Obama Is the One Only Naive Liberals Have Been Waiting For

[wcb]

http://www.cfif.org/htdocs/freedomline/current/in_our_opinion/Obama-Is-the-One-Only-Naive-Liberals-Have-Been-Waiting-For.html

Obama Is the One Only Naive Liberals Have Been Waiting For

Barack Obama sometimes utters the cryptic line, We are the ones we have been waiting for.
People faint. And the pied piper moves on to the next state, piping his new age political con to the swooning throngs who believe in&what, exactly? All we see is liberalism wrapped in rhetoric that tries to hide that liberalism, disguise or deny it. Oh, and change. We mustnt forget the ultimate raison detre of Obamas campaign.
Big cons, even those masquerading as political campaigns, are complex endeavors, with many intricate moving parts, most of which are unseen or ignored, as intended. But if you dont win, its all just a show. Rock stars pack stadiums, not voting booths.
Lets play a little game, shall we? Lets call it How Does Obama beat John McCain. Lets use some exit poll data from the Pennsylvania Democratic Primary. Lets acknowledge that the methodology is beyond flawed, but so, too, have been the results of many polls and prognostications, with far greater pretenses to legitimacy. At least we acknowledge that we are engaging in political card counting coupled with voodoo political analysis.
In Pennsylvania, among white voters, Obama lost in every age category, by four points from ages 18 to 29, by 16 points from 30 to 44, by 26 points from 45 to 59, and by a staggering 36 points from 60 and older voters. (White voters from ages 18 to 29 comprised only 8 percent of the total vote. Whites over 45 comprised 58%.)
Only among black voters between the ages of 45-59 was there enough of a sample to derive numbers, and Obama took 85% of those, winning 90% of all blacks. Blacks between the ages of 18 to 44 comprised 7% of the total vote.
Not enough Latinos voted to obtain a sample.
By religion, Obama lost among Protestants by 10 points, among Jews by 24 points and among Catholics by a staggering 40 points. He won among those of other religion by 16 points and by those of no religion by 24 points.
He lost in all education categories by significant percentages, except for college graduates whom he won by 2 points. Remarkably, however, he lost voters with postgraduate educations by 6 points.
Obama lost among voters in every income category except those who make less than $15,000 (which he won by 6 points), those who make between $150,000 and $200,000 (which he tied) and those making more than $200,000 (which he won by 14 points).
Those are the absolute bedrock categories of voters  race, age, education, income, religion, and the percentages of each will vary by state and by general election voters as opposed to primary voters. There are obviously errors in the data, but those errors do not advantage Obama, given the Obama Effect, wherein some voters tell exit pollsters they voted for him when they clearly did not.
Pennsylvania was a Democratic Party Primary, but it was hard fought over a protracted period of time, with Obama outspending Clinton by at least two to one, probably more. The demographic results were similar to those of Ohio and other states, indicating that in large industrial states (excepting his home state of Illinois) Obama is now locked in a narrow base of support which he seems unable to meaningfully expand.
Democratic Party Primary voters are the best that Obama will face, regardless of state. Why, for example, would General Election Catholics favor Obama more than Democratic Primary Catholics? Even among blacks, Obamas staggering and understandable support is at its apex and will be offset, to some extent, in states with high Latino populations.
But the numbers from Pennsylvania reflect only Obama versus Clinton, not Obama versus McCain, many will say. Yeah, well weigh the comparative negative baggage. Use any scale you want, and you cannot come up with McCains being heavier than Clintons, for the general election. In the Pennsylvania vote by ideology, Obama lost in every category except very liberal.
Remind yourself that the General Election is not a national election, but a combination of state elections, with relatively few true battleground states, of which Pennsylvania and Ohio are among the necessities. When Must Win states become Cant Win states, well, even congenital liars like Hillary Clinton can sometimes find the truth.
Also remind yourself that Obamas negative baggage is only now beginning to be understood. Pastor Wright and Professor William Ayers (not to mention Ayers wife, Bernadine Dohrn) arent going away. Neither is Minister Farrakhan. How many voters know that Obama marched in Minister Farrakhans Million Man March? Right, we didnt think so.
Only this week did ads start running that begin to explore Obamas voting record in the Illinois legislature (ExposeObama.com). His record as a Member of the Board of Directors of two far left foundations is only now coming under scrutiny, with Politico.com investigating grants to anti-gun groups. There will be more, much more. Visualize the ad that says atheists love Obama. The General Election is not played in the Powder Puff League.
So how does Obama beat John McCain? You do your own voodoo analysis. Ours says he cant.

[El Tejon]

"We are the ones we are waiting for".

Man, did I hear that over and over in Chicago.  I'm my own messiah and it's all about me.

[The Annoyed Man]

Wow.  More spittle flying character assassination coming from the right.  I suppose we can expect this barrage of vitriol to continue nonstop right up to election day.  Everybody's coordinated and on the same page though.  Listen to rightwing talkradio and you'll hear Limbaugh/Hannity and their sycophants all spewing the same personal attacks down to the exact words.

Why not discuss issues or promote your candidate?   Because the right is on the wrong side of most issues, and when McCain is your candidate......well.....there's nothing there to promote.

This kind of discourse makes me ashamed/embarrassed I was, and voted, Republican.

[Glock Glockler]

Why not discuss issues...

Why should we?  Obama stays clear away from issues like the plague, he just talks about Change and Hope, so why can't I talk about him talking about Change and Hope?

[grampster]

Wow.  More spittle flying character assassination coming from the right.  I suppose we can expect this barrage of vitriol to continue nonstop right up to election day.  Everybody's coordinated and on the same page though.  Listen to rightwing talkradio and you'll hear Limbaugh/Hannity and their sycophants all spewing the same personal attacks down to the exact words.

Why not discuss issues or promote your candidate?   Because the right is on the wrong side of most issues, and when McCain is your candidate......well.....there's nothing there to promote.

Paddy, If you were being honest, it would be very easy to substitute left and leftwing and name the usual lefty talking heads to your comments above and it would then be a snarky comment from the right.  You actually are doing and have done the same thing you accuse your opponents of.

Define for us the difference between Democrat and Republican as they are today, Paddy.  It'd be pretty hard to do.  If you were being productive in your thinking you'd be attempting to convince the elitist political class that they needed to begin to think more about how America can continue to exist as a free nation governed by its citizens and not a nation of sheep being ruled over by The Enlightened.  Every chance I have, I politely remind our elected officials that we do not serve the State, the State serves us.  Most of those who step forward seem either to have forgotten that or soon do after being elected.  Therein lies the danger, sir.  At least, for my part, I'm an American who believes that some government can be helpful, but a lot of it can be downright oppressive.  Looking at it from that perspective, those leaning toward the right are on the freedom side of the issues; personal responsibility vs oppressive laws; low taxes, infrequent and careful government regulation vs confisticatory taxation and obstructionist regulation; free trade vs government support of bad policy; and the list goes on.  Oppression can occur if the right goes too right.  It seems to me that the left gets further left and oppressive quicker and more insidiously though.

I have not read anything from you that would be considered productive.  Only ranting and railing.  I've found myself in that spot many times.  It takes one to know one, so I'm not calling the kettle black here, you old fart!

Several years ago, I got involved in local politics and was elected to office, served my time, broke down some barriers, took away some stupid rules and lowered spending, and I still serve on appointed township and county boards; appointed by people who don't like me very well, but know that I'm effective at what I do.  That makes them nervous and they hold me close, and by doing that, I help make them do the right thing.  Twisted, but that's the way it works.  I have annoyed more than one ahole (I'm sorry, there is just not a better descriptive adjective) who used his office for personal gain.  Unfortunately, I got smart too late in life.  I should have gotten involved sooner.  If I had, I may have even been able to get elected to higher office.  That would have been interesting.

You know as well as I do that the Democrats are no solution to anything.  Only more obstructionism and socialism.  Virtually everyone that aspires to a higher office today is at least honest about their ambition, which is to get the government more involved in our lives.  So far, there has been very little about that ambition that has served us well.

I'm pretty much tired of listening to your negativism and accusatory rhetoric as I am of the same rhetoric on the right.  One of the benefits of age is supposedly being able to separate the wheat from the chaff.  I think I am able to do that, while still recognizing my own failings, pretty well. 

What I see is a lot of BS on both sides of the aisle which fails to grasp and discuss that which is truly the single largest issue that faces us today; that is the cost, type, availability and location of energy that fires up freedom and trade.  Confront that issue honestly, and put aside all the BS and crap science, and move forward on that issue, all of the other perceived problems will solve themselves.

[Perd Hapley]

This kind of discourse makes me ashamed/embarrassed I was, and voted, Republican.

Aren't you the guy that used the n-word on this forum, last year?  Nice discourse.  You don't have a high horse, so stop pretending to ride it. 

[Jamisjockey]

Wow.  More spittle flying character assassination coming from the right.  I suppose we can expect this barrage of vitriol to continue nonstop right up to election day.  Everybody's coordinated and on the same page though.  Listen to rightwing talkradio and you'll hear Limbaugh/Hannity and their sycophants all spewing the same personal attacks down to the exact words.

Why not discuss issues or promote your candidate?   Because the right is on the wrong side of most issues, and when McCain is your candidate......well.....there's nothing there to promote.

This kind of discourse makes me ashamed/embarrassed I was, and voted, Republican.

What do you care, you're staying home on election day.

[The Annoyed Man]

Looking at it from that perspective, those leaning toward the right are on the freedom side of the issues;

There's your primary mistake.  How do you figure self appointed 'rightwingers' have afforded the American people more freedom?

Aren't you the guy that used the n-word on this forum, last year?  Nice discourse.  You don't have a high horse, so stop pretending to ride it.

'zat really all you got, Josh?  Weak, very weak.

[grampster]

Looking at it from that perspective, those leaning toward the right are on the freedom side of the issues;

There's your primary mistake.  How do you figure self appointed 'rightwingers' have afforded the American people more freedom?

Iz zat all you got? At least self appointed 'right wingers' talk about freedom, which is a step more than Socialist Obama or Hillary talk about.  The real mistake may be that those on the right only talk about freedom while the leftists implement their oppression under the guise of American patriotism.  If your leftist socialists who ran America since FDR were so progressive, how come the poor oppressed people of color or poor whites and other "minorities"  ( I always loved (actually deplored) that term), the Leftist newspeak for economic slavery are still around and still pandered?  The Left doesn't want those folks released from bondage.  If they were, the Socialists would be ridden out of town on a rail.   At least when the Republicans had their moment with RR, a lot of middle class folks moved up and a lot of so-called poor moved into the middle class.  Thanks to Clinton and both Bushes (tapioca pudding politicians) economic pettifoggery, the trend has reversed maybe.

If the Contract With America had been fulfilled, I believe things would be much different and better today.

[Perd Hapley]

I erased a cutting little reply to you, Paddy.  I don't need to belittle you.  You belittle yourself. 

Now, would you mind pointing out the "spittle flying character assassination [sic]"?  There's certainly nothing of the kind in the article.  Not that I expect you to stay on topic...

[The Annoyed Man]

Iz zat all you got? At least self appointed 'right wingers' talk about freedom, which is a step more than Socialist Obama or Hillary talk about.  The real mistake may be that those on the right only talk about freedom while the leftists implement their oppression under the guise of American patriotism.

More rightwing fantasyland.  Why do you people always hypothecate about 'freedom', but never actually do anything about it when you're in power?  More 'freedom' was lost via PA I & II under a Republican congress and Republican president that during the entire Clinton administration.  This administration has grown government in record proportions.  It has literally tripled the national debt in only 7 years.  You explain to me how that equates to your precious 'freedom'.

You people never promote anything of value.  You spend your time attacking the bogeyman of 'socialism'.  Republican presidents and Republican congresses have been in power the majority of the time in the last 30 years.  This country certainly has less freedom and less prosperity than it did 30 years ago.  But I'm sure that's Obama's fault, or whoever the villian du jour is this week.

I'm tired of rightwing hypocrisy. I makes me wanna puke.

[grampster]

Iz zat all you got? At least self appointed 'right wingers' talk about freedom, which is a step more than Socialist Obama or Hillary talk about.  The real mistake may be that those on the right only talk about freedom while the leftists implement their oppression under the guise of American patriotism.

More rightwing fantasyland.  Why do you people always hypothecate about 'freedom', but never actually do anything about it when you're in power?  More 'freedom' was lost via PA I & II under a Republican congress and Republican president that during the entire Clinton administration.  This administration has grown government in record proportions. It has literally tripled the national debt in only 7 years.  You explain to me how that equates to your precious 'freedom'.

You people never promote anything of value.  You spend your time attacking the bogeyman of 'socialism'.  Republican presidents and Republican congresses have been in power the majority of the time in the last 30 years.  This country certainly has less freedom and less prosperity than it did 30 years ago.  But I'm sure that's Obama's fault, or whoever the villian du jour is this week.

I'm tired of rightwing hypocrisy. I makes me wanna puke.

Odd to see the redeemed progressive use the "you people" slur.  I guess you'd be well acquainted with fantasy land as I believe you live in California.  That shows when you equate views to the right of Marx with Republicans.  Who said R's were any less statist than the D's?  As for the debt, four years of Carter's (continuing) and eight years of Clinton's unwillingness to not be able to see the forest for the trees surely set the stage for that to occur.  Of course the wonderful Clinton economic plan, which is actually the inheritance of Reagan's tax cuts and Clinton letting the Robber Barons run wild on his watch, is now bearing fruit.  As for hypocracy, at least folks have to have a standard to be a hypocrite about, which one could never accuse a progressive of having as a progressive doesn't really have a standard.  Situational ethics I think it's called.

[K Frame]

"This country certainly has less freedom and less prosperity than it did 30 years ago."


Less prosperity than in 1977?

BBBBBBBBBBWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAH!

Actually, I wonder why I'm laughing.

That's such an incredibly ludicrous, incredibly sad statement that I should be crying.

1978 was in the middle of the second worst economic period in 20th century America, and virtually all of it was caused by the policies of a string of Democratic presidents, with all of it ending up in the lap of a genial idiot-savant-idiot peanut farmer who couldn't find his own ass with two hands and a flashlight.

[wooderson]

In 1978, four of the previous six Presidential terms had been Republican (and one year for Carter). Prior to 1977, there hadn't been a Democrat in office since 1969. This is a "string of Democratic presidents"?

If prosperity means purchasing power and real wages for the median American, then 1977 was "more prosperous" than 2008 - or 1998 or 1988.

[K Frame]

Don't tell me you believe that the economy turns and wheels on a dime?

The economic issues of the 1970s, the "chickens coming home to roost," as Malcom X put it, had much of their origins in the economic polices established by Kennedy and Johnson. Nixon largely left those economic policies in place without dramatically altering, or even attempting, in many cases, to alter them.

Carter's ineffectual attempts to "solve" the economic issues of the 1970s were pretty much limited to his "malaise" speech, which involved getting on national television and telling everyone we weren't thinking right.

Thanks, Jimmy. Just what we needed, a talking to from the principal.


"If prosperity means purchasing power and real wages for the median American, then 1977 was "more prosperous" than 2008 - or 1998 or 1988."

Spoken truly like someone whose only conceptual memory of the 1970s comes from a book.

[Perd Hapley]

Paddy,

Would you mind pointing out the "spittle flying character assassination [sic],"  that you claim to see in this article?  Or did you neglect to read the article, and were just using this as a jumping off point for your usual rant? 

I know, I know, it's a stupid question. 

[wooderson]

Don't tell me you believe that the economy turns and wheels on a dime?

No, it doesn't. Which is why Carter's one year in office (as of 1978) doesn't put him on the hook. And, likewise, four out of six prior terms going to the GOP pretty much negates any possibility of blaming "a string of Democrats" in the White House.

Spoken truly like someone whose only conceptual memory of the 1970s comes from a book.

Spoken like someone who trusts statistics more than anecdotes.

[Matthew Carberry]

Nixon took office in '68 and was immediately dealing with the fallout of Johnson's, "Great Society" policies (I'm not too familiar with Kennedy's economic plan). 

Nixon reversed some of the Great Society programs but was focussing on getting out of Vietnam.  Even so, the effect of Johnson's program's led to a recession in, what, '71?

Nixon responded to that with more governmental intervention instead of less, I'm not sure if that counts as  a "Republican solution" in any event.

2nd term he was obviously more focussed on foreign policy (China) and then Watergate once it broke open.

Ford, again I'm not sure what his policies were but I doubt he made any sweeping changes, in any event he barely had 2 years and was dealing with healing Watergate.

So, between Johnson and Carter there was only one full-term Republican Presidency and that was during a war expanded by his predecessor.  The rest of the time was filled with dealing with domestic scandals, not pushing economic plans through an increasingly hostile Congress. 

Not a lot of time to "do" anything domestically, especially to undo a comprehensive economic policy begun by one of the more popular post-war presidents and put in place by his successor before the war broke wide open.

Nixon brought his problems on himself and handed them off to Ford, but Johnson had free reign to set up the economic mess, Nixon was too distracted and reviled to fix them and Carter only made things worse.

[wooderson]

"So between Eisenhower and Nixon there was only one full-term Democratic Presidency and that was during a war initiated by his predecessor" (you can take that as either Kennedy or Ike in LBJ's case).

Johnson's actual time in office was shorter than Nixon's by a couple of months. Johnson+Kennedy is the exact equal of Nixon+Ford, so I'm not exactly sure how any of this is relevant or amounts to a "string of Democratic Presidents" as of 1978, given that (as already noted) there hadn't been a Democrat in office from Jan. 21 1969 onward.

The argument that Johnson screwed up the economy, and Nixon/Ford took no steps to fix it is a rather different one than blaming the Democrats.

[Matthew Carberry]

This is all pretty off the cuff for me.

The key is where the focus of the administration is: foreign or domestic.  What the mood of the country is: wartime/peacetime.  How friendly Congress is.

Kennedy/Johnson. 

The war was still getting going and there was a "peacetime" mentality in the nation giving Kand J the ability to focus on domestic issues like the economy.  In Johnson's case that turned out to be for the worse.  Kennedy was popular and after his death Johnson could ride that wave of good feeling and grief for our lost Camelot to get his Great Society going.  Not sure what the makeup of Congress was, but the general tenor in relation to the President was much different when johnson got his GS passed than later when he buried us in Vietnam.

Nixon/Ford

Tet hits in '68.  Now the war is front and center and "being lost" per Cronkite.  Nixon's focus is on it and foreign policy in general, he's not able to concentrate on anything so ambitious as dismantling GS, even if Congress would let him.  In his second term the negative fruits of the GS and the expansion of the war by Johnson hit (recession) and the economy starts to fail, that occurs right about when Watergate breaks and Nixon's ability to do anything substantive domestically is gone.  He's focussed on Agnews and his own problems and trying to extricate the country from a now very unpopular war.

When he's forced to resign in disgrace, Ford has just 2 years, the focus of which is trying to heal the gaping sore Watergate has become and finishing up getting us disentangled from Nam.  Again he has no time for economic fixes and is facing a now actively hostile Congress, so nothing he wants to do will go through anyway.

In summary.

The first 6 years or so of K and J were a time when things could get done domestically and were, the things that were done just turned out to be harmful.  The latter half of J saw the fruits of his actions (expanded "losing" war, Congressional distrust and economic downturn) come to roost.

Nixon was faced with these issues to solve, of which, the war being the largest necessitated a foreign focus and then stepped on his own generative organ and made things worse for himself. 

Ford had the thankless job of playing band-aid for Nixon's crimes until Carter came in promising "change" and ended up making things even worse.

I suppose the way to really tell isn't by counting years or terms but to check what economic legislation was actually passed and by whom.  Compare that with the amount of time spent by Congress dealing with foreign policy issues over what years and thus the capability for other legislation to be passed.  That would tell us who did what (or was realistically able to) and thus where the "blame" for the economic morass of the '70's lay.

[grampster]

I read somewhere a long time ago (no links) that economists say that whatever economic moves a president is able to get the congress to go along with, generally takes 7 years to have any noticeable long term impact on the economy.

[The Annoyed Man]

Odd to see the redeemed progressive use the "you people" slur.  I guess you'd be well acquainted with fantasy land as I believe you live in California.  That shows when you equate views to the right of Marx with Republicans.

What's odd is that someone as old as you are has such a short and narrow historical perspective.  Your version seems to be that anyone not Republican is automatically a Marxist of the 60's New Left. Hell, I wasn't even a hippie back then; I was in school taking business and accounting courses.  I have never been registered Democrat, and never voted Democrat.  I am no longer Republican because the party left me along with many others.  Hopefully enough of us have had enough to stay home this election cycle and let the chips fall where they may.

And to understand where I'm coming from, do some reading on Theodore Roosevelt, the Bull Moose party and the Square Deal. 

1978 was in the middle of the second worst economic period in 20th century America, and virtually all of it was caused by the policies of a string of Democratic presidents, with all of it ending up in the lap of a genial idiot-savant-idiot peanut farmer who couldn't find his own ass with two hands and a flashlight.

Lessee, a 'string of Democratic presidents'.  Would that be Eisenhower, Nixon and Ford?  And if Presidents are solely responsible for the economy, Mike, how about Bush accepting responsibility for the highest gas prices in history, the lowest dollar value in history, the highest national debt in history, and the current recession? 

[grampster]

Odd to see the redeemed progressive use the "you people" slur.  I guess you'd be well acquainted with fantasy land as I believe you live in California.  That shows when you equate views to the right of Marx with Republicans.

What's odd is that someone as old as you are has such a short and narrow historical perspective.  Your version seems to be that anyone not Republican is automatically a Marxist of the 60's New Left. Hell, I wasn't even a hippie back then; I was in school taking business and accounting courses.  I have never been registered Democrat, and never voted Democrat.  I am no longer Republican because the party left me along with many others.  Hopefully enough of us have had enough to stay home this election cycle and let the chips fall where they may.

I was a Democrat until I got a full time job and started to enjoy the fruit of my labor as well as worry about hanging on to it.  As for the Republicans, since we only have a legitimate choice between two evils, I've pretty much not had any other choice.  As the for Marxists of the New Left from the 60's, not so narrow as to understand that you've actually hit the nail on the head.  They were bright enough to wrap it up in guilt over being prosperous, so most Democrats don't even know how far to the left their party has lurched.

And to understand where I'm coming from, do some reading on Theodore Roosevelt, the Bull Moose party and the Square Deal.

The Rise of Teddy Roosevelt, Theodore Rex Edmund Morris, American Ideals and Other Essays  Theodore Roosevelt.  Been there, done that.

1978 was in the middle of the second worst economic period in 20th century America, and virtually all of it was caused by the policies of a string of Democratic presidents, with all of it ending up in the lap of a genial idiot-savant-idiot peanut farmer who couldn't find his own ass with two hands and a flashlight.

Lessee, a 'string of Democratic presidents'.  Would that be Eisenhower, Nixon and Ford?  And if Presidents are solely responsible for the economy, Mike, how about Bush accepting responsibility for the highest gas prices in history, the lowest dollar value in history, the highest national debt in history, and the current recession? 

 Err...who had control of the congress for 40 years before RR?  Who writes the laws and approves the budgets as well as funding the pork?

[The Annoyed Man]

Err...who had control of the congress for 40 years before RR?  Who writes the laws and approves the budgets as well as funding the pork?

Like I said, a short and narrow historical perspective. The 40 years before RR included the largest economic expansion in history, the postwar 1950's and 1960's.  The unprecedented growth and prosperity of the middle class was largely attributable to FDR.  He understood that corporate economic tyranny was no less oppressive than the royal economic tyranny imposed by King George III. 

The economic power of the middle class continued well into the malaise of the 1970's (a decade ushered in with 6 years of Republican presidents, Mike).   It wasn't until the mid 80's that Reagan's voodoo economic policies trickled down and began to decimate the middle class.  As a result, we now have big business running government.  A corporate/government hybrid is, in fact, a definition of fascism.

The 'New Left' is hopeless and beyond any redemption.  They remain an incoherent bunch of angry spittle flying antiestablishmentniks.  They've simply abandonded the successful populist, pro middle class policies of FDR, Truman, and even JFK.  Forget about Theodore Roosevelt, or even Woodrow Wilson. It's hopeless (as you can see) to expect anyone to look back that far. 

The Republican party may not be beyond redemption, and is, in fact, probably our last chance at retaining a democratic republic.  And that's my point.  I want those of us disenfranchised by the Republican party to step up, scold and exhort them in the strongest terms, to turn away from the path they're on.  But they don't seem to get the message.  Maybe because too many of you are suckered in by all this 'liberal vs. conservative' red herring b.s. rhetoric.  As a result you got George Herber Walker Bush, who we managed to dump after one term.  Then we got stuck with his son for two terms because the best the Dems could run was a couple of nutcases named Gore and Kerry.  Now, they want to foist McCain off on you and you'll blindly go along with it.

If you continue to let them lead you around like bleating sheep, you'll soon get everything you well deserve.  All the while complaining, of course, but somehow content that your slow demise will be less painful, becauses, after all,  the socialist liberals didn't tax you out of the fruits of your labor.  Instead, they were stolen from you along with your liberty by corporate government. 

[K Frame]

"The unprecedented growth and prosperity of the middle class was largely attributable to FDR."

Wrong.

The unprecendented growth and prosperity of the entirety of American society was directly attributable to Adolph Hitler and the Emperor of Japan.

American industry and production rebuilt the postwar world.