mead cohen berger shevtsova garfinkle michta grygiel blankenhorn
Blue Model Forever?
The Democrats Turn Left
Features Icon
show comments
  • alanstorm

    “The Democrats Turn Left”?

    Don’t you mean “Even FARTHER left”?

  • JP

    Outside of the MSNBC bubble, who ever bought into Republicans were moving so far to the right, while Obama was just another Clinton Democrat? This article is like news from 2011.

    • Hominid

      Exactly! All the Lib-Leftists do is LIE, LIE, LIE! And, baselessly accuse their adversaries of being “racist,” “homophobes,” “xenophobes,” “anti-woman,” and (or) “haters.” Their leaders are elitist scoundrels and their acolytes are useful idiots.

      And, yet, we accept their position as legitimate and let them take our country ever further Leftward.

    • kenpuck

      Interesting thesis from the writer of this piece, but the outcome turns on one question: Have we become a land of lotus-eaters? Lotus eaters just want more lotus, thank you very much, and they don’t want to pay for it.

      Stated another way, has the “47%” become 50.5%?

      • DisgustedwithElitism

        If a Democrat wins in ’16 you can wave good-bye to the USA. The same will be true if a typical Republican wins. In either case, more Big Government and growth-stifling debt will be our future.

      • GorgonPolus577

        The Republican party is committed to screwing the American worker for the benefit of the the richest 1%. Jeb Bush proved this with his comment that Americans need to work longer hours. I predict that between now and the 2016 election this will become more obvious to the American worker and Hillary Clinton will win.

        • Pellucidar

          Is that why Scott Walker is polling so well even before he announces his candidacy? Union thugs have co-opted the unions both private and public and you have the gaul to blame the Republican party. Just which party is it committed to allowing illegal aliens to cross our southern border keeping American workers from earning a livable wage? Hmmmmm? Which party is it that dominates local school boards that tenure mediocre teachers exacerbating an already desperate educational problem in inner cities. The examples of Democratic party collusion and corruption are abundant if you will just “see” them. Practice what you preach. Open your eyes and be tolerant of other view points rather than being your classical myopic self.

          • GorgonPolus577

            On your first point other than Jeb Bush Republicans oppose common core which would hold all schools responsible for meeting a common standard.

            We must have a common education yard stick to evaluate and motivate student performance so that the next generation is prepared for the brutal global competition that is coming. If parents are not ready to support the NCLB(No Child Left Behind Act) and Common Core they should not have kids.

            On your second point.

            Conservative Republican voters should write to their Republican Senator and their Republican Representative  and ask them, “What am I voting Republican for other than to pass amnesty immigration reform to satisfy Wall Street business interests who want flood the country with cheap immigrant labor that cannot vote to keep labor cost low and profits high?” I am going to vote for Donald Trump and if he doesn’t win the 2016 Republican Nomination for President I will vote for him in the general election as write-in candidate.

            Get real guy. Republicans oppose common core and support amnesty immigration reform.

          • strathead

            Guess you missed to part about “local school boards” huh? “One size fits all”, is exactly what our founding fathers tried to prevent with the Constitution. We coin the phrase “Too big to fail.” for banks, but when we reference the Federal government, we should note, “Too big to succeed.” As far as immigration, my Representative is Richard Nugent. He is voting exactly the way I wished him to. And it isn’t in favor of amnesty.

          • GorgonPolus577

            Yeah, but he is in the minority of Republicans who are salivating to please business donors.

        • fastrackn1

          “Jeb Bush proved this with his comment that Americans need to work longer hours.”

          Americans do need to work longer hours. The 40 hour work week is a joke.
          Those who only want to work 40 hours a week are parasites on society and ride on the backs of the movers and shakers who make things happen.
          If you just want to show up at a job and collect a paycheck, then you should get what you deserve…just about nothing.

          I am not on the right, and I am not on the left. I do support the little guy…just not the lazy ones who feel they simply need to show up in order to live a comfortable American lifestyle….

          • GorgonPolus577
          • fastrackn1

            I understand exactly where you are coming from GP, and I am with you in some ways.

            However, I am not chained to a particular party (too narrow and rigid in thought), so my thoughts have nothing to do with the usual diatribe from either side. I am not interested in increasing productivity for the benefit of corporations, as mentioned in your article (I am in most cases vehemently anti-big business). I am concerned with our culture and how it has changed for the worst over the years. How we have become a culture of self entitled whiners who want to continue to do less and less for more and more. I have never worked a 40 hour work week in my life, and as a self-employed person, I get no pension, paid sick day, or any other nonsense.
            People just need to put their heads down and get to work.

            WTF does Jeb Bush know about anything?…he is just another privileged brat…except with a phony smile and a phony handshake….

          • dearth_vader

            I would like to able to show up at a job, but thanks to Mr. O . . . .

          • fastrackn1

            Have you ever thought about self-employment?
            I have never worked for anyone a day in my life, and I am in my 50’s.

            It’s hard to make money when working for others, they make money off of you. It’s better to create your own destiny than depend or wait on others to create it for you…just a thought….

          • dearth_vader

            Thank you. That was sarcasm.

          • GorgonPolus577

            The parasites are the Wall Street Bankers who have been getting their welfare courtesy of the  Federal Reserve. 

          • fastrackn1

            I agree with you know Wall is always going to come out on top. As a home builder, I lost plenty in the 08 housing crash…and I never got a bail out…I guess I wasn’t ‘too big to fail’, as they say.

            In the first 2 paragraphs your article states that Wall and the 1% made out the best from the Fed actions, but then after that it goes on to say that the Fed actually may have helped the middle and lower middle class the most, so no one really knows or can quantify with 100% accuracy either way.

            When you are at the top a loss means little anyway. I mean that if you are worth 20 million, and then you are only worth 10 million after the crash, what difference did it really make…right?…you still have 10 million….

          • GorgonPolus577

            The benefit to the middle class is a drop in the bucket compared to the 4 trillion that the Federal Reserve racket up on their balance sheet to prop up the stock market for the benefit the Wall Street Banks

        • MarkJ

          Uh, beggin’ your pardon, Nostradamus, but I wouldn’t bet the family farm on Hillary:

          • GorgonPolus577

            You article is irrelevant drivel promoted by the Republican party to distract the voters so that the Republicans don’t have to deal with issues that really matter to the voters.

          • MarkJ

            Denial is just a river in Egypt to you, ain’t it?

          • GorgonPolus577

            You and the rest of the Republicans are in denial. Get real guy. Republicans do everything the can to distract the voters so they don’t have to talk about the issues. They have never proven anything. Just a lot of sound and fury signifying nothing and wasting government resources.

          • MarkJ

            Nice post. A couple more of those and you should get your Obama Youth Proficiency Badge in no time flat.

            What’s it like to be a bug-eyed, fleck-mouthed, ideologically-blinkered fanatic? Must be pretty exciting, huh?

          • GorgonPolus577

            I do enjoy a good Pub rant. Makes my day! 

        • kenpuck

          You had me till you showed Krugman’s idiot face. He can’t find his a** with both hands.

        • stan

          You clearly have become unmoored from reality.

          • GorgonPolus577

            I don’t think so.

        • Nick

          So when did Hillary Clinton become the champion of the working class?

          • GorgonPolus577
          • Nick

            Redistribution of wealth doesn’t help inequality. It just makes society poorer, gets more people on the dole, and drags society closer to the final collapse.

          • GorgonPolus577

            Based on what?

            I propose that we if increase the taxes on income over $400,000 we could potentially increase revenue by $2 trillion a year.  Additionally if we increase the estate tax on all estates over $400,000 a year we could potentially increase revenue by another $1trillion a year.&nbsp

            It it is clear that if we increase the taxes on Wall Steet stock and financial asset investors (the richest 1%).  income and estates that it would substantially reduce the federal deficit and bring down the accumulated national debt, which Republicans refuse to consider.

            The Grover Norquist pledge not to raise taxes has been signed by 95% of all Republican members of Congress and all Republican Presidential candidates except Jeb Bush. Which actually means not raising taxes on Wall Street stock and financial asset investors(the richest 1%) income and estates because the rest of the population does not make enough money to invest in stocks and financial assets and pay the taxes necessary to fund the government and eliminate the federal deficit. No Democrat has signed the Grover Norquist pledge not to raise taxes.

            The Wall Street Banks and Wall Street stock and financial asset investors(richest 1%) have effectively been getting their welfare courtesy of the Federal Reserve. The Federal Reserve’s supply-side stimulus for the Wall Street Banks has supplied the Wall Street banks with trillions of dollars  by buying mortgaged backed securities that the Wall Street banks couldn’t sell to anybody else. The trillions of dollars the Wall Street banks have received from the Federal Reserve are deposited on the Wall Street bank’s balance sheets at the Federal Reserve so that they can use it to pump up the Stock Market and draw risk free interest. That is why the Stock Market has risen – the Federal Reserve has been handing the Wall Street Banks money to buy stocks .

            This has been an enormous windfall for Wall Street stock and financial asset investors(richest 1%). The Federal Reserve should be renamed the Department of Welfare for Wall Street and the Wealthy.

            It is time increase taxes on the Wall Street stock and financial asset investors(richest 1%) capital gains, dividend, and carried interest to redistribute the welfare Wall Street stock and financial asset investors (the richest 1%) have been getting from the Federal Reserve.

          • Nick

            Krugman is a hack, and you are a socialist.

            There isn’t enough money to do what you want, and the waste in the government is enormous.

            The biggest threat is health spending, and neither the Obolocare effort nor any of the reforms Republicrats have suggested will fix that – only more rapid medical innovation, and that won’t happen with your beloved government’s FDA blocking innovation (including blocking adding small motors to such things as 3D printed hands for disabled children – each new “innovation” requires years of FDA testing). I won’t begin to go into the horrors of FDA blockages, but even the Europeans are better at letting new medical efforts get to market.

            You need to face it. The problem is not that you can’t steal enough of people’s wealth. Its that its being wasted, and used to power an increasingly fascist government. But keep on supporting that.

            I know which side I stand on.

          • GorgonPolus577

            I agree with you that health spending is a problem, but lets get real here rapid medical innovation is not going to solve the problem. We all going to get old and our boidies are going to crap out on us. More medical innovation will not restore our youthful vigor it will exacberate the problem by prolonging life in a disabled state and increase health care spending.

            As the population ages Medicare and Medicaid which supports senior citizens will balloon out of control.  Paying for the Medicare and Medicaid will  require federal tax increases.  We will also have more senior citizens collecting Social Security. It is not the Republican mythical welfare bums that are causing the dramatic increase in spending for Medicare and Medicaid.   It is the senior citizens who vote Republican 60/40.

            This is the reason why Republicans call for spending cuts without specifying the cuts that would be required to significantly reduce the annual federal deficit ($680 billion in 2013 – may rise to $1 trillion in 2016) and pay off the accumulated national debt ($18 trillion). Republicans know that they would lose votes if they actually identified the cuts required to significantly reduce the annual federal deficit and pay off the accumulated national debt.

            The only realistic solution is health care rationing with death panels and Dr. assisted suicide or accept the ACA Medicaid expansion with Federal Tax increases on Wall Street stock and financial asset investors who have been getting their welfare courtesy of the Federal Reserve (capital gains, dividends, and carried interest). Republicans are helpless to make significant cuts in Medicaid because health care rationing with death panels and Dr. assisted suicide would  offend Republican Pro-Life voters.  Republicans oppose the Medicaid expansion and any tax increases  on Wall Street stock and financial asset investors.

          • Nick

            Sorry, you are incorrect on that. Breakthroughs are happening every day.

            Here’s some that might chill out your cold socialist heart….



            I can keep on pulling these up. How is your hallowed government serving you when it stops development?

            I can tell you the main medicare costs. They are Alzheimers, kidney disease, diabetes, and adult wasting. There are massive advances happening on these every day. One of the people who has had big success in kidney disease was able to produce a stem cell grown bladder for sufferers of spina bifida. Yet he can’t bring that to market as an easy replacement for bladder cancer patients.

            You seem like an honest bloke, for a socialist. But repeating Paul Krugman, who is on record going against things he used to support (since he has turned into a party man, and not an economist) is not helping you to see the truth.

          • GorgonPolus577

            Give me a break! Your idea that medical innovation will save us from old age and senility is ridiculous. I do enjoy a good Pub rant. Makes my day! 

          • Nick

            Man will never fly!

            You show yourself to be as shortsighted as most socialists.

      • dearth_vader

        I only wanted one Lotus, an Elan, like Mrs. Peel’s.

        • kenpuck

          God, Emma was something, wasn’t she? A force of nature.

  • christopher swift

    The dems are all claiming a leftward shift, as if it’s a major philosophical shift. It’s just a move to the “free stuff” idea. Always a pleasant thought, but people used to have a lingering fear that it would all blow up someday. Obozo has put the final touches on removing that commonsense.

  • Jmaci

    Anyone who thinks of himself/herself as a Kennedy/Clinton/Lieberman Democrat has, in policy discussions, found themselves castigated as a right-winger or Tea-partier by far-left “new” Democrats. Their intolerance, rigidity and just plain goofy ideas about taxes, national defense, foreign policy etc. , is appalling. Some Republicans today might not nominate a Ronald Reagan, but here’s betting a Reagan would again draw a lot of votes from today’s new generation of old-style Democrats.

    • charliehorse

      The Extreme Left has moved so far over that they can’t see or envision what is middle of the road much less what is right of the aisle. The middle road, the center aisle is over the global horizon and can’t be seen by the Progressive/Socialists. The Scoop Jackson Democrats don’t exist anymore and even the most liberal Republicans now are sitting in the left’s bleachers.

      A violent realignment is due to re-establish the conservative ground here in America. Not guns and knives violent, but a serious jerking of the reins of the government by the people who have a living memory of what is was like to have a conservative administration. All Americans under 35 don’t have a memory of Reagan or any thing that resembles a shrinking government and a reduced tax burden which produces growth in the private sector rather that this gluttonous government growth monster.

      While Mr. Trump is not my first choice, he’ll do.

      “Thump em Trump 2016”

      • mlebauer

        Trump was a Democrat until 2009 and a Hillary supporter and contributor when she was NY state senator. He’s playing you with his anti-immigration schtick.

        He knows well the Ross Perot effect from 1992, swinging the election to Bill Clinton. Even odds he’s angling for the same role in 2016 and is actually working with Hillary.

        • charliehorse

          It’s my opinion that Trump played whatever role advanced his business position. Consider that NY is shocking left and he has many businesses including casino interests in NY and NJ where money greases the skids in all business deals with the state.

          Like I said, he may not be my first choice but for now he is driving the collective conversation the way he wants and is giving a voice to many unhappy citizens both left and right of the aisle. Candidates of both parties are now being asked out loud to speak to the uncomfortable subjects and he is only getting started.

          “Thump em Trump 2016”.

          • mlebauer

            So, you want him to disrupt the electoral process to help Hillary overcome her otherwise massive negatives? Which do you prefer, a cautious Conservative like Walker, Rubio, or Kasich, even Jeb Bush, or Hillary?

          • charliehorse

            There is an enormous amount of time remaining with a debate next month and Nov 16 a long way off. Trump has not yet posted his financials so I’d expect him to find a way to withdraw but not until he has had at least one debate where he will vigorously stir the pot.

            There would be no discussion about illegals if not for him. Take heart and be bold.

            Extremism in the defense of liberty is no vice,
            Moderation in the pursuit of justice is no virtue.
            Barry Goldwater

          • Nick

            I agree with you. The die is cast, as they say. How exactly could we stop Trump from becoming Perot? The only way is to have one of the candidates actually take his message and run with it. If they can’t do that, then they don’t deserve to win.

          • charliehorse


            Taking on the parts of his message that ring the bells of that portion of the electorate and he’ll have done his job.

            Victory goes to the bold.

          • Nick

            Regretfully, that’s something that folks like Kevin Williamson, Jonah Goldberg, and those who think Trump is unelectable don’t seem to get.

            Perhaps the republicans should get out of the way if they can’t lead?

        • JP

          This could not be more obvious, and there is certainly no shortage of serious conservative candidates to vote for. I tend to think supposed Trump supporters on the internet are just paid leftist shills.

          • mlebauer

            It’s obvious to those paying attention. Unfortunately, there are a large number of Conservatives who like Trump’s bluntness, not realizing that it’s playing into the Clinton’s electoral chess. A large number of Latinos won’t know how that process works, Trump’s crude disingenuous anti-immigrant demagoguery is doing real damage to the ability to attract otherwise conservative Latino voters.

          • JP

            Last I looked Bush was at like 17% to Trump’s 14%. Which means 86% of Republicans want someone other than Trump. Every other conservative candidate has had a bounce when they announced, this only seems different because CNN types will hype it up instead of trying to play it down. I wouldn’t vote for him and I can’t see why any Latino would, but I also think as a group they are way to smart to attribute Trump’s remarks to Republicans in general.

    • Peter Verkooijen

      But to conservatives they are all just “libruls”. Conservatives never saw the difference between the DLC/Bill Clinton Democrats and the 1968 New Left/marxist Democrats.

      Conservatives have made it possible for Obamacrats to establish themselves as the center of American politics.

      And as long as the Obamacrats can keep the focus on social and cultural issues, and conservatives keep taking the bait, Republicans and libertarians will be in a losing position.

      • strathead

        And how is that any different than Liberals tagging all conservatives as evangelists? I am a fiscal conservative, and a social Libertarian. I vote Republican because the Liberal Democrat agenda is far more disgusting to me than the Republican moral superiority agenda. The first part is the same agenda that the Tea Party takes. They don’t take a position on moral/social conservatism because it isn’t their focus or priority. Yet that message just can’t be understood by the average Leftie or the media.

    • RCPreader

      What Republicans today wouldn’t nominate a Ronald Reagan? Surely a lot fewer than the number who wouldn’t nominate a Ronald Reagan in 1980! (Remember, he was far from the unanimous choice.)

      As for the Democrats, all you have to do is go through the list of Bill Clinton’s policy positions and achievements (welfare reform, NAFTA, Defense of Marriage Act, etc.) — 90% of them are anathema to Democratic activists today.

      • stan

        This meme has to be one of the dumbest ever. I don’t know of a single position Reagan took that doesn’t enjoy majority support today among GOP voters.

  • ron_goodman

    Lieberman and Clinton voted for the Iraq war and Lieberman helped sabotage the ACA by fighting the inclusion of a public option. What else would you call them?

    • Dale Fayda

      By your logic, all of the following Democrats are “centrists”, right? Or are they just waffling, hypocritical, gutless opportunists?

      “There is no doubt that … Saddam
      Hussein has reinvigorated his weapons programs. Reports indicate that
      biological, chemical and nuclear programs continue apace and may be back to
      pre-Gulf War status. In addition, Saddam continues to redefine delivery systems
      and is doubtless using the cover of a licit missile program to develop
      longer-range missiles that will threaten the United States and our

      Letter to President Bush, Signed by:

      — Sen. Bob Graham (D, FL), and others, Dec 5, 2001

      “We begin with the common belief that Saddam Hussein is a tyrant and a
      threat to the peace and stability of the region. He has ignored the mandate of
      the United Nations and is building weapons of mass destruction and th! e means
      of delivering them.”

      — Sen. Carl Levin (D, MI), Sept. 19, 2002

      “We know that he has stored secret supplies of biological and chemical
      weapons throughout his country.”

      — Al Gore, Sept. 23, 2002

      “Iraq’s search for weapons of mass destruction has proven impossible to
      deter and we should assume that it will continue for as long as Saddam is in

      — Al Gore, Sept. 23, 2002

      “We have known for many years that Saddam Hussein is seeking and
      developing weapons of mass destruction.”

      — Sen. Ted Kennedy (D, MA), Sept. 27, 2002

      “The last UN weapons inspectors left Iraq in October of 1998. We are
      confident that Saddam Hussein retains some stockpiles of chemical and
      biological weapons, and that he has since embarked on a crash course to build
      up his chemical and biological warfare capabilities. Intelligence reports
      indicate that he is seeking nuclear weapons…”

      — Sen. Robert Byrd (D, WV), Oct. 3, 2002

      “I will be voting to give the President of the United States the authority
      to use force — if necessary — to disarm Saddam Hussein because I believe that
      a deadly arsenal of weapons of mass destruction in his hands is a real and
      grave threat to our security.”

      — Sen. John F. Kerry (D, MA), Oct. 9, 2002

      “There is unmistakable evidence that Saddam Hussein is working
      aggressively to develop nuclear weapons and will likely have nuclear weapons
      within the next five years … We also should remember we have always
      underestimated the progress Saddam has made in development of weapons of mass

      — Sen. Jay Rockefeller (D, WV), Oct 10, 2002

      “He has systematically violated, over the course of the past 11 years,
      every significant UN resolution that has demanded that he disarm and destroy
      his chemical and biological weapons, and any nuclear capacity. This he has
      refused to do”

      — Rep. Henry Waxman (D, CA), Oct. 10, 2002

      “In the four years since the inspectors left, intelligence reports show
      that Saddam Hussein has worked to rebuild his chemical and biological weapons
      stock, his missile delivery capability, and his nuclear program. He has also
      given aid, comfort, and sanctuary to terrorists, including al Qaeda members …
      It is clear, however, that if left unchecked, Saddam Hussein will continue to
      increase his capacity to wage biological and chemical warfare, and will keep
      trying to develop nuclear weapons.”

      — Sen. Hillary Clinton (D, NY), Oct 10, 2002

      “We are in possession of what I think to be compelling evidence that
      Saddam Hussein has, and has had for a number of years, a developing capacity
      for the production and storage of weapons of mass destruction.”

      — Sen. Bob Graham (D, FL), Dec. 8, 2002

      “One way or the other, we are determined to deny Iraq

      the capacity to develop weapons of mass destruction and the missiles to deliver

      That is our bottom line.” –President Bill Clinton, Feb. 4, 1998

      “If Saddam rejects peace and we have to use force, our
      purpose is clear. We

      want to seriously diminish the threat posed by Iraq’s weapons of mass

      destruction program.” –President Bill Clinton, Feb. 17, 1998

      “Saddam Hussein has been engaged in the development of
      weapons of mass destruction

      technology which is a threat to countries in the region and he has made a

      mockery of the weapons inspection process.” -Rep. Nancy Pelosi (D, CA), Dec. 16, 1998

      “In the four years since the inspectors left, intelligence
      reports show that Saddam

      Hussein has worked to rebuild his chemical and biological weapons stock,

      his missile delivery capability, and his nuclear program. He has also

      given aid, comfort, and sanctuary to terrorists, including al Qaeda

      members … It is clear, however, that if left unchecked, Saddam Hussein

      will continue to increase his capacity to wage biological and chemical

      warfare, and will keep trying to develop nuclear weapons.” — Sen.

      Hillary Clinton (D, NY), Oct 10, 2002

  • I Detest Leftists

    What gets me is when some leftist says that Obama is a centrist. I literally start to laugh. One has to be pretty far left to place Obama in the center.

    • Patrick Breen

      I have seen people call mr obama a centrist republican. He talks centrisim but governs extreme left. Mr obama all n all sucks as a politician. Does’t want to play the game that reagan n bill clinton played so well.

      • I Detest Leftists

        My uncle is a life-long registered Democrat and a centrist/moderate one at that. He voted for Obama in 2008 and didn’t vote in 2012. He regrets his vote and has now joined me in the libertarian camp. It’s funny how intelligent people can see the error of their ways. lol

        • Patrick Breen

          Smart man. I did similar voted for mr obama in 08 then romney n 12. I use to b a d n the clinton era a very pragmatic politician. But no more barry has really returned them to far leftist policies. The great thing is dems r n denial about there party and how bad barry has been for them. Yeah they got healthcare but at what cost. A bad bill that has made things worse not better and he barry has been a drag on the party from fed state local levels. Similar to how bush was for repubs in 06 08 but worse!

        • DisgustedwithElitism

          January 20, 2017 marks the End of an Error. (mark your calendar)

          • taconite

            If Obama successfully amnesties the unregistered Democrats and/or sets the inner cities on fire all bets will be off.

  • Andrew Konigs

    The immigraton policies we’ve had for the last 30 years and will continue to have ( both parties are totally owned by the mass immigration / cheap labor lobby) add about 1 million left wing voters from Asia abd Latin America to the population every year. 2016 is the last presidential election a republican candidate could possibly win. Legal Latino residents (mostly mexican born or second geberation)now outnumber whites in California and New Mexico and by 2020 they’ll probably outbumber whites in Texas, Arizona and possibly Nevada too. If you add the 11-34 million illegal immigrants( mostky mexican/ central American ) .. Latinos outbumber whites already from Texas to California and probably about half of schoolchildren in most large states are latino.. America will eventually be Hispanic not Anglo or at least bicultural

  • JohnG69

    The Dem movement is about social issues and immigration.

    If the right would adopt a more “live and let life” philosophy and focus more on fiscal issues and true small government issues they would be able to clean up.

  • DisgustedwithElitism

    BS and HRC can split the aging, white, guilt-ridden Progressive demographic anxious to prove how good they are with other people’s money.

  • DisgustedwithElitism

    ‘Eventually, the nation would face a crisis—with wary investors demanding “much higher interest” rates to buy U.S. government debt.

    “How long the nation could sustain such growth in federal debt is impossible to predict with any confidence,’ testified Hall. “At some point, investors would begin to doubt the government’s willingness or ability to meet its debt obligations, requiring it to pay much higher interest costs in order to continue borrowing money.

    “Such a fiscal crisis would present policymakers with extremely difficult choices and would probably have a substantial negative impact on the country,” he said.’

    from “CBO: Debt Headed to 103% of GDP; Level Seen Only in WWII; ‘No Way to Predict Whether or When’ Fiscal Crisis Might Occur Here” (cnsnews. com/ news/ article/ terence-p-jeffrey/ cbo-debt-headed-103-gdp-level-seen-only-wwii-no-way-predict-whether)

  • fuchsia1

    … there’s no substitute for empirical evidence. Witness the slow, public death of socialism in Greece. And then there’s last week’s tragic murder in San Francisco’s tourism zone … emphasizing the folly of squishy attitudes about immigration. Next will be a lesson in economics … when jacked up minimum wage laws chase away restaurants (and many other businesses) while vastly increasing the rate of youth unemployment within the various jurisdictions currently controlled by “Progressive” demagogues.

    • taconite

      1991 saw the collapse of the greatest experiment in socialism. That should have been all the proof needed. 17 years later everyone forgot and we elected one. Proof does not mean much when people don’t know it and/or refuse to acknowledge it.

      • fuchsia1

        The Soviets were the unfortunate victims of 70 years of bad weather … wink, wink.

  • AnthonyLook

    Tea party birther foxtard racists worry about the country going Left; Democrats don’t.

    • Aaron_Burr

      Because Democrats are too stupid to know better…

      • AnthonyLook

        Foxtard said what?

        • Aaron_Burr

          Leftist commie warmist libtard said what?

  • GorgonPolus577

    The Republican party is committed to screwing the American Worker for the benefit of the the richest 1%. Jeb Bush proved this with his comment that Americans need to work longer hours. I predict that between now and the 2016 election this will become more obvious to the American worker and Hillary Clinton will win.

    • stan

      Repeating the lie doesn’t make it any more true.

  • Ex Democrat

    Former Obama Administration official Ms. Hillary Clinton was a member of the great Sam Walton’s Walmart board of directors for years. That was a fine thing. One would hope that she learned a lot (Walmart has become the biggest employer among all private companies in the world), but it is not evident in any of her 2016 election comments as yet. Her main focus is redistributing income from successful companies and individuals to less affluent people through taxation and new government edicts, rather than on promoting economic growth. So far, there are no discernible differences between Ms. Clinton and U.S. Sen. Bernie Sanders in their economic policy proposals.

    • Boritz

      Of course she didn’t learn anything on the board of directors. She would have needed to work in the pet supplies or lawn care department for a long time to absorb any wisdom.

  • Fred

    Libtards? Foxtards? I see the idiot brigades are out in force on this one. If you’re reading Friendly Goat, the “conservatives” on this board make me miss you. The “liberals” I won’t even comment on.

  • MoReport

    The Blue Model runs on taxes taken from the discretionary income of the middle class.
    When it runs out of fuel it will not slow down, it will crash, with great damage and injury.

  • MichaelKennedy

    Reagan would have no problem winning the GOP nomination today. He did have trouble in 1976 and 1980 as he was considered “too conservative” for the country. Funny how history gets lost.

  • Jacksonian_Libertarian

    America didn’t become the Greatest Nation in history because of the ravenously power hungry Government Monopoly, but rather because for most of its history enforcement of the Constitution keep the Federal Government Monopoly small and limited to Defense, Foreign Relations, and Justice. This kept the non-productive Government Burden low which allowed the free market prodded by the “Feedback of Competition” to do what it does best, Grow and Technologically Advance.

  • Nick

    “Barack Obama memorably attacked the Republicans rightward shift, saying that Ronald Reagan could not win a modern Republican presidential nomination.”

    So? He lied then, like he has lied so many times before and since.

    Reagan would be cheerleading the Tea Party and the Conservative movements of today, and he is still the example we compare all the rest of the toads the Republicans run for President.

  • nevermindthiscrazyperson

    I don’t see much evidence of it harming the Dems so far. There’s been a slight uptick in favorability polls, actually. The agenda of the right seems to have adjusted somewhat to the Progressive surge (now the words “crony capitalism” and “equality of opportunity” are talking points, although I highly doubt they are serious about addressing either) which suggests it has legs to me. Plenty of old men have found themselves shocked by how quickly the world changed around them before. This time I do believe we have the internet to thank.

    Now if the progressives were to call for a boycott of the election until we get a Constitution that actually enshrines equal rights for all and holds the principle of one person one vote (which actually counts the same as everyone else’s) sacrosanct (Eliminating single-member voting districts so that your vote counts even if your candidate loses and determining the house by straight up popular vote without this redistricting crap that allows some nasty people to make some other peoples votes not count) that would hurt the Democrats. Perhaps they would be inclined to boycott as well, considering they would not win without us. The Republicans would win the election, but it would be an illegitimate win using an illegitimate electoral system that places second-class citizen status on the majority of voters. Nothing will change with the current document, public opinion will continue to be ignored, and the minority will continue to tyrannize the majority through it’s inflated power that allows the few to deny the will of most of the American people in perpetuity. Electing HIllary will not make one whit of difference, and the House cannot be won so long as the districts can be rigged at will to change the score which means no meaningful legislation anyways. We can have another decade of gridlock or we can up the ante. Do not act from within a system that is rigged against you, it only serves to validate the rigging of that system.

  • nevermindthiscrazyperson

    If I didn’t tell you the candidates name and just described the positions of Ronald Reagan to you you would never, ever vote for him. The mythos surrounding him is absurd.

    • Boritz

      Don’t need a description of his positions. Neither did the voters of 49 states when he ran for reelection. He was an open book.

  • Peter Miller

    Please! The Blue Model is very much alive and the GOP has reversed none of it other than reforms to welfare in the 90s. Since then we have added Obamacare, the unaccountable Consumer Financial Protection Bureau, new, stringent regulations on financial markets, new rules and mandates from the EPA. . .these are but a few examples of the expansion of the federal government. It represents far greater comtrol, rules, regulations and enforcement actions that together stifle the economy. Democrats are playing the long game, continuously adding new programs, agencies, rules and regulations that once in place are never eliminated and add to budgets, central government rule and more and more people and businesses beholden to government, out of either partaking of its largesse or from the fear of getting on its bad side.

    • Boritz

      You are right, and it’s ‘funny’ to hear voices on the conservative side talk about how much the Democrats have damaged themselves just look at recent elections and they are going to be very sorry now. Yeah.

© The American Interest LLC 2005-2016 About Us Masthead Submissions Advertise Customer Service