|
What's interesting here is this: When the president sells out his own party, he always does it in the interest of the plutocrats. Some of you will say that the bailouts were a "Republican"-sort of policy. That may be true, but they were not a classically conservative policy. No one who believes in the free market could help being appalled by what occurred in September and October of 2008. And when Bush found that he could not get the support of the majority of the Republicans, even if he got the leadership and McCain/Palin, he got the Democrats on his side.
Here we're in a similar position: It's supposedly an emergency; the clock is ticking; it'll be 1929 all over again IF WE DON'T ACT NOW! And here too we find a president going against the platform and core principles of his party. At first, he treated the tax cut deal as a compromise that he would accept. Three days later, he lobbies for it aggressively, using right-wing talking points to justify cutting taxes for the wealthiest Americans. If the Democratic Party doesn't stand for the use of progressive taxation to provide services that mitigate the brutal conditions that the less fortunate sometimes find themselves in - if the Democratic Party doesn't stand for that, then what does it stand for?
Bush was elected on an isolationist, free-market platform; and look at the result. Obama was elected on a progressive platform, and look at the result. Look at this clown of a president, getting Clinton to help him sell the opposing party's policies. From "Yes we can!" to "I can't win."
Given recent history and what we see today, it seems like a president, no matter how noble he seems while he's campaigning, is destined to be the butler of the oligarchs. There's no hope.
|
Printer-friendly format
Email this thread to a friend
Bookmark this thread
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
