Death to the Incumbent! Part Two: Now with more Death.

[LynahFan]

Re: Death to the Incumbent! Part Two: Now with more Death.

A few in the main policy-making positions, plus the fact that moderate Democrats allowed emasculation of reform in Congress.

So, in other words, Obama couldn't implement his liberal agenda because the country isn't all that liberal. That's kinda the point of democracy, right?

 

[5mn_Major]

Re: Death to the Incumbent! Part Two: Now with more Death.

The country is still center right, and will be for the foreseeable future. Obama arrived on the stage at the perfect time of anti-Republican sentiment without a long liberal voting record trailing behind him, and he still only managed to scrape together a whopping 53% of the popular vote. If the left insists on nominating people to the left of Obama in the future, they may as well go ahead and hang a sign at 1600 Penn Ave that says "GOP Headquarters."

I might modify your post. The only reason that the US has voted center right is not because the majority wants the policies of the right but rather voters believe that GOP candidates represent someone who is strong (which is a trait historically people want in leadership). When the right gets in and forgets about its fiscal conservative compaigning platform and gets back to its main platform of Guns/God/Gays (which it always does)...voters slowly turn against them. But even moreso, there is always higher turnout among affluent, rural whites and lower turnout among minorities...giving the illusion that US of a preference. The US is not center-right...but rather very much center and it wouldn't surprise me if it moved left as baby boomers give way to newer immigrants.

 

[Patman]

Re: Death to the Incumbent! Part Two: Now with more Death.

I might modify your post. The only reason that the US has voted center right is not because the majority wants the policies of the right but rather voters believe that GOP candidates represent someone who is strong (which is a trait historically people want in leadership). When the right gets in and forgets about its fiscal conservative compaigning platform and gets back to its main platform of Guns/God/Gays (which it always does)...voters slowly turn against them. But even moreso, there is always higher turnout among affluent, rural whites and lower turnout among minorities...giving the illusion that US of a preference. The US is not center-right...but rather very much center and it wouldn't surprise me if it moved left as baby boomers give way to newer immigrants.

Well, yes, indoctrinating children into a race-based hatred of Republicans will tend to do that. In fact, Obama is counting on that racism.

 

[amherstblackbear]

Re: Death to the Incumbent! Part Two: Now with more Death.

Well, yes, indoctrinating children into a race-based hatred of Republicans will tend to do that. In fact, Obama is counting on that racism.

Yes, I'm sure he is.

 

[Priceless]

Re: Death to the Incumbent! Part Two: Now with more Death.

Yes, I'm sure he is.

I don't see anything racist there.

 

[LynahFan]

Re: Death to the Incumbent! Part Two: Now with more Death.

I might modify your post. The only reason that the US has voted center right is not because the majority wants the policies of the right but rather voters believe that GOP candidates represent someone who is strong (which is a trait historically people want in leadership). When the right gets in and forgets about its fiscal conservative compaigning platform and gets back to its main platform of Guns/God/Gays (which it always does)...voters slowly turn against them. But even moreso, there is always higher turnout among affluent, rural whites and lower turnout among minorities...giving the illusion that US of a preference. The US is not center-right...but rather very much center and it wouldn't surprise me if it moved left as baby boomers give way to newer immigrants.

Well, I suppose in the end left, right, and center all depend on your own point of view.

"Affluent rural whites" is more or less an oxymoron - how many times have we had to listen to some of the board's resident lefties complaining about federal funds flowing from urban blue states to rural red states? Guess "safety nets" are only okay if they're going to the right kind of poor people.

And finally, who cares what people who don't vote think? I sense a new slogan. The Democratic Party: Preferred by More People Who Don't Give a Poop.

 

[Sar'nt]

Re: Death to the Incumbent! Part Two: Now with more Death.

So, in other words, Obama couldn't implement his liberal agenda because the country isn't all that liberal. That's kinda the point of democracy, right?

No, he never had a liberal agenda.

 

[WeWantMore]

Re: Death to the Incumbent! Part Two: Now with more Death.

No, he never had a liberal agenda.

But you just said moderate Dems "emasculated" his health care bill.

 

[Sar'nt]

Re: Death to the Incumbent! Part Two: Now with more Death.

But you just said moderate Dems "emasculated" his health care bill.

I said nothing about health-care. I was talking about financial reform. Moderate Democrats bought into "let's fix the system" instead of realizing that the system needed more than a fix. When policy was being made in this arena, voices further to the left were ignored.

 

[WeWantMore]

Re: Death to the Incumbent! Part Two: Now with more Death.

I said nothing about health-care. I was talking about financial reform. Moderate Democrats bought into "let's fix the system" instead of realizing that the system needed more than a fix. When policy was being made in this arena, voices further to the left were ignored.

Ah, that's my fault. I saw reform and automatically thought health care.

Anyways, I think my point is still valid. If moderate Democrats ruined things, then doesn't that necessarily mean there were Democrats further to the left?

 

[Sar'nt]

Re: Death to the Incumbent! Part Two: Now with more Death.

Ah, that's my fault. I saw reform and automatically thought health care.

Anyways, I think my point is still valid. If moderate Democrats ruined things, then doesn't that necessarily mean there were Democrats further to the left?

There absolutely were. None had much influence on the negotiation, though.

 

[WeWantMore]

Re: Death to the Incumbent! Part Two: Now with more Death.

There absolutely were. None had much influence on the negotiation, though.

Who, in your opinion, are the liberals in Congress, and how does President Obama differ from them?

 

[Sar'nt]

Re: Death to the Incumbent! Part Two: Now with more Death.

Who, in your opinion, are the liberals in Congress, and how does President Obama differ from them?

When talking financial reform, people like Pelosi, those who advocate a restructuring of the financial system (reimplementation of G-S, empowered regulatory oversight, etc.) and Obama does not have the progressive idealism that those of that type do. He came in without a cohesive financial plan--which is fine, because whoever was elected was not going to be able to have one; by incorporating existing financial goliaths into his cabinet, inevitably, policy was going to be made that didn't nearly go as far as progressives would have proposed. As I stated before, G-S is only in there because Volcker was persistent for a year.

 

[Priceless]

Re: Death to the Incumbent! Part Two: Now with more Death.

Who, in your opinion, are the liberals in Congress, and how does President Obama differ from them?

Obama eats watermelon, collared greens and fried chicken; is a Kenyan Muslin and wears a turban.

Typical liberals in Congress don't.

 

[amherstblackbear]

Re: Death to the Incumbent! Part Two: Now with more Death.

Who, in your opinion, are the liberals in Congress, and how does President Obama differ from them?

Whoever you choose as the most liberal members, the better question is how is Obama NOT different from them?

The most liberal members Oppose Obama's judicial nominees for being too centrist, they oppose his defense policy, they oppose how passive he's been about DADT, they oppose his willingness to settle for some politically-driven Frankenstein version of health reform, they oppose his willingness to consider extension of Bush tax cuts, they oppose his footdragging on Guantanamo, they oppose his continuation of extraordinary rendition . . . off the top of my head. There are doubtless many more.

 

[WeWantMore]

Re: Death to the Incumbent! Part Two: Now with more Death.

They oppose his judicial nominees? Every Dem Senator except for Ben Nelson voted for his Supreme Court justices. They oppose his health care bill? Every Dem Senator voted for it.

 

[amherstblackbear]

Re: Death to the Incumbent! Part Two: Now with more Death.

They oppose his judicial nominees? Every Dem Senator except for Ben Nelson voted for his Supreme Court justices. They oppose his health care bill? Every Dem Senator voted for it.

You asked how they were different. There is no question that the most liberal members of Congress would have nominated someone far to the left of Kagan. Early on, at least, the debate on the left was louder than the debate with the right. But members of Congress don't make nominees. They really had no choice but to vote to approve - they weren't going to get what they wanted, anyway.

Likewise, with health care. There were many who would have preferred not to bother with the whole knock-down drag-out fight (with conservative Dems, obviously the GOP was on the sidelines) if single-payer (or at least the public option) were off the table.

Because they ultimately supported the president doesn't mean there weren't differences, even on those issues. The president and the average member of Congress are not equal in power.

 

[WeWantMore]

Re: Death to the Incumbent! Part Two: Now with more Death.

I should have been more specific. Obviously they all have different views, there's not 280 or so lockstep Dems in Washington. Just as there are varying degrees of conservatism in the Republican party. However, to me at least, results are all that matter. If they disliked the health bill so much, they shouldn't have voted for it. If they disliked his nominees so much, don't vote for them.

 

[Priceless]

Re: Death to the Incumbent! Part Two: Now with more Death.

I should have been more specific. Obviously they all have different views, there's not 280 or so lockstep Dems in Washington. Just as there are varying degrees of conservatism in the Republican party. However, to me at least, results are all that matter. If they disliked the health bill so much, they shouldn't have voted for it. If they disliked his nominees so much, don't vote for them.

Like the Republicans didn't vote for Roberts.

 

[amherstblackbear]

Re: Death to the Incumbent! Part Two: Now with more Death.

I should have been more specific. Obviously they all have different views, there's not 280 or so lockstep Dems in Washington. Just as there are varying degrees of conservatism in the Republican party. However, to me at least, results are all that matter. If they disliked the health bill so much, they shouldn't have voted for it. If they disliked his nominees so much, don't vote for them.

Gotcha. I was just trying to make the point that Obama is not to the far left of his party, by any means.

In see your point about results. I was just trying to say that it does actually make a difference to the end results who gets to make the initial proposal. If a lberal Dem makes an appointment, then the heat goes onto the conservative Dems to approve, rather than the left wing of the party. And a more liberal justice gets nominated. Not saying that would be good politics, but there would actually be a difference, imo.

As for voting, sure, you should oppose something if you don't believe in it. But we already know the Democrats are really, really bad about that (see the Iraq war authorization)