CHANGE IS NOT IN THE MIDDLE

[Fovea]

Say it it with me.

Can I get an Amen?

[WeDidIt]

1. Nope

no amen from me.

[Perky]

16. me either

Competence and vision = change

[Egnever]

61. Competence and vision = change

Perfect!

[Genevieve]

17. nope

no amen from me, either.

[Blue Meany]

22. I think Dems should be just as centrist as Repubs were

for the last 8 years.

[Occam Bandage]

2. Yet another person who didn't pay any attention to anything Obama actually said. nt

[cali]

14. ding ding ding

sure are a lot of them. I suggest people go read the stuff that Obama had to say about Reagan, the stuff that caused such outrage here in River City. The stuff about changing the trajectory of the country and how that's what he wants to do.

[cliffordu]

18. shore nuff.

[tekisui]

65. Exactly.

Why the surprises? Why the outrage?

Did they just look at an Obama yard sign and think the got it?

[secondwind]

3. change CAN be in the middle................we have been living a far-out

nightmare for 8 years, and we have to return to earth now.

[PretzelWarrior]

4. if you've been dealing with "Wingers" in office, then the middle

WOULD represent change. On our way toward the left. Not extreme left....but more progressive.

[NotThisTime]

5. It is when we've been run from the far right for eight years

[msblueinredstate]

7. No

[Cali_Democrat]

6. Bush governed from the far right

The middle should indeed be considered change.

[Occam Bandage]

8. I just don't understand how anyone could look at a country governed by

a bunch of rabid right-wing ideologues, then see an incoming President who's a sensible, center-left pragmatist, and say "that isn't change." I mean, that's a special kind of dumb.

[TexasObserver]

9. Competence, Intelligence, Integrity all equal change.

When the course has been hard right, center is considerably to the left of there.

Right, center, and left are all relative to current position.

[malik flavors]

10. I think it has more to do with ending partisan gridlock and getting things accomplished.

It's not about being a foaming at the mouth liberal, and then losing the majority in 2010 and not getting a second term. WHich is what would happen if Obama just tried to be some radical lefty.

[Undercurrent]

11. No.

Obama has always been more like John Kennedy. Not a left wing ideologue. I remember a lot of folks on the far left who were not happy with Kennedy either.

As much as it might satisfy some of my persuasions, the country doesn't need a hard jolt to the left. What we need in this time of extreme economic, and global danger is stability.

[FrenchieCat]

12. Change means going forward....not stepping to the right or to the left.

That is what Obama was talking about during his convention speech, where he said...."America, we cannot turn back, we cannot walk alone...."

He spoke this in the last few minutes of that speech.

Instead, it is that American spirit - that American promise - that pushes us forward even when the path is uncertain; that binds us together in spite of our differences; that makes us fix our eye not on what is seen, but what is unseen, that better place around the bend.

That promise is our greatest inheritance. It's a promise I make to my daughters when I tuck them in at night, and a promise that you make to yours - a promise that has led immigrants to cross oceans and pioneers to travel west; a promise that led workers to picket lines, and women to reach for the ballot.

And it is that promise that forty five years ago today, brought Americans from every corner of this land to stand together on a Mall in Washington, before Lincoln's Memorial, and hear a young preacher from Georgia speak of his dream.

The men and women who gathered there could've heard many things. They could've heard words of anger and discord. They could've been told to succumb to the fear and frustration of so many dreams deferred.

But what the people heard instead - people of every creed and color, from every walk of life - is that in America, our destiny is inextricably linked. That together, our dreams can be one.

"We cannot walk alone," the preacher cried. "And as we walk, we must make the pledge that we shall always march ahead. We cannot turn back."

America, we cannot turn back. Not with so much work to be done. Not with so many children to educate, and so many veterans to care for. Not with an economy to fix and cities to rebuild and farms to save. Not with so many families to protect and so many lives to mend. America, we cannot turn back. We cannot walk alone. At this moment, in this election, we must pledge once more to march into the future. Let us keep that promise - that American promise - and in the words of Scripture hold firmly, without wavering, to the hope that we confess.

(link to transcript- when you highlight transcript portion, the video of the words spoken play http://elections.nytimes.com/2008/president/conventions/videos/20080828_OBAMA_SPEECH.html#

[cali]

13. bullshit. that's exactly where it is. It's all about moving the center

to the left. And anyone paying attention to Prez Obama would understand that that's his intention.

[Two Americas]

19. already happened

The people already rejected the right wing pro-corporate free market ideology, utterly and overwhelmingly. That is, by definition, a powerful and dramatic shift to the Left.

It would be an enormous mistake to ignore that and attempt to shift the party back to this mythical "center" of compromise with the extreme right wing.

The center has long since moved far to the Left, on all true political matters of power and economics. It would seem that some in the activist community are the last ones to get the news.

[cali]

23. that's shockingly and sadly naive.

All kinds of people with all kinds of different philosophies (and no philosophy at all) voted for Obama. There has yet to be a political shift to the left. Just as there wasn't one to the right in 1980. Reagan manipulated the public. He built a right wing movement. And that's what Obama has said he wants to do- shift the trajectory of the country.

People who consider themselves conservatives voted for him. People who consider themselves moderates voted for him. People who consider themselves progressives voted for him. They do not all share the same goals.

It seems some people know surprisingly little about either human nature or American political history.

[Two Americas]

26. the source

I base my remarks on years of intense political activism where few liberals dare go - in the reddest of red communities. There is a world out there beyond Vermont. If I ever saw liberal activists in those forgotten communities, I would give more credence to their remarks. But I fear we have a "city slicker" dynamic here - an attitude, by the way, not a matter of geography - as well as a gentrified and myopic view of the general public, that too often takes the form of unexamined prejudices and a contempt for the people.

Why not consider thoughtfully and respectfully the remarks of others here, rather than being so cocksure that your view is the only intelligent view, and rather than continually being on the attack and making bitter and hateful come backs to any and all who happen to disagree with your opinions?

[cali]

28. there was nothing even remotely hateful or bitter about my comment

and your constant scolding- as if YOU are the only righteous person, grows wearisome. I certainly do not consider mine thew only intelligent view. That's simply a false accusation. You have NEVER been even remotely respectful to me and you sadly don't see your own "I know better than anyone" attitude.

Oh, and yes, I'm fully aware there's a world outside Vermont. I even go there from time to time.

[Two Americas]

29. you may be projecting here

I know of no more vehement critic of the Left anywhere than you are. That is going to get an oppositional response on a board full of Democrats. These discussion start with your intolerance of other points of view, not the other way around. They start with you making accusations and personal attacks, not the other way around. I think people here are remarkably patient and considerate with you, given the continual provocation you throw at them.

Why not discuss things, rather than merely sniping at people continually? Why not express your point of view - which I promise I will give respect and consideration - rather than prowling the board telling others that they are wrong?

We won Cali. All of us. Why not stop fighting everyone as though your life depended upon it?

I am trying to be respectful of you. I don't mean to come across as arrogant. Could it not be that you are inadvertently putting people on the defensive and bringing out the worst in them?

You well know that when you occasionally do express your opinion on something rather than merely tearing others down, that I am the first to acknowledge that.

Just consider what I am saying here. I am not telling you what to do or how things are, and I could be wrong. But if you won't talk to us, we can't know one way or the other. It is difficult talking to a person who is calling you naive,

[cali]

34. That's simply untrue. Sorry, but

I am of the left. I vote for progressive candidates and work for progressive causes on a local level and I have for years and years. I've worked my ass off on issues small (keeping a cell tower off the local mountain, banning gmo seeds) and large (shutting down VT Yankee, civil unions, gay marriage, expanding health care, prisoners rights)

Your characterization of me is clearly slanted by personal dislike, and it's largely false. Am I blunt? Yeah, I am. I am sometimes abrasive? Yep. Am I impatient with straight out stupidity? True, I don't suffer fools gladly.

It's ironic, that you with your passive aggressive attacks and sad dishonesty don't have a clue as to your attack modus operandi

I think you should consider looking long and hard in the mirror at your own behavior before constantly calling out mine.

And try, just try, being honest- both with yourself and others.

[Two Americas]

38. ok

I could be wrong.

I have never been passive aggressive with you - I say what I mean and mean what I say. I may be wrong, but I am not being dishonest either. I do not think I have been guilty of straight out stupidity, nor do I believe I am a fool. If you think those things about me, point out where you are seeing that.

Who is calling out whom here?

If you are a leftist, why do you attack leftists so often? Sincere question, not being passive aggressive or dishonest. I don't care to "win." I don't dislike you, and don't have an ax to grind.

[NewJeffCT]

68. Good point - the comparison I've used on DU 100s of times now

is that in 1964, Barry Goldwater was considered so far to the right that he was unelectable in the general election and lost in an historic landslide.

However, because after that time, the far right so effectively moved the center of the debate from the middle to the right, Goldwater today would be a moderate to liberal Republican, or a conservative Democrat: his views like being pro-choice, fiscally responsible, pro-environment, pro gays in the military are anathema to most 21st century Republicans.

In the 1960s, groups on the left were very public, very outgoing and very vocal: The Black Panthers, SDS, etc. And, the Democrats in Congress looked moderate compared to them, because they were.... however, they were well to the left of 21st century Democrats.

Today, those groups on the left are silent and if anybody on the left says anything slightly controversial (i.e., MoveOn with Petraeus/Betrayus) they get hammered down. Now, the groups on the right are the ones that are very public, very vocal: Limbaugh, Savage, Pat Robertson, Coulter, etc, and it helps to make Republicans in Congress look moderate by comparison, though they are far to the right of Republicans from the 1960s.

[CreekDog]

15. take a look at FDR's governance and tell me that wasn't change

[Two Americas]

21. of course

But that was the result of intense and unrelenting pressure on his administration from the Left, from Labor and progressive and left wing political organizations - right from the start.

I cannot understand why any Democrat would now be advocating for the "middle." If we don't advocate for the Left, who will? Is halfway between the middle and the extreme right wing what we are shooting for, what we worked for, what the people are demanding? I think not.

[msallied]

20. Yeah. That's what Bush/Cheney thought too.

[graywarrior]

24. Why am I surprised that it took a mere few days?

[HughMoran]

27. When does the duck go free?

Inquiring minds want to know :D

[graywarrior]

40. FYI

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=132x7811204

[HughMoran]

48. I saw that post

It's hilarious. Was I supposed to be able to garner the future of duct-ducky from that post? I'm slow, help me out here!

[graywarrior]

52. Yeah

1 20 09

[HughMoran]

53. Hmmm, I figured that

Why did I even have to ask - doh!

:freak:

[graywarrior]

58. Quack

[HughMoran]

25. No

Have fun with this :eyes:

[Two Americas]

30. freedom is no half-and-half affair

For too many of us the political equality we once had won was meaningless in the face of economic inequality. A small group had concentrated into their own hands an almost complete control over other people's property, other people's money, other people's labor, other people's lives. For too many of us life was no longer free; liberty no longer real; men could no longer follow the pursuit of happiness.

Against economic tyranny such as this, the American citizen could appeal only to the organized power of Government. The collapse of 1929 showed up the despotism for what it was. The election of 1932 was the people's mandate to end it. Under that mandate it is being ended.

The royalists of the economic order have conceded that political freedom was the business of the Government, but they have maintained that economic slavery was nobody's business. They granted that the Government could protect the citizen in his right to vote, but they denied that the Government could do anything to protect the citizen in his right to work and his right to live.

Today we stand committed to the proposition that freedom is no half-and-half affair. If the average citizen is guaranteed equal opportunity in the polling place, he must have equal opportunity in the market place.

But the resolute enemy within our gates is ever ready to beat down our words unless in greater courage we will fight for them.

Franklin D. Roosevelt
June 27, 1936
Philadelphia, Pennsylvania

http://www.teachingamericanhistory.org/library/index.asp?document=611

[Lumpsum]

31. The more things change, the more they stay the same...

Rahm, Pelosi, Summers, et al.

I think it's fair for those of us on the left to be weary of a repeat of 1977-1981. Just saying.

[AJH032]

32. Our country has been so far to the right lately...

that moving to the middle would be a huge change.

[Lumpsum]

36. Nah.

Moving to the LEFT would be a huge change.

[droidamus2]

33. How about this

I don't think the majority of the voters right now give a damn if its right, middle or left as long as the government is competent and actually gets something done. The voters rejected the Republicans slash and burn type of politics and yes I think at a minimum acknowledged that the left may have some good ideas. The pendulum swings but why do we feel it has to skip the middle and immediately go to the left. Its called patience people, our people are in charge we will be moving in our direction. I think if we can pull of 16 years of competent presidency (keep your fingers crossed) by the end of that period we will pretty much be where you want to go. Yes I will be 70 by that time (I hope) and won't get to enjoy much of the change but slow and study will help bring those that aren't lost on the far right wing to us if we just do it right.

[oldmant]

35. Change is in the middle

Nope! Change can and is in the middle 

[breakingnewz]

37. Agree

You can't escape the damage done by a right-wing agenda from the middle.

[RollWithIt]

39. Just wanted to point out, after Bush, Change is the Middle... lol

Srry, had to point that out.

[FrenchieCat]

41. I'm tired of the labels.....to old way of thinking about positioning.....

Think out of the box people....Barack Obama has already told us how he would govern; it's in his book. In addition, he ran on a particular platform, and that is what he will work to achieve, and I think he will be just as bold as Bush was in stepping back into time; Barack will march bodly into the future.

Second guess him at your peril, but I say, to hell with the fucked up labels put upon us. Those who would label Barack's every movement are making a terrible mistake. And really, really fuck the pundits, because they really have no clue, no matter how fast they flap their gums.

President Obama will do what is best for the people of this country....and as a progressive, he will march forward and not look back.

[Demi_Babe]

42. relax...breathe and believe and know that Obama has got this!

[Celebration]

43. the change is in being pragmatic instead of an idealogue n/t

[Lumpsum]

46. Amen. nt

[Jennicut]

44. Uh, its been how many days since Obama won? He is not even sworn in yet and already we are starting

on this crap. Do some of you guys know how to enjoy a victory? Obama is not in the middle, he is a liberal. But he will get the best people to carry out HIS policies. I don't care who he picks. We worried way top much who Clinton picked and it bogged him down and delayed governing. Obama has got this people. Now relax and do some post election detox.

[RBInMaine]

45. Ah, BUT, there has to be a big tent in a NATIONAL party AND compromise must occur to get ANYTHING

done. Just a fact of life my friend. It doesn't mean abandon all principle, but President Obama will and Dems AND R's will have to find common ground.

[happychatter]

47. hit and run bait.... evidentally those capital letters didn't elicit any "amens"

but then, that was expected

[NorthCarolina]

49. The MSM is talking 24/7 about this meme because they are trying to influence the direction

of things, as usual. Nobody knows at all what Obama will do yet, only he himself knows that, but not the media, they're making sure that everyone is on the same page about "the Dems will try to pull Obama to the left", and of course the GOP talking heads always throw in the "I sure hope they pull him to the left". Well you know what? I call their BS bluff and I hope to hell Obama DOES go to the left, way left.

[Dappleganger]

50. "It's not about bigger government or smaller government..."

"It's about smarter, more competent government."

[Essene]

51. obama got elected BY INDEPENDENTS... and overstating the mandate is a disaster

the middle doesnt mean you compromise away progressive principles.

it just means you dont alienate most of the damn population.

obama got elected by INDEPENDENTS.

the goal is to make america more comfortable with progressive leadership again and to solidify a 2nd term.

1.5 years of hardcore "change" and then back to reactionary culture wars would be a disaster.

look at this data

http://political-zazen.blogspot.com/2008/11/purple-america-2008-mood-swing.html

[bigwillq]

54. We already knew Obama would govern

from the center. We already knew he was a centrist. If you didn't like his policies, you shouldn't have voted for him. This is not shocking news.

I will wait and see what Obama does. I wasn't expecting any earth-shattering progressive movements.
But I do like some of Obama's intentions. I like his attitude on politics in general. He really wants to heal this nation. He really wants to unite people. If that means doing it from the center, I think I can be ok with that.

[TxBlue]

55. AhhhhhhMEN!!!

And let Pelosi go away!

[Faygo Kid]

57. I trust Obama to make the right decisions.

Until I see otherwise.

Screw the OP. Junk post.

[Duke Newcombe]

56. Fail.

Without the "middle", you'll have a helluva time getting that "change". Or didn't anyone pay attention to this last election?

[Overseas]

59. Maybe since the middle has been tugged way over to the right for seven years

they are talking about an actual middle.

What is called Centrist today would have been right wing Republican in Nixon's day.

[Kablooie]

60. Change is solving problems, not creating them.

[MNReformer]

62. Change is not center-right. n/t

[quaker bill]

63. did you listen to the speeches?

you know, the part in everyone of them that went something like "there is no red America or blue America, just the United States of America"??

Did you perhaps miss that? Or did you simply not take the man at his word?

Now, even if you missed that critical part, you have to be able to see at this point that ending the war, closing gitmo, developing alternate energy, and reforming healthcare are changes that the left, middle, and even a tiny bit of the right will agree to. This is why we won.

There is no need to call change "Left, Right, or Middle", just do it.

[demo dutch]

64. No amen from me! the country is in the middle, and so is Obama, We need to change from the middle

[always_saturday]

66. Amen, MSE, ITA, ICAM. Fuck the wishy washy repug lite that is the MIDDLE.

[Danger Mouse]

67. Uh, no. We can't forcibly shift our policies to the left.

We'll get killed in 2010. Govern from the middle, shift towards the left. Find common ground with Repubs.

[OPERATIONMINDCRIME]

69. In These Times? It Absolutely Is. It's Also Absolutely What's Required.

[LaydeeBug]

70. I love some good rabble rousin' early in the mornin'. nt