He isn’t advocating a vast expansion of union power, he’s advocating a small change that still leaves American unions well behind most other advanced countries in terms of union power. It’s just that a relatively modest change in anything is always oversold by the right as the beginning of communism.
Both the GOP and the Democrats had a version of cap and trade on their platform in the 2008 election. Sarah Palin supported cap and trade in 2008. But after the election it gives the GOP a political advantage to be against it, so that’s what they’re doing.
By “re-regulate industry” I think you’re talking about the financial industry. Are you claiming that that’s a bad thing? Should we leave it as over-regulated as it was in 2007?
He got a healthcare plan passed that almost exactly matches the one Mitt Romney got passed in Mass. when he was Governor there and one that the Heritage Foundation were advocating in 2003 and the GOP including Sen. Bob Dole (R-Viagra) were advocating in 1993 as a GOP alternative to Hillarycare.
$5 billion to community organisers? More information please. I’m sure he’s spending five bil but on what exactly?
He’s moving people from Gitmo to some other indefinite prison and he’s putting three or four people only on public trial (maybe) as window-dressing for the world to cover up America’s increasingly totalitarian justice system for anybody the President deems a terrorist. He’s moving nowhere near as far left as Ronald Reagan was when it comes to what to do with terrorists and in some cases further to the right than the Bush position after the SC reinstated habeas corpus. A bipartisan bill, which Obama will undoubtedly sign, is going to remove that again at the prez’s discretion.
And he wants to put the tax system back to close to (but not as far leftwards/progressive as) it was under Reagan’s first term.
Now here’s what an actual liberal would have done:
Broken up the big banks, wiped out the bondholders, put a lot of top Wall Street executives on trial instead of not even investigating obvious fraud, passed a stimulus twice as big at least and geared to all spending rather than 40% tax cuts, pushed a single-payer healthcare system through on narrow majority votes, prosecuted Bush and Cheney for war crimes, withdrawn from Afghanistan, put Larry Tribe on the Supreme Court bench, repealed DOMA etc.
Obama is basically governing as a moderate Republican. Other than a small concession to unions it’s hard to see anything he’s done or doing that a moderate GOP leader wouldn’t be doing. To claim he’s liberal or socialist is hilarious.
No, the McCain campaigned picked her to appeal to a (apparently non-extant, or at least tiny) group of voters who wanted Hilary just because she was a woman.
From everything I’ve read about the campaign, it was the other way around. Bible banging credentials were the criterion most insisted on by Mccain’s advisors and his base, even though he was resistant to to it. He was having trouble holding onto his base and his campaign staff was desperate to put a wingnut on the ticket to shore up the numbers there and turn them out. Trying to expand out to Hillary voters was what they hoped would be the gravy, but if putting a woman on the ticket had been their top priority, McCain could have chosen several others who were far more qualified than Sarah Palin (Hutchison, Whitman, Snowe, Rice), but he had to go all the way down the ladder to Palin to find one who was anti-abortion and sufficiently superstitious, anti-intellectual, provincial and hate-filled to pacify the base.
I think it was both. McCain’s campaign wanted a running mate who was a woman to appeal to the disgruntled Clinton supporters and somebody who was a staunch conservative to quiet unrest in their base. They looked at the pool of available conservative female politicians and Palin’s name came out on top.
If Clinton had won the Democratic nomination, McCain would have been looking for a conservative black running mate to attract disgruntled Obama supporters. Then we might have seen a McCain/Keyes ticket.
Voters are never “The Party”. In our 2 party system voters are always replaceable. The transition may not be smooth but nothing that can’t be overcome with time and money. When the GOP decides they’ve played out their string on being the Cranky Old White Party they will be able to morph into their next incarnation… presumably a more attractive mask for the same old plutocratic instincts.
Since there are only 2 choices the bar is pretty low. You don’t have to actually appear to be a good option to people. All you have to do is provide a better alternative for them to vote for. Yes there are those who hold grudges but remember the GOP overcame the Solid “I’d vote for a yellow dog before a Republican!” South. They have the money. Just give them time. The fact that the GOP isn’t moving to dump the extremists indicates that it believes it can ride them to more victories.
Since the Republican party isn’t a person, we have to look at the center of gravity of the party. You can certainly find Republicans 40 years ago who were almost as conservative as Republicans today. But what you saw in 1964 and 1968 was a major moderate wing of the party. Rockefeller, George Romney, Lodge, and even Nixon. Goldwater, who would be a moderate conservative today, kind of like McCain, was considered to be on the far right of the party. McCain was probably the most liberal of the bunch running in 2008 - Romney might have been, but he was careful to repudiate most of what he did that was moderate. So, the Republicans shifted to the right by having their left wing cut off, both by voters in the East mad at the national party, by defections, and by pressure from the new mainstream.
Passed EFCA, made concrete steps to meaningful environmental/energy reform on a rapid timeline, strengthened international labor laws in our trade agreements, repealed Taft/Hartley, made elections 100% public financed, eliminated the death penalty.
I remember a new interview (forget with who, but I think it was CNN) where Obama was being interviewed and he said european leaders were confused as to why so many people were calling him a socialist when by european standards he acts like a conservative.
Good points, although I’m pretty sure the OP wasn’t talking about 40 years ago since he says in “recent years”. And Goldwater is an odd case-- more of a libertarian than a conservative.
Frankly, I think more of what we’re seeing in “recent years” is more partisan bickering and unwillingness to work across party lines, especially from the Republicans. That would give the appearance of a shift to the right even if you looked at the GOP party platform and couldn’t see much of a difference.
In my research, *every *Liberal President is “The Most Liberal Candidate EVAR”. They’re also always called “Socialist”. Of course, they really aren’t; it’s just a good talking point, a good scare word to keep the voters riled up.
Again, you presume that they AREN’T the “Cranky White Party”. Where do you think Republicans come from anyway? They aren’t grown in Party owned vats somewhere. The people who have been joining the party for decades, who compose it ARE the “Cranky White Party”.
I LOVE the way liberals embrace conservatives after they’re dead.
When Barry Goldwater was alive, liberals portrayed him as a frightening warmonger, an evil maniac who wanted to blow up the world.
Now that he’s dead, he’s held up by liberals as the very model of a “twue” conservative. I’ve even seen the likes of Leonard Pitts and Frank Rich arguing (with a straight face!) that Ronald Reagan would have been horrified by the Tea Partiers.
Now THERE’S a hot one! Rich and Pitts loathed Ronald Reagan while he was alive, and never ceased calling him a heartless, jingoistic racist. But now that he’'s dead, they’re happy to embrace him, as if he’d NEVER have sided with the small-government, tax-cutting crowd.
I wonder who’ll be the NEXT dead conservative to be embraced by the Left.
This seems to be the point of the thread - the Republican party has inched farther and farther to the right and at this point, former “radicals” like Goldwater or “true-blue” conservatives like Reagan are now considered moderates. Further, without getting into a pissing contest about whether Democrats or liberals in general are equally nasty, it is hard to imagine either Goldwater or Reagan engaging in the kinds of nasty, personal attacks that many tea partiers and some Republican politicians have recently engaged in.
