Originally Posted by Eric the Green

It's true that virtually the same ideas that ruled the Gilded Age have again become orthodox (since Reagan). But at that time a progressive socialist agenda had not really appeared on the scene yet. That's why it was represented by neither Democrats or Republicans at that time, nor were the working class represented by either party. Today the Democrats represents a very-watered down socialism, and very-inadequately represent the working class. But the liberal agenda today still represents continuing the achievements of the progressive movement begun 120 years ago. There were no such "liberals" in the Gilded Age, and no existing heritage of regulation or social safety. The Republicans/Tea Party and libertarians like Galen indeed wish to return us entirely to the Gilded Age, but they won't succeed without a fight. This issue, and the one below, are what the now just-beginning 4T are about. These issues may not be resolved without an at-least temporary breakup of the United States.

There may be people including you and I who believe in a twentieth-century progressive agenda. Neither political party, however, is pushing one at this time, although the Democrats are at least interested (it seems) in preserving what it is left of it. I would suggest that so far the remarkable election swings of the last three elections have had remarkably little impact on either our domestic or foreign policy, and any temporary effect of Obama and the Democrats' 2008 victory is rapidly being undone. (The Supreme Court may well speed that process when the health care bill gets to them.)

You say "another Democrat would have beaten Reagan," but Carter was the only Democrat who could have won in 1976 in the first place. (Actually, there is an excellent chance that Reagan never would have been President if Ford had beaten Carter in 1976.) Carter won in 1976 by carrying the South. No other Democrat would have--and he just barely won.

What I am saying is that there's nothing that astonishing about the long-term trend to the right we've been experiencing. The crisis of the last saeculum and the high that followed represented certain sides of human nature. Beginning with the last Awakening, those sides went into eclipse in our politics. They do not appear to be coming back any time soon.

Originally Posted by KaiserD2

There may be people including you and I who believe in a twentieth-century progressive agenda. Neither political party, however, is pushing one at this time, although the Democrats are at least interested (it seems) in preserving what it is left of it. I would suggest that so far the remarkable election swings of the last three elections have had remarkably little impact on either our domestic or foreign policy, and any temporary effect of Obama and the Democrats' 2008 victory is rapidly being undone. (The Supreme Court may well speed that process when the health care bill gets to them.)

You say "another Democrat would have beaten Reagan," but Carter was the only Democrat who could have won in 1976 in the first place. (Actually, there is an excellent chance that Reagan never would have been President if Ford had beaten Carter in 1976.) Carter won in 1976 by carrying the South. No other Democrat would have--and he just barely won.

What I am saying is that there's nothing that astonishing about the long-term trend to the right we've been experiencing. The crisis of the last saeculum and the high that followed represented certain sides of human nature. Beginning with the last Awakening, those sides went into eclipse in our politics. They do not appear to be coming back any time soon.

I can't disagree; although I could say that the presence of Carter as the Democrat in 1976 could also be considered an accident in history. Humphrey for example almost won in 1968, and there wasn't much different about the political landscape between then and 1976, except that Nixon had been tossed out of office and the Democrats had swept congress in 1974. A stronger Democrat in 1976, therefore, might not have been an unreasonable expectation. And if he had lost some southern states Carter won, he might have won other northern and western states that Carter lost (CA for example).

Originally Posted by KaiserD2

Originally Posted by summer in the fall

So did I.



The meanings of those two statements are pretty much identical, but the implication of one is that Obama posits his entire identity on what he is not, which is not only inaccurate but entirely Boomer-centric (something Boomers are all too notorious for being). When I saw Obama campaign as the product of a single mother that he loved and respected dearly, that he had a rootless childhood that often had him raised by his grandparents and that he emerged from it even more prideful of his country and determined to integrate every facet of his being into a self-defining strength, I saw an Xer narrative.

As for your interpretation of peacemaker, I suppose that would make sense if it were still the 1860s. But in my opinion we are still fighting that war. We are also still fighting the class war of the last saeculum in part because people don't really understand what government (or even capitalism for that matter) is. Obama can't close that education gap all on his own, hence the "we" in the "we are the ones we have been waiting for."

Cheers.

I don't understand your last paragraph. I agree that we are still fighting both wars, which is why I think that it is foolish for any Democratic President to think he can make peace with the Republicans before it has been demonstrated to them that they have gotten as much as they can get and that continuing the battle will work to their disadvantage. They clearly don't feel that now.

I don't know what the $%^& you're talking about. And it's actually hurting my brain to read. If you couldn't get the inference of what I was saying than it's probably a waste of time to continue this conversation. But I'll try one last time to spell it out as best I can: The leaders during the last two saeculum took a confrontational approach to the domestic struggle and ended up prolonging those wars. Therefore any leader that alienates what constitutes our fellow Americans will see it only backfire. Obama's "peacemaking", as annoying as it is, is actually keeping us out of a civil war.

night all...

Originally Posted by summer in the fall

I don't know what the $%^& you're talking about. And it's actually hurting my brain to read. If you couldn't get the inference of what I was saying than it's probably a waste of time to continue this conversation. But I'll try one last time to spell it out as best I can: The leaders during the last two saeculum took a confrontational approach to the domestic struggle and ended up prolonging those wars. Therefore any leader that alienates what constitutes our fellow Americans will see it only backfire. Obama's "peacemaking", as annoying as it is, is actually keeping us out of a civil war.

night all...

OK, I will make one more try.

We are having a non-violent civil war, which I do think is an advance over a violent one. It should also in theory at least be easier to bring to an end with some kind of peace treaty, which would consist of a measure of agreement between the two parties that would enable them to begin working together, establish some kind of consensus, and move into a High.

Barack Obama has been trying very hard to bring that about. But he can't. That's because the Repubican Party is completely dedicated to total victory and to his electoral defeat. He has made a series of tactical retreats since the 2010 elections, hoping apparently that he can win the country over by being the reasonable man. It isn't working--it just makes the Republicans more encouraged and more intransigent. Meanwhile, his own troops are divided, demoralized, and quiescent.

The latest episode in this story took place yesterday, when the Speaker of the House, in a totally unprecedented move, told the President he could not address a Joint Session of Congress on his chosen day next week, because a Republican candidates' debate has been scheduled for the same night. This was completely unnecessary--the time of the Republican debate had not been set, and the country could have been treated to an interesting comparison of its present leader with his would-be successors. It is simply an attempt to humiliate the President. The last thing the Republicans want to do is to allow Obama to make peace. That would give him prestige and make his re-election more likely. At this point if he signed on to the whole Tea Party platform they would say that he hadn't gone far enough.

Originally Posted by KaiserD2

The latest episode in this story took place yesterday, when the Speaker of the House, in a totally unprecedented move, told the President he could not address a Joint Session of Congress on his chosen day next week, because a Republican candidates' debate has been scheduled for the same night. This was completely unnecessary--the time of the Republican debate had not been set, and the country could have been treated to an interesting comparison of its present leader with his would-be successors. It is simply an attempt to humiliate the President. The last thing the Republicans want to do is to allow Obama to make peace. That would give him prestige and make his re-election more likely. At this point if he signed on to the whole Tea Party platform they would say that he hadn't gone far enough.

Haha ..and last report, Obama completely caved on that and agreed to move his speech to Thursday. Granted, no one wins a process argument.

But I still maintain Obama and the congressional dems got themselves in this position by having little to show for when election 2010 came around.

Want to address the below exchange between Kaiser and Eric Green:

There may be people including you and I who believe in a twentieth-century progressive agenda. Neither political party, however, is pushing one at this time, although the Democrats are at least interested (it seems) in preserving what it is left of it

Maybe part of the problem is you guys (as well as many other older people) keep forgetting this has not been the 20th century for at least ten years. You have kids in college these days who most memories are of the 21st century. I think I can speak for most Xrs and nearly all Millennials that we've left the 20th behind. Might be a bit nostalgic about it, but give us suggestions on what a 21st century progressive should be. It should be improved and addresses the technological changes we've seen since the last progressive agenda was implemented.

Originally Posted by KaiserD2

the time of the Republican debate had not been set

I don't think this is true. Indeed, Boehner interpreted the time selection as a slap to the Republican presidential process. The advance people for the WH did a lousy job. This kerfuffle was totally unnecessary and only served to make the President look weak. Now he gets to compete with the first major NFL game of the year - Saints vs Packers. He had better be done by kickoff at 8:30.

James50

Originally Posted by James50

I don't think this is true. Indeed, Boehner interpreted the time selection as a slap to the Republican presidential process. The advance people for the WH did a lousy job. This kerfuffle was totally unnecessary and only served to make the President look weak. Now he gets to compete with the first major NFL game of the year - Saints vs Packers. He had better be done by kickoff at 8:30.

James50

It is true. It looks instead like Boehner, for the millionth time, caved in to this right wing. From this morning's Times:

A White House official said Mr. Obama and his advisers had chosen Wednesday because it was Congress’s first day back. "The debate was never really an issue," because there are a total of 20 and three this month alone, said the official, who would not allow his name to be used because he was not authorized to speak publicly. "Had Mr. Boehner told us he had a problem with Wednesday this morning," when the White House consulted him, the official said, "we would have done Thursday from the beginning.". . . .Before Mr. Boehner said that a joint session on Wednesday would not work, the debate’s sponsors had said their event would go on as planned — potentially creating a lively opportunity for counterprogramming. The sponsors did not specify a time for the debate, leaving open the possibility it would take place after a presidential address.

“We are thrilled that we now have a terrific opportunity to hear from national leaders of both major parties about the most pressing domestic issues facing the country,” the sponsors said in a statement.

Originally Posted by KaiserD2

It is true. It looks instead like Boehner, for the millionth time, caved in to this right wing. From this morning's Times:

A White House official said Mr. Obama and his advisers had chosen Wednesday because it was Congress’s first day back. "The debate was never really an issue," because there are a total of 20 and three this month alone, said the official, who would not allow his name to be used because he was not authorized to speak publicly.

But you said that the debate was not already scheduled. That was what I thought was not true. The WH knew the debate was scheduled but considered it unimportant. That is what upset Boehner and his backers. I don't think there was ever any intention for counter-programming. The counter-programming idea was just what NBC and others started to scramble to make happen.

James50

This was nothing but a trial balloon by the administration. They have all the information they needed from it to go forward. I suspect that we will see a shift in tone from Obama.

Irene disaster relief is making the Tea Party fools commit political mass suicide.


New York Republican threatens to withhold hurricane relief from her own district


I've read that Eric Cantor has made similar comments. Fools.

Originally Posted by Odin

Irene disaster relief is making the Tea Party fools commit political mass suicide.


New York Republican threatens to withhold hurricane relief from her own district


I've read that Eric Cantor has made similar comments. Fools.

Probably it will create a couple of jobs ...

Originally Posted by Aramea

Probably it will create a couple of jobs ...

Oh, SNAP!!!!!!

Originally Posted by James50

But you said that the debate was not already scheduled. That was what I thought was not true. The WH knew the debate was scheduled but considered it unimportant. That is what upset Boehner and his backers. I don't think there was ever any intention for counter-programming. The counter-programming idea was just what NBC and others started to scramble to make happen.

James50

James, did you read what I posted? I said the time of the debate was not scheduled, and thus, it could simply have followed the President's speech. That's what the debate sponsors said.

Chant of 'tax the rich' growing louder in nation

Originally Posted by KaiserD2

OK, I will make one more try. We are having a non-violent civil war, which I do think is an advance over a violent one. It should also in theory at least be easier to bring to an end with some kind of peace treaty,

On what basis are you able to make that assumption? It was the violent war that was easier. All one had to do was humiliate the other side until they capitulated and then wait for their resentment to balloon into the deadlock we have today.

which would consist of a measure of agreement between the two parties that would enable them to begin working together, establish some kind of consensus, and move into a High.

Like duh...

Barack Obama has been trying very hard to bring that about. But he can't. That's because the Repubican Party is completely dedicated to total victory and to his electoral defeat. He has made a series of tactical retreats since the 2010 elections, hoping apparently that he can win the country over by being the reasonable man. It isn't working--it just makes the Republicans more encouraged and more intransigent. Meanwhile, his own troops are divided, demoralized, and quiescent.

You seem to think that I cannot make ordinal connections. But you are talking backwards. You seem to be saying that Obama is playing peacemaker and it's making the people intransigent. So therefore he should be adversarial and that will make the people conciliatory. And I say that's friggin' illogical.

The latest episode in this story took place yesterday, when the Speaker of the House, in a totally unprecedented move, told the President he could not address a Joint Session of Congress on his chosen day next week, because a Republican candidates' debate has been scheduled for the same night. This was completely unnecessary--the time of the Republican debate had not been set, and the country could have been treated to an interesting comparison of its present leader with his would-be successors. It is simply an attempt to humiliate the President. The last thing the Republicans want to do is to allow Obama to make peace. That would give him prestige and make his re-election more likely. At this point if he signed on to the whole Tea Party platform they would say that he hadn't gone far enough.

To me that's a problem with the so-called left's continued low self-esteem. They are always writing the losing script for their own side instead of celebrating strengths (essentially what I'm doing now which now makes me part of the problem). What psychological benefit is gained from making such statements like

At this point if he signed on to the whole Tea Party platform they would say that he hadn't gone far enough.

??? The truth is we are closer now than we have been before and Obama is doing just what he needs to do.

Wow. Talk about bad judgement by Republicans. Raffling off the same type of gun used in the Arizona shooting, in Arizona, only 8 months after it happened. :

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/alex-b..._b_943014.html

Alex Brant-Zawadzki

Journalist, Politico, Scallywag


GET UPDATES FROM Alex Brant-Zawadzki Like

31







Pima County Repubs Raffle Glock As Fundraiser; Same Gun Type Used In Tucson Shooting

Posted: 8/31/11 07:06 AM ET






Talk about a killer gimmick.
An Arizona Republican fundraiser is offering as a prize the same type of gun used in the attempted assassination of Arizona Congresswoman Gabrielle Giffords.
On August 26 the Pima County Republican Party sent out its regular online newsletter, e-Tracks [PDF]. It contained your standard newsletterisms - an intro from the chairman, a description of local candidates, a calendar of upcoming events, and so on. But this particular issue also featured an eye-catching giveaway to raise money for GOTV (Get Out the Vote) efforts.
For just $10, readers can purchase a raffle ticket (out of 125 offered) for a chance to win a brand new handgun. Not just any handgun, but a Glock 23
Arizona Republicans surely know just how effective this particular brand of gun can be. After all, it was only eight months ago that Jared Lee Loughner used a Glock 19 in Tucson - the seat of Pima County - to shoot Congresswoman Gabrielle Giffords in the head. Giffords survived, but six other people, including a nine year old girl and a federal judge, were killed in the same shooting.
The raffle gun comes preloaded with adjustable grips, a case, and three 12-round magazines. Glock USA describes the model as "a slightly reduced size of a full-size handgun for easier concealment but still retains the performance on the level of a serious big bore."
Let's see... with 125 tickets, at $10 a ticket, the PCRP could pull in a cool $1,250 - minus whatever their souls are worth, of course.
The office of the Pima County Republican Party has confirmed that they are raffling the Glock.
Congresswoman Giffords' office had no comment, according to Interim District Office Coordinator Rodd McLeod.
The Arizona GOP has said it won't campaign to have Giffords removed from office before the 2012 election.
But at some point they're going to have to run somebody. So how do you field a candidate against a beloved incumbent who also happens to be a national hero?
"Many of us know Gabby and we're all praying for her continued recovery," PCRP vice chairman Mike Shaw told FoxNews.com. "The whole thing was horrible and that adds a lot of sensitivity to the seat."
Speaking of sensitivity - you have no idea how sensitive the trigger is on this sweet baby we're raffling! All the easier to fire those 36 bullets you'll get in those three magazines. Loughner only got off 32 shots. Think you can do better? Then give us your money.

Originally Posted by Hutch74

Wow. Talk about bad judgement by Republicans. Raffling off the same type of gun used in the Arizona shooting, in Arizona, only 8 months after it happened. :

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/alex-b..._b_943014.html

This should go on the "Have we become less moral" thread.

Originally Posted by KaiserD2

James, did you read what I posted? I said the time of the debate was not scheduled, and thus, it could simply have followed the President's speech. That's what the debate sponsors said.

Jonathan Capehart - (WaPO -not NYT) - hard core Obama supporter. Bold is mine.

That was one bad-ass move by President Obama. For weeks, MSNBC has been showing commercials for the first post-Labor Day presidential debate with all of the declared Republican candidates. Sept. 7 at 8 p.m. This afternoon, the White House announced the date and time when Obama would release his long-awaited jobs plan. Sept. 7 at 8 p.m.

But, wait. There’s more. Obama will do it before a joint session of Congress. While the folks onstage at the Reagan Library try to look presidential in the eyes of viewers and voters, Obama’s address in the House chamber communicates clearly, “I AM the president of the United States.” Whether intentional or not — and I agree with The Fix, coincidences don’t happen in presidential politics — it’s a go-big maneuver.

here.

James50

BTW - don't you find it annoying when people begin posts with "Did you read what I posted" when you know they did? Or "Do you honestly believe XXX?" when you know they do, and besides, what is a dishonest belief?

Originally Posted by James50

Jonathan Capehart - (WaPO -not NYT) - hard core Obama supporter. Bold is mine.



here.

James50

BTW - don't you find it annoying when people begin posts with "Did you read what I posted" when you know they did? Or "Do you honestly believe XXX?" when you know they do, and besides, what is a dishonest belief?

Boy, you take this stuff seriously! We have two sources, two different versions. One of them is wrong.

OK, my original posting and current comments in bold,. yours in normal type.

Quote Originally Posted by KaiserD2 View Post
OK, I will make one more try. We are having a non-violent civil war, which I do think is an advance over a violent one. It should also in theory at least be easier to bring to an end with some kind of peace treaty,

On what basis are you able to make that assumption? It was the violent war that was easier. All one had to do was humiliate the other side until they capitulated and then wait for their resentment to balloon into the deadlock we have today.
I'm assuming this is better because, to extrapolate the civil war today, three million young men, at least, would be killed. I'm glad we are not going through that. I also assume it's easier to make peace if three million men have not been killed. I also question your history. The South didn't make peace because it was humiliated, it made peace because all its armies had to surrender. And then it began undoing the consequenes as quickly as it could.

which would consist of a measure of agreement between the two parties that would enable them to begin working together, establish some kind of consensus, and move into a High.
Like duh...

Barack Obama has been trying very hard to bring that about. But he can't. That's because the Repubican Party is completely dedicated to total victory and to his electoral defeat. He has made a series of tactical retreats since the 2010 elections, hoping apparently that he can win the country over by being the reasonable man. It isn't working--it just makes the Republicans more encouraged and more intransigent. Meanwhile, his own troops are divided, demoralized, and quiescent.

You seem to think that I cannot make ordinal connections. But you are talking backwards. You seem to be saying that Obama is playing peacemaker and it's making the people intransigent. So therefore he should be adversarial and that will make the people conciliatory. And I say that's friggin' illogical.

I am saying that if he were more confrontational, roused more people on his side, and called for more left-wing solutions than he was going to get, we might indeed wind up somewhere in the middle. As it is, we are trending steadily rightward.

The latest episode in this story took place yesterday, when the Speaker of the House, in a totally unprecedented move, told the President he could not address a Joint Session of Congress on his chosen day next week, because a Republican candidates' debate has been scheduled for the same night. This was completely unnecessary--the time of the Republican debate had not been set, and the country could have been treated to an interesting comparison of its present leader with his would-be successors. It is simply an attempt to humiliate the President. The last thing the Republicans want to do is to allow Obama to make peace. That would give him prestige and make his re-election more likely. At this point if he signed on to the whole Tea Party platform they would say that he hadn't gone far enough.

To me that's a problem with the so-called left's continued low self-esteem. They are always writing the losing script for their own side instead of celebrating strengths (essentially what I'm doing now which now makes me part of the problem). What psychological benefit is gained from making such statements like
At this point if he signed on to the whole Tea Party platform they would say that he hadn't gone far enough.
??? The truth is we are closer now than we have been before and Obama is doing just what he needs to do.

Could you please try to calm down just a tad? We are discussing current events and history. Our identities are not at stake.

Originally Posted by KaiserD2

Boy, you take this stuff seriously! We have two sources, two different versions. One of them is wrong.

The easy answer is simply to say consider the source. NYT gives its readership what it wants which is, whenever possible, slam the Republicans. You don't have to go much deeper than that. Presumably you have other sources to balance your news intake.

James50

This is as simple as I can make it. Barring any unforeseen circumstances, I retire from the debate. Your chosen concept of reality and chosen interpretation of the English language is just too different from mine...

Originally Posted by KaiserD2

Originally Posted by KaiserD2

OK, I will make one more try. We are having a non-violent civil war, which I do think is an advance over a violent one. It should also in theory at least be easier to bring to an end with some kind of peace treaty,

Originally Posted by summer in the fall

On what basis are you able to make that assumption? It was the violent war that was easier. All one had to do was humiliate the other side until they capitulated and then wait for their resentment to balloon into the deadlock we have today.

I'm assuming this is better because, to extrapolate the civil war today, three million young men, at least, would be killed. I'm glad we are not going through that. I also assume it's easier to make peace if three million men have not been killed. I also question your history. The South didn't make peace because it was humiliated, it made peace because all its armies had to surrender. And then it began undoing the consequenes as quickly as it could.

millions killed + forced to surrender = humiliation

"undoing the consequences as quickly as it could" = resentment-fueled buildup to present day deadlock

the date "The South made peace" = 20??

...I also assume it's easier to make peace if three million men have not been killed...

How? You have already stated that the present-day war is a continuation of the wars of the past. So what has changed that would maker it easier today to achieve peace (through antagonism) than it did before? It would seem to me that antagonism would be a continuation of the same approach used before which has led us to the fix we are in today.

Originally Posted by KaiserD2

Originally Posted by KaiserD2

which would consist of a measure of agreement between the two parties that would enable them to begin working together, establish some kind of consensus, and move into a High.

Originally Posted by summer in the fall

Like duh...

Originally Posted by KaiserD2

Barack Obama has been trying very hard to bring that about. But he can't. That's because the Repubican Party is completely dedicated to total victory and to his electoral defeat. He has made a series of tactical retreats since the 2010 elections, hoping apparently that he can win the country over by being the reasonable man. It isn't working--it just makes the Republicans more encouraged and more intransigent. Meanwhile, his own troops are divided, demoralized, and quiescent.

Originally Posted by summer in the fall

You seem to think that I cannot make ordinal connections. But you are talking backwards. You seem to be saying that Obama is playing peacemaker and it's making the people intransigent. So therefore he should be adversarial and that will make the people conciliatory. And I say that's friggin' illogical.

I am saying that if he were more confrontational, roused more people on his side, and called for more left-wing solutions than he was going to get, we might indeed wind up somewhere in the middle. As it is, we are trending steadily rightward.

And I'm saying those things don't make logical sense. Obama may temporarily comfort the base if he were confrontational but he will enrage everyone else. (Not everyone is on the same page with these left-wing solutions.) So in a sense we ARE ending up in the middle. Antagonizing other Americans (the approach you seem to think will make you feel better) will end up pushing us someplace else...

Originally Posted by KaiserD2

Originally Posted by KaiserD2

The latest episode in this story took place yesterday, when the Speaker of the House, in a totally unprecedented move, told the President he could not address a Joint Session of Congress on his chosen day next week, because a Republican candidates' debate has been scheduled for the same night. This was completely unnecessary--the time of the Republican debate had not been set, and the country could have been treated to an interesting comparison of its present leader with his would-be successors. It is simply an attempt to humiliate the President. The last thing the Republicans want to do is to allow Obama to make peace. That would give him prestige and make his re-election more likely. At this point if he signed on to the whole Tea Party platform they would say that he hadn't gone far enough.

Originally Posted by summer in the fall

To me that's a problem with the so-called left's continued low self-esteem. They are always writing the losing script for their own side instead of celebrating strengths (essentially what I'm doing now which now makes me part of the problem). What psychological benefit is gained from making such statements like

Originally Posted by KaiserD2

At this point if he signed on to the whole Tea Party platform they would say that he hadn't gone far enough.

??? The truth is we are closer now than we have been before and Obama is doing just what he needs to do.

Could you please try to calm down just a tad?

No can do. I have no control over calming the agitation taking place in your head.

Cheers.

Originally Posted by KaiserD2

There may be people including you and I who believe in a twentieth-century progressive agenda. Neither political party, however, is pushing one at this time, although the Democrats are at least interested (it seems) in preserving what it is left of it. I would suggest that so far the remarkable election swings of the last three elections have had remarkably little impact on either our domestic or foreign policy, and any temporary effect of Obama and the Democrats' 2008 victory is rapidly being undone. (The Supreme Court may well speed that process when the health care bill gets to them.)

Unsatisfactory as both Parties are in adopting a revived Progressivism, the distinction between them is obvious. One Party seems intent at the least to preserve the reforms of the Progressive Era, the New Deal, and the Great Society; one would cast them off in the name of at best a new Gilded Age in the name of economic growth that might never be achieved on behalf of economic elites that exploit right-wing demagoguery on debased 'cultural' and repressive 'moral' issues. The Hard Right wants population growth (thus the hostility to abortion, contraception, and homosexuality) even if such is the ultimate Ponzi scheme.

Carter was the only Democrat who could have won in 1976 in the first place. (Actually, there is an excellent chance that Reagan never would have been President if Ford had beaten Carter in 1976.) Carter won in 1976 by carrying the South. No other Democrat would have--and he just barely won.

Humphrey was dying, Muskie was a personal wreck, and Ted Kennedy had wrecked a car with a dead woman in it. McGovern and Wallace were out of the question. Carter was the last hurrah for the Democratic Party of the immediate aftermath of the Civil Rights Act of 1964. America changed while Carter was president as the Boom Awakening began to fade. It's probably not a good idea to win the Presidency as a relic of the dying phase of the cycle unless one is a major reformer in tune with the trend.

What I am saying is that there's nothing that astonishing about the long-term trend to the right we've been experiencing. The crisis of the last saeculum and the high that followed represented certain sides of human nature. Beginning with the last Awakening, those sides went into eclipse in our politics. They do not appear to be coming back any time soon.

But how far does the trend toward the Right continue? Does America go fascist or feudal? Does it replace reason with superstition? The last 3T has become a failure.

Fox news poll. Bachmann down to 4%. That didn't last long.

Even as Texas Gov. Rick Perry moves into the lead as Republican voters’ preferred presidential candidate, a Fox News poll released Thursday shows that voters are more likely to view him as “too extreme” than former frontrunner Mass. Gov. Mitt Romney. In addition, most American voters -- including a majority of Republicans -- think former Alaska Gov. Sarah Palin should stay out of the presidential race.

Perry receives the support of 26 percent of GOP primary voters in the new poll. That’s up from 13 percent in early August and enough to edge out Romney as frontrunner. Currently Romney captures 18 percent, down from 21 percent (August 7-9).

No other candidate garners double-digit support.

Palin receives 8 percent and Texas Rep. Ron Paul comes in at 7 percent. Minnesota Rep. Michele Bachmann captures the backing of 4 percent, down from a high of 11 percent in late June. Former New York City Mayor Rudy Giuliani and businessman Herman Cain also garner 4 percent each. Another 4 percent support former Arkansas Gov. Mike Huckabee, even though he has said he is not running and his name wasn’t included in the question. Giuliani and Palin are unannounced.

here

James50

Originally Posted by Hutch74

Wow. Talk about bad judgement by Republicans. Raffling off the same type of gun used in the Arizona shooting, in Arizona, only 8 months after it happened. :

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/alex-b..._b_943014.html

Yeah, I understand the need for some folks in the media to try and foster some faux-outrage for their team but you really have to understand how amusing this article is to anyone remotely experienced with firearms, and how ignorant the author is. The raffled weapon is a Glock 23 which is not the same weapon (type or otherwise) used in the Giffords shooting (Glock 19). The article even makes note of this but since the author is completely ignorant, doesn't realize what it means. Really the only similarities are that both models are made by the same manufacturer and both are semi-auto pistols. The Glock 19 that shot Giffords was a 9x19mm. A Glock 23 fires a .40 S&W. It also weighs more has lower magazine capacity and more power. The extended magazine Laughner used won't fit in this weapon. Neither will the bullets he used. The silly outrage over the 3 extra magazines? Well guess how many magazines come in the box with the weapon when you buy it? In fact, had Giffords been shot with a Glock 23 (or rather, shot with a .40S&W instead of a 9mm) instead of a Glock 19, she wouldn't be alive today.

Lets assume for a moment that Giffords had been run down by a Toyota Corolla. You are basically arguing that the GOP is showing insensitivity by raffling off a Toyota Prius, 7 months later. Different car, same manufacturer. See the difference?

Now, had the GOP raffled off an identical Glock 19 with an extended mag under a banner that said, "Finish The Job!" then you and this chuckle-head from the Huffington Post might have had a point...

I would suggest that if you are going to parrot ignorance in the media, you do a little research on the subject matter first. It kinda looks silly when you make that leap with them.