We REALLY needed a LIBERAL President...

If I told you in 2007 that in 2011 we'd be killing Soc. Security, torturing Americans & bombing Libya, etc. Who would you guess won the election?!

Hmmm.....

Dropped a public option, escalated the war in Afghanistan, gave tax cuts to billionaires....

And FOX "news" calls him a 'Liberal'?

It' time to re-educate the masses on the true meaning of Liberalism. I believe Obama's victory in 2008 showed how Liberal this country really is and really wants to be.
Obama SPOKE like a Liberal and MILLIONS and MILLIONS and MILLIONS of people believed in his ideology, because in it's purest form, Liberalism is the only way to form a more perfect union.
In my opinion our Founding Fathers were the original "radical leftists", revolting against the ultra-conservative Monarchy of England.
They were students of the Enlightenment period, which spawned Liberalism. Their entire worldview was one in which they believed in science, philosophy, nature, democracy, environmentalism, etc.
They constantly strived to form a more perfect union, and that is what Liberalism is about....Progress. It is about trying to attain perfection. It is equality, justice, truth, and liberty for ALL.

Fox "news" and the frightwing echo chamber is trying to give Liberalism a bad name, problem is, they're NOT attacking Liberal policies, they're attacking moderate republican policies.
Which is why the frightwing has taken a rightward lurch....Into the insane asylum, and there are NO moderate republicans left. The further right Obama goes, so do they.
Blame whoever you want, but you CAN'T blame Liberals. The republiCons controlled the veto pen for 22 of the last 30 YEARS, maybe they should start looking in the mirror.

(Kind of ironic that America's decline started 30 years ago under Reagan. Since then we've been losing our global economic and competitive grip to the rest of the world.)

Under 40 years of Liberal rule, roughly 1930's to 1970's, America was the most prosperous sought after Nation in the history of the world. Even the 'R' presidents during that time i.e. Eisenhower
would easily be considered a Liberal by todays standards. And it's funny how conservatives believe in the 'conservative' ideology when conservatism has NEVER been accomplished...Anywhere, ever.
It's a fairy tale whose ideology is constantly being torn at the seams with hypocrisy.

I'm

NOT

Kidding,

I've heard conservatives call Bush a Liberal.

Time to re-educate the masses and show people how Liberalism is in the direct best interest of all of our citizens by expanding freedoms and rights, while conservatism is about taking them away.
Equality, justice, liberty OVER individualism, isolationism, and the not-give-a-f**k attitude for your fellow countrymen.

Hmmm....

Wonder which one our Founding Fathers would support and be proud of today.


For more on the Enlightenment: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Age_of_Enlightenment

Here's to one of the "4th" recs!

Clinton did the same thing. Then when he got into office look what he did. Thom Hartmann has said on his show numerous times that when Clinton took office Greenspan pulled him aside and told him how things really worked and what would happen. He said it was documented but I've never found it by googling.

Maybe it's the 400 times as many threats to the POTUS, than ever in secret service history.

Who's really in charge?

I am worried about DU's moral compass but things like this give me some hope.

Sub-thread removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

I should have made this a thread, but instead posted inside another thread.
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=433&topic_id=635367&mesg_id=635395

196% of liberal Democrats support him !!elevens!

It's sad that we've shifted so far to the right that this administration is considered liberal. Even sadder is that most Democrats have easily slid into the middle without even knowing it.

This is what's been happening for the last 40 years:

Every Dem president since Carter. Which means only TWO - Clinton and Obama.

Obama ran consistently as a post-partisan uniter, who called for bipartisanship on the major issues of the day, who said single payer was too "extreme," that he was not opposed to all wars (just dumb wars), who voted for FISA during the campaign, who went out of his way to say he would unilaterally bomb Pakistan without Pakistan's permission if it meant killing Al Qaeda officials (in Democratic primary debates no less), who kept trying to dodge the words "redistribution of wealth" after Joe the Plumber, and who campaigned specifically on escalating in Afghanistan.

And this doesn't even get into your bogus claims about how Obama is "killing" (or even touching) Social Security, or that he allows the torture of Americans. Or your very misleading claim that Obama could have gotten a public option if he wanted to.

Catfood Commission - esp Alan Simpson

Bradley Manning and Guantanimo

He's not cutting SS - he's just allowing it to be cut. He hasn't said a damn thing AGAINST cutting it. Except when he was campaigning. He's essentially been a deadbeat on the issue, allowing CONS and the Blue Dogs to have their way w/ it as they buy into the stupidity the CONS are selling about it - ie: ye olde "OMG the sky is falling SS is broke! - and; "OMG we have to cut SS it's causing the deficit!" crap.

Call it what you want. He's cutting SS. He already has in fact.

I don't even need to explain Manning and Gitmo do I?

Talk about an advisory commission whose proposals aren't going anywhere? Or falsely pretending that the SS trust fund was negatively affected one dime by the payroll tax holiday?

SS has not been cut. To say otherwise is to make a false statement. There's nothing else to it.

We have had an Obama cut in social security.

:sarcasm:

A post partisan would run as an independent, not as a nominee of one of two major parties. To run as a Partisan means inherently one is not post partisan. He employed partisan politics to gain position. He ran with a same Party VP.
Everyone calls for bipartisanship on major issues. Obama did not specifically run as anything, and that is his political problem right now. He was wildly opposed to the individual mandate, he ran against it, and yet, today, he favors it. So what parts of his campaign words were specific to that? Is it a moderate trait to say one thing in the strongest possible terms then instantly do the opposite? Is that how we know he is a 'moderate' because his words have a modicum of truth? Because he takes some truth and some spin and brings a 'center position' made of some from each side, true and false, just to be fair?
A Major Party Senator and Presidential Nominee Is a Partisan, as Partisan as it gets. I understand that in this world, one can both be 'faith based' and a 'Pragmatist' but it is too much to claim to be a Post Partisan leading a major political Party seeking to defeat the other major Party.
Is the sky also green, and located beneath our feet?

we'll never know will we? He gave it up before negotiations even began, so how do we know what he could have gotten? Our president has no fight in him.

"Unfortunately, the lack of support from the administration made keeping the public option in the bill an uphill struggle."

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=102x4193124

"It would be unfair to blame Lieberman for its apparent demise... President Barack Obama...could have insisted on a higher standard for the legislation. This bill appears to be legislation that the president wanted in the first place, so I don’t think focusing it on Lieberman really hits the truth."

http://www.examiner.com/independent-in-madison/russ-feingold-obama-got-the-health-care-bill-he-wanted

Yes we could have gotten a public option. I love the little train of "I don't think we can, I don't think we can, I don't think we can" whiney old school dems who jump in to support Obama's biggest disappointments.

and have buyers remorse now. YMMV.

Geezus, I can't believe this particular bit of BS is still being flung about.

"Post-partisanship" is a MADE UP WORD. It is branding. It is a smokescreen for the same combination of socially moderate and big-business friendly policies, a/k/a Clintonian "New Democrat" we've seen before a million times.

Please stop acting like that word means something. It doesn't.

The 2012 Democratic Platform


We will pass new tax laws that spread the tax burden fairly across the economic spectrum, with those benefiting most from our society contributing commensurately.

We will pass law to protect the right of workers to organize and have a voice in the operation of US businesses. This will include raising the minimum wage to $20.00 per hour to ensure a reasonable standard of living for all working families and to stimulate our sluggish economy.

We will pass law to provide Medicare for All so no American is denied care or has to suffer financial hardship because of health problems, and no American businesses are saddled with health costs that keep them from competing fairly with foreign competitors. This plan will include a “safety net” to guarantee every citizen is provided the food and shelter necessary to survive difficult challenges in their lives.



We will withdraw of all US military and contracted personnel from Iraq and Afghanistan. Instead of the hundreds of billions of dollars and thousands of lives being wasted on these wars, we will instead provide aid to these countries, and to other depressed areas where atrocious conditions breed terrorists.

We will order the Department of Justice to investigate those who led us into these wars to determine if war crime charges are warranted. If so, they will be prosecuted with vigor and any ill-gained profits shall be returned to the people.

We will order the Commerce Department to present a holostic plan for maintaining and advancing the infrastructure of our great country.

We will order the Secretary of Education to present new plans to guarantee all Americans have access to our public schools, from pre-kindergarten through advanced degrees.

We will order Homeland Security to present a new plan for securing our borders from those who would do us harm while allowing appropriate travel and visitation to our many friends around the world. This plan is to include a path to citizenship for those who serve in the US military, or who came here as children and are now productive members of our society.

We will order the Department of Energy to begin another “Manhattan Project” to enable us to cease our dependence on fossil fuels. At the same time, I am announcing the nationalization of all US oil and gas reserves, as well as other reserves owned by the citizens of the US that are currently being extracted from our soil for private profit without regard for our environment.

We will order the Department of Justice to begin immediately to root out crimes of corruption within our government. In concert with this, I want Congress to pass laws to ensure elected officials are serving for the benefit of the American people as a whole, not to gain wealth or power for themselves or their friends.


And finally, we are asking you, the People, to help with the most critical problem facing our Democracy today. We’re asking you, the People, to pass a Constitutional Amendment prohibiting political spending by corporations or any other entity or individual not qualifying as a person with citizenship in this great country.


These and other policies we will put in place will cause a sea-change in how our country serves the citizens - We the People - rather than a tiny handful of super-wealthy who would subvert our democracy and plunder our wealth while denying even the most basic services for our citizens. Thank you for your support and thank you for standing up for the rights of all citizens.


Vote Democrat - 2012

to craft the platform.

I'll bet most the Democrats in Congress couldn't tell you what is in the party platform.

to die pennyless face down in the gutter.

Everyone on the right talks about how the government interferes with our economic freedom, but they always put in terms of becoming wealthy through luck and hard work.

The same freedom to succeed is also the freedom to be honest, work hard, and still fail miserably. In a free market, some will invariably win and others will invariably lose.

Government, when run well, buffers out the extremes, the successful become a little less wealthy (still wealthy but a little less so), as a price for some people and their kids not starving. It is all a matter of which sort of country you want to live in.

If pressed, I do not think the vast bulk of those on the right want to see children starving, but they never think of true economic freedom with no govenment intervention in these terms. It is a curious thing because a quick read of pre-new deal history would show how all this "economic freedom" used to work here, and a little study abroad would show it still works the same wherever truly implemented.

A very right wing conservative might well consider Bush to be a Liberal and they would certainly consider any Democrat to be a Liberal even if that person was considered to be a moderate within the Democratic Party.

posits, owning slaves and all, no votes for women, etc.

Many of them, including Washington and Jeffereson, foresaw a time when slavery would not exist. They could not quite figure out how to accomplish it against the power of the southern aristocracy, so, to their shame, they deferred on the question. Ben Franklin started the first abolitionist group in the colonies, even before the Revolution.

At the time of the Revolution, women in New Jersey who had $50 of wealth had the vote - it was rescinded in 1807 (abuot the start of the 19th century revivalist movement - what might that connection be?).

They were mostly, above all, rationalists, and if presented with a cogent argument were willing to change their stance and that is the hallmark of a liberal.

With all the money involved in its removal, a swing back will have to come from the people.

"show people how Liberalism is in the direct best interest of all of our citizens by expanding freedoms and rights"

The main problem is that liberalism does NOT expand the freedoms and rights that the majority value most. Instead, liberalism pretends to believe that only it knows what is in EVERYBODYS best interest so EVERYBODY must be forced to live according to liberalism.

Get past that and liberalism would have a better chance of being accepted, especially among us moderate Democrats.

What is YOUR definition of 'liberal'?

Then you should probably be a little more specific.

Specifically, which freedoms and rights are the ones valued most by the majority?


The other half of the post, and at the risk of derailing what I would consider the more promising debate of above, Why would it be that self proclaimed moderate Democrats would balk at a liberal definition of whats best of society, and yet lap up a conservative definition of whats best for society that is presented far more forcefully and with less willingness to compromise even the slightest detail?

Taxes. Yes, high taxes limit individual freedoms and rights in many ways and, to be quite honest, the majority of people do not want them and redistributed to others.
And then there are the "wedge issues." Abortion, HCR, gay rights, religion, 2nd Amendment rights, property rights, PC feel-good laws and a host of others.

People don't "balk at a liberal definition of whats best of society," they balk at the false liberal idea that it is ok to ignore individual rights and freedoms and use govt to force that definition onto all.
People are more conservative on such issues because they want to be left alone. People are not going to compromise their individual rights and freedoms away either.

IMO, this is not derailing the debate above, it is acknowledging the impossibility of a far-left progressive/liberal President and how that will not change until progressives/liberals stop making excuses about why people do not vote for them and face the fact that it is because of their policies.

Ive seen several polls cited that the majority of Americans are in favor of fairly taxing the very rich.

As to the others, I'm pretty sure that we have majorities in favor of the liberal position on abortion and gay rights at this time. I have as yet to hear a liberal position on religion, so I am not quite sure how we could be going against a majority on that. I don't know that there is a clear liberal position on the second amendment, even here on DU there is vast disagreement, but you might have a point on that one. Property rights is another one where everyone loves theirs, but hates their neighbors, regardless of party. Look at all the con's complaining about how ugly/noisy wind towers are, attacking peoples cars due to bumper stickers, etc.

In the mean time, I object to your mis-characterization of what liberals believe. I would consider myself fairly liberal, but as far as I am aware I don't believe that it is "ok to ignore individual rights and freedoms" and the main political sect that I have seen "use government to force" their definitions onto all would be the right wing.

But I think that your post does bring into clarity exactly why we do not get far left-progressive politicians in power. And it has absolutely nothing with liberal policies. The main issue I have run into is that people have been convinced that somehow what Republicans actually do is what Progressives think.

This has proven true to me each and every time I speak with a conservative where the conversation goes any deeper than talking points. In the end, we agree on 9/10ths of the issues. And the one remaining issue is one that we can generally live with disagreement on.

But what we get are politicians who disagree with the people on 9/10ths of issues, and are elected on lies spread wide and deep with money. And that money ends with people believing Reagan gave them a tax cut and Obama increased their taxes.

People don't care about taxes on anybody but themselves, so of course the majority don't care if we tax the rich more. As proven time and again though, people are not willing to pay higher taxes themselves for many liberal policies.

Most people support abortion but not as a means for birth control, if too late in term or if they have to pay for it. That is NOT the liberal position on abortion.
Polls show a majority support gay rights but I find those polls very hard to believe ever since the elections where 70+ percent showed up against them. I hope the polls are right but I think the people will have to 'show me' before I can believe otherwise.
The majority do not favor no religion on public land. They don't care if there is a cross or nativity scene and they sure as hell don't care about the ten commandments being posted. The majority believe freedom of religion, not freedom from religion.
The very clear liberal position on the 2nd Amendment is to create laws to sate their personal fears over guns.
The liberal position on property rights is that you run your business and live your life on that property how you are told, not how you want. You cannot have smoking on your property because somebody who does not smoke is not smart enough to go somewhere else.

Liberals do not believe it is ok to ignore individual rights and freedoms? Or is it that liberals do not believe it is ok to ignore the individual rights and freedoms which THEY agree with? From their actions, I say the latter. And you can start with the 2nd Amendment, taxes, HCR, property rights etc... for very clear examples of how what THEY deem best for society trumps the freedoms and rights of individuals and how since the majority disagree, they use govt to force those onto others.

I am a moderate Democrat and I guarantee that I agree with Republicans, liberals and conservatives on most issues just as you say. Where we differ is HOW to reach the goal. Where a conservative might believe in nothing and a liberal might believe in it as a way of life, we believe in a safety net. Not because of lies or money, but because we are not as dumb as liberals and conservatives wish we were.

Ive always heard it said that getting liberals together on anything is like herding cats, and I find that to be fairly accurate. This makes it difficult to present a cut and dried version of what "liberals" believe. So all I can do is work from my best understanding of what I and others I have spoken with believe, as well as public polling that I am aware of.

And By those, your definitions and assertions are incorrect.

First, I would say that most liberals do not want the people to pay higher taxes themselves. Most liberals believe that most citizens should be paying lower taxes. Reagan is the one that raised taxes on the working man and cut them for the rich, not Clinton. Liberals want to reverse that. In Main right now, the repub governor wants to lower taxes on the very rich, and increase property taxes on everyone else to pay for it. But because their side has all the volume, that's not what anyone gets to hear.

Most liberals of my acquaintance are not in favor abortion, but rather recognize its importance. They do not want it used as birth control. They want to teach women how to prevent pregnancy and empower them with affordable and understandable options. But they know that it must be protected as a right for those who make that choice. Safe, legal, and rare. And again, we have proven our case. Abortions went down under Clinton and rose again under Bush. The words of the pubs do not follow their actions, and liberals are blamed anyway. Not because we are wrong, but because the other side has ability to telegraph their words louder than the truth ever could.

I will not apologize in either sense for the liberal view on Gay rights. I think that there are two things playing into those polls. First, I think a lot of people don't bother to come vote. And second, It vary drastically based on geography. And, I see playing out that each and every year those numbers get better, both at the polls and in polls. But we liberals are right on that, and sexual orientation should not effect what other human rights are available to a person. Any more than skin color or gender should.

I would venture a guess that most liberals also believe in freedom of religion. In fact most liberals of my acquaintance are the most religious people that I know. I would include myself in that, and venture to say I know more about my religion than most any fundie you might care to name. I feel that the government has no business taking sides, promoting one religion over another, and I would guess that again there is a large common ground to be found. But the sell job comes into it again. A few lefty extremists want to blot out religion, and a bigger handful of RW nuts want to shove their particular version down everyone else's throats and into everyone's bedroom. And which gets the news coverage, the assertions that this is what all liberals believe?

All in all, I think you continue to prove my point. Your stereotypes of what liberals believe or want seem to line up perfectly with what I hear the corporate media shouting that liberals want. And they do not seem to line up hardly at all against what real, actual, flesh and blood liberals really do want.

As to safety nets, I do not understand the point you are trying to make. Having a safety net is, to my thinking, a basic component of liberal thinking. But the end result of "moderates" swinging back and forth has been an erosion of all the safety nets and freedoms. It has nothing to do with smart or dumb, it has to do with being swayed by whoever is the loudest and prettiest and most willing to tell comforting lies.

It is way passed time to re-educate the masses about the true nature of our founding. There is a huge re-education effort ongoing but it is precisely the opposite of the truth.

When do we start?

in Wisconsin. Finally we are seeing some resistance. As the mask comes off and liberals keep cutting, it should grow. We don't have a particularly strong left at this point in time so I think we have to back the unions we do have and be ready.

the best of what we can be.

Sorry, I'm just not buying that. Our Founding Fathers didn't believe in giving WOMEN (we're at least half the citizenry) the right to determine who leads us. They also didn't find it important for ALL men- to have an equal voice in the choice either.

Blacks, Native Americans, White men who didn't own property, and all women were denied the right to vote.

Alexander Hamilton said :

"All communities divide themselves into the few and the many. The first are the rich and well-born, the other the mass of the people. The voice of the people has been said to be the voice of God; and however generally this maxim has been quoted and believed, it is not true in fact. The people are turbulent and changing; they seldom judge or determine right. Give therefore to the first class a distinct permanent share of government...Can a democratic assembly who annually revolve in the mass of the people be supposed steadily to pursue the public good? Nothing but a permanent body can check the imprudence of democracy."

Progress IS happening.

It isn't happening as fast or as effectively as anyone would like- but it is happening none the less.

Look at what 8 yrs of Republican rule did to our country- It can't be turned around overnight, especially when we refuse to act collectively, and effectively to promote the reality that "our way"- the way of looking out for the needs and rights of ALL citizens isn't only the better way, it is essential for our survival as a society.
Instead, we bitterly turn against our own- and spend our time arguing about how "un-liberal, or republican, or worthless, 'they' are.

:shrug:

The past has a way of looking so much better than the present when we want it to. We look back through our vaseline lens' and wistfully imagine that things would have been better "if"-

as flawed as the founders were -- they were products of that rather remarkable time -- and the kind of thinking that brought about
the french revolution, the american revolution, and questioned the role of religion in the state, science and education.

Not the best example. There was a reason Jefferson and later John Adams loathed the bastard. Unfortunately he had Washington's ear a tad too often.

Rp

:applause:

I don't have much use for the New Democrat Centrist Party.

and instead do our research and learn what the candidates are really about. In the meantime, Obama needs a Democratic challenger, NOW.

as I see anyone being. Dean has his Iowa yell, but can he lead a nation through test after test like President Obama has? I think not.

victory in 2006 & 2008. Obama gave us the debacle of 2010 by pushing Dean and the progressive wing to the side, and supporting the losing Blue Dogs.

Who's the realist?

I'm pretty proud of it. You got reason I shouldn't be?

What an Fing waste of time. Better to get incremental, but REAL change.

Just look how quickly Feingold and Kucinich were marginalized right out of the race, little coverage by the MSN, no big money bankrollers.

The last liberal president, at least on non social issues, was no other than Richard Nixon. The current right and blue dogs would call Tricky Dick a pinko these days, they would call Ike the same. That's how skewed to the right our political baseline has drifted.

This country needs a truly liberal president NOW. We cannot continue to support/endorse an administration that moves more and more to the right.
The stakes are too high, and the consequences are too great.

to make that happen. Nuff said.

No sense of perspective or the achievable. I would not call the problem viciousness.

the rich got richer and they sucked the "american dream" right out from under us. This was the plan all along.

Well written and very much needed right now.

-PLA

and that would be the talk radio monopoly they ignore, the one that kicks their ass all day long and takes potshots at their reps, the one they give a free speech free ride to because it hurts their heads.

how the fuck liberals expect their reps to stick their heads out when they let their local RW megastations beat them with a political 2x4 all day while protected by call screeners and fed coordinated messaging from think tanks, reinforced by paid callers, yelling over everything liberals do.

when the organized collective left finally figures it out and starts boycotting local station sponsors and picketing those stations, the true power centers of the GOP and tea party, instead of their capitols, then they will get liberals.

Well said!

"The myth of a free press died with the assassination of Pres. John F. Kennedy" --


When I understand that we have had computer voting in use in America since the late

1960's -- then it is also clear to me that we should be quesitoning every election

back to Nixon/Humphrey -- and yet many here seem to think that if computers are being

used to hack and steal our elections that it only goes back to 2000 -- !!!!*


When Bush/Cheney pulled off "The Reichstag Fire in NYC" and covered it up without any

questions being asked, it was also clear where we were going -- !!!




*We should also be aware that LARGE computers came into use by media in the mid 1960's --

and that they gave our corporate-press new powers to PREDICT and CALL elections --

to name WINNERS and LOSERS -- to PREDICT the Electoral College vote -- and to name the

new president! What we saw in 2000 was simply a REVERSAL of those new powers!!

For more info see Votescam -- The Stealing of America -- a book written by two journalists

in Florida who began to investigate the odd and unsubstantiated results from computer voting

in the late 1960's in Florida. The book is available here and there for about $3 a copy -

paperback. You can read the book at the family website --

http://www.constitution.org/vote/votescam__.htm

"The democratic party. They were a political party that had power somewhere between the 1930s and the 1970s. You may have heard of them. Ask your parents." Sad but true.