Championship Subdivision Football | FCS Football | Stadiums | Blogs | Forums

For those of you still drinking that kool-aid:

Last night, Evan Bayh blamed the Democrats' problems on "the furthest left elements," which he claims dominates the Democratic Party -- seriously. And in one of the dumbest and most dishonest Op-Eds ever written, Lanny Davis echoes that claim in The Wall St. Journal: "Blame the Left for Massachusetts" (Davis attributes the unpopularity of health care reform to the "liberal" public option and mandate; he apparently doesn't know that the health care bill has no public option [someone should tell him], that the public option was one of the most popular provisions in the various proposals, and the "mandate" is there to please the insurance industry, not "the Left," which, in the absence of a public option, hates the mandate; Davis' claim that "candidate Obama's health-care proposal did not include a public option" is nothing short of an outright lie).

In what universe must someone be living to believe that the Democratic Party is controlled by "the Left," let alone "the furthest left elements" of the Party? As Ezra Klein says, the Left "ha[s] gotten exactly nothing they wanted in recent months." The Left wanted a single-payer system, then settled for a public option, then an opt-out public option, then Medicare expansion -- only to get none of it, instead being handed a bill that forces every American to buy health insurance from the private insurance industry. Nor was it "the Left" -- but rather corportist Democrats like Evan Bayh and Lanny Davis -- who cheered for the hated Wall Street bailout; blocked drug re-importation; are stopping genuine reform of the financial industry; prevented a larger stimulus package to lower unemployment; refuse to allow programs to help Americans with foreclosures; supported escalation in Afghanistan (twice); and favor the same Bush/Cheney terrorism policies of indefinite detention, military commissions, and state secrets.

Andrew Sullivan writes:

This must come as some surprise to most Daily Kos fans. But if one had traveled to Mars and back this past year and read this statement, what would you assume had happened? I would assume that the banks had been nationalized, the stimulus was twice as large, that single-payer healthcare had been pushed through on narrow majority votes, that card-check had passed, that an immigration amnesty had been legislated, that prosecutions of Bush and Cheney for war crimes would be underway, that withdrawal from Afghanistan would be commencing, that no troops would be left in Iraq, that Larry Tribe was on the Supreme Court, that DADT and DOMA would be repealed, and so on.

http://www.commondreams.org/view/2010/01/20-10

Larry Tribe on the Supreme Court? Now THAT'S a nightmare. Anyway, he'll turn 69 this year, and he'd never be confirmed anyway. I had that guy for Con Law, and aced his course. ( I always liked Larry personally. Good teacher with regular office hours and genuinely enjoyed talking to his students.)

Evan Bayh is ONE OF THE MAIN PROBLEMS. Him and other DINOS.

Obama ran on a Progressive platform, then turned right. Only fucksticks from the DNC could then blame the left.

dbackjon wrote:Evan Bayh is ONE OF THE MAIN PROBLEMS. Him and other DINOS.

Obama ran on a Progressive platform, then turned right. Only **** from the DNC could then blame the left.

Interesting... what exactly constitutes a democrat if Bayh is a DINO?

Evan Bayh and Lanny Davis are among the few Democrats remaining amongst the leadership of the Democratic Party. Most are "progressives" cum national socialists.

native wrote:Evan Bayh and Lanny Davis are among the few Democrats remaining amongst the leadership of the Democratic Party. Most are "progressives" cum national socialists.

Exactly...just as the Neocons have hijacked the Republican Party, the "Progressives" have hijacked the Democratic Party...

Neither party stands for the middle class...both have been taken over by the extremes...

And those who belittle true Democrats or true Republicans are the biggest problem today...those with extreme agendas like the union-supported anti-worker card check...

Col Hogan wrote:

native wrote:Evan Bayh and Lanny Davis are among the few Democrats remaining amongst the leadership of the Democratic Party. Most are "progressives" cum national socialists.

Exactly...just as the Neocons have hijacked the Republican Party, the "Progressives" have hijacked the Democratic Party...

Neither party stands for the middle class...both have been taken over by the extremes...

And those who belittle true Democrats or true Republicans are the biggest problem today...those with extreme agendas like the union-supported anti-worker card check...

The way I see it, there are four distinct political ways of thinking in America right now:

Progressives (solidly left; e.g. Nancy Pelosi, Barney Frank)
(Obama is somewhere between these two)
Democrats (center-left; e.g. Evan Bayh, Max Bachus (sp?))
Republicans (center-right; e.g. John McCain, George W. Bush)
Conservatives (solidly right; e.g. Ron Paul, libertarians)

I don't see why we don't just split into four parties, and then have 2 or 3 form a coalition for a majority in congress. Germany has a similar setup and it works fine for them.

dbackjon wrote:Evan Bayh is ONE OF THE MAIN PROBLEMS. Him and other DINOS.

Obama ran on a Progressive platform, then turned right. Only **** from the DNC could then blame the left.

If you define George W. Bush (which I believe you do) as a far, right wing, conservative...then, yes Obama ran on a "progressive platform." He ran more to the center in my opinion, which is backed up by most politicos. He has governed weak, and much more like George Bush (please tell me fundamental policies of GWB he has changed). It's a shame really...he had a mandate to usher in real change, unfortunately he forget some of those promises on the way (closing Gitmo, withdrawing from Iraq, ending DADT).

There are DINOs and RINOs, and there are people who are trying to the right thing, party be damned. You should check into it...toeing a party line is sad.

ASUMountaineer wrote: If you define George W. Bush (which I believe you do) as a far, right wing, conservative...then, yes Obama ran on a "progressive platform." He ran more to the center in my opinion, which is backed up by most politicos. He has governed weak, and much more like George Bush (please tell me fundamental policies of GWB he has changed). It's a shame really...he had a mandate to usher in real change, unfortunately he forget some of those promises on the way (closing Gitmo, withdrawing from Iraq, ending DADT).

There are DINOs and RINOs, and there are people who are trying to the right thing, party be damned. You should check into it...toeing a party line is sad.

Obama man have ran more to the center in his rhetoric in the 6+ months of gen election, but that is irrelevant.
-His rhetoric during the primaries was far more to the left.
-His rhetoric during his time in the Senate, in the Illinois legislature, and going back to his younger adult days (including his associations) was far more to the left.
-Most importantly, his votes during his time in the Illinois state legislature and the US Senate were fare more to the left. Heck, in his 3 years in the US Senate before the primaries the National Journal had him rated as the 16th most, the 10th most, and then the most liberal senator in the US Senate in their annual ratings of the most/least liberal and conservative senators.

If someone is far left their whole life and then runs to the center for 6th months of a general election, that doesn't mean squat. They're still far left. A tiger doesn't change his stripes.

BDKJMU wrote:

ASUMountaineer wrote: If you define George W. Bush (which I believe you do) as a far, right wing, conservative...then, yes Obama ran on a "progressive platform." He ran more to the center in my opinion, which is backed up by most politicos. He has governed weak, and much more like George Bush (please tell me fundamental policies of GWB he has changed). It's a shame really...he had a mandate to usher in real change, unfortunately he forget some of those promises on the way (closing Gitmo, withdrawing from Iraq, ending DADT).

There are DINOs and RINOs, and there are people who are trying to the right thing, party be damned. You should check into it...toeing a party line is sad.

Obama man have ran more to the center in his rhetoric in the 6+ months of gen election, but that is irrelevant.
-His rhetoric during the primaries was far more to the left.
-His rhetoric during his time in the Senate, in the Illinois legislature, and going back to his younger adult days (including his associations) was far more to the left.
-Most importantly, his votes during his time in the Illinois state legislature and the US Senate were fare more to the left. Heck, in his 3 years in the US Senate before the primaries the National Journal had him rated as the 16th most, the 10th most, and then the most liberal senator in the US Senate in their annual ratings of the most/least liberal and conservative senators.

If someone is far left their whole life and then runs to the center for 6th months of a general election, that doesn't mean squat. They're still far left. A tiger doesn't change his stripes.

That has nothing to do with the point I was referring to. I know it felt good to get the Obama jab in, but you missed the boat. While you're correct, I was referring to Jon's remark about the general election. Nice diatribe though.

Right...Mass voted for Brown over outrage of having no public option. What's next, gays and lesbians turning to republicans for marriage rights?

free7694 wrote:

Col Hogan wrote:
Exactly...just as the Neocons have hijacked the Republican Party, the "Progressives" have hijacked the Democratic Party...

Neither party stands for the middle class...both have been taken over by the extremes...

And those who belittle true Democrats or true Republicans are the biggest problem today...those with extreme agendas like the union-supported anti-worker card check...

The way I see it, there are four distinct political ways of thinking in America right now:

Progressives (solidly left; e.g. Nancy Pelosi, Barney Frank)
(Obama is somewhere between these two)
Democrats (center-left; e.g. Evan Bayh, Max Bachus (sp?))
Republicans (center-right; e.g. John McCain, George W. Bush)
Conservatives (solidly right; e.g. Ron Paul, libertarians)

I don't see why we don't just split into four parties, and then have 2 or 3 form a coalition for a majority in congress. Germany has a similar setup and it works fine for them.

You don't know much about libertarians if you are ranking them in the solid right. Libertarians are all over the map. I happen to know this.....

Col Hogan wrote:

native wrote:Evan Bayh and Lanny Davis are among the few Democrats remaining amongst the leadership of the Democratic Party. Most are "progressives" cum national socialists.

Exactly...just as the Neocons have hijacked the Republican Party, the "Progressives" have hijacked the Democratic Party...

Neither party stands for the middle class...both have been taken over by the extremes...

And those who belittle true Democrats or true Republicans are the biggest problem today...those with extreme agendas like the union-supported anti-worker card check...

The Democratic leadership are not progressives. The Democratic party is not progressive.

CID1990 wrote:

free7694 wrote:
The way I see it, there are four distinct political ways of thinking in America right now:

Progressives (solidly left; e.g. Nancy Pelosi, Barney Frank)
(Obama is somewhere between these two)
Democrats (center-left; e.g. Evan Bayh, Max Bachus (sp?))
Republicans (center-right; e.g. John McCain, George W. Bush)
Conservatives (solidly right; e.g. Ron Paul, libertarians)

I don't see why we don't just split into four parties, and then have 2 or 3 form a coalition for a majority in congress. Germany has a similar setup and it works fine for them.

You don't know much about libertarians if you are ranking them in the solid right. Libertarians are all over the map. I happen to know this.....

No kidding. In hindsight I would have voted for Ron Paul. Bill Maher is a libertarian.

I'm also not sure Pelosi and Frank are the best examples of progressives. Progressive is not the new liberal. Teddy Roosevelt was a progressive.

kalm wrote:

Col Hogan wrote:
Exactly...just as the Neocons have hijacked the Republican Party, the "Progressives" have hijacked the Democratic Party...

Neither party stands for the middle class...both have been taken over by the extremes...

And those who belittle true Democrats or true Republicans are the biggest problem today...those with extreme agendas like the union-supported anti-worker card check...

The Democratic leadership are not progressives. The Democratic party is not progressive.

No, but they play the progressives with promises for their support...

I once had a long talk with HIU93...and the subject was blacks support for the Democratic Party...

He's black (we had the conversation over beer, and I noticed this fact)...and I asked him straight up...

"What have the democrats done for blacks to win this support???"

He acknowledged Democrats have not done much...but, in his words, "At least the democrats talk the talk...they make promises...Republicans just ignore blacks..."

Same with progressives...

So, now we've established that the Democratic Party leadership are scum that use certain groups of people...and the Party can't win an election without the progressives, so they are willing to play them like a fiddle...and since I'm an independent...I'll establish for the record that the Republicans have done the same with certain groups, and are also scum...

kalm wrote:

CID1990 wrote:
You don't know much about libertarians if you are ranking them in the solid right. Libertarians are all over the map. I happen to know this.....

No kidding. In hindsight I would have voted for Ron Paul. Bill Maher is a libertarian.

I'm also not sure Pelosi and Frank are the best examples of progressives. Progressive is not the new liberal. Teddy Roosevelt was a progressive.

Isn't it amazing...that you and me (a self-proclaimed "true-conservative") can both support Ron Paul? Libertarianism is a streak that resides in most Americans, I think. Some just give in more than others.

CID1990 wrote:

free7694 wrote:
The way I see it, there are four distinct political ways of thinking in America right now:

Progressives (solidly left; e.g. Nancy Pelosi, Barney Frank)
(Obama is somewhere between these two)
Democrats (center-left; e.g. Evan Bayh, Max Bachus (sp?))
Republicans (center-right; e.g. John McCain, George W. Bush)
Conservatives (solidly right; e.g. Ron Paul, libertarians)

I don't see why we don't just split into four parties, and then have 2 or 3 form a coalition for a majority in congress. Germany has a similar setup and it works fine for them.

You don't know much about libertarians if you are ranking them in the solid right. Libertarians are all over the map. I happen to know this.....

From the economic standpoint, they should be most conservative but plenty aren't (Bill Maher). The misconception with the terms "conservative, liberal, and progressive" is that progressive and liberal are seen as synonymous which in fact they are not.

A progressive is someone who wants social change, a liberal wants more power in the Government , a conservative wants less government or little government. technically you could say Republicans are socially liberal in the sense that they wish to regulate people's lives by giving the government more power to do that (see sodomy laws, etc)

so I would categorize it as
Democrats--social progressives, economic liberals
Republicans--technically social liberals (but you can call it conservative), economic conservatives
Libertarians--social conservatives (by means of less government) and economic conservatives

IMO your not a libertarian if your social views line up with the Republicans or your economic views line up with the Democrats...but that's just my

ASUMountaineer wrote:

kalm wrote:
No kidding. In hindsight I would have voted for Ron Paul. Bill Maher is a libertarian.

I'm also not sure Pelosi and Frank are the best examples of progressives. Progressive is not the new liberal. Teddy Roosevelt was a progressive.

Isn't it amazing...that you and me (a self-proclaimed "true-conservative") can both support Ron Paul? Libertarianism is a streak that resides in most Americans, I think. Some just give in more than others.

The funny thing about Ron Paul is that by no means is he progressive in social terms, but dog gone it he doesn't believe in shoving values down people's throat so I would vote for him.

dbackjon wrote:Evan Bayh is ONE OF THE MAIN PROBLEMS. Him and other DINOS.

Obama ran on a Progressive platform, then turned right. Only **** from the DNC could then blame the left.

You would think left wing nuts could recognize a proletarian vanguard when they see one.

youngterrier wrote:

CID1990 wrote:
You don't know much about libertarians if you are ranking them in the solid right. Libertarians are all over the map. I happen to know this.....

From the economic standpoint, they should be most conservative but plenty aren't (Bill Maher). The misconception with the terms "conservative, liberal, and progressive" is that progressive and liberal are seen as synonymous which in fact they are not.

A progressive is someone who wants social change, a liberal wants more power in the Government , a conservative wants less government or little government. technically you could say Republicans are socially liberal in the sense that they wish to regulate people's lives by giving the government more power to do that (see sodomy laws, etc)

so I would categorize it as
Democrats--social progressives, economic liberals
Republicans--technically social liberals (but you can call it conservative), economic conservatives
Libertarians--social conservatives (by means of less government) and economic conservatives

IMO your not a libertarian if your social views line up with the Republicans or your economic views line up with the Democrats...but that's just my

Definitions courtesy young pup circa 2009. As usual, much shorter on substance than intended, but congrats for giving it an honest college try!

People shoot back on this blog without censorship, pup.

Go away for months...come back...nothing changes. You guys are still caught up in left vs. right, democrat vs. republican, etc. while the real POWER in this country doesn't give a rat's patootie about party affiliations. They play the game for regular folks to get caught up so you don't see what's really going on. It's all a carny act folks. The same guys that argue back and forth on TV sit down and eat lunch together at The Caucus Room (amongst others). Here's a question for you guys- ever hear of the Alibi Club?

Party politics are like wrestling- fun to watch, but it's all a work.

ASUMountaineer wrote:

kalm wrote:
No kidding. In hindsight I would have voted for Ron Paul. Bill Maher is a libertarian.

I'm also not sure Pelosi and Frank are the best examples of progressives. Progressive is not the new liberal. Teddy Roosevelt was a progressive.

Isn't it amazing...that you and me (a self-proclaimed "true-conservative") can both support Ron Paul? Libertarianism is a streak that resides in most Americans, I think. Some just give in more than others.

Bill Maher is a libertine. There is a difference between social libertarianism and economic libretarianism. Former New Mexico Republican governor Gary Johnson is one of the best examples of a libertarian whose philosophies and actions in office embody both economic and social libertaianism.

By the end of his life, Teddy Roosevelt may or may not have evolved into a "Progressive" of the type kalm imagines, but he was certainly NOT that kind of "Progressive" as an elected public servant. Unlike later "Progressives," Teddy Roosevelt was a Republican whose unique mix of populist/Constitutionalist/statist progressivism was distinctly different from the "progressives" who followed in his wake, such as Woodrow Wilson. Wilson - not Theodore Roosevelt - is largely responsible for starting our country down the destructive road to socialism.

Then as now, the fundamental difference between Teddy and Woodrow, Brown and Obama, is a love of liberty. Teddy Roosevelt loved liberty then, as does, I hope, Scott Brown today. Unlike Teddy, Woodrow Wilson and those who followed, including both Franklin Roosevelt and Obama, have been far more willing to make compromises of liberty to achieve their tactically populist and strategically utopian ends.

youngterrier wrote:

ASUMountaineer wrote:
Isn't it amazing...that you and me (a self-proclaimed "true-conservative") can both support Ron Paul? Libertarianism is a streak that resides in most Americans, I think. Some just give in more than others.

The funny thing about Ron Paul is that by no means is he progressive in social terms, but dog gone it he doesn't believe in shoving values down people's throat so I would vote for him.

Exactly, true sense of liberty. I don't have to agree with what you do, but I have no more right to tell you how to live than you have to tell me how to live. Maximum personal freedom with limited government intrusion is the best way to maximize liberty.

ASUMountaineer wrote:

youngterrier wrote:
The funny thing about Ron Paul is that by no means is he progressive in social terms, but dog gone it he doesn't believe in shoving values down people's throat so I would vote for him.

Exactly, true sense of liberty. I don't have to agree with what you do, but I have no more right to tell you how to live than you have to tell me how to live. Maximum personal freedom with limited government intrusion is the best way to maximize liberty.

That's where my political heart resides, too.

native wrote:

ASUMountaineer wrote:
Exactly, true sense of liberty. I don't have to agree with what you do, but I have no more right to tell you how to live than you have to tell me how to live. Maximum personal freedom with limited government intrusion is the best way to maximize liberty.

That's where my political heart resides, too.

I want to throw in with this also!