Is Obama a Socialist?

[DuncanONeil]

As usual you do not bother to let anyone know to what, or who, you are responding.

That makes it very hard to form a coherent response. Further much of what you say sounds like unsupported "talking points".

Therefore dream on!

Wow I think I finally agree with you on 1 point, its ridiculous for the Americans who caused the crisis to try and dictate to the world how it should be solved.

The rest however I rather vehemently dispute.
Your polling numbers look like data coming off fox news, if you look at the recent gallup poll, Obama is doing acceptably. Are you confusing numbers from a particular state with national numbers?

Regarding the Oil Spill what do you want him to do, nationalize the rig, put in experts and solve it? The problem is that rig didn't meet basic standards regulated by most of the world, but not required by the US anti-regulation party (aka the Republicans who cry communism whenever someone tries to pass a reasonable regulation that tries to prevent a catastrophic oil spill.) Basic equipment that could have prevented the spill was absent from the rig because the US government is one of few in the world that chose not to require it.

As for the sacking of the General, it is impossible to execute policy on the ground when people not only disagree with you but air their grievances publicly. The US has been at war in Afghanistan that the idea they have only ONE counterinsurgency expert for the region is ludicrous.

As for Obama being a socialist, he's to the right of most of the world. His health care plan is far to the right of the plan that Britains convervatives don't dare attack in virtually every other country in the world he'd be in a right wing party. The democrats nominated him in the primaries because he was to the RIGHT of Clinton who was seen as too left to win. Clinton was also seen as a repeat of a Clinton presidency which wasn't accused of being socialist.

[mkemse]

No, I do not believe he is

[Lion]

As usual you do not bother to let anyone know to what, or who, you are responding.

That makes it very hard to form a coherent response. Further much of what you say sounds like unsupported "talking points".

Therefore dream on!

How about just rebutting the "talking points" instead of being critical on the way he conveyed his opinion?

[DuncanONeil]

No, I do not believe he is

Why not? Most of what he is forcing down the nations throat is socialist agenda items.

[DuncanONeil]

How about just rebutting the "talking points" instead of being critical on the way he conveyed his opinion?

Because without the reference of what caused him to say what he did it is difficult to understand what gave rise to what he said.
There are other reasons, more personal in nature, That I choose to reserve.

[leo9]

How about just rebutting the "talking points" instead of being critical on the way he conveyed his opinion?

Since he can't, he's got to find some other response.

[leo9]

Why not? Most of what he is forcing down the nations throat is socialist agenda items.

Cheer up! You are not alone in your struggle:
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worl...billboard.html

I mean, we can all see what he means about Obama being in "lock-step" with Hitler. Didn't he abolish the rights of habeas corpus, jury trial and peaceful protest, set up a new police organisation with the right to make secret wiretaps and monitor citizens' library lists and internet use, authorise interogation by torture and run a prison camp outside the law where detainees have no rights?

Or was that another President? No, couldn't have been; these defenders of liberty would have been up in arms about it right away.

[DuncanONeil]

It is kind of hard to respond when he, essentially, refused to provide any reference to the issue his response is related to.
For example; "The rest however I rather vehemently dispute.
Your polling numbers look like data coming off fox news, if you look at the recent gallup poll, Obama is doing acceptably. Are you confusing numbers from a particular state with national numbers?"

Which poll is he talking about? Without that info how would you respond!?!?!

[DuncanONeil]

Cheer up! You are not alone in your struggle:
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worl...billboard.html

I mean, we can all see what he means about Obama being in "lock-step" with Hitler. Didn't he abolish the rights of habeas corpus,

We know the following to be true;

• On April 27, 1861, the writ of habeas corpus was suspended by President Abraham Lincoln in Maryland and parts of midwestern states, including southern Indiana, during the American Civil War. Lincoln did so in response to riots, local militia actions, and the threat that the border slave state of Maryland would secede from the Union, leaving the nation's capital, Washington, D.C., surrounded by hostile territory. Lincoln chose to suspend the writ over a proposal to bombard Baltimore,
  
• In 1942, eight German saboteurs, including two U.S. citizens, who had entered the United States were convicted by a secret military court set up by President Franklin Delano Roosevelt. In Ex parte Quirin (1942)[12] the U.S. Supreme Court decided that the writ of habeas corpus did not apply, and that the military tribunal had jurisdiction to try the saboteurs, due to their status as unlawful combatants.
  
• In the aftermath of the Japanese attack on Pearl Harbor martial law was declared in Hawaii and habeas corpus was suspended, pursuant to a section of the Hawaiian Organic Ac. The period of martial law in Hawaii ended in October 1944.
  
• The November 13, 2001 Presidential Military Order purported to give the President of the United States the power to detain non-citizens suspected of connection to terrorists or terrorism as enemy combatants. As such, that person could be held indefinitely, without charges being filed against him or her, without a court hearing, and without legal counsel. Many legal and constitutional scholars contended that these provisions were in direct opposition to habeas corpus, and the United States Bill of Rights. However in Hamdi v. Rumsfeld (2004)[15] the U.S. Supreme Court re-confirmed the right of every American citizen to access habeas corpus even when declared to be an enemy combatant. The Court affirmed the basic principle that habeas corpus could not be revoked in the case of a citizen.

However in the case of the later there was never an attempt to suspend Habeas Corpus. Only an argument that such had occurred. As the actual act was that of Congress ...

jury trial

Depends on how you see a jury trial. Can an alien actually have a jury of his peers in the US? Further why must a "jury trial" be only those trials held in specific court with the jury drawn from a pool of US voters in the district where the trial is to be held? Trails were scheduled to be held with juries to be impaneled. Is this not a jury trial?

and peaceful protest,

Did not happen!

set up a new police organisation with the right to make secret wiretaps and monitor citizens' library lists and internet use,

No new police organization has been set up with these powers. Besides by definition all wiretaps are secret, no one has been monitoring library lists, and the very idea that internet usage can be monitored is ludicrous.

authorise interogation by torture

Not so! With the understanding that everyone seems to have a very different idea of what constitutes torture. by the definition of some all the police departments in the land engage intorture during interigations of criminal suspects.

and run a prison camp outside the law where detainees have no rights?

Again another attempt to garner a certain kind of feeling in the reader. The camp was not run outside the law. The detainees were well treated and provided with virtually all the rights enumerated in the Conventions.

Or was that another President? No, couldn't have been; these defenders of liberty would have been up in arms about it right away.

Sarcasm wasted!!

[Torq]

ENOUGH!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Stay on topic or seek life elsewhere!!!!!!

ENOUGH!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

I will not warn again!

T

[leo9]

and peaceful protest,

Did not happen!

Does the Orwellian term "Free Speech Zone" ring a bell? As several commentators observed, up till then they'd supposed that the USA was a Free Speech Zone.

Just imagine the howls if Obama were to corral the Teabaggers out of sight like that.

[DuncanONeil]

Does the Orwellian term "Free Speech Zone" ring a bell? As several commentators observed, up till then they'd supposed that the USA was a Free Speech Zone.

Just imagine the howls if Obama were to corral the Teabaggers out of sight like that.

There was nothing in your post or the article about corrals.

[steelish]

Okay, let's approach this a bit differently, because we are straying a touch off topic and beginning to get defensive and a little irritated with each other. There are many, many reasons for many Americans to believe that Obama is Socialist. There are many many reasons for many Americans to believe we've had Socialist-leaning Presidents in the past. Obama is simply the current one who has the backing and support of some very powerful self-avowed Communists, Marxists and Revolutionary Socialists. He (Obama) is slated by those who've been working towards America becoming a Socialist-run country as their spearhead to get it done.

Here's a hard concept to get your arms around: It's the concept that there are people in this country who want to intentionally collapse our economic system.

How could it be that any American would or would want to do such a thing? Well, those involved sleep just fine at night because they tell themselves that they're not collapsing, they're transforming — transforming — America into something better.

The progressive movement in which these people are involved started around the turn of last century. These are the same people who gave us the Federal Reserve. They brought America the concept of redistribution of wealth through the progressive income tax, telling Americans at first that only the rich would be affected. They are the same people who felt that they knew better about your health than you did that they needed to force you to stop drinking alcohol-through Prohibition. They brought us the League of Nations, then the United Nations. And their biggest contribution of all: They brought the understanding that our Constitution was a flawed, living, breathing document and that our Founding Fathers were a group of rich racists.

Now, today's group of progressives do not speak the same language as many other Americans and myself do: Economic justice is taking from haves and giving to the have nots; social justice, to quote Mark Lloyd, is when someone needs to step down so someone else can have turn, and transforming America means collapsing the state as we know it and rebooting it as a progressive utopia.

None of the language is the same. What I would call socialist, they call social justice. That's critical to understand; they really believe they're making things better and they're about to finish the process.

They learned from their earlier failed attempts to transform America and the world, like the League of Nations.

First, there can't be a debate. They simply declare the debate over and that they have consensus already.

Second, they can't conduct their transformation in the open.

And third, they can never let a good crisis go to waste.

Now, as we discuss this, keep in mind that you're watching all of this through your eyes; you see this as trying to collapse our economy. But progressives see this as a fundamental transformation — something better than we've ever had — as promised by Barack Obama.

So, let me introduce you to the people you would say are fundamentally responsible for the unsustainability and possible collapse of our economic system: Richard Cloward and Francis Fox Piven, authors of the Cloward-Piven strategy. Something else to remember is that this isn't some conspiracy theory that we're tossing out; they wrote about collapsing the economy and how they planned to do it in the article they co-authored in the '60s called, "Mobilizing the Poor: How it Could Be Done." Six months later, it was published in The Nation, under the title "The Weight of the Poor: A Strategy to End Poverty."

So, just what is Cloward-Piven? Simply put: Cloward and Piven were radical Columbia professors in the 1960s who believed in "change" and "social justice." Inspired by the riots in Los Angeles in 1965, they wrote and published their article which outlined the best way to bring the kind of Saul Alinsky-type social change to America. In their estimation, it was to overwhelm the system and bring about the fall of capitalism by overloading the government bureaucracy with impossible demands and bring on economic collapse.

Cloward and Piven instructed activists that if a crisis did not exist, promote or manufacture one by exaggerating some unthreatening predicament. (Global warming anyone? And to an extent, health care?)

Their methods worked ... for a while. From 1965 through 1974, due to the strategy and efforts of Cloward and Piven and their followers, the total recipients on welfare rocketed from 4.3 million to 10.8 million. In 1975, there were nearly 1 million welfare recipients in New York City alone. That year, New York City declared bankruptcy. The whole state nearly went down with them.

In 1998, as he was still trying to deal with some of the fallout 20 years later, Mayor Rudy Giuliani referred to the Cloward and Piven strategy, describing the economic sabotage (JULY 20, 1998):

RUDY GIULIANI, NEW YORK CITY MAYOR: "This wasn't an accident; it wasn't an atmospheric thing; it wasn't supernatural. It was the result of policies, choices and a philosophy that was embraced in the 1960s and then enthusiastically endorsed in the City of New York."

He went on to say: "This is the result of policies and programs designed to have the maximum number of people get on welfare."

In the end, it didn't work because Americans became horrified with the welfare-state situation. As a result, Cloward and Piven and their devotees learned that they needed to be in the system — we've shown you how they've done that.

The stimulus bill was written in large part by the Apollo Alliance, whose alumni include Van Jones. In New York, the Apollo Alliance is headed by Weather Underground co-founder, Jeff Jones, partner to Bill Ayers in the radical terrorist group and in whose living room Barack Obama launched his political career in Chicago.

George Soros is the source of funding for so many of these radical groups and Soros and Jeff Jones went into one of the poorest sections of New York and gave away hundreds of thousands of dollars worth of the stimulus money.

How about ACORN? These "community organizers" are receiving untold billions in taxpayer money, despite massive voter registration fraud and corruption. Still, Congress won't turn off the spicket.

Does it sound like someone is trying to overload the system yet?

Throw in TARP — a massive, inexplicable bailout that America didn't want for people Obama himself described as "fat cats". And, by the way, you have the progressives in the Republican as well as the Democratic Party to thank for that.

A trillion and a half dollar health care overhaul that less than 36 percent of the American people want, but Obama along with House and Senate Democrats forced it on us. They say it will only cost us a trillion dollars because of the savings they'll get by making cuts to Medicare at the same time they're expanding Medicare and Medicaid.

Medicare is a program with a $74 trillion liability already. Again, the idea is: Get as many people on government assistance as possible. Does it sound like that's what's going on here?

And in case no one noticed, the Wall Street Journal published an article stating that the Congressional Budget Office’s estimate that the House health bill increases the deficit by $239 billion over the next decade.

The latest class of progressives have taken Cloward-Piven to a whole new level. TARP money to people who don't deserve it; if you're a bank and you can't figure out that some of these people you're handing out loans to shouldn't have the money, you don't deserve to continue to exist. But Barney Frank and others threatened the banks to give out risky loans to people who couldn't afford them. Even the guy who signed off on TARP — a progressive himself — George Bush, warned that tighter restrictions and regulations were needed for Fannie and Freddie … not once or twice, but 17 times. The stimulus package with millions going to fund non-existent projects in districts that don't exist.

Frank and Dodd learned the Cloward-Piven lesson in the '70s: You have to be a part of the system to make it happen — they certainly are part of it.

After the nation tired of able-bodied welfare recipients taking money from hard-working taxpayers, Cloward and Piven turned to other methods to overwhelm the system. They formed voter registration groups, like Human Serve, and worked with Project Vote, a group tied to ACORN, in their efforts.

And John Fund reports that Barney Frank and Chuck Schumer are about to introduce universal voter registration: If you're on any federal roll, you're automatically a voter. Receiving welfare, food stamps, if you own a home or are unemployed, you're automatically I — never mind, it makes me feel like my head will explode. But ponder that: If ACORN can automatically register everyone, that just might explain why members of Congress don't care about their poll numbers. This is the same ACORN already indicted for voter fraud all over the country.

Cloward and Piven lobbied heavily for the "Motor-Voter" law, which is widely blamed for getting so much deadwood fraud onto our voter rolls: Invalid registrations signed by the dead, ineligible or non-existent.

In 1993, when Bill Clinton signed the Motor Voter Bill into law and guess who was there as the invited guests of the president? Richard Cloward and his wife, Frances Fox Piven — who is currently an honorary chair of the Democratic Socialists of America.

Then, three years later, they also supported the Clinton signing of the welfare reform bill in 1996. After working so hard to create an entire class of permanent welfare recipients in America, why would they publicly support the signing of a bill that put new restrictions on welfare recipients? Was it just a signal to the far left, saying, hey, don't worry, they won this battle, but we have the godparents of welfare excess right behind me. Don't worry, we'll win the war.

This was the same kind of signal to the far left that Senator Tom Harkin sent when he said the Senate health care bill was just a "starter home" — we'll put on the additions and do the remodeling later. It was the same signal Obama sent to the left when he announced he was committing more troops to Afghanistan and then in the next breath, said he was also bringing them home in 2011.

Just because most of us have never heard of this motley pair until recently, don't think for a minute that they haven't been heroes to the left for years. Bill Clinton knew exactly who they were in back in 1993 and, no doubt, long before.

You may not have even heard much about Saul Alinsky until recently, but Hillary Clinton wrote her college thesis on him. And even if you had heard of him, you may have just assumed that all Americans felt the same way about him as you did — repulsed, dare I say?

You'd be wrong again.

Here's a statement, made just a couple days before Christmas from Chris Matthews, that shows us that we're not all on the same page.

So, as for the case for progressives overloading the system — on purpose — to bring about what I would call systematic failure and catastrophic collapse, but what they would call "fundamental transformation" of America?

Case closed.

[MMI]

I wonder if there is any comparison to be drawn between Obama's alleged fundamental changes or transformations and the acts of Messrs Washington, Madison, Adams, Hamilton, et al, when they transformed a society ruled by a duly constituted Parliament and by a rightful King who reigned over all his possessions by the grace of God, in order to bring about a change that the majority did not appear to want.

[denuseri]

Again...Revolutionary War Historians place the numbers somewhat differently MMI... more like 4/5ths plus of the colonial population in support of Revolution with only 15-20% at best against it.

Which is besides the point and has nothing to do with Obama now or what he supports.

Now as for calling him a progressive...which is in no way shape or form the same really as calling him a socialist since the two things are indeed very seperate things:

Lincoln Mitchell writes in the Huffington Post:

Frustration with the Obama administration from the left due to the failure of the administration to embrace and implement a progressive program seems to be increasing. It is now clear that while Obama is a far better president than his immediate predecessor, (personally I think he sucks at about the same level myself) an extraordinarily low bar to be sure, he will not be the progressive leader for which many had hoped during the campaign. His governing style has been largely centrist with a preference for compromise over bolder, riskier decisions.

The two most common explanations for Obama's moderate governance are that critics on the left are not being fair to the president and holding him to standards that are too high or that the US is a center-right country, so left-of-center leaders like Obama are inevitably going to encounter obstacles.

The first explanation, that critics on the left are simply wrong, is based on willfully ignoring the realities of the Obama presidency. While it is true that Obama has passed health care and economic stimulus bills, defining these as progressive is demonstrably inaccurate. Moreover, Obama's failure in other areas, from strong environmental legislation to marriage equality, also undermines that explanation.

The second explanation, that Obama has failed because the US is a center-right country, is essentially a Republican talking point, and not even a creative one. It is what right wing analysts and pundits say when they have run out of other ideas. The power of the argument is that it is so devoid of meaning that it is almost impossible to rebut. Without defining what is left, right and center and determining how to accurately measure views on these issues, the assertion means nothing.

Another explanation is that Obama has simply failed because he is indebted to powerful moneyed interests, not really a progressive, or too timid. This explanation personalizes the situation too much. (However this explanation is my personal favorite)While Obama undoubtedly could have done more, it is far from clear that he could have passed sweeping progressive legislation. Presidential power, after all, is an often overrated and elusive thing.

Although there is no easy explanation for Obama's failure to deliver for the progressive movement which helped elect him, none of the explanations most commonly offered are satisfying or helpful largely because they are based on ideological positions rather than real analysis. While the direction of Obama's presidency may be difficult to explain, it has demonstrated the narrow bandwidth in which American politics occurs. Similarly, while claiming that the American people are center right is inaccurate, it is nonetheless true that politics in Washington occurs in a very limited policy space ranging from the center to the right.

The evidence for this can be seen in virtually any significant policy debate, but rarely with more clarity than in the health care debate. A single payer system, which is viewed by most of the industrial world outside the US as a centrist common sense solution, was dismissed by both parties as too radical before the health care debate really began. Instead the policies debated were largely modifications to a privatized health care system. The bandwidth was sufficiently narrow in this area that progressive solutions were ruled out before the discussion started. Similarly, throughout the economic crisis an entire range of issues such as major spending increases on infrastructure and unemployment relief, public options for the banking sector and meaningful tax increases for the richest Americans were simply never discussed.

This limited bandwidth is not due to an absence of progressive impulses, or to a center right consensus on the part of the American people, or personal failing on the part, not just of Barack Obama, but of all elected officials who run as progressives. It is, at least in part, due to institutional constraints which are structural, legal and political in nature. Obama is constrained by a Senate that over-represents conservative rural interests; a political environment in Washington and set of campaign finance laws that still give tremendous power to moneyed interests as elected officials must raise unseemly amounts of money in order to seek reelection; and a system of shared powers, overlapping jurisdictions and court challenges that make real change extremely difficult. There is also, of course, a right wing attack machine, but the noise the far right has made notwithstanding, they have not been politically relevant for much of Obama's time in office.

The existence of these constraints is part of political reality, but for many progressives there is a sense that the administration has used these constraints to rationalize away their relative inaction and timid policy making. It is clear that rapid progressive reform cannot be brought about simply through electing a president, but it is equally clear that even given these constraints more could have been done. Presidential decrees could have ended don't ask don't tell, and more aggressive bargaining would have led to a better health care. It is the failure to do this, not the failure to overcome the harsh political constraints, that should be the cause for the most concern from progressive supporters of the President.

In other words the Progresives do not see Obama as a progressive!

[MMI]

No, den. Colhoun, if he is to be believed, said "a bare majority (of the white population) at best" supported the revolution, not 80%. The 15-20% number is his, I agree, leaving up to 35% neutral.

The point I was making (I don't know what a Progressive is anyway) was that political transformations are good or bad, according to your perspective, but your perspective is not everyone else's (unless you have conducted an impartial survey and have established that it is, as a fact). To me, a socialist president would be a good thing for America (probably) and for the rest of the world (certainly), and if anyone can effect such a transformation, he has my support.

I do not belong to any world-wide conspiracy, by the way.

Perhaps there are some people who would see a transformation to fascism as a good thing.

If the leader wishes to effect such a change, and can command the electoral support to do so, then the transformation is legitimate, and no amount of bad-tempered whingeing can change it.

[steelish]

In other words the Progresives do not see Obama as a progressive!

Actually, I think what the Huffington Post is saying is that the Progressives do not think Obama is progressive enough!

[steelish]

To me, a socialist president would be a good thing for America (probably) and for the rest of the world (certainly), and if anyone can effect such a transformation, he has my support.

Yes, I can see how many non-Americans (and, unfortunately, even some Americans) would LOVE to see America collapse. I guess for some, it would be poetic justice.

Just one glaring difference - when America declared independence it did not cause the collapse of the nation it was leaving. It simply severed itself from that government and instituted it's own. What the Progressives are doing is trying to collapse the country...to bring about it's economic doom. Did the King's economy collapse when America declared independence? Did the country fall into ruin? Nope.

One thing to remember...if America collapses economically, don't be surprised if other countries follow suit.

[denuseri]

I don't see the Progressive movement as a whole as having anything to with a desire to see America collapse.

We just wish to see our country become a better place.

[steelish]

I don't see the Progressive movement as a whole as having anything to with a desire to see America collapse.

We just wish to see our country become a better place.

Which is exactly why the Progressives will probably be able to effect a collapse. Because so many Americans can't see it happening. Instead of looking at everything that's happening and putting it all together, it's viewed as separate events - unrelated - and a "it can't happen in America, no one would want to do that" type mentality.

What's wrong with viewing it with an open mind and looking at the possibility? (especially when those who wrote on HOW to collapse the system are friends and "role models" of the very people who are in power and have the ability to do it)

[steelish]

What's wrong with viewing it with an open mind and looking at the possibility? (especially when those who wrote on HOW to collapse the system are friends and "role models" of the very people who are in power and have the ability to do it)

To add to this, think of it. The goal of the Weather Underground was a “dictatorship” of a “new democracy” that develops into socialism.

Well, if you focus on what a dictatorship is: "An autocratic form of government in which the government is ruled by an individual, the dictator." Well, that could never happen in America, right? But you tell me: Are we heading in the direction of individual liberty or an all-powerful government controlled by few?

Take health care and financial reform — both massive bills that leave much of the decision-making in the hands of unelected bureaucrats who are selected by the president — namely Cass Sunstein.

The SEC just announced that they don't have to answer to the Freedom of Information requests. The FBI can look at your e-mails, without going to a judge first. And what about the move to get rid of the Electoral College in states like Massachusetts, Illinois, New Jersey, Hawaii, Maryland and Washington?

This is a power struggle, and which direction is the power currently heading? More power for you, the individual, or more power for Washington? You have to decide: Are all of the decisions by this administration merely a series of wild, unlucky mistakes or is it a power struggle? Is the president trying to stabilize or fundamentally transform America?

A lot of people will glance at the Weather Underground manifesto and say, Oh, that was the 1960s. This has got nothing to do with today. Well, it's not like President Obama has the manifesto stapled to the wall behind his picture of Lincoln so he can look at it when no one is around and secretly plot to end the Vietnam War.

But, as we look through the manifesto, you can see the philosophy is the same. Insert the victims of today over the victims of yesteryear, clean up the outdated-radical-hippie language of the '60s and you pretty much have a position paper from this administration.

Back then, the victims were the Vietnamese, the students, the labor unions, the working class, the Third World and the oppressed. Well, today, it's no longer the Vietnamese. It's the Iraqis or the Palestinians or the Afghan people.

In other words, whatever side we're supposedly not on.

And while the left is still complaining about the oppression of unions and students, their new victim of police brutality and racism are illegal immigrants. This was their approach towards the Arizona law. They knew the law specifically prohibited targeting anyone because of their race, so they had to fall back on the idea that the police were so racist that they would violate the law to harass Hispanics.

Remember this gem from the president:

PRESIDENT BARACK OBAMA: "If you are a Hispanic American in Arizona — your great-grandparents may have been there before Arizona was even a state. But now, suddenly, if you don't have your papers and you took your kid out to get ice cream, you're going to be harassed. That's something that could potentially happen."

(I did look for the clip on YouTube, but it might have been deleted by now. I HAVE seen it before though, so he did say that!)

Anyway, this is not a new tactic. The police, presented as a racist entity of capitalism that brutalizes innocent people, have been central to this movement since the Weather Underground of the '60s: "The pigs are the capitalist state... pigs really are the issue and people will understand this, one way or another. They can have a liberal understanding that pigs are sweaty, working-class barbarians who overreact and commit 'police brutality.' Or they can understand pigs as the repressive imperialist State doing its job."

When you understand this philosophy, doesn't the “police acted stupidly” comment make a little more sense? See, it doesn't matter to them why you think the police are evil racists, it just matters that you do. The Weather Underground believed that the police had to be resisted at every turn and they followed closely a principle that might seem familiar to those who have watched this program over the past year.

They wrote: “Our beginnings should stress self-defense... moving toward (according to necessity) armed self-defense, all the time honoring and putting forth the principle that ‘political power comes out of the barrel of a gun.’"

Hmm, where have I heard that before? Here's manufacturing czar, Ron Bloom.

(the part I am referring to starts at about 55 seconds in)

RON BLOOM, WHITE HOUSE MANUFACTURING "CZAR" states: "We know that the free market is nonsense. We kind of agree with Mao that political power comes largely from the barrel of a gun."

Do you know anyone who thinks like that? Anybody? Even if you did, would you hire them? Our president doesn't just know somebody who thinks like that, in his own words, he's surrounded by them.

I think the biggest problem is many progressive Americans (citizens) view progressivism as "progress" much like the progress of women's rights, and the end of slavery whereas the Progressives in power view it as a way to "fundamentally transform" America. No one is against progress, but true Progressivism is a disease.

[denuseri]

So am I a virus or a bacterial infection steelish?

I dont know what kool aide you have been drinking but I think the US government is not secretly being run by some smoking man group out to take over the world.

No do I think that the socialist or the progressive movements as a whole are ploting the downfall of civilization.

As for political power...one does not rule but for the wieght of the blades which support thee.

[VaAugusta]

No do I think that the socialist or the progressive movements as a whole are ploting the downfall of civilization.

That's exactly what a progressive with the intention to downfall our society would say!

[DuncanONeil]

Center - right country?
Well the graph did not come through!
So;
year Con Mod Lib
92 36 43 17
94 38 42 17
96 38 40 16
98 37 40 19
00 38 39 19
02 38 39 19
04 40 38 19
06 37 38 20
08 37 37 22

These annual figures are based on multiple national Gallup surveys conducted each year, in some cases encompassing more than 40,000 interviews. The 2009 data are based on 10 separate surveys conducted from January through May. Thus, the margins of error around each year's figures are quite small, and changes of only two percentage points are statistically significant.

The things that are clear from this study is that Liberals are really a minority and that elections turn on the wishes of the Moderates. Also that moderates and Conservative have changed place over the years being 43 - 36 moderate in '91 and 40 - 35 Conservative in 2009. While Liberals have remained, essentially stagnant!

The data supports the country being center - right!
http://www.gallup.com/poll/120857/co...cal-group.aspx
http://www.unexplained-mysteries.com...owtopic=184855
http://www.cnsnews.com/news/article/52602

Again...Revolutionary War Historians place the numbers somewhat differently MMI... more like 4/5ths plus of the colonial population in support of Revolution with only 15-20% at best against it.

Which is besides the point and has nothing to do with Obama now or what he supports.

Now as for calling him a progressive...which is in no way shape or form the same really as calling him a socialist since the two things are indeed very seperate things:

Lincoln Mitchell writes in the Huffington Post:

Frustration with the Obama administration from the left due to the failure of the administration to embrace and implement a progressive program seems to be increasing. It is now clear that while Obama is a far better president than his immediate predecessor, (personally I think he sucks at about the same level myself) an extraordinarily low bar to be sure, he will not be the progressive leader for which many had hoped during the campaign. His governing style has been largely centrist with a preference for compromise over bolder, riskier decisions.

The two most common explanations for Obama's moderate governance are that critics on the left are not being fair to the president and holding him to standards that are too high or that the US is a center-right country, so left-of-center leaders like Obama are inevitably going to encounter obstacles.

The first explanation, that critics on the left are simply wrong, is based on willfully ignoring the realities of the Obama presidency. While it is true that Obama has passed health care and economic stimulus bills, defining these as progressive is demonstrably inaccurate. Moreover, Obama's failure in other areas, from strong environmental legislation to marriage equality, also undermines that explanation.

The second explanation, that Obama has failed because the US is a center-right country, is essentially a Republican talking point, and not even a creative one. It is what right wing analysts and pundits say when they have run out of other ideas. The power of the argument is that it is so devoid of meaning that it is almost impossible to rebut. Without defining what is left, right and center and determining how to accurately measure views on these issues, the assertion means nothing.

Another explanation is that Obama has simply failed because he is indebted to powerful moneyed interests, not really a progressive, or too timid. This explanation personalizes the situation too much. (However this explanation is my personal favorite)While Obama undoubtedly could have done more, it is far from clear that he could have passed sweeping progressive legislation. Presidential power, after all, is an often overrated and elusive thing.

Although there is no easy explanation for Obama's failure to deliver for the progressive movement which helped elect him, none of the explanations most commonly offered are satisfying or helpful largely because they are based on ideological positions rather than real analysis. While the direction of Obama's presidency may be difficult to explain, it has demonstrated the narrow bandwidth in which American politics occurs. Similarly, while claiming that the American people are center right is inaccurate, it is nonetheless true that politics in Washington occurs in a very limited policy space ranging from the center to the right.

The evidence for this can be seen in virtually any significant policy debate, but rarely with more clarity than in the health care debate. A single payer system, which is viewed by most of the industrial world outside the US as a centrist common sense solution, was dismissed by both parties as too radical before the health care debate really began. Instead the policies debated were largely modifications to a privatized health care system. The bandwidth was sufficiently narrow in this area that progressive solutions were ruled out before the discussion started. Similarly, throughout the economic crisis an entire range of issues such as major spending increases on infrastructure and unemployment relief, public options for the banking sector and meaningful tax increases for the richest Americans were simply never discussed.

This limited bandwidth is not due to an absence of progressive impulses, or to a center right consensus on the part of the American people, or personal failing on the part, not just of Barack Obama, but of all elected officials who run as progressives. It is, at least in part, due to institutional constraints which are structural, legal and political in nature. Obama is constrained by a Senate that over-represents conservative rural interests; a political environment in Washington and set of campaign finance laws that still give tremendous power to moneyed interests as elected officials must raise unseemly amounts of money in order to seek reelection; and a system of shared powers, overlapping jurisdictions and court challenges that make real change extremely difficult. There is also, of course, a right wing attack machine, but the noise the far right has made notwithstanding, they have not been politically relevant for much of Obama's time in office.

The existence of these constraints is part of political reality, but for many progressives there is a sense that the administration has used these constraints to rationalize away their relative inaction and timid policy making. It is clear that rapid progressive reform cannot be brought about simply through electing a president, but it is equally clear that even given these constraints more could have been done. Presidential decrees could have ended don't ask don't tell, and more aggressive bargaining would have led to a better health care. It is the failure to do this, not the failure to overcome the harsh political constraints, that should be the cause for the most concern from progressive supporters of the President.

In other words the Progresives do not see Obama as a progressive!

[DuncanONeil]

Good Response!!

Yes, I can see how many non-Americans (and, unfortunately, even some Americans) would LOVE to see America collapse. I guess for some, it would be poetic justice.

Just one glaring difference - when America declared independence it did not cause the collapse of the nation it was leaving. It simply severed itself from that government and instituted it's own. What the Progressives are doing is trying to collapse the country...to bring about it's economic doom. Did the King's economy collapse when America declared independence? Did the country fall into ruin? Nope.

One thing to remember...if America collapses economically, don't be surprised if other countries follow suit.

[DuncanONeil]

Then I respectfully submit that you do not know what the Progressive movement is about. Perhaps a little study is in order?

That is the major problem I have with the term Progressives have chosen for themselves. Way too many people see it as the adjectival form of "progress"!

I don't see the Progressive movement as a whole as having anything to with a desire to see America collapse.

We just wish to see our country become a better place.

[DuncanONeil]

Not only that but the Health Care "law" is not the end of it. The agency created to "oversee" health care has to write the regulations to implement the law. We have ZERO input into those regulations. Perhaps that is why the law is so vague and convoluted. Much of it is actually duplicated within itself.
Is that a problem? Apart from size, a portion can be repealed and still be in the bill!

To add to this, think of it. The goal of the Weather Underground was a “dictatorship” of a “new democracy” that develops into socialism.

Well, if you focus on what a dictatorship is: "An autocratic form of government in which the government is ruled by an individual, the dictator." Well, that could never happen in America, right? But you tell me: Are we heading in the direction of individual liberty or an all-powerful government controlled by few?

Take health care and financial reform — both massive bills that leave much of the decision-making in the hands of unelected bureaucrats who are selected by the president — namely Cass Sunstein.

The SEC just announced that they don't have to answer to the Freedom of Information requests. The FBI can look at your e-mails, without going to a judge first. And what about the move to get rid of the Electoral College in states like Massachusetts, Illinois, New Jersey, Hawaii, Maryland and Washington?

This is a power struggle, and which direction is the power currently heading? More power for you, the individual, or more power for Washington? You have to decide: Are all of the decisions by this administration merely a series of wild, unlucky mistakes or is it a power struggle? Is the president trying to stabilize or fundamentally transform America?

A lot of people will glance at the Weather Underground manifesto and say, Oh, that was the 1960s. This has got nothing to do with today. Well, it's not like President Obama has the manifesto stapled to the wall behind his picture of Lincoln so he can look at it when no one is around and secretly plot to end the Vietnam War.

But, as we look through the manifesto, you can see the philosophy is the same. Insert the victims of today over the victims of yesteryear, clean up the outdated-radical-hippie language of the '60s and you pretty much have a position paper from this administration.

Back then, the victims were the Vietnamese, the students, the labor unions, the working class, the Third World and the oppressed. Well, today, it's no longer the Vietnamese. It's the Iraqis or the Palestinians or the Afghan people.

In other words, whatever side we're supposedly not on.

And while the left is still complaining about the oppression of unions and students, their new victim of police brutality and racism are illegal immigrants. This was their approach towards the Arizona law. They knew the law specifically prohibited targeting anyone because of their race, so they had to fall back on the idea that the police were so racist that they would violate the law to harass Hispanics.

Remember this gem from the president:

PRESIDENT BARACK OBAMA: "If you are a Hispanic American in Arizona — your great-grandparents may have been there before Arizona was even a state. But now, suddenly, if you don't have your papers and you took your kid out to get ice cream, you're going to be harassed. That's something that could potentially happen."

(I did look for the clip on YouTube, but it might have been deleted by now. I HAVE seen it before though, so he did say that!)

Anyway, this is not a new tactic. The police, presented as a racist entity of capitalism that brutalizes innocent people, have been central to this movement since the Weather Underground of the '60s: "The pigs are the capitalist state... pigs really are the issue and people will understand this, one way or another. They can have a liberal understanding that pigs are sweaty, working-class barbarians who overreact and commit 'police brutality.' Or they can understand pigs as the repressive imperialist State doing its job."

When you understand this philosophy, doesn't the “police acted stupidly” comment make a little more sense? See, it doesn't matter to them why you think the police are evil racists, it just matters that you do. The Weather Underground believed that the police had to be resisted at every turn and they followed closely a principle that might seem familiar to those who have watched this program over the past year.

They wrote: “Our beginnings should stress self-defense... moving toward (according to necessity) armed self-defense, all the time honoring and putting forth the principle that ‘political power comes out of the barrel of a gun.’"

Hmm, where have I heard that before? Here's manufacturing czar, Ron Bloom.

(the part I am referring to starts at about 55 seconds in)

RON BLOOM, WHITE HOUSE MANUFACTURING "CZAR" states: "We know that the free market is nonsense. We kind of agree with Mao that political power comes largely from the barrel of a gun."

Do you know anyone who thinks like that? Anybody? Even if you did, would you hire them? Our president doesn't just know somebody who thinks like that, in his own words, he's surrounded by them.

I think the biggest problem is many progressive Americans (citizens) view progressivism as "progress" much like the progress of women's rights, and the end of slavery whereas the Progressives in power view it as a way to "fundamentally transform" America. No one is against progress, but true Progressivism is a disease.

[DuncanONeil]

PRESIDENT BARACK OBAMA: "If you are a Hispanic American in Arizona — your great-grandparents may have been there before Arizona was even a state. But now, suddenly, if you don't have your papers and you took your kid out to get ice cream, you're going to be harassed. That's something that could potentially happen."

(I did look for the clip on YouTube, but it might have been deleted by now. I HAVE seen it before though, so he did say that!)

Here!
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4ppC0uc5R5A&cc=1#t=2958s

[denuseri]

Then I respectfully submit that you do not know what the Progressive movement is about. Perhaps a little study is in order?

That is the major problem I have with the term Progressives have chosen for themselves. Way too many people see it as the adjectival form of "progress"!

Oh yes Duncan..someone (looks up at you) certianly does need to do some study here.

The Progressive Party was a factor in the presidential campaigns of three men — Theodore Roosevelt, Robert La Follette, and Henry Wallace. There were a few Progressive Party organizations spanning this period of time but after the 1952 elections, they disappeared entirely.

Its first incarnation came in 1912, when Theodore Roosevelt led progressive elements out of the Republican Party. Roosevelt had made no secret of his low opinion of President William H. Taft and felt he could not support the ticket. Taft had particularly angered Roosevelt, an ardent conservationist, by removing Gifford Pinchot as chief forester.

Roosevelt struck out on his own and formed the first Progressive Party, saying he was as fit as a bull moose, from which came the colloquial name "Bull Moose Party." His platform called for tariff reform, stricter regulation of industrial combinations, women’s suffrage, prohibition of child labor, and other reforms.

The new party nominated Roosevelt for president and Hiram Johnson for vice president. Although the Progressives finished well ahead of Republicans in the election, they lost to the Democratic candidate, Woodrow Wilson. When Roosevelt returned to the Republican fold in 1916, the Progressive Party vanished for a time.

In 1924, liberals were so frustrated with conservative control of both major political parties that they formed the League of Progressive Political Action, better known as the Progressive Party. Robert La Follette of Wisconsin, a Republican, decided to run for president as an independent, but later accepted the nomination from the Progressive Party. Senator Burton K. Wheeler, a Democrat from Montana, was nominated for vice-president.

The party advocated government ownership of public utilities and such labor reforms as collective bargaining. It also supported farm-relief measures, lower taxes for persons with moderate incomes, and other such laws. Although La Follette received 17 percent of the popular vote, he only carried Wisconsin’s electoral vote.

In 1934, La Follette’s sons organized a progressive party in Wisconsin. Robert La Follette, Jr. was elected to the Senate but was beaten in 1946 by Joseph McCarthy.

Yet another progressive party was formed in 1948. Former New Deal Democrats had become dissatisfied with the policies of Harry Truman and wanted their own party. They nominated Henry A. Wallace for president and Glen H. Taylor for vice president. They advocated liberal policies that included rights for minorities, curbs on monopolies, and the repeal of the Taft-Hartley Act.

The party's platform should have appealed strongly to blacks, intellectuals, and labor union members, but the support given them by the Communist Party was used against them by both major parties. The progressives maintained their right to accept support from any group. This was high-principled but politically fatal. Wallace received only 2.4 percent of the popular vote and carried no state.

In 1950, the party opposed America's decision to fight in Korea. Wallace split with the party's leadership on the issue and resigned from the party. The Progressive Party disappeared after the 1952 election. Only time will tell if another progressive party will be formed.

The term "progressive" is today often used in place of "liberal." Although the two are related in some ways, they are separate and distinct political ideologies and should not be used interchangeably. The reason for this confusion might partly be rooted in the political spectrum being two-dimensional; social liberalism is a tenet of modern progressivism, whereas economic liberalism (and its associated deregulation) is not. According to John Halpin, senior advisor on the staff of the Center for American Progress, "Progressivism is an orientation towards politics. It's not a long-standing ideology like liberalism, but an historically-grounded concept... that accepts the world as dynamic." Progressives see progressivism as an attitude towards the world of politics that is broader than conservatism vs. liberalism, and as an attempt to break free from what they consider to be a false and divisive dichotomy.

Cultural Liberalism is ultimately founded on the belief that the major purpose of the government is to protect rights. Liberals are often called "left-wing", as opposed to "right-wing" conservatives. The progressive school, as a unique branch of contemporary political thought, tends to advocate certain center-left or left-wing views that may conflict with mainstream liberal views, despite the fact that modern liberalism and progressivism may still both support many of the same policies (such as the concept of war as a general last resort).

American progressives tend to support international economics: they advocate progressive taxation and oppose the growing influence of corporations. Progressives are in agreement on an international scale with left-liberalism in that they support organized labor and trade unions, they usually wish to introduce a living wage, and they often support the creation of a universal health care system. Yet progressives tend to be more concerned with environmentalism than mainstream liberals.

Despite its recent tendency to lean to the left, the democratic party has in no way cornered the market on progressive thought in the political arena.

Individuals such as Abraham Lincoln, Teddy Roosevelt, and "fighting bob" La Follette, former governor and u.s. senator from Wisconsin were all republicans.

Tenets of the progressive republican platform include:

Maintaining a strong national defense.

Keeping government small.

Avoiding monopolies.

Fighting corruption in government and in big business.

Encouraging conservationism, and supporting relatively conservative social values.

Given this tradition, and the historic nature of governor Sarah Palin's vice presidential candidacy, the McCain-Palin ticket of 2008 can reasonably be considered a progressive renaissance within the republican party.

There are a lot more progressive replublicans in the party than you may realize.

Enough to get McCain and Palin the ticket against far more conservative party members.

[DuncanONeil]

I am sure much of what you listed is accurate. It agrees largely with what i have found. But! The biggest problem with Progressives is that they seek to work in the shadows and hide their true intent. That intent is clearly describe thus; "While the Progressives differed in their assessment of the problems and how to resolve them, they generally shared in common the view that government at every level must be actively involved in these reforms. The existing constitutional system was outdated and must be made into a dynamic, evolving instrument of social change, aided by scientific knowledge and the development of administrative bureaucracy.

At the same time, the old system was to be opened up and made more democratic; hence, the direct elections of Senators, the open primary, the initiative and referendum. It also had to be made to provide for more revenue; hence, the Sixteenth Amendment and the progressive income tax.

Presidential leadership would provide the unity of direction -- the vision -- needed for true progressive government. 'All that progressives ask or desire,' wrote Woodrow Wilson, 'is permission -- in an era when development, evolution, is a scientific word -- to interpret the Constitution according to the Darwinian principle; all they ask is recognition of the fact that a nation is a living thing and not a machine.'"

Surely Progressives believe these things are good. But even the simplest of their ideas, throwing away the Constitution and let the Government do what it will can be seen as a bad row to hoe. If one is honest that is what Washington is now trying to do. Also I have never identified Progressives as associated with either major political party. They are in fact neither.

No I a will stop there.

Oh yes Duncan..someone (looks up at you) certianly does need to do some study here.

The Progressive Party was a factor in the presidential campaigns of three men — Theodore Roosevelt, Robert La Follette, and Henry Wallace. There were a few Progressive Party organizations spanning this period of time but after the 1952 elections, they disappeared entirely.

Its first incarnation came in 1912, when Theodore Roosevelt led progressive elements out of the Republican Party. Roosevelt had made no secret of his low opinion of President William H. Taft and felt he could not support the ticket. Taft had particularly angered Roosevelt, an ardent conservationist, by removing Gifford Pinchot as chief forester.

Roosevelt struck out on his own and formed the first Progressive Party, saying he was as fit as a bull moose, from which came the colloquial name "Bull Moose Party." His platform called for tariff reform, stricter regulation of industrial combinations, women’s suffrage, prohibition of child labor, and other reforms.

The new party nominated Roosevelt for president and Hiram Johnson for vice president. Although the Progressives finished well ahead of Republicans in the election, they lost to the Democratic candidate, Woodrow Wilson. When Roosevelt returned to the Republican fold in 1916, the Progressive Party vanished for a time.

In 1924, liberals were so frustrated with conservative control of both major political parties that they formed the League of Progressive Political Action, better known as the Progressive Party. Robert La Follette of Wisconsin, a Republican, decided to run for president as an independent, but later accepted the nomination from the Progressive Party. Senator Burton K. Wheeler, a Democrat from Montana, was nominated for vice-president.

The party advocated government ownership of public utilities and such labor reforms as collective bargaining. It also supported farm-relief measures, lower taxes for persons with moderate incomes, and other such laws. Although La Follette received 17 percent of the popular vote, he only carried Wisconsin’s electoral vote.

In 1934, La Follette’s sons organized a progressive party in Wisconsin. Robert La Follette, Jr. was elected to the Senate but was beaten in 1946 by Joseph McCarthy.

Yet another progressive party was formed in 1948. Former New Deal Democrats had become dissatisfied with the policies of Harry Truman and wanted their own party. They nominated Henry A. Wallace for president and Glen H. Taylor for vice president. They advocated liberal policies that included rights for minorities, curbs on monopolies, and the repeal of the Taft-Hartley Act.

The party's platform should have appealed strongly to blacks, intellectuals, and labor union members, but the support given them by the Communist Party was used against them by both major parties. The progressives maintained their right to accept support from any group. This was high-principled but politically fatal. Wallace received only 2.4 percent of the popular vote and carried no state.

In 1950, the party opposed America's decision to fight in Korea. Wallace split with the party's leadership on the issue and resigned from the party. The Progressive Party disappeared after the 1952 election. Only time will tell if another progressive party will be formed.

The term "progressive" is today often used in place of "liberal." Although the two are related in some ways, they are separate and distinct political ideologies and should not be used interchangeably. The reason for this confusion might partly be rooted in the political spectrum being two-dimensional; social liberalism is a tenet of modern progressivism, whereas economic liberalism (and its associated deregulation) is not. According to John Halpin, senior advisor on the staff of the Center for American Progress, "Progressivism is an orientation towards politics. It's not a long-standing ideology like liberalism, but an historically-grounded concept... that accepts the world as dynamic." Progressives see progressivism as an attitude towards the world of politics that is broader than conservatism vs. liberalism, and as an attempt to break free from what they consider to be a false and divisive dichotomy.

Cultural Liberalism is ultimately founded on the belief that the major purpose of the government is to protect rights. Liberals are often called "left-wing", as opposed to "right-wing" conservatives. The progressive school, as a unique branch of contemporary political thought, tends to advocate certain center-left or left-wing views that may conflict with mainstream liberal views, despite the fact that modern liberalism and progressivism may still both support many of the same policies (such as the concept of war as a general last resort).

American progressives tend to support international economics: they advocate progressive taxation and oppose the growing influence of corporations. Progressives are in agreement on an international scale with left-liberalism in that they support organized labor and trade unions, they usually wish to introduce a living wage, and they often support the creation of a universal health care system. Yet progressives tend to be more concerned with environmentalism than mainstream liberals.

Despite its recent tendency to lean to the left, the democratic party has in no way cornered the market on progressive thought in the political arena.

Individuals such as Abraham Lincoln, Teddy Roosevelt, and "fighting bob" La Follette, former governor and u.s. senator from Wisconsin were all republicans.

Tenets of the progressive republican platform include:

Maintaining a strong national defense.

Keeping government small.

Avoiding monopolies.

Fighting corruption in government and in big business.

Encouraging conservationism, and supporting relatively conservative social values.

Given this tradition, and the historic nature of governor Sarah Palin's vice presidential candidacy, the McCain-Palin ticket of 2008 can reasonably be considered a progressive renaissance within the republican party.

There are a lot more progressive replublicans in the party than you may realize.

Enough to get McCain and Palin the ticket against far more conservative party members.