Apologies, but it was new to me (and sent to me by a big time Demo) that I thought it might be fun for other less well read folk.
I'm informing you that statements like this - are demonstrably false and misrepresent the political lay of the land. There is no doubt that the influence of money and power in politics is underestimated by the public at large. And those with money and power benefit from a cynical, fatalistic public.
Politicians don't compromise, they build consensus, bi-partisan support. Anyways what compromise is any candidate going to seriously make that would change a significant % of their voter base? (Am I in the right thread?)
His tax plan. His universal health care plan. His foreign policy as appropriate. Not on constitutionally mandated civil rights. We can argue semantics and policy all day, but these are not subject to compromise. Period. Any wanker laughing about Obama not being the messiah needs to understand that this transcends Obama - this passed the house with 293 votes. All but one republican voted yes. Our rights, as stripped and beaten down as they have been to date, are now being brazenly removed.
Depends on what they are compromising on. I've always said Hillary is the 51-49% type - that her strategy is winning Democrats big while Republicans hate her, and counting on that division to win. She is, after all, the author of the term "right wing conspiracy" - the right is the enemy to her. Doing "anything to win" is very different from compromising on policy - this is yet another example of taking a criticism, broadening it by many magnitudes, and then saying "see, both candidates are the same!" As a moderate, I normally love gridlock - because the only things that pass are things that are acceptable to both parties. That's one reason I don't mind a McCain Presidency too much. But unfortunately, government is so dysfunctional now that both parties oppose everything the other party proposes just for the sake of it - and that causes its own set of problems. So given a Dem controlled everything, I'd much prefer someone who works to create wide support for his/her policies over the 51-49 method. Can you give me examples of Hillary being a compromiser on policy issues? She's much more in the mold of the fighter, as is John Edwards. It means you're less likely to accomplish anything, but if you do, it will probably be more to your liking. You saw this with health policy in 1994 and even in this election. Obama's "no mandates" thing is purposely a compromise solution to get more support from the moderates and the right - whereas Clinton/Edwards both had the mandate strategy, which from a left-perspective is better policy, but more difficult to get support for.
Is there really this big constituency that wants the TEELECOMS to have immunity? That wants all their phone conversations to be tapped? I think Obama and all of the Republicans and almost 1/2 the Democrats are just being chicken**** and caving to the neocon fear mongerers. Sadly I expect Obama to compromise like hell on pulling the troops from Iraq, too. Obama-- a better than usual lesser of two evils.
There was a time when those with money and power and influence benefitted from child labor and incredibly oppressive working conditions. Committed reformers mobilized the public and significant improvement in the working conditions for American workers was achieved. There was a time when those with money and power and influence benefitted from unregulated food and medicine production. Committed reformers mobilized the public and our food and medicines are significantly safer as a result. There was a time when those with money and power and influence benefitted from legally enforced racial segregation and subjugation. Committed reformers mobilized the public and legally sanctioned racial inequality has been practically eliminated. It is possible to recognize the pervasive, negative influence of money and power in politics and society without embracing the historically false perspective that an informed and motivated public cannot effect real, positive change.
Totally agree. He already <3's the guns, and he won't hesitate to blow up Pakistan with his lawyerly defined "actionable intel". How much of this guy can you trust to bring about his mandate of change? I don't know, and that's been a big issue to me. He says the right things. On one hand he takes in all ideas, but then again, he takes in every idea. Is he a leader who understands the intricacies of political dissension or is he a leader who exploits them? The lessons of Dubya's election campaign are haunting us again. Maybe the people wanted the traits of Bush plus strong personal leadership from him. That might be the difference.
Definitely dampens my enthusiasm as well. A horrible decision from Obama. He should be held accountable.
Obama should be held accountable? Not McCain, not 23%, no one else either in the party? You're right, he's a witch, a witch! a witch! a witch! We have found a witch, may we burn him?!?
No everyone who supported the immunity should be held accountable. I've been an Obama supporter, and still am, but this is horrible. He doesn't need to show he won't protect Americans rights to show he's tough on terror. I expected more from Obama who once said the first thing he'd do when elected is go over all of Bush's signing statements and overturn the ones that have damaged our constitution. I wasn't being unreasonable in my criticism of him.
My apologies, I didn't mean to single you out. I'm just beginning to believe that maybe the repubs were right, too many people considered him to be a messianic figure and the slightest misstep now causes a giant commotion. He's human. He could be your neighbor. I sometimes want to shoot my neighbor's dogs; he probably has neighbors that want to shoot his dogs. I also don't care about the FISA/immunity issue, because when it first came up, I knew eventually the dems could capitulate to the reps/23%... what have they EVER stood their ground on? But remember, this isn't something the dems endorsed, this is something they fought against. (even if lamely) FISA + immunity was something the reps/23% fought for. Yet, somehow the dems are the evil doers.
I am guessing Obama will continue to disappoint more people as we move along in this election. For those people blasting McCain for his flip-flops, Obama hasn't bee in the spot light long enough, more flip-flops to come.
it would take too much time to debate here, but I think all those things you listed were OK with the power elite or at least were trade outs. Trade outs are very important to powerful people. for example I know most states were passing child labor laws long before the fed govt. cared a hoot. the powerful rich primarily follow a fabian-socialistic philosophy- gradual changes. for these industrialists and bankers at the turn of the 20 century (1900's) child labor crusades played well into the union movements that the fabian-socialists promoted. often the very rich play both sides of each issue, it is the only way they can be sure they win out over time.
You've made this argument before and yes if we take Hillary Clinton in 1998 yes that would be true but this belies her Senate record where she has worked and compromised quite a bit with Republicans. In fact many Republicans in the Senate who staunchly opposed her have said they have been surprised by how much she is willing to reach across the aisle. Your view of Clinton as being a non compromiser isn't supported by the Senate record so in that regard Hillary Clinton has done as much as Obama has in the senate and as I said before both candidates are much more similar than many would think. The difference is though as you seem to be illustrating is that Clinton's compromises are spun as doing anything to win. The most famous being her vote on the Iraq Authorization act. where as Obama's are building consensus so here while Obama is betraying a principle for a policy that isn't even his yet you seem to be saying its a good thing. As I said before the biggest one is her vote on the Iraq war authorization but if I recall correctly she did work with the Republicans regarding getting the 9/11 commission and regarding the payouts to 9/11 families. I think there she dropped a couple of key issues to help get the legislation passed.
I don't usually make predictions like this but I will on this and predict that if Obama is elected you will not see a rapid pullout from Iraq along the lines of what he has been talking about. I think Obama is aware of this and in his debates and speechs has often given qualifiers to his Iraq plan. In fact both Clinton and Obama would often qualify their withdrawl plans. I fully believe Obama wants our troops out of Iraq but I suspect that one of the worst things that could happen to his presidency early on is a rapid withdrawl that ends up looking like the fall of Saigon. He knows that any withdrawl will have to appear very orderly and there is no sudden bloodbath in its wake which will mean something very slow and drawn out.
