It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Obama is killing the Democratic Party

page: 1
7
<<   2 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Sep, 16 2011 @ 07:33 AM
link   
Republicans Seen as Better Able to Handle Most Important Problem


The September poll also asked Americans to say which party they thought would do a better job of handling whichever problem they named as most important. More Americans chose the Republican Party (44%) than the Democratic Party (37%) as better able to handle that problem.


This is the largest spread in favor of the Republican Party since January 1995 when the Republican Revolution just entered Congress. But this gets worse for the Democratic Party. Those who cite unemployment as the biggest problem think Republicans can handle that better by 42-40. Among those who believe the overall economy is the biggest problem Republicans triumph with 57-31.

White House Pressure for a Donor?


The four-star Air Force general who oversees Air Force Space Command walked into a highly secured room on Capitol Hill a week ago to give a classified briefing to lawmakers and staff, and dropped a surprise. Pressed by members, Gen. William Shelton said the White House tried to pressure him to change his testimony to make it more favorable to a company tied to a large Democratic donor.


The episode —confirmed by The Daily Beast in interviews with administration officials and the chairman of a congressional oversight committee —is the latest in a string of incidents that have given Republicans sudden fodder for questions about whether the Obama administration is politically interfering in routine government matters that affect donors or fundraisers. Already, the FBI and a House committee are investigating a federal loan guarantee to a now failed solar firm called Solyndra that is tied to a large Obama fundraiser.


Now the Pentagon has been raising concerns about a new wireless project by a satellite broadband company in Virginia called LightSquared, whose majority owner is an investment fund run by Democratic donor Philip Falcone.


Now we can report on another possible incident by this White House with crony capitalism. Why is Obama using government to intervene like this on behalf of people who have funded him and his party? We all hoped that Obama would bring transparency to Washington and clean the place up after the horrible Bush years but with the ‘Fast and Furious’ then Solyndra which is already being investigated now this, what more dare I ask is going on behind the scenes?

What should the White House do? Panic!


People often ask me what advice I would give the White House about various things. Today I was mulling over election results from New York and Nevada while thinking about that very question. What should the White House do now? One word came to mind: Panic.


James Carville is a professional Democratic strategist who worked on numerous campaign teams most well-known is Bill Clinton’s. He is an intelligent man in the field of Democratic politics so when he speaks you listen. Unfortunately for the Democratic Party I do not foresee them listening to Mr. Carville and will continue doing what they have been doing since 2009 which obviously; a) is not working, and b) is driving away the working class.

Poll: 72% Say Country on Wrong Track, Majority Embrace GOP Ideas


• The broad message of Republicans is resonating, with 57 percent of the country saying the best way to create jobs is to cut taxes and government spending.
• Americans are embracing the need for tough prescriptions to cut the federal deficit, including scaling back entitlement programs such as Social Security.
• Only 27 percent of Americans say they are better off now than in January 2009, when Obama took office in the depths of the recession – a key metric used in re-electing a president.
• Political independents now divide almost evenly on Obama – a huge blow for his re-election changes. Some 38 percent are for Obama and 39 percent for Republicans.
• Public support is rising for some GOP ideas that much of the country once considered untenable. Americans are now evenly divided on gradually raising the Social Security retirement age to 69, with 49 percent in favor and 48 percent opposed. Last December, the idea was opposed 60 percent to 37 percent.
• A tax revamp that eliminates all deductions, including that for home mortgage interest payments, in exchange for lower rates is backed by 48 percent and opposed by 45 percent.


None of the above is good for any Democratic President let alone the party itself. A serious assessment of the long-term goals and strategies needs to occur within the heart of the party. The only way I see that happening is for the upper classes who have been running the party narrative since the middle 80s, who began funding in the late 60s need to go. They cannot be given such power in the party while it also tries to claim the title of working class party. Let me tell you from personal experience coming from a family of blue collar workers of both political parties, they do not trust either party but are very upset and feel betrayed by the Democratic Party.

Top Dem: Obama Plans to Run Against Bush Again in 2012

You have got to know that campaign strategy will not work among most Americans. We are not that stupid. In polls it shows that Americans recognize Bush caused the mess we are in, most will not doubt that, but you cannot accept that the Obama agenda has contributed nothing to our problems. He wants to lay claim to anything good which occurs but where is he when something bad occurs? I guess that should be attributed to Bush? The point is if you really want to disappoint independent and swing voters go with that strategy it will be sure to kill you.

Obama's blue-state blues
GOP Makes Big Gains among White Voters - Especially among the Young and Poor




posted on Sep, 16 2011 @ 07:36 AM
link   
reply to post by Misoir
 


The Democratic Party has been on life support since Jimmy Carter. All Obama has done is send the body to the morgue.



edit on 16-9-2011 by kellynap43 because: (no reason given)



posted on Sep, 16 2011 @ 07:46 AM
link   
reply to post by Misoir
 


You are correct. They will continue what they have been doing because they are so blinded by their arrogance that they cannot see that it's not working. I am mostly talking about Obama because I do believe that many Democrats are now seeing the folly of their president and turning against him or at very least distancing themselves from him. Too bad for them they have to keep Obama on the ticket. Decisions do have consequences.



posted on Sep, 16 2011 @ 07:55 AM
link   
I think you are giving Obama too much credit.
The dems are can destroy themselves all on their own.



posted on Sep, 16 2011 @ 07:57 AM
link   
reply to post by Misoir
 


Hes actually destroying America.......................By design.
All in the plan,cant put blame on him alone though.



posted on Sep, 16 2011 @ 08:08 AM
link   
Wasnt long ago every pundit, analyst, strategist and idiot with a platform was announcing the death of the republican party at the hands of the Bu#es and Neo-con's.

These "parties" dont mean anything and concerning oneself over the health, status or fate of these "parties" is about as productive as worrying if Snookie will get married this year.

Politics is simply soap operas for people who want to feel smarter than the people who watch soap operas.

ETA: Good job censoring Bush-ites ATS.

edit on 16-9-2011 by thisguyrighthere because: (no reason given)



posted on Sep, 16 2011 @ 08:13 AM
link   
I think this article does a very good job at explaining exactly the problem the Democrats are having in this country. Basically it is saying that the candidates like McGovern, Dukakis, Gore, and the hopeful nominee in ’04 Dean, are all part of the same type of Liberalism that killed 3 candidacies. They are of the socially liberal, fiscally moderate part of the party which holds together students, professionals and academics. This group used be in the Republican Party back in the 1950s but joined the Democrats during the ‘60s college protests.

There are two currents in the party; Professional Left and New Deal Left. Bill Clinton is a mix of the two. That is the reason why he won the professional left states but still held onto many of the new deal left states. George McGovern was destroyed in all but 1 state; Massachusetts. Michael Dukakis won only the Professional Left states of his time and same goes for Al Gore. It is both a cultural and economic difference which separates the party.

On one side you have the Professional Left who comes from the old Republican line. They are more skeptical of government but favor regulations, environmental policies, and advancing the socially liberal agenda such as gay marriage and anti-war rhetoric. The New Deal policies they hold onto but do not believe in enlarging government any further in that area. Overall they have a conflicted relationship with business; on one hand they do not like the power they hold but on the other believe that business should help manage alongside government. We can see this with Bill Clinton’s administration and Barack Obama’s, especially his health care law.

On the other side you have the New Deal Left who comes from the old Democratic line. They are not skeptical of government overall except in regards to social intervention which the Professional Left believe in. They favor Social Security, Medicare/Medicaid, generous welfare programs, and are staunch defenders of labor unions. They believe corporations are corrupt but are also essential parts of American life, thereby they are less harsh in rhetoric towards business but more harsh in action; the opposite of the Professional Left. Sherrod Brown, Bernie Sanders, and Walter Mondale are all good examples of this group.

Basically Obama was elected as a man of the Professional Left but with what appeared to be an attachment to the New Deal Left. So far he has governed as a mix of the two; basically taking the worst of both. He trusts business too much while railing against them in his rhetoric, he spoke out against war but now intervenes in a humanitarian fashion which has brought the Professional Left onboard, he refused to go all the way with stimulus like the New Deal Left wanted but will not balance the budget like the Professional Left would like. Is it any wonder why he is losing the New Deal Left and parts of the Professional Left? Neither is happy.

Independents and Republicans see him as culturally associated with this Professional Left but foolishly believe he is staunchly of the New Deal Left economically. He is a mix of the worst parts of both sides.

So Democrats, who do you, really want? A more culturally conservative candidate that is not identified with the Professional Left and will provide you with the pro-union, stimulus, welfare program politics or a culturally liberal candidate that is not identified with the New Deal Left and will provide you with more of the same from McGovern, Dukakis, Gore, and Obama? It’s your party so it’s your choice.

Source



posted on Sep, 16 2011 @ 08:14 AM
link   
I (as a conservative) have never had much of an issue with democrats.
I have had an issue with "progressives of both parties though. It's the progressive element that has "hijacked" the democrat party and twisted it.



posted on Sep, 16 2011 @ 08:18 AM
link   
reply to post by Misoir
 




Obama is killing the Democratic Party


You can't kill what's already dead. The same goes for the Republicans as well.

Neither of these formerly representative political parties today resembles anything but extremist ideologues and tools for special interests.



posted on Sep, 16 2011 @ 08:20 AM
link   
reply to post by Misoir
 


obama is trying to save the financial sector, and the republicans are protecting the wild, wild west attitude of the financial sector.

the fleecing of america is what is destroying the economy.

they both argue about medicare and medicade, while the pharmaceutical companies rape the sick.
drugs make a profit in canada, brazil, etc while costing a fraction of what is charged in the usa.

they argue about social security, which has never contributed to the deficit.
but this way they can avoid all the democratic and republican giveaways, that are the cause of the deficit.

the financing of our education industry is from the 18th century, very costly and insanely bureaucratic.
fleecing the homeowner out of his home.

our military spending is biblical in over spending, but with most of the senate and congress on their payroll, every scam is eternal.

obama is working to save the status quo, but so are the republicans.

the citizens will strugle to survive, which ever scoundrels run the white house.



posted on Sep, 16 2011 @ 08:22 AM
link   
Up until recently I saw Wilson and FDR as the main destroyers of the Democratic Party. But upon review, they were just the framers of what would become that destruction. With Wilson the roles reversed between Rep. and Dem., and Truman and FDR perpetuated that. Through Kennedy, LBJ, Carter, and Clinton the poison seeped and spread through the Party as each tried to out-Progressive the last.

However, Obama is a faux Progressive, even a faux leftist. He has moved so far left in his Progressivism as to become a right-leaning authoritarian statist. And the Democratic Party, so afraid of losing an election to anyone that may upset their kollectivist hive-mind, throws their full support to him out of fear of another Bush.

If they would embrace their Party as it could be, they would throw their support to someone like Dennis Kucinich, a slightly left-of-center Dem that has some good libertarian (read: freedom friendly) ideas. He isn't perfect, as some of his leanings are too far left of helpful, but he's a good guy that deserves their support.

/TOA



posted on Sep, 16 2011 @ 08:27 AM
link   
reply to post by kellynap43
 


You're right. Most of the people who have reached national prominance within the democrat party in the past several decades are at best underwhelming and at worst, loons. Several of them such as Al Gore are both.

Carter, Dukakis, Mondale, McGovern? The democrats actually thought that Michael Dukakis was the best they had? During this period, the Democrats had Bill Bradley and Bob Kerry in the Senate. Both of which had the stuff to be President. What happened to them? The left within the party destroyed them and they simply got out of politics. Gore and Kerry at least have something going on, but both are personally very unappealing and Gore is most definately a nutter.

The democrats have forgotten how to be substantial and liberal. Welcome John Conyers, Nancy Pelosi, Harry Reid, Dick Durban. Goodbuy the likes of Bill Bradley, Bob Kerry, Patrick Moynahan, William Proxmire. Men with principal who were left of center, but also pragmatic and personally appealing. The democrat party has become inhospitable to serious leaders and has become the place of the petty, special interest politics. The republicans play the special interest game as well obviously, they are simply smarter and quieter about it and their special interests are less offensive to the majority of voters than those who drive the democrat party

The democrat party is being destroyed from within by the hard left. Obama is hard left and merely accelerating the destruction. Unless a moderate candidate comes to the fore soon, they will destroy themselves.

The democrats are today where the Republicans were during the era when Ralph Reed and Jerry Falwell held tremendous swat in the party. Foolish ideologues with dangerous constituents who were ultimately rejected by the party and are not on the outside looking in and at best marginally influencial.



posted on Sep, 16 2011 @ 09:05 AM
link   
reply to post by dolphinfan
 


Like beezzer said on previous post. I don’t have a problem with the democratic party. I have met some great democrats and have voted for some on occasion, even though I'm a strong conservative.

The strong left, much like you said, is destroying the party and not helping the country in anyway whatsoever.
The attitude, I know better than you. The finger pointing. The "I’m not voting on this bill because it may make the Republicans look good even though it good for the nation" philosophy. This all has left a very bad taste in my mouth with the party, and despise the word now, democrat.

Moderate democrats need to take control of their party. Fight for it, and SPEAK OUT against the radicals who are hijacking it.

Democrats are the ying to the Republicans yang. I feel they keep us (conservatives) in check. And vice a versa. But there has to be a point where they need to come back to planet earth and visit us every now and then to actually see how things are done. I say that in the reference to their actions with stimulus, tax codes, and regulations on jobs and making this country a toxic place to start and run a business. This isn’t realistic thinking. They need to have a more logical and realistic approach for future economic growth in this great country.



posted on Sep, 16 2011 @ 09:25 AM
link   
reply to post by dolphinfan
 


You certainly brought me back in time with some of your references to the old guard in DC. Those were certainly the good old days in my memory.

It reminds of the classic battles between Tip Oneill and Ronald Reagan. LIberal vs. Conservative.

Classic stuff here

O'Neill was a leading opponent of the Reagan administration's domestic and defense policies. Following the 1980 election, with the U.S. Senate in Republican hands, O'Neill became the leader of the congressional opposition. O'Neill called Reagan the most ignorant man who had ever occupied the White House.[8] O'Neill also said that Reagan was "Herbert Hoover with a smile" and "a cheerleader for selfishness." He also said that Reagan's policies meant that his presidency was "one big Christmas party for the rich." Privately, O'Neill and Reagan were always on cordial terms, or as Reagan himself put it in his memoirs, they were friends "after 6PM." O'Neill in that same memoir when questioned by Reagan regarding a personal attack against the President that made the paper, explained that "before 6PM it's all politics."[9] Reagan once compared O'Neill to the then-popular arcade game Pac-Man in a speech, saying that he was "a round thing that gobbles up money". He also once joked he had received a valentine card from O'Neill: "I knew it was from Tip, because the heart was bleeding."

en.wikipedia.org...

We'll never see that again unless we get a POTUS who is able to rise above the fray of our modern 24/7 news cycle and blogosphere. We need to bridge the gaps between the parties again. Perhaps there should be a mandatory happy hour on capital hill every Friday evening. Some of my oldest friends are die hard Dems. We have the best debates and share many beers in the process. Then I see them at Church on Sunday.



posted on Sep, 16 2011 @ 09:27 AM
link   
reply to post by dolphinfan
 



Bill Bradley, Bob Kerry, Patrick Moynahan, William Proxmire.


I would vote for any one of those men. Overall I am really not a partisan person just more of one who appreciates a politician who understands the Middle Class, rural America, and does not try to alter it. Sure we need change, you cannot really conserve your society without changing some things. But we do not need radical social change; everything should be gradual in that process. All of those men understood that because they came from blue collar upbringings or at least understand the blue collar America.

Most Democrats and Republicans have no clue what being blue collar America is all about so we get what we have today. Two Wall Street parties battling over issues which are irrelevant to Main Street but really cannot comprehend why we are so frustrated because Wall Street is booming. Their recession ended in 2009 so they can now go back to arguing philosophy while we watch more businesses board up. At this point I do not think most Americans give a damn which party saves this country, they just want it saved. And if either of these two parties wake up to that fact they will get what they always want; power. Ask Roosevelt and the Democrats after 1932. They held the House of Representatives with only a few years exception until 1994.

edit on 9/16/2011 by Misoir because: (no reason given)



posted on Sep, 16 2011 @ 09:43 AM
link   
reply to post by Misoir
 


The great challenge is that it is impossible for a moderate in the democrat party to rise to prominence today. Kerry would have been a fantastic President (I think anyway), Medal of Honor winner, smart, dating movie stars, good looking, yet he never got to the top. He summarily rejected the pressure group politics and was not left enough and the liberal machine spit him out.

Even Ted Kennedy, although I disliked much of his views was pragmatic. Friends with Orin Hatch, a very conservative gent, willing to accept a partial solution in many cases rather than what the standard practice is today of calling the opposing side a baby killer, nazi, ect if they don't get 100% of what they are looking for.

Todays democrats are far more interested in means than ends, which is why they are so fundamentally so ineffective as leaders and why they have no credibility with the public any longer. The republicans today at least, seem more focused on the ends and hence they have more credibility with the public when it comes down to getting something done. Until the democrats nominate someone who can reach across the isle and appeal to republicans in the same manner as Reagan did with democrats and thus has the political base to repudiate the hard left and drive them out of leadership positions within the party, the democrats will continue devolve into a minority party that caters increasingly only to leftist and racial pressure groups.



posted on Sep, 16 2011 @ 09:50 AM
link   
You have fools that sit back and take sides in a "struggle" between two parties that are funded by Wall Street, Big Pharma, the MIC, etc.

Both parties need to be dismantled and the rats need to be run out of Washington. Keep believing that voting for A or B will make a goddamn bit of difference in your lives.

They will both have us all in tent cities and lines waiting for heavily water down soup, morons.



posted on Sep, 16 2011 @ 09:52 AM
link   
No the Democrats are killing themselves and have been for many years now. The people on the left that follow the Democrats are being taken as suckers as that party simply will never cater to their interests. The republicans as crazy, and apathetic as they are at least got the cojones to cater to their rabid base no matter how loony. True leftists see through the mask and realize that democrats are frauds.



posted on Sep, 16 2011 @ 09:53 AM
link   
This is funny, because I remember when the same propaganda was used to describe the damage Bush did to the Republican party.

It seems that this is a way for the base parties to distance themselves from their elected presidents when things do not go their way.

But as usual is nothing but a game played on the voters minds.

Still Bush was reelected even if he suck as president, Obama I see it as a one term president, but then what next? just another rotten corporate president regardless of party affiliation to take his place, and America will keep going down the crapper as it is doing right now.

It's our two elite corporate parties the ones killing this nation.



posted on Sep, 16 2011 @ 11:48 AM
link   
My analysis of the two parties and the controllers is on Misoir's other thread.
www.abovetopsecret.com...
While there is more to be said than what I posted, you would have to read Antony Sutton's books to get deeper into it.

Both parties are to blame for the destruction we see in our nation today. Bush and Kerry are both members of Skull and Bones and the Hegelian dialectic was neatly laid out for us to see in 04.
We had some Republicans involved in getting the Federal Reserve Act passed in Congress, but both parties are responsible for various versions of the same legislation, and it was done under the watch of a Progressive President. This actually set the stage also for Global Financing, as the world banking system was being built up from there. The UN will be the final step in implementing the One World Govt.



new topics

top topics



 
7
<<   2 >>

log in

join