• If you are having problems logging in please use the Contact Us in the lower right hand corner of the forum page for assistance.

Thanks again, George

fff

Well-known member
:lol:

As they meet for their national convention Monday through Thursday, Democrats are poised to shift their party's course — and the country's.

They're turning to the left — deeply against the war in Iraq, ready to use tax policy to take from the rich and give to the poor and middle class, and growing hungry, after years of centrist politics, for big-government solutions, such as a health-care overhaul, to steer the nation through a time of sweeping economic change.

They are, in short, more liberal than at any time in a generation and eager to end the Reagan era, which dominated not just the other party, but also their own, for nearly three decades.

"Every generation . . . there are changes in people's relationship with government," said Sen. Charles Schumer, D-N.Y. This, he said, is such a time.

The shift of the party also reflects a change in much of the population — evidenced in the policy positions advocated by rank-and-file voters as well as the party's presumptive presidential nominee, Sen. Barack Obama of Illinois.

"Government SHOULD do more, especially when you're spending tens of billions of dollars in Iraq protecting the interests of millionaires," said Rebecca Washington, a Democrat and an accountant from Cleveland Heights, Ohio.

"We've got to revoke the tax cuts for the wealthy," said Vicki Balzer, a Democrat and retired teacher from the Cleveland suburb of Berea. "We definitely need to do something more for the economically disadvantaged. . . . We've allowed big corporations to take millions for corporate leaders while workers get nothing."

Nationally, 40 percent of Democrats in the 2006 midterm elections called themselves liberal, the highest since the American National Election Studies program started asking in 1972.

At the same time, the number of Democrats who support a government safety net for the poor — such as guaranteeing food and shelter for the needy and spending to help them even if it means more debt — jumped by 14 percentage points from 1994 to 2007, according to the Pew Research Center.

Support for that safety net also rose by 15 points among independents and 9 points among Republicans.

That's a remarkable change since the mid-'90s, the decade when centrist Bill Clinton dominated the Democratic Party, signed a welfare overhaul into law that forced recipients to work, expanded free trade against the wishes of organized labor and famously declared the era of big government to be over.

"During the era when Bill Clinton was president, there was a clear re-centering of the party," said Democratic Gov. Kathleen Sebelius of Kansas.

Today, she added, "there is a growing understanding that government can play a positive role in investing in our country."

What changed? Several things:

The Iraq war lasted longer, cost more lives and money, and proved deeply unpopular. A few years ago, Obama was a rare voice in the party opposing the war; today he's one of a chorus.

Anxiety about a slowing economy resurrected fears about American jobs and paychecks in the global economy. Promises to change trade deals such as the North American Free Trade Agreement punctuated the Democratic primaries.

Also, Obama promises a dramatically different tax policy, one that would raise taxes on the wealthy, cut taxes for the middle class and offer new "refundable" tax credits to the working poor that would wipe out tax liabilities and deliver anything left over in the form of checks.

He also wants to tax oil companies and use the money to give checks to the poor to pay for high fuel costs, or anything else.

Many Americans recoiled at the weak federal government response to Hurricane Katrina in 2005.

Republican George W. Bush turned into one of the most unpopular presidents in modern history. Just as American revulsion at Democrat Jimmy Carter in 1980 helped usher in the Reagan era, rejection of the Bush era could help swing the pendulum the other way.

At the same time, the party has new power centers in liberal groups such as Moveon.org and blogs such as dailykos.com, where antiwar fever and anti-Bush anger are magnified.

They helped propel Howard Dean to an early lead for the 2004 Democratic nomination, lost, then regrouped to help defeat pro-war Democratic Sen. Joseph Lieberman of Connecticut in a 2006 primary, though he went on to win re-election as an independent.

"Enormous dissatisfaction with the Republican Party has brought out the base more," said Democratic Gov. Bill Richardson of New Mexico.

Ever more vocal and influential heading into this year's election, that base fed the sense that the party should "return to its core values," Richardson said. "The rise of the Internet and bloggers have made the party more progressive."

Schumer also thinks that it's all part of a historic cycle in American politics — or at least he hopes it is.

He said Americans encouraged and grew accustomed to an activist federal government during the Great Depression of the 1930s, one that Democrat Franklin Roosevelt delivered and Democrat Lyndon Johnson accelerated in the 1960s.

They grew disenchanted with that big government by the 1970s, a government seen as corrupt in the Nixon days, unable to stop oil crises or runaway inflation, and unable to rescue Americans whom Iran had taken hostage.

"By 1980, the average person said, 'I don't need government anymore. I'm fine on my own,' " Schumer said.

That sentiment drove U.S. politics for years, helping Republicans win five out of seven presidential elections and giving the Democrats two victories only when they nominated a Southern centrist in Clinton.

This year, however, Democrats rejected Hillary Clinton, who, while arguably more liberal than her husband, was to the right of Obama on big issues such as tax policy and had a history of being more hawkish on national security.

Perhaps it's because Obama was simply a more appealing candidate. But it also might be because times are changing.

Now, Schumer said, Americans feel shaken by big forces such as globalization, terrorism and a sputtering economy. "The whole world changes, and people feel a little bit at sea, and they need help," Schumer said.

Whether the country will turn to a resurgent-liberal Democratic Party to navigate that less-certain world won't be known until November. But for Democrats watching their national convention, it's clear they want something very different.

http://www.mcclatchydc.com/251/story/50009.html
 

Mike

Well-known member
At the same time, the number of Democrats who support a government safety net for the poor — such as guaranteeing food and shelter for the needy and spending to help them even if it means more debt — jumped by 14 percentage points from 1994 to 2007, according to the Pew Research Center.

Communism/Marxism/Socialism here we come!!!!!!

Something to be proud of, huh? :roll:
 

Texan

Well-known member
I just don't understand 'em, Mike. They do the same thing every election - choose the ultra-liberal elitist over the more moderate candidate that might actually have a chance. And every election they get their heads handed to them.

This election is looking like it won't be any different. The Dem candidate should be up in the polls by 10 or 15 points when you consider how unpopular President Bush is. But they've chosen a candidate that can't even put it away when he tries repeatedly to tie McCain to Bush - and he's still losing ground.

Terrible situation. :D
 

VanC

Well-known member
If that's true, then why is Obama losing ground in the polls in nearly every every demographic group? Something doesn't add up. Note that the same person wrote both articles. I'd sure like to hear him explain how the country supposedly becoming more liberal leads to the most liberal candidate in US history floundering as Obama has been doing. You want my opinion? OK, here it is: Liberalism is one thing and extremism is another. Flip flops or not, people are coming to realize that Obama holds some very extreme positions on many issues. Positions that, regardless of the above article, are waaaaay out of the mainstream for most Americans. Not only that, he has befriended, been mentored by, been helped by, and is beholding to others who hold the same extreme positions. I believe this will be his downfall. We'll see.


Poll: Obama losing key support
By Steven Thomma
McClatchy Newspapers
Article Launched: 08/05/2008 09:24:43 PM PDT


WASHINGTON — Sen. Barack Obama has lost ground among some of his strongest bases of support, including young people, women, Democrats and independents, according to a new ATV/Zogby poll.

The Illinois Democrat has also lost some support among African-Americans and Hispanics, where his lead over Republican Sen. John McCain has shrunk, and among Catholics, where he's lost his lead.

The net result, pollster John Zogby found, is a race that's neck and neck, with McCain supported by 42 percent; Obama by 41 percent; Libertarian Bob Barr by 2 percent; and independent Ralph Nader by 2 percent. Another 13 percent supported other candidates or were undecided.

Zogby called the results a "notable turnaround" from a July survey he did that showed Obama leading by 46-36.

"McCain made significant gains at Obama's expense among some of what had been Obama's strongest demographic groups," Zogby said.

His findings:


Among voters aged 18-29, Obama lost 16 percent and McCain gained 20. Obama still leads, 49-38;


Among women, McCain gained 10 percentage points. Obama now leads 43-38.


Among independents, Obama lost an 11 point lead. They're now tied.


Among Democrats, Obama's support dropped from 83 percent to 74 percent.


Among Catholics, Obama lost the 11 point lead he had in July and now trails McCain by 15.

Zogby said Obama also lost ground among minorities.

He attributed Obama's erosion of support to McCain's criticisms of Obama as inexperienced in the wake of Obama's trip to Europe, the Middle East, Afghanistan and Iraq and to Obama's flips on some issues.

The poll of 1,011 likely voters was conducted July 31-Aug 1 and had a margin of error of plus or minus 3.1 percentage points.
 

Faster horses

Well-known member
Back to the comment about Bush being the most unpopopular Presidents in modern history--

It isn't always popular to be right.

Let history show if he was right or not. As for me, I'd hate to have been attacked again. Regardless of how you feel, we need to remember that he has kept us from further harm.

Thank you, GWB.
 
A

Anonymous

Guest
Faster horses said:
Back to the comment about Bush being the most unpopopular Presidents in modern history--

It isn't always popular to be right.

Yep- found that out on this sight
:wink: :lol:

Let history show if he was right or not. As for me, I'd hate to have been attacked again. Regardless of how you feel, we need to remember that he has kept us from further harm.

That is an unknown-- but in doing so he totally split the country- badly tarnished our Constitution and rule of law- lost us all the moral and ethical standing in the world we had- along with our global leadership role- and almost drove the country into bankruptcy- while putting our grandkids unborn into debt...And almost ended what used to be a proud and honorable political party...It will take generations to repair some of the damage he has done...
An imported Montanan summed it up pretty well:


“Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi is calling the Bush presidency a total failure. Total failure. I don’t know, I think he’s done okay. I think he’s done okay if you don’t count Iraq, the economy, the environment, Afghanistan, the mortgage crisis. I think he’s done all right…”

“The deficit. Gas prices. Hurricane Katrina. Illegal wire tapping…”

“The national debt. Tainted food. Failure to catch bin Laden. CIA leaks. Other than that, I think it’s been pretty good” -David Letterman


Thank you, GWB.
Yep- like David said- Thanks GW... :roll:
 

hopalong

Well-known member
Oldtimer said:
Faster horses said:
Back to the comment about Bush being the most unpopopular Presidents in modern history--

It isn't always popular to be right.

Yep- found that out on this sight
:wink: :lol:

Let history show if he was right or not. As for me, I'd hate to have been attacked again. Regardless of how you feel, we need to remember that he has kept us from further harm.

That is an unknown-- but in doing so he totally split the country- badly tarnished our Constitution and rule of law- lost us all the moral and ethical standing in the world we had- along with our global leadership role- and almost drove the country into bankruptcy- while putting our grandkids unborn into debt...And almost ended what used to be a proud and honorable political party...It will take generations to repair some of the damage he has done...
An imported Montanan summed it up pretty well:


“Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi is calling the Bush presidency a total failure. Total failure. I don’t know, I think he’s done okay. I think he’s done okay if you don’t count Iraq, the economy, the environment, Afghanistan, the mortgage crisis. I think he’s done all right…”

“The deficit. Gas prices. Hurricane Katrina. Illegal wire tapping…”

“The national debt. Tainted food. Failure to catch bin Laden. CIA leaks. Other than that, I think it’s been pretty good” -David Letterman


Thank you, GWB.
Yep- like David said- Thanks GW... :roll:

Yea just like you to look for comedians to quote, Kinda like you get drunk and vote blog, shows where you place your priorties! :wink: :wink: :wink:
 
Top