General Discussion
Related: Editorials & Other Articles, Issue Forums, Alliance Forums, Region ForumsAmerica thanks you Monica Lewinsky!
Turns out that her participation in playtime with Bill probably saved us from a round of responsible, common-sense entitlement reform.
As you'll recall, Bill Clinton and Newt Gingrich hate each other. Hate, hate, hate.
But when it came to @#$%ing the 99%, they were able to overcome animosity and work together for their paymasters. Hard hearts softened, a beautiful thing.
The Pact Between Bill Clinton and Newt Gingrich
It all started when Bill's Chief of Staff, a little-known demon named Erskine Bowles, saw a glorious opportunity to grab the cash being wasted on the useless eaters that had become too elderly to produce stuff in his many businesses. Medicare and Social Security. Cut.
So he brokered a deal with Bill and Newt. They had a deal! Medicare and Social Security. Cut.
Now they had to sell it to Congress. But just as that was about to happen, Bill "did not have sex with that woman, Ms. Lewinsky", and the resulting circus shut down Erskine's dream. Of course Erskine's no wimp, he's still going for the gold even today.
So thanks, Monica! If it weren't for your participation in a consensual and mutually-respectful whatever-it-was, even more elderly Americans would be even more @#$%ed than they are today.
= new reply since forum marked as read
Highlight:
NoneDon't highlight anything
5 newestHighlight 5 most recent replies
dionysus
(26,467 posts)you're the wind beneath our wings.
MannyGoldstein
(34,589 posts)The definition of slander.
Which statement was false?
I await your reply.
dionysus
(26,467 posts)often in a misleading, or outrage geared fashion, sir.
MannyGoldstein
(34,589 posts)Last edited Thu May 8, 2014, 12:44 AM - Edit history (1)
You claim that this particular post is a slander against Dems.
Name one thing that's untrue in this particular post.
After that, I'm happy to discuss anything I've written.
Have at it, sport!
roguevalley
(40,656 posts)was the senior partner in this fiasco and the most watched man on earth at the time not to mention married. He fucked around with a junior person in front of the whole world with the only interest in his head his own gratification. I think the blame is clear. Bill Clinton.
To put this on her so directly and completely as your OP reads, to 'thank' her for what she did as a kid with the PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES really takes the cake. This is 99.9% bill clinton's fault. His missed opportunities and all the rest. I do remember another politician fucking interns named Tom Foley. No one blamed the interns for his fuck up. Everyone got that right.
How is it that Monica is the demon here when it is Bill Clinton's utterly stupid, utterly ego driven act of incredible selfishness that made things fall apart. Oh wait. Monica is a girl.
Thank bill clinton for this. When she took her pants off she was a powerless intern. WHen he took his off he was PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES doing this in front of Gingrich. That makes him the pig, not her.
Oh and did I mention I was a senior?
Divernan
(15,480 posts)He referred to Erskine Bowles as a demon. And by the way, I also am a senior, and I completely agree with your description of Bill Clinton's 99.9% responsibility re the involvement w/Lewinsky. Anyone who trashes Lewinsky for this would be as pathetic as the wife of LA Clippers billionaire owner Sterling whining how powerful, self-made, billionaire men are exploited by penniless, albeit attractive, young women. I suggest that the majority of women who agree with Ms. Clinton's decisions to forgive/enable Bill's serial adulteries (1) have never suffered the pain of being betrayed by a spouse/partner they loved and/or (2) are women who have been cheated on by a partner/spouse but have chosen to live with the humiliation for economic, familial/children or social status reasons.
It was Hillary Clinton who trashed Lewinsky, not Manny.
In the amazing cache of documents recently released by the University of Arkansas, of contemporaneous records kept by Ms. Clinton's "longtime friend and close confident", political science professor, Diane Blair, we read how Ms. Clinton rationalized and defended her husband's then-latest adultery, while ridiculing the young intern.
Blair’s writings are made up of notes and diary entries based on communication the former political science professor who died in 2000 had with Mrs. Clinton.
“It was a lapse, but she says to his credit he tried to break it off, tried to pull away, tried to manage someone who was clearly a 'narcissistic loony toon'; but it was beyond control," Blair wrote about a conversation she had with Clinton on September 9, 1998, during the height of the Lewinsky scandal that led to her husband’s impeachment.
Blair went on to write that Hillary Clinton had suggested her husband had made the mistake with Lewinsky because of the personal toll the deaths of his mother, her father, and their friend Vince Foster had taken on him while "the ugly forces started making up hateful things about them, pounding on them."
http://www.cnn.com/2014/02/17/politics/diane-blair-hillary-clinton-documents/
But you know, I agree that we all should thank Ms. Lewinsky for the unintended consequence of derailing Clinton/Bowles early attempt to privatize SS. She's paid a terrible price for what at her age should have been a youthful indiscretion. What Manny's OP points out to me, is some significant good did come out of it, i.e, the survival of social security as a government program, not a privatized cash cow for investment bankers.
sabrina 1
(62,325 posts)differentiate themselves from both parties. Looking at their history and their Policies, on everything but the ones you need to support, or not care about one way or the other, to make yourself 'look like a Democrat', they belong in the Republican Party clearly. However for some reason they settled on OUR PARTY to plant themselves.
Why did they do that? A lot of people think they did it because the Republican Party was already owned by Corporations and not just foreign Corporations. But that wouldn't have been enough to take over the government and get all the Corporate Friendly legislation passed that they wanted.
So the chose to park themselves in OUR PARTY and almost immediately they started work on some of their favorite policies.
1) Privatization of everything.
2) Begin the process of getting the Dem Party on board to privatize SS and all other Social Programs.
3) Make sure the Dem Party, or at least half of it, fully supported Right Wing Foreign Policy which is to dominate the world, preferably Militarily. All that MONEY for the wars these neo-libs/cons envisioned.
Clinton we know now was on board with the Third Way.
So, what exactly is wrong about this OP?
Clinton signed the draconian Welfare Reform Bill. What makes you think he would not have supported, say, a cut via something like the Chained CPI?? Obama 'put it on the table'. So why would you think Clinton would not have done so?
joshcryer
(62,270 posts)It's all Gingrich's tired meanderings, thinking he was the greatest politician of all time, when all he ever achieved was two government shutdowns (hint, shutting down the government requires doing absolutely nothing).
The very idea that Clinton believed he could get Gingrich to meet him halfway on a deal is so preposterous it's a joke. Remember, this was when privatizing Social Security was the "in" thing, and even Bush ran on it, and wow, Bush never implemented it because it's just not politically viable.
karynnj
(59,503 posts)Kerry was quoting from a NYT magazine Ron Suskind story. In 2005, Bush DID try to privatize it and the Democrats reacted well getting the problems with doing so out to the public and it never got the support needed to pass.
Sheepshank
(12,504 posts)without out that 10 interlude things today would be much different.
Trying to draw the parallel in your op is just your way to try and create a false equivalency....again
Response to dionysus (Reply #1)
Post removed
babylonsister
(171,059 posts)
Supersedeas
(20,630 posts)Response to MannyGoldstein (Original post)
Post removed
dionysus
(26,467 posts)He wants to alert every post and get some people jury convictions.
Bobbie Jo
(14,341 posts)msanthrope
(37,549 posts)Rex
(65,616 posts)It drives them to drink and stumble through the halls of Congress! Crying like babies, because lie after lie gets shot down. Even with their very own propaganda channel, the GOP still cannot make normal people believe 1% of what Foxnews pushes off on their already/soon to be brain dead audience.
Obama is scandal free, perhaps the first POTUS in modern times to do so. CHOKE ON IT GOP.
babylonsister
(171,059 posts)MannyGoldstein
(34,589 posts)Or is ad hominem the only thing you got?
MohRokTah
(15,429 posts)
JDPriestly
(57,936 posts)Because if that is the case, I will never vote for Hillary.
If anyone even slightly like Erskine Bowles comes with the Hillary nomination, I will stay home rather than vote for her.
I remind people, last I looked (not that long ago) the average Social Security benefit was around $1300 or $1350 per month. Not a lot of money. Not a lot of money when you think about the cost of prescriptions and medical co-pays and property taxes and rent and all the things that people have to pay for before they start renting Netflix or buying toys for the grandkids or -- do old people have to do that too? -- eating.
American seniors cannot afford Erskine Bowles or anyone like him. We need a president who will see through the Erskine Bowles and their greedy plans to cut the incomes of seniors.
Divernan
(15,480 posts)Bowles is a very safe bet to be part of a 3rd Clinton administration. All indications are that Bill and Hillary Clinton are of one mind on political issues, across the board. Erskine Bowles was yet another Bill Clinton "gift" to the Democratic Party, passed along to and enthusiastically accepted by Obama. Bowles served as Clinton’s chief of staff. He’s also 0-for-2 as a candidate for the U.S. Senate from North Carolina. Evidently Tar Heel State voters preferred a real Republican to the lite version.
The National Commission on Fiscal Responsibility and Reform (often called Bowles-Simpson/Simpson-Bowles from the names of co-chairs Alan Simpson and Erskine Bowles; or NCFRR) is a Presidential Commission created in 2010 by President Barack Obama to identify "policies to improve the fiscal situation in the medium term and to achieve fiscal sustainability over the long run".[1] The commission first met on April 27, 2010.[2] A report was released on December 1, 2010,[3] and although the Commission was supported by over 60% of the members (11 out of 18),[1] and an equal number of Democrats and Republicans, the report did not reach the 14-vote threshold required to formally endorse the blueprint and have it sent to Congress for approval.[4] Proponents of the plan praised it for hitting all parts of the federal budget and for putting the national debt on a stable and then downward path. Prominent supporters include JPMorgan Chase CEO Jamie Dimon,[2] . . . .Critics say that it would cut entitlement and safety net programs, including Social Security and Medicare. Prominent opponents include Paul Krugman,
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_Commission_on_Fiscal_Responsibility_and_Reform
So, a public service reminder: Simpson-Bowles is terrible. It mucks around with taxes, but is obsessed with lowering marginal rates despite a complete absence of evidence that this is important. It offers nothing on Medicare that isn’t already in the Affordable Care Act. And it raises the Social Security retirement age because life expectancy has risen — completely ignoring the fact that life expectancy has only gone up for the well-off and well-educated, while stagnating or even declining among the people who need the program most.
http://krugman.blogs.nytimes.com/2012/09/30/a-public-service-reminder-simpson-bowles-is-terrible/?_php=true&_type=blogs&_r=0
sabrina 1
(62,325 posts)everything. Corporate tool or boss? Who knows, but had he had his way, yes, Seniors would be much worse off they are now.
joshcryer
(62,270 posts)This is Newt Gingrich's twisted narrative. The very idea that Clinton could've got the New Democrats on board with Al Gore running for President is absurd. There's a reason Al Gore ran on the "lockbox."
Clinton was playing along with Newt'y as if they were going to achieve anything but Clinton knew better.
Nice of you to share Gingrich's narrative here, though. It reeks of Newty fantasy land.
Divernan
(15,480 posts)"A page-turner" —US News & World Report
"Does a masterly job of recreating the diplomacy aimed at bringing the titans together...Unlike chroniclers of recent history who laboriously recount what most of us remember, Mr. Gillon has real news to tell." —The Wall Street Journal
"Renders a fraught moment in American political history with clarity."
—Publishers Weekly
"Gillon sheds more light on the political instincts of both men than any other book yet written about either.... this excellent book should be an essential acqisition for all libraries." —Library Journal
"Bill Clinton and Newt Gingrich were two of the most interesting, gifted and complicated figures ever to grace American politics. Steve Gillon, a thoughtful historian with exceptional political savvy, has turned his ample gifts to capturing the politics of the Clinton-Gingrich moment. He sheds new light on their relationship, and explains not only where they came from but also where their confrontation led us. This is an important book about a fascinating episode." —E. J. Dionne, Jr., author of Souled Out and Why Americans Hate Politics
"Steven Gillon, using a wide range of inside sources, tells a great and absorbing story: how Bill Clinton and Newt Gingrich, who had fought for years over the meaning of the 1960s, schemed in 1997 to form a centrist political coalition, only to fail amidst the nasty partisan wrangling that led to the impeachment of the president." —James T.Patterson, author of Restless Giant: The United States from Watergate to Bush v. Gore
The Pact has an excellent premise and is executed masterfully. Steve Gillon deftly tells the story of this odd couple from the 1990s, showing the surprising similarities between Bill Clinton and Newt Gingrich, and how they differed. In the process, Gillon insightfully and entertainingly helps us understand the 1990s, the 1960s and the entire Baby Boom generation—and epoch."— Gil Troy, author of Leading from the Center: Why Moderates Make the Best Presidents
http://www.barnesandnoble.com/w/the-pact-steven-m-gillon/1008874548?ean=9780195322781
joshcryer
(62,270 posts)Freaking Bush couldn't pass cuts and he was a war President and had majorities. He had the House for 6 years and the Senate for 4.5 years.
I'm not alleging that Newt and Bill didn't wrangle. I'm saying Bill is a smart man and didn't expect anything to come of it. The idea that something could've come of it is Newt's fantasy because he still likes to consider himself relevant when all he achieved was shutting down the federal government twice.
Divernan
(15,480 posts)joshcryer
(62,270 posts)All I see is political game manship for the sake of it. It's not like Clinton shows remorse, unlike Obama, who is genuinely frustrated (and has been quoted) he couldn't get Simpson-Bowles passed. There are no direct quotes here, and there is no indication of what Clinton wanted or thought could happen.
Divernan
(15,480 posts)The article details elaborate meetings, preparations, and machinations by multiple parties. Of course it's "political gamesmanship" - that's what politicians do to get legislation passed. I provided links and quotes from many relevant reviews which found the book credible, and mentioned sources other than Gingrich as the basis for the book.
Let's not pursue the coulda-woulda-shoulda speculation ad infinitum. The crushing disappointment with Bill Clinton (at whose 1st inauguration I was a guest) was that he destroyed so many potential accomplishments of his second term, not so much by his brief & ill-considered sexual dalliance with an intern, but by lying under oath & the whole subsequent impeachment brouhaha.
joshcryer
(62,270 posts)People may read to their hearts content, there is no way Clinton would back something that wouldn't pass and history has shown didn't pass under Bush.
If there's one thing you can't dismiss Clinton for is he picked his battles wisely. If he didn't think Newt'y would cooperate it would've remained secret backroom dealings.
sabrina 1
(62,325 posts)got to Welfare before it was stopped. The draconian, so-called Welform Reform Bill says all that needs to be said about The Third Way in power, that they didn't get to SS was pure luck for all those who PAID INTO IT and who now DEPEND ON IT.
And if Hillary wins, we can look forward to more of Erskine Bowles, in fact after the next election, SS will be back on the table.
Anyone asking whether it was possible at the time, is either ignorant of the cuts made re Wellfare Reform and the revelations since then regarding SS, or are simply trying to distract. If you are willing to go after one Social Program you are willing to go after all of them. That is the GOAL of the Third Way.
Hippo_Tron
(25,453 posts)People go along with really dumb things like repealing Glass-Stegall during prosperous times, because they think the prosperity will last forever.
Cutting/privatizing social security is precisely the kind of thing you could've sold to the American people in the late 1990's, regardless of who was selling it.
joshcryer
(62,270 posts)The bubble was popping by '99, there is no way.
treestar
(82,383 posts)They've had a particularly lucky and good life. Why do so many of them vote R? They are the ones talking about working hard and making it good, etc., because for them, that worked.
They were young in the 50s when the economy was good. A good majority of them have no empathy for the poor, because they think they can just get a job with one company that will employ them until retirement. And this is what happened with them.
tofuandbeer
(1,314 posts)I believe Lewinsky was paid to do this—and it should be painfully obvious that the idea is to put a damper on Hillary's chances of winning in 2016.
Then there's the sudden resurgence of Benghazi—there's another dark cloud the GOP wants to bleed rain from.
The GOP have their little secretive meetings, and this is the crap they come up with.
With these bull shit lies, and with our wonderful SCOTUS changing the face of the US against us—while taking our internet freedom away and allowing media mergers—this is going to be one hell of an ugly series of elections.
As each day passes, I'm not positive about what "lies" ahead for the U.S.
Prophet 451
(9,796 posts)That said, teh Tories and their pet media are having some success with pushing the UK to do the same.
Warpy
(111,254 posts)because they had been doing so much damage to us, all signed by Clinton.
When people try to convince me that Hillary is the next president, I react with a shudder and thanks that I probably won't live through the final dismantling of this country under another DLC/Third Way/New Democrat/Republican Lite president.
It's all yours, kiddies.
Divernan
(15,480 posts)I decided to take SS at the earlier, age 62 option. I worked for a state legislature at the time and had come to understand that legislative changes to benefits programs were extremely unlikely to be retroactive, but prospectively could be changed at any time. So bird in the hand worth 2 in the bush - a decision I do not regret. So, even with losing most of my retirement savings in '08 (doing my patriotic bit to transfer wealth to the One Percent), I'll be able to get by. I'm very concerned about what will happen to my adult children in their old age.
Cleita
(75,480 posts)And as a senior citizen, who is at the mercy of these policies that will make many seniors deprived of many comforts, like heat in winter, that most take for granted and decent food and even shelter, I worry about Mrs. Clinton too. Every rise in the price of food gas and utilities without comparable raises in the Social Security COLA puts us at risk.
msanthrope
(37,549 posts)facts, which you already did--
Yikes, I just saw the polling on this
70% of Americans think Benghazi! Is a big problem. Republicans seem to be good at ginning up fully-fake scandals, and Democrats suck at stopping them.
http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1002&pid=4339715
Look, if Steven Gilion's history lite is how you get your information, it's NO WONDER you got your Benghazi facts from Fox......
TO THE JURY---read the thread I linked to. Manny admits he got his polling numbers from Fox.
MannyGoldstein
(34,589 posts)msanthrope
(37,549 posts)
11 Bravo
(23,926 posts)The swarm is afoot (offering yet further proof that the jury system is deeply flawed).
msanthrope
(37,549 posts)
JoePhilly
(27,787 posts)
DanTex
(20,709 posts)JoePhilly
(27,787 posts)... and that's why Monica is back in the news ...
... or something like that.
DanTex
(20,709 posts)
dawg
(10,624 posts)Unless we can somehow pull this party to the left, the U.S. middle class is done for.
Most people do not realize how screwed they already are. Retirement-age seems like forever in the future to them, and few people actually do the calculations to see how much income they are really going to need. Many, if not most, Gen-X'ers and Millennials are going to be hard pressed even under the current Social Security and Medicare benefit structures. Anything that makes them even less generous is just heaping additional misery upon their futures.
MannyGoldstein
(34,589 posts)I come from a family with psychologists. I can see why they find the field fascinating.
Divernan
(15,480 posts)They must have your name linked up to some speed alert/alarm. Your OP was at 11:37 p.m., and included a link to a detailed 6 page article. Yet your first hostile reply was posted at 11:39 p.m. and said poster confidently, albeit erroneously, accused you of slander. I liked that you correctly pointed out to him/her that slander is spoken. The easy-peasy way we first year law students used to remember the difference between slander and libel: Slander and spoken both begin with "s", leaving libel to match up w/ written.
Given the near immediate response time, I reasonably doubt that he/she actually bothered to read that very well written article. My doubt is further substantiated by the failure to point out even one single specific statement as being untrue.
I do sincerely thank Ms. Lewinsky for this unintended consequence. My god - think of the cost to retirees (chained CPI, reduced benefits, extended years before eligibility) over the past 20 years, not to mention the millions which Big Banking would have siphoned off every year in various maintenance charges and transfer fees from every single social security individual account. A relative/New York banker explained to me how Wall Street was salivating to get its hands on those social security funds. She said that in addition to annual fees, that every time an investment formula was changed, i.e,. churned, like changing the distribution from say, 5 percent in municipal bonds to 6 percent in municipal bonds, the banks would charge a transfer fee to every single investor. 59 million Americans will be collecting social security this year. With privatization, my god how the money rolls in! Or I should say, rolls up, as in up to the One Percenters.
Meanwhile, Ms. Lewinsky has been paying a 20 year penance of public humiliation. Now if Ms. Lewinsky was motivated by revenge, like some people(see below), she would have been speaking out long before now, and she would not have accepted responsibility for her own behavior, as she has. In that respect, she has behaved with more class than those who have excused, rationalized and enabled President Clinton's actions with her.
3 months ago
First on CNN–Confidant’s diary: Clinton wanted to keep records for ‘revenge'
Posted by
CNN 's Dan Merica, CNN Political Research Director Robert Yoon
Fayetteville, Arkansas (CNN) - Shortly before Hillary Clinton’s effort to pass health care reform died in the summer of 1994, the first lady asked a close friend and confidant for advice on “how best to preserve her general memories of the administration and of health care in particular.”
When asked why, according to the friend’s June 20, 1994, diary entry, Clinton said, “Revenge.”
http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com/2014/02/12/confidants-diary-clinton-wanted-to-keep-records-for-revenge/
ProSense
(116,464 posts)Thanks?
misterhighwasted
(9,148 posts)Clinton did indeed sign it, He owns that one, however its decline was set in motion prior to his Presidency.
Plenty of blame to go around.(GREENSPAN)
"Bush 41 pontificated over the demise of the entire Savings & Loan industry while Bush 43 presided over the collapse of the mortgage industry. Glass Steagall would have prevented both."
Clinton signed it.
The Bush family mofia had plenty to do with opening the door just a crack untill they could fit their entire family through.
When was son Neil Bush's S&L Crisis again?
Maybe why the Bush/Clinton monarchys are chosen to continue on governing this Nation. Or maybe just protecting their interests.??
Just a thought.
misterhighwasted
(9,148 posts)From http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0908/13887_Page2.html [09/25/2008]:
Rep. John Dingell (D-Mich.), whose father helped write Glass-Steagall in the 1930s, saw it in clearer terms. “The banks had been working on it for 40 — no, hell no — since it was enacted, the banks have been trying to get rid of it,” said Dingell, chairman of the Energy and Commerce Committee. “They worked like hell. They finally wore this place down. Everybody forgot what happened during the Depression and why Glass-Steagall was passed.”
Dingell did what he could to persuade his colleagues before the vote to deregulate.
“What we are creating now is a group of institutions which are too big to fail,” he said then in words that sound unusually prescient now. “Not only are they going to be big banks, but they are going to be big everything, because they are going to be in securities and insurance, in issuance of stocks and bonds and underwriting, and they are also going to be in banks.
“And under this legislation, the whole of the regulatory structure is so obfuscated and so confused that liability in one area is going to fall over into liability in the next. Taxpayers are going to be called upon to cure the failures we are creating tonight, and it is going to cost a lot of money, and it is coming. Just be prepared for those events.”
Dingell’s 1999 speech before Congress arguing against repeal.
------------------------
Apologies if I'm veering off topic. What could any of this have to do with Monica Lewinsky?
Dragonfli
(10,622 posts)than a nuisance and a waste of time. I stand now in grateful awe of the blow job heard 'round the world.
It makes me wonder how consensual sex (however dishonorable re vows made) could make such an impression to an entire population that people are still arguing about it today, and yet the non sexual fucking of the most vulnerable in society when proposed raises nary an eyebrow.
Just recently Bubba II advocated for and placed in his budget a renewed enthusiasm for such a non sexual fucking (rape really) and few people were "slut shaming" the one on bent knee with mouth open facing Pete Peterson hoping to begin the orgy as our elderly and disabled were bent over and targeted for penetration by Pete's well endowed financial member.
As evidenced by the paragraph above I am learning only sexual terms shock people while the truth of people going cold and hungry is largely ignored as a "non-issue".
Well, now I know how to frame issues that are a matter of life and death to those too old or disabled to produce money for their slave masters, just write as if we were talking about something important like a blow job.
Divernan
(15,480 posts)Powerfully stated.
DanTex
(20,709 posts)...and bringing us the Iraq War, tax cuts for the wealthy, etc.?
wyldwolf
(43,867 posts)He wants the party burned down and rebuilt in some image only he knows.
Divernan
(15,480 posts)And it's quite extreme for you to state he wants the party burned down - such a silly exaggeration.
wyldwolf
(43,867 posts)No, it isn't an exaggeration - unless he's tempering his criticism of "cooorporatists" with real work for progressives, he's nothing more than an internet rabble-rouser.
Divernan
(15,480 posts)You choose anonymity, don't you? Of course, you or anyone anonymous can claim to do or be anything. If you really propose to demand the credentials of DUers whom you choose to disparage, then FIRST, you better put your ID and verifiable credentials on the line. You know, like, "I'm John Smith and I am a city council member of (city & state)" or "a state committeeman in (state)". What's your approach - dismiss anyone who disagrees with you as rabble rousers? I consider Manny intelligent & well-informed. He certainly has an impact on DU with his detailed posts.
And it's interesting that you don't consider on-line debate to be "real work for progressives". Don't you think that's just a teensy bit Luddite? (defintion: Luddite: a person opposed to increased industrialization or new technology, as in "a small-minded Luddite resisting progress".
https://www.google.com/search?q=Luddite+definition&ie=utf-8&oe=utf-8&aq=t&rls=org.mozilla:en-US
fficial&client=firefox-a&channel=sb
Manny provides commentary to and links on many relevant topics, as opposed to the drive-by haters posting two line attacks.
wyldwolf
(43,867 posts)definition: Slacktivism (sometimes slactivism or slackervism) is a portmanteau of the words slacker and activism. The word is usually considered a pejorative term that describes "feel-good" measures, in support of an issue or social cause, that have little or no practical effect other than to make the person doing it take satisfaction from the feeling they have contributed.
Manny is an internet rabble-rouser. Hey, there have been many respectable rabble-rousers. But I'm quite sure Manny isn't taking his act to DNC and local party meetings where he'd be laughed out of the building.
Response to wyldwolf (Reply #62)
HangOnKids This message was self-deleted by its author.
Divernan
(15,480 posts)I repeat, what activities give you the moral high ground to accuse someone else of "slacktivism"?
And why do you spend time replying to his threads if Manny has no practical effect on the many, many people who read DU?
wyldwolf
(43,867 posts)I'm not the one on here berating Democrats while doing nothing to fix things (If I felt they needed to be fixed.)
We all keep a level of anonymity on DU but I'll tell you this - I've been the chair of a PAC, the communications director of a county party, knocked on thousands of doors and made thousands of phone calls for candidates for the Democratic party - the party Manny and you obviously feel is corrupt and undeserving of your precious sweat.
I work online. You may even use sites on a daily basis I've had a hand in creating. I have a lot of time to during the day to rattle cages. Think of it as a hobby.
Your turn.
Divernan
(15,480 posts)You therefore have no right, that's none-zero-nada to make any insulting presumptions about Manny, me or anyone else with whom you disagree. But in your grand tradition of undocumented claims, and because the last thing I would do is provide my name to your cohort, here are some my lifelong bona fides.
I've campaigned for Democrats in every election since JFK (heard him speak at my university as an undergrad), i.e. knocked on doors, collected signatures for nominating petitions, worked the polls, and phone banked for local, state and federal candidates; had an uncle who was state party chair for many years (his obit described him as "Mr. Democrat"/I have a treasured photo of him with JFK in the Oval Office); was a guest at Clinton's first inauguration (one of my kids worked for the DNC and the inauguration committee), have served as both appointed board member and an elected official in my local government for the 10 years since I retired from working for the State House Democratic Caucus.
But most important of all, grasshopper, I have never sold out the political values of my grandparents, parents, and, I'm proud to say,my adult children, to the centrists/corporatists/Third Way bunch. I am sickened and disgusted at any Dem. who supports candidates who sell out their constituents to Big Money interests/lobbyists/ and/or appoint Wall Street oligarchs to state or federal cabinet positions. Obviously you and I are on different sides of the present split in the Democratic party. You may wish all we progressives would shut up and go away, but we're Democrats and we're staying to fight and return the party to its roots.
And that's all she wrote!
wyldwolf
(43,867 posts)Many on DU know me but who really gives a rat's ass, ya know? Point is, Manny is either a rabble rousing slacktivist or a hypocrite because if he took his shtick on the road to any 'real world' Dem organization he'd be tarred and feathered. That goes for state and county parties and even organization like OFA and DFA. I know that, you know that and everyone reading it does whether they agree with Manny or not.
Ah, no, I don't wish progressives would shut up and go away. What I DO wish is they'd be more honest and quit with their "REAL DEMOCRAT" routine. You're the ideological heir of Henry Wallace, not FDR or Kennedy. A better name would be Wallacites.
The values of your grandparents? Is this some romantic characterization of FDR or maybe Kennedy? LOL. Let me rephrase what I just wrote - I don't wish progressives would shut up and go away. What I DO wish is they'd be more honest and quit with their "REAL DEMOCRAT" routine and learn a little bit of the history of the party they claim to represent.
Grasshopper.
MannyGoldstein
(34,589 posts)Who was FDR's equivalent of Larry Summers? Did FDR bail out the bankers, making a diving catch to save their bonuses? Did FDR engage in a trickle-down bailout? Did FDR fight long and hard to cut Social Security?
Where is Obama's Frances Perkins? His Henry Wallace? His attacks on "economic royalists", the "I welcome their hatred"?
wyldwolf
(43,867 posts)Did he cut deals with white segregationists, promising not to pursue civil rights policies if they backed his New Deal?
Did the New Deal pretty much ignore African Americans? (The social security act didn't cover domestic or agriculture workers - the bulk of which were filled by African Americans)
Were several hundred thousand Mexican Americans, both immigrants and citizens, living in the Southwest forcefully deported?
MannyGoldstein
(34,589 posts)Things moved forward, big time. Not as quickly for everyone, but the gains were enormous.
Interning the Japanese was wrong, but we were fighting a world war. Doesn't excuse it, but times were pretty crazy. I'll also note that the rate of illness and death among the interned Japanese was the same as the general population.
Things are continuing to get worse for the 99% each day. This will not be changed by the bankers, or by those on their payroll. We need a new Democratic Party if we are to turn this around.
FDR Democrats fixed this last time, we're the only ones who can fix it this time.
wyldwolf
(43,867 posts)How about the the passenger ship St. Louis - a boat of Jews fleeing from the Nazis into the United States. When the ship approached the coast of Florida with nearly a thousand German Jews fleeing Hitler, Roosevelt wouldn't to telegrams from passengers requesting asylum, and the State Department refused entry to the ship. Forced to return to Antwerp, many of the passengers eventually died in concentration camps.
Did FDR refuse to sign anti-lynching laws and say doing so might cause him to lose re-election? Yes he did.
The thing is, Manny, you're not an FDR Democrat. Not really. You're more of a Wallace or Robert La Follette progressive. You just think you're an FDR Dem. Roosevelt was the 1% and did things he probably would not have done during a normal economy.
Progressives of the day HATED Roosevelt for the same reasons you despise the Clintons. Progressive leaders believed he was in bed with the banks as well.
http://www.dailykos.com/story/2010/08/11/891631/-UPDATED-Liberal-Criticism-of-Franklin-Roosevelt-and-The-New-Deal
MannyGoldstein
(34,589 posts)FDR also had Frances Perkins and Henry Wallace to offset the very few bankers in his White House. Then he got rid of the bankers, rather than doubling down on them.
And remember Eleanor's paid speeches on Wall Street? Me neither.
wyldwolf
(43,867 posts)... my major concern would have been the overt racism and the exclusionary nature of the New Deal. 
So continue your hero worship of FDR. I'll continue my view of every president - even the ones I like - as flawed humans who all did things that weren't very nice (like when FDR appointed an KKK member to the supreme court.)
Is it SO easy to paint FDR as a racist 1-percenter who's New Deal did nothing to redistribute wealth downward. The story almost writes itself - which is why the progressives of the day despised him.
MannyGoldstein
(34,589 posts)Am I correct in thinking that you believe that the Third Way is the American Way? Well I don't. I think Third Way/DLC policies lead to Third-World Status, and we have 20+ years that demonstrate this truth.
The evidence is equally clear that only Liberal policies ever have worked to pull our country out of the ditch whenever we go into it.
I think it's high time we go back to what's worked in the past, and get rid of what's never worked. I'm sick to death of seeing so many homeless, so many going without, while People who claim to be my political allies fight hard to rig government even further in favor of the wealthiest.
Enough!
The 99% wants our country back!
wyldwolf
(43,867 posts)You and I agree on more points than you can imagine. My route there is to work within the party to bring about changes - and it won't and can't be fast.
Your route is to stand on the sidelines and snipe at the party which only achieves DU recs for your posts.
Autumn
(45,066 posts)
