Obama at his best up in Manchester today. (if only he could get some economic advisers who understand that it is private industry that creates jobs, not political hacks.)
I loved it when he told the activists who were mic-checking him that they are the reason he ran for office!
Christophersays
Rare that you would praise a Democrat! I actually didn’t get much out of that particular clip. Not sure what the parenthetical statement is about. Private sector has always created the most jobs given the right tools from the public sphere, so not mutually exclusive by any means.
edgarthearmeniansays
The current cast of characters running for the republican nomination, in my opinion, just don’t have “it” to win the presidency.
Where’s your support for single payer health care and the New Deal? I don’t think you have any clue what a Truman Dem is…
jconwaysays
Truman’s domestic programs would be far to the left of any Democratic candidate or President since LBJ. His foreign policy might arguably be more hawkish, but unlike Iraq WWII had to be won, and unlike Afghanistan, Truman knew when to quit while he was behind in Korea and had no qualms about firing the moronic general who got him into the mess. Containment prevented nuclear war and a communist takeover, and he knew McCarthyism was bs and called it as such. So in many ways he was a lot less wishy washy than this President and knew how to fight and be strong, but he was also a strong liberal and thats an important point. I know Harry Truman, he is a hero of mine, you sir are no Harry Truman.
kbuschsays
The term “Truman Democrat” is usually meant to trace lineage. One may regard Senator “Scoop” Jackson and Senator Joe Lieberman as being descended from this lineage. On some but not all matters, Lieberman has retained a domestic liberalism coupled with a truculent foreign policy.
*
To borrow ETA’s favorite rhetorical device: it’s blindingly obvious to everyone but Lieberman’s immediate family and fan club that that political faction is a dead end productive of neither good nor popular ideas. People who still think Lieberman wise should stop talking to themselves and get out and meet other people.
Thanks for sharing the clip, Edgar. NOW if President Obama would provide some guidance here in the USA as to how to interact/govern/treat nonviolent protesters like he was so willing to do with regard to Egypt, that would be truly Presidential in the very best sense.
edgarthearmeniansays
go back to the archives here and you will see that I have supported what you libs call “single payer” for years–though I call it Medicare for All. It can be easily supported by a national VAT tax on harmful products like cigarettes, alcohol, fatty foods, etc.
And to jconway: I am disappointed that you would take a cheap shot at me like that. I am sure that you have read David McCullough’s bio of Truman; Truman was not a man to be pigeonholed as a this or a that. He made many tough decisions, some disliked by conservatives, and some disliked by liberals. You are probably too young to remember how he broke John Lewis’ United Mine Workers’ strike in 1946 on the one hand, or his decision to drop the Abombs on the other. Of course I am no Harry Truman; he was one of our greatest presidents, one of a kind.
jconwaysays
it was a cheap shot. I appreciate your sincerity on this one. And he broke labor when labor threatened the greater good, something it is not doing in Ohio or Wisconsin. Similarly I think few within mainstream politics would question the wisdom of dropping the abomb.
I am a Democrat, in part because during my formative years, Democrats backed democracy – had my politically formative years been 1855-1865 probably I would have been a Republican.
Reading history and biography, as I do, I can see how both parties have evolved in ways very different than their roots at one time.
But as to the main “subpersonalities’ within the Democratic party, I do not fit 100% into any of them, as far as I can tell. That all being said, Democrats seem more willing to accept a variety of Democrats than Republicans these days to – there would, I believe, be no room in today’s Republican Party for Nelson Rockefeller, Theodore Roosevelt, or Dwight D. Eisenhower.
But I never expected a Democratic president to place basic New Deal social compact programs at risk. Redo the Tax Expenditure Budget – by all means. You all remember that, right? The “spin” name for lobbied giveaways.
In my grandpa’s day it was easy to figure out which party you were in. If you were a farmer or laborer the Dems. If you were a professional or a businessman the Republicans. If your Christmas party was at the Union Hall, a Dem, at the Club, a Republican. The culture war really didn’t exist since families were stable, most people belonged to one Christian sect or another and regularly attended, and they all fought in two world wars together side by side. Those days are gone (for the best in some cases I might add), but I think it is important to remember that at its core, the GOP is still the party of the well off.
Most of the establishment will admit, as Karl Rove has, and Lee Atwater did on his deathbed, that the cultural issues were just a way to get the white working class to abandon its traditional home and switch sides. Labor would tolerate being in the same party as Management if it meant there were no hippies or atheists (and lets face it black people) to ruin the fun. Thats what the GOP has banked on since the 1970s and the Democratic party lost its identity. Instead of compromising on some social issues (tolerating more diverse views on abortion for instance) the party moved to the right on defense (to get cultural conservatives) and on economics (to have a fair shot at Wall Street dollars). Its current social liberalism is a reverse of the Atwater strategy and a way to get the ‘creative class’ and the ‘upper crust’ to vote against their economic interests, hence Clinton’s appeal to soccer moms who are pro-choice and worried about crime, guns, and good schools. And in this weird flux we have the professional left (Chomsky-Vidal-Moore types, more broadly the liberal arts educated) mixed with socially liberal business types (Jobs, Buffet, Gates, more broadly MIT/Cal/Carnegie and MBA educated) rubbing shoulders with the few Frank Sobotka’s left in the world.
Clinton was brilliant because like Reagan he appealed to all three legs of his party, the culturally liberal, the innovative class, and the working man. Obama does well with the first two and has to try harder to win over the third, since they will decide this election. Students will stay home, cultural liberals will hold their noses, and the innovative class might be swayed by Romney and his Bain buddies so their wallets might be split. He has to get union households and he needs to focus on the white working class since this is the last election where they will swing it. After 2016 the demographics, unless the GOP shifts to the left at least on immigration, will make a permanent Dem majority likely.
christy11says
The President will be very, very tough to beat. His foreign policy wins have stunned many. His message continues to resonate on Main Street. He is well-like personally. Very tough to beat that. In June 2009, Deval Patrick’s approval rating was below 30%—he won. One year is an eternity in this world’s goings-on.
I pray that the President succeeds every day. Too many need great leadership and a steady hand at this time.
John Tehan says
I loved it when he told the activists who were mic-checking him that they are the reason he ran for office!
Christopher says
Rare that you would praise a Democrat! I actually didn’t get much out of that particular clip. Not sure what the parenthetical statement is about. Private sector has always created the most jobs given the right tools from the public sphere, so not mutually exclusive by any means.
edgarthearmenian says
The current cast of characters running for the republican nomination, in my opinion, just don’t have “it” to win the presidency.
John Tehan says
Where’s your support for single payer health care and the New Deal? I don’t think you have any clue what a Truman Dem is…
jconway says
Truman’s domestic programs would be far to the left of any Democratic candidate or President since LBJ. His foreign policy might arguably be more hawkish, but unlike Iraq WWII had to be won, and unlike Afghanistan, Truman knew when to quit while he was behind in Korea and had no qualms about firing the moronic general who got him into the mess. Containment prevented nuclear war and a communist takeover, and he knew McCarthyism was bs and called it as such. So in many ways he was a lot less wishy washy than this President and knew how to fight and be strong, but he was also a strong liberal and thats an important point. I know Harry Truman, he is a hero of mine, you sir are no Harry Truman.
kbusch says
The term “Truman Democrat” is usually meant to trace lineage. One may regard Senator “Scoop” Jackson and Senator Joe Lieberman as being descended from this lineage. On some but not all matters, Lieberman has retained a domestic liberalism coupled with a truculent foreign policy.
*
To borrow ETA’s favorite rhetorical device: it’s blindingly obvious to everyone but Lieberman’s immediate family and fan club that that political faction is a dead end productive of neither good nor popular ideas. People who still think Lieberman wise should stop talking to themselves and get out and meet other people.
AmberPaw says
Thanks for sharing the clip, Edgar. NOW if President Obama would provide some guidance here in the USA as to how to interact/govern/treat nonviolent protesters like he was so willing to do with regard to Egypt, that would be truly Presidential in the very best sense.
edgarthearmenian says
go back to the archives here and you will see that I have supported what you libs call “single payer” for years–though I call it Medicare for All. It can be easily supported by a national VAT tax on harmful products like cigarettes, alcohol, fatty foods, etc.
And to jconway: I am disappointed that you would take a cheap shot at me like that. I am sure that you have read David McCullough’s bio of Truman; Truman was not a man to be pigeonholed as a this or a that. He made many tough decisions, some disliked by conservatives, and some disliked by liberals. You are probably too young to remember how he broke John Lewis’ United Mine Workers’ strike in 1946 on the one hand, or his decision to drop the Abombs on the other. Of course I am no Harry Truman; he was one of our greatest presidents, one of a kind.
jconway says
it was a cheap shot. I appreciate your sincerity on this one. And he broke labor when labor threatened the greater good, something it is not doing in Ohio or Wisconsin. Similarly I think few within mainstream politics would question the wisdom of dropping the abomb.
AmberPaw says
I am a Democrat, in part because during my formative years, Democrats backed democracy – had my politically formative years been 1855-1865 probably I would have been a Republican.
Reading history and biography, as I do, I can see how both parties have evolved in ways very different than their roots at one time.
But as to the main “subpersonalities’ within the Democratic party, I do not fit 100% into any of them, as far as I can tell. That all being said, Democrats seem more willing to accept a variety of Democrats than Republicans these days to – there would, I believe, be no room in today’s Republican Party for Nelson Rockefeller, Theodore Roosevelt, or Dwight D. Eisenhower.
But I never expected a Democratic president to place basic New Deal social compact programs at risk. Redo the Tax Expenditure Budget – by all means. You all remember that, right? The “spin” name for lobbied giveaways.
AmberPaw says
http://www.taxpolicycenter.org/briefing-book/background/expenditures/budget.cfm
jconway says
In my grandpa’s day it was easy to figure out which party you were in. If you were a farmer or laborer the Dems. If you were a professional or a businessman the Republicans. If your Christmas party was at the Union Hall, a Dem, at the Club, a Republican. The culture war really didn’t exist since families were stable, most people belonged to one Christian sect or another and regularly attended, and they all fought in two world wars together side by side. Those days are gone (for the best in some cases I might add), but I think it is important to remember that at its core, the GOP is still the party of the well off.
Most of the establishment will admit, as Karl Rove has, and Lee Atwater did on his deathbed, that the cultural issues were just a way to get the white working class to abandon its traditional home and switch sides. Labor would tolerate being in the same party as Management if it meant there were no hippies or atheists (and lets face it black people) to ruin the fun. Thats what the GOP has banked on since the 1970s and the Democratic party lost its identity. Instead of compromising on some social issues (tolerating more diverse views on abortion for instance) the party moved to the right on defense (to get cultural conservatives) and on economics (to have a fair shot at Wall Street dollars). Its current social liberalism is a reverse of the Atwater strategy and a way to get the ‘creative class’ and the ‘upper crust’ to vote against their economic interests, hence Clinton’s appeal to soccer moms who are pro-choice and worried about crime, guns, and good schools. And in this weird flux we have the professional left (Chomsky-Vidal-Moore types, more broadly the liberal arts educated) mixed with socially liberal business types (Jobs, Buffet, Gates, more broadly MIT/Cal/Carnegie and MBA educated) rubbing shoulders with the few Frank Sobotka’s left in the world.
Clinton was brilliant because like Reagan he appealed to all three legs of his party, the culturally liberal, the innovative class, and the working man. Obama does well with the first two and has to try harder to win over the third, since they will decide this election. Students will stay home, cultural liberals will hold their noses, and the innovative class might be swayed by Romney and his Bain buddies so their wallets might be split. He has to get union households and he needs to focus on the white working class since this is the last election where they will swing it. After 2016 the demographics, unless the GOP shifts to the left at least on immigration, will make a permanent Dem majority likely.
christy11 says
The President will be very, very tough to beat. His foreign policy wins have stunned many. His message continues to resonate on Main Street. He is well-like personally. Very tough to beat that. In June 2009, Deval Patrick’s approval rating was below 30%—he won. One year is an eternity in this world’s goings-on.
I pray that the President succeeds every day. Too many need great leadership and a steady hand at this time.