Balkinization: Mandate for Socialism

Comments:

As someone who worked for Gore, Kerry, and Obama in Ohio, I saw how much better organized Obama's campaign was than the previous two. And I thought about Rudy G., Sarah P., and others on the right mocking Obama's "community organizer" experience. They really didn't know what was coming.

# posted by

Unknown : 8:56 AM

It's funny watching the tape of them mocking community organizers. I didn't realize it at the time, but it's pretty obvious now that they were laughing at the beast that was about to crush them.

# posted by

Bartbuster : 9:10 AM

Obama campaigned as a conservative promising to cut the taxes of 95% of the population, paying for his new programs by cutting other programs and reinforcing the war in Afghanistan. Obama ridiculed criticisms of his socialist leanings and promised "no lurches to the left." 52% of the voters believed him or at least took the chance that he was telling the truth..

If Obama lied to the voters as did Clinton in 1992 and reneges on his promises in a shift to the left, then the voters will have their "choice between a socialist and a whatever" in 2010 as they did in 1994.

# posted by

Bart DePalma : 10:53 AM

Baghdad, if he was campaigning as a conservative, why did you wingnuts start calling him a socialist after his talk with Joe the Son of a Welfare Queen?

# posted by

Bartbuster : 11:11 AM

Of course Bart is now saying that Obama is the promise of conservatism, he's deranged. We will now be able to witness Bart's Bill Bennett impersonation to become an unabashed suckup.

Just think of it. Without McCain to kick around any more, Bart gets to complain about everything. It's part and parcel to the luxury of being an anti-intellectual reactionary.

# posted by

Eric : 11:24 AM

It's really amazing how Obama could go from being a socialist to a conservative just by winning an election.

# posted by

Bartbuster : 11:31 AM

Bartbuster,

It's really amazing how Obama could go from being a socialist to a conservative just by winning an election.

don't you realize we are a center right country? no matter what happens? no matter which party wins? a vote for a republican is a vote for a conservative. a vote for a democrat is a vote for a conservative. we have always been at war with eurasia.

# posted by

nerpzillicus : 12:04 PM

Who knew that an intimate friend of Bill Ayers, Rev. Wright, and Rashid Khalidi could be a conservative?

# posted by

Bartbuster : 12:42 PM

Obama's past comments pretty well demonstrate his socialist leanings from his autobigraphical admission that he sought out Marxist professors in college, his Marxist wingnut friends like Ayers, Wright and Fleger, to his own recorded statements about redistribution and spreading the wealth.

However, Obama successfully campaigned in 2008 on conservative principles such as lower taxes, getting money for new programs from cuts in present spending and waging war against al Qaeda.

I fully expect Obama to pull a Clinton '93, revert to his socialist leanings and renege on most of his campaign promises. Obama is nothing if not incredibly arrogant. He will assume that this election is a mandate for whatever he wants to do regardless of what he promised on the campaign trail.

The markets are wondering the same thing as they dove 3% today.

The question is whether the GOP has a Gingrich who can lead the congressional GOP in opposition and make Obama pay in the polls later.

# posted by

Bart DePalma : 1:32 PM

However, Obama successfully campaigned in 2008 on conservative principles such as lower taxes, getting money for new programs from cuts in present spending and waging war against al Qaeda.

Baghdad, that is a big steaming pile. Joe the Son of a Welfare Queen accused him of being a socialist based on the tax plan he was campaigning on. And "waging war on Al Qaeda" is "conservative" like breathing is "conservative".

In short, you are full of shit.

# posted by

Bartbuster : 1:45 PM

The question is whether the GOP has a Gingrich who can lead the congressional GOP in opposition and make Obama pay in the polls later.

Palin 12

I can't wait.

# posted by

Bartbuster : 1:46 PM

Jeez, Bart, someone farted in your Wheaties this morning... You just keep complaining. We're going to go ahead and get to work cleaning up the mess you supported creating. But really, thanks for everything.

# posted by

Ol Mucky : 2:07 PM

"obama is nothing if not incredibly arrogant. he will assume that this election is a mandate for whatever he wants to do regardless of what he promised on the campaign trail"

do much for mr. depalma's promise a few days ago that he was simply going to issue a gracious congratulations and move on if obama won.

# posted by

phg : 3:00 PM

Bart, your insights continue to astound me. I donned a beret and a scraggly beard (a la Che) and snuck into Obama HQ (affectionately referred to by Commissar Plouffe as the Chicago Kremlin) and did a little pilfering. The first thing I came across was Obama's agenda for the first hundred days. You, of all people, won't be surprised to see what it includes.

Agenda for the 1st Hundred Days:

1. Institute Sharia.

2. Instate Communism.

3. Establish compulsory gay marriage for all preschoolers.

4. Surrender to Aztlan.

5. Legalize abortion until 12 years after conception.

6. Ban NASCAR and replace with all-male (Bolshoi?) ballet.

7. Make Ebonics official language of the USA.

8. Ban Christmas.

9. Ban "Red Dawn".

10. Legalize box turtles.

# posted by

Drogon Saurischian : 4:36 PM

I think another very convincing argument that Obama ran on a conservative platform is that he promised his two girls a dog if he won the election. We can expect, of course, that he'll renege on that promise and force them to adopt some radical leftist kitten.

# posted by

Drogon Saurischian : 4:49 PM

Who knew that an intimate friend of Bill Ayers, Rev. Wright, and Rashid Khalidi could be a conservative?

Nice one! I found the talk about Khalidi especially funny, since I worked in his office for a summer. If being at the same party with someone makes you a PLO sympathizer, I wonder what watering his plants while he's on vacation makes you? The head of Hamas?

# posted by

PMS_CC : 4:53 PM

is that he promised his two girls a dog if he won the election

Actually, I think he promised them a dog whether he won or lost. Clearly that makes him a communist.

# posted by

Bartbuster : 5:04 PM

Obama clearly had a well "organized" campaign and ran a disciplined race. McCain probably did as well as could have been expected by a Republican in what was obviously a year favorable to Democrats. Now Obama will not have the luxory of opposition. He will have to govern.

If past be prologue, then he will govern as a liberal. That appears to be his record as well as his ideology. Also he will have increased Democratic majorities in both houses of Congress. Thus, there will be no reason for him to curb his liberal tendencies.

During the campaign, however, he appeared more as a moderate. He supported the Supreme Court's Second Amendment decision. He supported the Administration on monitoring phone calls of suspected foreign terrorists. He retreated form his call for an early withdrawl from Iraq.

How will Obama react when, as his running mate warned, he will be "tested" early in his administration? Now that even the New York Times recognizes that many of the detainees at Gitmo are terrorists, will Obama proceed to shut it down? Where will he send/release the detainees? Will he proceed with raising taxes and increasing regulations in the teeth of a recession?

All suppoters of the coming Obamanation should enjoy this historic moment. The hard choices of reality will be upon him, and all of us, soon enough. God bless President-elect Obama and the United States.

# posted by

Unknown : 5:09 PM

Quidpro:

During the campaign, however, he appeared more as a moderate. [...] He supported the Administration on monitoring phone calls of suspected foreign terrorists.

[outside of the fact that no one opposes such monitoring] How is warrantless wiretapping a moderate stance ... or how does such drift over in the "conservative" direction? I'm curious....

... Now that even the New York Times recognizes that many of the detainees at Gitmo are terrorists, will Obama proceed to shut it down?

[outside of the fact that the New York Times was the "shock and awe" of newspaper reporting on Iraq's purported WoMD, thanks to J. F'n. Miller] Since when did the New York Times recognise this?

Cheers,

# posted by

Arne Langsetmo : 5:39 PM

@pms_chicago:

Probably more like a head of lettuce with a side of hummous.

Why are any of us still talking to the trolls? Don't we have better things to do, like hold the Obama administration's feet to the fire? Close GTMO, undo AUMF 2001, undo warrantless spying, undo the habeas stripping MCA, put some teeth into civil liberties and re-create a nation-wide "free speech" zone.

Ain't got no time for the trolls. Really, we don't.

# posted by

Robert Link : 5:44 PM

Don't we have better things to do, like hold the Obama administration's feet to the fire? Close GTMO, undo AUMF 2001, undo warrantless spying, undo the habeas stripping MCA, put some teeth into civil liberties and re-create a nation-wide "free speech" zone.

Certainly, and you're right that we should be tackling our betes noirs while we have someone who can do something about them actually listening for once. What's your first move?

# posted by

PMS_CC : 6:10 PM

If I had the resources I'd re-cap my September 2006 effort, faxing to each member of Congress a draft resolution proposal to revoke the 2001 AUMF. But that is probably still a touch Quixotic for folks, and I don't have the cash to buy the fax list nor the time to compile it by hand.

Failing that, I'd like someone to help me better understand why Brzezinski thought luring the USSR into Afghanistan would ruin them, but now thinks we can prevail there.

I found myself quite by chance reading a recent copy of "The New Yorker" with an article on Chuck Hagel, who spoke not only of fighting terrorism, but the socio-economic inequities that produce terrorism. If even a member of the GOP can look at such realities, well, no time like the present to talk our president-elect into same.

# posted by

Robert Link : 6:28 PM

SCCS: "Obama is nothing if not incredibly arrogant."

As opposed to humble ol' "Mission Accomplished" W and his "Go f*ck yourself" string puller. Yup.

# posted by

Robert Link : 6:34 PM

Ain't got no time for the trolls. Really, we don't.

Oooh, Robert! Pooped on yer' own advice, did ya?

My 2 cents: Bart is the epitome of an obnoxious irritant. Ignoring him is a fine strategy. But kicking his ignorant ass is also a fine strategy.

To each his own. Peace.

# posted by

mattski : 7:20 PM

Bart said:

Obama campaigned as a conservative promising to cut the taxes of 95% of the population

He campaigned on raising taxes on the 5% richest Americans. When did that become a conservative talking point? I must have missed the memo.

Are really this dumb, or are you just this desperate for attention?

# posted by

Hank Gillette : 7:45 PM

hank gillette said...

Bart said: Obama campaigned as a conservative promising to cut the taxes of 95% of the population

He campaigned on raising taxes on the 5% richest Americans. When did that become a conservative talking point? I must have missed the memo.

Actually, Obama downplayed his planned tax increase continuously and several times claimed that he would delay any tax increase until after the recession was over.

What was a prominent and repeated feature of his debates and stump speech was the tax cut for 95% of the people just like Clinton campaigned on a middle class tax cut.

He was quite effective in this spin as polling actually started showing that Obama would be more likely to cut taxes than McCain.

# posted by

Bart DePalma : 8:54 PM

@mattski,

Guilty as charged. Sometimes it's easier than others to pretend one neither heard nor smelled the flatulence in the room.

# posted by

Robert Link : 9:03 PM

He was quite effective in this spin as polling actually started showing that Obama would be more likely to cut taxes than McCain.

# posted by Bart DePalma : 8:54 PM

And? Your claim that his plan is conservatism is laughable, considering that you were calling it socialism prior to yesterday.

# posted by

Bartbuster : 9:03 PM

Bart wants to claim Obama as a conservative because he won and because he used a few so-called conservative themes to do it.

I recall JFK running the the right of Nixon in in 1960 when he ran on the missile gap, too. That would have been a conservative theme at the time, and Kennedy rode it to the oval office.

Somehow I can't imagine Bart ever claiming that JFK was a conservative because he campaigned on the missile gap. Nor will we hear much further about Obama's alleged conservative credentials as he finds other things to whine about.

Conservatives get SO possessive of the pitches they use to bamboozle the public. I'm amazed they don't try to gain property rights under intellectual property law.

# posted by

Richard : 7:20 AM

"He supported the Supreme Court's Second Amendment decision."

If you carefully parse what he's had to say on the subject, both before and after Heller, (Necessary in the case of somebody who's really good with words.) you'll find that his position amounts to,

"Fine, let's call it a right. I'm ok with that as long as every single unit of government that wants to violate it is permitted to."

Look Chicago does NOT get to opt out of other constitutional rights, just because the local government votes to. If it gets to opt out of the 2nd amendment, in Obama's opinion, either he doesn't really view it as a real right, or he's got a very nasty view of the enforceability of rights in general.

Either is quite possible in a former constitutional scholar.

# posted by

Brett : 7:37 AM

But Heller did not involve a state statute. Perhaps when a state statute is challenged, Heller may not be an absolute control, especially if events subsequent to Heller demonstate that the 5-4 Heller decision misconstrued the history of the Second Amendment and results in some sense of anarchy in some locales. Like Mr. Dooley used to say, the Supreme Court often follows the "illiction returns." Meantime, we can expect the "usual suspects" to continue to shoot from the lip.

# posted by

Shag from Brookline : 8:03 AM

Richard:

Somehow I can't imagine Bart ever claiming that JFK was a conservative because he campaigned on the missile gap....

Richard, you misunderestimate our esteemed "Bart". ;-) He'd do it in a heartbeat if he hasn't done so already. Which is good for Giulia... -- ooops, I mean McCain

Cheers,

# posted by

Arne Langsetmo : 8:24 AM

Richard:

Conservatives get SO possessive of the pitches they use to bamboozle the public. I'm amazed they don't try to gain property rights under intellectual property law.

They invented "democracy" and have the copyright in perpetuity on "Constitution"s. Indeed, much the same way as Crisshuns (of the "right" kind) have the patent on morality. Unless we listen to them, we'll necessarily sin.

Cheers,

# posted by

Arne Langsetmo : 8:28 AM

Brett:

Even Heller doesn't say anyone has an absolute right to a weapon for self-defence (or whatever) ... or you can expect petitions for writs of mandamus from prisoners that take offence to being subject to anal sodomy against their will....

Line were drawn ... lines will continue to be drawn. Your hand grenades and Stinger missiles will still be illegal. Such is life.

Cheers,

# posted by

Arne Langsetmo : 8:35 AM

arne langsetmo said...

Quidpro: Now that even the New York Times recognizes that many of the detainees at Gitmo are terrorists, will Obama proceed to shut it down?

Since when did the New York Times recognise this?

Here:

Senators John McCain and Barack Obama have said they would close the detention camp, but the review of the government’s public files underscores the challenges of fulfilling that promise. The next president will have to contend with sobering intelligence claims against many of the remaining detainees.

“It would be very difficult for a new president to come in and say, ‘I don’t believe what the C.I.A. is saying about these guys,’ ” said Daniel Marcus, a Democrat who was general counsel of the 9/11 Commission and held senior positions in the Carter and Clinton administrations...

But as a new administration begins to sort through the government’s dossiers on the men, the analysis shows, officials are likely to face tough choices in deciding how many of Guantánamo’s hard cases should be sent home, how many should be charged and what to do with the rest...

The analysis shows that about 34 of the remaining detainees were seized in raids in Pakistan that netted three men the government calls major Qaeda operatives: Abu Zubaydah, Ramzi bin al-Shibh and Al Hajj Abdu Ali Sharqawi. Sixteen detainees are accused of some of the most significant terrorist attacks in the last decade, including the 1998 bombings at American Embassies in Kenya and Tanzania, the 2000 attack on the destroyer Cole in Yemen, and the Sept. 11 attacks. Twenty others were called Mr. bin Laden’s bodyguards.

The analysis also shows that 13 of the original 23 detainees who arrived at Guantánamo on Jan. 11, 2002, remain there nearly seven years later. Of the roughly 255 men now being held, more than 60 have been cleared for release or transfer, according to the Pentagon, but remain at Guantánamo because of difficulties negotiating transfer agreements between the United States and other countries.

Two of those still held, government documents show, were seen by Mr. bin Laden as potential Sept. 11 hijackers. The case of Mohammed al-Qahtani, whom the government has labeled a potential “20th hijacker,” has drawn wide notice because he was subjected to interrogation tactics that included sleep deprivation, isolation and being put on a leash and forced to perform dog tricks.

The other detainee deemed a potential hijacker, whose presence at Guantánamo has gone virtually unmentioned in public reports, is a Yemeni called Abu Bara. The 9/11 Commission said he studied flights and airport security and participated in an important planning meeting for the 2001 attack in Malaysia in January 2000.

The Guantánamo list also includes two Saudi brothers, Hassan and Walid bin Attash. The government describes them as something like Qaeda royalty. Military officials said during Guantánamo hearings that their father, imprisoned in Saudi Arabia, was a “close contact of Osama bin Laden” and that his sons were committed jihadists.

Walid bin Attash is facing a possible death sentence as a coordinator of the Sept. 11 attacks. Hassan bin Attash was accused of having been involved in planning attacks on American oil tankers and Navy ships.

Hassan bin Attash’s lawyer, David H. Remes, said the government’s claims about the detainees were not credible. He and other detainees’ lawyers say that the government’s accusations have been ever-changing and that much of the evidence was obtained using techniques he and others have described as torture.

“You look at all of this stuff, and it looks terribly scary,” Mr. Remes said. “But how do we know any of it is true?”

The extensive use of secret evidence and information derived from aggressive interrogations has led critics around the world to conclude that many detainees were wrongly held. Nearly seven years after Guantánamo opened its metal gates, only 18 of the current detainees are facing war crimes charges...

Some of the remaining prisoners have appeared determined to show how dangerous they are. “I admit to you it is my honor to be an enemy of the United States,” said a Yemeni detainee, Abdul Rahman Ahmed, a hearing record shows. Officials said Mr. Ahmed had been trained at a terrorist camp “how to dress and act at an airport” and to resist interrogation.

A Saudi detainee, Muhammed Murdi Issa al Zahrani, was described by Pentagon officials as a trained assassin who helped plan the suicide-bomb killing of Ahmed Shah Massoud, the Afghan rebel leader, on Sept. 9, 2001.

“The detainee said America is ruled by the Jews,” an officer said at a hearing after interviewing him, “therefore America and Israel are his enemies.”

One man caught with Abu Zubaydah insisted on his innocence but described a training camp outside Kabul, Afghanistan, where, according to information he gave to interrogators, men were given “lessons on how to make poisons that could be inhaled, swallowed or absorbed through the skin.”

Mr. bin al Shibh was caught with a group of six Yemenis, all of whom are still held, after a two-and-a-half-hour gun battle. The records of those detainees include allegations that some were “a special terrorist team deployed to attack targets in Karachi.” One of the men, Hail Aziz Ahmad al Maythal, was trained in the use of rocket-propelled grenade launchers, machine guns and “trench digging, disguise techniques, escape methods, evasion and map reading,” according to the military’s accusations.

Isn't it amazing how genuine responsibility stops childish self denial.

# posted by

Bart DePalma : 9:51 AM

richard said...

Somehow I can't imagine Bart ever claiming that JFK was a conservative because he campaigned on the missile gap.

You folks need to read some history.

JFK is far closer to Reagan than to Obama.

JFK campaigned to the right of Nixon on foreign policy and military matters. When in office, after a rocky start in Vienna and the Bay of Pigs, Kennedy faced down the Russians, dramatically expanded the military and created the Special Forces to implement counter insurgencies against the communists.

JFK ridiculed what he called soft liberals like Stevenson, his era's less well spoken Obama.

JFK made the supply side argument for reducing marginal income tax rates before it was called supply side. Johnson passed the tax cuts after JFK's assassination and the economy boomed.

JFK was the last Dem candidate this conservative could have voted for.

# posted by

Bart DePalma : 10:02 AM

Isn't it amazing how genuine responsibility stops childish self denial.

# posted by Bart DePalma : 9:51 AM

The election of Obama was pretty amazing, wasn't it?

# posted by

Bartbuster : 10:03 AM

JFK was the last Dem candidate this conservative could have voted for.

# posted by Bart DePalma : 10:02 AM

Why didn't actual conservatives for him?

# posted by

Bartbuster : 10:13 AM

bartbuster said...

BD: JFK was the last Dem candidate this conservative could have voted for.

Why didn't actual conservatives for him?

You accidentally raise an interesting point.

Conservatism then was far different from Reagan Conservatism.

Conservatism then was classical conservatism - reactionary, go slow on everything, protectionist and largely isolationist.

Apart from some social issues, Reagan conservatism is more akin to classical liberalism - free markets, free trade and a rather revolutionary foreign policy to spread freedom and democracy. This is the antithesis of reactionary stasis.

# posted by

Bart DePalma : 10:36 AM

Bart DePalma said:

JFK was the last Dem candidate this conservative could have voted for.

So, you believe that people and the Constitution are static?

Do you really think that if JFK were alive today, ignoring age and other considerations, he’d the tax-cutting, commie-hating conservative you lust after?

We can’t know what John F. Kennedy’s positions would be today, but I think it’s far more likely that he would closer to his brother Teddie Kennedy’s political positions than those he espoused 48 years ago in a far different world and time.

# posted by

Hank Gillette : 12:47 PM

hank gillette said...

BD: JFK was the last Dem candidate this conservative could have voted for.

Do you really think that if JFK were alive today, ignoring age and other considerations, he’d the tax-cutting, commie-hating conservative you lust after?

We can’t know what John F. Kennedy’s positions would be today, but I think it’s far more likely that he would closer to his brother Teddie Kennedy’s political positions than those he espoused 48 years ago in a far different world and time.

This is very possible. You have just acknowledged how far to the left today's Dems have strayed from the the old FDR/Truman/Kennedy coalition.

# posted by

Bart DePalma : 1:11 PM

bartbuster:

["Bart"]; Isn't it amazing how genuine responsibility stops childish self denial.

[bartbuster]: The election of Obama was pretty amazing, wasn't it?

Hasn't slowed down "Bart", though....

Cheers,

# posted by

Arne Langsetmo : 1:15 PM

You have just acknowledged how far to the left today's Dems have strayed from the the old FDR/Truman/Kennedy coalition.

# posted by Bart DePalma : 1:11 PM

Considering how far the party of racist rightwingnuts has strayed from Lincoln, the Dems are looking pretty good right now.

# posted by

Bartbuster : 1:19 PM

[Quidpro]: Now that even the New York Times recognizes that many of the detainees at Gitmo are terrorists, will Obama proceed to shut it down?

[Arne]: Since when did the New York Times recognise this?

<["Bart"]: Here:

[quoting NYT]: Senators John McCain and Barack Obama have said they would close the detention camp, but the review of the government’s public files underscores the challenges of fulfilling that promise. The next president will have to contend with sobering intelligence claims against many of the remaining detainees....

Most of those still being detained are not such.

Agreed that there's a number of the "baddest of the bad" (a couple dozen or so). Too bad that the Dubya has pretty much poisoned any legitimate prosecution of these people according to our laws and practise. Maybe a new administration can institute proper prosecutions with new prosecutors insulated by a "Chinese wall" ... but FOTPT may get in the way nonetheless.

But I don't see a problem with moving them to the U.S.; now that the Supreme Court has trashed the Dubya maladministration's pathetic attempt to create a legal "black hole" there, there's really no need any more to keep them there.

Cheers,

# posted by

Arne Langsetmo : 1:23 PM

Hasn't slowed down "Bart", though....

Obama campaigned on change, not miracles...

# posted by

Bartbuster : 1:24 PM

Richard:

[Richard]: Somehow I can't imagine Bart ever claiming that JFK was a conservative because he campaigned on the missile gap....

[Arne]: Richard, you misunderestimate our esteemed "Bart"....

Told ya so.

Cheers,

# posted by

Arne Langsetmo : 1:26 PM

Bart, as always, hits another one right out of the park! What follows are a couple of instances of Obama "downplaying" his intention to increase taxes on the top 5% of earners.

Here's Obama hiding the ball on November 11, 2007:

Democrat Barack Obama said Sunday that if elected he will push to increase the amount of income that currently is taxed to provide monthly Social Security benefits....[D]uring an interview on NBC's Meet the Press, Obama said subjecting more of a person's income to the payroll tax is the option he would push for if elected president.

"I think the best way to approach this is to adjust the cap on the payroll tax so that people like myself are paying a little bit more and people who are in need are protected," the Illinois senator said.

Here's Obama obfuscating wildly on May 11, 2008:

OBAMA: I will raise CEO taxes. There is no doubt about it. If you are...

BLITZER: What about the average American...

OBAMA: If you are a CEO in this country, you will probably pay more taxes. They won't be prohibitively high. They're -- you're going to be paying roughly what you paid in the '90s, when CEOs were doing just fine.

BLITZER: So, you want to just eliminate the Bush tax cuts?

OBAMA: I want to eliminate the Bush tax cuts. And what I have said is, I will institute a middle-class tax cut.

Here's Obama setting the trap for unsuspecting high-earners on his campaign website:

Families making more than $250,000 will pay either the same or lower tax rates than they paid in the 1990s. Obama will ask the wealthiest 2% of families to give back a portion of the tax cuts they have received over the past eight years to ensure we are restoring fairness and returning to fiscal responsibility.

Ooooooh, that sneaky socialist! Burying his tax increases under so much rhetorical whitewash...

# posted by

Drogon Saurischian : 2:01 PM

Bart, our esteemed historian, clearly has a grasp of presidential politics that we can only begin to strive for (and likely never achieve). His identification of the heretofore undefined FDR/Truman/Kennedy coalition is a brilliant bit of insight. A quick review of the electoral maps from the relevant elections perfectly depicts the remarkable longevity and uniformity of this coalition that stretched over the 28 years between 1932 and 1960...

FDR
1932
1936
1940
1944

Truman
1948

Kennedy
1960

# posted by

Drogon Saurischian : 2:17 PM

Bart DePalma said:

This is very possible. You have just acknowledged how far to the left today's Dems have strayed from the the old FDR/Truman/Kennedy coalition.

It’s the nature of progressives to want progress. In 1860, wanting to outlaw slavery made you a raging liberal. Today slavery is not even an issue.

For some reason, conservatives want to pick some moment in time, point to it, and say “That’s when things were the way they should be.” For Justice Scalia, it seems to be the day the Constitution was signed. For Bart, it seems to be somewhere in the 1950s.

Pointing to what was “liberal” in 1955 as to what “liberal” should mean today makes no more sense that preferring with the computer and telephone technology of 1955 to that of 2008.

As we progress, the center moves to the left. In the long term Bart and his ilk can no more prevent this than one can stop the tide. They can obstruct for awhile, but the tide of history will eventually swallow them up and make them look as ridiculous as owning slaves does to us today.

# posted by

Hank Gillette : 4:44 PM

DePalma said::
JFK made the supply side argument for reducing marginal income tax rates before it was called supply side. Johnson passed the tax cuts after JFK's assassination and the economy boomed.
There you go---the perfect solution to every
economic problem. Bush cut taxes and the housing
market boomed.

# posted by

Farris W : 7:58 AM

Bart tries logic:
The markets are wondering the same thing as they dove 3% today.

Ever hear the phrase "killing turkeys causes winter"?

# posted by

John : 2:38 PM

As we progress, the center moves to the left. In the long term Bart and his ilk can no more prevent this than one can stop the tide. They can obstruct for awhile, but the tide of history will eventually swallow them up and make them look as ridiculous as owning slaves does to us today.

Cultures do not evolve in one direction on a single axis. As nice as your future might sound, be aware that any trend can be reversed. Just think about what AIDS did to the lounge lizard scene... :)

# posted by

PMS_CC : 7:53 PM

The United States of...Argentina?

Rep. George Miller (D-CA), chairman of the House Committee on Education and Labor held hearings earlier in the week on ways the government may confiscate your 401K and IRAs and have the Social Security provide an annuity for you. Of course, if you die before your annuity runs out, the money is confiscated by the government rather than inherited by your heirs.

The rest of the hearings were dedicated to testimony calling for looting the incomes of the wealthy and directly redistributing the money in cash payments to those who do not pay taxes.

This Dem 401K and IRA confiscation scheme is modeled after that being imposed on Argentina by socialist Argentinean President Cristina Fernandez.

# posted by

Bart DePalma : 9:16 PM

The United States of...Argentina?

You told us that with the election of Obama you were pulling your money out of the market and sending it down there... D'oh!

Hey, here's an idea, Bart: Why don't you pull up stakes and move to the Republic of Iraq? I hear that a bunch of powerful neo-cons are trying to create a free-market paradise there.

# posted by

mattski : 8:43 AM