MyDD :: I Agree With Obama Supporters . . .

by Todd Bennett on Thu Jul 19, 2007 at 12:38:19 AM EST
[ Parent ]

No. He attacked the symbols of perceived Democratic failure. Mainly Carter and Johnson. Much like we need to do with Bush, which Obama probably will do.

Re: Reagan Did This (3.00 / 4)

Say huh? Reagan attacked liberalism and the Democratic Party.

Honestly, why are you trying to remake Reagan into what he was not?

by Big Tent Democrat on Thu Jul 19, 2007 at 01:22:32 AM EST
[ Parent ]

by Todd Bennett on Thu Jul 19, 2007 at 02:19:19 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Liberalism was seen as a symbol of failure because of how he was able to label Carter. Much like we need to do with Bush.

Re: Reagan Did This (3.00 / 2)

Reagan did not fall from the sky in 1980.

Honestly, I do think you do not know much about Ronald Reagan and his political rise.

by Big Tent Democrat on Thu Jul 19, 2007 at 10:07:43 AM EST
[ Parent ]

BTD, these folks did not (3.00 / 3)

live through Reagan; nor do they know history. They have a fantasy view of Reagan. Reagan was a racist and classist. He made jokes about "welfare mon's using food stamaps to buy orange juice and vodka." He was absolutely partisan.

Put simply, they are ignorant of history.

by littafi on Thu Jul 19, 2007 at 10:52:40 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: BTD, these folks did not (3.00 / 1)

All so very true. I don't want to knock the youth because I was once a starry eyed idealist too. But their knowledge of actual history comes from books, not the life experience that some of us have.

Reagan was a horrible man and President. He was just like Bush in ignoring the Constitution. He sold weapons to the Iranians after they held our citizens hostage. And all to fund an illegal war. He was a racist and a sexist and a homophobe and an idiot. He was however very popular with his base and could frame things in a way that allowed him to run roughshod over the Constitution and then pretend to not be able to recall what he did or said. He was a much better actor than Hollywood ever gave him credit for. If Carter had not been so ineffective Reagan would never have had a chance. Geez... Reagan also named names during the McCarthy era. He wasn't a good role model for anyone with any integrity. That is why he is the hero of the Neocons, because they have no integrity.

by DoIT on Thu Jul 19, 2007 at 11:30:35 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Reagan Did This (3.00 / 1)

Todd, I don't mean to be personal here, but are you old enough to actually remember the Reagan years?

by bookgrl on Thu Jul 19, 2007 at 01:29:19 AM EST
[ Parent ]

by Todd Bennett on Thu Jul 19, 2007 at 02:23:07 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Yes. I am old enough to remember.

Hmm, really? (none / 0)

by bookgrl on Thu Jul 19, 2007 at 02:40:01 AM EST
[ Parent ]

by Todd Bennett on Thu Jul 19, 2007 at 02:42:33 AM EST
[ Parent ]

1976.

by bookgrl on Thu Jul 19, 2007 at 02:46:57 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Ok, so you're 31. You're pretty young, but still I am suprised you know so little about Reagan.

by Todd Bennett on Thu Jul 19, 2007 at 02:52:27 AM EST
[ Parent ]

30. But, I know more about Reagan than you think. You see, he did indeed attack Democrats relentlessly with one hand while at the same time reaching out to the disaffected with the other. Therein lies the difference. He never completely left the center in terms of rhetoric, which is remembered more then his policy.

by Todd Bennett on Thu Jul 19, 2007 at 02:53:27 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Also, Barack knows how to be unifyingly partisan, which is hard to do.

Re: Hmm, really? (3.00 / 3)

NO NO NO. He didn't reach out to disaffected Democrats, he employed the southern strategy. In fact, Reagan was an excellent divider. He had this way of talking about "Americans" when he really only meant some "Americans". Gays, ethnic and racial minorities, feminists, etc., none of these people fit into Reagan's America. You do Obama no favors by comparing him to Reagan.

by bookgrl on Thu Jul 19, 2007 at 03:00:07 AM EST
[ Parent ]

by Todd Bennett on Thu Jul 19, 2007 at 03:09:05 AM EST
[ Parent ]

I did not compare except to point out the similarites in the movement idea. Reagan did reach out to Democrats-I do not recall saying how he reached out to them was positive. However, Southern strategy had nothing to do with it. Check out the electoral map. Carter lost MO, IL, CA, OH.

by bookgrl on Thu Jul 19, 2007 at 03:15:38 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Ah, sorry wrong. I meant southern strategy as in picking off white working class voters who were... let's say uncomfortable with minorities.

by Todd Bennett on Thu Jul 19, 2007 at 03:22:05 AM EST
[ Parent ]

In 1976 Carter was called a moderate on race issues. Jimmy was hardly seen as a racial progressive at the time. So I dispute your assertion. Polling shows economic dissatisfaction and TWA sunk Carter, not race issues.

by bookgrl on Thu Jul 19, 2007 at 03:37:31 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Here's a quote from an article I found for you: "The failure of the Carter presidency on multiple fronts allowed the Republicans an opportunity to recoup. In 1980, Ronald Reagan used an updated version of the 1968 Nixon class and race strategy, and it worked. The only Southern state Jimmy Carter held on to was his home state of Georgia. Reagan got 51.4 percent of the Southern vote, as compared to 50.5 percent of the Northern vote, and Southern turnout rose to 23.9 percent of the national vote.

In 1984, Reagan faced another Northern liberal, and this time he got more than 14 million Southern votes. His 62.4 percent of the Southern vote was a bit higher than his national percentage."

But go ahead and google Reagan and Southern Strategy and maybe you'll get the idea.

Re: Hmm, really? (3.00 / 2)

well that explains alot. if you are 30- sorry but that means you didn't even experience the clinton races as they were happening, but instead through second hand knowledge. thats why all this wrapping seems new to you.

by bruh21 on Thu Jul 19, 2007 at 10:47:14 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Hmm, really? (3.00 / 1)

My recollection of Reagan is different than yours, at the other end of the same age decade.

I remember a President who relentlessly attacked Democrats - rhetorically, politically, and in terms of policy development.

In light of Rove, et al, who have taken partisan throat-slitting to a whole other level, he may appear somewhat tamer in comparison, but that is really more a function of the context in which he operated as compared to the current context. And he had an entire GOPer/Right Wing apparatus (Heritage, etc.) the arose post-Vietnam to lurch the country to the right (a trend that actually began during Carter's term who many now falsely consider a great liberal given work after his term).

This reach out you are referring to actually worked, in my mind, as demonizing, race-baiting, gay-bating, atheism-bating to make "liberalism" and "Democratic" so tainted that certain demographics previously inside the Democratic tent thought "yuck, I don't want to be lumped in with that".

That's not "reaching out" in my book.

"We live entangled of webs of endless deceit, often self-deceit, but with a little honest effort, it is possible to extricate ourselves from them". -- NC

by Trond Jacobsen on Thu Jul 19, 2007 at 11:40:04 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Stop being condescending. n/t (none / 0)

The history of the left is a history of purists betraying the progressive movement so that they can feel good about their righteous selves.

by Populism2008 on Thu Jul 19, 2007 at 05:27:18 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Stop being condescending. n/t (3.00 / 2)

and there you go again- when someone disagrees you play victim. it is only condescending if someone is trying to act better than for hte purpose of acting better than rather than making a point about experience. or doesn't actual experience matter here?

by bruh21 on Thu Jul 19, 2007 at 10:48:17 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Hmm, really? (3.00 / 1)

So you were 4 when Reagan ran for President in 1980.

I was 4 in 1972 and cannot remember a damned thing about that campaign. I was, however, 12 in 1980 and remember that campaign very well.

You say that Reagan "attacked Carter and Johnson". That's completely wrong. Reagan didn't ever attack Johnson at all and did not make attacking Carter personally one of his main themes. (In contrast to Atwater/Rove/Bush politics, Reagan didn't demonize his opponents in the same way.)

Reagan did constantly berate the "liberal" and "Democrat" labels. He unashamedly and publicly equated "Republican" with "good". Even when he was shot he famously asked if his doctor was a Republican. The implication always was that Democrats are incompetent.

by RickD on Thu Jul 19, 2007 at 11:27:24 AM EST
[ Parent ]

"Another problem we have...is that in election years we behave somewhat as primitive peoples do at the time of the full moon." --Harry Truman

I was 10 in 1980 and I remember the Reagan years the exact same way. Reagan may have won two landslides but he was relentlessly partisan.

by Steve M on Thu Jul 19, 2007 at 04:11:08 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Reagan Did This (3.00 / 0)

FDR tacitly supported third-party candidates and even Republicans in Wisconsin and Georgia, opposed Democrat Huey Long, and refused to endorse Upton Sinclair for California Governor. Call him what you want, but exceedingly partisan he wasn't.

by Nonpartisan on Thu Jul 19, 2007 at 01:26:01 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Reagan Did This (3.00 / 6)

This is ridiculous.

That FDR formed coalitions in specific instances, and coopted the Progressive movement into the Democratic coalition is not the smae as saying he was not partisan.

You would rarely see a more vicious partisan than Roosevelt.

Partisans have poltical enemies in their camps too.

You confuse the two concepts.

You are absolutely wrong about this.

May I direct you to google my writings on FDR at TalkLeft.

by Big Tent Democrat on Thu Jul 19, 2007 at 01:29:02 AM EST
[ Parent ]

In a sense FDR was "partisan" (3.00 / 0)

But his "party" was the New Deal, not the Democrats. One of the "Four Horsemen" on the Supreme Court whom FDR opposed was a Democratic appointee (James McReynolds), and two of the Roosevelt-allied "Three Musketeers" were Republican appointees (Benjamin Cardozo and Harlan Stone, whom FDR later appointed Chief Justice). He opposed Huey Long because Long opposed the New Deal, and Upton Sinclair because Sinclair wanted to go farther than Roosevelt's New Deal reforms; he supported Norris and La Follette because they were staunch New Dealers.

FDR was unquestionably a Democrat. But his efforts to remake the party in his own image were more important to him than simple party labels. He was a partisan for his own ideas first and foremost, with the Democratic Party a distant second. James MacGregor Burns quotes him as saying in 1934, "I am trying to get across the idea that if we have the right kind of people the party label does not mean so very much" (The Deadlock of Democracy, p. 159).

More discussion of this going up at my place shortly.

by Nonpartisan on Thu Jul 19, 2007 at 04:36:44 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: In a sense FDR was "partisan" (3.00 / 5)

His PArty was the Democrats. His AGENDA was the New Deal.

That you did not5 see how FDR made them synonomous is a demonstration of how folks seem not to understand PArty branding.

by Big Tent Democrat on Thu Jul 19, 2007 at 09:15:03 AM EST
[ Parent ]

The "Portland Speech", September 21, 1932:

And how did he talk?

Was it smash-mouth, in-your-face, anti-Republican rhetoric?

When questions like these are under consideration, we are not Democrats, we are not Republicans; we are a people united in a common patriotism. This is the spirit of my entire campaign.

How about FDR's 'Forgotten Man' Speech, April 7, 1932
Just into the speech, the SECOND sentence is:

I do not want to feel that I am addressing an audience of Democrats or that I speak merely as a Democrat myself. The present condition of our national affairs is too serious to be viewed through partisan eyes for partisan purposes.

And that's the very last time in the speech any party name is given.

Your dislike for this style of rhetoric has little bearing on whether the population at large will react. But FDR certainly had no problem positioning himself as above/beyond partisan posturing.

by jacortina on Thu Jul 19, 2007 at 10:38:31 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: In a sense FDR was "partisan" (3.00 / 2)

Oh for crissakes. link:

This is a funny campaign. It is a strange campaign. Here it is almost the day of election and it is still impossible to determine what are the principles of the opposition party. What is it that the Republican leaders would do during the next four years if they were given a chance?
They have made campaign speeches on all sides of all questions.

On a Monday we hear that this Administration has done a good job in its foreign policy; but on Tuesday we hear the foreign policies of the United States condemned.

On a Wednesday we understand that our policy toward agriculture should not be changed; and on Thursday we learn to our amazement that the farmers have been the victims of the New Deal and are forced to exist on a dole.

And so it goes. On a Friday we are treated to the encouraging thought that the social gains of labor during the past seven years should be continued; and on Saturday we are told to weep because labor has been the principal sufferer under the New Deal. (Laughter)

To one group, further and bigger relief is held out; and to the big taxpayers, cuts in expenditures are promised.

One day they say they would continue our good neighbor policy; the next day they hurl insults at certain of our good neighbors to the south.

That is the way they seek to catch a vote here and catch a vote there and pick one out of the air.

There is, however, one explanation for these contradictions, rather a sad explanation. It is found in the very strange assortment of political bedfellows who have been brought together in the Republican political dormitory.

Many conflicting interests, many irreconcilable social outlooks, many fundamentally opposite economic attitudes, have been thrown together under one political roof.

The only common philosophy and the only common purpose they have is to get wholly rid of all the New Deal--lock, stock and barrel--and to get control of Government in their own hands for their own purposes.

Just as they have not been able to foist their falsifications on the American people, they will never be able to foist this only common purpose of theirs upon the American people now.

We will all see to that next Tuesday.

We all know the story of the unfortunate chameleon which turned brown when placed on a brown rug, and turned red when placed on a red rug, but who died a tragic death when they put him on a Scotch plaid. We all know what would happen to Government if it tried to fulfill all the secret understandings and promises made between the conflicting groups which are now backing the Republican Party.

There is something very ominous in this combination that has been forming within the Republican Party between the extreme reactionary and the extreme radical elements of this country.

There is no common ground upon which they can unite--we know that-unless it be their common will to power, and their impatience with the normal democratic processes to produce overnight the inconsistent dictatorial ends that they, each of them, seek. . .

You compare a speech of a pol cruising to a landslide victory to one locked in partisan battle. And you think the "non-partisan" speech is the one that is the true example of FDR's political style?

FDR was one of the most divisive politicans we have ever seen. He as demonized hated reviled by the Republican Party. And he hated them.

FDR was one of the high practioners of the Politics of Contrast.

Let me remind you of a phrase - "economic royalists."

by Big Tent Democrat on Thu Jul 19, 2007 at 11:09:23 AM EST
[ Parent ]

by jacortina on Thu Jul 19, 2007 at 11:23:41 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Learn some history.

The 'Forgotten Man' speech was at teh beginning of his run for the nomination.

He used the rhetoric that happened to be working at the time.

And bozos sniping in from the sidelines about his 'style' made no difference in how he decided to speak. And his agenda was the same no matter how he talked about it.

It's really not that hard to understand. My teenage daughter gets it fine. What's wrong with you that you can't?

Re: In a sense FDR was "partisan" (3.00 / 2)

Learn some what?

How about you understand what FDR's political position was in 1932.

How about you listen and watch and see everything FDR said and didd from 1933 to 1940 and se if you can with a straight face argue he was not partisan.

This is simply anti-historical.

I see no point to discussing the idea of political partisanship with someone who is arguing that FDR was nonpartisan.

Imo, it is simply a ludicrous statement.

by Big Tent Democrat on Thu Jul 19, 2007 at 11:45:12 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Campaign Address at Columbus, Ohio, August 20, 1932:

Learn to read first, I guess I should have said.

I at no time indicated he wasn't partisan. Not once.

I indicatred that in his run up to his initial nomination and election, he used rhetoric which was quite often absolutely non-partisan. which 'reached across the divide'.

I do note ALL the examples you give of this pre-presidential period. Oh, that's right, you completely failed to back up your assertions. Way to support your argument.

You think that the two examples I gave aren't indicative? There are more -

Campaign Speech in Atlanta, Ga., October 24, 1932:

I am confident after the 4th of March next that the American people will find a greater co-operation between these two great branches of government - a better relationship in which not only democrats but republicans as well take part.

Damn his 'Kumbaya'-singing, come-together tripe.

I regret that necessity, for destructive criticism is never justified for its own sake. And yet, to build we must first clear the ground. We must find out why the Republican leadership--and mind you, all the way through this campaign I am not talking about the millions of fine men and women who make up the Republican Party, I am addressing my remarks to the Republican leadership--why that Republican leadership built so unwisely.

Way to hammer those Republicans! Pandering to the Republican BASE (as opposed to its leadership in the then-current administration) is NOT the language of unabashed partisanship.

Sorry, but you can't simply declare history to be the way you wish it to be. Of course FDR was the strongest of Democrats. But while he was seeking to become president, he used quite a bit of specifically non-partisan and even conciliatory language.

by jacortina on Thu Jul 19, 2007 at 12:12:45 PM EST
[ Parent ]

by Big Tent Democrat on Thu Jul 19, 2007 at 02:23:05 PM EST
[ Parent ]

You are not hearing me.

In 1932, FDR was headed to a landslide victory.

In 1984, Reagan was headed to a landslide victory.

Candidates in those situation stay above the fray.

I suggest you look for statements by FDR outside of that campaign to buttress your point.

You'll find that history is on my side on this point.

Facts, schmacts... (none / 0)

Your whole problem here is that you are relying too much on your head, instead of your gut. Don't you know that you have more nerve endings in your gut than your head?

It's no wonder that those advocating for "post-partisanship" reject your bookish history, after all reality has a well known liberal bias.

The funny thing is that the Radical Right also wants to get to a post-partisan world, which will come to be when they are finished vanquishing their true "enemy". No, that "real enemy" is not Al Qaeda, not China, not N Korea, and not Iran. The "real enemy" is liberals.

Future Majority / Young Philly Politics

by Alex Urevick on Fri Jul 20, 2007 at 09:16:30 AM EST
[ Parent ]

by jacortina on Thu Jul 19, 2007 at 11:25:48 AM EST
[ Parent ]

And I note that you can only give an example of FDR speaking from the strength of the incumbency.

And you can't actually figure out that that makes a difference?

by Big Tent Democrat on Thu Jul 19, 2007 at 11:46:26 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Indeed I can.

Can you figure out that a political candidate headed to a landslide victory doies not need to be partisan?

See, eg, Reagan, Ronald, 1984.

And he was an incumbent too.

Does that mean anything to you?

by jacortina on Thu Jul 19, 2007 at 12:19:36 PM EST
[ Parent ]

I include quotes where he was not yet the nominee.

And since it took four ballots for him to actually be chosen, any attempt to claim that he was inevitable when making those earlier comments are, to say the least, mistaken.

by Big Tent Democrat on Thu Jul 19, 2007 at 02:23:56 PM EST
[ Parent ]

He was running for President throughout 1932 even though he became the nominee in the summer.

That is a silly distinction.

by Big Tent Democrat on Thu Jul 19, 2007 at 11:50:21 AM EST
[ Parent ]

BTW, the Portland speech is a great speech where FDR strongly and ably defends government intervention against laizzez faire capitalism.

He does NOT say "on the one hand . . "

Could you find the sdpeech by Obama that you think most resembles that speech?

I can find none.

by Big Tent Democrat on Thu Jul 19, 2007 at 11:51:06 AM EST
[ Parent ]

In fact, you have inspired to write another diary, this time on that speech comparing it to the typical Obama speech.

Thank you.

If you do, you should use this one. (none / 0)

In 2005, Obama gave a commencement address at Knox College. It's an incredible speech about a robust, American liberal worldview.

From the TNR review:

What happens when a prominent political figure who's usually a media star gives a great speech that doesn't get much news coverage? If the pol and the staff are smart, they'll keep using the frame and the phrasings until the news media, political insiders, and, eventually, a national audience start paying attention--and the speech that once was ignored becomes the politician's trademark. That, at any rate, is what happened to Ronald Reagan's case for conservatism, Mario Cuomo's tribute to "the family of America," and John Edwards's populist stump speech.

Much the same fate may await the commencement address Barack Obama delivered at Knox College on June 4. The speech got little coverage outside local papers and has been largely ignored by columnists and talking heads. Perhaps that's because few national journalists or even Chicago-based reporters are inclined to visit Galesburg, Illinois, on a Saturday; or maybe because Obama's speech didn't make news in the conventional sense--it contained no attacks on his adversaries, no announcements of new policy proposals, no slurs on entire segments of society.

All Obama did was make the best case for liberal politics in recent memory, with a panoramic view of American history that made public investment in job training and new technologies sound like the logical descendents of the Civil Rights movement, the New Deal, the Progressive Era, the abolitionists, and the American Revolution.

Link to review:
http://obama.senate.gov/news/050620-stum ped_barack_star/index.php

Here's a sampling:

The true test of the American ideal is whether we are able to recognize our failings and then rise together to meet the challenges of our time. Whether we allow ourselves to be shaped by events and history, or whether we act to shape them. Whether chance of birth or circumstance decides life's big winners and losers, or whether we build a community where, at the very least, everyone has a chance to work hard, get ahead, and reach their dreams.

We have faced this choice before.

At the end of the Civil War, when farmers and their families began moving into the cities to work in the big factories that were sprouting up all across America, we had to decide: Do we do nothing and allow the captains of industry and robber barons to run roughshod over the economy and workers by competing to see who can pay the lowest wage at the worst working conditions?

Or do we try to make the system work by setting up basic rules for the market, and instituting the first public schools, and busting up monopolies, and letting workers organize into unions?

We chose to act, and we rose together.

When the irrational exuberance of the Roaring Twenties came crashing down with the stock market, we had to decide: do we follow the call of leaders who would do nothing, or the call of a leader who, perhaps because of his physical paralysis, refused to accept political paralysis?

We chose to act - regulating the market, putting people back to work, expanding bargaining rights to include health care and a secure retirement - and together we rose.

When World War II required the most massive homefront mobilization in history and we needed every single American to lend a hand, we had to decide: Do we listen to the skeptics who told us it wasn't possible to produce that many tanks and planes?

Or, did we build Roosevelt's Arsenal of Democracy and grow our economy even further by providing our returning heroes with a chance to go to college and own their own home?

Again, we chose to act, and again, we rose together.

Today, at the beginning of this young century, we have to decide again. But this time, it's your turn to choose.

Link to speech:
http://www.barackobama.com/2005/06/04/re marks_of_us_senator_barack_o.php

by rashomon on Thu Jul 19, 2007 at 05:36:44 PM EST
[ Parent ]

He made them synonymous (none / 0)

by going OUTSIDE his party as needed to change it.

FDR wasn't bipartisan, but he was more interested in shaping his party around his agenda than shaping his agenda around his party. He made them synonymous by talking bipartisanship while acting in a highly partisan way. That could very well be what Obama is doing, though I don't think it is. But the problem with Obama is not his rhetoric, it's his actions, which are not in line with party-building.

by Nonpartisan on Thu Jul 19, 2007 at 02:57:08 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: He made them synonymous (none / 0)

look stop making shit up. support whoever you want, but you are making up history

by bruh21 on Thu Jul 19, 2007 at 05:18:33 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: He made them synonymous (none / 0)

FDR crashed the gates is what you are saying.

And you are right.

So what is your point? Obama is not doing that.

by Big Tent Democrat on Thu Jul 19, 2007 at 06:59:47 PM EST
[ Parent ]

No, he's not (none / 0)

My point isn't about Obama -- I agree with your characterization of him. I disagree with your characterization of FDR.

by Nonpartisan on Thu Jul 19, 2007 at 10:30:06 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Reagan Did This (3.00 / 1)

Are you kidding me with this stuff? Packing the court, threatening the GOP in Congress to name just some of his actions. His agenda was based on it. I have to ask- are some of you people really Democrats because you seem to know nothing of your own history.

by bruh21 on Thu Jul 19, 2007 at 02:19:22 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Just because you disagree with me (none / 0)

doesn't mean that I'm not a Democrat, or that I "seem to know nothing of [my] own history." On the contrary, lobbing such accusations at me paints a rather bad picture of your own ability to debate honestly and honorably.

I've answered your points in detail in my response to BTD above.

by Nonpartisan on Thu Jul 19, 2007 at 04:42:08 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Just because you disagree with me (3.00 / 1)

honestly i dont give a shit whether you are a democrat. the fact you bring it up in the middle of a discussion about fdr is why i find most o fyou illogical and hightly emotional rather than saying anything remotely useful toward understanding the subject matter. and as for all the rest of what you say- i suppose all the historians. courses i took in college on the subject, and multiple other sources both anectotal and through books are wrong, but now with this revisionist history we have always been about non partisanship. it's just plain stupid feel goodism and i dont care if you don't like it.

by bruh21 on Thu Jul 19, 2007 at 10:50:46 AM EST
[ Parent ]

by skeptica on Thu Jul 19, 2007 at 10:23:43 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Reagan might have mercilessly attacked liberals and specific contemporary Democrats--but in his presidential campaigns he repeatedly quoted and thus identified himself with DEMOCRATIC presidents and heroes such as FDR and Truman. He coopted democratic symbols and ideals and rhetoric to get elected. It was maddening at the least. He captured conservative Democrats with the idea that they weren't leaving the party; the party had already deserted them.

Re: Reagan Did This (3.00 / 2)

Oh really? Like in Philadelphia, Mississippi to kick off his 1980 campaign?

You must be joking.

by Big Tent Democrat on Thu Jul 19, 2007 at 11:11:16 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Reagan Did This (3.00 / 1)

I don't remember Reagan once comparing himself to any Democrat. Obviously he would not compare himself to Nixon, but I always got the sense that he was trying to inherit Ike's mantle.

And he was very pro-Goldwater.

All of the stuff about the Democratic party "deserting" Democrats (i.e. "Reagan Democrats", who were basically Southern Democrats) is an after-effect of the Civil Rights movement. Southern Democrats were not all that fond of the Civil Rights movement. Remember that, before Nixon, the Democratic party was the locus of Southern racism, while the Republicans were the party of Lincoln. Nixon and Reagan changed that dynamic to what it is today, where Southern racism is located in the Republican party.

In no way does this mean that Reagan was anything less than a partisan Republican. After all, he personally started out as a Democrat. But there were no vestiges of what we currently think of as "Democratic" ideals even in the 1960s.

by RickD on Thu Jul 19, 2007 at 11:34:48 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: I Agree With Obama Supporters . . . (3.00 / 3)

Are you familiar with Nixon's southern strategy? That had a whole lot more to do with Democrats voting for Reagan than redefining the Republican brand in a "positive way". And, by the way, Dem's are in the best position they've been in in decades. The Republicans are at their lowest ebb. Now, is not the time to run away from the Party. This has alot more to do with Obama running as the "outsider" and probably banking on getting indies into the primary in order to win than it does redifining politics.

by bookgrl on Thu Jul 19, 2007 at 12:45:46 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: I Agree With Obama Supporters . . . (1.00 / 2)

You realize of course that we are not popular. It's just that voters prefer the taste of Milk of Magnesia (us) to Castor Oil (them). We desperately need an independent Democrat to create excitement about our party.

by Todd Bennett on Thu Jul 19, 2007 at 12:51:44 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: I Agree With Obama Supporters . . . (none / 0)

Not true, absolutely untrue. Obama is no more "independent" than any one else running. And, whomever the next President, they can create support for the Party by proper governance, something sorely lacking the last 8 years.

by bookgrl on Thu Jul 19, 2007 at 12:54:53 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: I Agree With Obama Supporters . . . (none / 0)

Though it took me a while to realize this, Obama's 2002 "Dumb war" speech to me proves you wrong. He was an independent thinking Democrat we could have desperately used.

by Todd Bennett on Thu Jul 19, 2007 at 12:57:10 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: I Agree With Obama Supporters . . . (3.00 / 2)

He wasn't in the Senate. He was in a district that was heavily anti-war. Well, I was against the war from the start and this stuff doesn't move me at all. Obama is a Cook county career politician. I stand by what I said, he's no more independent than Hillary, Edwards or Richardson. That's not a knock on him. I think all four are good Democrats. But I don't prescribe to the notion Obama is anymore independent than the next. We'll have to agree to disagree I guess.

by bookgrl on Thu Jul 19, 2007 at 01:05:06 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: I Agree With Obama Supporters . . . (none / 0)

His district...of Illinois?

by faithfull on Thu Jul 19, 2007 at 06:52:36 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: I Agree With Obama Supporters . . . (3.00 / 1)

You realize of course that we are not popular.

WRONG (shout intended!)

What ISN'T popular are the namby pamby afraid to stand up to the Neocon Democrats: Democrats that let people like Gingrich/Limbaugh/Hannity/Cheney/Coulter /McConnell/Boehner (the seven headed beast) define our party and obstruct Democracy. Leaders like Harry Reid that wait till now to finally grow some. Democrats that allow these Neocon assholes to get away with calling us immoral baby killers and godless so and sos.

I GUARANTEE you that if we start standing up to these Neocons liars and thieves we WILL be popular once again. The fact that we haven't as a party stood up to them has disenchanted our base.

by DoIT on Thu Jul 19, 2007 at 09:25:42 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: I Agree With Obama Supporters . . . (3.00 / 2)

We desperately need an independent Democrat to create excitement about our party.

We have an independent Democrat in the Senate: Lieberman. I don't want one in the White House.

by domma on Thu Jul 19, 2007 at 09:31:04 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: I Agree With Obama Supporters . . . (3.00 / 2)

I think this comment says it all. You don't actually believe in the ideals of the Democratic party.

Many of us think that voters prefer the policies of the Democratic party, but dislike the unending stream of weak leaders that this party seems to offer. Having yet another leader who feels embarrassment about his own constituency (i.e. 'Democrats') is not going to solve this problem. To have real political power Democrats need to do more than win individual elections using triangulation strategies. (Look at how little Clinton got done in the White House.) To have real political power will require a sea change in terms of getting people to respect Democrats.

A person like yourself who views Democrats as "Milk of Magnesia" is unlikely to help our cause.

by RickD on Thu Jul 19, 2007 at 11:41:27 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: I Agree With Obama Supporters . . . (none / 0)

I hope you are right.

That would be heartening to me believe it or not.

by Big Tent Democrat on Thu Jul 19, 2007 at 01:09:38 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: I Agree With Obama Supporters . . . (none / 0)

This is a fundamental misunderstanding of how Reagan operated politically.

Help build a stronger and more progressive Democratic Party from the grassroots on up

by Peter from WI on Thu Jul 19, 2007 at 01:13:47 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: I Agree With Obama Supporters . . . (3.00 / 0)

You're just feiging shock. Give up the act. If you are for real, than you are more loyal to the party than to progressive values. The two are not synonomous. And if you thinl they are than you are truly out of touch. Many of us find that the Democratic values does not speak to our concerns as much as it should, though of course far more than the republicans. Indeed, there are many things that I find very disturbing about the party.

For people like me, then, I'm not content with the party as is and not willing to devote my blind loyalty to it. No, I seek to comandeer the party, mold the party into something more closer to where I'm at. Just because the Democratic Party is ideal for you as currently situated, it doesn't mean that it's that way for the rest of us.

by bode78 on Thu Jul 19, 2007 at 12:37:55 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: I Agree With Obama Supporters . . . (3.00 / 4)

This comment makes no sense.

Obama is not critiquing the Party from the Left but from the Right.

Unless your idea is to mold the Party to the Center Right your simply are not making sense.

Consider the arguments being forwarded here, Obama appeals to Independents and Republicans, he is not doing that be arguing for a more progressive party but for a less progressive party.

by Big Tent Democrat on Thu Jul 19, 2007 at 01:07:47 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: I Agree With Obama Supporters . . . (1.00 / 1)

Rename yourself "Small Tent"

by bode78 on Thu Jul 19, 2007 at 12:40:38 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: I Agree With Obama Supporters . . . (3.00 / 3)

Is this the adults in action?

by Big Tent Democrat on Thu Jul 19, 2007 at 01:08:31 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: I Agree With Obama Supporters . . . (3.00 / 1)

Ah, the adults have arrived.

Sheesh.

by Big Tent Democrat on Thu Jul 19, 2007 at 01:10:22 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: I Agree With Obama Supporters . . . (none / 0)

tHIS IS JUST PLAIN NITPICKING. wHY DON'T YOU TALK ABOUT SUBSTANCE.
1 iraq
2 healthcare
3 energy

Then you can criticize his plans and show his short comings. Why not look at Clinton's also. She has no plan on Healthcare.

by BDM on Thu Jul 19, 2007 at 09:07:42 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Running against... (none / 0)

... the Democratic Party like Howard Dean did, you mean?

What's the Point?

by Vermonter on Thu Jul 19, 2007 at 09:09:43 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Historical Revisionsim Much? (none / 0)

Yeah, when Dean was saying he "represents the Democratic Wing of the Democratic Party" what he really meant was that we need to get beyond the whole Democratic Party thing.

Future Majority / Young Philly Politics

by Alex Urevick on Fri Jul 20, 2007 at 09:35:56 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Hmmm (none / 0)

this must be the royal "we"?

a lot of people taking the poll seem to completely agree with what Obama is saying.

by okamichan13 on Thu Jul 19, 2007 at 11:55:04 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: I Agree With Obama Supporters . . . (none / 0)

You are full of it Todd. Please give us a break sir.

by lonnette33 on Thu Jul 19, 2007 at 02:16:53 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: I Agree With Obama Supporters . . . (3.00 / 1)

I am not stall shocked because downplaying of partsian rhetoric is simply Obama being Obama.

Remeber the line fom the '04 convention speech: "There are no Red States, theer are no Blue State, there is only the United States of America".

Before that he was known as a liberal who worked conspicuously well the GOPers in the IL Senate; one of them recently did a commercial for Obama that was shown in Iowa.

Obama overall strategy seems to be to downplay party identification in the hope of making it easier to pull indenpendents and disaffected Republicans over to the Progressive side.

Time will tell if that is an effective strategy for either getting elected and getting progressive poliices enacted.

In the meeantime, if you prefer partisian red meat over Obama's grilled salmon, there is always Edwards and Kucinich.

by Sam I Am on Thu Jul 19, 2007 at 11:33:28 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: I Agree With Obama Supporters . . . (none / 0)

No, I was not shocked. I expect this sort of stuff from Obama. For the life of me, I do not understand what he stands for. The "can we all just get along" bullshit has got to go.

by lonnette33 on Thu Jul 19, 2007 at 02:29:46 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Keep hating (1.00 / 1)

I smile at you like a mcdonal meal.

by JaeHood on Thu Jul 19, 2007 at 12:12:54 AM EST

by Big Tent Democrat on Thu Jul 19, 2007 at 12:14:52 AM EST
[ Parent ]

what?

What a buzarre comment.

BTW, do you agree with the comments I cite?

A simple question.

by BDM on Thu Jul 19, 2007 at 09:09:47 AM EST
[ Parent ]

I just saw Zogby's poll on Congress 14% APPROVAL
Bush WAS AT 34%

bIG TENT i DON'T THINK YOUR METHOD is a winner.

Re: Keep hating (3.00 / 2)

you think the present congress is partisan? what's behind the polling numbers? you really don't get it do you. it's precisely all this stuff yo uare arguing that's behind it. rather than fighting harder the congress gave up on many things earlier in the year. the public responded to that. and you are now using their lack of courage as a sign that the public is tired of partisanship. you confuse their being tired with nothing getting done in washington for their goals with wanting to be nonpartisan. those aren't the same things. things can get done, and are more likely to get done in an environment in which you aren't layering it with feel goodism than it will in one in which you are.

by bruh21 on Thu Jul 19, 2007 at 10:53:49 AM EST
[ Parent ]

by lonnette33 on Thu Jul 19, 2007 at 02:18:54 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Well said bruh21.