''Over the last 30 odd years, Democrats have moved to the right and the right has moved ...

[Scuba]

''Over the last 30 odd years, Democrats have moved to the right and the right has moved into the mental hospital. So what we have is one perfectly good party for hedge fund managers, credit card companies, banks, defense contractors, big agriculture and the pharmaceutical lobby... That's the Democrats. And they sit across the aisle from a small group of religious lunatics, flat-earthers and civil war re-enactors who mostly communicate by AM radio and call themselves the Republicans and who actually worry that Obama is a socialist. Socialist? He's not even a liberal.'' —Bill Maher

Happy Birthday Bill

[djean111]

1. Agree 100%. Sadly.

[madrchsod]

2. cowards who are running along side of the republicans into the dark of night...

as much as i dislike bill i have to admit he`s right.

[grahamhgreen]

3. HAHA! True!

[JDPriestly]

4. Beautifully stated. And where does that leave the rest of America?

[antigop]

6. s-c-r-e-w-e-d. nt

[harun]

71. +1

[kairos12]

5. So right, unfortunately.

[Kablooie]

7. Maybe instead of the Republicans splitting in two...

the Democrats will divide into liberal and conservative parties while the Republicans go the way of the Know Nothings.

[yurbud]

73. the replaced the Whigs in pretty short span of time

[creeksneakers2]

8. 30 years ago

Democrats were caving in to Ronald Reagan.

[hibbing]

10. +1

Yes, and it hasn't stopped since.

[Skittles]

15. greedy, stupid Democrats

I certainly never fell for his con job

[Bettie]

32. And today, Saint Ronnie wouldn't make the cut in his own party

The whole dialog has moved to far to the right that he's now what passes for 'liberal'.

We need to move the whole thing back to center so people can see what a real liberal is, because there are precious few in the actual Democratic party.

[bvar22]

41. Want to realize how FAR to the Conservative Right the Democratic Party has moved?

This should illustrated that point.

#t=26

[ProSense]

74. Reagan

sucked.

The "Welfare Queen," The "Homeless By Choice": Reagan's Toxic Legacy
http://www.dailykos.com/story/2013/10/06/1243243/-The-Welfare-Queen-The-Homeless-By-Choice-Reagan-s-Toxic-Legacy

Clearly, he managed to convince some people that he stood up for Social Security.

Reaganomics was/is a failure
http://www.democraticunderground.com/10022096027

[bvar22]

87. Yes. Reagan sucked,

...but is a clear & unambiguous statement pledging to not EVER cut
Social Security too much to expect from the "Centrist" Democratic Party Leadership today?

Isn't mixing talks of cutting Social Security in with the debate on "The Deficit" and "The Budget" more than a little dishonest since Social Security is funded from an independent source?
Doesn't mixing Social Security in with those talks imply that Social Security is responsible for the Deficit & Budget problems?
Yes?
.
.
.
.
.
Waiting to see how you will try to avoid giving a clear answer to the issues raised,
or will try to divert with more spurious Blue Links that are not relevant to the topic,
like you did in your first reply.

[ProSense]

88. So you're promoting Reagan's hypocrisy? n/t

[bvar22]

92. Speaking of hypocrisy.

Responses that begin with "So, you are ....." are nearly always StrawMen,
as your response perfectly demonstrates.

If you wish to brand supporting NO CUTS to Social Security as "hypocrisy",
then Please Proceed.

You have become so boringly predictable,
and if anyone looks right up ^there^ they will see that I predicted your evasion
and diversion.

Pro refuses to answer the simple question:
[font size=3]Is a clear unambiguous statement to NEVER cut Social Security too much to expect from our Democratic Party Leadership?[/font]

As conservative as Reagan was, pledging to NOT cut our Social Security wasn't too much for HIM.

#t=26

Less than 5 years ago, Social Security was the deadly 3rd Rail of Politics,
but the "Change" President has certainly changed THAT.
He has shown no inhibition against tossing it onto The Table.
Now, the cornerstone of the modern Democratic Party is just another chip on the table.

---bvar22
a loyal, mainstream-center FDR/LBJ Working Class Democrat.
I haven't changed.

[ProSense]

95. "As conservative as Reagan was, pledging to NOT cut our Social Security wasn't too much for HIM. "

Did he keep his pledge?

Or is just saying stuff good enough for you?

[creeksneakers2]

99. Reagan didn't cut SS

but he was the first one to tax it, which was in effect a cut.

[ProSense]

100. "Reagan didn't cut SS but he was the first one to tax it, which was in effect a cut."

Yes, it was "in effect a cut."

[bvar22]

128. ...and neither Clinton nor Obama has seen fit to "untax" Social Security.

Not THAT would be a cause that would unite the Democratic Party
AND garner support from Republicans.
A WIN/WIN for everybody.

I wonder WHY in 13 years of a Democratic Presidents and (at times) Democratic Majorities in both the House & Senate,
NO "modern" Democratic President has ever mentioned untaxing Social Security?
Welcome to the "New Normal" as the Democratic Party cosigns and endorses former Republican Policy.

[ProSense]

129. Clinton expanded the tax, but

"...and neither Clinton nor Obama has seen fit to "untax" Social Security."

...it's interesting that you're attempting to blame Obama for Reagan's policy, especially after hyping Reagan's hypocritical bullshit.

[colsohlibgal]

9. Quite Sad And So True

About the best proof of how nuts the new right is comes when they call Obama a socialist/Marxist. That's astonishing.

[Maedhros]

13. What does it say that so many Democrats think he's Progressive? [n/t]

[RC]

70. Yeah, that's scary too.

There is something about that (D) that is sacred, no matter how far to the Right the person claiming that (D) actually is.
The often get away with shit, that if they had an (R) instead, they would be condemned for.

[Maedhros]

75. For most people, politics is emotional.

They vote for the candidate that makes them feel good about themselves, and do not look too closely at that candidate's policies beyond the campaign boilerplate. If policies later emerge that are antithetical to the ideals of such a voter, it is easy enough for them to rationalize the discrepancy with a variety of tried-and-true intellectual balms.

[nomorenomore08]

116. It shows, in large part, that they lack an immediate better option...

[Maedhros]

119. It shows that they don't have a clue what "Progressive" means.

I understand the "lacking a better option" part, let's just be honest: Obama is a Moderate Conservative. It's okay to prefer a Moderate Conservative to a Radical one.

[nomorenomore08]

120. I voted for Obama twice. So to some degree, I have to take responsibility for his bad decisions

policy-wise. As I said, though, it's not as if there was a realistic better option on the ballot.

[Maedhros]

122. But you're not insisting he's a Progressive, either. [n/t]

[El_Johns]

19. +1. I have to laugh whenever I hear people call him a commie, but you can't convince them

otherwise. It's insane.

[L0oniX]

11. K & R

[blkmusclmachine]

12. True. The DC DEMS champion Bob Dole's 1996 HealthCare Scam, and claim it as their own.

And we're supposed to CLAP LOUDER:

[Myrina]

14. Damn skippy.

Most succinctly-stated assessment of our situation I've seen.

[zentrum]

16. It was Clinton, Rahm

...Emmanuel, Terry McCauliffe and others of DLC fame that ended the Democratic party from within. They ran the country like old style, competent, moderate Republicans--not Democrats. FDR and JKF would not recognize them. Hell, even Dwight Eisenhower would not recognize them.

[xxqqqzme]

62. Don't forget

Hillary Clinton. She was a founding member of the DLC along w/ the others you named.

[zentrum]

93. Completely agree.

I just didn't mention her b/c I consider them both one. It's sort of "The Clinton".

I hope she doesn't run. And that we can have Warren as the candidate.

[truedelphi]

64. How right you are.. Dwight Eisenhower really would not recognize

The centrist leaders and centrist followers of either party as belonging to either party.

And I think he would be horrified to find out how well the Military, Industrial, Governmental, Surveillance society is flourishing, far beyond his wildest dreams.

[bvar22]

127. The DLC was funded by the Koch Brothers,

....and had a seat on the DLC Executive Council.

http://americablog.com/2010/08/koch-industries-gave-funding-to-the-dlc-and-served-on-its-executive-council.html



MISSION ACCOMPLISHED!!!

[zentrum]

130. That's horrifying.

Thanks.

[bvar22]

132. It IS horrifying,

.....and explains a a lot.

[MindMover]

17. They communicate by ham radio ....

HAPPY BIRTHDAY BILL MAHER ...

[progressoid]

18. Creeping normality

Sadly, this is the new paradigm.

[rhett o rick]

20. Having one big conservative party has effectively neutralized the progressives of the Party.

This wasnt an accident. Obama ran as a progressive and got support from the left. But immediately, starting at his inauguration he leaped right. I saw it with his choices of Rick Warren and Rahm Emanuel and the dismissal of Howard Dean. Couldnt wait to distance himself from the left.

Technically it's still a two party system but one party is conservative and the other party is wacko. This is the perfect system for the Powers To Be. They use the wackos to scare the hell out of us, then we are grateful for the party of Gen Clapper, Penny Pritzker, Tim Geitner, Lawrence Summers, Ben Bernanke, William M. Daley, Jeff Immelt, Dave Cote, Robert Gates, Gen Stanley McChrystal, Jacob Lew, Jeremiah Norton, Gen Petraeus, John Brennen, Chuck Hegal, Michael Taylor, James Comey, Robert Mueller, Rahm Emanuel, Gen Alexander.

And what is in our future? Eight more years of pro-Wall Street administrations and the sinking of American workers. How ironic that Citizens United may play a major role in getting H. Clinton-Sachs elected.

It's time we run the conservatives out of our party and back to the Republican Party where they belong.

[Enthusiast]

24. Damn, that is one great post right there.

I think the owners of the nation cultivate the far right craziness. Well obviously they do cultivate the wacko, just tune in to Limbaugh or Beck for an example of the nurturing.

[rhett o rick]

44. In 2008 Cheney and Bush assumed a very unusual behavior. Both shut the F up and crawled out

of town. I find that very unusual unless they were "convinced" it was for the better good. In 2008 the Republican Party, with all their big money backing, and all their think tanks, ran a worn-out "has been" with wacked female for President and VP. I dont believe the Republicans are that stupid. Many here would love to believe they are, but while you are laughing at their clown antics, keep your hand on your wallet.

As I remember, and I might be wrong, the Republicans didnt try to steal the 2008 presidential election. After their successes in 2000 and 2004, the question would be "why?"

I read recently in The Nation a quote that I dont have the author for at my finger tips right now, but it went like this: "The Republicans are trying to run the nation into a wall at 100 mph, while the Democrats at only 50 mph."

This is my conspiracy theory so watch out, the CT posse will be by soon to smite me.

[questionseverything]

57. huge dem turn out can overcome the "rigging"

http://www.amazon.com/Matrix-Deceit-Forcing-Pre-Election-Fraudulent/dp/1480077038/ref=pd_sim_b_3

charnin says Obama margin of victory was reduced from 23 million votes to 9.5 million in 08 by fraud denying Obama the landslide

[rhett o rick]

78. I will have to read that. nm

[Enthusiast]

76. An old guy with cancer and

a completely unqualified airhead bimbo was not much of a presidential ticket. Your theory isn't much of a stretch. And we are victims of this very ruse today as it continues.

We probably pay for this elaborate ruse with our tax dollars. The ultimate irony.

They're keeping the world safe from communism. I have never felt more safe from communism in my life.

[rhett o rick]

124. Communism?? Ah shit, I completely forgot about Communism. I been worried about corporate fascism.

Booz-Allen uber alles.

[unblock]

84. it was more that a democratic win was a foregone conclusion.

the shrub administration was a disaster even before the financial crisis hit, and then it was inconceivable that a republican would win.

in shrub's eight years, the dow actually went down. i don't think that has ever happened for any two-term president. he was a disaster through and though and there was just no way any republican was going to overcome that.

this also explains the huge money in the democratic race, because clinton vs. obama became the only effective contest for president. the general election was little more than a formality, mclame was essentially reduced to hoping obama would self-destruct.

[gtar100]

37. Funny how politicians have to run on progressive values.

And infuriating how they abandon them so quickly once they're in office. Yes, let's keep electing more progressives into the Democratic Party and dump the DLC types.

[dreamnightwind]

46. Well said

and sadly, entirely accurate.

That list of names who are part of this administration is devastating. No way in hell I would have supported Obama as a candidate if I had any idea I would be voting for those people too. Of course Hillary was the other choice, pretty much the same list would have been working for her.

So, here's to doing whatever we can to have better choices.

[rhett o rick]

47. Some among us want to badly to believe they are "free" because they get to vote.

But when your choices are Thing 1 or Thing 2, both chosen by The Powers To Be, that's not freedom.

[dreamnightwind]

50. Exactly

And don't bogart that gif, where did you get it? Sweet.

[pampango]

51. Good point. The right to vote is a necessary but not sufficient condition of freedom. n/t

[rhett o rick]

79. Good way to put it. In some countries they get to vote but only one candidate runs.

Americans wouldnt fall for that, so we get two candidates to choose from. Both chosen by our corporate masters.

[Maedhros]

90. We must go forward, not backward! Upward, not forward!"

"And always twirling, twirling, twirling toward freedom!"

[Egalitarian Thug]

49. Hear, hear, well said. n/t

[BodieTown]

52. Spot On!

You saved me from composing the same thing.

I don't even think there are two parties. That "wacko" sector is just an invention to scare everybody into voting for the conservative/corporate "dems".

The whole thing is a con, and whoever called for a permanent republicon majority a few years back (Rove?) has seen his wish come true.

[Titonwan]

56. Most excellent post n/t

[Saviolo]

94. Indeed!

You should make this into an OP.

[sulphurdunn]

110. The Democratic Party playbook

has one play: Fake left in campaigns. Go right in office. Progressive fans take the fake every time, and team Third Way happy dances into the end zone.

[Enthusiast]

21. Bill totally nailed it there.

We have to rely on comedians for the truth in this nation of smoke screens, subterfuge and lies. The USA has become one gigantic CIA black operation.

[rhett o rick]

123. "We have to rely on comedians for the truth in this nation ". Sad state of affairs. nm

[marmar]

22. C'est vrai. ..... Explains why things are as FUBAR as they are now.

[TBF]

23. "and the right has moved into the mental hospital"

lol

happy birthday!!

[RoverSuswade]

97. Meant as a comedic remark, but......

the card-carrying right has as members Steven King, Michelle Bachman, Steve Stockman, Louie Gohmert, Sarah Palin, VIrginia Foxx, Colonel West, and about 55% of Ted Cruz and 88% of Rand Paul. Mental, I say, MENTAL!

[TBF]

98. I can't argue with that at all! nt

[xchrom]

25. du rec.

[LWolf]

26. Yep. nt

[valerief]

27. Agreed! nt

[Douglas Carpenter]

28. it is hard to advance a progressive agenda when 40% of the country thinks what would have been once

considerate a moderate to moderate conservative Republican agenda is radical leftist. And the irony is the rightwing is so extreme that moderate conservative is radical leftist in relative comparison.

[Scuba]

29. I disagree that 40% of the country thinks this way.

When surveyed on issues rather than labels, the majority of Americans support Medicare, Social Security, regulation of Wall Street and corporations in general, etc., etc., etc.


However, the oligarchs own the media and have taught Americans that "liberal" and "Democrat" are dirty words, so even those who hold liberal views call themselves conservatives and vote Republican.

It's one giant mind-fuck.

[Douglas Carpenter]

31. in terms of issue by issue - I agree with you. I'm sure issue by issue - there are many Tea Party

supporters who support most liberal and progressive positions. I don't think most right-wing supporters base their support on an issue by issue analysis or really have any clue what they are voting for. I'm sure many if not most Democratic Party supporters simply assume the Democratic Party are championing a lot more progressives causes then they actually are and taking far more progressive positions than the record actually shows.

[A Simple Game]

35. But it's much worse than you think. Many will not even admit that

President Obama wants, or is at least willing, to change Social Security for the worse even when his own words, on multiple occasions, say that he does. They think he is trying to fake out the Republicans. So what happens if they take him up on his fake offer?

[ConservativeDemocrat]

55. Good question. Here's the answer, in order.

1. The GOP voting base will be outraged that Congress actually voted to cut Social Security.

2. The President will then go around the country saying, "Boy, to get the GOP to pass a program to help the middle class, they're demanding I should cut Social Security. Should I do that?" He will then follow the will of the electorate on that matter.

3. Next election there will be very few elected members of the GOP left.

This is why the GOP won't vote to cut Social Security.

- C.D. Proud Member of the Reality Based Community

[A Simple Game]

66. Or more likely,

the GOP will say we don't want to cut Social Security, but to show our bipartisanship we will go along with President Obama's proposed cuts only this one time.

Or:
1. The GOP voting base will be outraged that Congress actually voted to cut Social Security. Every Republican in a safe district and some not in safe districts will vote for the cut.

2.The President then goes around denying he proposed the cuts, no one believes him, Republicans win the next election in a landslide.

3. Democrats are an endangered species.

This is why the Republicans may take him up on his offer!

[DLevine]

30. Sadly true. nt

[pangaia]

33. He's not even a republican by standards 50-60 years ago.

[Liberalynn]

34. Bravo

Bloody Brilliant!

[freebrew]

36. We have discussed this before...

and it's totally on track.

It seems that anyone referencing FDR or Kennedy's ideals for the nation is now a Leftist.

Our president admires a 'middle -of-the-road' publican(the guy that started this shite).

WOW! And to think I belonged to YIP.

[Demenace]

38. One more explanation of this movement here on DU...

The Republicans demonize Government's role in maintaining the social contract via the 'Government is the problem' mantra.
DU Progressive demonize Government's role in maintaining social order via the 'Government is tyranny' mantra.

At some point, we are on the same side of the 'Government is the problem' coin and I see that here.

[Scuba]

39. I don't recall ever seeing anything that resembled "government is tyranny" here at DU.

Certainly there are many of us who hold government officials feet to the fire on civil rights, economic, military and other issues, but I think you'll find DU'ers in support of government where it is FOR THE PEOPLE.

[ConservativeDemocrat]

58. Only screaming that the US government is "facist" and a "police state"

And that it's a tyranny, a tyranny, a tyranny, and a tyranny.

But other than that (and the constant litany of anti-government, anti-democratic party bashing), there's just nothing there.

- C.D. Proud Member of the Reality Based Community

[Demenace]

60. Thank you for pointing out the obvious...

Just like the Right is not aware of their anti-government nature and consequently discount it, those on the Progressive side will not acknowledge their anti-government sentiments, I suppose!

[Scuba]

61. I looked at all four of those links. None included DU'ers saying our government is tyranny.

I don't see any anti-government or anti-Democratic Party bashing, but I see lots of "let's make our government and Party better" posts.

Do you not understand the difference?

[ConservativeDemocrat]

67. FEMA isn't the government? The NSA isn't? The military?

Maybe you have a different definition of "government" than I do.

Mind you, it is perfectly acceptable to advocate for changes in governmental policy, including saying you don't want the U.S. to be doing something⁺. It is entirely different, however, to be accusing people, and especially Democrats and President Obama, of grand evil conspiracies trying to hurt the American people, inventing complete made up B.S., and or petulantly declaring that if you don't get your way 100%, you'll let the Republican win.

-C.D. Proud Member of the Reality Based Community

⁺ Which it is possible that I may not agree with, and will debate.

[Scuba]

68. None of those posts had DU'ers saying those agencies were tyranny, or much else.

[noiretextatique]

69. false equivalence

when progressives have a faux-style 24/7 propaganda organ and two billionaire brothers bankrolling campaigns for progressives... perhaps you will have something approaching equivalence. funny how the "both extremes are the same" meme benefits the mushy middle and the rw.

[Demenace]

106. Reading comprehension...

I said we have development our own 'the government is the problem' outlook. That you are arguing the point is in itself the proof you need to say, maybe we are becoming like the other side.

[reformist2]

40. 100% Truth. Democrats need to take their party back!

[Nye Bevan]

42. Is Barack Obama significantly to the right of Bill Clinton?

Bearing in mind that Clinton signed NAFTA, "ended welfare as we know it", and signed the Defense of Marriage Act?

[Scuba]

43. I'd put them on similar ground, what I call "corporate Democrats".

[Nye Bevan]

45. So it's not really fair to say that Democrats have moved to the right "over the last 30 years"

given that over the last 22 years (1992 to 2014) they have pretty much stayed in the same place economically and definitely moved to the left socially.

[dreamnightwind]

48. Probably somewhat of an unfair argument

Your question was about Bill Clinton and Barack's relative left-right alignment, then you use that as the position of the entire party at those points in time. I suppose the OP uses the same tactic, but it's a larger and more complex dynamic than just who is at the top of the ticket.

30 years ago was '84. I'm not aware of exactly when the DLC took over the party. Clinton came out of the DLC in '92. Carter in '76 was the more conservative Dem in the primaries IIRC. Now he looks like a flaming liberal (in my eyes that's a compliment).

Anyway it has changed, fairly significantly. The time period might more accurately be the last 40 years, I don't know. The change might be more evident in the House and Senate Dems, and in policies that our party is backing. But the change is very real, the rest is just arguing about details.

I think our party's leadership has been dragged to the left on social issues recently, rather than going there because of their own principles. Those are the bones the powers that be have decided to let us have, since in their cost-benefit analysis they realized it doesn't cost them anything to allow gay marriage, gays in the military, or, perhaps, cannabis (the jury's still out on that one, and there are some large corporate interests who feel their revenue streams are threatened by it, such as police, prisons, alcohol, tobacco, and even big pharma, so we'll see), while it keeps the party base from realizing to what extent we've been sold out.

[Scuba]

63. Spot-on reply, thank you.

[truedelphi]

65. Dreamnightwind, it is also true that

During Clinton's time as President, except for those of us who were avid early usenet users, we didn't have the internet, so we didn't have the scoop on so many different things.

We basically had the news papers and TV news and radio to tell us what was what. A momentous piece of legislation, like the TPP, would not be exposed for what it is until years later. Now we can watch videos from a variety of sources, including Chris Hedges, RT, Democracy Now, and a dozen others and find out what the Corporate-controlled and CIA run media does not want us to figure out.

[dreamnightwind]

131. Yes, info was very hard to come by then

The mainstream media was probably less controlled then than it is now, so there was some actual discussion and debate about things like NAFTA. Also community radio stations were more vibrant back then, at least where I lived.

But finding out anything on our own was really hard. I remember working with an activist group during the run-up to the first Iraq war when poppy Bush was POTUS, trying to get to the bottom of what was happening, spending time in the public library loading microfiche into those little reader machines to see old newspaper articles.

Amazing how things have changed since then. now the larger problem is info overload and separating the mis-info from the info.

[frwrfpos]

53. k and r

Sadly this is very truthful. The Democratic party has been largely infiltrated with ring wing operatives at all levels of governance. It speaks badly for the future of this country

[Titonwan]

54. Bill's right.

But we shouldn't criticize our president because change/hope™.
[URL=.html][IMG][/IMG][/URL]
And that wouldn't be patriotic. (sarc/off)

[INdemo]

59. So how do we escape from the corporate $$$ grip.

We have Elizabeth Warren, that would need a few million just for security if she ran, but she would be the one that could bring liberals to the polls..
....Obama gives one hell of a speech and when he talked about things like Soc. Security not being cut as long as he was President etc. ,and we believed him. I at least wanted to ,now as it turns out he is allowing it in the Budget Negotiations..
The Healthcare law was written by the insurance lobbyist's and we pretend to like it but in reality it just gave him bragging rights to say he passed healthcare. (except for the pre-existing )
So yes Bill Maher I agree, Obama is no liberal and he is swinging farther to the right. In Congress except for a few its one big party and its one hell-of-a-show

[harun]

72. Only escape is stopping the Corpo dollars

and both sides are eating from that troff.

[INdemo]

133. Exactly

[reddread]

77. and he schtups Coulter and plagiarizes Bill Hicks

hardly the moral authority on anything, but certainly a bad example of what is up.
Much like James Carville and whats her name,
and Jerry Brown and Arianna Huffington before she bearded her namesake.
But nowhere near Dennis Leary on my hate list.
these cretins are fornicating and partying at our dire expense.
Not someone I would celebrate.

[Tierra_y_Libertad]

80. The "lesser of two evils" isn't as less as it should be and the greater evil has gone nuts.

As in, a little bit of arsenic isn't as bad as a lot of arsenic with a strychnine chaser.

[ProSense]

81. I have

''Over the last 30 odd years, Democrats have moved to the right and the right has moved into the mental hospital."

...never agreed with this premise as it relates to Democrats. Sure, Republicans have moved into insanity territory.

Everytime the Republicans gain ground (enough to influence), they move further right, and Democrats are put in the position of having to deal. Do you think if Democrats had retained the WH in 2000 the country, our politics would have moved further right?

Look at the policies Obama has managed to reverse from the Clinton years: DADT and the repeal of Glass-Steagall (implemenatation of the Volcker Rule). DOMA (which even Wellstone voted for) is only supported by Republicans.

By mid 2012, there were 22 Democratic Senators pushing for marriage equality (http://www.democraticunderground.com/1002380566), which is definitely not more conservative than say the 1990s.

More pro labor Senators in contrast to the 1980s.

The Democratic Party isn't more conservative. It's that the Republicans have been testing the electorate with every right wing policy they can advance. Keep electing them, and Democrats will have to continue dealing with them. If Republicans continue to win, public opinion isn't going to translate to policies because Republicans have shown they don't care about public opinion.

The Progressive Caucus is larger that it ever was. Thirty years ago, Bernie Sanders and Elizabeth Warren, positioned as they are now, would never have been elected.

Thirty years ago, Republicans sucked.

The "Welfare Queen," The "Homeless By Choice": Reagan's Toxic Legacy
http://www.dailykos.com/story/2013/10/06/1243243/-The-Welfare-Queen-The-Homeless-By-Choice-Reagan-s-Toxic-Legacy

He managed to convince some people that he stood up for Social Security.

Reaganomics was/is a failure
http://www.democraticunderground.com/10022096027

You couldn't get a Democrat to support Reagan's economic policies today, even as the Republican are doing their best to makes Reagan look moderate.

[Scuba]

83. Question: When the Democrats gain influence (e.g., the White House and the Senate) ...

... do they move further left, and put Republican in the position of having to deal?

[ProSense]

85. What

"Question: When the Democrats gain influence (e.g., the House and the Senate) ... do they move further left, and put Republican in the position of having to deal?"

...impact has Senator Warren had? Yes, they do, which is why DADT was repealed.

[Scuba]

101. That's it? DADT and one good Democratic Senator?

Meanwhile we get a twice-elected Democratic President entertaining Chained CPI, we get too big to fail or jail, we get Geithner, Duncan and on and on and on.

[ProSense]

102. Wait,

"That's it? DADT and one good Democratic Senator?"

...Sanders isn't a "good" Senator? There are no others? No, that's not it, but I could provide more examples (links) if you likes.

There is no question that Dodd-Frank was a strong bill—the strongest in three generations. http://www.warren.senate.gov/files/documents/AFR%20Roosevelt%20Institute%20Speech%202013-11-12.pdf

[Scuba]

104. Dodd-Frank is not a shift to the left, it's a shift back toward the center, but only a bit.

And Sanders isn't even a Democrat.

[ProSense]

105. "Dodd-Frank is not a shift to the left, it's a shift back toward the center"

You do know that characterization is still a shift to the left, don't you?

[Scuba]

107. No, "left" would mean more stringent regulation than Glass-Stegall. Dodd-Frank is less stringent ...

... ergo, right of the old center.


You're going to look silly if you try to portray the current White House and Senate majority as having tried to move to the left. They haven't.

[ProSense]

108. That makes no sense

No, "left" would mean more stringent regulation than Glass-Stegall. Dodd-Frank is less stringent ... ergo, right of the old center.

The OP claim is that Democrats "moved to the right," but Glass-Steagall was repealed in the 1990s. So Dodd-Frank is a move back to the left.

Regulators Finalize Stricter Volcker Rule - Reuters/HuffPo
http://www.democraticunderground.com/10024158305

[Scuba]

112. Sorry, ProSense, but you stated "Everytime the Republicans gain ground (enough to influence) ...

"Everytime the Republicans gain ground (enough to influence), they move further right, and Democrats are put in the position of having to deal."

I asked "Question: When the Democrats gain influence (e.g., the White House and the Senate) do they move further left, and put Republican in the position of having to deal?"


You've been trying to make the case that they do, but your evidence is scant. When has the current Administration/Senate advocated for positions to the far left? How about the middle left? Maybe a couple on the near left.

But compare that to the Republicans staking out positions on the far, far, far right (ending income, estate and corporate taxes, privatizing Social Security, ending the EPA, ending the Dept of Energy, ending the Department of Education, killing the USPS, etc.

One doesn't negotiate by starting in the middle, and the first rule of negotiation is "You gotta ask for it." We'll never strengthen and expand Social Security starting with a position of "Chained CPI is on the table."


Fact is the federally-elected Democrats have not been good advocates for the People who voted for them.

[ProSense]

113. You cannot escape the fact that Dodd-Frank moves to the left after the repeal of Glass-Steagall. n/t

[Scuba]

114. To the left of a far-right absence of regulation, yes. To the left? No, Dodd-Frank's still right.

[ProSense]

115. And it's still

"To the left of a far-right absence of regulation, yes. To the left? No, Dodd-Frank's still right."

...to the left of the repeal, which happened in the 1990s, and makes the OP point nonsense.

[Scuba]

117. I'll let you split the hair that it's left of the repeal, but not that it makes the OP nonsense.

250+ DU'ers agree.

[ProSense]

121. "250+ DU'ers agree."

You could probably get 250 DUers to agree to impeaching Obama, repealing Obamacare or advocating that Democrats lose in 2014 based on some scenario.

The number of recs don't change the fact that Dodd Frank, the "strongest" financial regulations in "three generations," is a move to the left. Nor does it change the fact that this example runs counter to the theory that Democrats have "moved to the right."

[whatchamacallit]

82. You can see it right here on this forum

I have republican neighbors who lean further left than many DUers.

[fredamae]

86. His Words Echo My Complaints

Maher said it much better than I ever could--but wow--that is exactly the source of my sadness, anger, frustration, worry and motivated my departure from being a Registered Dem--54 years of Loyalty to "my party" - 30 years of reaganomics - two Dem POTUS' empty promises of great change to bring the Extraction of our wealth and resources under control and Multiple layers of legislators from Both sides breaking their word/contract with the people, decades later - here we are.

30% of Oregon Voters do not identify with either major party.

[boomerbust]

89. And that imaginary Mason Dixon

Seems to be chugging northward at a good clip since 2010. But that could just be my imagination.

[bvar22]

91. In the 1980s I worked very hard,

...spent a lot of my money & time to defeat "Moderate Republicans" because I strongly disagreed with them on POLICY.

If I liked "Moderate Republican" Policy,
I would have voted FOR Moderate Republicans in the 80s.
I didn't, because I was, and still AM a DEMOCRAT.

I want to vote for someone who would have been considered a DEMOCRAT back in the 80s.
I haven't changed.

That is the problem I have with "Centrist" Democrats.
They agree with Republicans too damned much,
and the American Working Class & Poor have paid the price for the last 25 years of Moderate Republican Policy.
OTOH, Wall Street & The 1% have done very well under Moderate Republican Policy,
because THAT is the class that Moderate Republican Policy is designed to "help".


[font color=firebrick][center]"There are forces within the Democratic Party who want us to sound like kinder, gentler Republicans.
I want a party that will STAND UP for Working Americans."
---Paul Wellstone [/font][/center] [center] [/font]
[font size=1]photo by bvar22
Shortly before Sen Wellstone was killed[/center][/font]

[democrank]

96. As a voting Democrat for nearly five decades

I can not understand how anyone....anyone....can call President Obama a progressive or a liberal or a left-leaning Democrat. He is not. Looking at the overall picture, with very few exceptions, President Obama is center to center-right.

[ProSense]

103. What

"I can not understand how anyone....anyone....can call President Obama a progressive or a liberal or a left-leaning Democrat. He is not. Looking at the overall picture, with very few exceptions, President Obama is center to center-right."

...were Carter (pro-life, pro-deregulation) and Clinton? Teabaggers?

[robertpaulsen]

109. Here's a video link to that quote.

Along with some great commentary on it from Cenk Uygur:

[whatchamacallit]

125. Great clip, thanks! n/t

[bvar22]

126. Couldn't agree more!

Maher and Cenk NAILED IT!!!

Thanks for the clip.

[great white snark]

111. He also said Obama is "too white" for Liberals.

Crappy birthday Bill.

[nomorenomore08]

118. Obviously a stupid comment. But he's still right more often than a whole lot people are...