General Discussion
Related: Editorials & Other Articles, Issue Forums, Alliance Forums, Region ForumsObama IS progressive, and he will most likely be re-elected. Welcome to reality.
If you are not a purist and live in the real world, and if you can see that the root of the term "progressive" means PROGRESS, then you can not argue that on balance Obama is not a progressive. I won't repeat the entire very long list of PROGRESSIVE legislation enacted, the most since LBJ. Pure? No, not every bit of all of it. PROGRESSIVE? God damn right. From fair pay, to middle class tax cuts, to extending unemployment benefits, to expanding green energy, to greatly increasing auto efficiency standards, to better college loans, to Wall St. reform, to saving the auto industry, to stopping a full depression, to ending Iraq, to appointing Sotomayor and Kagan, to ending DATD, and to ending throwing people off healthcare for pre-existing conditions, he IS progressive. (Purists will always disagree. And I know there will be counter-lists. He does, you know, have to function as just ONE branch of government and has to contend with the Repukes, you remember, who were elected and all and who now control the House and more Senate seats. But yeah, you know, that Constitution thing. You do remember that, right?)
And he will most likely be re-elected. Barring a full economic meltdown, he wins most of the keys to re-election from no scandals to a weak Republican field to foreign policy successes. Yes, we continue to dig out from the Bush/RePUKE era financial debacle but people know he didn't cause it, and they know it could've been much worse but for his action.
Always nice to be able to offer some reality. A refreshing change of pace. 
= new reply since forum marked as read
Highlight:
NoneDon't highlight anything
5 newestHighlight 5 most recent replies
BOG PERSON
(2,916 posts)and the last three years is what progress looks like.
TheWraith
(24,331 posts)From the time the first abolitionist political party was founded, it took TWENTY FIVE YEARS to end SLAVERY. Progress comes slowly and painfully, and it comes in big lumps only with massive, overwhelming super-majorities of Democrats. When FDR passed the first, very mild form of Social Security (which exempted and ignored virtually all black people and women) he did so with SEVENTY SIX Democrats in the Senate.
FarLeftFist
(6,161 posts)
reACTIONary
(7,158 posts)Ken Burch
(50,254 posts)And do you really believe that Obama is ever even going to try to fix the healthcare or finance reform bills?
Look...I'm most likely going to vote for the guy, but this whole arrogant tone really doesn't help.
The things people have been disappointed in are NOT trivial.
Kahuna
(27,366 posts)today, he would sign it into legislation. I believe that barring that, if he could have the votes to enact a public option, he would do it. The president is pragmatic. He knows what the votes are and what is possible and what is not possible. He always said that the healthcare bill was the first step and that it could be improved on in the future. But, it will never be improved on unless he or any Democratic president has congressional representatives that are willing to do it.
As long as "progressives" keep hindering their own agenda by punishing Democrats, the republican agenda becomes more mainstream in acceptance by the American people, and that makes it even harder to undo the conservative policies.
tledford
(917 posts)jtrockville
(4,266 posts)For example, Santorum would consider a ban on gay marriage to be "PROGRESS".
MH1
(19,151 posts)jtrockville
(4,266 posts)It depends on what the "stuff" is.
On the whole, I don't consider Obama a progressive. Not even close. So I guess that makes me a purist, according to RBInMaine.
Response to jtrockville (Reply #16)
Post removed
themadstork
(899 posts)Just a thought.
jtrockville
(4,266 posts)I'm happy to continue a dialog with someone who challenges my opinions with insightful opinions of their own. But if someone's going to basically just call me crazy, I'll pass.
Vincardog
(20,234 posts)MH1
(19,151 posts)or are you saying that the net of Obama's accomplishments (some progressive, some regressive in your opinion) is not progressive?
jtrockville
(4,266 posts)I said "on the whole" I don't consider him a progressive.
FunMe
(192 posts)He was brought to do that thank to the efforts of GetEqual and Lt. Dan Choi (remember them being chained to the White House gates?)
As MLK said: we must force our "leaders" to do the right thing otherwise they would just ignore you. Obama had been ignoring the GLBT community for a long time (remember the insulting briefs his DOJ wrote in defense of DOMA?).
Get real, GetEqual and see that it was because of others and the pressure he got that had him get rid of DADT.
Geez!
Cherchez la Femme
(2,488 posts)Way back in 2004 it was the Log Cabin Republicans who brought DADT to court (Log Cabin Republicans v. United States http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Log_Cabin_Republicans_v._United_States) which ruled FOR them (i.e. AGAINST DADT).
Obama had no option but to discontinue DADT, even though they asked for an injunction against the ruling. Prior to that there had been a lot of foot-dragging INCLUDING his DOJ using, in court, the Bushie argument that gays were prone to incest and bestiality.
Read http://www.thepostgameshow.com/?tag=barack-obama for more Obama DADT & DOMA goodness (with "America's Pastor' thrown in for good measure).
Same goes for 'ending the war in Iraq': Obama's people were trying to convince al-Maliki to KEEP U.S. troops in Iraq;
it was the security deal between Washington and Baghdad that insisted the U.S. abide by it's previous assertion/promise they would be out by a certain date.
http://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2011/10/us-troops-are-leaving-because-iraq-doesnt-want-them-there/247174/
The White House was trying to persuade the Iraqis to allow 2,000-3,000 troops to stay beyond the end of the year, of course, as always, U.S. troops having full immunity to being prosecuted under Iraqi law,
no matter what they did.
Still, revisionism reigns supreme.
fascisthunter
(29,381 posts)I'd be interested in a response.
Zhade
(28,702 posts)It's always satisfying to use their own, er, logic against them, isn't it? I know I enjoy it. : )
FedUp_Queer
(975 posts)Nixon did some progressive things: worked to establish the EPA, for one.
Reagan did some progressive things: amnesty for undocumented immigrants, for one.
Same with Obama (though he has done, probably, more progressive things). However, at his core, nobody could argue he is a progressive. What, pray tell, could I be talking about?
Supports indefinite detention (even for acquitted detainees at Gitmo).
Deported more undocumented immigrants than ever.
Supported deep cuts to the community development block grant.
Has increased the size of Bagram, has increased extraordinary renditions.
Supports extrajudicial killings of American citizens.
Granted BP licenses to drill in the Gulf AFTER the recent disaster.
Granted Shell licenses to drill in the Arctic.
Has prosecuted more whistleblowers than anyone recently.
One with a progressive core would never have done these things...never. These links alone are UNCONSCIONABLE for a progressive.
http://www.npr.org/2011/02/14/133756360/Anti-Poverty-Groups-Alarmed-At-Obama-Budget
http://www.thecaap.org/programs/advocacy/save-csbg/
AlbertCat
(17,505 posts)Obama seems "progressive" only in the bright glare of the way right conservatism that is the norm now. For instance, DADT was nuts and so backwards, nixing it was just common sense, not really progressive.
Personally, I think he's milquetoast more than progressive.
Sherman A1
(38,958 posts)
Response to FedUp_Queer (Reply #122)
Sherman A1 This message was self-deleted by its author.
wakemewhenitsover
(1,595 posts)Bluenorthwest
(45,319 posts)That is what DOMA does. So it is not regression or progression, it is what is, there is a ban on 'gay marriage' right now.
jtrockville
(4,266 posts)Maybe building the Keystone XL pipeline?
Or fracking the nation's aquifers?
These could be considered PROGRESS (moving forward) in a strict sense of the word, no?
Sheepshank
(12,504 posts)they want to reverse HCR
They want to remove womens rights of choice
They want to reverse DADT
They want another Reagan in Office
They want to require creationism in schools.
They want to reverse stem cell research.
They want to continue the endless wars.
And lets not forget the all famous, "I want my country back" statements that really mean absolutely nothing...but they want to GO BACK TO SOMETHING THEY CAN'T ACTUALLY ARTICULATE.
How is any of this and much, much more progression?
OMFG I'm so sick of the meme "Obama is just like a Republican". Sick I tell ya!
jtrockville
(4,266 posts)For example, Jon Huntsman wants to increase production of domestic energy sources. That's moving forward. Granted, it's not moving forward in a way that would satisfy progressives, but it is, nonetheless, moving forward.
So while I think the current slate of GOP candidates are all far less progressive than Obama is, I still don't consider Obama to be a progressive (on the whole).
Given the choices, I'll probably still (reluctantly) cast my vote his way - you know, the "lesser of two evils", and not wanted to "throw my vote away" and all that. But I won't be doing it with enthusiasm, nor will I be donating any time or money to the effort.
Plucketeer
(12,882 posts)The one constantly giving consessions is the winner, and the ones constantly TAKING those consessions - they're the losers. Got it!
So we've got advancements of rights for the LGBT community - both in and out of the military. Great. And we've got an ever-tightening noose of surveillance and habeus corpus. Great! We've got more people guaranteed can now be ripped off by health insurers. Great! We've PROBABLY got more mercenaries on the payroll than we'll EVER know the truth about. Great. I could go on, but I've had about all of the "Great" I can take at the moment
Sheepshank
(12,504 posts)
vaberella
(24,634 posts)Then you would say that Teddy Roosevelt and Lincoln were not progressive? That's absurd. In actuality the idea of progressivism is seen as a growth of a nation. Your faulty comparison on Republicans and Progress is a strawman. A free-er nation and all rights to all people is actually seen as Progress because it goes in line with the abolishment of slavery and later the civil rights movement which encompassed Native American movements and Women's Rights movements and labor movements.
That would be moving backward and counter to progress. Hence the OP mentioned many things that move forward and expand the rights of the people those things are progressive. And even if Obama has not done 100% well; it's undeniable that 85% or more of his policies are Progressive.
But Progress and being a Progressive goes for Republicans and Democrats alike---it is absolutely not interchangeable with liberalism.
Denninmi
(6,581 posts)I think it will be a tough election, and the deck has been intentionally stacked against him in various ways.
Not to mention the high probability, IMHO, of outright election fraud against Obama by the R's should it look like he's going to win.
teddy51
(3,491 posts)
Angry Dragon
(36,693 posts)OH!! ......... that does not seem to work too well
treestar
(82,383 posts)progress. And give Republicans all kinds of talking points.
The right knows they are in a losing battle. That is why they are so ridiculously OTT and hysterical.
TheKentuckian
(26,314 posts)and in disastrous directions.
Progress toward what end and at who's cost are always reasonable questions.
quakerboy
(14,857 posts)
choie
(6,900 posts)that's denial...
kentuck
(115,400 posts)
He may be a progressive but he just hasn't had time to practice it yet?
Obama's a progressive like I'm a TeaKlanner. 
MissDeeds
(7,499 posts)Any true progressive knows the difference.
MannyGoldstein
(34,589 posts)And progressivly better for the 1%.
That's not the kind of progess most of us expected.
KeepItReal
(7,770 posts)Nothing has changed on that account.
Banksters are still over leveraged and derivatives are still unregulated.
Speculation is still rampant in energy and food areas.
No lending requirements for banks that received taxpayer bailouts...hence tight credit.
The President can't even get a person confirmed to run the consumer protection agency.
On matters economic, please don't call President Obama "progressive".
His team is made of (University of) Chicago boys and Wall St. insiders. They've shunned or ignored left or center left economists like Krugman and Stiglitz.
MannyGoldstein
(34,589 posts)Watch your step mister, or you could be imprisoned forever with no judicial recourse.
KeepItReal
(7,770 posts)Move along... Move along...
bhikkhu
(10,789 posts)...its a few long pages of summary, but if you're interested the main things are all there.
Selatius
(20,441 posts)Regulating the banks' activities isn't the same as breaking up the banking cartel itself.
bhikkhu
(10,789 posts)
It only goes to 2009, but things really haven't gotten much rosier for them since then. Overall, their size and effect on the economy is on a saner scale currently.
Selatius
(20,441 posts)That's why I specifically mentioned "anti-trust" with respect to business law to clarify the issue. There was another graph posted once or twice at DU showing the numbers of banks that existed 20 years vs. those that exist today, and you can clearly see massive consolidation occurred throughout the last two decades, especially post-repeal of the Glass-Steagall Act in 1999.
bhikkhu
(10,789 posts)In 1998 things really took a turn...
But as far as market capitalization, that has to do more with the amount of weight one has the throw around and the amount of leverage that can be applied. For better or worse, the banking sector is the top of the food chain on the markets, though its only real purpose for existence is to facilitate the monetary systems that we all rely on. Everything balances better and is a little more stable if the top of the pyramid is smaller than the bottom of the pyramid.
Turbineguy
(40,040 posts)A Democratic majority in both Houses so he has something to work with.
stockholmer
(3,751 posts)
bluestate10
(10,942 posts)He absolutely has never had that, from Day 1. So the challenge for those that call themselves progressives is to help deliver that fillibuster proof majority for President Obama's second term.
stillwaiting
(3,795 posts)It won't matter a lick if we kick the current crop of Dems out and elect new ones (that need massive amounts of money to win in this country).
Your prescription is simply not possible within the confines of our current system. There is simply no way we can get SIXTY progressive senators in this country, and this should not prevent our country from being able to pass truly progressive legislation that dramatically helps most all of us. Unfortunately that IS currently reality, it is absurd on its face, and it simply must change.
There are several very important things that need to be changed in this country or the next batch of Dems will become compromised by the system before they are even sworn in to office (for the most part).
Our country can not survive much longer if we only have a few people in Congress pursuing legislation that benefits the 99% over the elite. The U.S. will resemble Mexico in its income and wealth distribution sooner than I even thought possible if we don't change the system and soon.
Change the system. This is THE discussion that needs to be focused on. Sure, vote for the Dem, but change the system. If we keep on expecting the current electoral system to bring us the changes that our people need, our people will continue on its downward trajectory. The Great Leveling is rapidly occurring throughout this country.
FedUp_Queer
(975 posts)George Bush never had the majorities Obama did, yet the only legislative failure of his presidency of note is the failure to privatize social security. Two HUGE tax cuts; war; the Patriot Act. My God...Obama-ites act like nobody ever did anything without a filibuster-proof majority. Were he a leader, he would have been out there pounding the GOP during the health care debate (and not waiting 7 months to even join the fray), for instance. There's a reason the corporate masters of this country are only running the tools on the GOP side...they have their man...already in the White House.
boxman15
(1,033 posts)And considering the likes of Lieberman and Nelson blocking every single piece of progressive legislation until it was watered down to their liking, that was only an illusion.
Maybe if we get Obama some progressives in Congress, more progress will be made more easily. People always like to say "Well, FDR did this, why can't Obama?!? He sold us out!"
Well, FDR had GIGANTIC Democratic majorities on an unprecedented scale, most elected on FDR's New Deal platform. Obama did not have that luxury from 2009-2010. And we the people gave him a Republican House and a slim Democratic majority in the 2010 elections, making progress on any issues virtually impossible.
So, we have two options for 2012: Work to make sure Obama is re-elected and give him truly progressive majorities as large as possible. Or we can just let Republicans take everything in 2012, ensuring all the progress we've made in the past three years is reversed, a war with Iran, AND a Supreme Court that will remain Republican/corporatist for a generation.
For me, the choice is obvious. I hope it is for you, too. We could definitely use your help.
Old and In the Way
(37,540 posts)Then, if Obama starts vetoing legislation, I'll start taking the criticism seriously.
harmonicon
(12,008 posts)How did that work during his first two years in office? He and the Democratic congress did NOTHING.
emulatorloo
(46,155 posts)as the were aided by Republicans who were willing to fillibuster anything.
harmonicon
(12,008 posts)How many times did they actually make Republicans filibuster? For that matter, how many times have they done so during this congress? Filibuster isn't just a word, it's a process, and it's meaningless if the leadership doesn't actually force the opposition into it. Instead, we seem to have one unified body determined to get nothing done unless everyone is in agreement with it (only when Dems are in charge, of course. If Republicans controlled the senate, you'd see all of their legislation pass with 51 votes if need be).
emulatorloo
(46,155 posts)That is not how the modern fillibuster works.
harmonicon
(12,008 posts)However, the rules still haven't changed. The last person I can think of who actually filibustered was Sanders. He actually did it. Most senators - especially Republicans - never would, and that's why they should be called out on their shit. That doesn't happen, because the Democratic leadership has much more in common with the Republican leadership than either has with we, the American people.
Selatius
(20,441 posts)the Senate has always been the roadblock to major legislative action. The senators were the ones who stripped out the Public Option and weakened price control mechanisms in the health insurance bill. The Senate was designed to give less populous states more weight in comparison to more populous states, and it happens to be that smaller states lean conservative, for the most part.
Again, the Senate was the road block as far as enacting a stronger version of the financial reform bill that ultimately passed. Too many right-wing Democrats are the problem in the Senate.
harmonicon
(12,008 posts)having Democratic control of both houses didn't really do much for him, did it?
emulatorloo
(46,155 posts)That influences your hypothesis, which sadly makes your hypothesis incorrect.
patrice
(47,992 posts)
mmonk
(52,589 posts)Sticks and stones.
TomClash
(11,344 posts)Was your intent to win converts to the Cause or chastise the lesser mortals like me who have qualms about Obama?
The more I read from his supporters here (with Babylonsister and a few others notably excepted), the less I want to vote for or help re-elect the President.
Missy Vixen
(16,207 posts)aren't they?
It would seem to me that if he ran the greatest administration in the history of the United States, there would be no need for the daily chastising and hard-sell, would there?
Vincardog
(20,234 posts)because it reenforces their choice in bowing to the corruption.
Poll_Blind
(23,864 posts)^ This.
Obama campaign in 2008? All carrot.
Obama campaign in 2012? All stick.
I think they'll find "Whipping up the vote" is far less effective when an actual whip is used.
Their lesson to learn, IMO. From almost day one there's been a palpable disconnect between the Obama Administration and those most emotionally invested in the election of 2008- which not only was comprised of Democrats and Progressives but independent voters as well. The disconnect only grew wider, encompassing not just his base but leadership and rank-and-file in the Senate and especially the House.
Again, their lesson to learn. I've seen it pointed out that putting Rahm in as Chief of Staff was the preamble to this disconnect but I never followed Rahm closely enough to make an evaluation. Maybe it's impossible to point out "just one thing" that led to this situation, I dunno.
PB
Zhade
(28,702 posts)...and what, a fifth of that for a "golly Obama's swell" vanity thread -- and WE'RE the ones out of touch with reality?
:lol:
emulatorloo
(46,155 posts)Zhade
(28,702 posts)My point was that support for Obama -- and his corporatist policies -- pales in comparison to the support for OWS.
There's a reason for that.
jefferson_dem
(32,683 posts)But your post - and silly effort to divide DU - made me laugh out loud, literally.
Leaving aside the 
"corporatist policies" charge...
Obama earned more votes in the last presidential election (66,882,230) than any candidate in American history. Even with steadfast smears and opposition by teabaggers and a tiny contingent of serial complaining firebaggers, his 2012 numbers will rival that. By that standard, he's the most supported US politician ever. Deal with it.
emulatorloo
(46,155 posts)This seems to be a foreign concept to you.
Number23
(24,544 posts)It astounds me that some people are so damn out of touch with their fellow humans that they honestly don't understand that many of the president's strongest supporters support OWS. Hell the president has HIMSELF voiced support for OWS. And the fact that OWS has been largely free of anything even resembling anti-Obama sentiment seems to also escape their notice.
I can't tell if they are deliberately trying to be divisive or are really that clueless.
emulatorloo
(46,155 posts)There are lots and lots of manifestations of this. The latest one seems to be those who seem to think OWS concerns are 100 per cent with Obama and Democrats.
patrice
(47,992 posts)The one's I have seen are NOT pro-Obama. They think he's going to have them all put in FEMA camps. Every ounce of pepper-spray is his fault.
Downtown Hound
(12,618 posts)police brutality that has been used against it?
Maybe because he's only pro-OWS as long as he feels it's politically expedient?
Number23
(24,544 posts)I am genuinely interested. Please be as precise as possible.
And if you can, please link to some type of precedent where other presidents have involved themselves in similar issues. Thanks
Downtown Hound
(12,618 posts)Then go in front of Congress and condemn it. Then form a congressional committee dedicated to eliminating police abuse, with the caveat that departments that continue to engage in it will lose federal funding. Then actually make a visit to OWS and proclaim support. If he has to, stand with them when the pigs raid. I highly doubt that police will be so eager to use tear gas and rubber bullets then. Yeltsin stood with the protesters during the it during the Soviet coup in 91'. But Obama is too much of a coward. All the OWS folks are risking jail and serious injury, and yet Obama can't even be bothered to make a trip there. What's he so afraid of?
Yeah, he could do any of these things, but he won't. Because ultimately, he cares more about his Wall Street sugar daddies than he does about the plight of working Americans, or Americans being brutalized by police.
Number23
(24,544 posts)And I specifically asked for precedence if you have any? I'd love to see some examples of all of the behavior that you referenced in your post, particularly during the Civil Rights struggle when black people were getting beaten and thrown in jail for the right to vote and educate their children. Would love some examples of LBJ and others "standing with the protestors when the pigs raid."
Thanks.
Downtown Hound
(12,618 posts)and that was after an illegal coup. We've had one coup in this country, the 2000 presidential election, and all the Democrats pretty much went along with it. Just once it would be nice to see them actually take a courageous stand on something.
You mention the civil rights era, and while it's true that I can't think of any instances where a president went down and stood on the line while the pigs charged, I do seem to recall something about Kennedy sending the National Guard down to Alabama to FORCE the local authorities to integrate the school system.
So hey, Obama, I take it back, you don't have to come down yourself. Just send the National Guard to protect OWS. Wouldn't it be nice to actually use the U.S military to fight for freedom and justice for once instead of corporate imperialism?
The point is, do something other than just saying you support OWS. Prosecute Goldman Sachs. Get on TV and start leveling with people. This movement would be unstoppable it it truly had the support of those in power. The fact that it's under constant attack is all the proof you need that they don't really support it. I think they're scared of it. Obama too. All of them know what OWS represents: the first real challenge to the one percent in a long time. That kind of thing scares everybody in power, Democrats and Republicans alike.
Number23
(24,544 posts)I asked for precedence and the closest you're able to get is "Yeltsin on top of a tank." A non-US president "on top of a tank" damn near 20 years ago and we won't even go to Yeltsin's treatment of his own people because that will weaken your already INCREDIBLY weak position.
Thanks.
Response to Number23 (Reply #256)
Post removed
Number23
(24,544 posts)Devoid of facts, based in fantasy and showed the workings of a mind that has very little knowledge and understanding of history and/or politics. Now it's incoherent.
And I see you've thrown in some crude language to boot. Congrats. You are a credit to the Incessant Obama Detractors on this site. Well done. Seriously. Well done.
ChiciB1
(15,435 posts)OWS MUST survive and grow because it may all be left up to "we the people" anyway! The way this country has shifted to the RIGHT, it scares me to death.
I have some empty land that I wanted to sell, but have been thinking that it might be a VERY GOOD idea to keep it now. I might sell my home and then my family and I can move onto the 5 acres and do what the Indians did way back when. Live off the land!
I WILL stay involved with our local OCCUPY because for now it's keeping me sane. And there's something in my gut that tells me that there is a LOT more to Occupy than we may not yet realize. This wasn't started overnight like so many think, it has been in the works for a long time. At least that's the conclusion I have gotten by doing research and connecting the dots with various names than have come out of OWS!
And no, I have no direct links because it's just research from one place to another. But I believe we NEED OWS now more than ever.
FedUp_Queer
(975 posts)coalition_unwilling
(14,180 posts)Last edited Sun Dec 18, 2011, 11:09 AM - Edit history (1)
scared straight, I can almost guarantee it.
I offer up myself as an example. I had flirted with voting third party or nto voting at all to protest Obama's various disappointments. Watched my first Repuke debate this past Thursday and, man, did the scales come off my eyes in a hurry.
You think Obama is disappointing? Consider President Bachmann, Willard or Newt. Those prospects terrifiy me and I think they should equally terrify anyone with a heart that feels, eyes that see and a brain that thinks.
jefferson_dem
(32,683 posts)That's what many of them are hoping for. Sad, I know.
coalition_unwilling
(14,180 posts)knows. But there are times when voting the lesser of two evils is not just a civic duty but a civic virtue. THIS IS ONE OF THOSE TIMES.
RoccoR5955
(12,471 posts)I will vote for his re-election. Again there is no real choice. The only choice we have is to vote for the right wing, or the far right wing. I will not donate to his campaign, nor will I put any effort into campaigning for him. I will, however actively contribute and work for any progressive candidates, like my congressman, Maurice Hinchey.
This country has gone way too far to the right since the days of Reagan. When Reagan got rid of the Fairness Doctrine, and opened the airwaves to the likes of Limbaugh, Hannity, Savage, and others on the extreme right, without rebuttal on the airwaves, people were hearing the corporatist propaganda, without being required to hear the views of the other sides. I think that this is one of the main reasons why this country moved so far to the right.
Oh, and in case you didn't know, I am in full support of all of the efforts of the 99%/#OWS movement.
coalition_unwilling
(14,180 posts)quite well (with the sole exception that I classify Obama as 'center-right' and not purely ''right').
Consider this single tableau: the U.S. Census Bureau releases figures showing that one out of two Americans is living beneath the poverty line or below it and no candidate from either major party says a word about it. Absolutely indicts the current two-party system of a gross moral failure, imo.
i_sometimes
(201 posts)posts over the last few days.
I think some one is trying to hard.
patrice
(47,992 posts)BOG PERSON
(2,916 posts)the reality is that history proceeds in cycles and we are headed toward another dark age.
harmonicon
(12,008 posts)I disagree about history going in cycles, but agree about the "progress" being basically a western/humanist idea without much meaning behind it. I especially agree that we're heading into a new dark age. In fact, I think we're already at the beginnings of it, but most people just ignore this.
Downtown Hound
(12,618 posts)people with no trial for years on end. If that makes me a purist then so be it. I could just as easily call people that still cling to the desperate delusion that Obama really is a genius mastermind who cares about the little guy cultists. A cultist in generally considerd to be somebody that continues to cling to a belief system when it is both detrimental to their health and well-being and when all rational thought and evidence seems to discredit that belief system.
I'd say Obama has more than a few of those types of people singing his praises and ignoring his many faults.
bhikkhu
(10,789 posts)Had the war not come to an end, that would have begun to be a problem.
...my point is that we need to see a plan for the end of this war; that's the main thing and the solution that should be demanded.
Downtown Hound
(12,618 posts)So why is it so difficult for an educated man like Obama to learn from history? Could it maybe be because he's not a progessive and never has been? And I hate to bring up the race card, but the sheer fact that he is from a minority segment of the population that has been marginalized and brutalized should make him all the more sensitve to things like this.
And FDR at least had the balls to take on the banks and make reforms. I have yet to see any of those things from Obama.
bhikkhu
(10,789 posts)They were treated humanely, and most people - then and now - had no issue with their detention at all. The "norms of war" applied, and this bill more or less just restates them.
I know you're thinking of the Japanese internments...that was done by executive order, as no existing law allowed the indefinite detention of citizens and legal residents. The bill that passed congress the other day doesn't allow it either - it specifically exempts citizens and legal residents, so, if history was to repeat, Obama would have to do it by executive order as well, like FDR.
On financial reforms - please read up on the Dodd-Frank Bill - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dodd%E2%80%93Frank_Wall_Street_Reform_and_Consumer_Protection_Act . It was pushed through at great cost, and against great opposition, and the raft of teabaggers has done their best to block some of it from taking effect, but it is worth boning up on what has been done. It is a game-changer.
ed. - fixed link
Downtown Hound
(12,618 posts)And I'm sorry, but the sheer fact that we're still waiting for any real prosecution of Wall Street except for a few sacrificial lambs thrown out for us is all the proof I need that Obama has never been serious about going after Wall Street. How about you read up on just how much money Obama has taken from Wall Street, and then come bck to me with fantasies about how Obama is really doing all he can?
Oh and, I just love it how for years everybody on this board called the Bush andminstration fascist and evil because of things like indefinite detention and torture, but give Obama a pass. That shows the hypocricy of many liberals, and why for several years now I've been more inclined to call myself an anarchist.
Oh, and finally, your statement about how the bill expressly prohibits the indefinite detention of American citizens is a pile of horse shit. And I don't care if it exempts American citizens or not. We're supposed to be the bastion of freedom and rights throughout the world. That means that we should set an example and not indefinitely detain ANYBODY without a trail, American or foreign.
http://www.salon.com/2011/12/16/three_myths_about_the_detention_bill/singleton/
Myth #3: U.S. citizens are exempted from this new bill
This is simply false, at least when expressed so definitively and without caveats. The bill is purposely muddled on this issue which is what is enabling the falsehood.
There are two separate indefinite military detention provisions in this bill. The first, Section 1021, authorizes indefinite detention for the broad definition of “covered persons” discussed above in the prior point. And that section does provide that “Nothing in this section shall be construed to affect existing law or authorities relating to the detention of United States citizens, lawful resident aliens of the United States, or any other persons who are captured or arrested in the United States.” So that section contains a disclaimer regarding an intention to expand detention powers for U.S. citizens, but does so only for the powers vested by that specific section. More important, the exclusion appears to extend only to U.S. citizens “captured or arrested in the United States” — meaning that the powers of indefinite detention vested by that section apply to U.S. citizens captured anywhere abroad (there is some grammatical vagueness on this point, but at the very least, there is a viable argument that the detention power in this section applies to U.S. citizens captured abroad).
But the next section, Section 1022, is a different story. That section specifically deals with a smaller category of people than the broad group covered by 1021: namely, anyone whom the President determines is “a member of, or part of, al-Qaeda or an associated force” and “participated in the course of planning or carrying out an attack or attempted attack against the United States or its coalition partners.” For those persons, section (a) not only authorizes, but requires (absent a Presidential waiver), that they be held “in military custody pending disposition under the law of war.” The section title is “Military Custody for Foreign Al Qaeda Terrorists,” but the definition of who it covers does not exclude U.S. citizens or include any requirement of foreignness.
That section — 1022 — does not contain the broad disclaimer regarding U.S. citizens that 1021 contains. Instead, it simply says that the requirement of military detention does not apply to U.S. citizens, but it does not exclude U.S. citizens from the authority, the option, to hold them in military custody. Here is what it says:
bhikkhu
(10,789 posts)while indefinite detention, as I was trying to point out by my example, is a norm of war going back centuries. "Indefinite" means until the end of hostilities, in accord with the Geneva Conventions on military detentions.
Which leads to my other point - what we need most is to see a plan to end this war. Arguing over the definitions of words (as the debate over the bill devolves to) gets us nowhere closer.
Downtown Hound
(12,618 posts)The answer is you don't and you can't. So this war will go on indefinitely. And you statement about how "ending torture is a campaign promise kept" is another pile of horseshit. This bill allows for "enhanced interrogation techniques" to be reinstated.
As RT reported earlier, one provision in NDAA FY2012 will allow for the reinstatement of “enhanced interrogation techniques,” essentially making waterboarding and forms of psychological torture a very possible reality for anyone America deems to be a threat, including its own citizens who, prior to the ruling, had the US Constitution on their side.
http://rt.com/usa/news/indefinite-detention-bill-senate-905/
bhikkhu
(10,789 posts)I've always thought that the Taliban were organized enough in the first place that they could have been pressured into progressive policies - such as education for women - and that they are capable of changing in the face of necessity. Ten years into war with them, its still conceivable that a peace could be negotiated, if not with us then with the government of Afghanistan. Things often look impossible until they are necessary.
One encouraging report was in the Guardian earlier in the year: http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2011/jan/13/taliban-lift-ban-girls-schools. The other is that we are drawing down forces, and one way or another they wil have to sort things out for themselves. "Progressive" would mean foreign funds would be available...
As far as Al-qaeda, is it inconceivable that they could renounce violence? Perhaps...I think they have devolved into more of a fund-raising organization than an organization representing people, in any case. If they weren't advocating violence, their revenues would dry up, as they may be a proxy for miscellaneous political entities that are "officially" peaceful. Less of a solution there, but other similar organization have dried up and gone away - the course of history is hard to predict.
Downtown Hound
(12,618 posts)and then argue over the definition of words. The bill doesn't just say Al Queda and the Taliban. It says, "a person who was a part or substantially supported Al Queda, the Taliban, or associated forces that are engaged in hostilities against the United States or it's coalition partners, including any person who has committed a beligerent act or has directly supported such hostilities in aid of such enemy forces."
That could literally mean anybody that opposes the United States government or it's policies. All they have to do is say that OWS is helping the terrorists. You are phenomenally naive if you think that that kind of broad explanation guarantees us protection against abuse of this law.
bhikkhu
(10,789 posts)and hasn't "committed a belligerent act or directly supported such hostilities in aid of such enemy forces."
The intent of the bill is pretty obvious, and it's only made to mean something else by twisting and stretching and reinterpreting the words and phrases. I'd rather see a debate about how to end the war.
Downtown Hound
(12,618 posts)and phrases."
Thank you. That's precisely my point and the point of everybody else that opposes this bill. All they have to do if they want to incarcerate an American is stretch a few words. It's what oppressive governments do.
Oh, but I'm really comforted by your assertion that the language in the bill is such that no one would ever try that. Not.
bhikkhu
(10,789 posts)I've read the parts relevant to the debate and never saw anything that would suggest "enhanced interrogation" was an issue at all. I googled it and all the articles led back to an RT article, which mostly quoted Senator Levin and said nothing specific at all about how the bill might allow enhanced interrogation...
If someone has a source, I'm interested!
emulatorloo
(46,155 posts)Downtown Hound
(12,618 posts)And why call it a war on terror?
Oh, and Bin Laden's dead, and there hasn't been a terrorist attack here in over ten years. So why the need for this now? You really going to tell me we can't deal with terrorism another way? Please.
Fascist governments love lemmings like you.
emulatorloo
(46,155 posts)You don't know fuck all about me. Lemming, LOL.
Downtown Hound
(12,618 posts)that was intended to be something else and twist it into their own agenda? You mean to say an unscrupulous man like Bush might use terrorism as an excuse to launch of war of aggression and imprison and torture innocent people? Well, I'll be.
Fortunately though, we know this bill will NEVER be used like that. No unscrupulous politician would ever try and abuse it or use it for nefarious means. And how do I know this? Because you and a few other DU'ers have told me so.
Whew! I feel better.
emulatorloo
(46,155 posts)My only comment to you was regarding your "war on a tactic" statement.
I haven't posted anything on DU regarding my opinion on NDAA. I'm still forming it.
Downtown Hound
(12,618 posts)fascisthunter
(29,381 posts)bhikkhu
(10,789 posts)They're called prisoners of war, and have a number of protections under US and international law. FDR has 400,000 people held under indefinite detention as prisoners of war, and no one holds it against him or expected it would be otherwise.
Of course, we have a more problematic war at the moment...at least in this bill currently it always refers to the Taliban and Al-qaeda as the two parties we are fighting, and it never refers to "muslim extremism" or the more general "terrorists" without circling back to define that as meaning the Taliban and Al-qaeda. The Global War on Terror is over with, as far as the administration is concerned, and limiting the scope is the first step to ending the stupid war...
fascisthunter
(29,381 posts)Ken Burch
(50,254 posts)not put into this imaginary category of "enemy combatants". It was also always clear that those people would go home as soon as the war was over, whenever it was over.
And no one can seriously argue that Nazis were less dangerous or in any more humane or moral than anybody at Gitmo. There's no difference between being in the SS or the Gestapo and being in the Taliban or AQ.
DisgustipatedinCA
(12,530 posts)Yes, he will most likely be reelected, which is wholly separate from the mistaken view that he is a progressive.
RBInMaine
(13,570 posts)
truedelphi
(32,324 posts)Word "progressive"s meaning. As defined in any dictionary.
There is very little progressive about Obama. Unless you consider him backing away from the Bush era ban on stem cell legislation.
But other than that, and his give-aways on the needed Food Stamps for an impoverished and despairing middle class, he has done nothing but please the Corporate Masters.
He has pleased the Corporate Masters regarding military spending.
And although there are a few nice perks in the Affordable HC Reform Act of 2009, mostly that was a deal that benefited the Big Insurers and the money from those Insurers helped Rahm Emanuel secure his office of Mayor Of Chicago.
He pleased Big Oil Monster BP on their need to pollute the Gulf of Mexico with Corexit so they could minimize the penalties to them. He also let BP intimidate our reporters and journalists and the local citizenry. It even says in the Constitution that the President and other high ranking officers of our nation must now serve foreign masters, but Obama did just that.
He allowed Geithner, a financial crook if ever there was one, achieve the nation's highest post of honor in terms of finance - Geithner is now Treasury Secretary. His office is just a few feet down from the oval Office in the WH.
And he has looked the other way while Bernanke gave "loans" of fourteen trillions of dollars away to the biggest Bankers on the planet.
Then there is the matter of his interfering with states' rights, and having his DOJ go after the medical marijuana clinics, which in many parts of the nation, are the only decent wage-paying employers out there! California has already lost 2,500 high wage jobs due to the DOJ measures.
But hey, there is a big election coming up in the next eleven months, and Obama needs the cash from the Big Pharma cow as much as his buddy Rahm did.
MrTriumph
(1,720 posts)Do you work for Joe Biden? Are you ready to scold your base to victory?
jefferson_dem
(32,683 posts)self-identified "progressives" claim to care about.
Sorry.
Peregrine Took
(7,583 posts)There is a huge difference between "progress" and a "political progressive" and its rather moronic to be even having this discussion.
Union Scribe
(7,099 posts)RBInMaine
(13,570 posts)the bashers here on DEMOCRATIC Underground? Oh well. Guess you'll have to deal with it.
Union Scribe
(7,099 posts)It's one thing to make Obama supporters look like shit online, but quite another to turn people off in real life too.
Bluenorthwest
(45,319 posts)So clearly the electioneering badge is up for grabs.
SwampG8r
(10,287 posts)
Zorra
(27,670 posts)They moved the country so far to the right that republicans think Willard Romney is a liberal.
Obama will most likely be re-elected, but he is a neo-liberal, not a progressive.
Obama is somewhat socially progressive up until the point that his progressivism stands in the way of the the agenda of the global corporatists.
That is what separates him from real progressives, and this is the primary reason why we do not trust him.
themadstork
(899 posts)and it's a platform much further to the left than O's position.
It sounds like you're arguing that he's progressive, even if he's not -a- progressive. I don't really care for either term, so, whatever.
RBInMaine
(13,570 posts)themadstork
(899 posts)Didn't comment on its political viability. Chill.
Zhade
(28,702 posts)Good. That means they realize most people aren't buying their bullshit spin.
SwampG8r
(10,287 posts)erodriguez
(911 posts)jpgray
(27,831 posts)Agree or disagree?
RBInMaine
(13,570 posts)politically "progressive" and is a non-realistic purist worldview. Say a person was ULTRA liberal EXCEPT did not support abortion rights. Was "progressive" on EVERY other thing though. I have had people here say that person could not be considered "progressive" anymore. That, my friend, is ridiculous out-of-reality fringe purity. We don't need a leftist version of the Tea Party. Leave the radical extremism for those nuts. It's not where most of America is. Forget the Kucinich For President pipe dreams. AINT gonna happen.
jpgray
(27,831 posts)What is the argument for putting this man in charge of anything?
treestar
(82,383 posts)He can only carry out the law. I've never understood the Geithner hatred.
bettyellen
(47,209 posts)smearing liberals instead of actually adressing Obama's actions? It seemed you ignored his very reasonable question completely so you could jump back on your soapbox and scold people here.
pnorman
(8,155 posts)n/t
lunatica
(53,410 posts)As long as we're pointed in the right direction, making progress, things are better as far as I'm concerned. The Bush years were definitely regressive as are the GOP ideas. Not one single Republican actually thinks of the future as being any different than the past. It's an anti-evolution mentality in which Republicans believe that Humanity has nowhere to go as far as social evolution. They believe mankind has achieved it's Apex in all areas of life, from consciousness to spirituality to science and technology. And they believe that war is a necessary ingredient to this Survivor take all Apex.
War is the mechanism through which superior humans keep power.
frazzled
(18,402 posts)If a Republican—say, John McCain—had been elected president in 2008, would any of the the things on your list (and more) ever have been even initiated, much less passed into law, directed by executive order, or indeed even discussed. To take a few:
1. Would there have been an executive order banning torture and ordering the closure of Guantanamo? (We can only assess his order to close Gitmo, not it's having been blocked by the Congress.) I think this is a definite no: Republicans still support torture as a means of interrogation and are still trying to prevent the president from trying terror cases in civilian courts. No such directives would have been issued and, despite the president's (continuing, failed) efforts to try cases in the courts, the situation would be decidedly worse.
2. The Lily Ledbetter Fair Pay Act. It's fair to say that no Republican would have either initiated or supported this law. Women's right are not even on their radar, and the only issues of economic justice they focus on are "economic rights for millionaires and billionaires." We'd be where we were in 2008, with women unable to even contest inequities and discrimination when new evidence of them was found.
3. Repeal of DADT and a host of other anti-discriminatory measures for LGBT community. Don't make me laugh. You wouldn't even have had rights groups lobbying the White House for such changes, because it was not going to happen. Anybody remember gay rights groups lobbying GWB for a reversal? The very fact that Obama was there made them able to do so.
4. Kicking commercial banks out of the student loan program and creating a more equitable payback schedule for graduates, based on percentage of their income. (Also increasing outright Pell Grants for the poor). Republicans are the ones who got private banks funneled into this government-run program as middlemen. Obama single-handedly took them out of the game. So I think the contrast is pretty clear here. It was going to be business as usual. (Same for getting rid of the extra payments to private insurers in Medicare: Obama reversed that Republican-initiated attempt at privatization).
5. Health care reforms like banning rejection for pre-existing conditions, banning lifetime or yearly caps, banning recissions, letting young adults to age 26 stay on a parent's plan, requiring insurers to spend 80% to 85% of premiums on actual care, etc. Now, you will say, it should have been a lot better. Of course it should have: both the president and most Democrats (though by no means all) wanted more. My point is that health care reform would never even have gotten on any agenda in a Republican administration, and in the four or eight years more of not regulating it at all real lives would be lost and real families would have a better chance of going bankrupt. If you liked the status quo of the insurance industry, then you will not see the ACA as progressive. If you thought the status quo stunk you will see the bill as achieving progress along a path that can be further enhanced in the coming years. What you cannot deny is that we wouldn't even have had a discussion about health care in the absence of this administration, who boldly put it on the agenda before anything else.
Etc.
You may object that these things are not progressive enough (some might say at all). You are judging these things, then, against what some ideal Democratic president would have done--and more importantly, would have been able to accomplish (a very dicey counterfactual situation). Do remember that the vastly preferred "progressive" candidate on DU back in 2007 and 2008 was John Edwards, who was one of the most conservative Democrats in the Senate. Your judgment on these things may not be totally fine-tuned, and your clairvoyance may be lacking. Or you are thinking Alan Grayson or Bernie Sanders (not a Democrat), two people who would never in a million years ever have a chance of being elected, would propose something better. Well, they might propose something you like better. But they wouldn't get it; they wouldn't even be in a position to get it.
The only thing we can do is ask: would McCain have done any of these things? Would any of these advancements--imperfect as they are-- ever even have come to the table at all? Will Romney/Gingrich pursue any such things? You can't ask whether this or that bill promoted by this administration was progressive enough, because "enough" is only measurable by the possible alternatives. In the absence of this administration, there would not even be any discussion of them at all. John McCain would not have pursued any health care reform, he wouldn't have taken up a single issue of gay rights or emissions standards, he would have appointed two more extremely conservative Supreme Court justices, he wouldn't care about unemployment benefits.
What you would have gotten is either the status quo or regression: that is to say, no progress at all.
RBInMaine
(13,570 posts)erodriguez
(911 posts)
spanone
(141,535 posts)
Hutzpa
(11,461 posts)weak republican field, it is his brilliance that makes the republican field looks
weak.
It has to be said that the man is just simply brilliant.
MadHound
(34,179 posts)Somewhere around Eisenhower.
As far as him being reelected, given the nature of the clowns coming out of the Republican car, you are probably right.
But it certainly isn't a good thing, it is only a somewhat less bad thing.
It would be nice to stop playing the lesser of two evils game every election. In fact it is beyond nice, it is vital to our future as a country and society.
sarcasmo
(23,968 posts)he is the better choice.
canoeist52
(2,282 posts)
jpak
(41,780 posts)yup
Douglas Carpenter
(20,226 posts)If the standard is what passed for liberal to moderate Republicans when I was young - Obama is a conservative - at least on economic issues. On social "culture war" issues I would agree that he is moderately progressive and has made some real accomplishments.
I suspect a lot of people who would define President Obama as a progressive were either not born yet or were not politically aware during the long period when Keynesian economics were embraced by even most Republicans - even most who were regarded as conservative at the time. Even during the Carter Administration under the Chairman of the Fed of that era - right-wing economics were starting to dominate policy. Of course the election of Ronald Reagan brought about a new bipartisan consensus in which the progressive philosophy of the New Deal and the Great Society faded into the past to the point that the Clinton Administration was pursuing policies that were in many ways well to the right of the Reagan Administration.
So for what passes for relatively liberal or progressive compared to a political culture where a Newt Gingrich or a Rick Perry could even be taken seriously for one single minute - President Obama is relatively progressive. But if the question is, is President Obama moving us away from the failed right-wing economic policies of the last 30 years? Is the President reducing the power and grip Wall Street interest holds over the government and over our lives? Well I would have to say no. He is just not embracing it as enthusiastically as the Republicans. And unlike the Republican Party of today he is just not insane.
socialist_n_TN
(11,481 posts)ALL political labels can be read either relativistically or in a more meta context (history, world politics). A LOT of people think that they are "left" because they're to the left of Newt Gingrich. But in the meta context, they are probably RIGHT wing.
Look you believe what you believe, just don't try to pass off Reaganism as "left" because Reaganism is to the left of the current Republican candidates.
Zhade
(28,702 posts)Thankfully, you're not the arbiter of reality.
If you think we're making progress... I envy you your ignorant bliss.
Bluenorthwest
(45,319 posts)Unless one thinks it is progressive to oppose the equal rights of others on the basis of a religion you yourself don't bother to follow much. And that's not Congress, that is him, speaking for himself. Some are 'Sanctified' such as Mr and Mrs Gingrich and others are not he says. God simply refuses to sanctify gay couples, although he will Sanctify and de-Sanctify any number of women at the command of Newt's penis.
So Sanctity, Sacraments, Christian, Pragmatic, Progressive...Prejudice is as prejudice does. Call it what you will, a rose is a rose is a rose.
bvar22
(39,909 posts)To a "Reagan Democrat", Obama would certainly appear to be a bit more "Progressive" on Social Issues,
but an FDR/LBJ Working Class Democrat would have to look WAY to The Right to even see President Obama.
I mean, Come ON!
*Cutting Government Spending during a Recession?
*Lobbying from the Bully Pulpit for a cut in FICA Contributions?
*Austerity for the Working Class?
*MORE Anti-LABOR Free Trade?
*Privatizing the Public Schools and busting the Teachers Union?
*Mandated Customers and Mandated PROFITS for a "private" Corporation?
*Protecting Wall Street Criminals and their "Bonuses"?
Progressive?
...not to this old FDR/LBJ DEMOCRAT!
You will know them by their WORKS,
not by their excuses.
[font size=5 color=green][center]Solidarity99![/font][font size=2 color=green]
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------[/center]
progressoid
(53,148 posts)
bvar22
(39,909 posts)Perfect illustration.
...but I DO understand the blindness for those who cling to "Centrism" as a "Sensible", "Pragmatic" political dogma.
Without Political & Social Ideals as guideposts,
anything Not Republican Party will appear "Progressive",
even IF the actual policy moves TOWARD traditional Republican Values and Issues.
ALL the Republicans have to do is move farther to The Right (as they have done),
and "The Center" will follow (as the Democratic Party has done).
[font size=5 color=green][center]Solidarity99![/font][font size=2 color=green]
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------[/center]
StarsInHerHair
(2,125 posts)It would be called CANCER if it were found on a human body, at at best, a 'growth' that would need to be removed. A healthy system MUST benefit the MAJORITY
& *THAT* is why OWS resonates
LynneSin
(95,337 posts)Start from the bottom and work your way up.
Bernie Sanders didn't become a US Senator overnight. He started as a Mayor and built his way up to gain the trust of the voters of Vermont.
I've been pretty proud of my senator, Chris Coons and he started out as a New Castle County councilman way back when.
This is the first year I am thinking of spending my time working more for local races because those are the building blocks of bigger races. The more we elect from the ground up the higher that pyramid goes with progressive candidates we support.
boxman15
(1,033 posts)I wish more thought like you. I don't care if you're an Obama Democrat or a person who thinks he's the worst Democrat available to be in the White House. It's irrelevant in the long-run, if you don't work to make sure people are there to represent your views in the future on the national stage.
All politics is local. Even today.
SomethingFishy
(4,876 posts)From your definition George Bush's administration was "progressive". He lowered taxes, eased regulations, boosted the military. All progress for people in certain circles.
Did I miss some new memo? Is the new way to court votes to insult anyone who disagrees with you?
bluestate10
(10,942 posts)YOU!, obviously aren't concerned about being contained at the border of said country because you bring no assets and may be no valuable skills.
Other than that, you're spot on. It does take the capacity to know reality when one sees it to recognize what a damned good job President Obama has done.
progressoid
(53,148 posts)Hmmm...maybe that's any unfair comparison. Those guys are probably those "purists" you referenced.
Well, at least he was in the Congressional Progressive Caucus. They aren't quite such purists and are willing to cross the over to the center occasionally.
Wait. What's that you say? He wasn't even in the CPC?
Golly gee there must be at least some way he is considered a Progressive.
AnOhioan
(2,894 posts)Edweird
(8,570 posts)Apply that same treatment to 'republican' or 'libertarian'.
I am actually embarrassed for you.
Modern_Matthew
(1,604 posts)
jimlup
(8,010 posts)God this is sad. Really it is. We are willing to accept one or two sane results as "progressive". No that doesn't work for me. Obama will be reelected and we all should and in fact must vote for him and his coat tails but he is not "progressive". Anybody that swallows this is just trying too hard to be PC. I sort-a feel sorry for you.
hfojvt
(37,573 posts)somebody who thinks their opinion = reality and those who disagree are just purist fools.
My question is whether this great progressive will extend the Bush tax cuts again for his 2nd term or offer even more tax cuts for the rich that he convinces the gullible are "middle class tax cuts".
MjolnirTime
(1,800 posts)As a side note,
I love seeing this post on the front page despite all the attacks it is sustaining.
That would never have happened at DU2.
Maybe there is something to losing the unrec after all.
Aerows
(39,961 posts)I'm not "progressive" in that sense whatsoever.
quinnox
(20,600 posts)is not other peoples, but your own. Wow, just wow. Unless your definition of progressive is one you made up or is original to you.
Dewey Finn
(176 posts)Because all "true progressives" think exactly the same way you do, right? And anyone who doesn't agree with you therefore can't be a "true progressive"? All "true progressives" are "independent thinkers" and "don't march in lockstep" yet somehow still end up with exactly one and only one point of view, yours?
Wow, just wow, indeed. If they ever hold a Condescension Olympics, you're going to be as good as gold. And for the record, I think the OP is pretty condescending too, but not in your league.
quinnox
(20,600 posts)I'm not the only one blown away by the assertion that Obama is a progressive. I'm not exactly alone in my reaction to it. Plus, the OP had it coming, as you noted, its not exactly a friendly written OP.
Dewey Finn
(176 posts)As to not being alone in your reaction, that's true. But there are also people in agreement with the OP, so I'm not sure what people agreeing with you is supposed to prove. Frankly, I think both you and the OP are off-base.
Puglover
(16,380 posts)When oh when are they going to program the ignore function on DU3?
Vinnie From Indy
(10,820 posts)What is truly funny about the OP is that one could make the EXACT same argument regardless of the "ism" presented. For example, one could offer that Obama is a Fascist, but not to Facist "purists" or that Obama is a Socialist, but not to Socialist purists etc. etc. etc etc.
This silly OP is quite funny because of the seriousness with which it presented. Ha!
Cheers!
Sheepshank
(12,504 posts)...you want to know what weak minded simpletons tend to do with overly broad characteristions? They buy into their own meme.
SwampG8r
(10,287 posts)if you try to pigeonhole someone into a single word that is politically descriptive, the people who SELF identify with that word will object, because, unless that someone is one of them he cannot ever satisfy the "purists"
so if i called say....gingrich,a communist, the communist would object as he is not, and their purists would not tolerate his identification as a communist.
read it again and i swear it should crack you up
i got i amental picture of people slinging labels and other people squealing like rock struck dogs because "he isnt one of US!!!"
made me blow iced tea out my nose its so truly funny of an image
SwampG8r
(10,287 posts)you made me laugh and i needed it thank you
put your finger on exactly what makes these OP's silly
elleng
(141,926 posts) hootinholler
(26,451 posts)Not THE LIST!
You win.
Under Dog
(14 posts)When did "Blue Dog" become synonymous with progressive? As far getting re-elected? Yes, he will - because
he's pleasing his Wall Street puppetmasters who will run a weak Republican against him to insure that he will
win just like they did in 2004 - running a weak Democrat against Bush [along the voting machines] to insure
that Bush won.
proud patriot
(102,481 posts)
Warren Stupidity
(48,181 posts)And he may very well win in 2012 but only because the republicans have put up a field of nut bags imbeciles and vile loons.
madrchsod
(58,162 posts)moderate republicans stood for social change and moderate economics just like obama.
emulatorloo
(46,155 posts)and a pragmatist.
Under Dog
(14 posts)Only if you consider that what we called "center" has been systematically dragged to the right. By today's standard of "center", Eisenhower and Nixon would have been progressives. As for being pragmatic? "Better to be strong," Lolo advises. "If you can't be strong, be clever and make peace with someone who's strong. But always better to be strong yourself. Always." [From Dreams from My Father]
Obama is NOT strong & he is NOT a risk taker which is why he allies himself with the status quo. He'll have safe, so-so presidency, with little to call "real accomplishments", but in the end he'll have his place in history just as GWB -not much else to crow about.
....Sorry, but forget it! There isn't going to be any "change". Real "change" requires risk.
Pragmatism is playing it safe...and giving the sheeple just enough to keep them interested. Vote for Obama because the alternative is a lot worse.
Bjorn Against
(12,041 posts)The root word of socialism is social. Oh my God I saw Obama socializing with someone else, the Tea Party must be right Obama really is a socialist. So is Donald Trump! And the Koch Brothers! The socialists really have taken over!
Laelth
(32,017 posts)Not the way I understand the term, in any event.
As I argued here: http://laelth.blogspot.com/2010/12/kissing-butt-and-taking-names-obamas.html
-Laelth
AmericaIsGreat
(630 posts)Obama is a center Democrat.
Doesn't mean he's not getting some things done and certainly doesn't mean that he is a regressive, but he's not a progressive.
ChiciB1
(15,435 posts)"D" does NOT stand for Progressive. But in his case, his "D" and my "D" are very different.
But then my "D" is more of an "L" for LIBERAL! There is NOTHING wrong with being a Liberal, it does not mean you HAVE to do all things left, it means you're Liberal. Oh, just look it up in the dictionary, it's easier to explain that way.
Still, I feel Obama isn't a died in the wool Democrat to me. And I don't get much of a Progressive feel either. But hey, it is what it is. And to me, it ain't all that pretty!
SaintPete
(533 posts)well...it must be true
Aristus
(72,129 posts)
Still a huge fan of President Obama!
I'm not in the habit of playing more-liberal-than-thou with his leftie critics, and I'm not 100% pleased with all of the things he has done. But I will happily and proudly vote for him next November. If the purists choose to stay home that day, they are free to grouse about President Gingrich all they want.slay
(7,670 posts)and he may or may not get re-elected. he sure doesn't deserve to be. the only way he will be is cause the republicans are all batshit crazy. but that hardly makes Obama a progressive - or a good leader.
blackspade
(10,056 posts)And I'm so sick of the 'purist' memo.
You and the rest of the lock-step Obama crowd are just as 'purist' as you accuse progressive critics of being.
What you and many others don't seem to get is that progressives applaud the good things he has done, but that in no way insullates him from being criticized for the lack of fight and poor tactics that he uses on things that we really care about.
Scurrilous
(38,687 posts)
jaysunb
(11,856 posts)Sorry you have to waste time "reminding " the disaffected of reality.
DaDeacon
(984 posts)The truth is Obama IS left of center ! The other Truth is the Center is a lot further RIGHT than a lot of people on the left seem to understand! Obama's moves while in office have been slow but steady to the current true political left at this time. Reagan would have to be a centrist Dem if he ran today and most of us keep pretending that Ol' St.Ronnie was the antichrist! The reality is Obama is center left of curent goalpost and if we don't start supporting him and local officials in similar fixes we will be stuck with the "Ultra-right" setting the laws! It is either or and that's just the truth!
Tx4obama
(36,974 posts)http://shoqvalue.com/short-list-of-progressive-achievements-by-the-obama-administration
p.s. for more, check out the link in the signature line.
jefferson_dem
(32,683 posts)"Truth"... to "power".
66 dmhlt
(1,941 posts)BUT watch 'em BITCH about your post.
arendt
(5,078 posts)Your "innoculation" that "there will be counterlists." is a joke. Of course there will be counterlists because you have put up a counter-factual (i.e., a lie) Obama is no progressive. He regularly kicks progressives to the curb. He excludes them, he tells the "my way or the highway" while he plays bipartisan games with the GOP.
You want to cheerlead for Mr. Sellout with a bunch of cherry-picked facts, I will object with a bunch of cherry picked facts.
1) Failed to close Gitmo for no good reason.
2) Put "single payer" of the table, teased with "public option", then caved to the insurance industry.
3) Not one prosecution (or even serious investigation - cf. Bill Black) of Wall St. for massive, coordinated fraud. (Single crooks for ordinary stuff does not count.)
4) Refused from day one to prosecute any war crimes by the Bush Administration. In fact, he has gone even further down the road to a police state with the renewal of the State of Emergency and the indefinite detention of NDA.
5) Caved in on the government shutdown (something Bill Clinton was smart enough to use to beat the GOP to death).
6) Caved in on the millionaire's surtax and extension of unemployment despite the 75+% popularity of these measures.
7) Insisted for two years on his bullshit "bipartisanship". This cost him the 2010 election.
8) He is cramming education privatization down the throats of a Democratic constituency, teachers.
9) He is attacking legitimate state laws on Medical Marijuana.
10) He continues to sign massive, cold war level defense budgets while unemployed people go starving and cold.
11) He has done nothing to help in Wisconsin.
12) He appointed a bunch of reactionary thugs to the Catfood Commission - a commision that in itself was an assault on the solvent Social Security system.
13) He overruled the FDA on Plan B, violating his own campaign promise.
-----
He is no progressive. He is just a phony, sellout fraud.
Having said that, I have no choice but to vote for him because the alternative is even worse. That is no reason to be positive.
Given the choice between being hung or shot, I will take hung because I might live a little longer. That's about all the credit I will give this phony posuer. This creature of Wall St. This Constitutional scholar who has no problem tearing up the Bill of Rights.
If you think your post is reality, you are delusional, just like the GOP.
BklnDem75
(2,918 posts)Just can't take a post like this seriously.
arendt
(5,078 posts)BklnDem75
(2,918 posts)Just delusional people.
certainot
(9,090 posts)something much better, even though he can't do much as long as the republicans keep getting a free speech free ride on 1000 think tank coordinated radio stations.
Douglas Carpenter
(20,226 posts)I suspect most people here who think that the President is a progressive are either too young to remember back when we had a strong liberal/progressive wing that played a major role - at times dominating the Democratic Party. Or else the reality is too painful that they have chosen to live in the land of fantasy and make-believe.
Are Obama's polices moving us away from the failed ideology of “free market” casino capitalism that has dominated the bipartisan consensus for the last 30+years? Of course not! Are Obama's policies moving us away from a government and a society of the rich, by the rich and for the rich? Of course not! Are Obama's policies reversing the last 30+ years of systematic redistribution of wealth from lower 99% of the income strata to the upper 1% of the income strata? Of course not!
Is Obama and his administration less reactionary than the only available alternative capable of winning and controlling the government? Obviously! Is it incumbent upon progressives to support his reelection because if he does not win reelection we will have a government far, far more reactionary? Of course!
The Democratic Party has not had a progressive nominee since 1972 and hasn’t had a progressive President since 1968. Reality is painful. But it must be endured if we wish to live our lives without the support of comforting fairy tales.
PatrynXX
(5,668 posts)both progressive and conservative at the same time. some of his policies are so utterly conservatives it's maddening. (like how he's treated Manning) guilty till proven innocent. wtf? this ain't china.
StarsInHerHair
(2,125 posts)Burgman
(330 posts)He's as progressive as Barry Goldwater.
He broke my heart.
Response to RBInMaine (Original post)
Post removed
caseymoz
(5,763 posts). . . but there's a much lower chance for both.
But then again, not too much you've given there is actually progressive by my definition. Green Energy? He's for any kind of energy, the guys was for Keystone, for goodness sake. He's still for nuclear. I don't think any conservative says green energy shouldn't be tried, in fact, one of most right wing people I know installs solar panels for a living. Better college loans: I'm sorry, student loans are a huge onus on education and the ongoing debt which can't be discharged in bankruptcy is now a burden on the whole economy. One reason why single-payer is so unpopular with doctors is that they have these huge student loans to pay off. How about going back to a grant based system? Or finding out how it is universities have been raising their tuition under the loan based system at two or three times the inflation rate. Extending unemployment benefits? All that proves is he doesn't to see people starve and freeze in the winter, and he realistically knows they will, I'll grant him that. Better emission standards: how about arsenic standards? How about that nonprescription morning-after pill the FDA refused to approve for no scientific reason?
Justice Kagan is liberal? She's not proven to be anything, doesn't have anything in her background that shows it, and he presented her as a moderate! How can you rewrite history like that?
And he ended DADT, I'll grant him that, too, but that victory is decidedly mixed. This means that a very small number of gay people are free to go off and die in one of our foreign ventures, just like heterosexuals. Never mind that he's prosecuting a foreign war illegally. Never mind the military was running short on expertise without them. What an honor.
He's progressive by today's standards, meaning he's somewhere to the right of Ronald Reagan and to the left of Michele Bachmann. And if you think your examples are progressive, so are you.
Taverner
(55,476 posts)The sooner you accept that the better
Ken Burch
(50,254 posts)Your post is basically the equivalent of the announcements from the alien landing craft in those old sci-fi movies:
RESISTANCE IS FUTILE-YOU MUST ASSIMILATE
Taverner
(55,476 posts)Why keep blowing smoke up people's asses?
Politicub
(12,327 posts) Hulk
(6,699 posts)We can certainly identify progressive congressmen....and like our arch enemy, norquist, we can identify our party as being a part of a larger party...the "defunct Democratic Party".
Just like the gop has morphed into sects of groups, so can the Democratic Party. And who knows....maybe one day we can give up the name "Democratic" and accept the title "Progressive Party". It IS possible.
They can be identified NOW as progressives if we like...but we need an organization that will reach out to good, strong, articulate and progressive candidates...and then we need to work to support them.
The reich-wingers will call it the "socialist party"...but they can eat shit and bark at the moon. We will call it "The Progressive Party" everytime we identify it.
I guess this is only a dream now...but we have the energy to do it, once and for ALL.
pinto
(106,886 posts)a progressive wing *within* the Democratic Party. Suggest we start there for effective advocacy.
FunMe
(192 posts)Denial is not just a river in Egypt.
bertman
(11,287 posts)pinto
(106,886 posts)Legislation isn't a theoretical excersize at the end of the day. It's putting principles into action. Setting an agenda, working to put them into effect and, if we fall short, getting back to the process again.
Don't write off the system, be a part of it, change it...
Ken Burch
(50,254 posts)It's not as if any good would come of people to Obama's left doing what you want them to do. What you are asking is for surrender and blind obedience. And you were also one of the people throughout the last three years who kept telling progressives(even when we held majorities in both houses of Congress) not to demand anything from Obama, not to try to stop legislation from being watered-down to irrelevance(as the healthcare and finance reform bills were)and then not to push for anything more once the watered-down bills were passed.
Why are you so fixated with silencing dissent? It's not as if this party would have a better chance if everyone here defended everything Obama did without question.
bettyellen
(47,209 posts)stand for little to nothing.
JoeyT
(6,785 posts)But yes, he'll be reelected.
"Purists" my ass. Many of his "successes" are either vapor or come with many many strings attached. Most of his failures are huge whoppers and had nothing to do with Republicans, but were just him supporting bad policy.
It's ok to be a centrist or center right. Seriously.
phasma ex machina
(2,328 posts)
bluestateguy
(44,173 posts)His problem is that he capitulates too often.
He needs to be willing to fight, even if it means losing on some things. People respect Fight and Lose a lot more than Capitulate and Give Up.
BlueCaliDem
(15,438 posts)even if he'd been able to bash Congress over the head and gotten medicare for all, they'd come back with, "well, he hasn't expanded services, has he? So he's NO progressive".
Instead, they praise people like fake-Liberal and Ron Paul lackey, Glenn Greenwald, and Goldman-Sachs Michael Moore (who benefit from a Republican in the WH - all that rage by the Left bring in HUGE $$ for them - not so with Obama in the WH) who play them like a fine-tuned instrument.
The good thing is, they're in the minority, just like the TBaggers. Leftwing Puritans who'll immediately vote for Ron Paul cuz he *says* he'll make weed legal - although, of course, they know he'll need to bash Congress over the head in order to make that happen, but they're certain he can do it! - live in La-La-Land.
Thank you for reminding people who live in the REAL world the accomplishments of this president despite unprecedented GOP obstructionism and own party non-cooperation.
He will most certainly win a second term.
Warren DeMontague
(80,708 posts)he couldn't swing George H.W. Bush's "pro-business alternative" climate change ideas. Guess cap-n-trade was a bit TOO, ah, progressive.
Sure, he's making real progressive-y progressive progress in protecting the country from pot smoking cancer grannies. And he's progressively made progressive progress on keeping underage people from buying emergency contraception without a prescription, thereby progressing on one of the only REAL problems in this country, i.e. teens fucking.
I'm not even going to get into that legalistic clusterfuck of gibberish that he signed the other day. I mean, what's the fucking point?
Look, you're right about one thing- he probably will be re-elected. Shit, I'm gonna vote for him, and when the day comes, so will most everyone here. But frankly "those other people are crrrrrrray-zay!" is, at this point, a pretty tired fucking selling point. Yeah, we know. But people were motivated in 2008 because lots of us thought- maybe naiively- that we would see some real progress in some areas, at the very least on the things Obama told us he would do.
Oh, you know. Close Gitmo. Respect the bill of rights and the constitution in the "war on terror". Stop hassling states that have passed med. marijuana laws.
That's what the guy himself said, and he also exhorted us to "hold his feet to the fire". I think there's been some EXTREMELY bad political calculus done on the part of this administration, and you're dealing with a seriously dispirited base. That's reality. Happy talk and lectures aren't going to change it. I'd like to see some REAL leadership on the part of this administration, but I'm not going to hold my breath.
I've reconciled myself to every four years choosing between a Democrat who disappoints fairly consistently or a Republican who exceeds my worst nightmares, invariably.
I'll vote for the guy, but right now I'm not exactly thrilled about it.
MrMickeysMom
(20,453 posts)Some here will make the argument, using issues such as, "well then, why did DADT finally go away?" That may be progressive in an area of low hanging fruit. However, when one looks at the sea of changes that remain from Bush and actually worsened in some cases after Americans have been introduced to The Patriot, Military Commissions Acts... When one looks at the profound bail out of the Wall Street, criminal elements who have left the White House who were part in parcel of the global financial meltdown... When one looks at the unwillingness to follow through for the previous 8 years, especially with the majority in the House on war crimes, then you have to be kidding me. Do I have to change my reality so that you can hang on to YOURS?
When one looks at Bradley Manning, Occupy Wall Street, the Justice Dept, and defunding the Social Security Trust fund, only to be trumped by the White House's insistence that enemy combatants be a function of the unitary executive, making the latest bill in Congress a fight over which BRANCH has the right to take away constitutional rights... I gotta think you're living in a parallel universe.
I don't think I want a cup of your "refreshing change of pace" 
scheming daemons
(25,487 posts)Just as it has for FDR and Wilson.
But in reality, neither of them would pass today's "progressivism" litmus test. Certainly not on DU.
great white snark
(2,646 posts)Considering just how far left some DUers are, it's no surprise what some think of President Obama.
scubadude
(3,556 posts)using the progressive position as his throw away. We've seen it over and over again.
Rex
(65,616 posts)You cannot run a clown car full of bozos against a real politican and expect to win. At this point, I really hope they run Newty! I haven't seen a troglodyte in office since RWR.
Ken Burch
(50,254 posts)You don't get people to see things your way by disrespecting them for having strong convictions.
EV_Ares
(6,587 posts)been if he had not enacted the legislation or did the necessary things he had to do to keep the economy from a complete meltdown. That is something very hard to get across to the people; something you cannot actually see.
RUMMYisFROSTED
(30,749 posts)Hanks
(35 posts)if he's a progressive then I'm the fucking Easter Bunny! I guess Goldman Sachs, the firm who donated almost a million bucks to his previous campaign, is the social conscience of America.
And you were saying something about reality? ROFL
raouldukelives
(5,178 posts)People fail to see the value in protecting Wall St and drone strikes on families right now. Entrenching those as a staple of far left progressive values will help the DLC with future elections.
fascisthunter
(29,381 posts)Scurrilous
(38,687 posts)tavalon
(27,985 posts)The alternative is worse. He's not going to end up as one of the greatest Presidents ever unless he pulls out the stops in the next four years but I'm used to voting for the least harmful.
bettyellen
(47,209 posts)There seems to be no other point to this OP than to sneer at people who are probably already planning on voting for Obama.
As you have seen, most here wouldn't call your definition of progressive accurate at all, so the reality isn't there.
Refreshing.... well since we've seen these snarky post dozens of times before, so that is very inaccurate also.
I find it hard to believe your post was meant to enlighten or persuade anyone. So, I hope your not knocking on doors and talking to voters like this.
Vinca
(53,946 posts)Dj13Francis
(395 posts)Maybe you should do what Sandusky's lawyer says, and call 1-800-REALITY.
bvar22
(39,909 posts)...that the most Progressive Looking crumbs you mentioned
and MORE than counter balanced by the extremely Regressive Policy implemented in the "deal".
For instance,
* the "ending throwing people off healthcare for pre-existing conditions"
affecting a relative small percentage of Americans
was outweighed by Mandates with NO Public Option which will affect 40 - 70 MILLION lower SES Americans,
making the overall movement Regressive.
Only 16% of relatively Well Off Americans with PECs have been able to afford the high Buy In Price of these policies.
*"extending unemployment benefits for one year" was MORE than outweighed by the extension of the Bush Tax Cuts for The RICH for TWO years.
The overall effect: REGRESSIVE.
I could go on (and on),
but you get the picture.
You can list all the One Step Forwards over the last 3 years,
but an honest assessment would have to include the Two Steps backwards that were given up without much of a fight.
My Balance Sheet looks great if I only list The Income.
A REAL problem exists when the Liabilities vastly outweigh the Assets.
You will know them by their WORKS,
not by their excuses.
[font size=5 color=green][center]Solidarity99![/font][font size=2 color=green]
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------[/center]
mother earth
(6,002 posts)centrist at best, and sadly that seems to be what TPTB want in their figurehead. Let me know when the progressive in him reinstates Glass-Steagall & orders transparency and audit of the fed...until then we get the greatest evils that Jefferson warned of & centrist after centrist...so as not to rock the boat or truly represent "We The People".
That we have a democrat in the WH was meant to serve and to placate the nation, IMHO. What little changes we have are, of course, welcome, we are starved for our crumbs. Shall we celebrate that our keepers have allowed those crumbs? Sadly, we know only too well, and dream only, of what might have been.
Is this progress(ive)? Then it is a joke on us, and if we are satisfied, worst, we have accepted the illusion of our so called democracy.
Of course he will be re-elected, and "progress" will drone on, crumb by smaller crumb, 'tis better than the chaos and insanity of the GOP.
Reality is good, but your reality is a pittance & I will never celebrate a pittance. My disappointment is that he was promoted by the lion of the Senate, yet he wasted serious momentum at a time when we could ill afford it. I'm no purist, but damn, I wanted MORE, at the very least I wanted MORE damned fight! I refuse to make excuses for any man, and I refuse to accept and celebrate, I... still...want MORE.
certainot
(9,090 posts)most of their largest radio stations to be controlled by RW think tanks to blast teh country with years of coordinated unchallenged repetition.
single payer, for instance was beaten by team limbaugh long ago, with all those unchallenged lies and myths that the teabaggers spouted at town halls with such certitude. allowing that giant soapbox to lie and lie and lie to 50 mil a week is what made those lies and myths the acceptable alternate reality that enabled the GOP and a bunch of blue dogs to even make pub option impossible.
obama's bargaining power is weak as long as there is no organized response from the left to the right's best weapon, which might as well be their invisible secret weapon.
bettyellen
(47,209 posts)certainot
(9,090 posts)that's been their most important political weapon the last 20 years and it is still practically invisible to most of the 'left'
until there's some organized challenge to the talk radio bully pulpit a lot of people seem to be confusing what he can do with what he wants to do. especially among many new voters who didn't see the bush crime family on action the last 30 years.
that's the way i see a lot of criticism of obama, and there's a shit load of it. so it's nice to see some props going his way.
mother earth
(6,002 posts)is truly up to the responsible citizen to dig a bit deeper. How many "christians" buy into hate radio, I think it
's a DNA problem...or just plain laziness, making excuses for Obama matters little. He had the country's unabashed attention, approval and momentum and he wasted it...all in the name of bipartisanship? I just don't buy. TPTB own gov't, be they bankers, lobbyists, war-mongering, CIA, whatever, democracy is hijacked. We are left with crumbs and some are content, but it's too little, too late for many a progressive. NO apologies, whether I vote or not, since even that can be hijacked. The chosen ones are chosen before-hand IMHO.
certainot
(9,090 posts)catch up.
team limbaugh spent months telling 50 mil people a week that if the debt ceiling was not raised it was no big deal- it would force obama to cut govt, etc.
i'm pretty sure a lot of those people didn't believe that but the fact that no one refuted those blowhards personally in real time made a difference, while the talking heads sat around trying to figure out how all those teabaggers could be so stupid as to take it right to the edge. RW radio getting a free speech free ride has made the difference between progress sand the regression we've had the last 20 years.
how many protestors and volunteer hours and small donations are wasted because a bunch of ignorant republican blowhards have been given giant microphones and talking points and no one gets in their face. you really think that might make a little difference?
mother earth
(6,002 posts)BS they WANT to hear. I truly think the lies they spew are believed because there is hate involved & people cannot get past certain issues...they are choosing to listen to that hate radio station....they know it's hate radio, the hate registers with them & they CHOOSE it. You think things would change drastically without Limbaugh? I don't. I think he is highly overrated. Church people are among the worst of the worst & I don't believe for one minute it is directly related to who they listen to on the radio or news...they have learned to hate, to fear, it's more of a learned issue.
I think you have good points, I just don't agree completely.
certainot
(9,090 posts)in most parts of the country there are no free alternatives for politics while driving or working. there's a RW radio soapbox in every pickup. if you want current events/politics before going home after a hard days work to fight over the remote control, in most parts of the country with small populations and way too many senators that's it. it is also likely some of the loudest of those stations broadcast college sports or pro. and weather, traffic, emergency, etc. 1000 + of those stations reaching 50 mil a week. well coordinated and fed from national think tanks on national AND local issues and candidates. nearly all full time dedicated to global warming denial and ongoing ridicule and attack of all thing liberal. the national blowhards especially are very insulated from challenge by call screeners with sophisticated screening software that also allows them to move 'special' callers to the top of the line to prompt, fawn, and inject rumors. nothing madison avenue has can create a national or local political buzz as easily or quickly. there is no written record of the effects of 20 years of all this coordinated unchallenged repetition except that (for some reason) moderates have been pushed out of the GOP and democracy doesn't seem to work anymore. the feedback mechanisms don't work because they have the unchallenged volume and repetition to yell over anything they want.
as far as limbaugh goes, he is the most powerful guy in the GOP. he can destroy any GOP candidate or defend them (like cain). media wondered how cain could continue his popularity- limbaugh lead the defense, attacking his accusers most of that time. the GOP cannot admit man made global warming because they would be calling limbaugh a liar. his ranting for nearly an entire week essentially created the east anglia 'climate-gate' event. he spent months assuring the teabaggers that republicans could benefit by not raising the debt ceiling, while the MSM wondered what could possibly be causing such irrational behavior from the teabaggers. team limbaugh's 20 years of ridicule and lies about canadian and euro commie health care made single payer defeat a foregone conclusion.
US political history the last 20 years is full of progressive losses that can be attributed directly to the ignored radio monopoly. there is no other medium capable of that kind of unchallenged widespread repetition.
mother earth
(6,002 posts)paid for absolutely! When you add that to willing hatred, it has an impact just as you state. What I'm saying is that it is not only thanks to corporate run media (agreed total propaganda), but it's thanks to the willing masses who live in fear and hatred knowingly and seek more of it.
You always have a choice to simply turn it OFF. In this day and age there are alternatives to radio, deep South or not, poverty stricken and/or living with little free time....all the more reason to choose along your belief systems, listen or turn it off, or turn on the internet.
It has always been the big question, why do those who can afford it the least, support the GOP? Why do they not vote their pocketbooks? What you are saying is the impact of propaganda is the reason, I'm saying it's HATE....I daresay even without Limbaugh that hatred is inbred, that ignorance is embraced because to open their eyes to any of these issues would mean they have to look at why do they remain in the darkness of hatred and fear? They don't want to confront the man in the mirror.
certainot
(9,090 posts)mobilizing it is what RW radio has been singularly effective at.
it has been used to cheerlead and give confidence to that 10- 20%. it rationalizes the hate and ignorance of the republican party that it has turned into theirs, it misinforms them, mobilizes them, makes them feel like 51%, and uses them tools to push our media and politicians around as if they represent the center. the town halls and the fight over the public option was a perfect example. the teabaggers are products of talk radio. their politicians an dmedia can repeat the lies because they know they're going to get pounded into the earholes of tens of millions a week, or already have. sarah palin was chosen to get limbaugh to support mccain.
and it has been so effective only because the 'left' plays catchup, ignoring talk radio except for going after limbaugh once in a while for personal reasons.
mother earth
(6,002 posts)back hard and fast, otherwise you are seen as weak and spineless. I would love for dems to swing back hard & call out the bums from the start, but it doesn't happen, radio or IRL....goes hand in hand with my complaint about Obama giving away the store before the fight even begins, you don't negotiate with these terrorists & that's exactly what they are.
The GOP has gone too far, it would be nice to see true dems swinging it back to the left...a pipe dream I will never give up.
certainot
(9,090 posts)at obama's reelection is nice and may be real but i hope no one relaxes.
the bush crime family got close enough with those qualifications to steal an election and convince a country otherwise, by painting an intelligent decorated war veteran as an elitist flip flopper. they've exhausted much of their ammo on obama already but anything can show up, anything can happen. and they still control media.
patrice
(47,992 posts)And he did his fuckin' best to NOT scare them.
I try not to be alarmist, but I have to admit, there's a BUNCH of people in the Rep et al camps who ARE very much indeed NOT WELL. Have you ever known anyone like that? I have. There's NOTHING you can do. Kerry's living proof of that. I wanted Dr. Dean (still do), but Kerry would have made a VERY good President and they chose that disgusting dry-drunk instead. Sometimes, when I think about this kind of stuff, I no longer feel like an American.
certainot
(9,090 posts)s of the use of the republicans secret invisible (might as well be) - talk radio.
to a large extent it determines what is and isn't acceptable in the US.
it was as constant pounding on kerry from 1000 radio stations for months- they made the term flip flopper part of the political jargon with all the MSM talking heads repeating it about kerry, and ironically it's being used on their own now. but now i only hear the term on what little progressive radio there is.
mother earth
(6,002 posts)And expect what we hear as some sort of version of the truth of the mind of populace...all BS...groomed by propaganda, alive and well in the USA.
mother earth
(6,002 posts)"loss" aided by the courts, was it any wonder there was no fight when the second theft occurred?
Media, schmedia...its all controlled...another area of collective amnesia.
Edited to add, I wish we could also rec replies, this is the second time today I've wished it were so. Kudos for reminding us to pay careful attention and remember everything...the daily barrage of chaos is conducive to amnesia on these issues.
NorthCarolina
(11,197 posts)in that he will likely be re-elected.
boomerbust
(2,181 posts)Especially like a year out from an election he is really progressive.
Donald Ian Rankin
(13,598 posts)No, by most standards, or even by American standards, Obama is not terribly progressive. He's left of centre, but not by very much.
Yes, he is more likely than not to be reelected - he's a good orator and campaigner, and the Republicans don't look to have a strong candidate.
And "progressive" has no more to do with "progress" than "decimate" means "to reduce by 10% exactly".
JNelson6563
(28,151 posts)shit-flinging monkey brigade.
Julie
bowens43
(16,064 posts)Progressive??? LMAO!
He's a very weak leader who even with a Democratic congress, accomplished next to nothing and gave the conservatives far more then he gave the liberals/progressives. Keep making excuses for him if you like.
Reality is different where you live.
La Lioness Priyanka
(53,866 posts)these things are however not connected.
Response to RBInMaine (Original post)
shanti This message was self-deleted by its author.
deutsey
(20,166 posts)On the current political spectrum that defines centrism as "liberal" or even "far left", I suppose you could classify him as progressive, and even then just barely.
However, on a scale that actually has a real and vibrant left (e.g., small "d" democratic socialism), center, and right, he's no progressive. In the '30s, '60s, and part of the '70s we actually had that kind of spectrum. It's not being purist to want that kind of a political range to return.
Given that he's the only viable alternative that this lopsided political system we now have can muster up against the likes of a Gingrich and a Romney, yeah, I'll vote for him and will hope he wins. But I won't be expecting any progressive gains from him.
ozone_man
(4,825 posts)He is a moderately conservative corporate democrat/republican.