Prominent Democrat, Artur Davis: "this is not Bill Clinton’s Democratic Party", Why I'm Switching to Republican

  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    May 30, 2012 2:59 PM GMT
    Also noteworthy that he is a visible minority.

    http://www.officialarturdavis.com/2012/05/a-response-to-political-rumors/

    And the question of party label in what remains a two team enterprise? That, too, is no light decision on my part: cutting ties with an Alabama Democratic Party that has weakened and lost faith with more and more Alabamians every year is one thing; leaving a national party that has been the home for my political values for two decades is quite another. My personal library is still full of books on John and Robert Kennedy, and I have rarely talked about politics without trying to capture the noble things they stood for. I have also not forgotten that in my early thirties, the Democratic Party managed to engineer the last run of robust growth and expanded social mobility that we have enjoyed; and when the party was doing that work, it felt inclusive, vibrant, and open-minded.

    But parties change. As I told a reporter last week, this is not Bill Clinton’s Democratic Party (and he knows that even if he can’t say it). If you have read this blog, and taken the time to look for a theme in the thousands of words (or free opposition research) contained in it, you see the imperfect musings of a voter who describes growth as a deeper problem than exaggerated inequality; who wants to radically reform the way we educate our children; who despises identity politics and the practice of speaking for groups and not one national interest; who knows that our current course on entitlements will eventually break our solvency and cause us to break promises to our most vulnerable—that is, if we don’t start the hard work of fixing it.

    On the specifics, I have regularly criticized an agenda that would punish businesses and job creators with more taxes just as they are trying to thrive again. I have taken issue with an administration that has lapsed into a bloc by bloc appeal to group grievances when the country is already too fractured: frankly, the symbolism of Barack Obama winning has not given us the substance of a united country. You have also seen me write that faith institutions should not be compelled to violate their teachings because faith is a freedom, too. You’ve read that in my view, the law can’t continue to favor one race over another in offering hard-earned slots in colleges: America has changed, and we are now diverse enough that we don’t need to accommodate a racial spoils system. And you know from these pages that I still think the way we have gone about mending the flaws in our healthcare system is the wrong way—it goes further than we need and costs more than we can bear.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    May 30, 2012 3:22 PM GMT
    It's certainly not Clinton's party. It's moved further to the right since the 1990s as the Republicans fell off the lunatic fringe cliff.

    http://www.realjock.com/gayforums/2404167

    Despite his protestations to the contrary, this smacks of political cynicism.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    May 30, 2012 3:45 PM GMT
    Actually, Hillary and Bill Clinton's acolytes, followers, and devotees control nearly every aspect of the Democratic Party's levers of power. That includes the Clintonism-convert in the Oval Office, who is a more "visible minority" than Artur Davis could ever be.

    A more true statement: it's not Arttur Davis's Democratic's Party and no Democrat (or minority) gives a rat's ass what he thinks. Outside of Mitt Romney's Party of Gay Hating Birthers, in whose world is Artur Davis "prominent"?

    These people are psycho.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    May 30, 2012 5:06 PM GMT
    TroyAthlete saidActually, Hillary and Bill Clinton's acolytes, followers, and devotees control nearly every aspect of the Democratic Party's levers of power. That includes the Clintonism-convert in the Oval Office, who is a more "visible minority" than Artur Davis could ever be.

    A more true statement: it's not Arttur Davis's Democratic's Party and no Democrat (or minority) gives a rat's ass what he thinks. Outside of Mitt Romney's Party of Gay Hating Birthers, in whose world is Artur Davis "prominent"?

    These people are psycho.


    Of course they don't. And that's why you're so angry about it icon_wink.gif
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    May 30, 2012 5:07 PM GMT
    Christian73 saidIt's certainly not Clinton's party. It's moved further to the right since the 1990s as the Republicans fell off the lunatic fringe cliff.

    http://www.realjock.com/gayforums/2404167

    Despite his protestations to the contrary, this smacks of political cynicism.


    It's not even remotely believable that the Democrats have moved to the right especially considering it is Bill Clinton's party that reformed welfare - which, dramatically reduced child poverty but also pushed thousands off the dole.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    May 30, 2012 5:09 PM GMT
    riddler78 said
    Christian73 saidIt's certainly not Clinton's party. It's moved further to the right since the 1990s as the Republicans fell off the lunatic fringe cliff.

    http://www.realjock.com/gayforums/2404167

    Despite his protestations to the contrary, this smacks of political cynicism.


    It's not even remotely believable that the Democrats have moved to the right especially considering it is Bill Clinton's party that reformed welfare - which, dramatically reduced child poverty but also pushed thousands off the dole.


    More children live in poverty today than before welfare reform, so now you're just being ridiculous. And welfare reform was a right-wing goal, which they achieved and has led to an increase in poverty particularly in the economic downturn.

    God, you truly have no idea what you're talking about.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    May 30, 2012 5:12 PM GMT
    Christian73 said
    riddler78 said
    Christian73 saidIt's certainly not Clinton's party. It's moved further to the right since the 1990s as the Republicans fell off the lunatic fringe cliff.

    http://www.realjock.com/gayforums/2404167

    Despite his protestations to the contrary, this smacks of political cynicism.


    It's not even remotely believable that the Democrats have moved to the right especially considering it is Bill Clinton's party that reformed welfare - which, dramatically reduced child poverty but also pushed thousands off the dole.


    More children live in poverty today than before welfare reform, so now you're just being ridiculous. And welfare reform was a right-wing goal, which they achieved and has led to an increase in poverty particularly in the economic downturn.

    God, you truly have no idea what you're talking about.


    A right wing goal during the Bill Clinton years? I thought you said the Democratic party had moved left? As for increased poverty during the economic downturn, you do realize that's what happens during an economic downturn? And part of the reason is how long the downturn has been - one of the worst on record thanks in part to policies of the Obama Administration that has taken the party left.

    Have you forgotten your talking points again?
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    May 30, 2012 5:22 PM GMT
    riddler78 said
    Christian73 said
    riddler78 said
    Christian73 saidIt's certainly not Clinton's party. It's moved further to the right since the 1990s as the Republicans fell off the lunatic fringe cliff.

    http://www.realjock.com/gayforums/2404167

    Despite his protestations to the contrary, this smacks of political cynicism.


    It's not even remotely believable that the Democrats have moved to the right especially considering it is Bill Clinton's party that reformed welfare - which, dramatically reduced child poverty but also pushed thousands off the dole.


    More children live in poverty today than before welfare reform, so now you're just being ridiculous. And welfare reform was a right-wing goal, which they achieved and has led to an increase in poverty particularly in the economic downturn.

    God, you truly have no idea what you're talking about.


    A right wing goal during the Bill Clinton years? I thought you said the Democratic party had moved left? As for increased poverty during the economic downturn, you do realize that's what happens during an economic downturn? And part of the reason is how long the downturn has been - one of the worst on record thanks in part to policies of the Obama Administration that has taken the party left.

    Have you forgotten your talking points again?


    Ummm, no. You said the Democratic Party moved left which is demonstrable lie. I said it moved to the right beginning with Clinton's triangulation and speeding up under Obama.

    Keyensian economics is hardly left wing. Even Romney realizes that the government is the spender of last resort.

    God, the flailing from the neocons is epic these days.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    May 30, 2012 5:46 PM GMT
    Christian73 said
    riddler78 said
    Christian73 said
    riddler78 said
    Christian73 saidIt's certainly not Clinton's party. It's moved further to the right since the 1990s as the Republicans fell off the lunatic fringe cliff.

    http://www.realjock.com/gayforums/2404167

    Despite his protestations to the contrary, this smacks of political cynicism.


    It's not even remotely believable that the Democrats have moved to the right especially considering it is Bill Clinton's party that reformed welfare - which, dramatically reduced child poverty but also pushed thousands off the dole.


    More children live in poverty today than before welfare reform, so now you're just being ridiculous. And welfare reform was a right-wing goal, which they achieved and has led to an increase in poverty particularly in the economic downturn.

    God, you truly have no idea what you're talking about.


    A right wing goal during the Bill Clinton years? I thought you said the Democratic party had moved left? As for increased poverty during the economic downturn, you do realize that's what happens during an economic downturn? And part of the reason is how long the downturn has been - one of the worst on record thanks in part to policies of the Obama Administration that has taken the party left.

    Have you forgotten your talking points again?


    Ummm, no. You said the Democratic Party moved left which is demonstrable lie. I said it moved to the right beginning with Clinton's triangulation and speeding up under Obama.

    Keyensian economics is hardly left wing. Even Romney realizes that the government is the spender of last resort.

    God, the flailing from the neocons is epic these days.


    Lol - right. No, keyensian economics is fairly left wing. Of course the left tends to omit the part where you're supposed to cut back. The Democratic Party has moved left - apparently it's so demonstrable as to not require demonstration.icon_rolleyes.gif

    Like really Christian, one can only hope that you'll one day wake up from your delusions icon_wink.gif
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    May 30, 2012 5:54 PM GMT
    riddler78 said
    Christian73 said
    riddler78 said
    Christian73 said
    riddler78 said
    Christian73 saidIt's certainly not Clinton's party. It's moved further to the right since the 1990s as the Republicans fell off the lunatic fringe cliff.

    http://www.realjock.com/gayforums/2404167

    Despite his protestations to the contrary, this smacks of political cynicism.


    It's not even remotely believable that the Democrats have moved to the right especially considering it is Bill Clinton's party that reformed welfare - which, dramatically reduced child poverty but also pushed thousands off the dole.


    More children live in poverty today than before welfare reform, so now you're just being ridiculous. And welfare reform was a right-wing goal, which they achieved and has led to an increase in poverty particularly in the economic downturn.

    God, you truly have no idea what you're talking about.


    A right wing goal during the Bill Clinton years? I thought you said the Democratic party had moved left? As for increased poverty during the economic downturn, you do realize that's what happens during an economic downturn? And part of the reason is how long the downturn has been - one of the worst on record thanks in part to policies of the Obama Administration that has taken the party left.

    Have you forgotten your talking points again?


    Ummm, no. You said the Democratic Party moved left which is demonstrable lie. I said it moved to the right beginning with Clinton's triangulation and speeding up under Obama.

    Keyensian economics is hardly left wing. Even Romney realizes that the government is the spender of last resort.

    God, the flailing from the neocons is epic these days.


    Lol - right. No, keyensian economics is fairly left wing. Of course the left tends to omit the part where you're supposed to cut back. The Democratic Party has moved left - apparently it's so demonstrable as to not require demonstration.icon_rolleyes.gif

    Like really Christian, one can only hope that you'll one day wake up from your delusions icon_wink.gif


    Give one example of how the Democratic Party was moved left since the 1990s. Just one.

    And while you're at it explain why Mitt Romney is supporting a left wing fiscal policy. icon_lol.gif
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    May 30, 2012 5:56 PM GMT
    Christian73 said
    riddler78 said
    Christian73 said
    riddler78 said
    Christian73 said
    riddler78 said
    Christian73 saidIt's certainly not Clinton's party. It's moved further to the right since the 1990s as the Republicans fell off the lunatic fringe cliff.

    http://www.realjock.com/gayforums/2404167

    Despite his protestations to the contrary, this smacks of political cynicism.


    It's not even remotely believable that the Democrats have moved to the right especially considering it is Bill Clinton's party that reformed welfare - which, dramatically reduced child poverty but also pushed thousands off the dole.


    More children live in poverty today than before welfare reform, so now you're just being ridiculous. And welfare reform was a right-wing goal, which they achieved and has led to an increase in poverty particularly in the economic downturn.

    God, you truly have no idea what you're talking about.


    A right wing goal during the Bill Clinton years? I thought you said the Democratic party had moved left? As for increased poverty during the economic downturn, you do realize that's what happens during an economic downturn? And part of the reason is how long the downturn has been - one of the worst on record thanks in part to policies of the Obama Administration that has taken the party left.

    Have you forgotten your talking points again?


    Ummm, no. You said the Democratic Party moved left which is demonstrable lie. I said it moved to the right beginning with Clinton's triangulation and speeding up under Obama.

    Keyensian economics is hardly left wing. Even Romney realizes that the government is the spender of last resort.

    God, the flailing from the neocons is epic these days.


    Lol - right. No, keyensian economics is fairly left wing. Of course the left tends to omit the part where you're supposed to cut back. The Democratic Party has moved left - apparently it's so demonstrable as to not require demonstration.icon_rolleyes.gif

    Like really Christian, one can only hope that you'll one day wake up from your delusions icon_wink.gif


    Give one example of how the Democratic Party was moved left since the 1990s. Just one.

    And while you're at it explain why Mitt Romney is supporting a left wing fiscal policy. icon_lol.gif


    Oh I don't know how about that little entitlement spend called Obamacare? Compared to that little thing called welfare reform under Bill Clinton.

    Like really, do you really believe the crap you spew or is it just reflexive?
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    May 30, 2012 5:57 PM GMT
    riddler78 said
    Christian73 said
    riddler78 said
    Christian73 said
    riddler78 said
    Christian73 said
    riddler78 said
    Christian73 saidIt's certainly not Clinton's party. It's moved further to the right since the 1990s as the Republicans fell off the lunatic fringe cliff.

    http://www.realjock.com/gayforums/2404167

    Despite his protestations to the contrary, this smacks of political cynicism.


    It's not even remotely believable that the Democrats have moved to the right especially considering it is Bill Clinton's party that reformed welfare - which, dramatically reduced child poverty but also pushed thousands off the dole.


    More children live in poverty today than before welfare reform, so now you're just being ridiculous. And welfare reform was a right-wing goal, which they achieved and has led to an increase in poverty particularly in the economic downturn.

    God, you truly have no idea what you're talking about.


    A right wing goal during the Bill Clinton years? I thought you said the Democratic party had moved left? As for increased poverty during the economic downturn, you do realize that's what happens during an economic downturn? And part of the reason is how long the downturn has been - one of the worst on record thanks in part to policies of the Obama Administration that has taken the party left.

    Have you forgotten your talking points again?


    Ummm, no. You said the Democratic Party moved left which is demonstrable lie. I said it moved to the right beginning with Clinton's triangulation and speeding up under Obama.

    Keyensian economics is hardly left wing. Even Romney realizes that the government is the spender of last resort.

    God, the flailing from the neocons is epic these days.


    Lol - right. No, keyensian economics is fairly left wing. Of course the left tends to omit the part where you're supposed to cut back. The Democratic Party has moved left - apparently it's so demonstrable as to not require demonstration.icon_rolleyes.gif

    Like really Christian, one can only hope that you'll one day wake up from your delusions icon_wink.gif


    Give one example of how the Democratic Party was moved left since the 1990s. Just one.

    And while you're at it explain why Mitt Romney is supporting a left wing fiscal policy. icon_lol.gif


    Oh I don't know how about that little entitlement spend called Obamacare? Compared to that little thing called welfare reform under Bill Clinton.

    Like really, do you really believe the crap you spew or is it just reflexive?


    Obamacare is based on the healthcare reform model developed by the right-wing Heritage Foundation, supported by Bob Dole as the GOP presidential candidate and passed by Mitt Romney in Massachusetts while he was governor of same.

    In other words, both parties have moved to the right.

    Try again.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    May 30, 2012 6:05 PM GMT
    Christian73 saidObamacare is based on the healthcare reform model developed by the right-wing Heritage Foundation, supported by Bob Dole as the GOP presidential candidate and passed by Mitt Romney in Massachusetts while he was governor of same.

    In other words, both parties have moved to the right.

    Try again.


    Haha - you like seriously expect anyone to believe that? Right or left? You do realize how poorly it was implemented and written - and that any semblance to any model developed by Heritage or Bob Dole doesn't even exist anymore except in a few broad strokes - not to mention the socialization of a number of the risks.

    Try again icon_rolleyes.gif
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    May 30, 2012 6:58 PM GMT
    riddler78 said
    Christian73 saidObamacare is based on the healthcare reform model developed by the right-wing Heritage Foundation, supported by Bob Dole as the GOP presidential candidate and passed by Mitt Romney in Massachusetts while he was governor of same.

    In other words, both parties have moved to the right.

    Try again.


    Haha - you like seriously expect anyone to believe that? Right or left? You do realize how poorly it was implemented and written - and that any semblance to any model developed by Heritage or Bob Dole doesn't even exist anymore except in a few broad strokes - not to mention the socialization of a number of the risks.

    Try again icon_rolleyes.gif


    Wow. You're desperate. Romneycare has no ability to rein in expenses, which ACA does.

    Beyond that, the basis of the ACA is the same as Heritage, Dole, Romney.

    A left-wing approach would have been single-payer.

    Stop trying to redefine what words mean. icon_rolleyes.gif
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    May 30, 2012 8:51 PM GMT
    riddler78 saidHaha - you like seriously expect anyone to believe that? Right or left? You do realize how poorly it was implemented and written - and that any semblance to any model developed by Heritage or Bob Dole doesn't even exist anymore except in a few broad strokes - not to mention the socialization of a number of the risks.

    All the BS about Obamacare having been invented by the Heritage Foundation is just that, BS. But don't blame Christian. It has been stated and repeated as part of the ongoing Democratic Big Lie. This article shows how the Lie got started:
    Don't blame Heritage for ObamaCare mandate
    http://www.usatoday.com/news/opinion/forum/story/2012-02-03/health-individual-mandate-reform-heritage/52951140/1

    BTW - Left or right is all a matter of perspective. Christian considers the Socialist Obama to be a center-right politician. But he is clearly Socialist based on his fundamental consistency of major policies with French Socialist Hollande. What differentiates both from other leftists is their desire to reduce class differences. Specifically, when Obama asked about the tax the rich policy and given an example how it ultimately lowered revenue to the Government, he said it didn't matter. It was all about fairness. Given that the clear purpose of taxation is to bring in revenue, using it for class restructuring is clearly a socialist idea.
  • DalTX

    Posts: 612

    May 30, 2012 8:55 PM GMT
    What's your definition of "prominent?"
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    May 30, 2012 9:05 PM GMT
    riddler78 said
    TroyAthlete saidActually, Hillary and Bill Clinton's acolytes, followers, and devotees control nearly every aspect of the Democratic Party's levers of power. That includes the Clintonism-convert in the Oval Office, who is a more "visible minority" than Artur Davis could ever be.

    A more true statement: it's not Arttur Davis's Democratic's Party and no Democrat (or minority) gives a rat's ass what he thinks. Outside of Mitt Romney's Party of Gay Hating Birthers, in whose world is Artur Davis "prominent"?

    These people are psycho.


    Of course they don't. And that's why you're so angry about it icon_wink.gif


    Not at all surprising that an angry, fire-breathing right-wing Republican mistakes amusement for anger.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    May 30, 2012 9:24 PM GMT
    socalfitness said
    riddler78 saidHaha - you like seriously expect anyone to believe that? Right or left? You do realize how poorly it was implemented and written - and that any semblance to any model developed by Heritage or Bob Dole doesn't even exist anymore except in a few broad strokes - not to mention the socialization of a number of the risks.

    All the BS about Obamacare having been invented by the Heritage Foundation is just that, BS. But don't blame Christian. It has been stated and repeated as part of the ongoing Democratic Big Lie. This article shows how the Lie got started:
    Don't blame Heritage for ObamaCare mandate
    http://www.usatoday.com/news/opinion/forum/story/2012-02-03/health-individual-mandate-reform-heritage/52951140/1

    BTW - Left or right is all a matter of perspective. Christian considers the Socialist Obama to be a center-right politician. But he is clearly Socialist based on his fundamental consistency of major policies with French Socialist Hollande. What differentiates both from other leftists is their desire to reduce class differences. Specifically, when Obama asked about the tax the rich policy and given an example how it ultimately lowered revenue to the Government, he said it didn't matter. It was all about fairness. Given that the clear purpose of taxation is to bring in revenue, using it for class restructuring is clearly a socialist idea.


    Another post in which John cites an article that totally disproves his initial argument. I guess you were supposing we wouldn't read it.

    And your Hollande fetish is both tiresome and pathetic as his policies diverge from Obama's in important ways, and since the US has always been a mixed economy - as has France - supporting a particular socialist policy (e.g. universal healthcare or progressive taxation) does not make one a socialist. icon_rolleyes.gif