Gary Hart, " it would help a lot if President Obama started sounding like FDR and Harry Truman."

[Hart2008]

Within hours of the debt ceiling debacle, serious people agreed that economic stimulation was far more important, at least in the short term, than phony efforts to balance the budget. The hue and cry among central bankers and thoughtful economists is: Governments must act! By that they mean, stimulate stagnant economies by providing unemployment compensation, investing in public works, and providing temporary tax relief for workers (not gazillionheirs).

But, predictably, the President’s army of opponents and their conservative commentariat harangue the President for being “anti-business” and for increasing regulations on business. He is doing neither. To lay the current economic disaster at the feet of Wall Street and the fast-buck speculators of the Bush years is not “anti-business.” It is truth telling. And to re-impose financial regulations that prevent housing and other investment manipulations is prudent governance. When someone burns your house down, you try to prevent them from doing it again.
...

If so, the voters of this country, and particularly the functional fifteen percent (or more) of the unemployed, and the parents raising their kids in the back seats of cars, and a lot of the rest of us are going to have to stand up in 2012. And it would help a lot if President Obama started sounding like Franklin Roosevelt and Harry Truman. Unless private interests that control America’s wealth begin to put this country first and do what should be done to create jobs, they should not be surprised to see a nation that has been tilting right begin to do what it has done under similar circumstances and demand action by our Government. Americans are not going to let this poker game go on much longer. And we shouldn’t.

Gary Hart, Who Is Standing On the Airhose?:
http://www.mattersofprinciple.com/?p=742

:woohoo:::woohoo::woohoo::woohoo::woohoo::woohoo::woohoo::woohoo::woohoo::woohoo::woohoo::woohoo::woohoo::woohoo::woohoo::woohoo:

:applause::toast::bounce::applause::toast::bounce::applause::toast::bounce::applause::toast::bounce::applause::toast::bounce::applause::toast:


Now Senator Hart was an early supporter of President Obama back in 2008:

Some see Barack Obama as the long awaited champion finally come to slay the awful dragon of race. And they are right. Some see him as a new start for the Democratic Party and national politics. And they are right. Some see him as the walking embodiment of internationalism, ready to restore an honorable and respected place for America in the world. And they are right.

I see Barack Obama as a leader for this transcendent moment, the agent of transformation in an age of revolution, as a figure uniquely qualified to open the door to the 21st century and to convert threat to great new opportunity.

Gary Hart, Politics As Transcendence:
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/gary-hart/politics-as-transcendence_b_86490.html

I can only wonder what Senator Hart will do if President Obama continues to squander the opportunity which was his presidency by compromising with Big Money and Big Business. RFK was his political idol.
:popcorn:

[RUMMYisFROSTED]

1. It'd help more if you didn't fuck that chick on that boat.

After you asked them to try and catch you. :eyes:

[saras]

6. Yeah, everything the neocons did is trivial compared to fucking somebody. Yes, indeed.

[Hart2008]

75. Actually, the only person who will publicly admit to having sex with Gary Hart is his wife, Lee.

Donna Rice hasn't changed her story that the relationship wasn't sexual.

Lee Hart, who has now been married to Gary for 54 years, always said that Gary never lied to her about that stuff.

[Hart2008]

10. WRONG on both counts. Hart had already been followed in Dec. 1986, BEFORE he announced in 1987.

Mr. Sweeney said he was told that the detective's report traced Mr. Hart's movements from about noon Dec. 20 (1986) when Mr. Hart, a former Senator from Colorado, was seen driving to radio station WTOP in suburban Virginia, where he presented the Democratic radio response to President Reagan's weekly radio address. Mr. Hart was followed back to the District of Columbia and was seen later in the afternoon entering a bookstore.

That evening Mr. Hart was followed from his Capitol Hill town house to downtown Washington.

http://www.nytimes.com/1987/06/07/us/hart-s-link-to-2d-woman-was-found-by-a-private-detective.html?pagewanted=2&src=pm

Gary Hart has denied challenging the media to try to catch him doing anything, and that full story has never really been told:

http://www.bing.com/videos/watch/video/gary-hart-on-scandals-and-the-media/6aeg7xt

The Miami Herald's Tom Fiedler admitted to reading this quote on the plane on the way to D.C., after the Herald had been pursuing this story for weeks, and only after two other Knight-Ridder where already in the street spying on Hart. More likely, with the way the New York Times is distributed, he read this quote after arriving in D.C. For the Herald to write that they had followed Hart around, which they didn't, in response to his "challenge" was another Herald cheap shot, since it was demonstrably false.

Donna Rice Hughes, who now devotes herself to combating children accessing pornography on the internet, has always been a class act. She never made any money from the "scandal", which was laughable in light of those which have followed. Both she and Senator Hart have always denied that their relationship had been sexual. (The recent Rupert Murdoch phone hacking scandal may also shed some light on how Fiedler's anonymous caller knew so much information about her plane reservations.)

The person spreading the rumors that Senator Hart "couldn't keep his pants on", was none other than Clinton operative James Carville. Carville's job then was to sabotage the Hart campaign after Bill Clinton had been rejected as Hart's potential VP. That was the real story behind the alleged anonymous phone call to the Miami Herald in 1987.

Should Senator Hart choose to enter the primaries, NO ONE will care about what happened in 1987, especially since he and his wife have now been married for over 50 years. In all of his time in public life NOT A SINGLE WOMAN HAS COME FORWARD TO CLAIM THAT SHE HAD AN AFFAIR WITH HIM.

[tblue]

12. GWB has been faithful to Laura. Lotta good that's done.

That's the best you've got against what Gary Hart said? Something that happened 40 years ago?

[Hart2008]

49. Do we really know that? There is a huge double standard between Dems and Repukes, and Bushes.

Now Cheney was in the D.C. Madam's list of clients, but they got ABC news to spike that story.

Nancy Reagan was dishing the dirt on Poppy Bush, and the WaPo went out of their way to quash those rumors, and they were true.

We really won't know what was going on between W. and Laura for some time now.

[XanaDUer]

67. How do you know that?

nt.

[Cali_Democrat]

48. LOL. n/t

[RUMMYisFROSTED]

52. Someone gets it without the umbrage. nt

[Hart2008]

54. You got 12 years of the Bushes with 8 years of the DLC in the middle.

http://www.life.com/image/51910982




This is what you got, the Iran-Contra co-conspirators:

The Masonic Brotherhood: President Bill Clinton bows to former President George H. W. Bush

http://www.http://www.informationliberation.com/?id=10946


Both of these two belong in jail for Iran-Contra, and neither of them would have become president unless the MSM had slimed Gary Hart in '87-88.

[yurbud]

62. gossip is ever so much more fun than policies. Maybe you could get a job with MSM or Fox

[elocs]

2. The hell with sounding like them...how about acting like them?

As we have all well learned...words and promises are cheap. How about some strong action for a change.

[indepat]

7. Yeah, the hell with sounding like them: time to quit implementing junior's and your own

RW agenda and replacing the prevailing RW agenda with a progressive one. Yeah! :thumbsup: :patriot:

[yurbud]

63. yeah, at this point, Obama could promise Medicare for all, prison for Goldman Sachs and Bushies, and

free college for everyone and I wouldn't believe it until I saw it.

[rocktivity]

3. I don't think he has any choice now

with two major hurricanes and tornado to clean up after.

:headbang:
rocktivity

[fascisthunter]

4. the Third Way can't have that

the shit weasels will do anything to prevent that from happening.

[Enrique]

5. this current piece is mostly aimed at the corporate greedheads

it mentions Obama only in passing.

That 2008 thing about Obama is ridiculous. How could anyone live up to that? And what about Obama in 2008 justified such a thing? Only Gary Hart's imagination.

[Hart2008]

16. Many of us in the Hart camp blamed the Clintons for what happened to him in 1987-88.

I suspect that many insiders in the party saw Obama as preferable to Hillary Clinton and the DLC element which the Clintons had embraced, and thus gave their support. So there was that matter to consider, which may explain his enthusiastic endorsement of Obama in 2008.

[Beacool]

29. Why?

He was the dumb ass who dared the press to follow him around. Well, they did..........

:shrug:

[Hart2008]

70. Qui Bono? The Clinton camp sabotaged Gary Hart's campaign after Bill flunked an interview to be V.P.

See Partners in Power by Roger Morris (pg.433-434).
(Morris is a highly respected public servant, who worked for Dean Acheson, Lyndon Johnson, and Walter Mondale, before resigning from the National Security Council (He had been appointed by LBJ) over Nixon's invasion of Cambodia. Morris also called for other civil servants in to resign to protest the Bush administration's policies.)

Hart's problem was
1) He had previously hired, and then laid off, a guy named James Carville, and
2) He hired a media consultant named Ray Strother (also from Louisiana) who made the mistake of working for two men who both wanted to be President.

Ray Strother did Hart's media ads in his '84 campaign. After Hart's success in '84, Clinton hired Strother and his protege, Carville. Strother didn't see a conflict of interest in working for two men who wanted to be President. With Hart riding high in the polls, Clinton pushed Strother to get him a meeting with Hart about being named Hart's V.P. As Strother wrote in his book "Falling Up", after the interview Hart told him that Clinton had no political "core" values, and "doesn't believe in anything". Hart's words made it back to Clinton likely through hack James Carville, who was a protege of Strother. (Carville would later use an almost verbatim quote about Clinton, but attribute it to Ken Starr.)

After hearing that news, the Clinton's set out to sabotage his campaign, and cut their own deal with Dukakis. Remember Clinton's filibuster of a keynote speech at the 1988 convention? Gary Hart needed a press pass to get in to that convention and was escorted around by security guards.

James Carville is the former Hart adviser who told Newsweek that Hart had a problem "keeping his pants on". (Twenty four years later, not a single woman has come forward by name to claim she had a sexual affair with Hart.) Carville is now married to Bush and Cheney confident Mary Matalin.

In short, the Clinton camp preferred for the party to lose the election rather than to see someone else win the general election in 1988.

As previously stated above here at post 10, Hart did not challenge anyone to follow him around. He had already been followed by an agent of a political rival from within the party in 1986 while giving the national Democratic response at a radio station. He was then harassed by whispering campaign originating from James Carville. As a matter of fact, Gary Hart and Donna Rice were not acquainted before she was brought to the yacht at the dock and introduced as the friend of Eagles singer Don Henley, who was a Hart supporter. The trip was intended to be campaign related. Ray Strother was originally scheduled to be on board as well for that trip, but he was called away at the last minute for work for another Dem client.

Again, after all of his years in the public light, there has never been a woman who has come forward by name to claim any kind of sexual impropriety from Gary Hart. Both Gary Hart and Donna Rice have denied since 1987 that their relationship was sexual. The Miami herald had stalked Donna Rice, then lost her before resorting to hiding in the bushes and peeking in the windows at Hart's Washington, D.C., townhouse, where his wife had never made her home. The Miami Herald never followed Gary Hart anywhere, nor were their actions done in response to any challenge.

That story is and was pure propaganda.

[hifiguy]

71. Verry eenteresting

as Arte Johnson used to say on Laugh-In. That explains a few things now, doesn't it.

Hart may have been the best President this country never had, after RFK.

[Hart2008]

73. Oh, it explains many things, indeed.

Remember that Gary Hart as the campaign manager for McGovern's '72 campaign gave Bill Clinton his start in national elections. Hart named Clinton in charge of the campaign in Arkansas and Texas. Yet, Clinton makes no mention of Hart in his book other than to talk about sex scandals. That is quite laughable, because compared to Clinton, Hart is a choir boy. With Clinton, the "bimbo eruptions" were constant, while with Hart, he had people hiding in his bushes and threatening to "out" a former girlfriend. So who was really the reckless womanizer?

Hart had urged Clinton to create the U.S. Commission on National Security 21. Clinton did but originally snubbed Hart by naming another Dem to head the commission. Hart only got the job after that person withdrew due to other commitments and Defense Secretary Cohen, a Republican, insisted on Hart.

The fact is that MSM had changed the rules on Hart in '87, then they perpetuated this myth that he had "challenged" them to "catch" him in the act. (I have demonstrated that this perception is false. Even the "Tail me." quote from Dionne's otherwise very favorable article about Hart has never been reviewed for accuracy or checked for the actual context in which it was made.) What Hart was angry about was that he wanted the media to expose those people in the party who were spreading the rumors around. That was the way that this kind of behavior had been handled in the past, before the rules changed. As it was, Dukakis's campaign got caught circulating an attack video of Biden, but the people who were smearing Hart got off scot-free. It was not a secret that Carville was the guy spreading those rumors. (Chris Matthews acknowledges that this man was known in his 1988 book. When he called to apologize, Lee Hart is quoted as refusing to take the call and replying, "Tell him to save his dime.") Hart wrote about the unwritten rules of party loyalty, and the Clintons' disdain for them during the last campaign:

Gary Hart, Breaking The Final Rule,
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/gary-hart/breaking-the-final-rule_b_90420.html

Hart was under a near media blackout in the U.S. from 1988 until after the terrorist attacks of September 11, 2001. I was on a trip to Russia in 1999 and it was the first time I had read an article from Hart in a newspaper since '88. He was very close to running for president in 2004, but decided not to because of the obscene amount of money required to launch a credible campaign. When the word got out that he was considering another run, the Miami Herald republished its incorrect '87 story about Hart and Rice, not once but twice! The MSM were still afraid of him 17 years later!

RFK and Thomas Jefferson are Gary Hart's political heroes. I always thought he had one more run left in him. Will imitate RFK this year?

:popcorn:

[ClassWarrior]

22. Time to throw another good Dem under the bus. Do you think the President would approve of...

...this kind of bullshit in his name?

:eyes:

NGU.

[ClassWarrior]

24. ?

[LiberaL Lamp Post]

8. Truman and FDR had their own weaknesses...some would say worse than Obama's

See analysis of Obama vs. FDR, TRUMAN & LBJ here:

http://liberallamppost.com/2011/04/30/lefty-%E2%80%98bath-water%E2%80%99-party-wrong-on-obama-9-facts-on-fdr-truman-lbj-show-why/

[jwirr]

9. I worked with Gary Hart on the Ed Medvinski campaign. Very nice

man. What he wanted out of Obama is what we all wanted. President Obama would be smart to listen to him.

[dennis4868]

11. It would help if....

Obama had supermajorities in congress of true dems (like FDR) and not blue dogs and repubs that obstruct and fillubuster everything. FDR idd not have to deal with that shit!

[frylock]

13. if that's what it takes for prez to get stuff done, then why the concern over a president perry?

surely he won't have the superdupermondo majorities required for the president to effect any real change, right?

[great white snark]

14. Perry would shut things down.

Except for picking a few conservative S.C. Justices.

[CakeGrrl]

15. Because D's are allergic to "lockstep"; R's band together at the drop of a hat.

Pretty simple. People run around here crying all the time about being "threatened" into voting "lockstep" to prevent a GOP presidency.

When the GOP is faced with the opportunity to defeat the Dems, they take it.

[frylock]

18. after review, i can't make sense of what you're trying to say..

but i can agree on your last sentence. the dem leadership had a golden opportunity to eliminate the GOP once and for all. unfortunately, obama had to get all bipartisan and resuscitate the repubs.

[treestar]

17. What is this obsession with Obama having to do things they way

20th century Presidents did, with the media of their day, the politics, the history of those days?

Why is the 44th President suddenly one who must model others?

[FrenchieCat]

19. As you know...to date, PRes. Obama has not been accepted as the legitimate President,

and must pretend to be another of the bestest Presidents in the whole Wide history of the US
in the 2.8 years that he's served so far. Talk about judging harshly!

:eyes:

[zalinda]

21. Because people actually got things done back then

they didn't just hope for change.

zalinda

[treestar]

25. Different situations entirely

And what they did get done would not have been enough for the people of today.

[zalinda]

31. That's where you are wrong.

We want Obama to go in the correct direction, and he's not. He's traveling rightward. I could list all the things that that he's done that we don't agree with, but what's the use, there will always be some one who will excuse his actions.

And, it's not different situations, people are people whether born in 1907 or 1970, they are want the same things, security. A roof over their head, enough food to eat, a job that pays enough to live on, education for their children, health care and a planet that is not self destructing.

If the man is not doing the job for the majority of the people, then he is just the wrong man. So few people have benefited from his tenure that it's just ridiculous. More and more people are losing every thing, and DC seems not to notice. And if any one does speak out, they are called names, and derided, saying we are too stupid to understand how Obama is running this country. We here at the bottom truly understand, we get the boot to the neck, every fucking day, and Obama has not done one fucking thing to help us. Fifty percent of the people, in this country, get absolutely no representation in DC. Maybe the dems won't be happy until we become the serfs that we thought only the repubs wanted. Now, I see that dems don't give a damn either.

Bring back the fucking poor houses, because that's where this country is headed.

zalinda

[treestar]

34. That is putting too much onto a President

You forgot all about the existence of Congress. How lame. The government is never going to give you complete security. FDR did not get that for you, so why aren't you trashing him for it? He could have done that for you before you were born and you'd never have had a single worry, yet he failed.

[zalinda]

37. For the most part, the President calls the shots, that's why

they call him a LEADER. Obama hasn't lead. But, most don't see that. Why do you think that he is having problems with the unions, the black caucus and the progressive caucus? FDR lead, and he wasn't all that progressive until he saw what he was doing had little effect on the lives of poor people. He made a complete 180, stumped to get dems in both houses, and got them to get with the program using the bully pulpit.

Just ONCE I would like to see Obama do something for the poor. Reducing funding to Planned Parenthood, but giving out free birth control is not the way. That free birth control, will cost at least 2 doctor visits, one pap smear, and co-pays if you are lucky enough to have insurance. What deal!

zalinda

[Hart2008]

43. Right! The sign on Harry Truman's desk was "The buck stops here!" No excuses permitted.

The problem is that Obama is too interested in playing golf and drinking beers with the Repuke leadership, and not confronting them.

[dionysus]

38. i love it how these posts always give the 100% obstructionist GOP a freeeee passss.

do tell us how to get legislation past a teabgging house and a senate where nearly every single bill gets fillibustered.

you can't.

[Hart2008]

41. FDR would have changed the filibuster rules in the Senate if needed.

This is the man who proposed adding members to the U.S. Supreme Court when its rulings where hostile to New Deal legislation. If the Senate was filibustering popular legislation, FDR would have demanded that the rules change. He would not use that as an excuse to sell out his political base. Consequently, FDR expanded Dem control of both houses of Congress in the midterm elections of 1934 with Dems gaining 9 seats in both the Senate and the House.

The ultimate answer to you question is the President must demonstrate leadership in the face of Repuke obstructionism, and not compromise. Neither FDR nor Harry Truman went golfing with Repuke obstructionists and then had beers with them in the clubhouse.

The Repukes feared these Dem Presidents.

The same cannot be said of the present President.

[Myrina]

45. ... if the Dems would have done shit between 2008 -2010, we wouldn't

HAVE teabaggers in the House or Senate. We had a supermajority and squandered it by trying to play nice. Now we don't have shit and POTUS has made it clear that he's not fighting for the people's side.

[Hart2008]

74. Exactly! NT

[Carolina]

50. K&R

[Hart2008]

33. The presidency as we know it today begins with Franklin Delano Roosevelt.

My grandfather took a train to Washington, D.C., for FDR's first inauguration. He said that the talk on the train was not "if" there would be a revolution here in the U.S., but "when". FDR clearly took that opportunity to be a transformative president. Consider how well the present occupant of the White House compares with FDR:

The FDR Years
On Roosevelt and His Legacy
By William E. Leuchtenburg

The presidency as we know it today begins with Franklin Delano Roosevelt. To be sure, many of the rudiments of the executive office date from the earliest years of the republic, and, in the nineteenth century, figures such as Andrew Jackson demonstrated how the president could serve as tribune of the people. In this century, too, both Theodore Roosevelt and Woodrow Wilson showed that the White House could radiate power. Yet, as Fred I. Greenstein has observed, "With Franklin Roosevelt's administration ... the presidency began to undergo not a shift but rather a metamorphosis." Indeed, so powerful an impression did FDR leave on the office that in the most recent survey of historians he was ranked as the second greatest president in our history, surpassed only by the legendary Abraham Lincoln.
...
Although Roosevelt has been scolded for failing to bring about a full-fledged party realignment, no president has ever done so much to redraw the contours of party conflict. He brought into his administration former Republicans such as Henry Wallace and Harold Ickes; enticed hundreds of thousands of Socialists, such as the future California congressman Jerry Voorhis, to join the Democrats; worked with anti-Tammany leaders such as Fiorello La Guardia in New York; backed the Independent candidate George Norris against the Democrats' official nominee in Nebraska; and forged alliances with third parties such as the American Labor Party. In 1938 he dared attempt, largely unsuccessfully, to "purge" conservative Democrats from the party, and in World War II he may even have sought to unite liberal Republicans of the Wendell Willkie sort with liberal Democrats in a new party, although the details of that putative arrangement are obscure. (Edit note: FDR would get banned from DU for this!!)

Roosevelt won such a huge following both for himself and for his party by putting together the most ambitious legislative program in the history of the country. Although he was not the first chief executive in this century to adopt the role of chief legislator, he developed that function to an unprecedented extent. He made wide use of the special message, and he accompanied these communications with draft hills. He wrote letters to committee chairmen or members of Congress to urge passage of his proposals, summoned the Congressional leadership to White House conferences on legislation, used agents such as Tommy Corcoran on Capitol Hill, and appeared in person before Congress. He made even the hitherto mundane business of bill signing an occasion for political theater; it was he who initiated the custom of giving a presidential pen to a Congressional sponsor of legislation as a memento. In the First Hundred Days, he adroitly dangled promises of patronage before Congressmen, but without delivering on them until he had the legislation he wanted. The result, as one scholar put it, was that "his relations with Congress were to the very end of the session tinged with a shade of expectancy which is the best part of young love."
...
Still, Roosevelt's skill as chief legislator is undeniable. One historian concluded that "Franklin Roosevelt's party leadership as an effective instrument of legislation is unparalleled in our party history," and a political scientist has stated:
The most dramatic transformation in the relationship between the presidency and Congress occurred during the first two terms of Franklin D. Roosevelt. FDR changed the power ratio between Congress and the White House, publicly taking it upon himself to act as the leader of Congress at a time of deepening crisis in the nation. More than any other president, FDR established the model of the powerful legislative presidency on which the public's expectations still are anchored.
...
As one aspect of his function as chief legislator, Roosevelt broke all records in making use of the veto power. By the end of his second term, his vetoes already totaled more than 30 percent of all the measures disallowed by presidents since l792. Unlike the other famous veto president, Grover Cleveland, who limited his disapproval primarily to pension legislation, Roosevelt expressed his will on a range of subjects from homing pigeons to credit for beer wholesalers. Franklin Roosevelt was the first chief executive to read a veto message personally to Congress, and he even defied the unwritten canon against vetoing a revenue measure when in 1944 he turned down a tax bill on the grounds that it benefited the greedy rather than the needy. According to one credible tale, FDR used to ask his aides to look out for a piece of legislation he could veto, in order to remind Congress that it was being watched.

So far did Roosevelt plumb the potentialities of the chief executive as legislative leader that by the end of his first term the columnist Raymond Clapper was writing, "It is scarcely an exaggeration to say that the President, although not a member of Congress, has become almost the equivalent of the prime minister of the British system, because he is both executive and the guiding hand of the legislative branch." And by World War II, FDR's leadership in the lawmaking process was so accepted that a conservative Republican found fault with the President for failing to submit to Congress a detailed list of bills that he expected it to enact.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/style/longterm/books/chap1/fdryears.htm

:think::think::think::think::think::think::think::think::think::think::think::think::think::think::think::think::think::think::think::think::think::think::think::think::think::think::think::think::think::think::think::think::think::think::think::think::think::think::think::think::think::think:

[treestar]

35. FDR did not get you a public option nor national health care did he?

If he were being judged by the same standards, you'd be trashing him for that "failure."

And his "transformation" of the presidency is not necessarily desirable. It would have given Reagan and Bush the same powers. That would make him just as responsible for the reverses.

Obama does not have the same country or situation and he's not the same person. Whining on about how FDR was supposedly better gets us nowhere.

[Hart2008]

39. No, FDR was busy with Social Security, welfare, unemployment. Truman pushed for national health care

But you miss the point.

The point was about presidential leadership.

Neither FDR nor Truman would have compromised with Repukes when the public was on his side.

Being a "progressive" party means that we expect the president to move the ball forward and to build on the gains of his predecessors. That includes using the powers that they had to enact a progressive agenda.

The only people whining here are the President's apologists for not using those powers. Before Obama can start acting like FDR and Truman when dealing with the Congress, he needs to start at least sounding like them. We are all waiting for that.

[rury]

20. Sounding like FDR and and Truman won't do a godamn thing

with the Rethugs in control of the House and a slim majority in the Senate.
What's needed are LIBERAL Democratic majorities in both houses of Congress to back President Obama's progressive agenda.
Not faux majorities consisting of Blue Dogs and Conservadems who aid and abet Rethug filibusters.
Get a fucking clue!!

[ClassWarrior]

23. You're right. Which is why I'll be campaigning for Dem Reps and not Obama this time.

At least not nearly as much as I campaigned for Obama in '08.

NGU.

[happyslug]

30. And a GOP Controlled House and Senate is what Truman Faced in 1948

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_House_of_Representatives_elections,_1946
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_Senate_elections,_1946

Now, Wikipedia blames Truman's handling of Labor Strikes right after WWII, but many researches blame Truman's refusal to release the troops at the end of WWII. Truman had been one of the Soldiers released from Duty at the end of WWI, and saw that the rapid release of troops into the National Economy had been the chief cause of the 1919-1921 Recession (Where Truman would lose his Store he owned with his Jewish partner do to how bad the economy went in 1919-1921). To avoid a similar recession do to the rapid demobilization of troops at the end of WWII, Truman kept many of troops in the Service for Months after the end of the War. There were protests all over the world from US Troops about this policy, but Truman stayed with it, finally releasing the last of the WWII Draftees in 1947. WWII is noted for being the only war the US participated in NOT followed by a Major Recession. Truman insistence on a slow conversion from a War Economy to a Peace time economy was the factor. This is ignored for the idea that US Troops, while in Uniform would PROTEST against the President is something the right wing find troublesome given that the problem being protested was NOT how a war was being fought, but the need to keep troops in the Service for the Good of the Country.

Anyway, the troops were released and found jobs, many went to Collage, other entered Unionized jobs. When these released troops complained about having to stay in the Service for months after the end of the war, the WWI Vets told them that was better then what they faced, being released and finding that do to they being released en mass they was no jobs for any of them. It took a while but many of the released troops released that what Truman had done was the best thing for them, and returned form opposing Truman and the Democrats to opposing the GOP, as it became clear the GOP, given a choice between what was good for the country, which included the veterans, and what was good for business, the GOP would back Business every time. Some right wing veterans NEVER did make the connection but enough did for Truman to win in 1948 AND for the Democrats to win BOTH the House and Senate in 1948.

Remember from 1931-1995 except for 1947-1949 and 1953-1955, the House of Representative was Democratic. Now, under Reagan, given the number of Conservative Southern Democrats the House was de facto GOP controlled, but still technically controlled by the Democratic party. Thus Truman was the first President to face a GOP Controlled House since Hoover had one elected with him in 1928.

http://artandhistory.house.gov/house_history/partyDiv.aspx
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Party_leaders_of_the_United_States_House_of_Representatives

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Party_leaders_of_the_United_States_Senate

Anyway, what did Truman do when facing a GOP Controlled House and Senate? He Fought them, vetoing the Taft-Hartly act (Which was over ridden). Truman Veto secure the Support of Labor for Truman for he was clearly pro-labor. Truman supported desegregation of the Armed forces (While started in the 1946-1947 period faced massive resistance from the US Army, thus effective desegregation did not occur till the Needs of the Korea War forced the Army to send any new recruits to the units that needed recruits and abandon keeping units all white and all African American). Truman support for Medical Insurance made him the enemy of the Country's doctors, but his proposal for medical assistance for everyone would become LBJ's Medicare plan and would get him the support of people who wanted such medical insurance (Truman would be asked by LBJ to sign the Medicare bill along side LBJ's when it was passed by Congress for it had been Truman's proposal 20 years before). Truman would oppose the growing anti-Communist hysteria but as a politician he was careful, oppose it when he could, but accept it when he had to (Many of the real bad anti-communist bills were passed under Truman, who signed them and then ignored them, but many would be used during Eisenhower's administration, till the Red Scare had run it course and the Courts finally found the courage to strike them down as unconstitutional stating only in the late 1950s).

Truman did not portray himself as someone who could work with a GOP Controlled Congress, he ended up fighting them tooth and nail. In the 1948 campaign Truman did not give a speech saying he was willing to work with the GOP, his speech was that the people HAD to reject the GOP and all it stood for. Truman acceptance of the Democratic Nomination in 1948, was not the lets all work together speech like FDR gave, but a fire and brimstone speech attacking the GOP as the enemy of the people, like the speeches William Jennings Byran gave 50 years before. The GOP was the enemy of the people and had to be defeated and unless the GOP was defeated the country was going to go to hell. This type of speech became Truman calling call, his "Give them Hell Speech", which when someone yelled to Truman "Give them Hell", Truman retorted (Paraphrased) "I don't give them hell, I just tell the truth and to the GOP that is Hell". This is what Obama has to do, and I do NOT believe he is capable of doing such a speech OR doing what is needed to show what he is saying in his speeches is what he wants. The later was done by Truman with his Veto of the Taft-Hartly act, his support for Civil Rights, his handling of the Economy so that the Rich did NOT get ALL the benefits of winning WWII, and his avoiding war with the Soviet Union, while containing Soviet Power. That is what Obama needs to do, and right now he is NOT doing anything on that score. You can do so much by speech making, but such speeches MUST be back up by actions and the lack of actions is his problem. Labor barely accepts him for as far as Labor is concerned Obama had left them outside his tent. Liberal hate Obama worse then the Left hated Truman (The left bolted the Democratic party in 1948, running Henry Wallace as a further to the left option, but Truman's veto of Taft Hartly, his handling of the Berlin Air Lift, his support for Civil Rights undermined that left wing revolt so that most left wingers ended up voting for Truman). Unlike Truman, Obama has NOT done anything to do anything the left wanted, Truman was a moderate not a lefty, but he threw bones to the left to keep them happy. Obama had done nothing for the left that Wall Street did not also wants (Health care for example, was wanted by Wall Street for most private Health Insurance was in a Death Spiral, as rates went up, people using the health insurance stay on the Insurance, but people who did not use it, dropped it. This lead to raising of rates, but the people who used the Insurance stayed on the Insurance, but as the rates went up and up, more and more people who did NOT need it dropped out. The profit was in such non-users and that profit was slowly dying, thus something had to change, and what the insurance companies wanted was mandated health insurance, which is what was passed, the left wanted Single Payer instead, but that meant private health insurance would end. Thus "Obama care" a term Obama has even accepted, is what the Health Insurance Companies wanted NOT what the people and definitively not want the left wanted).

My point is what has Obama done for Labor or the left? and the answer is nothing. Even the dropping of the ban on Homosexuals in the Military is more like the integration of African Americans into the US Army doing Korea, do more do to the need of personal for the Army then the Army embracing the change. Obama has to do something, and so far he has done nothing for the left that Wall Street wanted (Wall Street wants troops in the Middle east, if that means gays into the Army, that is OK with Wall Street as oppose to NOT having enough troops in the Middle East).

[zalinda]

46. Rahm took care NOT to get liberal dems in office

He would not let ANY anti-war dems to run in 2006. And we all know who hired Rahm later to be on his staff.

zalinda

[Hart2008]

47. Naming Rahm as his chief of staff spoke volumes about Obama's polictical preferences. NT

[Carolina]

51. yes, all his choices

(Summers, Geithner, Duncan) told the truth abouth BHO and revealed the pretty speeches for the facade they were.

[wisteria]

26. I love Pres. Obama, but he does have to start to be less a compromiser and more of a leader.

I understand concessions,but the compromising routine isn't working and producing positive results. It is time to choose another path.

[ProSense]

27. Why

"I can only wonder what Senator Hart will do if President Obama continues to squander the opportunity which was his presidency..."

"Squander"? What do you think Hart will do? Are you thinking primary challenge? This OP is hilarious.

Democrats are going to push Obama and offer constructive criticism. That's not the same as code for abandoning him.

[whistler162]

28. Have him stomp on unions like Harry Truman or

detain foreign looking country men because of where they or their ancestors where from like FDR?

[Hart2008]

32. Bullshit! The Taft–Hartley Act was enacted by overriding Harry Truman's veto. NT

[treestar]

36. Exactly!

FDR did things the same people who lionize him would have screamed about had Obama even mentioned them!

[StarsInHerHair]

56. & Americans were SO understanding after that Sept day & didn't harbor ill will

towards Muslims or Arabs at.....all?

[Bake]

40. It would be better still if he started ACTING like FDR

Instead of a GOP shill.

That is all.

Bake

[Hart2008]

44. Agreed, but SOUNDING like a fiesty Dem President would be a start. NT

[bvar22]

42. Cool!

FDR & Harry Truman are two of my favorite presidents.
I owe my comfortable Middle/Working Class upbringing directly to those two "Democrats",
and even my ability to retire comes directly from them.
And I gotta add LBJ for his Great Society, Medicare, and the very successful War on Poverty.
When have you even heard stuff like that from "Democrats" over the last 30 years? :shrug:


Thank You, Gary, for REMEMBERING and REMINDING us of WHAT a "Democrat" should sound like, and look like!!!

"I've seen it happen time after time. When the Democratic candidate allows himself to be put on the defensive and starts apologizing for the New Deal and the Fair Deal, and says he really doesn't believe in them, he is sure to lose. The people don't want a phony Democrat. If it's a choice between a genuine Republican, and a Republican in Democratic clothing, the people will choose the genuine article, every time; that is, they will take a Republican before they will a phony Democrat, and I don't want any phony Democratic candidates in this campaign."
---President Harry Truman

QED:2010


Leadership! "The Buck Stops HERE!" NO Excuses!


You will know them by their WORKS,
not by their excuses.

Solidarity!
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

[Tarheel_Dem]

53. WHO?

:rofl:

[Hippo_Tron]

55. Other than de-segregating the military, what progressive things did Harry Truman accomplish?

He certainly didn't get us universal health care. His administration was so unpopular that Taft-Hartley was passed over his veto. And he nuked Japan and invaded Korea.

But oh yea, he came up with some witty anecdotes about being real Democrats and "giving 'em hell".

If DU were around during the Truman Administration they would be accusing the President of being all talk and no action. Which is exactly what they are saying about the President now.

[Hart2008]

58. That's a big "other than", but the Housing Act of 1949 was his big accomplishment.

Housing Act of 1949

The American Housing Act of 1949 (Title V of P.L. 81-171) was a landmark, sweeping expansion of the federal role in mortgage insurance and issuance and the construction of public housing. It was part of Harry Truman's program of domestic legislation, the Fair Deal.
...
The main elements of the Act included:
providing federal financing for slum clearance programs associated with urban renewal projects in American cities (Title I),
increasing authorization for the Federal Housing Administration (FHA) mortgage insurance (Title II),
extending federal money to build more than 800,000 public housing units (Title III), and
permitting the FHA to provide financing for rural homeowners.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Housing_Act_of_1949

Truman's term was dominated by foreign policy, i.e, ending WWII, avoiding isolationism in the post war world, the rise of the cold war, the Korean War, and its implications at home with the rise of communist witch hunting. Refusing to discharge larger numbers of the U.S. armed forces was not popular at the time, but it proved to be the correct policy for two reasons. The Soviets never withdrew from Eastern and Central Europe, and releasing large numbers of the U.S. armed forces into the job market would have been an economic disaster. The later point can only be considered Keynesian in effect.

Truman faced a hard job in filling the shoes of FDR, who had been bigger than life, while at the same time contending with fatigue from Dems holding power since 1933 and defending the New Deal. He was largely successful in that task, considering he was frequently confronted with Repukes in BOTH HOUSES OF Congress. Oh, and he didn't whine about that or use it as an excuse...

[Hippo_Tron]

59. Lets see... Larger military, confronting the Soviets, not to mention establishing the CIA

DU would've hated all of those things. They'd be talking about how we need to bring all of our troops home after World War II and stop building up our military for corporate profits.

I'm sure that when the Taft-Hartley act was passed they'd call him a secret corporatist for not trying harder to sustain his veto. Or something along those lines.

[Hart2008]

60. No you don't see. Truman's successes were in foreign policy because he was DEFENDING the New Deal!

Please provide evidence for you assertion that President Truman increased the military after WWII.

I don't believe that the members here on DU had a problem with confronting the Soviets to free Eastern Europe, or establishing a controlled CIA. The problems came when people like Bush, Sr., gave distorted intelligence reports on the Soviet threat to justify a bloated military budget, or when the CIA lacked sufficient oversight and became a power unto itself.

Truman's domestic achievements were modest because there was fatigue with the Dem's holding the Presidency since 1933, he became President on FDR's death and had to manage a legislative agenda which was not his own, and the frequent opposition of the GOP in both houses of the Congress. Thus his accomplishments domestically were largely the tenacity with which he defended the New Deal in the face of adversity. His come from behind victory in 1948 is still legend and a monument to the tenacity of the last President not to have a university degree.

THAT is not the same as a President winning election and then failing to enact popular legislation because he compromises when he holds a winning hand.

[Hippo_Tron]

61. I guarantee you that if DU were around in 1948, many would support Henry Wallace

And you haven't read much DU if you don't think that people here wouldn't oppose the creation of the CIA or confronting the Soviets. And I mis-typed about the expansion of the military, your're right. But my point was that DU would be critical of the fact that he wasn't drawing down our forces. They'd be calling him a warmonger for leaving troops all over Europe and sending them to Korea. And again, there's the whole atomic bomb thing...

I agree with you that Obama is way too eager to compromise and has indeed pissed away plenty of winning hands by being too cautious.

But I also think that Harry Truman is way too oft quoted by people on this site who would've hated his policies when he was around. Truman oversaw the creation of the US Empire that Obama's bashers rail against every time there's a discussion of foreign policy. But then whenever there's a thread on tea-baggers and congress, they're all too quick to quote Harry Truman.

[Hart2008]

72. That violated DU rules back in '48! Wallace only got 2.4% of the popular vote anyhow.

I don't think that they would have been in the majority here then.

Creating the CIA, and what it later became under Allen Dulles and George Bush are really different things. Hindsight is always 20/20.

I submit to you that defending Europe and Korea from actual communist aggression, is different from elective wars for oil intended to void Russian oil contracts.

[karynnj]

76. You could add the Marshal Plan - likely the best foreign policy action

[LetTimmySmoke]

57. I was reading Hart's gushing article on Obama and Transcendance...

...and I was like "what the fuck are you smoking and can I try some of that?" Then I saw the article was written in Feb 2008.

[Hart2008]

69. Obama clearly did not follow Hart's advice, so there was no transformation.

Obama clearly did not follow Hart's advice to dump the Bush team

"I've been advocating, publicly and privately, that he make this a transformational election. There comes times in this country's history - we saw it in '32 and '36 of course, and also in '48 with Truman and '60 with Kennedy - when voters are forced to face the fact that we must do things, economically, in foreign policy, fundamentally differently."
"Obama's change message right now is, 'get rid of those who have mismanaged and put in people who will manage better.' He needs to wrap that up and step beyond it."
"This is transformational politics. He must lay the burden of this economic collapse at the feet of the whole Republican Party, where it belongs."

http://www.thenation.com/blog/gary-hart-obama-should-blame-gop-economic-collapse

Clearly, Obama kept to many Bush people and policies in place, especially Geithner and company. So, he never made a clean break, and he will have difficultly blaming Repukes for the policies and their results. He didn't change policy enough to effect perceptions on this issue.

Unfortunately, there was no transformation.

[Phx_Dem]

64. Gary Hart? Maybe he should get advise from John Edwards.

[a kennedy]

65. ah, ditto, ditto, and double ditto.....

STHU Mr. Hart..... has been, like so many other has beens on both sides..... :puke: edit to correct sentence.

[Hart2008]

66. Go be a dittohead in freeperville! You STHU with the ad hominem attacks!

The MSM tried to shut Gary Hart up for years after they slimed the man in '87-88.

Enough ad hominem attacks on a very good and loyal Dem.

[Hart2008]

68. More smears and innuendo. Sorry, Hart is not in the same boat as Edwards and Bill Clinton. NT

[karynnj]

77. Gary Hart is a far more accomplished politician, statesman and visionary than John Edwards

Gary Hart also seems to be a far better person than Edwards.

If there ever was a media creation is was John Edwards. If Gary Hart ever had the fawning press coverage Edwards had in 2004 and in 2006, he would have won in a landslide.