspersons or even nongovernmental people are very much different than for a president.

Even Mitt Romney had to etch his sketch and walk away from the positions of his base.

[tavalon]

210. How does electablity of true liberals in any way support the position that Obama, Clinton

and Gore are liberals. They aren't, and never have been. That Dennis Kucinich, Alan Grayson and Bernie Sanders aren't electable doesn't elevate Obama, Clinton and Gore to the status of true liberals. They aren't related. None of the other questions are related either, as far as I can tell.

Obama, Clinton and Gore are not ever going to be seen as true blue liberals, they are third wayers, all. They are also all more left than most Republicans. But they still aren't liberal.

I would be far more amenable to the question and answer game if it weren't a push poll. I don't have much interest in those.

[ywcachieve]

77. President Obama is doing what a great leader must do.

President Obama is NOT a rightie. Just because he negotiates and compromises, does not make him a rightie. It means he is a great leader.

[marew]

178. Exactly! n/t

[Puzzledtraveller]

19. Bernie Sanders, Kucinich

that's all, the rest say what they need to get elected. IMO

[Buzz Clik]

23. Thanks. A follow-up

Is compromise at the national level a bad thing? Considering that only a small fraction of the population is liberal, shouldn't liberals in Congress or the president be willing to compromise for the sake of progress?

Also, true liberals are generally elected in left strongholds. In these areas, is not a liberal stance "saying what needs to be said to get elected?"

[Scuba]

30. "Considering that only a small fraction of the population is liberal..." equals "fail".

Where did you get such an idea? Poll after poll shows Americans are aligned with "liberal" values.

[Buzz Clik]

49. If Bill Clinton, Al Gore, and Obama are NOT liberals, then very few Americans ...

... line up with liberal values.

It's funny -- I post a lot on discussion boards with conservatives. The political right is convinced that Clinton's left wing politics were destructive to the country and Obama is a full-on socialist. I get to DU to find that Obama is not even a liberal. So, question then becomes, "Okay, if Obama is not a liberal, then who is?"

About half the answers to my questions (yours included!) are just fine, but the other half are evasive or just plain nasty.

[sulphurdunn]

139. The problem with your questions

is the implied assumption that a two party political duopoly actually requires two fundamentally different parties, that terms like liberal and conservative are static and that a liberal cannot be elected President because of liberalism. All of these positions are essentially correct. The closest experience this country has ever had with a liberal government was during the 30s and only then to save capitalism from itself. Capitalism is conservative by definition and law. Capitalism is governing theory behind the status quo. It controls the nations finances, means of production, mass communication and governance. Therefore, a nation owned by capitalist's is unlikely to every have the opportunity to elect a liberal president, regardless of how liberal or conservative the populace is. My objection to your position is with the notion that, the status quo being what it is, there is anything much for Obama to negotiate about.

[tavalon]

216. "I post a lot on discussion boards with conservatives."

It shows.

We have a higher standard of debate here. We can see the strawman argument easily. You're making it.

Obama is neither a socialist nor a liberal. Would that he were either.

Most Americans, when not given a party designation, actually lean left. Many lean less left than I do, but they still lean left

[Chathamization]

250. Don't confuse rhetoric and tribalism

with policy. Cuts to Medicare were almost universally used as negative attacks during 2012, but the current debate between the parties is over how much to cut it (and Social Security). Sure, there are plenty of conservatives that cry "socialism" when they talk about the ACA, but how many were doing that twenty years ago when the Heritage foundation was pushing a similar reform? The fact that "socialist", "communist", and "far-left" are the pejoratives of choice used by some to attack anything the Democrats try to push, and the fact that such terms stick, doesn't mean that there are very few people who are liberal when it comes to policy.

[Lydia Leftcoast]

35. Compromising does NOT mean proposing only what you imagine your opponent will accept

which is what Obama does and what the Dems have been doing for thirty years.

For example, we were told that single-payer was off the table because the Republicanites and the Blue Dogs would not accept it. Yet by not starting with that, we ended up with what was essentially a Heritage Foundation program (which the R's put on a show of opposing for their followers) with no public option. Furthermore, although the Progressive Caucus outnumbers the Blue Dogs, the Blue Dogs were pampered and catered too and the Progressives forced to submit to them. We were told that single payer and public option were impossible because the insurance companies would not accept them. Helloooo, companies are supposed to be subject to the laws of the land, not to dictate them.

That the Dems met with the insurance companies to see what they would accept is absurd: it's literally like something out of the old British political satire series Yes, Prime Minister.

Compromise means starting with more than you think you can get and ending up with something close to what you really want.

Obama was just off an election campaign that attracted the most enthusiastic volunteers I've seen since the days of McGovern. If he had said, "I want you to go into your communities and campaign for single payer armed with these fact sheets and also to pressure your House and Senate members," many would have.

I have come to the conclusion that the Heritage Foundation/Romney plan was Obama's original intention, a corporate welfare program for the insurance companies with a few sweeteners to make the medicine go down.

I voted for him because he was somewhat better than Romney, but I do not trust him to do the right thing by ordinary Americans.

[forestpath]

36. +1

[leftstreet]

43. +1

[djean111]

52. +1

[Buzz Clik]

53. Health care is a perfect example to use.

If Obama had started with single payer, would we have gotten single payer? No. His starting point did not influence the ending point at all, despite our frustrations with the process and final product. Yes, I hate the end result, but the blame lies with the Dems in Congress, not Obama.

If Obama is TRULY a conservative as so many believe, would he have introduced the health care initiative at all? Of course not.

So, back to my question: if Obama is NOT a liberal, then who is?

You definitely answered my question: compromise with those to the right (including other Dems) disqualified Obama from being liberal.

I find that stance to be stunning.

[leftstreet]

69. Obamacare was orginally introduced by conservatives

Bush, McCain, Romney...their plans were pretty much the same as Obama's. Private insurers, mandated payments.

[Lydia Leftcoast]

75. Republicans first proposed compulsory private insurance in the 1980s

which is why their opposition was just theater. If McCain had won and had proposed it, they would have considered the exact same program to be a triumph for conservative principles.

[Lydia Leftcoast]

72. You put words in my mouth, and I resent that

That is a right-wing argumentation tactic that has no place on this board.

I never said that compromising per se disqualifies a person from being a liberal.

I said that compromising by STARTING from what you imagine to be your opponent's position makes one either weak or suspect.

As for who is a liberal, I'd point to the Progressive Caucus, not that they get any support from the Dem leadership, even though they submitted single payer and balanced budget bills. In fact, they are so disrespected by the Dem leadership that I marvel at their willingness to stay in Washington.

I have to be somewhere in twenty minutes, so I'm done for now.

[Buzz Clik]

81. That was not my intent. Sorry.

[tavalon]

217. Obama stole his healthcare plan from Romney

I'm stunned that so many people don't realize that.

[ProfessorGAC]

67. Actually Lydia, That Seems To Be ALL Compromise

It's not a particularly impressive negotiating tactic, because there is no win-win. Seems to me that only by proposing what you know your opponent will accept, you've compromised everything, including principle.

So, compromise does mean going in already willing to lose something. And, if you're going in with only ideas that won't get rejected, that has to still be compromise. IT's also fealty.
GAC

[Poll_Blind]

79. +1

PB

[leveymg]

138. +1

On this issue, Obama is a center-right Democrat which is little different from a moderate Republican (if such a thing still exists). The corporate HRC plan we got is the bare minimum of cost to employers, and the bare minimum of coverage, which is precisely why Wall Street views him as effective and backs him on this and most social welfare issues.

[Nay]

140. Amen to that. nt

[Puzzledtraveller]

38. My personal experience is something like this.

I was at one point quite conservative, only by contrast to what we think liberal is or means. It was a few years ago that I got a job as a caseworker for SNAP and Medicaid. It became clear that the issues both conservatives and liberals bicker about are far more complicated than most people know. So my perspective changed, thus my attitudes. It really has made me very much like what we criticize those elected officials who we thought were "liberal", or on the other end those that they thought were "conservative" which is essentially moderate in practice, precisely because there is no easy answers to our problems.

Compromis is not only enevitable but critical to progress. It is why I jumped the fence as I saw the tea party as being intractable and rigid unwilling to compromise for the greater good. IMO.

[Buzz Clik]

54. Fantastic answer.

It is easy to stand on the sidelines and demand that lines be drawn in the sand.

+1!!

[Scuba]

58. You didn't "jump the fence". You stayed where you were while the TeaParty went further right.

That does not make your positions "leftist".

[tavalon]

212. Considering that only a fraction of the population is liberal?

Discussion over. That consideration isn't actually correct. So, therefore, this is a silly game you're playing. And still, none of your questions elicit a response that makes Obama, Clinton and Gore liberal so I really don't see the point you're making.

[Buzz Clik]

218. Discussion over.

There were nearly 200 responses after I made my comment.



If you really give a damn about my intent, just finish reading the sub thread.

[Tarheel_Dem]

259. Isn't that the first duty of any politician? Getting elected?

[Paulie]

22. Here

1. Bernie Sanders

2. The late Paul Wellstone

3. Depends on the topic. Though with the crazy that infects the GOP, there isn't much you can compromise with when they start with the premise of scorched earth regarding anything about the commons and social safety nets.

4. The tea party didn't fail. It was an AstroTurf organization by the GOP from the beginning to cause a radical disruption. And they were/are quite successful still, sadly.

[Buzz Clik]

28. Thanks. However,...

Do you really think Wellstone was truly electable?

The Tea Party is seeing some success in strong, rightwing districts/states in getting their candidates in place, but they are failures when it comes to leadership because they refuse to compromise.

[Lydia Leftcoast]

37. Yes, as a Minnesotan, I can attest to his being popular among at least two groups of people

who don't normally vote Democratic, even in Minnesota: farmers and the VFW.

Even people who didn't vote for him respected his integrity, especially for his refusal to cave into political pressure to vote for the Iraq War. I was living in Oregon at the time (although I visited MN frequently), and in the days following the crash, nearly everyone I knew who knew that I was from Minnesota told me that they had cried when they heard of his death.

If he had not died, he would have been at least popular enough to run in the primaries. However, he had been diagnosed with multiple sclerosis and might not have been up to a national campaign for reasons of health.

[Paulie]

40. Without a doubt he could have won.

The tea party compromises; Their way or the highway. You can't meet half way with them because half way is death and despair. So you think it's fine to meet them half way?

You are missed Paul!!!

[tavalon]

221. He was electable, just as Howard Dean was,

and that is why one was killed outright and one was killed metaphorically.

[Buzz Clik]

227. Oh shit!

Well stone was murdered? Holy crapoli. And you call me delusional???!!!

Look. Just say what you are gonna say. I have no more patience for this.

[Enrique]

25. I was told on DU that a black man can't become president

"I love Obama, but America is not ready" etc.

As to who is a liberal, Russ Feingold (whom I've also been told on DU can't win because he's Jewish).

[Buzz Clik]

29. Well, stupid comments are no stranger to DU.

Last edited Fri Dec 28, 2012, 12:31 PM - Edit history (1)

Feingold would be an excellent candidate.

[G_j]

31. "the Tea Party and their similar stances"??

go away..

[Buzz Clik]

41. Way to avoid the context of my comment.

I am not going away.

You might try some Dramamine for that nausea.

[G_j]

100. your "context" is a worn out "meme"

unworthy of serious discussion..and the quote I posted demonstrates that. Sorry .. I have heard that enough times in the last few years to really. I think it is insulting.

[Buzz Clik]

111. Gratefully, a few people thought otherwise.

There were some decent comments on this thread.

Yours excluded.

[forestpath]

33. Your comparing liberals with the Tea Party is too offensive to bother answering your "questions."

[Buzz Clik]

44. That's a cop out.

I brought up the Tea Party in the fourth question. You have no answers to the first three?

I am convinced that the uncompromising, hard core left wingers recognize that their positions are untenable. And, when confronted with hard questions, they duck and run or become aggressive.

Fortunately, there are some who are willing to discuss this, so your absence from the conversation will go unnoticed.

[Puzzledtraveller]

48. This is true as I related in my post above

I'm a casework for SNAP and Medicaid and I can tell you, if you are liberal, conservative, whatever, the problems we face are very complicated and require real solutions that WILL upset liberals and conservatives alike. Bank on it.

[Fumesucker]

50. It's clear you wish to move the Overton Window to the right

The far right will never stop pushing for what they want, loudly, obstreperously and continuously, by any means possible.

Now you want the left to shut the fuck up and go away and leave the pragmatic moderate centrists to negotiate with the crazy right free of all leftward pressure.

The inevitable result of this is for the political conversation to move to the right.

I'm not going to insult your intelligence by assuming you don't know this blatantly obvious fact, that really leaves only one conclusion.

[forestpath]

56. Your first 3 questions were laughably disingenuous.

You aren't interested in "discussing" anything, merely smearing liberals.

[Buzz Clik]

61. All four questions were dead serious.

Very few posters here had the stones to give an honest response. The rest were ugly, silly, or evasive.

Why do you suppose that is so?

[Ichingcarpenter]

47. He's upset about the Tom Tomorrow tune I posted

Where I discussed his toons back in the 90's

Anyway

Obama said himself he would be viewed as a moderate republican


Clinton was a Southern moderate and right of the democratic field he ran against.

I worked for Jerry Brown and then Clinton in the second election

To compare liberals to tea party was the most disgusting post I've seen from him in a while.

[Buzz Clik]

59. The Tom Tomorrow cartoon was outstanding. The reactions to it were stupid.

[Ichingcarpenter]

98. you lied

you didn't nominate the toon you disparaged it in the thread

Whatever
you and I know where we stand on what liberal is
and I don't compromise on bullshit.

[Buzz Clik]

108. One should never compromise when all one has to offer is bullshit.

[Union Scribe]

234. +1 I'm more than tired of that bullshit

I guess it's Shit on Liberal Values season again.

[99Forever]

46. Your bucket.

1. Can you name any elected officials who are truly liberal?

Yes. I can also name a bunch of spineless, capitulating and almost worthless DINOs.

2. From that very short list, can you name one that could ever be elected president?

Who the fuck said my list was short? What an idiotic, presupposing, loaded POS question.

3. Does the simple act of negotiation and compromise with the right automatically disqualify any politician from being a "true liberal"?

No. Caving before the "negotiations" have even started does. Do you have even the remotest clue as to what has happened to this Nation in the last three decades?

4. Does the complete failure of the Tea Party and their similar stances about conservatism bother you at all? Are we holding up the Tea Party as role models with the willingness to emulate their failures?

Who the fuck is this "we" you spew about?


Nice industrial sized bucket of fail you have there.

[Buzz Clik]

57. LOL!

You certainly will never get back the 10 seconds you wasted on that reply.

[99Forever]

65. Nor the 30 seconds...

.. I wasted reading your drivel.

[Buzz Clik]

68. But you replied anyway. Why is that?

[99Forever]

78. Why shouldn't I?

Just looking for sheeple to agree with your spin or what?

[Buzz Clik]

82. Good point. We should always blame other people for the time we waste.

[99Forever]

92. You seem well versed in ...

.. and invested in using the tactics of the Teabaggers. Why is that?

[leftstreet]

51. Thank you for admitting Obama, Clinton, Gore aren't liberals

The DLCThirdWay is much like the Tea Party. Both are elements within the parties that convince the media they represent the interests of voters. But they don't.

[Buzz Clik]

55. You misread my question.

Or, you're just being a pain.

Either way, I finally got some answers from some thinking posters.

Thanks for playing.

[leftstreet]

63. No. Your OP assumes they aren't liberals

then you ask that we name some actual liberals, and wonder could they even get elected, etc

[Buzz Clik]

70. You missed the point entirely.

There are many threads lately dedicated to pounding Clinton for NAFTA, puking on Gore, and blaming Obama's betrayal of the liberals for the mess we're in (you choose the mess, there's a thread). They all agree that Obama, Clinton, and Gore are not liberals. I disagree.

My question is: IF Clinton, Obama, and Gore are not liberals, then who is?

That's the premise.

[leftstreet]

80. No I didn't

If you disagree with people who claim Obama, Clinton and Gore are not liberals...start an OP to qualify your statements. Tell us why you think they are liberals.

You directed your OP at those who think O/C/G aren't liberals, then asked who the liberals are instead, and could a liberal get elected, etc?

[Buzz Clik]

84. Jesus effin' Christ. I'm not going where you're going.

What the fuck???!!!!

[leftstreet]

91. Temper, temper

Why not start an OP supporting your position - that Obama, Clinton, and Gore are liberals.

It could be informative

[Ichingcarpenter]

135. you won't read it from him

he thinks the old right is the new left and wants us to compromise to far right.

[Buzz Clik]

181. Not used to being challenged?

It's okay. It happens.

However, your choice to hang around here and piss on the thread and go all passive aggressive on me is telling.

[tledford]

197. Dingdingdingdingding, give the man a cigar, we have a winner! eom

[Buzz Clik]

180. My question was a serious one for those who do not think they are liberals.

It's a legit question for the dozens of threads and thread authors who feel that Gore, Clinton, and Obama are not liberals. Knowing who people consider to be liberals gives a point of comparison.

I honestly don't understand your problem with my approach.

[Marr]

160. Excellent point.

The scrambling insistence that "that wasn't what I said" from the OP is pretty funny, too.

[leveymg]

60. Depends. That list includes conservative neoliberals, liberal neoliberals, liberal neoconservatives

Last edited Fri Dec 28, 2012, 02:26 PM - Edit history (1)

Answers:

1. What the hell is "truly liberal"? Is that the same as "progressive"?

2. Huh? All three were elected President.

3. Negotiation is not compromise. Compromise is compromise.

4. The Tea Party and the GOP Right-wing have succeeded splendidly in obstructing passage of any truly liberal legislation in the last 4 years, and the last 28 years, for that matter.

You have to define your terms or there is no real communication.

[Buzz Clik]

64. So, you believe that Obama, Gore, and Clinton are liberals.

You and I are on the same page.

However, if one negotiates with no room for compromise, then one is not negotiating at all.

The Tea Party has proved that they have no leadership capabilities at all. That was my point.

[leveymg]

121. I don't think we agree on the terms we're using here, so it's hard to agree on your conclusions

Yes, they are all varieties of "liberals" as that term is used loosely in the U.S. All have held positions that were considered progressive at the time, but none are progressives on most issues. Liberals -- some being quite conservative -- differ from progressives, and the two groups are not always allies. I am more of a progressive but am in some ways a liberal.

One can negotiate, but should avoid compromise of principles.

The "Teas" (the GOP Right) have been highly effective at obstructing most liberal and progressive legislation -- and often work with Center-Right Democrats to block progressive reform -- and have been for a long time.

[ywcachieve]

62. Great leaders may have to negotiate and compromise at times.

'''Does the simple act of negotiation and compromise with the right automatically disqualify any politician from being a "true liberal"? ''''

In the progressive mind, they don't understand the need for a great leader to negotiate and/or compromise at times. Otherwise we will have a dictatorship.

[Buzz Clik]

71. +1

Thanks.

[coalition_unwilling]

66. 1: Elizabeth Warren and Bernie Sanders (at the Senatorial level). 2: Elizabeth

Warren and Bernie Sanders. 3: Define 'true liberal'. Do you mean in the classic 19th-century sense of the term or in the post-1933 sense of the term. Today, we use the word 'progressive' as a substitute for the dreaded "L-word" (which inexplicably became a perjorative during the reign of Reagan). The act of negotiation with the right does not automatically disqualify any politician from being a 'progressive.' 4. The 'complete failure' of the Tea Party? Hunh? See the results of the 2010 mid-terms.

[Buzz Clik]

74. 3. Clearly I have no idea what a liberal is because I think Gore, Clinton, and Obama are liberals.

4. The Tea Party are failures at leadership. They elect some candidates, hold them to single ideals with no room for compromise, and then wonder why this leadership approach fails miserably.

[coalition_unwilling]

93. You can use the 'liberal' label all you want, but if you fail to define your terms you're

engaged in a fairly mindless pursuit.

You are certainly not going to maintain that Welfare Reform NAFTA Clinton was a 'Progressive,' are you?

[Buzz Clik]

127. I'm not?

NAFTA was an economic reality, as is globalization.

Welfare needs further reform.

[coalition_unwilling]

176. OK, I just wanted to be clear. You consider Clinton a 'progressive'. You are

probably one of the few DUers here who maintains that position with a straight face.

[Buzz Clik]

184. You haven't read this thread.

Roughly 1/3 of those posting agree with me.

And, quite frankly, being in the minority at DU about the latest hysterical wave of faux angst is a comfortable place for me to be.

[coalition_unwilling]

185. If 1/3 of this thread agree with you that Clinton was a 'progressive,' then that provides

ample proof of Pope's aphorism that "a little bit of knowledge is a dangerous thing."

If Clinton was a progressive, I suppose that makes Rev. Jesse Jackson a flaming Marxist revolutionary in your political taxonomy. But have at it and don't let me rain on your parade.

[Buzz Clik]

187. Oh, don't stop now! Please bestow more knowledge on us!

Simply being in your presence puts me in awe, and sharing your political genius with stupid people like me is incredible!

[hfojvt]

73. it depends on what the definition of "negotiate" is

When I look at negotiation, I would expect one side to take one position and the other side to take another.

Let's look at the example of Government spending.

In simplest terms, the traditional liberal position has been "tax and spend". Tax from the rich and spend on the poor.

The Republican position has been the opposite. Cut spending on the poor and give tax cuts to the rich.

Now Clinton, for example, as OUR champion in these negotiations should be expected to get as much for our side as he can. As much in taxes and as much in spending.

Yet, Clinton begins the negotiations by publicly taking the other side. He campaigns on the idea of a "middle class tax cut", basically taking the Republican side of the debate. Suddenly our position is weakened when "everybody" agrees that tax cuts are good and tax increases are bad. Clinton attacked Bush Sr. for increasing taxes. But increasing taxes was what the Democratic Party supposedly wanted him to do.

Clinton also begins the negotiations by giving a speech to a national audience where he once again declares "Republicans are right". Is that somehow negotiating for OUR side? Does he strengthen our position by declaring "the era of big government is over".

Because that does not look like negotiating to me - it looks more like capitulating.

Our supposed leader, turned around and used the bully pulpit AGAINST his own team.

[font=32]
WHAT THE FUCK?? [/font]

[Buzz Clik]

76. Why do you suppose that the right despises Clinton in spite of his conservative views?

Why do they consider Obama a socialist despite the abomination of a health care bill that passed Congress and he signed? Are they just kidding?

[hfojvt]

97. what difference does that make?

They don't trust his fiscal responsibility any more than I trusted Bush's "compassionate conservatism". The RWNM demonizes even conservadems as a way to move the conversation even further to the right.

Besides that, there were social issues. Clinton was economically conservative - capital gains tax cuts, NAFTA, welfare "reform" but he was socially liberal - he was pro choice and pro GLBT.

But it was Clinton who helped to throw the bottom 80% under the bus. So now we have a socially liberal party that serves the top 20% versus as socially conservative party that serves the top 5%. And the media controlled by the wealthy loves to stir the people up about the social issues. It allows them to keep ignoring and exploiting the bottom 80%.

[Buzz Clik]

115. It does not matter. I form my own opinions independent of the entrenched right or left.

I liked Clinton, still do. Ditto Obama.

meh.

[hfojvt]

126. ah, so I am entrenched

because unlike Clinton and Obama, I am not willing to say "Republican economic policies are best". (That is - "tax cuts are good" and "social programs need to be cut&quot .

I claimed that

1. a liberal would not say that
2. saying that is not "compromising"

You claimed that, in spite of this, the fact that the RWNM hated Clinton, proves that he was a liberal.

I grant that he is a liberal on some social issues, although he caved on both DOMA and partial birth abortion IIRC, but he is not a liberal on the economic issues that I care about.

I had that opinion long before I read Dean Baker http://www.commondreams.org/view/2012/12/26-0

"Rubin and his allies control the Democratic Party with their money at the moment. Their financial power will not be easily overcome. However, it is important that people understand that the Rubin-Clinton team is every bit as much about redistributing money from the rest of us to the very rich as the Republicans."

[janx]

94. You are operating under the either/or fallacy, or false dichotomy:

one rigid position versus another rigid position. It doesn't work that way. In order to negotiate, you need to realize that in the real world, there are more than two sides to anything, that there are gradations and perspectives and solutions. This is basic logic. No wonder you are confused.

[hfojvt]

99. ah, sure, I am confused

tax cuts for the rich really do help us all.

And embracing the Republican frame is really a way to defeat the Republican frame.

[janx]

106. Where are you getting that information?

I'm just pointing out that your either/or viewpoint is not how government works, unless we're operating under a dictatorship.

[hfojvt]

142. we are supposed to be talking about politics

and I am not using an either/or viewpoint.

That is just your spurious defense of Clinton, to label my viewpoint as either/or.

Presumably the idea of compromise does involve some sort of Our side/their side dichotomy.

What I said is that there is nothing in "compromise" that requires the supposed leader of our side to spend much of his time saying "their side is right".

[Buzz Clik]

109. +1

[whatchamacallit]

83. Yay, championing capitulation and mediocrity!

"Realists"

[Buzz Clik]

86. Ok. Let's start there.

Is no health care better than Obamacare?

[Scuba]

169. No, but Medicare for All would be way better.

So as a leftist, I argue that we should begin the negotiations at that point, and only compromise if/when the right offers something equally valuable.

[dmosh42]

85. I would say that LBJ, Truman & FDR were the last left-leaning presidents....

Bernie Sanders is probably one of the few tuly liberal pols today. We can only try to elect whoever is closest to our hopes, or in Obama's case, the lesser of two evils. My opinion and not something I picked up from the media.

[Buzz Clik]

87. Not even Carter?

[aandegoons]

88. Not sure you will get what you are looking for here.

1. False dichotomy: even if no one can name any elected officials who are truly liberal it does not mean that any you listed are liberal.
2. Who cares? again a False dichotomy
3. No but that in itself does not prove Obama and the rest are Liberals. I would guess they would not even class themselves as Liberals.
4. Conservatism is wrong end of story.

Comparing liberal ideology with conservative ideology just to de-legitimize it is conservative misdirection at it's core. The failure of Tea Party is due to it's often crazy and needed misconception of reality. That and it's core lack of moral direction. The early success is fully a creation of the money and media push of it's puppet masters.

We know for a fact that Liberalism works and works well. It is the most successful ideology the world has, and continues it's success even in the face of the extreme money and media we are all bombarded by. All the most liberal countries in the world are the most peaceful and rewarding places to live. They have health care, vacation, low crime, and very few wars, among other benefits we in this country should strive for. Yes they are not perfect but damn comparing a successful and rewarding life to a made up and crazy group who have no clue what they stand for is wrong.

And that just so you can label what would easily have passed for republicans years ago as liberals is misdirected anger. If the folks you have listed stand for those things which you approve of then stand up be strong and say I believe in them. If you need to label them as something they are not maybe you should push them to be more ..... um should I say it?

Liberal.

[Buzz Clik]

90. sigh.

Rather than answer the questions, you argue against my motivations.

[PETRUS]

95. Neoliberals = liberals, social democrats = liberals, but neoliberals =/= socials democrats.

The people want social democracy, the money wants neoliberalism, and here we are.

[AgingAmerican]

104. Neoliberalism is an economic system

Economic liberalism is right wing privatization. When you get outside the US political system, words like 'liberalism' have a more literal meaning. The Republicans push neoliberal economic liberalism.

"Neoliberalism refers to economic liberalizations, free trade and open markets, privatization, deregulation, and increasing the role of the private sector in modern society. Today the term is mostly used as a general condemnation of policies that deregulate and increase the role of the private sector."

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Neoliberalism

[PETRUS]

122. Yes, and I think that's where the dispute lies.

Lots of DU posters are unhappy with neoliberalism and see it in Clinton and Obama's economics.

I took the OP's question #3 to be a reference to "fiscal cliff" negotiations and the ensuing debate on DU over macroeconomic policy and the politics involved.

[wyldwolf]

96. I'll give this a stab

1. Can you name any elected officials who are truly liberal?

Based on netroots/progressive standards, only a handful.

2. From that very short list, can you name one that could ever be elected president?

Nope.

3. Does the simple act of negotiation and compromise with the right automatically disqualify any politician from being a "true liberal"?

Based on netroots/progressive standards, yes.

4. Does the complete failure of the Tea Party and their similar stances about conservatism bother you at all? Are we holding up the Tea Party as role models with the willingness to emulate their failures?

Don't be silly. The purist left could never organize the way the Tea Party has.

[janx]

103. Whoa!!

[Buzz Clik]

107. +1/2. That is a damned fine answer.

Minor deductions for lack of specifics.

[AgingAmerican]

110. Given your post

I don't think you have a very good grasp of what "liberal" is.

Liberalism is mainstream, to the immediate left of centrist. A lot of people believe it is some sort of extreme. That is because the party has lurched so far to the right over the last few years.

[wyldwolf]

112. given your post

you didn't read my post. I gave a very specific caveat of "Based on netroots/progressive standards" for my answers. "Netroots/progressive standards" are in no way indicative of what mainstream is.

[AgingAmerican]

204. The word "Purist"

is a third way dog whistle for "extreme left".

[wyldwolf]

236. What dictionary did you pull THAT out of? LOL

People have used that word way
Before the Third Way - to describe extreme left AND right ....

[AgingAmerican]

243. It's called "Dog whistle politics"

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dog-whistle_politics

[wyldwolf]

253. And you assigned 'purist' as one to fit your needs

Purist. PURist. puRIST. Hey, no third wayers are running towards me.

[Puzzledtraveller]

114. "Don't be silly. The purist left could never organize the way the Tea Party has."

[99Forever]

118. Oh lookie...

... the OP has a fellow insult artist carrying water for it.

Isn't that special!

[wyldwolf]

120. oh lookie...

with nothing of value to add, you give a 5th grade response.

[99Forever]

130. Nothing of value..

.. to respond to.

Derp.

[wyldwolf]

131. Plenty.

But you know you can't.

[Buzz Clik]

129. There were insults in the OP?

Care to elaborate?

[wyldwolf]

132. I'll elaborate

He was responding to me because I correctly pointed out the netroots/progressives have different standards they apply to politics than the rest of us. That insulted him.

[msongs]

113. as for your "loaded" questions, #2 - few thought obama was electable til he ran nt

[Buzz Clik]

117. Agreed. Those of us who worked our asses off for Obama were pleasantly surprised.

He was the answer to the question: Name a black man who can be elected president. We made it happen.

It seems that very few posters on this thread have an answer to my question, though Warren and Sanders have been tossed out as possibilities. I'd work for them, too.

[coalition_unwilling]

119. I stopped at Sanders and Warren so as not to make a long list. There are some

wonderful progressives in the House. My current rep, Karen Bass, is one of them. She's redistricted out as of Jan 1 and will be replaced by Maxine Waters, another fine progressive.

I doubt either of these could win the presidential nomination, although both Bass and Waters would make fine presidential material. I'd probably work more enthusiastically for either of them than I did for Obama in 2008 (donated and volunteered) and certainly more than I did for Obama in 2012, when I confined my efforts to posting here and on Daily Kos.

[thesquanderer]

124. I'd add Russ Feingold (n/t)

[coalition_unwilling]

174. Feingold might just be the strongest of all the possibilities, although he

technically no longer satisfies the OP's criteria, having lost his seat in 2010. I salivate at the thought of a Feingold\Warren or Feingold\Sanders ticket.

[nolabels]

136. I have relatives from Kentucky who hate him

The reason they hate him is because he is black, and no other reason that i can figure out. I personally don't see color or race in people, i just see them as people. I often forget many people see the skin before they attempt to see anything else. I mostly see him as The President of the United States. I too would have liked to worked my ass off for him but my job was already working mine off for me at the time. I did give what money i could but at any rate would like to thank you for your 'working your ass off' effort from at least me.

Good liberal and or progressive presidents are not born, raised or trained to be that way, they just appear from the darkness when a good person is elected to the office. Yea, we may have to even push them a little but they will eventually get it

[RevStPatrick]

125. They are all Corporatists.

During the 2000 election fight, I was telling people that it was a struggle between Global Corporate Fascism and Global Corporate Socialism. I don't like either, but given those choices, I will take Global Corporate Socialism. In 2000, the Global Corporate Fascists won, because they steal things, like elections. They weren't able to steal the last two, but not for lack of trying.

That struggle has not gone away one bit. Obama is a Global Corporate Socialist.
I don't think there are any "true liberals" out there any more at the national level, and if so, they certainly could never get elected president of this country. Not without the backing of the Global Corporatists.

[MotherPetrie]

133. ROFL

[Buzz Clik]

137. wink wink nudge nudge

[CitizenK9]

134. Well, what is "truly liberal"?

I didn't read the whole thread, which wanders, but to put liberal and conservative on a single scale, like weight, is a gross oversimplification. If everyone likes liberty, then they mustn't they be liberal to some degree? Neoliberals presumably count. Since we know some conservatives lie, can we believe that people who call themselves conservatives are really conservatives (e.g., fiscal ones)?

[NCTraveler]

143. 1) Obama the campaigner

2) He was elected President
3) No. But a democrat speaking about cutting SS benefits does disqualify a person from being a liberal.
4) What?

[Buzz Clik]

145. Obama the campaigner, but not the real person. Then who?

[NCTraveler]

146. Every time someone answers your questions in this thread....

You simply ask another question. Every time. If you are not getting what you want, maybe you did it wrong.

[Buzz Clik]

151. But you did not answer the question.

You clearly believe that Obama the campaigner talks like a liberal but Obama the president doesn't act like one. So, if the REAL Obama is not a liberal, then you really didn't answer my question.

If you cannot think of any liberals in national office, that's fine. Just say so.

[LWolf]

144. Okay.

1. Yes: Bernie Sanders, DK, Grayson, my own senator Merkley...there are a few more in the house.

2. Yes. Any of them with the full support of the Democratic Party and Democratic voters could be elected. It doesn't happen because the party and too many Democrats are NOT liberal, and because the corporate masters that the party and their "major" candidates suck up to don't play with liberals.

3. Yes, if you buy into the current spin on negotiation and compromise, which seems to simply mean that elected Democrats throw out some sound and fury, then throw in the towel, compromise their integrity, and help move the party another few steps to the right.

4. No. No. I consider the neoliberal/dlc/corporatist/3rd way/"new dem"/centrists to be the Democratic equivalent of the Tea Party, and they are thriving.

[Dirty Socialist]

147. They are social liberals

And moderate on other issues, IMO.

[Buzz Clik]

148. I would agree.

Do you have any response to my questions?

No biggie if you do not...

[SomethingFishy]

149. DU is the wrong place to ask this question

as it is against the rules to advocate for anyone other than Democrats. And if you think Democrats are the "liberal" party then you haven't been paying attention. They are more liberal than the Republicans sure, but "liberal"? Naw..

[Buzz Clik]

152. You believe that no Democrats are liberal.

And I'm in the wrong place?

[AgainsttheCrown]

150. You really expect the establishment to be liberal?

The relationship between the left and the Democratic party (establishment liberals) is different than the relationship between the right and the Republican party because the establishment generally seeks to maintain the status quo or incrementally change it and liberalism seeks to radically change it.

I think when people get incensed by a Chris Hedges critique of Democrats they miss the part where he explains that the Democrats are the liberal establishment and supposed to function as a safety valve and implement piecemeal reforms.

One of his major issues is that he believes that the situation has become so dire that the piecemeal reforms that they are now advocating are woefully inadequate for the times we live in.

So the question is not are they liberal...but how liberal are they...

Now I'll answer your questions

1. The Progressive Caucus, much of the Cong. Black Caucus, and Bernie Sanders are more liberal than Obama. E

2. I don't think Barack Obama is the most liberal politician that could have been elected. I think Russ Feingold (formerly elected), Al Franken, or even Bernie Sanders could win if they made it through the primary. Franken and Sanders are able to make their cases very effectively and are excellent campaigners.

3. As many have said it depends on what position you start from.

4. The tea party may be unpalatable on a national level, but they seem to be doing pretty well on the state level. There is a difference between the tea party and the Left. Their voices are shrill AND their policies are unreasonable. I really don't see what unreasonable policies the left has put forth.

[Buzz Clik]

154. Thanks. That was an excellent and thoughtful reply.

[Dirty Socialist]

155. Sherrod Brown is liberal

He might be OK as a VP pick.
Negotiation with the right doesn't automatically disqualify a politician from being a liberal, unless he gave away too much.
The tea party is not a complete failure. the GOP still holds the House, and the TPers are influential there.

[Buzz Clik]

163. Thanks, and good point about the Tea Party. Clarification:

I was thinking more in terms of leadership failures rather than getting their representatives in a few hard right locales.

[RainDog]

156. It's a big mistake to conflate the left with the tea baggers

The main reason for this is that the left, when it is outraged by right wing stances of Democrats, has fact to bolster their outrage.

Teabaggers have propaganda.

When you can show that the left was wrong about lies about WMD, the benefits of wealth distribution through taxes, the benefit of higher taxes on the rich, etc. then you can make such a comparison.

The only problem is that YOU CAN'T SHOW ANY COMPARISON because the facts are on the side of those who are to the left of the electable Democrats. The problem is with the propaganda Americans are fed on a daily basis via tv and other news.

If the media would stop lying to the American people, we would have more liberal Democrats who would win national elections.

[Buzz Clik]

164. Well....

The Tea Party is big on fiscal issues, and they are convinced that we are overspending. They have a lot of data to back that up.

[RainDog]

172. Have you looked at studies about wealth distribution?

Where the data comes from matters.

When the UN Quality of Life indices support left wing claims about the benefits of social democracy, based upon, you know, actual living conditions, and when tea baggers have equally prestigious organizations and researchers who can back their claims, then get back to me.

But here all you did was make a claim with nothing to back it up other than a gross simplification and misrepresentation of the issue.

Look at the work of Nobel prize winning economist Joseph Stiglitz. Paul Krugman. Look at the work of Daniel Ariely, at Duke, who has spent his life looking at the way issues are framed and how that deforms U.S. opinion on issues... most famously recently when he noted that Americans are too stupid to know that their income distribution more closely aligns with banana republics than other western Democracies and, in fact, those Americans, when they did not have scare labels attached, thought Sweden and other social democracies of northern Europe had the most equitable income distribution.

So, now, again. I ask you.

What can you provide to back up your false equivalency?

I can go on and on - we can look at how religion harms the poor and dumbs down societies now, too.

What else would you like to claim without any evidence?

[Buzz Clik]

183. I do not support the Tea Party's position at all.

However, to write them off as simply spewing propaganda is to foolishly underestimate who they are or what they are doing.

And, not just Tea Partiers buy into the notion of fiscal responsibility, balanced budgets, etc.

[RainDog]

186. I was responding to your attempts at false equivalency

which you did twice.

if you want to change the subject, fine by me.

I also think fiscal responsibility is a great idea. Let me know when that applies to corporations and, oh, I dunno, bankers who launder billions in drug money for cartels and get a hand slap for it.

Until then - talk about cutting benefits for the middle and working class is just more of the same right wing bullshit.

[AgingAmerican]

244. Teabaggers have no 'data' to back anything up

They are fueled by emotion and ignorance.

[Buzz Clik]

246. This is a problem with posting at DU.

You get some odd impressions.

I know three Tea Party members. One is an angry idiot. The other two are intelligent and informed voters.

Don't sell your opposition short.

[AgingAmerican]

249. So, the wide majority of teabaggers are highly intelligent informed voters?

That earns my first ever

[creon]

159. My take.

1. Senator Sanders
2. the late Paul Wellstone

3. No. You need a majority in a legislature to enact legislation. Which is a matter of negotiation/compromise; virtually, by definition.

4. As Senator Mitchell said: "Do you want to make a statement? Or, do you want to pass a law?"

Never mind the Tea Party; that is a very old faction in the GOP under a new name. That faction - about 10 to 20% of the country has been here for generations.

It is not an example.

[Buzz Clik]

165. Great points. Thanks.

[retread]

167. What do 1, 2, 3, and 4 have to do with Obama, Clinton, and Gore not being

liberals??

[Buzz Clik]

179. I would love to answer your question, ...

but I really do not understand it.

Maybe if you re-read the OP.

[Union Scribe]

235. It's a pretty simple question

and a good one. Your OP really has nothing to do with the people in the subject line.

[Buzz Clik]

240. It isn't a question at all.

It is a stated opinion with nothing given to support it.

[Buzz Clik]

239. What the hell. I have 10 minutes to kill.

There are A LOT of people at DU these days who are totally convinced that Bill Clinton, Al Gore, and Obama are traitors to the liberal cause, conservative sell-outs, or just plain conservatives. Maybe you my thread is the only one you've read for a while, and perhaps you did not read any of the responses to my OP that completely validate this notion. I disagree that those three are not liberals, and I have argued that point on various threads. The responses to me have been generally angry and deal with things like NAFTA, "Obamacare", and other pet issues that these folks despise.

So, that's the context.

My motivation for posting the OP was to quite honestly get a sense from those who have no use for Obama, Gore, and Clinton just who fits the criteria of being a liberal. And once those people were named, for an honest assessment of whether or not they would be electable to the presidency.

So there it is.

I am going to guess that you are now going to tell my why you're initial impression is correct. I won't agree with you, but I'm interested in knowing why.

[Tarheel_Dem]

173. I'd pose the above questions to losers like Jill Stein, Roseanne Barr, and Rocky Anderson.

Ask them how much their staunchly held liberal "principles" were worth electorally. No one's going to elect a liberal nationally, despite what you read on the internetz. This country has been offered "liberal" alternatives time and time again, and it passes them up each time.

Bill Clinton, Al Gore & Barack Obama are plenty liberal enough for me.

[Buzz Clik]

177. +1

[Lydia Leftcoast]

245. When you ask about ISSUES rather than candidates, the Green etc. candidates do well

Their tactical mistake is trying to start by running for president. They should start like the far-right Republicans did, by working their way up through unglamorous jobs like city council and school board. You can't just pop up once every four years with no grassroots base and expect to win.

[Tarheel_Dem]

258. I agree. Their biggest mistake is trying to highjack the Democratic Party....

infrastructure. They seem more intent on destroying us, rather than the GOP. Of course, it'll never happen, but they do keep trying. The same creeps who now fall all over themselves trying to kiss Al Gore's ass, told us there was no difference between him & Bush II. Quite frankly, I don't even know that I agree with them on the issues, because I despise them so intensely.

[MrSlayer]

189. There is a progressive caucus.

And there are a handful of liberal senators not the least of which is Bernie Sanders.

Can any of them be elected President? On an equal and honest playing field, absolutely. But we don't have that.

Simply negotiating with them doesn't disqualify you. Starting the negotiations deep in their territory and taking your best weapons out of the game before the negotiations even start does.

And fourth, you seem to be confusing radical, extreme ideas with basic party principles. For instance, a guy like Dennis Kucinich should be considered a standard, middle of the road Democrat with his stances on labor, taxation and the safety net and it wasn't that long ago that his positions were the standard Democratic positions. Fast forward thirty years or so and he's considered a nutcase and fringe.

Let's stop pretending that this party is any better than Republicans on the pocketbook issues because twenty plus years of blue dog, DLC, third way corporatism says otherwise. And acting as if Republican lite policy is acceptable in the name of "compromise" is horse shit.

If wanting the policies that kept us prosperous for forty years after WWII makes me a fringe, teabagger type than so be it. I don't want to be a Reaganite and that's what the Democratic party has become.

It is what it is.

[Buzz Clik]

193. Kucinich.

I guess most of his views are okay, but mainstream Dem? Not sure about that, but I've been a Dem only since 1992. And maybe that is the problem. Prior to 1992, I gave the Democrats little thought. So, maybe I just have little perspective compared to those fully immersed in the politics of the Democrats for 40 or 50 years.

[MrSlayer]

198. Indeed.

All you know is the third way, Reaganite crap.

You don't remember when this was the party of labor over capital, of the less fortunate over the most fortunate and the party of fairness.

Trust me, it used to be that. What we have now sucks.

[Oilwellian]

202. You just explained the problem in a nutshell

There are many of us who have been Democrats for 40 or 50 years. There's something to be said about respecting the wisdom of your elders, rather than winking and nudging at your buddies while mocking those of us who are attempting to protect the bedrock of the party.

[Buzz Clik]

203. It is also possible...

... That some of the older views are no longer relevant. Times change.

[Lydia Leftcoast]

214. Protecting the interests of ordinary people over the interests of the Wall Street pirates is

"no longer relevant"?

Well, then, I really do wonder why the Progressive Caucus even bothers to stay in the Democratic Party.

[RainDog]

228. LOL. Yes, they do. Millennials are more liberal than those who came of age during Ronnie Raygun

According to Pew -

They are more ethnically and racially diverse than older adults. They’re less religious, less likely to have served in the military, and are on track to become the most educated generation in American history.

Higher levels of education equate with less religious belief so there goes that one for the conservatives. Already one in four are unaffiliated with any religious belief. With fewer in the military, they won't see it as a personal bread and butter issue and will be more willing to cut out a lot of the fiscal irresponsibility from defense contractors, who are like Napoleon the pig at the govt trough.

But at the moment, fully 37% of 18- to 29-year-olds are unemployed or out of the workforce, the highest share among this age group in more than three decades. Research shows that young people who graduate from college in a bad economy typically suffer long-term consequences — with effects on their careers and earnings that linger as long as 15 years.

This is the age cohort that would benefit from federal jobs programs that was part of climbing out of the last depression forced upon the American public by the parasitic "ownership class" that's always too big to fail. or jail.

More so than other generations, they believe government should do more to solve problems. (See chapter 8 in the full report).

Well, there's a loser for Republicans and conservatives who pretended they wanted govt out of people's lives.

Politically, Millennials were among Barack Obama’s strongest supporters in 2008, backing him for president by more than a two-to-one ratio (66% to 32%)

Yet

...the political enthusiasms of Millennials have since cooled -for Obama and his message of change, for the Democratic Party and, quite possibly, for politics itself. About half of Millennials say the president has failed to change the way Washington works, which had been the central promise of his candidacy. Of those who say this, three-in-ten blame Obama himself, while more than half blame his political opponents and special interests.

To be sure, Millennials remain the most likely of any generation to self-identify as liberals; they are less supportive than their elders of an assertive national security policy and more supportive of a progressive domestic social agenda. They are still more likely than any other age group to identify as Democrats. Yet by early 2010, their support for Obama and the Democrats had reced
ed, as evidenced both by survey data and by their low level of participation in recent off-year and special elections.

They are also the largest segment of the population to favor legalization of marijuana. but again we see that D.C. lives in a bit of a bubble and can't move the bureaucratic ship that is bad policy in this regard... which is one of the most disappointing things to mils about politics.

http://www.pewsocialtrends.org/2010/02/24/millennials-confident-connected-open-to-change/

[Lydia Leftcoast]

247. In other words, Clinton is the first Dem president you observed closely

If LBJ hadn't let his ego keep the U.S. involved in the Vietnam War, he would have been the greatest president since FDR. Carter was naive about the Washington establishment and didn't kiss the right butts, so he meant well but couldn't get anything done.

[Buzz Clik]

248. The first Dem presidential candidate I observed closely was Humphrey.

I tend to study all the candidates when I'm voting. It's the responsible thing to do.

There is no doubt, however, that I different concept of what makes a liberal than some people here.

[mmonk]

194. Yes I can name liberals.

The only one that has decided to stop moving right into the corporatist state whereby all things must be private sector is Al Gore. He made the switch under the Bush administration.


Naive nevermore, I'm geared to fight in the next few years. The failure of the so called "centrists" or third way exists in the fact my state is now controlled by Republicans for the 1st time in a hundred years. Worshipping at the altar of corporatism and Milton Friedman, but with a 3% difference in taxation of the rich has neutered it.

The party in the end wasn't there for us.

[Buzz Clik]

196. Well, according to the same group that is oh-so-worried about Obama and Clinton...

... also believes that Gore is actually a conservative.

I'm with you, however: Gore is plenty liberal for me.

[Lydia Leftcoast]

215. Gore was a founding member of the DLC and supported the Contras and Reagan's military buildup

He's only what PASSES FOR a liberal in today's Democratic Party.

[Buzz Clik]

219. Were you posting here in 2000?

Gore was totally idolized. Again in 2004. Gore's fall from grace is truly interesting.

[Lydia Leftcoast]

241. NOBODY was posting here in 2000; DU wasn't started till 2001

I preferred Gore to Bush, but I never idolized him, and I don't share people's rosy visions of what might have happened if he had been allowed into the White House. In 2004, I supported Kucinich (working on that campaign was a real eye-opener) and grudgingly switched to Kerry, to the extent of walking my feet off door knocking.

The idolization of Gore always struck me as being clueless.

[tavalon]

206. Wow, four strawman, er, five strawman questions

in one post.

There should be an award.

In case you don't get it, none of those questions in any way relates to whether or not Obama, Clinton and Gore are liberals.

[Buzz Clik]

220. Yeah. You have repeated this previously on this thread.

So odd to post that at the end of an enormous thread.

[tavalon]

222. I post as I read through

The fact that I spent most of the last half hour on this unreasonable and bear baiting post says that you are unreasonable and I, unfortunately, appear to be a bear.

[Buzz Clik]

225. Gawd.

You wasted my time and yours. Why?

[tavalon]

230. I have thought about this

I think it must be because I am a bear.

[JDPriestly]

229. Xavier Becerra.

[djean111]

251. None of those questions have anything to do with being convinced

that Obama and Gore and Clinton are not true liberals.
Your questions seem to say that a true liberal cannot be elected at this time, is all.
No reason for a liberal to answer those questions, really.
And comparing liberals to the Tea Party, as if what they believe in is similar, is ridiculous.

[Buzz Clik]

256. My question was serious, and many took it seriously and responded.

Their input helped me get perspective on what they view as a true liberal politician.

However, there was no shortage of people who refused to answer. No biggie.

[madrchsod]

252. all three are liberals

as was carter,lbj, ike,truman,fdr,and wilson.

4?...we learn from other`s mistakes.

[Buzz Clik]

257. Thanks!

I couldn't agree more.