Smart. Sharp. Funny. Fearless.
Sunday, October 23, 2016

WASHINGTON — Bragging about what they’ve achieved is what incumbent politicians do.

Ronald Reagan brought morning to America. Nelson Rockefeller, running for his fourth term as governor of New York in 1970, had a snappy slogan: “He’s done a lot. He’ll do more.” British prime minister Harold Macmillan told voters in the late ’50s they “never had it so good.”

But as Democrats struggle to hang on to the Senate this year (and try against the odds to take over the House), they are not in the usual boasting mood.

Some of their candidates actively praise the Affordable Care Act, but others talk more about how they would fix it. Most Democrats hailed this month’s excellent jobs numbers, but so much of the party’s message this year stresses a squeezed middle class and the problems of stagnating wages and economic inequality. “You’ve never had it so good” is not in their talking points.

More than anyone, President Obama can expound on how much better things are now than they were when the economy was near collapse in 2009. But a campaign speech he offered at a Democratic fundraiser last week in La Jolla, California, nicely captured the party’s two-track argument.

Yes, he began by accentuating the positive. “When I came into office, the American economy was in a freefall that people don’t still fully appreciate,” Obama said. “And by most measures, what we’ve accomplished together as a country over the last five years has been significant: 9.2 million new jobs, an auto industry that has come roaring back, a financial system that’s stabilized, trillions of dollars of wealth recovered and restored because housing came back and people’s 401 pensions bounced back.”

It’s a lot of good news. But note that word “significant.” It’s less buoyant than, say, “fantastic” or “wonderful.” The understatement reflected what Obama said a moment later: “What we also know is that the American public is anxious.”

The president listed the many sources of that anxiety, concluding with a central Democratic theme: that “for a couple of decades now, even when we’re growing, even when corporate profits are soaring, incomes, wages have not gone up.” For “ordinary Americans,” he said, the improvement “hasn’t translated into greater financial security.”

Obama’s be-happy-but-worry theme is justified by the facts but it leads to a peculiar imbalance in the campaign dialogue. Republicans rail against everything Obama has done. Their agenda may look like a catalog of Fox News obsessions — last month it was Obamacare, currently it’s Benghazi. But they will not stop blaming Obama and his party for all the country’s shortcomings. Democrats, by contrast, feel constrained from offering an unambiguously sunny rebuttal.

  • disqus_ivSI3ByGmh

    Actually, the best strategy the Democrats could do this season is to run on what the Republicans have blocked! Define the battle in terms of what the GOP has prevented that the majority of the people in the country are demanding!

    • joe schmo

      ….and what is that….lower taxes or a flat tax, getting rid of Obamacare, promoting business and education (competition in the schools and promoting students who excel) through discipline and responsibility, alternatives for ‘ALL’ fuel, promotion of Keystone Pipeline, give incentives for innovation, bring Corporations back instead of sending them packing like Pfizer who just left the country or Toyota leaving the state of California for Texas (because of taxes, taxes, taxes and restrictions). Closing the border and implementing a ‘Brasero’ program for workers. Checking up on social programs to make sure people who really need the help are worthy of it. Free enterprise over government employers. Hey a concept! Something you all don’t have because you lack the ‘out of the box thinking’ of Conservatives. Reason, you are relying way to heavily on father government for advice. Good luck!

      • Sand_Cat

        As I said above, honest people always suffer a huge disadvantage against sociopathic liars when the audience is ignorant or distracted.
        Thanks for providing an example of the latter two.

        • paulyz

          Yes, the honesty of Obama that he will have the most transparent administration in history, that all his bills will be stand alone bills without pork, that if you like your health care and doctor you can keep your health care & doctor, Period, that you will save an average of $2,500 on health care, that all bills will be made public so everyone knows what is in them, that Benghazi was the result of a youtube video, and on and on and on………………

          • joe schmo

            Thank you, paulyz. I’m glad someone thinks the same way I do……

          • Sand_Cat

            You think?

          • JPHALL

            It is sad you feel that way. You just proved your lack of meaningful information.

          • Sand_Cat

            Yes, honest people also have trouble talking to malicious and willful idiots.

          • Dominick Vila

            Nobody said the terrorist attack against our abandoned consulate in Benghazi was caused by an offensive film. What was said, and there may be some validity to it, is that the film that enraged tens of thousands of people throughout the Islamic world may have incited some of the violence in Benghazi. Obviously, the attack, which was carried out by heavily armed, well trained, and disciplined people was not the work of innocent protesters. The film put an end to the relative calm that had prevailed in the Benghazi region, and all of Libya, since Gaddafi was ousted. Not that it would have taken too much to get those thugs excited. I suspect they were waiting for an opportunity to get even, knowing that we supported the military operations that made the removal of Qaddafi from power possible.
            The film that you dismiss so readily should be at the forefront of the upcoming investigation into the Benghazi tragedy. Who paid for it? Who coordinated its release two days before an anniversary of 9/11/01? Who had the most to gain from an unstable Islamic world a couple of months before a presidential election? I doubt any of this will be investigated. Not only because the inquisitors suspect who was behind it, but because the damage to our political institutions will be so great that the future of our form of government would be very much in question.

          • dpaano

            Gee, I kept my health care AND my doctor, AND I’ve saved a bunch of money on my healthcare…..wonder where you’re living…..probably one of those backward states that decided not to accept ACA.

      • Jambi

        “Out of the Box” went out with the hula hoop…wait until your Toyota migrants see their property taxes, sales taxes, and the quality of our schools…not to mention their lack of water…you think California’s experiencing a drought?…spend a couple of Texas summers in Plano and see how green your yard or your wallet is!!”…

        • joe schmo

          No, ‘out of the box’ and innovation started to diminish with the inauguration of Obummer. LOL, I bet California has Texas beat with regards to property taxes, fuel prices, sales taxes, home prices, car registration, food prices and, the California’s schools are 3rd from last not to mention that ridiculous electric train Governor Moonbeam wants to implement Just where is he going to get the energy to run it. Oh that’s right, maybe ‘wind farms’ and ‘solar panels’ laid out all along the route. Environmentally (literally land pollution) polluting. Who wants to see those things doted all over California’s beautiful countryside. Not me.

          1970’s had a drought in California much like the one we are in now. Fat chance, I beg to differ, I think the new migrants will be much happier in Texas.

          • Allan Richardson

            Texas property values are subject to instant reduction to zero, with possible loss of life so it won’t matter, if an uninspected fertilizer plant across the street explodes. Part of California’s (and other higher tax states’) taxes goes to making sure that can’t happen.

          • joe schmo

            Yah, Yah, sure. I guess that’s why Texas has more of a surplus than California. Right now heading the direction of Detroit. We have ‘uber’ restrictions. It’s a bit extreme in the other direction. Try moving out and then trying to move back to California like so many people did. Can’t, it is way too expensive. Better to keep your home, rent it out.

          • JPHALL

            I know several people who ran back to California from Texas. And their kids have been accepted into some top Universities despite being educated in California.

        • dpaano

          I agree…..I keep trying to tell my friends that Texas isn’t the “garden” spot that they seem to think it is, but they think that Plano is the “eden” of Texas…..I’ll give them a year before they come running back.

      • whodatbob

        Difference between conservative and progressive is conservatives do not like change, progressives are always trying to improve things.

        • joe schmo

          Of course you don’t, the government man does that for you that is why most of you who post here have no conclusive ideas and, for that matter, neither does the government Because the government is not run like a business, most ideas are not thought out very thoroughly. By conclusive I mean, the complete package just not an idea. !)idea 2)in debt research3)conclusion and 4)effect on population. Obamacare is the perfect example, of the Liberal thought process. ‘We have to pass it to see what’s in it.’ Why do you think the Republicans in the House put the kabash on everything coming through Congress.

          Conservatives differ, in that, ideas are more thought about. Many who post are business owners and entrepreneurs. Not backward, we are very skeptical and cautious to move forward. If it sounds reasonable then we agree. When it sounds extreme, we balk. Visit many Conservative sites and you will notice the problem solving and facts associated with many responses. Since I have been posting here, I see very little of that.

          Yah, Yah, so and so is doing such a good job and the Conservatives suck says absolutely nothing. Very few of you post anything that I believe you have even thoroughly thought through:) Anyway, why change something that wasn’t broken to begin with. Especially the way your side is doing it. It most likely will come back to slap you up side the head one of these days.

          • dpaano

            Our Government is NOT A BUSINESS!!!! It does not run like a business, and it should NOT run like a business!!!

          • joe schmo

            Really, well right now it is an unorganized, overspent, mess.

            Truman ran this country like a business. He brought it out of the brink. At the moment we need it to be this way because there is way to much overspending on unnecessary programs. There is really no budget plan. I believe a group of government employees need to be implemented into each program and find out where the budget can be cut….and believe me they will find out that there are tons of ways to save money. Just let me in at it. I’ll clean up the mess. I do know how to organize very well and that is no lie.

          • JPHALL

            You and I both know that is a load of manure. Read the business section sometimes and find out how many have gone bankrupt or required government bailouts.

          • joe schmo

            No, it is not bull hockey. What we both know is true is the fact that there is a wide gap between the two parties. Wide and getting wider. We all know there is a problem. You think it is us, we think it is you. The truth of the matter is that there is a problem on both sides and that revolves around the idea that Obama hates the Conservatives. He is a divider not a uniter. What happens to a child that is constantly mistreated and abused. One of these days he reacts and starts to fight back. It’s being bullied. It’s like being backed into a corner in a fight. Either you fight or let that person beat the shit out of you. Well, I would rather come up swinging than be a wimp. Until things get better, I will continue to stand up for myself especially against the injustices that your side continues to incite. We see what’s happening you don’t. You would rather stand on your self proclaimed ideology of an environmentally stable Utopia. Where everyone holds hands and sings praises to the earth Gods. That is not reality my friend, It just isn’t.

            If you are referring to GM and Chrysler, they were Union. I don’t believe in bailing out anyone. If they are going to fail that is their own damn fault. Makes you tougher when you have to start over and over and over…..

        • paulyz

          Try staying in some of the boxes of tried and true methods of Government, we have seen Obama’s and your Liberal/Socialist “new ideas” fail throughout history. Seems most Libs are always dissatisfied with their own Country, but never actually move to these Socialist nations.

          • joe schmo

            Hello….so true:) My family actually escaped from suppressive regimes. America was like heaven and now these idiots want to turn it into what my family left. They know not what they do. Most American’s don’t because they have had it too good for too long.

      • jnap

        You could go a little farther right if you tried just a little bit. harder Why not have debtor prisons, and take away the children of people on welfare and put them in a for profit orphanage. Drug test everyone except the those earning more than a hundred K a year. Turn all public schools over to private for profit companies and eliminate all accountability for those schools and all testing.
        Turn all government over to private companies and do away with the Department of education. the Bureau of Land Management, the EPA, OSHA and all agencies that have anything with worker safety. Also get rid of all business and professional regulation.
        Banks and Wall Street should have no regulations at all. Get rid of food stamps and force people to work on collective farms for their food if they are hungry. Lower taxes to zero for everyone earning more than 50K and all those earning less would pay 50%. Eliminate all pensions for public workers and stop all business contributions to any pension plan including 401K’s.
        I’ll bet you would love all of that.

        • Allan Richardson

          Or let poor parents sell their children to slaughterhouses to produce expensive gourmet meals for the rich. Actually, I stole this idea from Jonathan Swift. See his tract “A Modest Proposal.”

          • joe schmo

            Get over yourself. I suppose you want to live in a land where the people share everything but any kind of wealth whatsoever. Then the Government owns everything. Even your soul. What political regime are we then faced with? That is what you are proposing and I have already seen that type of democracy, if you could call it that, in action. Just guess what it is because that is what you are asking for…..

        • joe schmo

          Now you are beginning to get it. You are painting me as extreme when that is not my intention at all. Although, drug testing is not a bad idea. I believe parents should have a choice as to where they want their children educated. Whether it is through private, home or public education. It is not your choice to force anyone to do anything, yet that is what you all are trying to do. I’m not saying get rid of all Government aid because I do believe in helping the disabled and mothers who are undereducated with children. But, if they are able bodied, what is wrong with people working for the welfare they receive?

          As for the EPA, OSHA, BLM and DOE, wellll, I think they are becoming a bit extreme and need to cool their jets. They work for the people, remember.

          Banks are the scourge of the earth and well, Wall Street is Wall Street. If someone wants to risk it all on stocks that is their problem.

          Not saying get rid of food stamps either, rather check on the people getting them. Again work in exchange for welfare and food if you are able bodied.

          Flat tax or sales tax. Sales tax is something that everyone has to pay. Whether you are a legal citizen or not you simply cannot get away from it. A flat tax and no tax for those who are poor. This would give people from all walks of life more money. That way you can bolster the economy. Who cares if some people make more money than you. Are you really that jealous?

          As for the pensions, they should fluxuate with the economy. I hate to say it but in Europe it is actually done that way. At the moment, retired union workers get like 50 to 75% of what they earned. That is a heavy burden when the economy is not fairing so well. Not fair to the taxpayers. There should also not be so many regulations and taxes against the business community. It is causing Corps to go overseas and then what are we left with….. I think you can answer that one.

          Inevitably, it is a balancing act. At the moment you are arrogant and high on getting your way, but that is not fair to the rest of us who believe in what I just mentioned above. That is not going back in time or staying the same. Balance on both sides makes the world go round and that is something your side and ours hasn’t done for a long long time. Dipolmacy my friend dipolmacy, that’s what I am getting at. Their is no team in ‘I.’

      • DurdyDawg

        “Checking up on social programs to make sure people who really need the help are worthy of it””

        Well at least ‘moochers’ wasn’t in this statement and I agree fully with it as does the majority of Dems I’m sure but with the extreme arguments for and against it, no one seems to have a clear mind that it’s the g’ments responsibility to monitor such programs and prosecute those who abuse it to the fullest extent of the law rather than allow politicians use it for votes by dictating what should be done with it (after all, you take the funds out of welfare what do you actually think they would do with this money? Repair the deficit? Dream on) but when they over look the obvious of just who is abusing entitlements (corporations and the 1%) then it’s typical that they allow the public, who can’t completely relate to either, to scorn one and trust the other to “trickle” their profits onto the economy. What we need is FAIR share and the users (whoever they may be) is not committing to this rule. It’s a ‘gimme’ nation and BOTH sides are participating (rich and poor) while the middle class is being affected because they’re too damned busy trying to make a living.

        • joe schmo

          Oh yes it is because they are dishing out OUR money and in an unorganized fashion at that. When it comes to welfare, they are at the helm remember. What makes you think they should shun their responsibility. Do you think it is fair that people work the system and then buy fancy cars and houses etc…off government handouts. Don’t think so.

          Repair the deficit! Look, the government squanders money right and left. We need some accountability. Yet they want more and more money from us.

          Speak for yourself when you talk about Corporations and the 1%. Most are Liberals. You need to complain about your own people on that one. We no longer produce or manufacture:)

          …and absolutely on the last statement. I think that is something both Liberals and Conservatives can agree upon, the middle class. We need to start working together. Enough of this divide. Frankly, it’s killing ‘we the people.’

          • dpaano

            That’s why our Republican “friends” are spending OUR taxpayer money on committee after committee to research something that has already been settled (Benghazi) and spending more of our taxpayer money trying to repeal a healthcare program that a majority of the taxpayers want to keep (albeit fix as problems are seen). The Republicans don’t mind spending all OUR money to their ends…..but they bitch and complain when our President wants to spend money on important things that would put people to work; i.e., infrastructure repairs, etc. As for the deficit….President Obama has pretty much paid off most of the deficit left by our erstwhile “idiot” ex-president (and I won’t name names)!

          • JPHALL

            What a moron. Corporations are liberal? Boeing is liberal? Most business people are anti union and hate the minimum wage and other government programs. Once again, where do you get your lack of true information?

          • joe schmo

            What an idiot…. Have you seen or read this article:


            Here are some excerpts:

            Yet today in America, the majority of rich people statistically are not Republicans but are liberal Democrats, many of them on the far left.
            They live in places like New York and Hollywood and San Francisco and Chicago and Silicon Valley, hardly the home turf of conservatism. Most
            of the richest congressional districts are represented by Democrats. Many of the richest people in the US congress are liberals.

            And the three richest men in America – Warren Buffett, Bill Gates and Larry Ellison – all are liberals.

            This runs contrary to the media fiction that the rich people in America are Republicans. This fiction is repeated over and over in the media in
            order to win over ignorant people to the Democrat party. And there are plenty of them, mostly among the angry, envious poor; in the agitated
            and shrinking middle class; and in the perpetually enraged labor union movement.

            The capitalist rich are generally Republicans. They “make things” and “build things” and “manufacture things” and provide basic resources likecoal or timber in the ‘hard’ side of the economy. Henry Ford was an example of old-school capitalist rich. Andrew Carnegie too. Or CorneliusVanderbilt, who constructed the famous New York Central railroad.

            But today as manufacturing moves abroad, we have fewer and fewer of the old-school capitalist rich, and the middle class is shrinking as the
            wealth to support it is eroding away.

            And why is this happening?

            ecause of Democrat party attacks on wealth-creating, capitalist
            private business through excessive taxes, regulation, lawsuits, enviro
            restrictions and labor union agitation.

            (It is important to remember, however, that the capitalist rich generally are not ‘conservatives’ by any stretch of the imagination. In fact most capitalist rich Republicans are so-called ‘Rockefeller Republicans’ who are fairly liberal because they are concerned only with the economic agenda of the Republican party like lower taxes and less regulation.

            Replacing the shrinking class of capitalist rich are the socialist rich who do not actually “make things” or “provide resources” that the
            society needs. In fact, the socialist rich largely shun production altogether. They are mostly urban elites (New York, San Francisco,
            Follywood) who don’t get their hands dirty building power plants or constructing homes or cutting trees or mining coal or building railroads.

            These socialists do not get rich through wealth creation like Henry Ford did but by taking for themselves larger and larger chunks of America’s existing wealth through wealth appropriation. And they indeed are getting richer as America gets poorer.

            And if you look at the places in which wealth has been created through hard work, you always will see the easy-living socialists moving in and
            seeking to get as much of that wealth as possible. That is why places
            ike California and New York state, once two of the wealthiest and most productive places in the world, today are ruled by hard-left liberal
            Democrat policies – because a socialist can smell a dollar bill a mile away, and is attracted to money and leisure like a child to candy. That is why California today is full of rich liberals; because hard-working people made it a comfortable place to live over many decades, and made
            it wealthy.

            deed, after wealth is created through hard work the socialists at every level set up shop. So, for instance, the moment that a capitalist
            company becomes economically successful, you will see the unions moving in to get as much of that wealth as possible. But those unions never
            take any of the risk involved or put in the long hours to build that company up.

            Or once a company is successful you will find the government taxing it relentlessly; or the Democrat trial lawyers seeking any grounds for a lawsuit. Because liberals are in love with money more than any capitalist ever was.

            Easy money, that is… Money that they can “take”, not “earn”.

            LOL, this is so true it isn’t even funny:) Now you tell me how this does not make sense.

      • dpaano

        I have several friends who work for Toyota here in Torrance, and it is a KNOWN FACT that Toyota is NOT moving to Texas because of the taxes…..they are moving to consolidate and centralize all their facilities. Texas is a centralized area for Toyota’s many facilities. Taxes have nothing to do with it…..but apparently, you don’t do your research! It was also noted in the L.A. Times with comments from Corporate Headquarters that clearly stated taxes in Texas were not a factor in their move.

    • Dominick Vila

      We should run on what the GOP has blocked, what we have accomplished in spite of the Republican obstructionism, the economic prosperity we are now enjoying, and we should put Benghazi in perspective by reminding Americans of who was in charge of the WH and Congress when 9/11/01 took place, and when 12 U.S. diplomatic facilities were attacked.
      One of the most obvious differences between the two parties is the ability of one party to govern in spite of ideological obstructionism, and the strategic campaign obsession of the other party.
      For the GOP, being in office means focusing on gaining more seats, regardless of what must be done to achieve that goal, and positioning themselves for highly paid lobbying jobs when they leave office. Governance is just an inconvenient requirement that can be easily avoided by delegating responsibility, chopping firewood, or vacationing in private islands in the Caribbean.

      • Gadfly81

        Dominick Villa:
        “…put Benghazi in perspective by
        reminding Americans of who was in charge of the WH and Congress when 9/11/01 took place, and when 12 U.S. diplomatic facilities were attacked.”

        NO! This is admitting to failure: “Yes,
        we failed but look at Republican failures.”
        I believe we should be positive about
        Benghazi, not apologetic.

        • Dominick Vila

          I understand and respect your point, which would be the best approach under normal circumstances, but when it comes to electioneering the GOP does not play by the rules and goes to any extreme to destroy their opponents, even if it requires hyperbole, distortions and lies.
          The latest attack on Hillary Clinton involves the kidnapping of 200 young girls in Nigeria. They blame Hillary for not taking more effective action against terrorism in that country. Never mind the fact that she labeled them terrorists. My come back would be: Does the GOP support the invasion of every country where terrorist cells are known to be based? If the GOP believes we are too soft, it implies they support a different approach. What is it?
          I think letting the GOP control the agenda and the issues that dominate the media without reminding the public of who was in office when 9/11/01 occurred, and when 12 U.S. diplomatic facilities were attacked (the consulate in Karachi was attacked twice) is a mistake. Benghazi was a tragedy, but not an unprecedented one. It was simply the latest in a long of terrorist attacks. As tragic as losing a single person at the hands of these thugs is, lets not forget what happened when the GOP controlled the WH and Congress, and what has happened since President Obama was elected.

        • joe schmo

          With do respect, the Conservatives have their faults but your side is far far from perfect.

          Why don’t you elaborate on Republican failures. Seems that everything that goes wrong with the government nowadays is the Republicans fault. The Democrats seem to be more than perfect. LOL

          • Dominick Vila

            Here is a short list:
            Reagan declaring the conflicts in the Middle East were not our war, after more than 200 U.S. Marines were slaughtered at the Beirut airport, and ordering the most embarrassing cut and run in U.S. history.
            Reagan granting amnesty to 4 million illegal immigrants, but doing nothing to address the root cause of the problem.
            Reagan dealing with Iran (Iran-Contra) at a time when we had no diplomatic or trade relations with that country.
            Bush II delegating responsibility to attend the daily national security briefings (dereliction of duty). 9/11 followed.
            Bush and Cheney hiding at undisclosed locations while our country was being attacked. Thank God for Sen Ted Kennedy and Alexander Haig addressing the nations from the steps of the Capitol, while the Pentagon across the Potomac was burning.
            Bush granting Saudi Arabia, the homeland of the 9/11 terrorists, Most Favored Nation Status in exchange for lucrative contracts and Treasury bond purchases, and then attacking two countries that had nothing to do with 9/11.
            Torture, renditions, threats, and punitive action against anyone who disagreed or proved the claims being made by the Bush II administration were false (Valerie Plame comes to mind).
            Deregulation that contributed to the Wall Street collapse, ENRON, AIG, Bernie Maddoff and the disaster we all witnessed in recent years.
            No, the economic progress we are seeing had little to do with Republicans contributions. In fact, it has been achieved in spite of Republican obstructionism, including denying investment in infrastructure and turning down the Veterans Jobs Act. The DOW Index rising from 6,500 points in January to 2009 to over 16,000 points has absolutely nothing to do with Republican obstructionism. It is influenced by improved consumer confidence, high profit margins, low interest rates, investment, and a significant decline in unemployment.

          • joe schmo

            To be honest with you Reagan was kind of right. He kept us out of a stupid senseless war. Of course there is no recourse for the killing of Marines

            Illegal alien entry: He tried to stop it but Congress at the time was run by Liberals and the situation continued and escalated to what we have today.

            Who ever said Bush was an excellent President. Conservatives all know he was not. One thing is for sure. He looked after the military.

            Bush regarding national security briefings well at least he was engaged and took interest in the Countries affairs, unlike someone else we know. Internationally, Obama is a failure.

            Bush and Cheney during the 9/11 attacks: Isn’t that what the government is supposed to do get the president under cover during any American attack.

            Torture, renditions, threats and punitive action against anyone who disagreed with Bush administration. Hmmmm….sounds eerily familiar

            Economic progress? Where? Solyndra, Auto bailout, Obamacare (if this ends up like the Veteran’s Administration scandal a lot of people will die. His environmental policies are killing us. Stimulus upon stimulus. Road tax. Taxing businesses out of the country. Manufacturing. What manufacturing? It has all been outsourced because of the heavy hand of the unions. I’m not saying we should be paid pittance but……where’s the work?

            Nobel Peace Prize? For what. Doing absolutely nothing. It was a political gesture.

            It’s not simply that Mr. Obama has fallen short of what he promised; it’s that he has been, in so many respects, a failure. Choose your metrics. Better yet, choose Mr. Obama’s metrics: Job creation. Economic growth. Improving our health-care system. Reducing the debt. Reducing poverty. Reducing income inequality. Slowing the rise of the oceans. Healing the planet. Repairing the world. The Russian “reset.” Peace in the Middle East. Red lines in Syria. Renewed focus on Afghanistan. A new beginning with the Arab world. Better relations with our allies. Depolarizing our politics. Putting an end to the type of politics that “breeds division and conflict and cynicism.” Working with the other party. Transparency. No lobbyists working in his administration. His commitment to seek public financing in the general election. The list goes on and on.

            By now, nearly 6 years into the Obama presidency, objective people can draw reasonable conclusions, among which are these: Barack Obama was among the least prepared men to ever serve as presidency. It shows. He has been over matched by events right from the start. He is an excellent campaigner but unusually inept when it comes to governing.

            By temperament and experience, based on skill set and ability, Mr. Obama is much better equipped to be a community organizer than to be president of the United States.

            So let’s call a spade a spade and realize that both of these men as president were failures. Now, if it is not too late, let’s figure out a way to become one nation again.

          • Dominick Vila

            If Reagan was kind of right regarding our involvement in the Islamic world – which I agree with – why did the GOP support the invasions of two countries that had nothing to do with 9/11, and why do they insist on a military presence in Islamic countries where we are not welcomed? There is no excuse for Reagan’s cut and run after more than 200 Marines were slaughtered.
            Reagan never did anything to stop the influx of illegal immigrants, and neither did Bush II. They were both sympathetic to the plight of Mexican and Central American workers, and visited Mexico City several times to address that issue. The most overt example of their feelings on this issue involves Reagan’s decision to grant amnesty to 4 million illegal immigrants in 1986.
            Neither Bush nor the GOP has taken any interest in the military. They used them to achieve their narrow geo-political and economic goals. If in doubt, take a look at what many times the GOP mentioned the military during the Tampa convention. Answer: zero, not once. The military were the centerpiece of the last Democratic convention, and our First Lady has made that, and the need to fight obesity, her personal goals.
            The only interest that Bush took in other countries was to threaten anyone who did not tow the line in Iraq and Afghanistan. He cajoled and threatened anyone who disagreed or provided evidence that undermined his false justifications to invade Iraq.
            Yes, our President and VP must be protected in the face of imminent danger, but calling himself a war President and a hero of sorts after hiding while the rest of the nation was, theoretically, facing grave danger, was unbecoming of any man with a minimum amount of dignity. BTW, members of Congress are also supposed to be protected under such circumstances. Some chose to stand by the rest of us to reassure a nation in shock.

          • joe schmo

            …and why did Obama go into Libya. From what I heard, Libya was the crowning jewel of the Middle East before we got our hands on it. No we wanted to ruin the Libyan economy for our own selfish purposes and wasn’t it Syria that Obama wanted to go into. I remember asking myself, why?

            Anyway, to rebuff your statements:

            From what I can tell we were on a peace keeping mission with France and we were not inciting any violence. It was purely a terrorist act. Actually, Reagan did want to go in and retaliate, however Weinberger stopped him from doing so. He ended up withdrawing troops in 1984 because Congress was leary about keeping our Military intact. However in February of 84 the US sent the USS New Jersey to fire 300, 16 inch rounds (the size of a volkswagen beetle) shells at Druze and Syrian positions east of Beirut. The New Jersey ‘seemed to be unleashing eighteen months of repressed fury.’

            So Reagan didn’t duck and run it was the Secretary of Defense that requested that he not do so and also the discrepancy that Weinberger had with State department head Schultz that caused the problems that you are referring too.

            Reagan knew he had made a mistake and admitted it. “Recently the liberal media has been pushing its pro-amnesty agenda by painting a false picture of Reagan on immigration and amnesty. Reagan saw that illegal immigration was becoming a big problem and wanted to stop it. He was persuaded to allow a relatively small amnesty as a bargaining chip to strengthen border security, and more importantly, workplace enforcement. Reagan wanted to fine employers $3,000 to $10,000 for each illegal immigrant deliberately hired. Congress betrayed him on the enforcement measures and probably the extent and eventual costs of the amnesty. Blindness to likely consequences and costs of social legislation seems to be an inherent characteristic of liberal politicians of both major parties. One of the great shortcomings of progressives is their inability to progress to step 2 or 3 in thinking through the logical consequences of legislation(I AM CONSTANTLY STATING THIS). They have an unshakeable faith in the wisdom of the latest poll of uninformed voters. Reagan should have known better than to trust the happy-clappy liberals and servants of the big dollar lobbyists. He made a big mistake, but he admitted it.” ….and it was 2.7 million.

            Excuse me, regarding the military. Bush was extremely passionate about our boys in uniform and he still is. Bush is many things, but he was a huge proponent for the military. Obama most definitely is not. As a matter of fact, if we get Killary into office our military will be as good as toast. The Clinton’s have no regard for the military.

            As far as all the war mongering that we have involved ourselves in with regards to the Middle East. I agree with you. I don’t believe we need to be there nor do I believe that we should ever have been in the Middle East. However, there is a certain amount of respect that lies between men and countries. Obama has gotten neither. We are not the police force for the world, however; we can’t be shown up as wimps either.

            Not quite sure if your last statement is entirely true. Just as Obama was unavailable during Benghazi, I am quite sure he would be rousted away to a secure hiding place right away. It is proper procedure and, besides, Bush was not in hiding during 9/11. He was reading books to school children…. Remember, when he was told…..

          • Dominick Vila

            We got involved in Libya in retaliation for Qadafi’s decision to destroy Pan Am Flight 103, and because he was a destabilizing force in the Islamic world. Libya was, and remains, a developing country. Iraq, Saudi Arabia, Qatar and Bahrain were the crowning jewels of progress, before we turned Iraq into a wasteland. Honestly, Reagan was not the kind of guy that allowed someone like Caspar Weinberger dissuade him from anything. He decided to pull out of Lebanon because he did not want to get the USA involved in the mess that was going on in that country…even after our Marines were killed. Subject: Re: New comment posted on The Democrats’ Strategic Ambiguity

          • joe schmo

            Libya has one of the world’s largest oil reserves. I think that may be one reason we went in.

            Gaddafi’s Libya Was Africa ‘s Most Prosperous Democracy

            Retaliation for Flight 103? 25 years ago…. Come on.

            As for Reagan and Weinberger. Apparently he did and yes, he did not want to get involved so he pulled the troops out with later retribution.

          • Dominick Vila

            Libya has large oil reserves, but not as large as those in Venezuela and Saudi Arabia, for example. We did not support the ousting of Gaddafi, which was spearheaded mostly by the UK and France, because of their oil. The Koch brothers, and several EU and other foreign firms, were already exploiting those oil fields, and benefited from lucrative contracts extended by the Gaddafi regime.
            Making those that attack us pay for their crimes does not seem to be a big deal for Republican Presidents. Reagan let Hezbollah off the hook in Lebanon. Bush let Saudi Arabia off the hook, and he stated that catching OBL, six years after 9/11, was not a big deal. For some of us, it is a big deal.
            You may be right about Reagan and Weinberger. Let’s face it, he did the same with Lt. Col. Oliver North.

          • JPHALL

            Once again, where do you get this nonsense?

          • JPHALL

            Where do you get this nonsense? The only people pulling the nation apart are people like you who for some reason find everything Obama does is wrong. You and your friends are the only ones claiming the need to reclaim our country. Reclaim from what?

            You want us to go back to mounting deficits, escalating unemployment, Americans fighting and dying all around the world. You want to continue alienating our allies for the Bush doctrine?

            Get a real life. In two years the Black man will be out of the WH and all those complainer’s will disappear as the next Repug administration continues to send American jobs overseas while creating more minimum wage jobs for the American worker.

          • joe schmo

            Yup, this is the kind of stuff that is leading us to the breaking point. That being, number one, your attitude.

            RECLAIM? How ignorant. We don’t want to reclaim a damn thing. We want your immoral, decadent ideology to simmer down. Do the hell what you want but don’t infringe it on me and millions of others who don’t want your Communist agenda shoved down our throats. You want us to except you but you won’t except us. Every chance he gets, the president puts down the Conservatives and blames the Conservatives. Has he taken fault for anything? Nada. No other president since I have been alive has pitted one side against the other. I think this is a very immature way of handling power. He is not a good leader. A good leader is a uniter not a divider.

            92 million people out of work. 45 million on food stamps. Jobs being outsourced, Dollar devaluating. No respect internationally. Taxes and more taxes. Extreme environmental restrictions. More and more illegals coming into the country and taking the jobs people in this country want to do and also taking from the welfare coffers. Wanting to spread the wealth. Unions keeping wages high during a downturn in the economy. Obamacare which will most likely end up like the Veteran’s Administration debacle. Premiums skyrocketing for many. No guns when there is more and more crime. Criminals having more rights than victims.

            Do you really think this is helping the poor by the nation becoming poorer. A nonprosperous nation cannot provide for their downtrodden. Think about it. A poor nation cannot take care of it’s environment. How much can you suck the private sector dry until your sole income earners are government workers. No production, no innovation, where is this leading us? You tell me where things are getting better. I only see more being pitted on both sides.

            You have no real solutions. Admit it your side has immensely contributed to this mess. If this guy were sooooo good there would be less strife, but there isn’t. There is more. Get over Bush, he’s in the history books. Now the playing field is in Obama’s court and he is losing the game because he really doesn’t know how to play.

            “The problem with socialism is that eventually you run out of other people’s money.”
            – Margaret Thatcher

      • Gadfly81

        You wrote about putting Benghazi in perspective, of viewing it in its true relation… It was not a failure our administration. I want to fill you in on a far different
        tale of Benghazi…
        First one must become aware of the
        CIA’s extreme, secretive involvement in this story, and of their manipulating the facts in order to hide the truth.

        This story begins with a secret love
        affair between a top executive and his biographer. This affair is only a temporary blip in the narrative, but necessary because it exposes a leak the CIA has tried to cover up ever since, a leak that is the key to this entire Benghazi story the Republicans are using to
        bring down Hillary and win the White House. They’ve turned a tragedy into an absurd farce.
        General David Petraeus, the Director of the CIA during this tragedy on 9/11/2012, was having an affair with his biographer, Paula Broadwell, but resigned two months later when the affair became public.But prior to his resignation he became the last of twelve people to review and alter the infamous “Talking Points” that were given to Susan Rice shortly after the attack. His motive for the censoring was to keep secret the illegal ‘Black Site’,
        an annex not an embassy, at Benghazi.
        President Obama had on Jan 22, 2009,issued executive order, #13491, demanding that all CIA secret prisons such as Benghazi be closed. Ever since this 9/11 attack the
        CIA and the Main Stream Media, have worked hard to keep this black site out of the news even though Paula Broadwell, the CIA Director’s mistress had revealed it back on Oct 6 of that year in a lecture before the University of Denver.
        The Republicans have spent nineteen months in thirteen Congressional hearings so far attempting to gain political advantage over the Democrats but they should assume some responsibility for this tragedy for cutting US ambassador’s security funding by $128 million in fiscal 2011 and $331 million in fiscal 2012. Hillary Clinton had told the Republicans that their cuts to her department would be “detrimental to America’s national security”

        • Dominick Vila

          Thank you for adding a new dimension to the Benghazi tragedy. I don’t believe we should apologize for anything. That is, unless former President Bush and the Republicans that controlled both chambers of Congress when 9/11/01 occurred do so. Even though both were terrorist attacks, the GOP has a lot more to apologize for than we do.
          I heard people like Lindsey Graham deny that funding to enhance or preserve our security capabilities at the Embassy in Tripoli were cut as recently as yesterday on CNN. I suspect he was using semantics to make that claim.
          Some of the most dramatic differences between 9/11/01 and Benghazi are that President Obama has not delegated responsibility to attend the daily national security briefings, which his predecessor did. A Fatwa had not been issued by known terrorists promising to attack our country. Our EMBASSY was not attacked, an abandoned CONSULATE was; consequently security at the embassy should not even be a topic of discussion. The only explanation for Ambassador Stevens trip to Benghazi is that he either wanted to get a first hand briefing from our CIA agents and informants at the consulate Annex in Benghazi (located about a mile from the consulate), or he wanted to get first hand information from the pro-Western militia leader that informed a U.S. diplomat named McFarland two days earlier that he could no longer guarantee the safety of Americans in the region as a result of the emotions caused by the release of an anti-Islam film released two days earlier. BTW, I think the making of that film in the USA and its release was not an innocent act. It was a deliberate attempt to create havoc and damage the credibility of President Obama’s foreign policy two months before a presidential election in the USA. That is an aspect of this tragedy that ought to be investigated, but it will not be because the investigators either know, or suspect, who was behind that provocation and will not touch it with a 10-ft pole.
          Other differences between 9/11/01 and Benghazi include the fact that the former took place on U.S. soil, that 3,000 people were killed, that our former President and VP went into hiding while the attacks were taking place and Sen. Ted Kennedy and Alexander Haig had no choice but to calm a shocked nation from the steps of the Capitol. Most importantly, President Obama has not given special privileges to the homeland of the attackers in exchange for lucrative contracts, and made up lies to invade someone else.
          An investigation into ALL the terrorist attacks carried out against us should take place, but its focus should be on learning more about the root causes and how to minimize the probability of recurrences, rather than the witch hunt we are now witnessing for political reasons. Alas, they are now blaming Hillary for the kidnapping of 200 girls in Nigeria because she, allegedly, did nothing to address the presence of terrorists in that country when she was in office.

          • paulyz

            Just like the Democrats controlled BOTH chambers of Congress during Bush’s last 2 years when the sub-prime loan fiasco happened with Dodd/Frank, and the first 2 years of Obama’s Presidency, when they steamrolled legislation without opposition. Can’t have it both ways.

            The 911 tragedy happened & we have dealt with terrorism, whereas the Benghazi tragedy happened because of trying to hide the fact that it was a terrorist attack and lied about a youtube video because of the upcoming election, then the coverup that is obvious. Big differences.

          • joe schmo

            Thanks for the reminder. Just to let you know. Bush was a psuedo Republican. A wolf in sheeps clothing, if you will…..

          • Dominick Vila

            Are you comparing 9/11/01, the worst foreign terrorist attack on U.S. soil, with legislation passed when Democrats were in control of Congress. For the record, the Senate during the last two years of Bush’s presidency consisted of 49 Democrats, 49 Republicans, and 2 Independents.
            The Benghazi attack happened because the Obama administration tried to hide the fact that it was a terrorist attack? That does not make any sense. AFTER the attack took place the Obama Administration suggested that it may have been influenced by the release of an offensive film, which I suspect was released deliberately to influence the outcome of an upcoming U.S. election. When that assumption could not be confirmed, President Obama admitted it was an act of terrorism, which the GOP criticized because, in their little brains, that was different from a terrorist attack.
            9/11/01 happened when Republicans controlled both the White House and both chambers of Congress, and nothing you can or anybody else can say will change that fact. The same goes for the terrorist attacks against 12 U.S. diplomatic facilities (embassies and/or consulates). One of them, Karachi, was attacked twice. Talking about ineptitude.
            Whether or not our government could have done anything to prevent these tragedies is debatable. IMHO, highly improbable. What is despicable is the way Republicans are using one of these tragedies to score political points. Quite a contrast with what happened after 9/11/01, when 3,000 were killed on U.S. soil, and a bipartisan commission focused on learning the root causes of that tragedy and finding ways to limit the probability of a recurrence.

          • joe schmo

            Exactly, Paulyz Obama was more interested in his politico agenda than saving lives. It was plain flat out negligence on Hillary’s part. Not only did she lie about that stupid video, the situation made it look like she could not handle her job. I mean the fact that she had too much on her plate. I also heard that when old Billy boy was in office the military got one small bottle of water to drink per day. Needless to say that the military did not like Bill Clinton all that much….And that came from someone who was in the military at the time. Just think what will happen when Hllary and her heartless tin man get back into the White House. Geez….

            Everything this President and his cabinet do is under the table and under handed. Such a corrupt group.

          • JPHALL

            How do you know so much about something the world press is totally ignorant? I guess Faux News has sources nobody else in the world has access to. Unless you are like them and make this nonsense up yourself.

          • joe schmo

            How do I know….because it is just too obvious. Why don’t you tell us why everyone in the White House is trying to evade the subject? Why are you evading it? Because Obama was running for office at the time and didn’t give a crap about the consulate. Of course, Hillary does not want to look weak in front of her future voters. What is the matter with admitting you made a mistake. Definitely would gain more respect.

            As far as the rest of the story, well, I tend to listen to people who have been there. Like those in the military. The media on both sides will lie. One thing you don’t seem to realize is the fact that many Conservatives are skeptical of everything the Government and representatives are doing. That is something you all don’t question because you rely too heavily on your Gods in the White House. We question authority and in my opinion that shows intelligence. Being a follower will sometimes lead your over the cliff. Just sayin……

          • JPHALL

            Are you really that dense or merely a paid troll for the Repugs and TPers?

          • MJRinPA

            NO ONE LIED about it being a terrorist act. President Obama stated that on day 1.

  • terry b

    My biggest fear is seeing the rise of a Fourth Reich. Never thought that that could happen in America. Now the GOP has started to resemble the Nazi party with every year that goes by. Their written platform book should be labeled “Fascism 101 – How to create 2nd class citizens to help in the rise of the Fourth Reich”. They are doing it and they are counting on the ignorance of the electorate to achieve their goals. Hopefully we will not allow such a thing to occur in a country that was once known as the land of the free. Losing the Senate would allow our version of the Nazi party to grow even stronger. Hillary Clinton will make a great president if she does not have to deal with a wave of fascism which she would face if the Senate is lost to the Nazi’s. The Nazi party is doing everything they can to suppress the votes of any group that has a tendency to vote for democrats. They have been successful in this area thanks to the fascist views that have infected the Supreme Court. With any luck someone like Scalia will drop dead and a good person will replace him and we can reverse the horrible decisions by the SC over the last 5 years.

    • Mark Sales

      How the heck are you counting “Reichs”? Germany in the nineteen thirties had a somewhat limited history as a country since the unification of Germany under the Kaiser was a relatively recent invention at the time, so it was easier to count their Reichs. France of course had several incarnations too. The United States overall had several native American civilizations that predated the colonial settlements (count this as the first?) then of course we had French, English, Dutch and Spanish colonial settlements (do these count as the second or do we count them individually?), then we had a revolution in the English (and former Dutch) colonies, this was followed by an initial Confederation of the former English colonies. It was at this point that the leading citizens of the time called for and held a constitutional convention and developed a framework for a conventional Republic (do we actually restart the count here or are we carrying over and calling this the fourth?).

      Seriously, the Nazis were “national socialists” under the convoluted concatenation of politics of the thirties. Now how can we seriously describe the mainstream Republican party as socialists (there may well be some element of nationalism there)? Now the non-mainstream Republican politicians run across a spectrum of generally conservative arc, but still difficult to describe as socialists.

      • terry b

        The original Nazi’s did run as socialists but history shows that they were the purist form of fascists. Germany’s Nazi’s had a total disdain for minorities and homosexuals. Sound familiar? They had a war on Jews and our version of the Nazi party has a war on women. Anyone with a modicum of intelligence knows that all of this is true. 75% of the current German people referred to Romney as Hitler Lite. Rick Perry was referred to as a Hitler clone. Rick Santorum was compared to the Mullah’s of Iran. All rightfully correct. Any attempt to overturn one of the finest supreme court decisions of the last 41 years would be considered a very bad person. A decision that was made by seven white men. Pretty unusual thing when dealing with such an important issue that affected only women. The current GOP is considered as Nazi’s because of the actions that they continually espouse against women, minorities and homosexuals. I am none of these groups but I will always defend them against any who stand against them. Watching many hours of Hitler’s speeches on the history channel always made me think of Romney. With the exception of inflation many of the speeches by both of these men were way to comparable. When two Jewish people overheard me discussing the Nazi party they both knew that I was talking about the current Nazi party. They knew all the reasons why they were being called that without me having to explain why I was referring to the GOP. The GOP used to be a good party where one of us could simply vote for the best candidate regardless of party affiliation. Now there is only the democrats who defend the three groups that our version of the Nazi party have total disdain for. If you truly have even a modicum of intelligence you will see the frightening similarities of the original Nazi party and our current version of it. Only someone who is truly ignorant would not be able to see that all of the above is true.

        • Mark Sales

          While I have no desire to defend Romney, Santorum or Perry; why are you using European views or standards to judge U.S. politicians? Your characterization of your perception of current GOP assaults on “women, minorities and homosexuals” frankly revolts me. Compare this to the dem party’s historical support for slavery, klan and plantation policies and there really is no reason to go to European totalitarian political failures to look for phony parallels. Neither am I sure which of Hitler’s speeches you compare to those of the last presidential election’s republican candidates. None of them railed against the Versailles treaty or the British Empire’s perfidy in blockading German ports after the treaty; nor did I see a lot of raving about Lebensraum. The Nazi extermination of European Jewry, Gypsies, Communists and political dissidents has no parallel with American discourse on the rights and wrongs of non-traditional family unions.

          • terry b

            I refer to past behavior of the Nazi’s not any of the historical lunacy that has plagued many countries. You being revolted by the simple truth is pretty annoying and makes me question your intelligence. The GOP likes to attack the rights of each of the three groups that I have mentioned. You do know that each one of those groups vote heavily for the democratic party. Which explains the GOP’s constant attacks on these three groups. Quit bringing up historical anomalies that are meaningless in this discussion. I’m not using European views from the distant past out here to back up what I say. I simply state the truth out here. Do you have a problem with that? That would make you a republican. Damn shame. The right to choose and the right to vote are sacrosanct. Anyone against those rights is considered a very bad person. Are you really one of them?

          • charleo1

            It seems to me you’re a bit too smug, by half. The
            war on women has been translated in Right Wing
            politics, as an opposition to equal pay, reproductive
            rights, attempts to redefine the legal meaning of rape, the prohibition of same sex marriage, cutting head start programs, that allows single women with children to train, and access the work place. Republican lawmakers, using their anti-abortion stance as an excuse, have required women seeking an abortion to undergo unwanted, unnecessary, and invasive medical procedures, and mandated waiting periods. Used outrageous regulations to close down not only clinics that preform the legal procedure of abortion, but also clinics that provide testing, and contraceptives. And if that doesn’t revolt you, it should. As far as the historical aspects of the Left, Parties change. For example, Republicans used to believe in govt. funded infrastructure. The interstate
            hwy. system was build under Eisenhower. No more.
            Republicans used to believe the govt. had a responsibility to the public to regulate businesses. No more. Nixon created the EPA, and our air, water, and soil are better for it. But not today. Today, an oil company can carelessly spew 100s of millions of barrels of crude in the Gulf of Mexico, and get an
            apology from a TX Republican, that they were, shook
            down. Because they had to shoulder part of the cost
            of their irresponsible actions. That should revolt you
            too. And while these ultra-right wing groups are not
            Nazi Germany, they have a good deal in common with the 1930 Fascist. They believe there should be a small aristocratic elite at the top. They employ their scapegoats, to explain the failings of their economic model, and believe in a pax americana, they describe as American Exceptionalism. Plus, just like the Nazis of 1930s Germany, they hate/fear, Communism. Or anything that smacks of empowering the labor class.

          • Mark Sales

            How perceptive, me smug? I’m angry that this Dionne piece that simply supports the established dem leadership and seeks to help those ignorant, paternalistic, selfish twits keep their misinterpreted jobs is getting this lemming-like support. And how is this support manifesting itself? Calling their opponents Nazis. Seriously? Grow up and think for yourself.

          • JPHALL

            You really have a recidivist vision. The Republicans absorbed the supporters of the Klan, plantation policies and slavery (States rights) back in the 1960’s. They were the Dems known as the “Dixiecrats” who became Republicans because of the Voting and Civil Rights Acts pushed by LB J and the rest of the Democratic Party. Read a book by a credited historian.
            As to the rest of your statement you are correct. There is no comparison for Republican positions, on a magnitude level to the crimes of the Nazis. Still, they are also not morally acceptable to a true follower of Christ. Punish the poor while rewarding the rich or greedy are not Christian values.

          • dpaano

            And most Republicans are NOT the true Christians that they keep saying they are…..if they were, they would adhere to the bible and help the poor….not take them down!

          • Mark Forsyth

            What is particularly curious is your failure to acknowledge the negative influence.on our country,government,and society by the infamous and fascist Koch Bros.They like to call themselves Libertarians, but we know that only leaves the question of Koch Brother honesty or the true nature of the Libertarians.Both are suspect and it is well known that the Koch boys are directly related to the thankfully deceased former husband and wife Nazi Commandants of Buchenwald death camp whose last name was also KOCH.To deny that there are no similarities between Hitler era fascist Germany and much of what is happening in the United States today is a blatant lie.Go peddle your shit somewhere else.

          • Mark Sales

            First there are plenty of negative influences on “our country, government, and society”. I would be thrilled to “acknowledge” this; curious huh? However the whole point about Libertarians is that they are anti-party and there is no herd to follow or manifest BS that they have to make up, endorse up to their necks or follow tin gods. That’s my sh*t, consider it peddled.

          • Mark Forsyth

            That’s right,they make up their own fascist shit and you endorse it.You also may peddle it but your not making any sales because no one here is buying it.

      • Sand_Cat

        “May well be some element of nationalism there”? Really? Are you sure?
        The “Socialism” part of National Socialism was mainly a cover

        • Mark Sales

          While some elements of the dem leadership may despise their Nation, I would also suggest that in the ‘official’ dem party planks there is also an element of nationalism. The current (as opposed to the late 19th century) American Nationalism is only a bad thing when that invective is being directed by internationalists at those who seek to preserve what they perceive as traditional values.

          Sure you might be supported in making the “cover” claim by some (mostly the ignorant); however the Nazis grew up in a monarchy and (mostly) were not aristocrats (especially those involved in the beerhall putsch). Now tell met they didn’t believe in their own interpretation of socialism? Yes they were opposed to Soviet sponsored Communist party international(e) because it would mean being subservient to Moscow (which brings us back to why they included the National in their name). They wanted to bring Germany out of the post war depression and the ruinous reparations demanded by the Versailles treaty.

          • Sand_Cat

            Great post. Completely irrelevant as an answer to mine, though.
            I never suggested any of the things you disputed except the “cover” part. Yes, maybe it shows ignorance, not that anything you wrote except that claim supports it. I guess we all imagined the profits made by German arms manufacturers and the exaltation of their interests over that of the common people, combined with the extreme nationalism to which my post did refer ironically.

      • Allan Richardson

        They called themselves “socialists” because that was a positive term in the minds of Europeans at that time; in fact, the reason LENIN called his state-capitalist regime “socialist” was because it would sound positive. Both the Soviets and the Nazis were state-capitalists, not socialists; they just got there by different routes: Lenin took over the government by force (in the aftermath of the overthrow of an autocrat), called the government “representatives (soviets) of the workers” and built a state-owned capitalism from that beginning. Hitler took over by democratic elections with the help of the owners of existing private enterprises, then made “sweetheart deals” that turned those private tycoons into de facto government officials. Same result either way; the only thing “socialist” about either regime was putting the people on a government allotted dole, forced to work very hard for that dole, with no representation to influence the policies of those governments.

        To Europeans, “socialism” is the extreme form of “social democracy,” which basically means that taxes on the most wealthy are high enough to ensure that even the lowest income families are not destitute, and have the ability to help their children become more prosperous (and stay healthy and ALIVE long enough to grow up). The market works best when no one is EXCLUDED from it by the “pre-existing condition” of extreme poverty from birth.

        • Mark Forsyth

          Thanks Allen.Nazi Fascism and Stalins Communism-Prime examples of Totalitarianism on parade with no relationship to Socialism of any type or in any fashion.

      • ralphkr

        I strongly suggest that you go back to the history books, Mr. Sales, to the period when Napoleon destroyed the Holy Roman Empire and set the stage for the unification of Germany by combining groups of fiefdoms into countries under the rule of his brother, brother-in-law, and German puppets. Just as France was instrumental in creating her most fearsome foe (Germany) Germany was instrumental in creating their most fearsome foe (Communist Russia). Just goes to show that what goes around comes around.

        • Mark Sales

          Just as we created Saddam and the Islamic Republic (arguably by Carter’s refusal to support the Shah – how could he know that the Ayatollahs would be so much worse than Savak (after FDR set up the dynasty to create a backdoor for lendlease).

          What are we creating with Libya, Crimea and Syria today?

      • JPHALL

        It”s you again with your misinformation and fractured history. What a shame. Proof positive that right wingers are incestuous.

  • Mark Sales

    A discussion of the failure of current democratic party to present a coherent vision for the future. The article indicates that the individual dem candidates have to form their own, individual positions; articulate them to the voters to achieve any success in the upcoming elections. This disturbing situation appears to be a cause for concern because few of the current class of politicians (of either party) have the strength of character to realistically convince voter that they are their own people.

    • JPHALL

      So what do you suggest as the solution? Continue the failure of the House to push for solutions for all Americans? More meaningless votes against the ACA? More pushing of tax breaks for the rich without the requirement that the monies are invested in things that produce good paying American jobs?

      How about telling the truth for a change instead of false histrionics against the president? How about funding security for American Embassies and Consulates instead of yelling Benghazi? How about Immigration reform, a jobs bill, and job training for future?

      • Mark Sales

        How is it the (sole) responsibility of the House to “push” for solutions for “all” Americans? The House representatives are supposed to represent the people and not play party politics at the country’s expense.

        Since you bring up the ACA; what Pelosi’s house passed was an aspirational bill that left all the heavy lifting to the Administration; and in particular the Secretary of HHS. The edicts and revisions since passage have justifiably raised constituents’ concerns all over the country. The House would have been remiss in not trying to reopen the discussions. But, oh no; it is the “law” of the land. Yeah lets talk about the “requirement that the monies are invested in things that produce good paying American jobs?” As long as government is charged with “investing” monies – whose money is/was it anyway? How are burdensome regulations producing good paying American jobs? How does big government, that often seems outside the constitutional boundaries, “produce” anything. Ok you are probably going to talk about interstates, I’m sure. Were they actually for commerce, or were they for cold war defense? Harbors and river/canal locks are about commerce, what has the current Administration done about them even with their “shovel” ready boondoggles?

        What is “the” truth that you want to talks about, whatever I say must be a lie; but here goes anyway. Regardless of State department security funding why was the U.S. the last diplomatic mission or consulate in Benghazi anyway? Why didn’t we leave when everyone else left? Perhaps it didn’t fit the Administration’s re-election agenda? After OBL’s execution it was the victory lap on extremism and the world was such a safe place – especially on the anniversary of 911. It all amounts to some truth too, I submit. Deny those simple facts, then ask why the Administration was so quick to suggest that it was all “spontaneous”.

        • Independent1

          Wow! You sure do a lot of ranting about nothing.

          Let’s talk about ACA – first of all, ACA was a bi-partisan bill put together over 30 meetings that took months and more than 60 hours. The version that was passed was not Pelosi’s, it was the version originally passed by the Senate. And the only reason ACA has raised so much concern across the country is because of the nonstop 24/7 bashing that the GOP has given it in every way they know how. It’s the GOP that has created the uneasiness with the ACA.

          And not once, has the House even momentarily considered trying to take up fixing ACA, it like everything else has been a nonstop 24/7 attempt to repeal or unfund it. So don’t give us any: The House would have been remiss in not trying to reopen the discussions..CRAP!!

          And it has been proven countless times via honest surveys of small business owners, that government regulations play little or no role in the profitability of companies or how many jobs they create. Even the GOP’s nonsense about min wage has been proven completely false; history has shown that raising the min wage does not negatively affect unemployment or job creation.

          And let’s talk about passing legislation that requires the private sector to do some investing in the country. The Stimulus package was the most successful overall injection of monies into the American in history; even the green energy portion of the Stimulus which actually only ended up utilizing 29B of the 90B originally allocated, resuled in over 100B of private sector investment and spawned numerous alternative energy ventures with more than 90% of the 26B resulting in starting successful businesses. Solyndra was one of the very few unsuccessful ventures and the reason Solyndra failed is because of people like Mitt Romney who had pirated an American solar panel maker, destroyed the company here and shipped it to China; giving China America’s technical know how on building solar panels such that China started making them to cheaply for Solyndra to be able to compete.

          And Obama’s jobs bills would have injected funding into thousands of projects across the nation rebuilding schools, rebuilding government buildings reworking numerous projects in many different areas of our country’s infrastructure – enough that the CBO projected that his jobs bill would have kick started at least 2.5-3.0 million jobs; which in boosting the economy could have extrapolated in millions more.

          And Bengahzi was never a consulate, it was a CIA operation where Stevens used to come to act as if it was a consulate to cover the CIA operation that was going on. Benghazi happened because Stevens made a mistake and arranged a meeting there at a time when demonstrations were occurring in a number of areas in the middle east because of that viral video. And it still has not been proven one way or the other as to whether or not the animosity created by that video contributed to the ultimate attack. That will only ever be know if in fact we can capture those who were involved in the attack. You like virtually everyone else is in no position to be spewing judgement as to what may or may not have happened that night and by whom.

          • Mark Sales

            Hey I1, nothing in your reply resembles reality. If ACA was actually bi-partisan etc., how come no one knew what was in it when the arm-breakers had to coerce the dem majority into passing it? Solyndra never made commercial sense in the first place so why make the effort to smear Romney? “Obama’s jobs bill(s)” required so much paperwork that to get the funds/grants even many of the government agencies wasted a fair amount of time, effort and money just to get those monies. Nice rationale for Benghazi; your fantasy can never be disproved (conveniently) because no apparent effort is being made to “capture” any attackers.

          • Independent1

            And the nonsense continues. Let’s just start with Obamacare:

            After his inauguration, Obama announced to a joint session of Congress in February 2009 his intent to work with Congress to construct a plan for healthcare reform.[69][70] By July, a series of bills were approved by committees within the House of Representatives.[71] On the Senate side, from June to September, the Senate Finance Committee held a series of 31 meetings to develop a healthcare reform bill. This group — in particular, Democrats Max Baucus, Jeff Bingaman, and Kent Conrad, and Republicans Mike Enzi, Chuck Grassley, and Olympia Snowe — met for more than 60 hours, and the principles that they discussed, in conjunction with the other committees, became the foundation of the Senate’s healthcare reform bill.[72][73][74]

            With universal healthcare as one of the stated goals of the Obama administration, congressional Democrats and health policy experts like Jonathan Gruber and David Cutler argued that guaranteed issue would require both community rating and an individual mandate to ensure that adverse selection and/or “free riding” would not result in an insurance “death spiral”;[75] they convinced Obama that this was necessary, and persuaded him to accept congressional proposals that included a mandate.[76] This approach was taken because the president and congressional leaders had concluded that more progressive plans, such as the (single-payer) Medicare for All act, could not obtain filibuster-proof support in the Senate. By deliberately drawing on bipartisan ideas — the same basic outline was supported by former Senate majority leaders Howard Baker, Bob Dole, Tom Daschle and George J. Mitchell—the bill’s drafters hoped to increase the chances of garnering the necessary votes for passage.[77][78]

            However, following the adoption of an individual mandate as a central component of the proposed reforms by Democrats, Republicans began to oppose the mandate and threatened to filibuster any bills that contained it.[48] Senate minority leader Mitch McConnell, who led the Republican congressional strategy in responding to the bill, calculated that Republicans should not support the bill, and worked to keep party discipline and prevent defections:[79]

          • Mark Sales

            I1, how does any of that preamble discussion reflect on a final bill that required dem party leaders to force their followers to vote on party lines for? Aspirational legislation the final form of which was left to HHS to write?

          • Independent1

            Oh! I see. So you’re trying to suggest that a bill which the GOP spent months participating in creating, and to which they forced through 189 amendments, but then when it got time to vote Mitch McConnell decided it wasn’t in the GOP’s best interest to help get it voted into law and actually policed the votes to be sure no Republican voted on it, is somehow something the Dems rammed through??? Sorry, I don’t buy that misguided logic for a minute!!! It wasn’t that the Dems rammed it through, it was a case of the GOP copping out at the last minute because they didn’t want to help vote something into law that may end up looking good for Obama!!!!!!!!!

          • Mark Sales

            Are you a child? Of course some reps participated when they were allowed to. Then when they decided that they didn’t like the sausage, they opposed it. It happens all the time, that’s supposed to be part of the system. They weren’t thrilled with not closing down the the graft potential for the trial lawyers from the outset. The dems owe the trial lawyers so that had to stay in and the reps walked.

          • Independent1

            That’s it! I’ll only try to reason with a total moron for so long!! You’ve exceeded the time limit. Just keep on being a moron!!!!!!!!

          • Mark Sales

            You are mistaking “reason” for “emotional immaturity”, thank you for meeting the liberal mental limits.

          • Independent1

            And this proving Obamacare is a Republican idea:

            When President Bill Clinton proposed a healthcare reform bill in 1993 that included a mandate for employers to provide health insurance to all employees through a regulated marketplace of health maintenance organizations, Republican Senators proposed an alternative that would have required individuals, but not employers, to buy insurance.[50] Ultimately the Clinton plan failed amid an unprecedented barrage of negative advertising funded by politically conservative groups and the health insurance industry and due to concerns that it was overly complex.[52] After failing to obtain a comprehensive reform of the healthcare system, Clinton negotiated a compromise with the 105th Congress to instead enact the State Children’s Health Insurance Program (SCHIP) in 1997.[53]

            John Chafee

            The 1993 Republican alternative, introduced by Senator John Chafee as the Health Equity and Access Reform Today Act, contained a “universal coverage” requirement with a penalty for noncompliance—an individual mandate—as well as subsidies to be used in state-based ‘purchasing groups’.[54] Advocates for the 1993 bill included prominent Republicans who today oppose a mandate, such as Senators Orrin Hatch, Chuck Grassley, Bob Bennett, and Kit Bond.[55][56] Of the 43 Republicans Senators from 1993, 20 supported the HEART Act.[48][57] Another Republican proposal, introduced in 1994 by Senator Don Nickles (R-OK), the Consumer Choice Health Security Act, contained an individual mandate with a penalty provision;[58] however, Nickles subsequently removed the mandate from the bill, stating he had decided “that government should not compel people to buy health insurance”.[59] At the time of these proposals, Republicans did not raise constitutional issues with the mandate; Mark Pauly, who helped develop a proposal that included an individual mandate for George H.W. Bush, remarked, “I don’t remember that being raised at all. The way it was viewed by the Congressional Budget Office in 1994 was, effectively, as a tax.”[48]

          • Allan Richardson

            They knew, in general, what was in it. They had their copies given to them, but they didn’t bother reading them because they were against the bill no matter what the details were. That is why Speaker Pelosi said, SARCASTICALLY, that they would have to pass it in order to find out what was in it (then they would have time to read it). And of course, the negotiations to get the votes to pass it required anyone who wanted to know EXACTLY what was in it to keep up with the updates.

            What has the ACA accomplished? It has ALREADY reduced the percentage of Americans who have NO health insurance (and the majority of them are not just “refusing” as the GOP claims, they COULD NOT get policies with reasonable coverage at reasonable prices before the ACA). This has already shown up as a reduction in ER visits of indigent uninsured patients, but only in states that ACCEPTED the Medicaid expansion intended to cover the LOWEST income patients).

            What would repeal accomplish? Taking health insurance AWAY from millions of Americans who now have it, RETURNING to the status quo ante (Latin for “the mess we were in then”), and causing these millions to be in danger of dying of diseases that could be treated, except for lack of insurance coverage, and could have been diagnosed in time for treatment, except for lack of insurance. The number of PREVENTABLE premature deaths, not counting suffering and disability, is estimated by public health experts at between 7000 and 17000 per year, or from 2 to 5 occurrences of the 9/11/01 attacks EVERY year, if we return to the old ways.

          • Mark Sales

            Thank you Mr. Disingenuous. That they “knew generally” was my point (the sarcasm is Pelosi’s normal mode so it can be taken as read). The House passed a bill that was simply intended as a framework for HHS to fill in the details – of 17% of our economy. Thus it was aspirational; what they passed was (at least) three years from being completed. Putting 17% of our economy into the hands of government control causes the adult citizenry great trepidation, because it will inevitably lead to mismanagement at some point.

            As for your statistical justifications, also very general or subjective – because we will not know for a decade if a) it is sustainable and b) the full ramifications of the HHS details. That is common sense. Talk of “repeal” is scaremongering and you know it; any future steps for legislative reform can not take us back to the status quo ante.

        • JPHALL

          What you say may sound good to you but you miss the point. The administration can only ask or suggest that Congress to do things. When Congress refuses to do its job, it is not the administrations fault. Look at what the House has produced, little or nothing.

          While I agree that the consulate should have been closed and the ambassador hunkered down, just like in other countries on 9/11. Was that because of Obama, Clinton or the Ambassador? We will never know because the Republican witch hunt is not after the truth but political points.
          Remember the President stated the next day that it was an act of terror, but only Romney knew it was Al Qaeda that day.

          • Mark Sales

            What we are debating is the point. The Administration can only write regulations; it is the administration’s responsibility to enforce the laws passed by the legislature. The administration is expected to advise the legislature; but it is also the administration’s duty to respond to the oversight of the legislature. As in the immortal lyrics from Rush, “when you choose not to decide, you still have made a choice”.

            Since I’m not a person enamored of big government, the idea of not passing redundant laws does not distress me. However Administration activities that flout Congressional oversight responsibilities/duties does bother me (as it should anyone, if only in a general sense). Even Clinton (42) submitted to congressional oversight (Clinton (45) of course cast maledictions at the “vast right wing conspiracy” at the time).

  • bcarreiro

    If we have a Congress that works together instead of undermining the People and the President. We the people would appreciate what they do instead of what they are not. We all like to be appreciated for our hard work. Its much better to work together than against. Our Republicans and Democrats lately have other objectives about their own personal incentives, not whats good and right by the people (including them).The ratio of 99% to 1% is unacceptable.

  • joe schmo

    “And by most measures, what we’ve accomplished together as a country
    over the last five years has been significant: 9.2 million new jobs(Government jobs), an auto industry that has come roaring back(Really! wow new one on me….look at GM), a financial system that’s
    stabilized (along with the Countries devaluation so goes the dollar…..Russia and China are looking for a way around that almighty (whoops) loser dollar), trillions of dollars of wealth recovered (OMG there’s that bad word, ‘Wealth.’ You mean the wealth from the 1% who you are trying to steal it from) and restored because housing came back (another bubble?) and people’s 401 pensions bounced back.(Ahhh, watch out for that stock market, it’s a shifty fellow).”

    • Sand_Cat

      Again, the honest suffer a disadvantage against sociopathic liars.

      • joe schmo

        You mean that pathological liar being Obama and you the simple minions following his lead.

    • ThomasBonsell

      When Obama took office the government civilian work force was at 2.774 million. As of October 2013, the same work force was 2.190 million. So where are all those new government jobs?

      When Obama came into office, the top 1% paid 36.73% percent of INCOME TAXEX (didn’t pay any payroll tax). Now the top 1% pay 35.06% percent of the income tax (pay virtually none of the payroll tax) while holding more than 40% of the nation’s wealth. So where is the stealing from the top 1%?

      Incidentally, the income tax and payroll tax both contribute about the same amount of money to the government, about 46% of total intake. So figuring that the top 1% pay 35% of the INCOME TAX but virtually nothing of the PAYROLL TAX, the top 1% contribute slightly more than 16% of the total while holding more than 40% of the nation’s wealth. Boy are they being screwed.

      • itsfun

        92 and a half million people not even in the work force is not a recovery. More food stamps recipents then the entire population of Spain is not a recovery. How many of the 1% provide jobs and careers for others? I don’t see a lot of middle income people creating jobs. Keep punshing those that are successful and you will see them leave this country and take their jobs with them.

        • You do know that we know 48.9 million of those 92.6 million are over 55 and report that they do NOT want a job? And that almost all of the “growth” in the number of people who are not in the labor force is in that category of people… People who are 55+ and “do not want a job”? Why do you and other Republican sympathizers (who complain about the number of people “not in the labor force” without knowing what it means) want people to work until they drop? Don’t people deserve to retire? Or would you rather have stooped-over people working for pennies in unsafe factories somewhere with no safety standards, no minimum wage, no overtime regulations? Is that what you and your fellow Republicans really want for people in this country.. work vs. a well-earned retirement?

          And another 16.2 million of those people not in the labor force are young people 16-24 years of age. 14.2 million young people 16-24 years of age are in school, high school or college, and they are not working or looking for work. I suppose you and your fellow Republicans don’t want young people to get educations either.. You’d rather have these young people dropping out of school or not going to college so they can work slave labor jobs for pennies an hour?

          If you value education; if you value retirement for your fellow Americans, then you would understand that that overwhelming majority (at least 60 million) of the 92 million you claim you are concerned about do NOT want a job and are either in school or retired. Another 6 million of those 92 claim they do want a job, but half of them have not bothered to look for work in over a year and 2.2 million of those 3 million are either “not available to work” or have some reason like such as family responsibilities, school, training, or ill health which is keeping them out of the labor force.

          All of this information is readily available to you and your fellow Republicans.. you just need to look a bit.

          And do you have any idea how job creation works? Yes, sir or ma’am, it is DEMAND for goods and services that creates jobs. No “job creator” worth two cents creates jobs in a vacuum. No “job creator” will produce a service or a product unless they believe there is a market for that product or service. For most products and services, the market is middle and working class people. So, yes, sir or ma’am, most people DO get their jobs from the working or middle classes… Without decent paying jobs, the middle and working classes have less to spend and less jobs get created. It’s called “supply and demand” and it is taught in Econ 101. You Republicans can look that one up as well.

        • ThomasBonsell

          What the hell are you talking about?

          My post had nothing to do with the recovery, but if you want to go there, let’s go.

          Your 92.5-million figure is wrong. More than 38 million are retired and 75 million are under 18 years of age. That’s 113 million not even eligible to be in the work force. Before the Bush administration flushed the economy down the drain a population of about 300 million had only about 145 million jobs in the non-agriculture workforce. The nation has always had a huge percentage of its population not in the workforce because of youth, retirement and one wage earner in the family.

          Obviously you don’t see much. The top 1% don’t create jobs for no reason. If any of them create jobs it is because the middle-income people are spending money to buy products. Bill Gates and Paul Allen may have started Microsoft – with the help of several others – but they didn’t build it. It was built by the thousands of nerds and geeks they hired to actually do the work. And those thousands of nerds and geeks were employed because millions of middle-income people bought what they created.

          Since halting Bush’s disaster, the economy has added more than 9 million jobs to replace the 8 million eliminated by Bush. The economy is growing, sometimes almost 3%, compared to the loss of 5.1% (Great Depression numbers) in Bush’s last year. In fact, in Bush’s last quarter the economy was losing 9.1% (if extended for a full year) of its value. That was worse than some parts of the Great Depression.

          If you would research poverty and food stamps you will find the numbers are almost equal. The greater the poverty rate, the greater the food-stamp use. George W. Bush inherited an economy with an 11.3% poverty rate (hence 11.3% using food stamps) and blew poverty past 15% – where it has remained as the GOP refuses to help improve the economy to create jobs – and that increased food-stamp usage. Get real, it is Bush and the destructive Republican Party you should be whining about, not the present.

        • MJRinPA

          What does the population of Spain have to do with anything in the US?

    • Allan Richardson

      Government jobs have declined the entire time Obama has been the President (even when it was not wise to do so), while private sector jobs have been created. Unfortunately, they are not as well-paying as we would like, because of the financial oligarchy, but they are NOT government jobs.

      • joe schmo

        Allan, you know damn well that these ‘shovel ready jobs’ were given to mostly….’union contractors.’ Give me a break the Government had their hands into every bit of this.

  • charles king

    The President’s, “Critical Thinking” that got him re-elected is still working and the People know Who? are the anti-government. The People know that the VOTE is still Supreme and that MONIES, Capitalistic Pigs, Plutocracts(commissioners) Do-Nothingiers Republicans and Democracts Etcs. are no match to your Democracy. The Republicans has shown their (hole-card, Which? is the Tea Party) for me they are the Old South of the nineteen century and the People from all view points, know the South lost the Civil War
    and that America Is for everybody and Not just for some. Thank You are the Magic words wih me. I Love Ya All. Mr. C. E. KING

  • Sand_Cat

    Honest people always suffer a huge disadvantage against sociopathic liars when the audience is ignorant or distracted.

    • joe schmo

      By ignorant/narrow-minded you are definitely referring to yourself, right……..:)

      • whodatbob

        Try thinking out of the box.

        • joe schmo

          That is something you are not capable of doing because the government does that for you.

          As for me, I am in a field where I think ‘out of the box’ all the time. I was actually trained to do research:)

          • whodatbob

            My response, “Try thinking out of the box,” was to your emotional, unprofessional response to Sand Cat.

            Based on your emotional response to me I find it difficult to believe you are a trained researcher or are capable of thinking out of the box.

          • joe schmo

            Believe it! I do a lot of research which includes trial and error. I am an innovator of sorts. Not an inventor rather creatively innovative using software.

            Hah! At times, Sand Cat has a tendency to ruffle my feathers….. No disrespect intended..

  • I understand the dilemma and the dichotomy. We were looking into an abyss when the Republican Recession was pushing us off of that cliff in late 2008. Things ARE much better for just about everybody I know. But the anxiety and insecurity are with us and may be with us for a long time, both for real reasons, such as increasing inequality and the lack of permanence in employment, and for psychological reasons: My Dad’s family was hit hard by the Great Depression. He never felt financially secure even as he and my mom worked permanent, decent-paying jobs and amassed a healthy amount of wealth. It will take decades for some people who were hurt by this recession to ever feel financially secure again, even if they, like my Dad now have a secure income– if there is such a thing as a “secure” income anymore in this country.

    I’m a strong Democrat and an Obama supporter, but I would I agree that the country is moving in the wrong direction. I’m very, very disturbed with the rise of the radical right, with the hatred and racism that I think is the root of so much of the Republican rhetoric. I’m very, very disturbed at the pervasiveness of money in politics, with many of the recent Republican Supreme Court decisions, with the attacks on the social safety net and the middle and working classes that provided those of us born at mid-century with a solid, reasonably prosperous life. Yes, we are going in the wrong direction.. and the only party that has a ghost of a chance of righting this is the Democratic party– only if we can push the Republicans out and push the Democrats to more progressive positions.

    • BenAround

      The radical right is a response to the radical left and the perception that we have one of those in the White House. Move your progressives to the center and you will cut the legs out from under the so-called radical right. The Tea Party is just a reaction to the tax-raising, Obamacare voting, class warfare inciting, and gun-grabbing tactics of the left. If you can’t see that, then you are blind. Like it or not, those tactics are threatening to those of us who thought our country may not have been perfect before but think those are encroachments on economic freedoms, self-defense freedoms, and freedom from excessive intrusion of government into the private lives of people. You all think you are just doing what good-hearted people do so why should anyone object. You don’t understand that there are a lot of people out there who, for equally valid reasons, solidly disagree. Most of you are what I call “hive dwellers.” That is, you concentrate in and around the major metropolitan centers. For those of us who value our space, independence, self-reliance, and freedom from economic controls, you are the people who are trying to take those things away. Some of us are more educated and civilized about the disagreement than others. But that is true on both sides of the political divide. And, at least the Tea Party folks–for all of their rude signage–don’t leave a mess of garbage and spent needles behind after their rallies. They think they were the ones who built America and it bothers them that the squatters have taken over.

      • Allan Richardson

        The “perception” that we have a member of the “radical left” in the White House is a MANUFACTURED perception, as is the “perception” that he wants to grab all your guns, or that he wants everyone to have equal incomes, or any of the other John Birch Society nonsense, promoted by the MONEY of the sons of the founder of the JBS, and turned into a false “grass roots” Tea Party for the benefit of the top 1% OF THE TOP 1% to get them total control of both the economy and the government.

        Democrats may not be perfect, but we try to FIX PROBLEMS for the people of America. Republicans only want to fix ELECTIONS.

      • MJRinPA

        “The radical right is a response to the radical left…”
        Wow! My question for you is what radical left? Name one ultra-left wing in government today.
        PS President Obama is just barely in the center. The problem now is that the ultra right has moved the entire right far from the center and if anyone tries to take a single step leftward toward the center, the right screams radical left. They need to get a grip.

      • MJRinPA

        “…freedom from excessive intrusion of government into the private lives of people….”
        Making medical decisions a legal decision is not intruding into the lives of women? Requiring vaginal probes is not intruding into private lives?
        Try again with facts.

  • The Republicans are falling into a trap. Only after the Republicans have made complete fools of themselves and right before the election will the Democrats use the sources that the Times used. As the New York Times Reported on December 28, 2013:

    “…Anger at the video motivated the initial attack. Dozens of people joined in, some of them provoked by the video and others responding to fast-spreading false rumors that guards inside the American compound had shot Libyan protesters. Looters and arsonists, without any sign of a plan, were the ones who ravaged the compound after the initial attack, according to more than a dozen Libyan witnesses as well as many American
    officials who have viewed the footage from security cameras…”

    The issue is whether the attack was in response to the video as Rice said and most including the CIA now know is the fact. Of course it was a terrorist act.

    BTW, Failure to repel or prevent a terrorist attack is not much a
    unique failure since every president since Reagan has lost Americans to planned organized terrorist attacks. However, the failure to repel a protest that resulted in the deaths of Americans in a US facility would be a major failure.However, for the Republicans that ship has already sailed.

    • Allan Richardson

      This trap reminds me of an Isaac Asimov story from the early 1950s (“Evidence” from “I, Robot”) in which a reform candidate for Mayor of New York was rumored, by the corrupt incumbents, to be a robot, not a human being (in a time when robots were hated by most people, and although there were no robots that were not easy to distinguish from humans, it was thought possible that such robots COULD be built). They tried over and over, with X-rays and other tricks, but could not prove his “roboticity” to the public, and they ignored all the other issues in the election. Finally, in his last rally, a man from the audience dared the candidate to punch him, on live video. With a good roundhouse punch, the candidate proved he was human, since the First Law would not allow a robot to harm a human being, even if invited to do so. The opposition had no time to switch strategies, and on Election Day, the day after that speech, the “robot” candidate won by a landslide.

      Let the opposition’s crazy allegations go unproven and yet not rebutted until the last minute, let them build their entire campaign on that issue, then rebut them clearly and definitively at the last minute, and turn the egg on their faces into votes!

  • 5612jean

    The GOP is so out touch with what the people want, which is jobs. Benghazi is a lost cause. Hopefully the midterm elections will stop the GOP, the party for racist and their rhetoric dead in their tracks. The issue for the GOP is trying to stop Hilary Clinton before she even announces she is a contender for 2016. They fear her.

  • Fukuppy

    The GOP’s use of Benghazi as a rallying point is almost as disgusting as the insurgents in Fallujah who strung up bodies of US contractors to urge their fellows into greater resistance.
    And just as pointless.
    This continued hijacking of a national tragedy for their own pointless political gain shows us just exactly what the GOP stand for.
    Since the days of Willie Horton the GOP has given us nothing but character assassination, the Patriot Act and a long, involved discussion about birth certificates.

    • BenAround

      And the anti-gun crowd didn’t hijack Sandy Hook to serve their pointless agenda?

      • Allan Richardson

        Saving lives is a “pointless” agenda?

      • Fukuppy

        You’ve answered your own question.
        The anti-gun crowd *didn’t* hijack Sandy Hook to serve their agenda of reducing access to guns and the mass murders they engender.

        Back in the early 1990’s, Australia suffered a mass-murder of some 30+ innocents. Unlike America, where you tut tut and posture every time some maniac murders many, Australia did something about it. The govt. withdrew a citizen’s right to own guns and, surprise, Australia hasn’t had a mass-killing by firearms for over 25 years!
        Which proves the point of the anti-gun agenda.

  • Bob Williams

    When Trey Gowdy gets done with Obama on the Benghazi Scandal, Good Old Barry will self-deport back to Kenya.

    • Independent1

      You’re suggesting that some half-wit is going to make something of a fake scandal that a dimwit named Issa couldn’t make a case out of over the past 20 months??? Wow!! You really are clueless!! You must really be into drinking that Faux News Koolaid!!!

    • Steve Batchelor

      Buddy…I’d say the opposite is going to happen…When Gowdy gets finished and the facts come out it’s going to reveal that most of the blame falls on your idiot Republicans in the House because of their cutting of the funds allocated for Embassy security. Which in reality is going to sink your idiots…Best idea would be to deport the Tea Party to Kenya.

    • MJRinPA

      You can’t self-deport to somewhere you’ve never lived.

  • Gilbert West

    What is there to hide about Benghazi??? We “overthrew” a government and murdered the head of that government. Why would anyone with half-a-brain presume it was “safe” to simply stand there and watch the tribal conflicts erupt anew? As callous as it may sound… the Americans were killed because they were there. Terrorists have occupied these regions for decades… many of them were trained by us. How do you think al-Qaeda came into being??? As a tool of the CIA! Recruited, trained, armed, and deployed… and then left to their own devices… no debriefing, no reassignment.
    Aren’t we getting tired of the stupid comments made by the spin doctors, the ill-informed, and the liars? Enough already!!!

  • obibecker

    GOP House reduced the security budget for State. fact. (they were used to Bush who understaffed and underbudgeted State because he was not interested in statescraft, just war. During the Bush terms 181 people died in attacks on US embassies and consulates. But who’s counting? 4 people died in Libya. a tragedy.

  • BenAround

    What Dems can’t seem to understand is that businesses act in a very predictable way when their survival is threatened. The last big recession that started in the last year of the Bush administration created that threat. Businesses reacted by becoming more efficient. Like individuals, businesses are only as efficient as they need to be to survive and thrive. When their survival is under threat, they react by finding ways to produce more with less. Unfortunately, since their largest cost is often labor related expenses, this is the area where they have the greatest opportunity to make up the ground lost due to external economic events. Then, when governments add costs through taxes and regulations, the business reacts to that–usually by cutting labor costs. And this is why we have had a relatively jobless recovery. Profit levels have recovered–sometimes even overachieved. Stock prices have recovered. But the percentage of people fully employed in the U.S. has declined and wages have lagged throughout the “recovery.” Meanwhile, the Dems have continued the class warfare posturing to vilify businesses for reacting as they have always reacted–while propping up the plutocracy of the federal reserve banking system through quantitative easing. If you want businesses to be economically less efficient by hiring more people to do less work, you will have to create a more comfortable economic enviroment for business.

  • Nick Rudolph

    Benghazi is nothing more than a right wing talking point and it isn’t working, won’t work and will end up backfiring if they don’t stop harping on it. Everyone agrees it was a disaster and would never have happened if the Republicans had not cut spending for security.

  • [email protected]

    and will the GOP gang idiots ease up when thy have 50 hearings on this like the vote’s on the ACA ? ill say no to that then thy can have 2 dead horse’s to beat

  • MJRinPA

    “63 percent said it was moving in the wrong direction.”. This really doesn’t tell us enough. They need to break that down into percent who think that it’s moving too far left, and those that think that it’s moving too far right.