actions or non-actions on economic issues and the pretty much unvarying response was "BUT DOMA!!!!!, as if we of course had to have a Sophie's Choice when it comes to economic and social issues. As if we could only have one or the other, as if the politician in question was forced to only address one or the other. For one of the current presidential nominee candidates, any sort of criticism/question about support of, say, the TPP, or cluster bombs, for example, is met with cries of "BUT WOMEN'S AND CHILDREN'S RIGHTS!!!!!!" and a list of utterances. I get the feeling that a politician could openly advocate for slashing Social Security in half, and the response of some would be "but DADT!!!!!".
What you are describing is classic misdirection. IMO it is a deliberate smokescreen for the open Third Way tactic of being liberal on social issues (because they don't cost much and can be used to divide or as campaign fodder) and being deeply Republican Conservative on economic issues.
After lying about TPP job losses, for example, GOP and some "Dem" legislators submit something that says yeah, Americans will lose their jobs, but we will take money out of Medicare to retrain them. Not out of the MIC Monster, but out of Medicare. Maybe there is some truth in "Keep your government hands out of my Medicare!" after all. 
And Obama would certainly sign that. And any criticism would be meant with "but DOMA!!!!" or "women and children's rights!!!!" - oh, yes, women and children will be just as adversely affected by the TPP, by cluster bombs, by slave wages.
What you are seeing and experiencing is, IMO, Third Way claptrap designed to throw a smokescreen over the tightening grasp of wealthy corporations and Wall Street and the 1% over economic issues.
Edit history
Recommendations
0 members have recommended this reply (displayed in chronological order):
= new reply since forum marked as read