As most of us thought, Obama is a center, center right president

[MadHound]

But on Friday, political scientist Keith Poole released a study that probably cheered the White House. According to his highly respected classification system, Obama is the most moderate Democratic president since World War II. Which raises a question: How can Obama simultaneously be one of the most divisive and most moderate presidents of the past century?
http://www.washingtonpost.com/business/economy/obama-the-most-polarizing-moderate-ever/2012/02/06/gIQAXsV0uQ_story.html

Of course Obama's presidency is but the capstone of an ongoing movement by Democratic presidents post WWII, moving ever further to the right. They get away with this because the conventional wisdom is that the Democratic party can basically ignore the left, after all, who else are they going to vote for, the Republican?

If this trend continues, makes you wonder, and for some, a bit scared of what position the next Democratic president is going to govern from. Obama governs from the same position as Eisenhower, what's next, a Democratic president governing from the position of Bush I, Ford, or Nixon?

And thus, the country continues its march to the right.

[TheWraith]

1. According to the opinion of one guy.

Who's no more right about it than you are.

[MadHound]

7. Actually this is a respected study,

Much more than an opinion.

[The Doctor.]

162. Which fails to take into account the massive media manipulation.

If you correct for prevailing opinion as portrayed by the media, Obama would be considered very 'leftist'. What so many like yourself seem to deliberately ignore is the current environment where no president could ever accomplish a truly progressive agenda.

Any 'study' that fails to acknowledge that cannot gain the respect of history.

[ProSense]

2. This

survey is absurd for a number of reasons posted here:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1002&pid=273480

http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1002&pid=273530

http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1002&pid=273550

[MadHound]

8. LOL!

Your points are meaningless, unlike Obama's record, which shows that he is indeed governing from the center, center-right.

[ProSense]

19. It's

a stupid poll if the attempt is to gauge liberalism. They're basing this on how members of Congress vote versus actual policies, which is why LBJ and Truman are to Clinton's right. That's absurd. I wouldn't be surprised if, from its roots, the whole survey wasn't devised to give the impression that conservative Democratic policies are more appealing to the left.

[MadHound]

24. Except it isn't a poll, it is a well respected study that Poole puts out

For every president.

So who should I believe, an anonymous internet poster, or a well respected professor and political scientist, who has published over fifty articles, six books and is invited to speak at academic and political gathering across the country and world.

[ProSense]

30. My bad, it's

a survey:



It accomplishes its goal of making Clinton one of the most liberal Presidents since I guess FDR.

Me, I'm glad to see Obama line up with the likes of LBJ, which means he's more likely a Great Society Democrat.

[Arkana]

52. History judges a President's record by results, not by the methods used.

Hence why LBJ and FDR aren't classified as "mushy centrists".

But, like all the Angry Domers here, your reaction doesn't surprise me. You could give a damn about the actual result--the process has to be pristine as well, otherwise the President is just a right-wing sellout who has personally betrayed you and everyone you know.

Also he kicked your dog and called you a nasty name.

[phleshdef]

3. You hardly speak for "most of us".

Polls carry a lot more weight than you do at a personal level and polls clearly show that the left widely approves of President Obama.

Secondly, nothing in the results indicates "center right" whatsoever. It just indicates that he he governed as a moderate, which I agree with to a certain extent. As Ezra Klein explains, Obama has governed as a moderate because of the circumstances created by the legislative branch he has had to work with. Obama is a "get something done" kind of guy, not a foamy mouthed, fruitless ideolog as the minority group that makes up the anti-Obama progressive wing would have him be.

[MadHound]

9. Polls don't show where a person is governing from,

Just how many people approve of that person.

Meanwhile, what do you think "moderate" means? Oh, yeah, centerist.

[phleshdef]

166. Polls do indicate where the governed feel like that person is governing from.

If most liberals have the perception that the President is governing correctly, then its pretty safe to say that said President must be governing with enough liberal balance to make said group mostly happy.

Who said there was a difference between a moderate and a centrist? Not me. I said that the article didn't indicate center right, as you suggested.

[Honeycombe8]

178. Moderate means anything from left of center to right of center. If you're a Democrat, it's left

If you're a Democrat, it's left of center.

I am left of center. I also call myself a moderate. Obama is close to me in issues, I think, but more liberal in some areas. For instance, I wouldn't mandate that all ins. cos. have to cover contraceptives, unless it's prescribed for medical reasons. That is definitely a "left" ideology.

[MadHound]

11. What a sad statement you make

You cannot respond with facts, but instead hurl insults, somehow insinuating things that I'm not saying.

Worse, you are basically stating that any criticism of Obama helps the 'Pugs. Thus, no criticism should be allowed. Gee, and I thought that we lived in a democratic society.

As far as what I do, what I've done, you have no clue whatsoever. Let me ask you something, have you ever gone to the Democratic National Convention as a delegate from your state? I have, that should give you a clue as to what I've done.

[MannyGoldstein]

22. If someone points out that the President is

making the same choices that traditional Republicans make, then they must be a PUMA Naderite with flying goalposts.

Makes sense to me. Actually, maybe that makes them quasi-dimensional Hell creatures. Makes even more sense, no?

[Swede]

5. Opinions aren't facts.

nt

[pinto]

6. I think you're misreading or misrepresenting the gist of the article.

In 2011, Gallup’s polling showed that President Obama averaged an 80 percent approval rating among Democrats and 12 percent among Republicans, making his third year in office one of the most polarizing on record. For a candidate whose campaign promised an era of post-partisan unity, it must be a disappointing reality check.

<snip>

Over the past century, DW-Nominate has shown a steady increase in congressional polarization. Democrats have moved to the left while Republicans have moved to the right. But Republicans have moved a lot further than Democrats. “Republicans in both chambers are polarizing more quickly than Democrats,” said Sean Theriault, a political scientist at the University of Texas at Austin. “If the Democratic senators have taken one step toward their ideological home, House Democrats have taken two steps, Senate Republicans three steps and House Republicans four steps.”

DW-Nominate rates presidents by processing Congressional Quarterly’s “Presidential Support” index, which tracks roll-call votes on which the president has expressed a clear position. The system then rates the president by looking at the coalitions that emerged in support of his legislation. In essence, it judges the president’s ideology by judging the ideology of the president’s congressional supporters. So how, in an age of incredible congressional polarization, could this system rank Obama as a moderate?

There are a few answers. One, says Poole, is that Obama is very careful about taking positions on congressional legislation. In the 111th Congress, he only took 78 such positions. Compare that with George W. Bush, who took 291 positions during the 110th Congress, or Bill Clinton, who took 314 positions during the 103rd Congress. So part of the answer might be that, with the exception of high-profile bills such as health-care reform, Obama is hanging back from most of the congressional squabbling.

Klein goes on to set Obama's first term in that larger context - a pretty important point in our federal system.

That’s left Obama a moderate president in an immoderate time. For progressives, that moderation has been a continued frustration. For conservatives, it’s been obscured by a caricature of the president as a free-enterprise-hating socialist. And for the White House, it’s been a calculated strategy. We’ll know in November whether it was the right one.

(aside) The title of the piece is - Obama: The most polarizing moderate ever?

[MadHound]

12. Did you read this?

"Obama is the most moderate Democratic president since World War II. "

Oh, wait, that doesn't fit in with your world vision, oh well. Reality is what it is, deal with it.

[pinto]

42. I agree with that assessment for the most part. He is the most moderate Democratic president

since World War II. I don't see that as a failure, a sell-out or an abandonment of Democratic policy initiatives. In many ways, I see it as effectively pragmatic given our political landscape today.

Yeah, "Reality is what it is, deal with it."

[NashvilleLefty]

32. Agreed, the OP must have misread the article. This part is

especially telling:

Republicans, however, can and should take partial credit for this. Obama is so moderate in part because the Republicans are so extreme. Politicians are ideological, of course, but they are also opportunistic. And the GOP, in closing ranks against almost every major initiative Obama has attempted, has taken away most of his opportunities to be truly liberal. The fight to get to 60 votes in the Senate has ensured, over and over, that Obama must aim his legislation at either the most conservative Democrats or the most moderate Republicans. In this, Obama has only been as liberal as Sens. Ben Nelson and Scott Brown have permitted him to be. And that’s not very liberal.

[pinto]

36. Yep.

Context counts. And in this last legislative session we've seen that repeatedly. (Repubs) have blocked things they actually supported, in some form, in the past simply because they came back up in this administration. Simple, blatant obstructionism.

[eomer]

58. Except that that narrative is totally false. 60 votes were not needed in 2009 or 2010.

Obama and the Congressional leadership could have done a number of important things with just 50 votes by using the budget reconciliation process, which can't be filibustered. For example, they could have increased tax rates on the wealthy and made permanent tax cuts for the middle class. They could have enacted a public option for health care insurance. They could have done these things without a single vote from a Republican and with no way for Republicans to stop them. They chose not to.

Republicans didn't take away the opportunity for Obama to be liberal in 2009/2010. Obama and the Democratic majority in Congress chose the path they did because they assessed it as the better opportunity. They felt they could ignore and insult the left and meanwhile sell themselves to the corporate bidders. In their calculus they only have to be slightly less egregious than Republicans and then they can have it both ways. They can be corporate whores and still get the votes of liberals because, where else are we going to go.

[pinto]

61. Who writes legislation, holds a vote and, if passed, sends it to the executive's desk?

Congress.

[eomer]

104. My objection was to the claim that it took 60 votes.

That would be 60 votes in the Congress. We don't seem to disagree about anything. Maybe we're just in a mood to wave hello.

[One of the 99]

70. That's not true.

60 votes were needed. There are many restrictions and limitations on using budget reconciliation process. It can't be used anytime the majority wants to push something through since only one reconciliation bill can be passed in any given year.

[MannyGoldstein]

79. Why couldn't it have been used for a Public Option, or Medicare for All

instead of RomneyObamaCare?

[One of the 99]

87. Because there is a strict criteria for what

can and cannot be passed via reconciliation.

[eomer]

92. And what are those rules? Both SCHIP and Medicare Advantage were created by a reconciliation bill.

A public option healthcare program definitely could be created by a reconciliation bill - the Balanced Budget Act of 1997 was a reconciliation bill and it created both the SCHIP and Medicare Advantage programs.

If you research a little deeper and see all the things that have been done through reconciliation bills then you'll see that much more could have been done in 2009/2010.

[One of the 99]

93. If you research a little deeper

You'll discover the limitations of the reconciliation process. I'll start you off: http://www.thepeoplesview.net/2010/03/why-public-option-is-not-like-schip-and.html

[eomer]

100. Even the source you cite says he isn't sure it would be disallowed.

Well, what about a Medicare expansion? Does that fit in under reconciliation? It's certainly a better candidate than a brand new program. But once again, its changes in incomes and outlays are a mere result of the non-budgetary provision: i.e. inclusion of additional people in the program. So I am not too sure about that one, but I don't think it will fly, either.

The public option that most people favor is to permit people to buy into Medicare, and even your source says he's not sure such a plan (Medicare expansion) wouldn't be allowed.

And the bottom line is that there was no reason not to try. The worst that would have happened is that the parliamentarian would rule that it wasn't allowed under reconciliation. If it had been done as an amendment to the reconciliation bill that was ultimately used for the final healthcare changes then the worst would be that the amendment was disallowed. Why did they not fight for it?

[One of the 99]

105. As he said

but I don't think it will fly, either.

And the worst would have been the whole healthcare reform bill going down.

[MannyGoldstein]

113. Remember what happened when Obama and Congressional Democrats

asked the Parliamentarian whether they could pass Medicare for All or a Public Option by reconciliation?

Me neither. Because it didn't happen.

But they did ask if they could pass the RomneyObamaCare by reconciliation.

[One of the 99]

117. They didn't need to ask because

it couldn't happen.

[MannyGoldstein]

119. Please provide your evidence of this

If it's true, i'm sure that the Obama administration would like nothing more than to tell us that they'd love to give two-thirds of Americans what they want - Medicare for All - but their hands were tied.

Thanks in advance for your evidence.

[One of the 99]

128. When that was proposed

Lieberaman wouldn't go for it. That is a matter of record.

[MannyGoldstein]

131. That left 59 other Democratic caucus members

Only 51 needed for reconciliation.

[One of the 99]

154. You clearly don't know

how reconciliation works to make that statement.

[Dragonfli]

118. Heritage/Romney/Obama actually, the Repugs have been scheming to pass this

For quite some time now, it is a dusted off republican scheme invented by the Heritage Foundation over 20 years ago.

http://www.kaiserhealthnews.org/Stories/2010/February/23/GOP-1993-health-reform-bill.aspx

They tried to introduce it in '93 but there were a still Democrats left in the Democratic party back then and it was squashed early by them. God how I miss having Democrats that weren't Reagan Democrats around.

[eomer]

90. What does any of that have to do with what I said?

It's not technically true that there can be only one reconciliation bill per year but even if it were, the one bill in a year can have a very long list of different things addressed in it so why would having a single bill per year keep them from doing many important things as I said? Who cares whether it is one bill or twelve, it just needs to do what we need done.

And, yes, there are rules about what can be done through reconciliation, but I didn't say they could do anything and everything we might want; I said they could have done many important things.

For example, changing rates of taxation is definitely something that is allowed under the budget reconciliation rules and that therefore could have been done. The "Bush tax cuts" were passed in a reconciliation bill (EGTRRA 2001) by a vote in the Senate of 58 to 33. In 2001 Republicans had a majority in the Senate but not a 60 vote super majority, so they used reconciliation to avoid any possibility of filibuster and pass these tax cuts. Obama and Congressional Democrats absolutely could have made a major change in tax rates in 2009 or 2010 without a single Republican vote.

The other example that I gave, creating a public option healthcare plan, is also something that absolutely could be done under reconciliation rules.

There are other things that could have been done as well, but just these two would have made a world of diference.

[One of the 99]

95. No it couldn't

I just posted this link elsewhere but you should read it too: http://www.thepeoplesview.net/2010/03/why-public-option-is-not-like-schip-and.html

[eomer]

101. At most that is just one guy's opinion. Edit: and what about tax rates?

Why not try to include it and find out for sure? Why not fight for it?

Edit: and you didn't address tax rates. I assume you agree that tax increases for the wealthy could have been done.

[One of the 99]

106. As was well documented i n2010

Reconciliation could not have been used on the tax bill since it had already been used that year on Healthcare reform. That is a simple fact.

And the reason not to include it is that if would have sunk the whole healthcare bill. Too many would rather have the fight and fail rather than get incremental progress which can be built upon later on.

[eomer]

144. That is just not true.

Last edited Mon Feb 13, 2012, 08:28 AM - Edit history (2)

There is no limit on the number of things the majority party can lump together into a reconciliation bill.

Look at the different provisions that were included in the 1997 reconciliation bill.

Title I--Food Stamp Provisions
Title II--Housing and Related Provisions
Title III--Communications and Spectrum Allocation Provisions
Title IV--Medicare, Medicaid, and Children's Health Provisions
Title V--Welfare and Related Provisions
Title VI--Education and Related Provisions
Title VII--Civil Service Retirement and Related Provisions
Title VIII--Veterans and Related Provisions
Title IX--Asset Sales, User Fees, and Miscellaneous Provisions
Title X--Budget Enforcement and Process Provisions
Title XI--District of Columbia Revitalization

http://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/PLAW-105publ33/html/PLAW-105publ33.htm

And here are titles included in OBRA 81:
African Development Bank Act Amtrak Improvement Act of 1981 Banking and Related Programs Authorization Adjustment Act Community Economic Development Act of 1981 Community Services Block Grant Act Consolidated Refugee Education Assistance Act Consumer Patient Radiation Health and Safety Act of 1981 Consumer Product Safety Amendments of 1981 Education Consolidation and Improvement Act of 1981 Fiscal Year 1981 Airport Development Authorization Act Follow Through Act Head Start Act Health Maintenance Organization Amendments of 1981 Housing and Community Development Amendments of 1981 Low Income Home Energy Assistance Act of 1981 Maternal and Child Health Services Block Grant Act Medicare and Medicaid Amendments of 1981 Multifamily Mortgage Foreclosure Act of 1981 National Consumers Cooperative Bank Act Amendments of 1981 Northeast Rail Service Act of 1981 Omnibus Education Reconciliation Act of 1981 Postsecondary Student Assistance Amendments of 1981 Public Broadcasting Amendments Act of 1981 Small Business Budget Reconciliation and Loan Consolidation Improvement Act of 1981 Social Services Block Grant Act Strategic Petroleum Reserve Amendments Act of 1981


There was nothing stopping Congressional Democrats from including tax changes in the reconciliation bill that enacted health insurance reform.

[One of the 99]

155. It is true.

You're comparing omnibus bills to a specific piece of legislation. It is an very apples and oranges comparison. Actually its an apples and hairbrush comparison the two are so far apart.

And to try to tact on additional tax changes to the healthcare bill at the last minute would have been borderline impossible, would have just mucked up the process and most likely failed, bringing the healthcare reform bill down with it. It is completely unrealistic.

[eomer]

165. No, an omnibus bill is just a variation of reconciliation that is broader in span, but there was

nothing stopping Congressional Democrats from using a broader bill that would have been considered omnibus. The reconciliation rules are the same either way: either omnibus or not you still do not need 60 votes in the Senate at any step.

You are right that they couldn't just tack on tax changes at the last minute but I never suggested that they should do it that way. What they should have done is begin planning a broad bill (omnibus, if you like) as soon as it was clear in late 2008 that they would hold both houses and the Presidency for two years. They would of course have to follow all the steps in the process but, doing that, there was no way that Republicans could stop them.

There are numerous examples of reconciliation bills that combined many diverse subject areas, including tax changes. There was no reason that Congressional Democrats could not accomplish what's been done many times over. They merely chose not to.

[One of the 99]

172. Well now you're discussing tactics

And if you remember they never planned on having to pass the final healthcare bill via reconciliation. That only happened because Scott Walker won the special election for Ted Kennedy's seat.

[eomer]

173. No, I'm discussing working through the well-known steps that are required to enact legislation.

I'm not saying anything different from what I said to start with. I responded to this:

And the GOP, in closing ranks against almost every major initiative Obama has attempted, has taken away most of his opportunities to be truly liberal. The fight to get to 60 votes in the Senate has ensured, over and over, that Obama must aim his legislation at either the most conservative Democrats or the most moderate Republicans. In this, Obama has only been as liberal as Sens. Ben Nelson and Scott Brown have permitted him to be. And that’s not very liberal.

The above claim is not true. On many important issues Obama and Congressional Democrats did not have their hands tied. They had a well-known process that has been used almost every year and for most major legislation over the last several decades. They knew how to use it. They chose not to.

There is no question that they could have permanently raised taxes on the wealthy. If there is anything that is allowed under reconciliation it is changes to the tax code that will reduce the deficit. Yes, they had to go through the proper steps to get this done; they couldn't wait until the last minute because it is a multi-step process. But that is their job and they do know what the steps are. They pretended their hands were tied because they want it both ways: they want to fool us into thinking they are working for us but at the same time want to be able to sell themselves to the 1% by giving them private assurances that it's all just a show.

[One of the 99]

174. Yes they could have done everything though reconciliation

and we could all have unicorns and lollipops.

Either you're terribly misinformed about how the reconciliation process work or you're purposely distorting to win debate points.

[eomer]

175. Maybe you should just read more carefully.

"Many important things" is what I said they could have done. How did you get "everything" out of that?

[Ikonoklast]

10. What does the guy down at the gas station think about it?

It's must be getting more and more difficult to find someone whose opinion matches your own, isn't it?

Since you cannot persuade anyone to vote for your political party, you need to demonize Democrats.

Gotcha.

[MadHound]

13. Another one who can't use facts to refute arguments,

So you resort to personal attacks instead. Says a lot about you, none of it good.

[Ikonoklast]

48. You post another's opinion as 'fact', then call the response to such nonsense a personal attack.

Oy.

You can find and post just about anything that supports your narrative.

I don't have to agree with it, nor does anyone else here.

You can try with all of your might to tear down this president and Democrats, only those few here that share your persuasion will agree with you.

As Mr. Obama is more and more succesful, his detractors get more and more desperate.

And that tells me all I need to know about you, too.

[immoderate]

14. Is the portion for the 1% going up or down?

--imm

[MineralMan]

15. Oh, not most of us. Not at all.

You make a common mistake in thinking that "most" agree with you. They do not. Some do, no doubt, and you hear from them and get recs here from them. A lot more don't agree with you on this, and are still supporting President Obama and hoping that he gets a Congress that will work with him rather than against him. With hard work, he may get just that for his second term, which is pretty much a sure thing.

I'm not sure who you think the alternative to Obama might be in 2012. You never seem to offer one, anyhow.

Good luck in your future endeavors. (I've heard that in several places, I think. Usually as someone heads out the door for the last time."

[MannyGoldstein]

20. Because Obama does not have a credible Democratic opponent,

he is not a traditional Republican

Got it.

[MineralMan]

29. Well, there's a leap in logic.

The Olympics are coming up. Maybe they'll have a logic leap event as a test sport.

[MadHound]

21. So are you implying that I'm about to be tombstoned?

Is that what you're saying, in a roundabout way? And if so, how would you know that? Does your position as mod give you some sort of information, or influence, that the rest of us here don't have?

[MineralMan]

25. Not at all. I have nothing to do with any such actions.

I'm just wishing you good luck with your future endeavors. And I'm doing so in the same way someone who is firing someone does. Insincerely.

You've read more into it than intended, clearly.

I'm sure you'll be around for a long, long time to come, and will continue to be disappointed in President Obama through his second term, too. I'm equally sure you'll let us all know about that disappointment frequently, as well.

[sabrina 1]

94. Read like that to me. I certainly hope that longtime Democrats are not shown the door

here because they care about the right-leaning direction their party has taken. Aird, this has been longtime concern among Democrats. Thank you for your posts, Madhound, I see suggestions here that you are not a Democrat. At one time on DU, to make such a suggestion about someone known to be, not just a Democrat, but a Democrat who has worked hard for this party, was not acceptable. It almost proves the point of your OP to see such a change in what used to be important here.

[MannyGoldstein]

16. Obama is *miles* to the right of Eisenhower

For example, Eisenhower supported a 91% top marginal tax rate on earned income, and was in favor of huge public works programs (e.g., the interstate system).

[ProSense]

23. Actually

"Obama is *miles* to the right of Eisenhower"

...Obama is just like Ike: http://www.democraticunderground.com/1002297822

I call this flailing.

The desperation of the protectors of some other President's legacy (or it could be something else) in trying to define Obama as to the right of somebody.

[MannyGoldstein]

27. The facts seem to demonstrate that he's miles to the right of Eisenhower

Do you have facts to share that would rebut this? I'm sure that DU readers would appreciate these.

Otherwise, I'd call your post "misdirection".

[sad sally]

64. Eisenhower's words on preventive war are certainly to the left of the Presidents

A preventive war, to my mind, is an impossibility today. How could you have one if one of its features would be several cities lying in ruins, several cities where many, many thousands of people would be dead and injured and mangled, the transportation systems destroyed, sanitation implements and systems all gone? That isn't preventive war; that is war.
I don't believe there is such a thing; and, frankly, I wouldn't even listen to anyone seriously that came in and talked about such a thing.
... It seems to me that when, by definition, a term is just ridiculous in itself, there is no use in going any further.

[MadHound]

28. I wouldn't say miles to the right,

But definitely in the same center right ballpark as Ike. Don't believe me, go compare the records of the two presidents.

[ProSense]

39. More

I wouldn't say miles to the right,

But definitely in the same center right ballpark as Ike. Don't believe me, go compare the records of the two presidents.

...flailing.

Logic: If the claim is that Obama is in the "same center right ballpark as Ike," and the premise is that the country has moved right and shifted far right after Reagan, that would mean that Obama is actually more liberal than any Democratic President since LBJ.

It would refute the bogus nonsense that Nixon (Mr. Cambodia, Mr. HMOs, Mr. deregulation, Mr. say anthing in public) was the last liberal President. That is, unless one considers Nixon to the left of Ike.

[MannyGoldstein]

47. Nixon proposed and started the EPA

Would Obama?

Really?

[ProSense]

55. Nixon

"Nixon proposed and started the EPA"

...was pressured into it by mass protest and a Democratic Congress passed it.

Nixon was an opportunist. He also supported deregulation.

Obama created the CFPB and gave the FDIC more powers. Would Nixon?

[MannyGoldstein]

65. Two-thirds of Americans are in favor of Medicare for all

I'm looking forward to Obama fighting for it.

[ProSense]

66. And

Two-thirds of Americans are in favor of Medicare for all

I'm looking forward to Obama fighting for it.

...the House is controlled by Boehner.

When Democrats controlled the House, maybe a movement like the one that sparked the EPA (even an occupy movement) could have helped push for a stronger health care bill, especially given the make up of the Senate.

Too bad that didn't happen. Still, if Democrats regain the House and keep the Senate, pushing to up the waiver date for single payer and strengthen the exchanges could likely be accomplished with a strong movement, not a simple poll.

[MannyGoldstein]

76. Did Obama incinerate the Public Option and Medicare for All

at the start of negotiations with insurers, like the NY Times and other sources report?

[ProSense]

81. Are

Did Obama incinerate the Public Option and Medicare for All

at the start of negotiations with insurers, like the NY Times and other sources report?

...you attempting to initiate a discussion based on your spin of past events? I mean, when did the President advocate "Medicare for All"?

[MannyGoldstein]

83. I was responding to your assertion

that Nixon started the EPA because Americans strongly wanted it.

Americans are overwhelmingly in favor of Medicare for All. Has Obama ever fought for it?

I'm not expecting answers from you on this question, or my previous question, but I always hold a little hope for a surprise.

[Proud Liberal Dem]

107. The "silent majority" had better become "un-silent" if they really want Medicare-for-all

and vote in a progressive super majority Congress b/c that's about the only way it's going to happen anytime soon. They sure had a funny way of showing it by not bothering to show up to vote in 2012 and/or voting for anti-any-health-reform teabaggers in 2010. *ugh*

[MannyGoldstein]

109. We voted for Change in 2008

That worked out well...

Actually, it worked fabulously for the 1%, they're doing better than ever, but for the rest of us it's a blizzard of suck.

We need to focus on proven FDR Liberals like Elizabeth Warren, and rid our party of the Third-Way triangulators who have wrecked our country by continuing to push the conversation to the right.

[pinto]

114. Support electing a more progressive Congress in 2012. That's the key, imo.

Tagging Obama as the culprit in all things legislative is a bit of a side track and ineffective, politically.

Agree, we need to focus on Congress.

[Proud Liberal Dem]

158. How much change and how fast did you expect everything to change?

I won't drag out the dreaded "list" but to suggest that there's been no positive change pushed by President Obama that has benefited (or will benefit) the 99% is a bit disingenuous IMHO and certainly you can't lay all the blame for not getting more squarely on President Obama.

[MadHound]

91. Nixon wasn't the last liberal president,

So please don't stick words in my mouth.

However Nixon is, by today's standards, considerably more moderate than the current Republican field. In fact, given that he started the EPA, and put forth proposed healthcare reform, essentially the same HCR that is Obama's signature piece, he is definitely to the left of today's Republicans.

And isn't a sad statement that Obama's HCR is basically modeled off two proposals originally championed by Republicans Romney and Nixon. Again, this shows that Obama governs from the center, center right position.

[Bezukhov]

17. He's just another centrist politician. A mediocre one.

"History has tried to teach us that we can't have good government under politicians.  Now, to go and stick one at the very head of government couldn’t be wise." Mark Twain

[cbayer]

35. If you send the administrators a PM, they can probably get you back into your old account.

[Bezukhov]

46. I have. No reply yet.

Thanks.

[MineralMan]

18. I hear that Roseanne Barr may be running

for the Green Party. Jump on that bandwagon...

[sabrina 1]

96. Why would you even make such a suggestion to someone known on DU as a longtime

Democrat?? Do have something you can produce to show why someone who has worked for the Dem Party as Madhound has, might even consider your suggestion? Are you trying to say that Madhound is NOT a Democrat?

[DCBob]

26. "Obama is so moderate in part because the Republicans are so extreme."

From the article..

"Republicans, however, can and should take partial credit for this. Obama is so moderate in part because the Republicans are so extreme. Politicians are ideological, of course, but they are also opportunistic. And the GOP, in closing ranks against almost every major initiative Obama has attempted, has taken away most of his opportunities to be truly liberal. The fight to get to 60 votes in the Senate has ensured, over and over, that Obama must aim his legislation at either the most conservative Democrats or the most moderate Republicans. In this, Obama has only been as liberal as Sens. Ben Nelson and Scott Brown have permitted him to be. And that’s not very liberal."

======

The "Great Recession" also had alot to do with this. Job one was stabilizing the economy.. not pushing a liberal/progressive agenda.

[MineralMan]

31. +100

You have read the actual article. It's amazing what you find when you do that, I think. Thanks!

[ProSense]

33. Klein:

Although the peculiarities of using DW-Nominate to rate presidents are worth pointing out, the data is also telling us something important: Obama is a pretty moderate president. I doubt he’s actually more moderate than Clinton, as the system suggests. But he’s vastly more moderate than the political rhetoric surrounding his presidency — something that was also true for Clinton.

The survey is flawed and its results are bizarre, putting Clinton to the left of LBJ, Obama and Truman.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1002&pid=303204

[DCBob]

37. yeah, I saw that. Clinton to the left of Obama and LBJ is absurd.

Clearly the analytical techinque they are using needs some tweaking.

[MannyGoldstein]

34. Doesn't explain his ardent support for three Bush "free" trade agreements

Which will kill hundreds of thousands of jobs.

Or his repeated attempts to cut Social Security payments, for no good reason.

[DCBob]

38. Most Democrats supported the free trade agreements.

When were SS payments cut?? I had not heard that.

[sabrina 1]

97. Two years of no cost of living raises were cuts to those in this society who needed the money

the most. Ask seniors how they felt about those cuts.

[MineralMan]

40. You heard it here first: Obama to Cut Social Security!!!!111!

But wait...my monthly SS automatic deposit went UP! And my Medicare went DOWN! Something's terribly wrong. There must be a mistake...

[MannyGoldstein]

44. Rep. Conyers: Obama Demanded Social Security Cuts--Not GOP

Rep. Conyers: Obama Demanded Social Security Cuts--Not GOP

Briefing room word games: What's a 'slash' versus a 'cut' in Social Security?

etc.

[MineralMan]

49. And yet...my benefits are up.

Go figure.

[MannyGoldstein]

50. If Obama fails at something than it doesn't count?

Interesting notion.

[woo me with science]

88. SS and Medicare were used as hostages

to get Americans to be grateful for an austerity budget that would have outraged them otherwise.

Obama is nothing if not an excellent politician.

[sabrina 1]

99. Thanks to the progressives in Congress like Conyers who made those intentions public.

Which is why we need many more like Dennis Kucinich, Conyers, Grayson and which most of us will be working hard for.

[ProSense]

51. Then

"Doesn't explain his ardent support for three Bush "free" trade agreements"

...how does the person who signed NAFTA into law become one of the most liberal Presidents?

"Or his repeated attempts to cut Social Security payments, for no good reason."

So how does Clinton end up as more liberal President than Obama and LBJ: http://www.democraticunderground.com/1002227973

Flailing. The OP is appealing because anything that portrays Obama in a negative light attracts some even when it makes no sense.

[MannyGoldstein]

53. I'm not defending the report's methodology

Just pointing out that the data show that Obama is pretty far to the right, and it's not just because he "needs" to be. He actively seeks far-right policies of his own volition.

[ProSense]

57. Wait

I'm not defending the report's methodology

Just pointing out that the data show that Obama is pretty far to the right, and it's not just because he "needs" to be. He actively seeks far-right policies of his own volition.

...you're not "defending" it, you just agree with it?

It also shows LBJ is "pretty far to the right."

[MannyGoldstein]

62. Holy sophmoric debating tricks, Batman!

Simpson-Bowles concluded that tax loopholes for the wealthy should be closed.

You think that tax loopholes for the wealthy should be closed.

Therefore, you agree with Simpson-Bowles that the average Social Security beneficiariy's lifetime payout be cut by $50,000.

Q.E.D., eh?

[ProSense]

63. Holy

"Holy sophmoric debating tricks, Batman!"

...red herring, Batman!

[Vattel]

151. He said he was not defending the reports methodology.

And then he said that he believes that the data shows that Obama is pretty far to the right. There is no inconsistency there. If you weren't so hell-bent on defending Obama, your reading comprehension and reasoning skills might improve.

[Logical]

71. and

Some defenders would defend anything Obama does. Works both ways.

[ProSense]

74. And

"and Some defenders would defend anything Obama does. Works both ways."

...by this logic are you agreeing with the conclusions of the survey (which is what I used to make my point)?

[Logical]

75. or

I am pointing out there are unreasonable Obama attackers who thinks he has done nothing right and unreasonable Obama defenders who would and have defended anything he does.

MOST DUers are in the middle of that bunch. I have no faith in the intelligence of the people in either end of the spectrum!

[ProSense]

78. Or

or

I am pointing out there are unreasonable Obama attackers who thinks he has done nothing right and unreasonable Obama defenders who would and have defended anything he does.

MOST DUers are in the middle of that bunch. I have no faith in the intelligence of the people in either end of the spectrum!

...that's just a way of avoiding the question.

I mean, some people may not feel the need to join the "Obama attackers," but to say that "he has done nothing right" is absurd.

I would never say he has done nothing wrong, but I can point out the flaws in arguments that make the claim that "he has done nothing right."

For one thing, the issues are rarely defined by absolutes, especially when it comes to approach.

[Logical]

85. I

honestly think most DUers are capable of being honest about Obama.

They can point out where he dropped the ball. Where he was naive as hell. Where he tried to appease the GOP too long. Where he started in the middle on some stuff he should not have.

But they can also point out where he did GREAT and BRAVE things that helped this country and help the working class.

The two issue with the DU is the people who
1. Will not let people complain without feeling the need to defend EVERYTHING Obama did.
2. Will not let people praise Obama without feeling the need to ATTACK anything Obama did.

People also post EVERY article or commentary that supports their belief and never read or much less post a commentary that they disagree with.

Both sets of these people are blinded by emotions and not logic.

We used to make fun of freepers who 100% defended everything Bush did. I was surprised to see the same thing happen here.

[tnvoter]

41. right of eisenhower? I don't think so

We live in the post-civil rights era - untested waters on many social issues. Do you really think that Eisenhower would have voted down DADT? Do you really think that Eisenhower would have voted for a black president? Do you think that Eisenhower would have stood for the Dream Act? Would Eisenhower have stood for a woman's right to choose? Did Eisenhower, in fact, appoint as many women or minorities to the supreme court? These are some of the defining positions and decisions of a modern progressive president.

IMHO, the answer to all of the above is no. The suggestion that Obama stands to the right of Eisenhower is just so wrong.

[provis99]

110. you have no factual basis for those assertion about Eisenhower.

you should stick to factual claims. It is a fact, for example, that the highest tax bracket under Eisenhower was 92%, while under Obama it is 36%. From those two facts, I would deduce that Obama is more conservative than Eisenhower.

Anything dealing with your "feelings" about what Eisenhower might have done are as silly as those who argue Al Gore would have been different than George Bush, just because they think so.

[vaberella]

150. Uh and those came into play long before Obama became President.

Not to mention this Congress would never allow that tax bracket to ever come into place. I find what you're implying is that Obama has created this tax bracket which is far from the case.

[provis99]

189. Obama extended the Bush tax rates.

He's as guilty for it as Bush is.

And again, you offer no proof your assertion about this Congress, either.

[WillyT]

43. Funny... I Was Thinking The Other Day That...

with the "Republican Party" having completely lost its mind, and moving to the Reactionary Right, this leaves a political void which is being filled by many Independents, conservative and moderate Democrats.

Which means that nearly EVERYBODY on the political spectrum has moved to the right... including and especially the Democratic Party.

At this point in time, we are looking more and more like the Republicans of the North East of years back... the Nelson Rockefeller Republicans.

Those of us that joined this party because of people like FDR, Truman, Kennedy, etc... and maintain our positions on the left... sit in utter horror these days.

[bvar22]

167. WORD!

I joined the Democratic Party 44 years ago as a mainstream, center FDR/LBJ Pro-Working Class DEMOCRAT.
NOW, I find myself relegated to the Far left Fringe of the New Democrat Centrist Party.
I haven't changed,
and YES, I "sit in utter horror these days".

I used to mercilessly ridicule "Working Class" Republicans for voting AGAINST their own Economic Interests.
NOW, I am being asked to do the same...because Republicans are worse.
Adding insult to injury, there are those here who INSIST that I should be happy about this situation, and join the "Victory Parade"?
WTF?




You will know them by their WORKS,
not by their excuses.
[font size=5 color=green]Solidarity99![/font][font size=2 color=green]
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------[/center]

[RevStPatrick]

45. I've seen you promote this meme across multiple threads...

...that Obama is a center/center-right president.

And I happen to agree with you.
And I still like the guy.

I don't understand why so many people have such a hard time accepting this.
He's done quite a few righty things, and quite a few lefty things.
He's certainly not the muslim socialist nazi marxist kenyan that his opposition tries to make him out to be.
But he's also certainly no leftist/socialist, even though I might prefer that.

He's a centrist. With some attitudes and policies that lean to the right.
And yet, he's still pretty much OK.

Why is this such a problem for some people here?

[DCBob]

56. +1

plus the fact that is pretty much the way he campaigned.

[joshcryer]

60. I found a lot of people bought the Obama as a populist myth.

And a lot of those people appear to have a long term grudge against him for not actually ... being a populist.

[MadHound]

122. The problem is that our only two options are center/center right and hard right

Hard to get liberal issues addressed, much less passed into law when neither major party addresses them. The left is essentially being ignored by the Democrats, taken for granted, since the conventional wisdom says that we can, since our only other real option is to vote Republican. This is not how a big tent party is supposed to work, or should work.

Neither I nor those on the left expect that the president should do everything we want to the exclusion of everybody else. Be we would like a bone thrown our way once in awhile, and that hasn't happened for a long, long while.

[bvar22]

168. "Why is this such a problem for some people here?"

...Because many of us here are FDR/LBJ Democrats,
NOT Reagan Democrats.
I agree that traditional Moderate Republicans should be very happy with the Obama Administration.



[font color=firebrick][center]"There are forces within the Democratic Party who want us to sound like kinder, gentler Republicans.
I want a party that will STAND UP for Working Americans."
---Paul Wellstone [/font][/center]
[center][/font]
[font size=1]photo by bvar22
Shortly before Sen Wellstone was killed[/center][/font]



[font size=5 color=green]Solidarity99![/font][font size=2 color=green]
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------[/center]

[xchrom]

54. i'll be happy when the republican party regains enough sanity that 'moderate', 'centrist'

democrats can return to the republican party.

i'm tired of 'moderate' or 'centrist' liberals screwing up the political conversation.

[Dragonfli]

121. As will I, too many Republicans in (D)rag pretending to speak as Democrats /nt

[joshcryer]

59. I'm noticing something different. He's forcing the Republicans to the right...

...by taking a very hard line moderate stance (if you can call moderation such a thing, it's sickeningly moderate how his positions have been, up until the past 2 months).

This is causing the Republicans to lose their collective minds because they're parroting themes that never before made it on a national level.

In fact, if you look at the vote breakdown, there has been an appreciable shift to the left in the past few months by the Democratic Party as a whole:



From: http://voteview.com/blog/

[DevonRex]

68. Thank you thank you thank you!

Josh Cryer has a lot of smarts with a big splash of common sense!

[ProSense]

72. That chart

shows that Democrats have moved further left than at any point in the last nine decades.

The survey and related data exposes a lot of flaws in the conclusions.

[joshcryer]

84. It scales based on the other side.

The Democrats didn't technically move at all, the Teabaggers moved right.

[MadHound]

123. I think that you're misinterpreting that

Obama isn't forcing the Republicans further to the right, it is the Republicans who are willingly going to the right, and dragging the Democratic party along with them.

[joshcryer]

129. False, go to the link.

[MadHound]

133. Study your political history,

The Republicans started this rightward shift back in the seventies, and the Democrats followed right along, trying to pick up those Reagan Democrats and mythical centerists. We didn't get where we are overnight, it took decades, but it was led by the Republicans, with the Democrats following right along.

[joshcryer]

137. You're neglecting the leftward shift as the data shows.

Are you going to reject that shift, even if minor, or are you going to push for more shift?

[MadHound]

140. You're neglecting historical reality

I suggest that you go study your history.

[joshcryer]

142. Demographics are only one way.

This only ends one way. A supposed "shift rightward" doesn't reflect the reality. Yes, the Reganistic move happened, no doubt, but that is coming to an end as that generation dies off.

[MadHound]

145. Reagan Democrats dying off, hardly

Given that the typical Reagan Democrat at the time was in their twenties and thirties, the Reagan voters are still with us.
Furthermore, how do you explain Bush the Younger? This country is moving further to the right, both in outlook and in our government.

[MannyGoldstein]

152. Two-thirds of Americans want Medicare for All,

an increase in the minimum wage, higher taxes on the wealthy, and so forth.

Americans want strong FDR Democrats.

[Drunken Irishman]

67. It's hard to take this survey seriously when they consider Clinton more left than HST and LBJ...

From top-to-bottom, in terms of legislation, Clinton was probably the most moderate president the Democrats have had since Roosevelt.

I'm not suggesting that makes him a bad president. But let's remember that Clinton ran as a small government Democrat, pushed through NAFTA, brought about welfare reform and helped further deregulate Wall Street - which led to the financial meltdown we saw a few years ago.

I could go on.

It is what it is, of course. It's not entirely a knock on Clinton. But no one in their right mind would suggest his presidency was more liberal than Lyndon Johnson.

[DevonRex]

69. Oh wow. Great point!

[JoePhilly]

73. The effort to attack Obama from the right and the left continues to become ...

more and more shrill.

The loony right screams he's a socialist, and the loony part of the left screams that he's a Republican.

Each position is a ridiculous caricature.

And the majority knows it.

As we approach the general election, and Obama's reelection continues to become more likely, the attacks will become even more shrill.

Santorium just said Obama plans to decapitate Christians, and we're going to hear endless screams that Obama is about to kill social security or some similar nonsense.

[MannyGoldstein]

77. Thanks to Occupy, Candidate Obama has paused his demands to cut Social Security

Hopefully it's an end to his war, not just an election-period truce.

BTW, are you referring to folks like me as "loony"? Are we advocating anything other than fundamental Democratic principles? Are we describing any actions by Obama that are not well documented?

[JoePhilly]

86. If one predicts that Obama is about to kill Social Security over and over and over ...

... and they are wrong each and every time ... and it doesn't happen ... well ... one does start to sound a bit "loony".

However, I was not referring specifically to you, and your predictions in this regard, although they are legendary. Now that it hasn't happened, you've had to back up and try to claim that its what he WANTS to do.

That kind of reminds about how the DADT argument when around here. Again, not referring to you specifically ... but in that case, we had lots of folks predicting that Obama was never ever going to allow a repeal. Then, when he signed the law ... the claims had to change to say he didn't really want to do it. And that he was going to let the generals "wiggle" out of it. Now its gone, and that particular manufactured outrage has been put to rest.

When such things occur, and it becomes clear that a particular "prediction" is not going to happen, the search for a new manufactured outrages will go on.

And MY prediction is that attacks on Obama, from right and left, will become more shrill as Obama's re-election becomes more and more apparent.

Maybe you have an alternative "prediction"?

[MannyGoldstein]

102. Obama is legally unable to cut Social Security by himself

All he can do is ask... or demand... that it be cut.

And that's exactly what he did. Or do you think he did not?

[JoePhilly]

103. So you mean Congress is keeping him for doing something that you

claim he wants to do??

Does that hold true for closing GITMO????

Funny how that works don't you think.

When he does a good thing, folks like you claim "Congress made him do it" ... when he doesn't do the evil thing YOU predicted .... "Congress didn't LET him do it."

Face it ... you are running out of outrages.

[MannyGoldstein]

115. Do you believe that Obama did not call for cuts in Social Security

As a follow up: why did Obama appoint the two most outspoken critics of Social Security to lead a "deficit commission"?

[JoePhilly]

116. Clearly to kill it.

That commission had ZERO power ... but hey ... Keep swinging!!!!

You might as well be complaining about how bad the lighting was at the SOTU.

And when your predictions about OUTCOMES are wrong, that's all you have left. But don't worry, Obama will only be President for about 5 more years.

btw ... I keep waiting for maybe you, or one of the other really staunch Obama theater critics to start a "Progressive Prez 2016 Group".

Especially now that the "primary Obama" dream has died ... but I still don't see one. What gives?

[MannyGoldstein]

120. So you're refusing to answer my question.

That speaks volumes.

For a bonus points: find a single post where I predicted that Obama would kill Social Security.

Happy hunting.

[JoePhilly]

124. I did answer your question.

And I'm not going back to DU2 to find your prior predictions.

They all died natural death.

[MannyGoldstein]

125. So you're refusing to answer both questions

I guess that really confirms it.

Thanks for playing.

[JoePhilly]

126. Oh no ... I answered both questions ...

Clearly Obama plans to kill Social Security when no one is looking ... and you NEVER predicted it.

Correct?

[girl gone mad]

143. You didn't answer either of Manny's questions..

and the rofl smiley is always the last resort of someone who has lost the argument.

[bvar22]

169. Nailed It.

"the rofl smiley is always the last resort of someone who has lost the argument"

...AND, they aren't really laughing.



You will know them by their WORKS,
not by their excuses.
[font size=5 color=green]Solidarity99![/font][font size=2 color=green]
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------[/center]

[Bodhi BloodWave]

179. Just because some people won't accept an answer dosn't mean the question wasn't answered nt

[bvar22]

80. Rachel Maddow says the Eisenhower is to The Left of President Obama.

*"Workers have a right to organize into unions and to bargain collectively with their employers. And a strong, free labor movement is an invigorating and necessary part of our industrial society."

*"Only a fool would try to deprive working men and women of their right to join the union of their choice."

*"Should any political party attempt to abolish Social Security, unemployment insurance, and eliminate labor laws and farm programs, you would not hear of that party again in our political history. There is a tiny splinter group, of course, that believes you can do these things, but their number is negligible and they are stupid."---Republican President Dwight Eisenhower

http://www.alternet.org/news/149700


Listen to Rachel Tell it like it IS in this clip:

Eisenhower was well to The Left of Obama on other issues too.

*Eisenhower thought that the RICH should pay over 90% in the top bracket to reduce the deficit

*Eisenhower presided over one of the most successful national Jobs Program, The Interstate Highway System,
and

*Eisenhower championed the "Socialist" GI Bills that helped BUILD the Middle Class

*Believed that Government should regulate Business, and protect American citizens.
He presided over Regulated International TRADE that protected American Industry,
and regulated Interstate trade so that Mom & Pop Local Businesses could thrive,
and prevented Out-of-State BIG Corporations from undercutting locally owned businesses.

And who could EVER forget how he Called Out the Military Industrial Complex.
Unfortunately, his warnings went unheeded:

[font size=3]”Every gun that is made, every warship launched, every rocket fired signifies, in the final sense, a theft from those who hunger and are not fed, those who are cold and are not clothed. This world in arms is not spending money alone. It is spending the sweat of its laborers, the genius of its scientists, the hopes of its children."
---President Dwight Eisenhower

[/font]
I would LOVE to hear THAT from ANY of our Democrats today.




You will know them by their WORKS,
not by their excuses.
[font size=5 color=green]Solidarity99![/font][font size=2 color=green]
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------[/center]

[ProSense]

89. That's

a great clip of the analysis of the 2011 SOTU.

Maddow basically says that the President is moving the center back to the true center, not allowing the rightward drift.

<...>

MADDOW: In terms of real policy, in terms of real governing, not just tone, but actual substance, if corporate tax loopholes closed so companies actually have to pay more taxes than you do next year, that would be change a lot of people can believe in. That would be a bigger deal than what happens to the corporate tax rate, since a lot of companies avoid being taxed at all anyway.

President Obama rang the centrist bell again last night when he talked about debts and deficit, the need to control spending. It‘s, of course, wildly popular to talk about that in the abstract, it always has been.

But it is wildly unpopular when you get to the specifics. Even now, with everybody talking about how much they love the idea of spending cuts, look at how unpopular it is to propose cutting any of these things. Gallup reporting 67 percent of people opposed to cuts in education; 64 percent of Americans opposed to cuts in Social Security; 61 percent opposed to cuts in Medicare.

The way that President Obama held the center in the center and didn‘t let the right drag this one over too was by making the case for investment. There is stuff, he said, that the government ought to spend money on.

<...>

Once you‘ve got everybody agreeing to that sort of a general principle, you can then make proposals that are actually liberal and it won‘t upset anyone. And I don‘t—I don‘t just mean like sort of vaguely liberal-sounding proposals, I mean like Eisenhower liberal. Like the president‘s case last night for national investment to have a high-speed broadband access all across the country, to have 98 percent of the country connected to broadband within the next five years.

Bill Clinton would not have proposed that as a centrist idea. This is an Eisenhower leftist idea. This is an interstate highway idea. The idea that government needs to make this happen, because even if no individual business is going to find this to be a profitable thing to do, the country needs this to happen so we can compete as a nation.

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/41297216/ns/msnbc_tv-rachel_maddow_show/

Interesting stuff.

[bvar22]

171. Thats not "really" what Rachel said.

What she really said is that Obama now has an opportunity to move to the left..."I mean like Eisenhower liberal"... and she hopes he will use it.
(There's that nasty "HOPE" word again.)

Here is the whole paragraph:

"Once you‘ve got everybody agreeing to that sort of a general principle, you can then make proposals that are actually liberal and it won‘t upset anyone. And I don‘t—I don‘t just mean like sort of vaguely liberal-sounding proposals, I mean like Eisenhower liberal. Like the president‘s case last night for national investment to have a high-speed broadband access all across the country, to have 98 percent of the country connected to broadband within the next five years."

The quote YOU selected does NOT support your claim that Obama is "moving the center back to the true center" (your words)
but instead reinforces that theme of her entire essay, AND the topic of this thread.

The OP should thank you for providing more support for his/her OP.



You will know them by their WORKS,
not by their excuses.
[font size=5 color=green]Solidarity99![/font][font size=2 color=green]
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------[/center]

[Liberal_Stalwart71]

82. I'm a political scientist myself, and Kenneth Poole hasn't been relevant for at least 20 years

in the discipline.

[DCBob]

98. I suspect this "analysis" sure wont change that.

Thanks for the reality check.

[Liberal_Stalwart71]

111. No worries. Dr. Poole is from the "old school" way of doing things. Not that he wasn't

great or isn't great, it's just what it is. We're dealing in different, very fluid times.

[Enrique]

186. when you say in the discipline

do you mean in the Democratic party? In the DLC? In the beltway?

20 years, that means 1992, which is a big year for the DLC.

[Liberal_Stalwart71]

187. I mean in the political science discipline. And you're right. 1992 was a huge year for

the DLC, as well as, for other Democratic Party groups: women, blacks, Hispanics.

[SidDithers]

108. Most of you are still wrong...

Last edited Sun Feb 12, 2012, 10:40 PM - Edit history (1)

Sid

[messiah]

153. Liberal and conservative mean almost nothing nowadays

Liberals can be conservative and vice-versa . The center can not be measured between liberal and conservative since it is already center-right. Liberals (those who people have elected) are die hard capitalists so the center is actually to the left.
A more accurate chart would have showed the left communist-socialist going towards the right.

[woo me with science]

112. I don't consider indefinite detention and 30.000 drones in American sky

to be centrist policies.

[rudycantfail]

181. They've been centrist since around 2009.

[Honeycombe8]

127. Clinton was more "right" than Obama. But they were faced w different situations....

It all depends on what circumstances you have to deal with, and who is fighting you.

Obama got a health care reform act passed, something the Clintons were unable to do. Clinton, OTOH, passed NAFTA, and he "reformed" the welfare system by working w the Repubs to put a limit to the length of time someone can be on welfare.

I think Obama ended up being how he presented himself during his campaign, which was a moderate Democrat, same as Hillary.

[woo me with science]

130. The corporate insurance mandate was the greatest gift to the one percent

since the creation of the Department of Homeland Security.

And it was planned that way all along.

[MadHound]

132. You need to take their records in their entirety

Clinton was trying to pass a much more liberal health care reform bill. Obama presided over the passing of HCR that is essentially a retread of Romney's plan, which is essentially a retread of Nixon's plan.

Plus, Obama has continued tax breaks for the rich, continued the war, increased the attack on our civil liberties. Clinton was not a liberal president by any means, but he was a bit more to the left than where Obama has been governing from so far.

[ProSense]

134. What

"Clinton was trying to pass a much more liberal health care reform bill. "

...nonsense. As I suspected with this comment, you are, in fact, trying to argue that Clinton was to the left of Obama.

Clinton's health care plan also had a mandate. Clinton's plan also had no provision for catastrophic care, which was a provision picked up from Kerry's plan.

Here is another provision made possible by the new health care law

Low-income state workers begin to gain access to Children’s Health Insurance Program

By Sarah Barr

At least six states have opened their Children’s Health Insurance Program to the kids of low-income state employees, an option that was prohibited until the passage of the 2010 health-care law.

This relatively small step has as its backdrop years of debate over the program, known as CHIP, including concerns that it encourages states — and consumers — to replace private insurance with taxpayer-subsidized coverage.

Now, as a result of the policy change, families of lower-income state workers who have struggled to pay for family coverage can qualify for the program. CHIP, which is jointly financed by the states and the federal government, provides coverage to the uninsured children of families who earn too much to qualify for Medicaid but cannot afford private insurance.

The federal government had closed that option to most states when CHIP was established in 1997, because of concerns that it might be an easy way for financially strapped states to shift the costs of some public-employee health benefits to the federal government. Federal employees were allowed to enroll their children.

- more -

http://www.washingtonpost.com/national/health-science/2011/11/04/gIQAeDvotM_story.html?hpid=z4

[MadHound]

135. As I said, only slightly to the left of Obama

And again, HCR under Obama is basically warmed over Romney care, which is a rip off of Nixon's health care reform proposal.

Yay! We got Nixoncare!

[ProSense]

136. And

"As I said, only slightly to the left of Obama"

...it's still only nonsense. Clinton took a hard turn right with most of his programs.

"And again, HCR under Obama is basically warmed over Romney care, which is a rip off of Nixon's health care reform proposal.

Yay! We got Nixoncare!"

You're under the impression that Romney is actually responsible for Mass health care, and Nixon gave us HMOs.

[MadHound]

138. Well, this conversation could go on all night,

But I have to get up in the morning, so I'll continue with it then.

However I must say it is amusing that we're arguing over who was the most rightward leaning Democratic president in the last couple of decade. Or it would be amusing if it wasn't so sad that the Democratic presidents continue their rightward march.

Good night.

[ProSense]

141. No

However I must say it is amusing that we're arguing over who was the most rightward leaning Democratic president in the last couple of decade. Or it would be amusing if it wasn't so sad that the Democratic presidents continue their rightward march.

...that's not what I'm arguing: I'm saying Clinton was likely the most right-leaning Democrat of the last 70 years and the study cited in the OP that tries to portray him as left of LBJ, Obama and Truman is completely flawed.

[MadHound]

146. Really?

So you don't consider extending tax cuts, a stimulus largely consisting of tax cuts, ongoing wars, an increasing attack on our civil liberties to be rightward leaning?

Your support for Obama has left you incapable of rational judgment and reasoning.

[ProSense]

159. Yes

"Your support for Obama has left you incapable of rational judgment and reasoning."

...really!

Here: DADT, DOMA, welfare reform and two laws that caused the devastating financial catastrophe, repealing Glass-Steagall and enacting the enron loophole.

Obama: Wall Street reform, including the CFPB, new powers to the FDIC, and the Volcker rule.

I think an anti-Obama posture "has left you incapable of rational judgment and reasoning." The facts back me up.

[MannyGoldstein]

148. Romney's not largely responsible for RomneyCare? Really?

The record shows otherwise:

Analyzing Romney's Leadership On Health Care

And Obama adopted Romney's model wholesale specifically because it was Romney's model:

Records: Obama used Romney as health care model

[ProSense]

160. Get

"Romney's not largely responsible for RomneyCare? Really?"

...your facts here:

From the article you linked to:

Legislators were all smiles during the ceremony, but minutes after, their mood soured. Romney aides told the press the governor would veto eight sections of the bill, including the Legislature’s carefully crafted compromise on that modest employer fine. Legislators had become increasingly wary of Romney’s motivations around the health care bill. Sen. Richard Moore suspected Romney vetoed the employer penalty because he knew it wouldn’t play well if he ran for president.

In fall 2005 the House and Senate each passed health care insurance reform bills. The legislature made a number of changes to Governor Romney's original proposal, including expanding MassHealth (Medicaid and SCHIP) coverage to low-income children and restoring funding for public health programs. The most controversial change was the addition of a provision which requires firms with 11 or more workers that do not provide "fair and reasonable" health coverage to their workers to pay an annual penalty. This contribution, initially $295 annually per worker, is intended to equalize the free care pool charges imposed on employers who do and do not cover their workers.

On April 12, 2006, Governor Mitt Romney signed the health legislation.[18] Romney vetoed eight sections of the health care legislation, including the controversial employer assessment.[19] Romney also vetoed provisions providing dental benefits to poor residents on the Medicaid program, and providing health coverage to senior and disabled legal immigrants not eligible for federal Medicaid.[20] The legislature promptly overrode six of the eight gubernatorial section vetoes, on May 4, 2006, and by mid-June 2006 had overridden the remaining two.[21]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Massachusetts_health_care_reform#Legislation

[MannyGoldstein]

163. Don't be silly

The bill and concept were Romney's, he vetoed a few parts.

[Proud Liberal Dem]

147. Context is important

Last edited Mon Feb 13, 2012, 12:29 PM - Edit history (1)

Clinton failed to get his more liberal version of HCR passed, largely because of some of the same congressional dynamics that Obama encountered (though he didn't have to deal with a permanent filibuster though he got abandoned by most of his won party). Obama has never supported the Bush tax cuts for the wealthy per se but agreed to extend them in order to preserve unemployment benefits. He never pledged to immediately end Afghanistan or Iraq immediately but has followed through on Iraq and has a timetable for Afghanistan. Aside from the clusterf**k in Somalia, Clinton didn't inherit any ongoing wars but did militarily intervene in Bosnia not unlike Obama did in Libya (for which he was/is roundly criticised). As for civil liberties, yes, Obama has largely continued the Bush anti-terror policies, most of which has ultimately been codified into law by Congress, which also prevented Obama from closing Gitmo like he wanted to do. Such things were never even on the drawing board as far as anybody-Democrat or Repuublican- was concerned back when Clinton was POTUS.

[Honeycombe8]

177. Obama didn't continue the tax breaks. Congress did. Re Iraq War, as I said, he campaigned on it.

No surprises with the two wars. He said he would orchestrate some sort of long-term withdrawal in Iraq, which he did.

The Clinton healthcare plan (Hillary's plan) was employer-based. As soon as I heard that, I shut my ears. It was ridiculous, and it was pretty much ridiculed across the country. It was make believe.

I don't think Obama increased the attacks on our civil liberties.

I think Clinton was clearly to the right of Obama, or left of center, same as Obama. Clinton really pushed NAFTA, which was a Republican-based idea, and Perot, an Independent, was even against it and warned against it. Clinton got China's trade lead off to a great start. Clinton didn't have to deal with the 9/11 attack.

So I maintain, still, that Obama is moderate, and was moderate in his campaigning.

[bhikkhu]

139. I don't find labels to be all that useful

...and I'm often confused that I might agree with something labeled entirely different from the label that I'm supposed to have.

[vaberella]

149. Eisenhower wasn't a bad President. Oh contraire.

As a Republican he was one of the best and super left.

[WI_DEM]

156. I think this is a worthless study. Obama certainly is not more to the right of Bill Clinton

who gave us Don't Ask Don't Tell, Nafta & "Welfare" Reform

[ProSense]

161. It's

nonsense like hyping this study that proves Melissa Hart Perry was right.

I mean, Obama, who is a pro-regulation Democrat, has spent most of his first years undoing the damaged caused by Bush and Clinton.

Some people seem determined to rewrite Clinton's legacy, spinning the great triangulator as the more liberal than Obama, LBJ and Truman.

[AtomicKitten]

170. Ezra Klein agrees.

"Although the peculiarities of using DW-Nominate to rate presidents are worth pointing out, the data is also telling us something important: Obama is a pretty moderate president. I doubt he’s actually more moderate than Clinton, as the system suggests. But he’s vastly more moderate than the political rhetoric surrounding his presidency — something that was also true for Clinton."

[sofa king]

157. Can you not see why?

John McCain drew more votes than the margin of error predicted in enough states that if such an "unusual coincidence" had happened in a closer election, McCain would have won.

Our political process is stolen, but it still has to be close enough to steal.

That is the secret of this President's success: he is a populist President, tacking close to the center in order to build an overwhelming base of support that cannot be statistically explained away.

We simply don't know how liberal this President is because we've never given him an opportunity to get something done with a supportive Congress. And yet he has exceeded the expectations of me and most other serious political watchers.

Even this election (and I'm still convinced President Obama is on a 400+ electoral vote trajectory) won't be able to clear enough Republicans out of the Senate to prevent that body from being used as a delay tool. We'll have to wait until 2014 for that.

Can you not see that the President's "moderate" position is a necessity borne of our fixed election system, and the criminal ways of his political opponents? Why do so many of you have trouble understanding that?

[The Doctor.]

164. It's a combination of many corrupted aspects of the system.

Seeing this otherwise populist president forced into such intractable situations (and managing them well) only tells me that the game is long since over.

[bvar22]

176. Nobody "forced" President Obama to do this:

[font size=5]
The DLC New Team
[/font]
(Screen Capped from the DLC Website)
http://www.dlc.org/ndol_ci.cfm?contentid=254886&kaid=86&subid=85

Nobody "forced" President Obama to take Single Payer Off the Table BEFORE the fight started.

Nobody "forced" President Obama to offer up cuts to Social Security.



I have NEVER bought into the meme that President Obama is a weak, helpless President.
THAT is NOT a very good marketing approach to try and sell him to America again.

[font size=5][center]Vote Obama 2012
because its NOT his fault.
He was "forced" to do all that bad stuff.

[/font][/center]

President Obama is a strong, competent politician who fought his way to the Top of the Pile in Chicago,
and nobody who is weak & helpless does THAT.
It is a BETTER marketing approach to acknowledge the President Obama is STRONG,
and gets almost everything he wants,
as He himself has stated many times.

"Strong and successful presidents (meaning those who get what they want - whether that happens to be good for the country or not) do not accept "the best deal on the table". They take out their carpentry tools and the build the goddam piece of furniture themselves. Strong and successful presidents do not get dictated to by the political environment. They reshape the environment into one that is conducive to their political aspirations.

In short, strong and successful presidents are the bat, not the ball."

http://www.commondreams.org/view/2010/07/17

[font size=4]"A genuine leader is not a searcher for consensus but a molder of consensus."[/font]
-Rev Martin Luther King Jr.



"You will know them by their WORKS,
not by their excuses." --bvar22
[font size=5 color=green]Solidarity99![/font][font size=2 color=green]
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------[/center]

[The Doctor.]

180. Martin Luther King Jr. was assasinated.

This President has more work to do.

[MannyGoldstein]

182. Excellent post

Thank you.

[sofa king]

183. I did not say he was not strong.

I said the electoral system is fixed and this incredible person found a way around it. Two totally different things.

But unless you see something totally different going on in Congress, it doesn't matter at all how strong this President is.

What matters is what he can get done, and it's taking everything he has just to keep our nation pinned down in the center instead of continuing its drift into fascism.

[ProSense]

184. No

"Strong and successful presidents (meaning those who get what they want - whether that happens to be good for the country or not) do not accept "the best deal on the table".

...amount of spin can change the facts.

CQ: Obama's Winning Streak On Hill Unprecedented


Obama 2012 because the Republicans are clowns and psychos.
http://www.democraticunderground.com/1002163533

People seem to overlook at lot of what has actually happened. Add the recess appointment of Richard Cordray to head the new CFPB and add these:

The Bomb Buried In Obamacare Explodes Today-Hallelujah!
http://www.democraticunderground.com/100294855

Consumer groups call on Federal Reserve to break up Bank of America
http://www.democraticunderground.com/1002233756

Volcker Stands Up For Namesake Rule (updated)
http://www.democraticunderground.com/1002305581

What doesn't fit a certain narrative is ignored or misrepresented.

[bvar22]

188. So we agree that Obama is a strong President who gets what he wants.

And you can count these as "WINS".

*Channeling Trillions in Public Money to Wall Street no strings attached

*Saving the AutoIndustry on the backs of LABOR and the Auto Workers,
demanding "concessions" in contract benefits and opening Non-Union plants where workers are paid LESS than 1/2
of what the Union Workers earn.

*Extending the Bush tax Cuts, but "winning" a crumb for some of the unemployed

*Channeling BILLIONS of Public Tax Payer Dollars Per Year to the For Profit Health Insurance Industry.
These BILLIONS are cleverly disguised as "subsidies" to the near poor, but make NO mistake,
this Public Money goes directly into the pockets of a completely parasitic "private" industry.

*Mandates with NO Public Option...counts as a BIG WIN? (Crying Online)

*Reinforcing the Patriot Act and expanding the Extra-Constitutional powers of the Unitary Executive

*MORE "Free Trade"

*Privatizing the Public Schools

*Reducing FICA (Federal Insurance Contributions Act) Contributions that fund Social Security & Medicare,
and charging the loss of revenue on the national credit card
(Would FDR, HST or LBJ chalk THIS up in the WIN column?)


"Triangulation", mastered by the Centrist Bill Clinton, and what Lawrence O'Donnell called "brilliant strategy" (Rope-a-Dope),
moving to The Right by co-opting the Republican position on issues, HAS produced something that politicians can call "Political WINS". By moving steadily to The Right for 25 years, the Democratic Party HAS driven the Republican Party to the extreme edge of the Political Spectrum,
but the price for these WINS is being paid by the American Working Class which is being driven into extinction.
I don't believe the Working Class can stand much more "winning".





You will know them by their WORKS,
not by their excuses.
[font size=5 color=green]Solidarity99![/font][font size=2 color=green]
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------[/center]

[fascisthunter]

185. It's Really Sad seeing our most Conservative DU posters disagree with this

You would think they'd embrace the fact that he and they are to the right of traditional democrats... but hey, politics is all about perception, right DUers?

If you can't be hionest about your own views, shut up about how we criticize this president... thanks in advance.