Compared to Obama who is a Keynesian in (in reality), has actually extended the Bush tax cuts, is for increasing military spending, and defined the word "surge" under government spending.
So yeah, all things being equal, I'll still take ABO.
I'm embarassed to be a democrat
- Thread starter CaptainObvious
- Start date
Compared to Obama who is a Keynesian in (in reality), has actually extended the Bush tax cuts, is for increasing military spending, and defined the word "surge" under government spending.
So yeah, all things being equal, I'll still take ABO.
This echoes the Captain's feelings:
Obama also has wrecked havoc in the the Democratic Party. He's firmly affixed the "tax and spend" label to it after Bill Clinton declared that the era of big government was over. He's made Clinton into a pitch man for Mitt Romney. His rejection of the Keystone XL pipeline has split the party. His refusal to adopt the Simpson-Bowles commission's recommendations has turned Democrats into reactionaries, defending the status quo on entitlements. He's alienated Jewish voters. He's re-McGovernized the party, which now stands for appeasing despotic powers, turning on allies and slashing defense spending.
As Ross Douthat wrote, "House Republicans have spent the past two years taking tough votes on entitlement reform, preparing themselves for an ambitious offensive should 2012 deliver the opportunity to cast those same votes and have them count. The Senate Democrats, on the other hand, have failed to even pass a budget: There is no Democratic equivalent of Paul Ryan's fiscal blueprint, no Democratic plan to swallow hard and raise middle class taxes the way Republicans look poised to swallow hard and overhaul Medicare. Indeed, there's no liberal agenda to speak of at the moment, beyond a resounding 'No!' to whatever conservatism intends to do."
Not even Jimmy Carter did this much, I would suggest, to jerk his party to the left and hobble its electoral prospects. No wonder Clinton is on a rampage.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs...ocratic-party/2012/06/06/gJQAGCVlJV_blog.html
Obama also has wrecked havoc in the the Democratic Party. He's firmly affixed the "tax and spend" label to it after Bill Clinton declared that the era of big government was over. He's made Clinton into a pitch man for Mitt Romney. His rejection of the Keystone XL pipeline has split the party. His refusal to adopt the Simpson-Bowles commission's recommendations has turned Democrats into reactionaries, defending the status quo on entitlements. He's alienated Jewish voters. He's re-McGovernized the party, which now stands for appeasing despotic powers, turning on allies and slashing defense spending.
As Ross Douthat wrote, "House Republicans have spent the past two years taking tough votes on entitlement reform, preparing themselves for an ambitious offensive should 2012 deliver the opportunity to cast those same votes and have them count. The Senate Democrats, on the other hand, have failed to even pass a budget: There is no Democratic equivalent of Paul Ryan's fiscal blueprint, no Democratic plan to swallow hard and raise middle class taxes the way Republicans look poised to swallow hard and overhaul Medicare. Indeed, there's no liberal agenda to speak of at the moment, beyond a resounding 'No!' to whatever conservatism intends to do."
Not even Jimmy Carter did this much, I would suggest, to jerk his party to the left and hobble its electoral prospects. No wonder Clinton is on a rampage.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs...ocratic-party/2012/06/06/gJQAGCVlJV_blog.html
Every time, every single time these idiots come up with a story like this the democratic party gets weaker and loses votes. This is all you have? Christ almighty! Obama may lose all 57 states.:eek: But really, com'on. This is pathetic! The party platform was just soundly rejected two days ago, IN A SWING STATE! Unbelieveable!
http://news.yahoo.com/blogs/ticket/...hbors-not-exactly-biggest-fans-124737317.html
http://news.yahoo.com/blogs/ticket/...hbors-not-exactly-biggest-fans-124737317.html
Captain, that IS all they have. Romney is too rich, too successful, too nice, too good of a husband and father and worst of all, he is boring. I shit you not, this is the argument Chris Mathews makes every night on why this country should not elect him. You can't make this stuff up.
Please indicate how you think the party that openly opposes your core values, as you stated, will be better for the achievement of your core values than the party that shares those values but is, as you state, ineffective in achieving them. Are you hoping the reps will be even more ineffective in achieving their goals, which are contrary to yours, than the dems will be in achieving them, and the result will be an accidental realization of your values?
I mean, I can understand your disappointment, everyone on the left is so, but why give up on what you value?
I have not given up on what I value. I have given up believing the democratic party can deliver anything of substance towards those values.
