Posts with the tag Democrats

Only the Beginning: Obama's Historic Victory and the Road Ahead

Mark C. Eades — Wed, 05 Nov 2008 14:40:54 EST

For Democrats, Barack Obama's stunning victory last night over John McCain brought a seemingly endless and often bitter presidential campaign battle to a welcome end. Obama's victory came as cause for relief and for celebration, as did Democratic gains in the Senate and the House of Representatives. When our first African American president takes office in January, Democrats will enjoy a position of authority in Washington we have not held since a brief period from 1992 to 1994. Many progressives are saying now that the era of conservative dominance in America beginning with the rise of the "New Right" in the 1970s and the Reagan victory in 1980 has now come at last to an end, that the long Republican nightmare is over, and I too am hopeful that this is so. While we celebrate and look ahead to the Obama Era, however, we should also remember that just as power can be won so it can also be lost, as it was in 1980, 1994, and 2000.

Each end is also a beginning; and so the end of Campaign 2008 and the end of Republican rule is also the beginning of something, but of what? Are we at the doorstep of a bold new progressive age that begins with Obama and extends into infinity, or of another brief Democratic reign to end again with a bitter Republican resurgence? Now that we have successfully driven the Republicans from power, how do we keep them from coming back, as we know we must if we are to avoid a repeat of the past eight years? A Republican resurgence would be a disaster, not only for Democrats and progressives, but for America and the world. The Karl Roves and Dick Cheneys of the world are not going anywhere. They will simply retreat to their think tanks and begin cooking up plans to retake power, just as they did during the Clinton years. Their success must be prevented by any and all means at our disposal.

While progressives will surely have a place at the table in the new administration, we cannot expect that the Left will or should dominate the Obama agenda at least in the near term. I would consider myself to be well on the Left of the Democratic Party, and I'm happy that progressives will have a voice in the new administration, but I feel pretty certain that Obama will have to govern more-or-less from the center if he is to avoid creating a whole new generation of "Reagan Democrats." I am hopeful that it may now be possible for progressives not simply to move the government to the left but to actually move the country to the left, and to create a new progressive America free of the politics of Reagan and Bush. In order for this to happen, however, Democrats in Washington will first have to prove themselves capable of governing the country effectively and satisfactorily in the eyes of their constituents. Once conservative-leaning, "soft" Democrats see that liberals aren't so bad after all, they will be much more likely to elect Democrats to Congress in 2010, to re-elect President Obama in 2012, to put another Democrat in the White House in 2016, and to listen to progressive ideas in the meantime with an open mind. While Democrats in Washington focus on effective governance, they and Democratic activists including us in the netroots must also focus on maintaining the gains we have made and on making further gains in election cycles to come. We cannot afford a repeat of 1980, 1994, or 2000.

Meanwhile, a whole new generation of first-time Democratic voters has been brought into the electorate, and this new Democratic base must be maintained and built at a grassroots level. Because of a far less reliable base of Democratic voters in previous elections, a hardcore Republican base of social conservatives, neo-cons, bigots, and xenophobes was allowed to dominate American politics for the better part of thirty years. This can never be allowed to happen again. Republicans who cannot be persuaded to go Democratic must be isolated and outvoted. In the immediate term, this means building a broad new Democratic base that includes centrists and even moderate conservatives in addition to progressives and the Left: not an easy task. The brilliant success of the Obama campaign in doing precisely that, however, can be credited in great part to Obama's experience as a community organizer in Chicago - experience that will serve the Democratic Party's organizing efforts well in the years to come.

Indeed if anyone is up the difficult tasks which surely lie ahead, I think it is our new president-elect. Throughout his campaign, he has shown himself to be a steady, focused, and disciplined political leader: not bad traits if one wishes to be an effective and successful president. More importantly, Obama possesses clear vision and a spirit of idealism that could not contrast more with the cynicism of the era that has just ended. He also possesses a strong, committed base of grassroots support that is ready for the battles to come. I for one look forward with hope and confidence to the road ahead.

Mark C. Eades
http://www.mceades.com

Make My Grandparents Proud, Vote for the D's

Democrat in Dayton, OH — Mon, 03 Nov 2008 10:16:22 EST

I voted Friday in Ohio and although at times in my life I have cast an occasional vote for a local Republican candidate, this time I reverted to my roots and voted like an old fashioned straight ticket Democrat. My Grandfathers would both be proud. It felt good. No, it felt great as if I were striking a blow for freedom. After eight years of thoroughly corrupt and incompetent government, the unrelieved horror of several nightmarish wars, the near destruction of American constitutional liberties, the pillage and plunder of our public treasury by wealth bloated plutocrats and oiligarchs, and the almost total loss of our international reputation I just felt safer somehow checking off the "D's."

Indiana for Democrats!

Armen — Thu, 09 Oct 2008 22:48:14 EDT

So on WMUB this morning they were talking about how my neighbor stat Indiana might actually go to the dems this year!!!! The polls are showing that Obama is barely trailing McCain and that he has been gaining ground in the recent weeks. Also, Obama is outspending McCain 3 to 1 in ads to make sure that his message is properly communicated and no one that "secret Muslim" stuff that has been running around the Bible belt actually get's considered to be truth. Anyway this is exciting because I can't remember the last time they went for a dem and this is showing that the tide is really turning in the united states and people are starting to wake up from the drug overdose nightmare of republicanism.

Republicans attack but where are the Democrats?

Democrat in New York, NY — Mon, 06 Oct 2008 11:53:33 EDT

Republicans are attacking Obama about his association with Bill Ayers, a guy who is a Distinguished Professor although with a checkered past, and Jerry Wright, another guy with a checkered past but with distinguished service to the country in the armed forces, but I see no counter attacks from the Democrats or even Obama campaign. All I see is weak defensive posture against a well coordinated attack by the republicans. What the democrats need to do is to counter attack not defend against the republican filth. The best way to defend against a weak attack is to counter attack with large force.

Media war is on for the duration of this campaign and the dems are losing it and it shows in the relatively low poll numbers. I understand that Obama is leading but that lead is due to the economic conditions, however, I believe Obama could be leading by mid double digits if it would counter attack McCain on his military record. I know every body is cringing but I am a veteran and I don't support him, so the dems need to stop feeling that they don't have RIGHT to the military support and start believing that they are owed military's support.

Democrats please start looking around and you will find that more than a majority of soldiers support you rather than the republicans. Republicans DO NOT CONTROL the hearts and minds of our armed forces any more, that's assuming that they ever did before.

McCain's military record is spotty at best. How did a guy who graduated 894th out of 899th get to be in an elite program of naval aviators? How did a guy who crashed twice, due to pilot error, get to go up again and again before being shot down over Vietnam? Looks like AFFIRMATIVE ACTION, due to his grandfather and father being admirals, to me. Why is it that we have so many pictures of him in the Vietnam pow camps when there are next to none of the other pows? He got special treatment, relative to other pows, even in Vietnam? Did he pledge communism to his captors? Is he still a communist?

Why do Democrats agree to be interviewed on FOX?

Democrat in New York, NY — Sat, 04 Oct 2008 12:39:30 EDT

One speech on CNN by Campbell Brown and McCain campaign canceled their interview on Larry King. Some harsh words, although they were all true unlike on Fox, by Keith Olbermann and Chris Matthews and no interviews have been granted to MSNBC and NBC. So why is it that we democrats show-up on fox for interviews? Nearly everyone of fox's henchmen attack democrats with FALSE accusations every day yet our guys show-up on that network for interviews. I implore democrats all across the country to boycott fox, fox news network, CNBC and any other network that shows even slightest of bias towards the republicans.

Once again, the high priests of money win and the Rich get more welfare from the middle class.

Liz — Fri, 03 Oct 2008 17:51:19 EDT

ALL HAIL HENRY PAULSON, THE FINANCIAL DICTATOR OF THE USA.

Once again the Wall Street High Priests of Money Win Out Over the People With the Assistance of Many of Our Elected Officials And you mark my words, this hog will be back to the trough before the end of 2008 to ask for more. There is no end to the greed, arrogance and sheer avarice of Paulson and those who support him.

Prior to Henry’s being crowned as the high priest of the US Treasury in 2006, he served for 8 years as Chairman and chief Executive Officer of the Goldman Sachs Group, and in four short months he will return to Goldman Sachs. HMMMMMM? What ever happened to the concept of “conflict of interests”? Goldman Sachs Group Inc. and Morgan Stanley may be among the biggest beneficiaries of the $700 billion U.S. plan to buy assets from financial companies while many banks see limited aid, according to Bank of America Corp. How rich is Paulson from his association with Goldman Sachs? Almost 1/2 a billion dollars--that's how rich. That's how much of his personal fortune is tied to this financial institution.

“Its benefits, in its current form, will be largely limited to investment banks and other banks that have aggressively written down the value of their holdings and have already recognized the attendant capital impairment,” Jeffrey Rosenberg, Bank of America’s head of credit strategy research, wrote in a report (dated Sept 23, 2008) without identifying particular banks.

Freemarkets or bust?

Democrat in New York, NY — Fri, 03 Oct 2008 12:25:56 EDT

After listening to all the republican rhetoric about deregulation and free market economics I am amazed at how little they really know about free markets. The basics of our economy are in the Keynesian school and as a matter of fact most of the free world's economies are based on this school of thought. And one of the great tenets of the Keynesian school is that when the markets get in trouble the government should be ready to jump in to prop it up. Now this assumes that the government is strong and that it has well put together regulations that will be able to assist the market in its time of peril.

The republicans keep talking, although I really don't think that they actually believe, about how the markets should always find a solution for economic problems. And I agree that markets are the best way to find solutions most of the time, however, I also see that markets can not always provide a solution. A belief that market based solutions are always correct is tantamount to saying that we should get drunk on wine or beer because they display health benefits in small amounts, so consuming a lot will improve the chances of us getting better faster.

In reality, market (wine) and government (coffee) go hand-in-hand. They are great equalizers and keep a check on each other. We need coffee to get over a hang-over after a night of drinking. And we need regulations, so that the markets, driven by greed, don't take advantage of the unsuspecting public. Conversely, we need markets to push the envelope of the economy, so that the government doesn't become stale and unresponsive to the needs of its citizenry.

Sarah Palin kept repeating yesterday that she wanted to see the government reduced to nothing but I guess she failed to realize that if the government wasn't around we would all be dealing with an economic depression today. Also, not to mention, she would still be sitting in Alaska bare foot and pregnant instead of debating for the VP slot. It is also interesting how the republicans keep bashing the government but still enjoy the benefits it provides in the workforce. 40hrs week, medical benefits for some, unemployment insurance, social security, and many other programs are there because of government, so republicans should acknowledge this fact and embrace it instead of ignoring it.

Palin was absolutely not presidential

Democrat in New York, NY — Thu, 02 Oct 2008 23:25:06 EDT

Sarah Palin showed that she can not and should not be allowed to even be part of the presidential secret service detail, who are not allowed to be political, let alone be second in line to be the president of the U.S. Funny thing of the whole debate was that she had a hard time answering the questions if she was the first one to answer them because she hadn't had the time to think about an answer. If Sen. Biden was asked to answer the question first she was then able to answer the question, if any of her answers could be called answering a question, because she had had time read through her notes.

I am sure that the republican media will say that she won the debate because she could "chew gum." The question that needs to be asked is how does a person with as little knowledge as she displays even get a nod to be on the presidential tick of the U.S.? It is scary to think that this lady has the possibility of becoming the leader of the free world.

All her answers were pieced together sentences with subject, verb, and an object but if she were taking an essay exam she would have gotten an F for not answering the question! None of her answers addressed the questions posed to her. It sounded more like a person with some command of english trying to repeat something that was written for her. I will give her credit for remembering the words even if she wasn't able to put them together coherently.

It seems that the republicans don't care about facts and just keep delving into lies and rhetoric. I just hope that Joe "six pack" was not drunk and therefore paying attention to the lies that Palin was spewing. Can we trust the republicans and Mcain/Palin ticket? My answer is a big NO!

Now we have a taste of the consequences of Conservatives being in charge of our financial system

Liz — Sat, 27 Sep 2008 17:23:17 EDT

The current financial meltdown is only one of many potential scenarios that result when we have rich conservatives in control of the world. Money, natural resources, even water: if greedy rich conservatives have their way, they will control it all. I hope that what is happening in DC is enough of a wake up call for the American people to say no to conservative politics in any form--Republican or Democratic. If there is any hope for the majority of the people on our planet, it will be found in progressive, not conservative, politics and it must begin here in the USA, the largest democracy on the planet.

Whatever settlement is worked out in regard to the Wall Street meltdown should be such that the American taxpayers are paid back every penny loaned WITH INTEREST before one red cent of profit is handed out to the shareholders and executive management of these financial firms.

If you think that the conservative's greed and insane need for control stops with money--think again. Water is a vital part of life, but should it be a commodity? It will be if rich conservatives and their corporations have their way, and not just in developing countries where the issue seems paramount, but in the United States as well. Water is currently a $400 billion industry, the third largest behind oil and electricity. Because of pollution, scarcity and corporate control, water availability is the largest issue facing humanity in this century. Of the 6 billion people on Earth, 1.1 billion do not have access to safe drinking water. In addition, contaminated drinking water kills more humans than AIDS or war.

CONTINUED ON

http://iflizwerequeen.com

There could be a lot more books cooking on the burners than we realize.

Liz — Fri, 26 Sep 2008 15:00:05 EDT

The Queen read an article in yesteday’s Washington Post by Frank Ahrens titled: Bailout Could Deepen Crisis, CBO Chief says.

According to the article, Peter Orszag, Congress’s top bookkeeper — said the bailout could expose the way companies are stowing toxic assets on their books, leading to greater problems. “Ironically, the intervention could even trigger additional failures of large institutions, because some institutions may be carrying troubled assets on their books at inflated values,” Orszag said in his testimony.

“Establishing clearer prices might reveal those institutions to be insolvent.”

To put that in the vernacular: Many WALL STREET corporations have been cooking their books for the past 8 years while the Bush Administration turned a blind eye. They have been using the Republican newspeak to label liabilities as assets and thus inflate the value of their stock.

Here are some additional important historical details not touched on in Ahren’s article:

Such activities resulted in the dot com meltdown on April 14, 2000. The Republican Congress, aided by some conservative Democrats, turned a blind eye while stock values were cooked to the boiling point. Well, what goes up without the truth to support it eventually falls flatter than a pressed penny run over by the Hummer of a Hedge Fund manager making his getaway. April 14, 2000 was the largest single day stock market crash in our history. I’ve forgotten the exact dollar amount, but I do remember that it was slightly larger than the entire economy of Germany at the time.

"Both" parties are NOT Responsible

Liz — Fri, 26 Sep 2008 11:03:27 EDT

Let's get one thing straight people.

It is not "BOTH" parties are responsible for this mess.

It is the Republicans and the CONSERVATIVE Democrates are responsible for this mess. [You can't count people like Barbar Boxer, Ted Kennedy, Patrick Leahy, Bernie Sanders, Dennis Kucinich, Howard Dean and other progressive Democrats in that bunch.]

Let's remember that until now, the conservative wing of our party has been in charge. Now the progressives are in the driver's seat.

If you want to separate the sheep from the goats, look at the ones who voted against giving Bush permission to go into Iraq.

You will find that the conservative wing of the Democratic party was behind him. I think the DLC even had a petition that they all signed and handed over to Bush.

BUT THAT IS BY NO MEANS ALL OF THE DEMOCRATIC PARTY. The same goes for their votes with the Republicans on financial bills.

Had Enough Vote Democratic - New Website

Grassroots Democrat Bruce — Thu, 25 Sep 2008 18:54:15 EDT

What do you think of this new website by respected business professor Jack Walters?

http://www.hadenoughvotedemocratic.org/

WAKE UP AMERICA.

Liz — Tue, 23 Sep 2008 14:33:04 EDT

Here are some basic facts of life folks for all voters about our two-party system:

1. You can’t be a democrat and be a conservative–that’s an oxymoron. You are either a progressive or liberal democrat.

2. You can’t be a Republican and be progressive–that’s an oxymoron. You are either conservative or libertarian. And whether you are rich or poor–all the legislation that your party, assisted by conservative Democrats, passes is for the benefit of the rich. The economics that you subscribe to is the economics of neo-liberalism. Here are the cornerstones of that ideology and none of which is part of the framework for the Democrat’s platform:

The five main points of the Conservatives’ economic neo-liberalism include:

#1 THE RULE OF THE MARKET. Liberating “free” enterprise or private enterprise from any bonds imposed by the government (the state) no matter how much social damage this causes. Greater openness to international trade and investment, as in NAFTA. Reduce wages by de-unionizing workers and eliminating workers’ rights that had been won over many years of struggle. No more price controls. All in all, total freedom of movement for capital, goods and services. To convince us this is good for us, they say “an unregulated market is the best way to increase economic growth, which will ultimately benefit everyone.” It’s like Reagan’s “supply-side” and “trickle-down” economics — but somehow the wealth didn’t trickle down very much.

Republicans and conservative Democrats only believe in the Market as long as it works, but when it falls on its face, they expect the majority of the American people to pick up the bill and pay for their mistakes.

Petition from Democrats.com

Liz — Tue, 23 Sep 2008 13:44:30 EDT

The Democrats.com have a petition to sign titled: STOP PAULSON'S PLUNDER.

http://www.democrats.com/stop-paulsons-plunder

I signed it and added this post note:

"Yes I want to stop the plunder of Paulson and the Bush adminstration and I also realize fully that at least for the past two years, the continuation of the plunder by the Bush admistration has been made possible by votes of some conservative Democrats as well. It has taken Me these past few months to gain clarity regarding the confusion that I've felt over the past two years as to why the Democrats could not have done better in getting legislation passed. Now I understand. It is in great part because there are some conservative Democrats who vote with the Republicans on many bills. They proudly refere to it as bipartisanship. I call it something different. I call it collusion of the rich. It doesn't make any difference to me if you call a conservative a Democrat or a Republican. To me they are too much alike to tell any difference and neither one of them represent ordinary Americans. A conservative is a conservative and the legislation they pass benefits the wealthy to the exclusion of ordinary Americans. I should hope that the Americans have their fill of conservatives by now.

I say if you want to be a conservative, then do what Lady de Rothschild did and be a Republican. Our party should be known as the progressive party again.

AND NO, REPUBLICANS ARE NOT PROGRESSIVE. To say that a Republican is progressive is an oxymoron.

I'm liberal, but I'll settle for progressive. However, I'm not putting up with conservative any more. NOT THIS TIME. NOT THIS YEAR AND NOT WITH $700 BILLION OF MY MONEY TO SUBSIDISE WALL STREET."

Thanks

Democrat in Clay City, IN — Sun, 21 Sep 2008 21:39:50 EDT

First off, thank you, fellow Democrats for all the love you have shown toward me in choosing not to follow party lines. It's rude people like you that make me consider leaving the Democratic party, and going Independant. I beleive John S. McCain can control this country, and that is why I want him to become President. NOT, Barack Hussein Obama.

Poll: Racial views steer some white Dems away from Obama

Mike W, Tulsa+ — Sun, 21 Sep 2008 20:39:44 EDT

Poll: Racial views steer some white Dems away from Obama

By RON FOURNIER and TREVOR TOMPSON, Associated Press Writers

http://news.yahoo.com/page/election-2008-political-pulse-obama-race

WASHINGTON (AP) — Deep-seated racial misgivings could cost Barack Obama the White House if the election is close, according to an AP-Yahoo News poll that found one-third of white Democrats harbor negative views toward blacks — many calling them "lazy," "violent," responsible for their own troubles. The poll, conducted with Stanford University, suggests that the percentage of voters who may turn away from Obama because of his race could easily be larger than the final difference between the candidates in 2004 — about two and one-half percentage points.

--- complete copyrighted story at link above

The Shifting Political Bandwidth of Democracy

Liz — Sun, 21 Sep 2008 10:22:23 EDT

The Shifting Political Bandwidth of Democracy

The diagram above is one that shows my viewpoint of where our two parties have been for the past 33 years. The conservatives have been in control exclusively since the end of Jimmy Carter’s term. Bill Clinton is a conservative Democrat, and has membership in the DLC to prove it. Throughout the last six years of his term, the Republicans were in control of both houses of Congress and all of the legislation passed during that time was conservative legislation. The shaded area represents the percentage of the conservative bloc that is in flux this election.

In spite of any illusions to the contrary, conservatives have been in control of our government for the past 33 years—and look what we the people have to show for it today as a nation. The only difference between a conservative Republican and a conservative Democrat is that the conservative Democrat would keep a little more government whereas the Conservative Republican would destroy it all except for the part that maintains the police and military—and even that they would privatize to be paid by the middle-class and poor taxpayers while continuing their tax breaks for the rich.

The Great Political Awakening of 2008 and why it has happened. . .

On the financial buyout and conservatives from both parties

Liz — Sun, 21 Sep 2008 01:19:33 EDT

THE QUEEN’S COMMENTS ON THE FINANCIAL BUYOUT AND CONSERVATIVES FROM BOTH PARTIES

If it hasn’t become obvious to Americans by now, it is perhaps time that it should be. Rich conservatives have been having their way with our demoracy for over thirty years and particularly sticking it to the average American voters when it comes to the financial shell games supported by their free market claims and market deregulations that they have set up, supported and used to increase their own wealth at the expense of ordinary Americans. The playing of these games has been possible because of their confusing political posturing in a politically stylized version of the good cop/bad cop dance.

Many people dichotomize our two political parties: Republicans are conservative and Democrats are liberal. However, that is a gross over-simplification. In fact, for the past 20 years, the Democrats have had a strong conservative wing of our party and they have been in total control. The most amazing thing about our Democratic primary was not that a black man won the nomination. The most amazing thing about Obama’s win was that the most conservative wing of our party, the members of the DLC, the group that had been in control for over 20 years, lost. AND that is where the real hope lies.

Let’s be perfectly clear here: rich conservatives are the same whether they are a Democrat or a Republican. The key word is not the “Party”, stupid. The key word is “conservative”.

I want to hear people like Patrick Leahy, Barbara Boxer, Russ Feingold and Ted Kennedy say that the final financial deal that is cut to rescue the conservatives from the mess that they have created for the rest of us is one that is fair and just to ordinary Americans. I don’t trust the word of conservatives from either party. Without the blessing from the progressives and liberals in the Democratic Party, the chances are very good that this is just another good cop/bad cop agreement among the conservatives from both parties. And as an American citizen, my answer is: NOT THIS TIME. NOT THIS YEAR. I don’t trust a conservative Democrat any more than I trust a Republican to represent my best interests

Who Builds the Economy? Democratic Presidents Do!

Richard M. Mathews — Fri, 19 Sep 2008 19:20:12 EDT

The economy consistently thrives under Democratic presidents and dies under Republican ones.

This is explained in the second article in my economic series, which has been published as a featured article on LA Progressive. Check it out at http://www.laprogressive.com/2008/09/19/who-builds-the-economy-democratic-presidents-do/

Also see the first article, "Who Creates Jobs? Democratic Presidents Do!", at http://www.laprogressive.com/2008/08/08/who-creates-jobs-democratic-presidents-do/

Politicians lie. Numbers don't. Democrats are best with the economy

Liz — Thu, 18 Sep 2008 10:13:50 EDT

QUEEN’S RECOMMENDED READING

I just read a great post in Slate by Michael Kinsley that I recommend for any one who may be having any difficulty in deciding whether they want a Democrat or a Republican to be in charge of our economy for the next four years–just in case the current melt down of Wall Street, resulting from the last 8 year of George Bush is not enough to convince you of the Republican’s lack of expertise in this area.

” . . . Since the conventions ended, McCain has mired the presidential race in dishonest trivia because he doesn’t want it to focus on what voters say is the most important issue this year: the economy. There is no secret about any of this. The figures below are all from the annual Economic Report of the President, and the analysis is primitive. Nevertheless, what these numbers show almost beyond doubt is that Democrats are better at virtually every economic task that is important to Republicans. . .”

The Queen recommends this article. It contains a great graphic illustrating the economic moxy of the Democrats compared to the Republicans from 1959 to 2007. Believe me! It is time we took the checkbookaway the Republicans before they do even more damage! They don’t even know how to balance a bank account, much less manage an economy as large as that of the USA. And believe me, the intellectual wattage to do that will take more that what a leader who graduated fourth from the bottom of his class of almost 900 has.

POLITICIANS LIE, NUMBERS DON’T
and the Numbers show that the Democrats are better for the Economy than Republicans
by Michael Kinsley

http://www.slate.com/id/2199810/