fiscal responsibility and accountability
But Obama's policies of stimulus, extended pointless war, extended medicare, quantative easing (printing money), and bail outs are the least Blue Dog of any American President of all time except maybe Nixon. Hillary versus Barack was New Democrat versus New Democrat
New Democrats support policies to expand economic growth and ensure that all Americans have the opportunity to benefit from that growth; a fiscally responsible and efficient government; a secure homefront; and a robust foreign policy that includes trade, constructive U.S. leadership throughout the world, and a modern and strong military.
The President's "change" is
New Democrats are intent on modernizing both the Democratic Party and the country.
In this case "modernizing" means keeping middle class destroying unregulated trade alive on a scale that makes NAFTA look rural. It means fighting for monotonic "economic growth" even at the cost of rule of law, bank oligarchy and sustained massive unemployment. "Modern" means the federal reserve is given unprecedented unconstitutional authority to undertake dramatic sovereign activities. "Modern" means slugging it out in Afghanistan at any cost modernizing the place even when no one has the slightest idea what that means.
And above all modern means competition with other nations. Some of you hope this would result in a "green race" between the US and China. Or that we would make our educational system better to keep up with other nations. But all "modern" really ends up meaning is slave to corporations.
Senate New Democrat Coalition members
Dianne Feinstein (CA, by 2001)
Thomas R. Carper (DE, by 2001; co-chair from 2003)
Joe Lieberman (CT, founder)
Bill Nelson (FL, by 2001)
Mary Landrieu (LA, founder, co-chair from 2003)
John Kerry (MA, from 2000)
Debbie Stabenow (MI, by 2001)
Kent Conrad (ND, from 2000)
Ben Nelson (NE, by 2001)
Tim Johnson (SD, from 2000)
Maria Cantwell (WA, by 2001)
Herb Kohl (WI, from 2000)
Blanche Lincoln (AR, founder, from 1999; defeated in 2010)
Evan Bayh (IN, founder, will retire from senate in 2011)
Hillary Rodham Clinton (NY, from 2001; retired from Senate in 2009)
Bob Graham (FL, founder, chair from 2000–2003; retired from Senate in 2003)
Max Cleland (GA, from 2000; defeated in 2002)
Zell Miller (GA, from 2001; retired from Senate in 2004)
John Breaux (LA, from 2000; retired from Senate in 2004)
Jean Carnahan (MO, from 2001; defeated in 2002)
John Edwards (NC, from 2000; retired from Senate in 2004)
Bob Kerrey (NE, from 2000; retired from Senate in 2000)
Richard Bryan (NV, from 2000; retired from Senate in 2000)
Chuck Robb (VA, from 2000; defeated in 2000)
Jon Corzine (NJ, from 2004; retired to run for Governor in 2005)
See a pattern? John Kerry, John Edwards, Hillary Clinton - anyone Democrat even remotely "officially" in line for the Presidency is a member. Then there is Barack Obama who was not a member of the New Democrat coalition and whom we did not know was so strongly favoring their ideology. After all he wrote this
Obama to Paulson: Defend American Workers and Businesses by Challenging China’s Currency Manipulation
Wednesday, June 13, 2007
FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE
Contact: Ben LaBolt
Asks him to reconsider refusal to classify China as a currency manipulator
WASHINGTON, DC – U.S. Senator Barack Obama (D-IL) today sent a letter to Treasury Secretary Paulson asking him to reconsider the decision not to classify China as a currency manipulator:
Dear Secretary Paulson,
The People’s Republic of China has manipulated its currency for years in order to gain an unfair advantage over the United States in trade. Unfortunately, the Administration has failed to effectively challenge or change China’s behavior. And today, the Department of the Treasury has refused yet again to declare that China is manipulating its currency. I call on the Treasury Department to reconsider today’s decision.
Your department’s refusal to take action against China raises serious questions about the Administration’s commitment to protecting the interests of American businesses and American workers. At least partially as a result of the Administration’s failure to address Chinese currency manipulation, the U.S. imported more than $232 billion in goods from China than we sold to it last year. That constitutes an annual growth in the imbalance in trade of 73 percent.
Refusing to acknowledge the problem will not make it go away. As a result, I will work with colleagues in the Congress to force action and strengthen the ability of Americans losing out from Chinese currency manipulation to bring forward complaints for remedy through increased duties on Chinese goods.
The Administration’s refusal to take strong action against China’s currency manipulation will also make it more difficult to obtain congressional approval for renewed Trade Promotion Authority, as well as additional trade agreements. Treasury’s refusal even to acknowledge the costs of Chinese currency manipulation, justifies the fear of many Americans that this Administration lacks the will to stand up against trade abuses and labor or environmental violations that create an unfair playing field for American workers.
As a result, I will work with my colleagues in the Senate to ensure that any trade agreement brought before the Congress is measured not against Administration commitments but instead against the rights of Americans to protection from unfair trade practices including currency manipulation and the violation of international labor and environmental standards.
Again, I urge you to reconsider today’s decision not to take action against China for currency manipulation. Thank you.
United States Senator