Here's the thing about moderate Republican of the 1980s.

[No Elephants]

I've been a Democrat since I was four years old. I didn't like Republicans in the 1980s, moderate or not. The Democratic Party in the 1980s did a lot to "help" consider Republicans of the 1980s, moderate or not, to be the enemy.

The Democratic Party of the 1980 did its job very well. I did considered Republicans of the 1980s the enemy. Nothing has changed. So, what does anyone expect me to feel about Obama when finally he tells me--now that he can't run any more--that he is a moderate Republican from the 1980s.

At the very least, moderate Republicans of the 1980s never tried to convince me that they were liberal and ask for my vote and my donations, so I have to give them at least that much, however grudgingly. However, I can't even say that of Obama.

[Enthusiast]

1. Precisely

We have to beg them to preserve social security and medicare? "Please don't allow the Republicans to steal our money, Mr. Obama!" WTF?

The Democratic Party establishment won't even call the GOP out on their various excesses and criminality of the past decade+. Again, "we" often cite Republicans as an example we follow to bolster our credibility. And in sensitive foreign policy positions, only a Republican has true trust and credibility. It is all a masquerade, kabuki, a ruse. Republicans have absolutely no credibility on foreign policy. But there they are on every Sunday Morning TV show as "experts" and unimpeachable sources in every discussion. Millions of people are now waking up to the lies of both parties, more of us every day.

I call bullshit on their entire bullshit.

[No Elephants]

2. "Please don't allow the Republicans to steal our money, Mr. Obama!"

I would not phrase it that way.

So far, Obama seems to have been having a hard time forcing our money on the Republicans. Maybe even on the Democrats, too.

His interview with the Washington Post in January 2009 didn't do.

The Cat Food Commission didn't do it.

The probably unconstitutional Grand Bargain joint committee didn't do it.

His offering it to them repeatedly hasn't done it.

At a press conference held by members of the House Out of Poverty Caucus Rep. John Conyers (D-Mich), the second most senior member of the U.S. House, was pointed in his criticism of the White House regarding jobs and cuts to Social Security the President put on the table last week.

“We’ve got to educate the American people at the same time we educate the President of the United States. The Republicans, Speaker Boehner or Majority Leader Cantor did not call for Social Security cuts in the budget deal. The President of the United States called for that,” Conyers, who has served in the House since 1965, said. “My response to him is to mass thousands of people in front of the White House to protest this,” Conyers said strongly.

Though the debt ceiling debate continues, many Democrats continue to say the real issue is jobs and unemployment. Yesterday, the PEW Research Center put out a study showing the wealth gap between whites, blacks and Hispanics is wider than at any time in history. Conyers focused on jobs and the White House throughout much of what he said.


“We want full employment as a matter of government policy. Which was passed in 1987 when I stood with Hubert Humphrey. We passed the first bill that allowed the government — in areas of high unemployment — to directly intervene and create jobs. Well, we’ve got the bill in here again and I’ve got nothing from the White House,” Conyers told the audience. Several CBC members have called for targeted help for high unemployment in the black community.

<snip>


Focusing on Obama, Conyers continued. “We want him to know from this day forward that we’ve had it. We want him to come out on our side not to watch and wait… We’re suffering,” Conyers said. Several members of the CBC, including, Reps. Eddie Bernice Johnson (D-Texas), Bobby Rush (D-Ill.), and are beginning to speak out more publicly on jobs and the White House policy. Many have called for a targeted approach to the problem.

http://www.crewof42.com/cbc/conyers-on-jobs-weve-had-it-lays-out-obama-calls-for-protest-at-white-house/

My guess is that he thought Republicans would jump at it, as soon as he dangled it at WAPO. But, for whatever reason, they didn't. Then we had Occupy Wall Street and the national economic divide was up in everyone's face, making "99%" part of the American lexicon. (Tip of the hat for that to Occupy Boston, y'all.)

Then, Republicans lost in 2012 and feel they have to rehab their party (or at least the image of their party). I don't know if they'll take the chance of alienating so many voters right now. And, if the blame can't be hung on Republicans, or even shared with them, will Democrats in Congress back Obama in this quest? Come what may he is not running again ever. But many of the Democrats in Congress will be looking for votes in 2014, in 2016 and beyond.

Nonetheles, a lot of damage has already been done. A popular Democratic President did use the term "entitlements" before he even took his oath of office and he did appoint the Cat Food commission and he did do his best for a while to convince the country that the cuts had to be made.

As Conyers said, not Boehner, not Cantor, not any Republican. A Democratic President.

That is a lot of damage already. No Republican could have done it.

[rpannier]

3. Look at some of the Democrats today and some of the Moderate Republicans back then

Ben Nelson (Gone), Bill Nelson, The Two Democrats from the Dakotas, Baucus (Crook) and Pryor
Now compare them to Howard Baker, Lowell Weicker, William V. Roth, John Chafee, Dale Evans and John Warner.

I know the Democratic Party has always had members that were more conservative than Republicans.
Granted: Evans, Weicker and Chafee were the Gypsy Moth Republicans.

BUt for some perspective on today vs Yesteryear
Goldwater was not opposed to gays serving in combat (Interview w/ Mike Wallace)
Warner said when he retired that had we listened to Carter when he was president we wouldn't have the energy crisis' we have today.
Evans was a strong environmentalist. He founded the first state level Department of Ecology while Governor of Washington. Founded the state's Community College Program and unsuccessfully tried to have a state income tax.
(Interesting note: Ted Bundy was a campaign aid for Evans in 1972.)

[No Elephants]

4. Ted Bundy, wow.

Old school conservatives did tend to be fiscal conservative and relatively quiet on social issues (maybe because the laws then were in their favor for the most part). Preserving the environment, such as national parks was, I believe, ver much a conservative value. Preserving the way things used to be is the conservative way. Besides, they were the ones who could afford the estates and who had time and energy for hunting, fishing, etc. not usually the family that lived in an urban tenement building, where husband and wife both worked in factories all week. However, that is a different issue from saying big business should be required by law to clean up its act, or that taxes will have to increase to support a much larger environmental protection agency.

On the other hand, Goldwater was one of Joe McCarthy's very last supporters and loved him some "states' rights" dog whistles. As far as gays in the military, Goldwater, who smoked and drank pretty good, was very much opposed to Bible thumping interference in one's private life.

And gays in the military has been a one of a kind issue since Sparta was considered a world power. It can be very different from saying "equal rights" for gays. It can be more like not exempting them from being cannon fodder. But, I didn't think Goldwater was ever properly described as a "moderate Republican from the 1980s," anyway.

As far as a Governor wanting state revenue, that is not too hard to believe of any Governor in either party. Power and revenue go hand in hand and people don't run for public office because they hate having power. For instance, Romney tried not to raise state taxes, thereby trying to live to the letter of Republican law. However, state fees rose during Romney's administration like nobody's business. IIRC, it was an unprecedented level of increase. Though I could be wrong on "unprecedented," it certainly was dramatic.

[No Elephants]

5. P.S.

I am relatively certain that, when Obama refers to a moderate Republican of the 1980s, he means Reaganites. Obama put St. Ronnie on his list of 10 best Presidents ever (as did Hillary) and Obama name checks Reagan a lot, much as do Republicans).

Several of the people you named besides Goldwater hit their political prime before the 1980s. It's just that Senators tend to get re-elected forever. Warner, who was first elected to the Senate im 1979, but after a long political career outside the Senate can just about be considered a Republican of the 1980s. He was a Nixonite, like Panetta, not a Reaganite. John Chafee was a contemporary of Warner's.

In general, I would not consider anyone who was old enough to serve in World War II to be a moderate Republican of the 1980s.

Aside from the timeline, as you mentioned you are trying to compare some of the extremely conservative Democrats with some of the extremely liberal Republicans (not Gldwater but again Golwater was not a product of the 1980s). Obama specified moderate Republicans of the 1980s.


My point is that, in the 1980s, the Democratic Party put a lot of money and oxygen into convincing people that all Republicans of the 1980s, moderate or not were the enemy. I believed the Democratic Party then. Nothing changed to make happy about having, in 2013, a moderate Republican President from the 1980s. Especially when he mentions that fact only after having been elected to his last possible term.

In 25 years, will the Democratic President be telling me that moderate Republicans of today, like Mitt Romney, are not the enemy after all? In fact, he or she identifies with them?

What kind of game are Democrats playing my mind, my country, my tax dollars and my political donations? And, is there any reason I should be happy about it. Those are my points.

[Enthusiast]

6. My sentiments, exactly.

Your points are excellent ones, No Elephants.

I suspect millions of Democrats feel exactly as we do. But the Democratic Party power brokers don't seem to be in the least bit perturbed about it. They could care less how we (the actual Democrats) feel about things. It's like they have "plausible deniability" and that is enough. It is a shocking development to feel so abused as a citizen.

[No Elephants]

7. Thanks, Enthusiast.

"But the Democratic Party power brokers don't seem to be in the least bit perturbed about it."

Why should they be? They can say, technically accurately, "Bill Clinton, a DLCER, was the first Democrat since FDR to be elected twice. And Obama was the first to be elected twice with over 50% of the vote."



Let's break that down some, though, shall we?



Roosevelt did not get elected twice. He got elected until he died and therefore could not run anymore. He came so close to "President for Life" that they amended the Constitution to make sure no Democrat--er, I mean, no President--could ever be elected that many times again.

Truman was not elected initially, but got into office because FDR died. He got into office almost at the beginining of FDR's first term. So, his first election (technically) was the functional equivalent of a re-election. And, as I wrote in another post, he won the electoral vote stunningly and the popular vote by a very healthy margin, despite integrating the military several months earlier and a spoiler challenge from Strom Thurmond.

And Truman did not win because of Roosevelt's coattails, either. It was common knowledge that Roosevelt did not much like Harry and had frozen him out. "Surprise #1 Harry. Even though Roosevelt just got re-elected, you're President now. Surprise # 2. You're a war time President who knows close to nothing about what has been going on, domestically or abroad. Surprise #3 and maybe you want to sit down for this one. Ever overhear Franklin say "Manhattan?" Well, he wasn't talking about the city."


Anyway..... After his first election, Truman did not run again. His wife was supposedly the reason. He doted on her. He seemed like her booby prize. And she did not like D.C. and all the insults hurled at her and their daughter. Still, he served just about 8 years.

So, saying Truman was elected only once, while technically true, is quite misleading without elaboration.

Then, we had war hero and two termer Ike, who, almost fresh from bringing home Hitler's scalp (figuratively), ran against a brilliant but no very charismatic Adlai Stevenson.

Then came JFK, who never got a chance to run for re-election. I'm guessing he would have won, even though his first election had been a squeaker. He and his wife had been charming the pants off America, figurative (even though he had also been literally charming the pants off his intern and, reportedly, quite a few others).

Johnson was faced by deep division in his party and the whole Vietnam War debacle. He, too, chose not to run.

Then, Nixon, who did win re-election, but soon had to resign in utter ignominy.

Then Ford who succeeded Nixon, much as Truman had succeeded FDR. But, unlike Truman, Ford lost his first election. You could cite the pardon and Chevy Chase falling down on SNL as many times as Ford fell in real life, and many have. Still, the fact remains that Truman had won VERY handily despite opposition from within, but Ford could not win with a relatively clear field.

Then Carter who lost his election, in part because of gasoline prices and lines at stations, in part because he got the hostages back alive without a war in which thousands of others would have been killed, and in part because he had faced some destructive primary campaigning and invective from Ted Kennedy. (This hurts me from both sides because I like them both so much.) And, in part because he ran against the Gipper and who had been likeable in, and welcomed to, American homes on TV for decades, either because of his old movies or because he was President of the Screen Actors' Guild, or because he hosted the G.E. program. All in all, a perfect storm for a loss, just as 2008 was a perfect storm for an Obama win.

Then we had 8 years of Reagan and 4 of Bush.

Then Clinton.

So, while Clinton was indeed the first Democratic President since FDR to be re-elected, he beat a record of exactly one other Democratic President, namely, Jimmy "Perfect Storm" Carter. Oh, and Clinton had had a little help from Ross Perot, too, in both Clinton elections, which no other modern Democratic President has had.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ross_Perot_presidential_campaign,_1992

On the other hand, during the very same time period, Ford could not match Truman's performance; and Poppy Bush could not manage to get himself re-elected, even though he was running against Bill "Gennifer Flowers" Clinton. So, if you break it down, since Roosevelt, Democratic incumbents who sought election or re-election did at least twice as well as Republican incumbents who sought re-election.

Funny how no one, Democrat or Republican, ever puts it that way, isn't it?

Not to mention, which law says we can't count the astounding re-election record of Roosevelt? Why does no one ever say, for example, "incumbent Presidents since Coolidge who could not win an election or re-election include Hoover, Ford and Bush, while on the Democratic side, only Carter who was pretty much centrist for his day, failed and Roosevelt won four, count'em, four, times, a record no other President Democratic or Republican, before him had even approached?"

That would tell an entirely different story about the right, the center right and the left than the only version we ever hear from Republicans or Democrats, wouldn't it?

[Enthusiast]

8. Yes, it would be a different story.

They seemed to have an agreed upon the national mythology that the nation is "center-right" and they obviously want to keep it that way.

Well, all the polls tell us that, on the issues, the American people are way to the left of "center right". It's another of the inconvenient truths that they seek to cover up. You just can't find an issue confronting the nation where the PTB agree with the people.

"We" want no more wars. We want to reduce military spending and our international footprint, big time. We want to stop the outsourcing. We want to preserve a woman's right to chose. We want the wealthy taxed at a higher rate. We favor equal rights for women and gays. We believe that human caused climate change is a serious cause for concern. We want social security and medicare preserved. We want a national health care system independent of the insurance industry and pharmaceutical industry bandits. We want to preserve collective bargaining. We want our food and drugs to be adequately inspected. We want those responsible for Wall Street malfeasance brought to justice. We want the money out of politics. And that isn't all that "We" agree on and the PTB disagree on.

[No Elephants]

9. Sing it Enthusiast!

Why do you hate the job creators, though?

Kidding!

[No Elephants]

10. kicking