Obama is not going to pander to anyone

[NJmaverick]

I think that is something everyone needs to learn and understand. Obama is going to do what he honestly thinks is best for the nation, as a whole. If anyone thinks he is going to be like Bush and pander and cater to his perceived base or to any special interest group, is sorely mistaken.

[Captain Hilts]

1. Warren speaking at the inauguration is pandering. Changing on DC gun ban, FISA, embargo on Cuba...

also were pandering.

[polichick]

5. Yep - and also caving to the offshore drilling scam.

[Cronus Protagonist]

11. Just Big Oil

:yoiks:

[Captain Hilts]

16. I CAN'T believe I forgot that one - THANKS! And I live on a coast!!

[polichick]

18. I grew up on the Gulf of Mexico so that one freaks me out too!

[Captain Hilts]

20. I lived in the FLKeys, Va. Beach and Newport, RI. Damn - that one made me angry!!

[FrenchieCat]

6. Actually none of what you have listed is pandering......

Indeed it is the lack of pandering which disappoints those who want some Obamaq pandering coming their way.....and just because you've made a list, doesn't make it less so.

[Captain Hilts]

26. Nomad1776 and Frenchie Cat - Get a room!!!

[FrenchieCat]

32. Why?

[NJmaverick]

33. I guess you agree with us, since you are unable to offer up anything

resembling a rational reply or response. Since you don't LIKE what you heard, you simply lash out like a petulant child, who has been told they have to eat their broccoli.

[Runcible Spoon]

103. no...please....they could spawn!

:scared:

[Joe the Revelator]

231. Some of you are just annoying

I really can't take it anymore.

[dionysus]

153. what, did frenchie step into the middle of your obama bashing or something?

:rofl:

[AndyTiedye]

34. What *Is* the Warren Invite Then if Not Pandering to Xtian Wackjobs?

[Irvinwalker]

71. I see the Warren pick as pandering

I'm satisfied with Obama's transition performance, but troubled by that particular move.

[yardwork]

88. Welcome to DU!

[yardwork]

87. Lack of pandering? LOL!

[NJmaverick]

22. The majority support these positions, so how would it be pandering?

[Kurt_and_Hunter]

37. The majority support a flag burning amendment. Was Hillary pandering? I'd say yes.

The majority is often who you pander to.

[polichick]

47. The majority believed the drilling scam - Obama knew better...

...and chose to pander when he could have educated.

[Luminous Animal]

69. Pandering has nothing to do with the majority....

It is an appeal to or indulgement of one's (or in this case - a group's) baser weaknesses.

So, using the correct definition, Obama is pandering to a bigot.

[NJmaverick]

73. Unity and efforts to get along, are not "baser weaknesses"

you need to spend a little more time in that dictionary.

[Luminous Animal]

75. You made the claim that Obama isn't going to "pander".

The word "pander" has a specific meaning. It means what I said it does. So, if Obama is willing to include a bigot under his "big tent" in order to curry favor with other bigots, then yes, he is pandering to weakness.

[NJmaverick]

76. I don't agree with that assessment, nor do I think it's a reasonable alternative

Unity is considered a good situation and a condition that is should be a priority to achieve. Attempting to include all law abiding citizens in the government is a good means to that end. It would be pandering to exclude people simple because some groups are angry at those groups. Again we are not talking policy, we are talking a ceremony.

[Luminous Animal]

83. You can make up your own definitions...

for any word that you want but it doesn't make it right. You might as well say, Obama isn't going to stir-fry to any group.

Pandering means indulging weaknesses. Bigotry is a weakness. Obama is pandering to bigots.

[TankLV]

51. some pandering is more equal than others...

but you can't criticize "saint" obama on anything...

[lamp_shade]

77. Awgeeze.

:puke:

[bvar22]

114. Wall St Bailout.

He pandered to Wall Street (or repaid them) when he voted FOR a no strings attached Bailout after publicly promising NOT to do so.

[Callalily]

2. Oh we all know this already.

The very reason he is our next president!

[NJmaverick]

15. Yes! Our nation is in too big of mess to play any pandering games

Most Americans and liberals (according to polls) understand this

[polichick]

3. LOL - Obama is pandering BIG TIME with this Warren invite...

If Warren had a tiny church and no bestsellers, Obama wouldn't have considered him.

[Cronus Protagonist]

10. Just the Christian "Right"

:yoiks:

[NJmaverick]

25. The majority of the nation doesn't have a problem with this choice

so the suggestion that he is pandering, is simply wrong.

[Captain Hilts]

31. You don't understand what pandering is. nt

[Voice for Peace]

62. panderer n.

panderer

noun
1. someone who procures customers for whores (in England they call a pimp a ponce)
2. a person who serves or caters to the vulgar passions or plans of others (especially in order to make money)

[depakid]

148. "caters to the vulgar passions"

A gratuitous statement in support of expanding the death penalty to crimes other than murder (using revulsion over child rape as the pretense) meets that definition, don't you think?

[Voice for Peace]

154. You're asking me to THINK?

[donco6]

186. So, because he panders to the majority, that's not "pandering"?

BWA-HA-HA!

That's completely preposterous. That's exactly the reason FOR pandering.

[dflprincess]

227. The majority of the nation doesn't pay that much attention

If they did, Bush would have been defeated so soundly in 2004 that there would have been no way he could steal Ohio.

[Cronus Protagonist]

4. Just Israel

:yoiks:

[NJmaverick]

27. He hasn't spoken on this issue, since he is not president

so your comment seems to be odd, at best.

[chimpymustgo]

167. His lack of comment speaks volumes. He's talked about everything else since he was elected. Except

Israel. This is quite troubling, when a few calm words from him might save hundred of lives.

[sniffa]

7. .

[Forkboy]

8. LOL...funniest political comment ever.

[retread]

9. Governing to the left("his perceived base") would be in the best interest of the nation!! n/t

[polichick]

12. Well, only if you consider the Constitution and the survival of the planet. ;)

[FrenchieCat]

13. 17 days left before any Governing happens......

and yet, everything he does is put under the microscope of "Intent", more so than any other President elect before him.

I wouldn't be surprised if some will collect his shit as evidence that he is pandering to the "Use Toilet Tissue" special Interest group!

[Name removed]

24. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Captain Hilts]

19. He was NEVER the liberal people here thought he was/is. nt

[NJmaverick]

30. He isn't going to govern on an idealogical basis, he is too intelligent

for that sort of blind adherence to an ideology. He made it clear he is going to address each issue on its own merits.

[bvar22]

117. Thats the part that scares me.

"He isn't going to govern on an idealogical basis".
I preferred the old Democratic Party. It was founded on IDEALS.

"Pragmatic Centrism" is VAPOR, and as the Clinton administration proved, only allows the country to slip further to The Right.

Will he ever Take a STAND on any issuel?
Or will he simply triangulate to the soggy center?
Will you?

"Centrism"....A Dogmatic Ideology without the nuisance of IDEALS.
"Whatever's In the Middle is Good Enough for ME"!

[dflprincess]

228. Check out his pick for DNC chair

Obama seems to have a weakness for homophobic, sexist idealogues.

I knew Obama wasn't a liberal and I didn't expect much from him, but I never thought he'd go this far to the right. Maybe if the Democrats lose big in the 2010 midterms he'll wake up.

[NWHarkness]

14. Obama is a perfect human being

And anyone who says he isn't is a disruptive freeper PUMA DLC one issue rageaholic!:eyes:

[Captain Hilts]

17. Oh, yeah - I forgot! Ooops! Thanks for the reminder!

[NJmaverick]

23. Well I guess there is always the intellectual dishonest reply

when one has no legitmate response, other than to agree.

[NWHarkness]

35. Why do you think you deserve an intellectually honest reply?

When all you ever do in return is offer condescension and insult?

[NJmaverick]

48. You demonstrate the point that most people that do wrong

have some sort of illogical justification for their action.

[NWHarkness]

58. Oops, I forgot to put "wrong doer" on my list!

Thanks for the head's up!

[Binka]

120. Lots Of Hubris In That Poster Dear NWHark

With out any motherfucking justification. As my late Nana used to say "If you are gonna act like the big swinging dick, you better be able to PROVE it." This one COMES with all the BLUSTER. Literally.

[FrenchieCat]

29. The point is that Obama isn't perfect, nor does anyone think that he is.....

even as those who constantly criticize him for each and every single move that he makes or doesn't make, try to put those words in the mouths of those who support him still 17 days to his inauguration.

It is odd how it is those who support Obama the most who also believed him when he said that he was "not a perfect man", and that he would not be a perfect President.....

The irony is that we are all reaching the same concensus, which is that Obama is not perfect; a thought that he has believed in since day one of his candidacy. I'm sure he welcomes all Americans into this fact of reality.

[NWHarkness]

40. Are you sure about that?

Are you sure that no one thinks he's perfect, because I've read an awful lot of posts about how everything he does is part of some amazing plan that no mere mortal can understand.

[FrenchieCat]

54. Well, the important thing is that he doesn't believe himself to be perfect.....

and I personally don't believe that many people do.

I do believe that it is those who criticize Obama the most to be the guilty ones in their attribution of the adjective "Perfect" to the mouth of those who support our President Elect and aren't "into" criticizing his every move and thought and assigning nefarious intent to them.

If what you consider as believing that he is perfect is giving him the time and space to at least becoming President, then perhaps you can make that case.....imperfect as though that case would be.

[NWHarkness]

61. "criticizing his every move"

Who has criticized his every move?

I'm so tired of that canard. If anyone disagrees with Obama in the slightest, the howls about "criticizing him on every issue" are shouted to the rafters.

[FrenchieCat]

74. I'm a grown up and understand the fact long ago that not everyone will agree with Obama

about everything, as that would be an impossibility.

I'm saying that just because some have chosen not to criticize him, it doesn't mean that they believe him to be perfect.

And yes, Obama will be criticized by some on some issue, and by some on every issue...because believe it or not, there are some folks that just don't support Obama, and will find whatever means possible to stir discontent in just about every stance he takes. That's the reality and I didn't make it up.

[TankLV]

52. thanks for the "reminder" about "saint" obama...

[FrenchieCat]

56. See what I mean?

It is those who don't believe that Obama is perfect that try to put words in the mouths of those who have faith still in his judgement on many things 17 days away from his inauguration.

No one calls Obama a "Saint" other than Obama's distractors.

[AntiFascist]

21. .;..and where right-wing religious beliefs align with his Messianic cause

...actually I'd prefer if he were just pandering.

[La Lioness Priyanka]

28. he will pander and is pandering. he just wont do it for equality and civil rights. nt

[NJmaverick]

36. you base this comment on his constant attacks on pandering?

This is a man that has attacked the idea of pandering during his campaign and in his books. Just saying something, in absence of any facts or evidence, is not a particular effective means of discovering the truth.

[Luminous Animal]

44. Do you even know what the word "pander" means?

If you intend to use it in regards to Warren, it is deeply insulting.

[Bluebear]

50. There must be some artsy phrase generator somewhere on the internets.

"It's intellectually dishonest to be a petulant child, whining because he is tantamount to a nanny rhetoric utterance."

It all sounds so fancy, doesn't it?

[NJmaverick]

53. Not really, all you managed was gibberish

[Bluebear]

55. That's the point, and inspired by your fancy ramblings.

[NJmaverick]

57. So your point is I should dumb down my responses, so you can understand them?

[Bluebear]

59. No, the point is you don't even know when you're being insulted.

You only think that you're highly intellectual, unfortunately. Your answers drip with condescending disdain, but say little. Sorry.

[NJmaverick]

65. So you are saying you attempted to insult me?

Pretty sure that is against the rules. Then again I have noticed some DUers with unjustifiably large egos that believe they are above the rules.

[NJmaverick]

66. So you are saying you attempted to insult me?

Pretty sure that is against the rules. Then again I have noticed some DUers with unjustifiably large egos that believe they are above the rules.

[Bluebear]

67. pffff are you ever tiresome. go alert that you were insulted lol

ciao

[NJmaverick]

70. I'm sorry was I supposed to get all fired up by your attempted insults

and react, so you and your allies could hit the alert button? Hmmm, what happened to your demands about respecting people's feelings or freedom of speech? Was that just for you and your allies, and not the rest of DU?

[JohnnieGordon]

142. Your OP of this thread aside...

Then again I have noticed some DUers with unjustifiably large egos that believe they are above the rules."

I definitely agree with that.

[Vanje]

230. Stop clicking on "SEND" over and over again

[NJmaverick]

60. Ultimately he is not going to pander to any group that says large portions of law abiding

citizens should be excluded from the government. Sorry if you consider that insulting.

[Luminous Animal]

79. Jim Crow was the law, too.

Nobody is advocating that Christian who do not believe in equal rights for the LGBTQ should be barred from government. It is a nice fantasy but we'd have few Dems left to govern.

[FrenchieCat]

38. Right, because the future has already happened......

which makes it easy to speculate a conclusion that lines up with your view of what Obama will or will not do.

Sounds easy.

[La Lioness Priyanka]

39. he is against gay marriage which is a very big symbol of equality. nt

[FrenchieCat]

42. And is this a surprise?

Or has he said this all along?

as did all candidates with any chance of winning.

[Bluebear]

43. 'as did all candidates with any chance of winning' = pandering

If they don't hold that view and are saying it to be electable.

[FrenchieCat]

45. Who said that they don't hold that view?

You? :shrug:

[Bluebear]

46. Oops, you used a shruggie smiley, Game over, you win.

[FrenchieCat]

64. Yeah....right! Using a shrug smiley is as easy as predicting the future for the next four years,

in order to assign failure to Barack Obama, 17 days prior to him taking the oath.

It is those who easily speculate and predict and believe the "game is over"......who take an improvable and elementary Black/White route to their own perfected rationalized righteousness.

[La Lioness Priyanka]

49. NOT a surpise. However to say he doesnt pander or will not pander is such bullshit.

[AntiFascist]

102. Actually he said it in a different way...

referring to his own religious beliefs that heterosexual marriages are "sacred" and that "God is in the mix".

Someone in another thread asked "what's wrong with him standing up for his own beliefs?" Well, what if he stood up for the Christian belief that a certain Middle Eastern race is to be favored above all others? I think Obama would be the first to point out that this would not be the appropriate time to stand up for that particular belief. By the same token, publically speaking out on his marriage beliefs was incredibly bad timing having done it during, and in fact having it used by, the Yes on 8 campaign.

[rug]

41. And pandas don't eat bamboo.

[pecwae]

63. What even *more* need

to understand is that PE Obama is a politician.

[redstate_democrat]

68. lol

:rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl:

Obama is a human being. Obama is a politician. Obama will mae mistakes, miscalculations, and yes, he will pander, and at times, do things to garner votes. He has done it in the past and he will do it in the future. Gosh, some of you guys can be scary sometimes. I was one of Obama's staunchest supporters during the campaign, but even I knew that it wasn't all glittering gold. Now that he won, we can at least be honest with ourselves so that we won't totally melt down when he does something that pisses all of off to no end. Here's a suggestion: lower your expectations just a tad, a little lower than god status, okay.

[NJmaverick]

72. Well with that many laugh emoticons, what you say just HAS to be true

I find that they are a great substitute to logical discussion and reasoned arguements. :sarcasm:

[redstate_democrat]

82. Your sarcasm tag is showing.

:hi:

[Tarheel_Dem]

78. Hear! Hear! Which is why he is the Pres. Elect. People who have

never voted for a Democrat in their lives saw the same thing in Obama that I did. It was clear to me then, that he would not allow his agenda for consensus building to be hijacked by any small, yet vocal minority groups. Unfortunately, Obama may have to come to grips with the fact that it's the special interest groups on the left that will be his biggest political liability.

[La Lioness Priyanka]

80. gay rights is such a special interest group.

:eyes:

[Tarheel_Dem]

81. If it's not a special interest group (of which I approve), then what is it?

They are organized after all, and aren't they represented on Capitol Hill, by lobbyists? Correct me if I'm wrong.

[La Lioness Priyanka]

84. civil rights should not be derided as a special interests group, its an equal rights movement

do you consider the black caucus a special rights group?

[Tarheel_Dem]

89. Yes I do. As well as the Pacific Asian Caucus, the Hispanic Caucus, etc.

I don't know why you just naturally assumed I was speaking of gay rights special interests, when there are so many to choose from. But please don't attempt to box me into any one group, as you're trying to do with PE Obama. Apparently, you're viewing life through a very narrow lens these days, and that's your problem to deal with, not mine. Everything isn't about you, or indeed, the gay community.

[jumptheshadow]

170. So you would have been fine...

if he had invited a preacher who didn't allow blacks or Asians into his church? How about native Americans? Is that group small enough for you?

[Lex]

92. lioness -- check your PMs

nt

[NJmaverick]

113. There is a deliberate mixing up of interest groups and human rights

It only serves to cloud the issue. Human rights are something all good people strive for, for all people. On the other hand kicking people out of ceramonies, because a special interest group is angry with them, would be pandering.

[bluedawg12]

140. What special interst group are you referring to now?

Care to be specific?

[yardwork]

86. LOL! You think that all gay people are organized into one group represented by lobbyists?

Who is "our" spokesperson? Who is "our" lobbyist?

How would you like to have fewer rights than everyone else and then be dismissed as a silly little "special interest group."

[Shiver]

146. Actually, the Human Rights Campaign

is considered a lobbying organization. Not necessarily it's primary function, but among them.

[Luminous Animal]

90. Tell me, what makes gay civil rights more special

than the civil rights of straight white men?

[Name removed]

93. Deleted sub-thread

Sub-thread removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[donco6]

157. What rights are straight white men lacking? n/t

[jumptheshadow]

200. The OP is saying the same thing as the far right

His point basically being that gay rights are "special rights."

And what "special rights" are we asking for?

The right not to get fired from our jobs?

The right to marry?

The right to health insurance for our families, and not to be taxed on domestic partnership insurance, which is now deemed by the government to be "extra income?"

The right to raise our children?

The right not be be harassed, beaten or murdered, and to have the same legislative protection of other minority groups in this regard?

Etc., including the right to share the same joy as other Americans on Inauguration Day. P.E. Obama is brilliant and he could have made a choice that reflected his and our highest ideals. Instead, he pandered...

I am growing convinced that this attempt to marginalize the GLBT community on blogs and forums is a meme that is being orchestrated by Obama's handlers. While I am overjoyed that he will be our president, I am deeply concerned about the "scorched earth" policies of his campaign team.

[La Lioness Priyanka]

202. yeah i know. it was such a stupid argument i didnt want to waste my time on it

we are not a special rights group. in fact what we are saying is dont treat us special

1. let us get married to the adult we want to (much like you do)

2. let us not be fired for being "special"

3. let us not get killed for being "special"

just give us the rights you take for granted
:hi:

[Luminous Animal]

85. Human rights are not a "special interest". (n/t)

[NJmaverick]

111. There is a deliberate mixing up of interest groups and human rights

this only serves to cloud and distort the issue.

[bluedawg12]

97. It is my strong belief that the government has to treat all citizens equally.

[PurityOfEssence]

91. Are you KIDDING? That's almost all he does.

Says bad things about NAFTA when in front of labor groups, and dodges the question when he isn't. He's against the Iraq war, but he funds it. He's against the IWR vote, but might have voted that way had he been privy to the information that legislators had, so he can't diss Kerry or Edwards when asked about it in '04. Then, of course, he made great hay out of being so very against it, and that was LITERALLY the impetus for his campaign's breaking away from the pack.

He is gospelguy himself in South Carolina, but will make derisive comments about religion and guns when he thinks he isn't being recorded in the liberal bastion of the San Francisco Bay Area.

He's open to nuclear, to more drilling, to coal, to anything when gas prices are high, but still is careful to give himself the "out" of these having to be part of a comprehensive plan so he can protect himself from environmental backlash.

He's all over the place. He's on most sides of those issues he can't completely duck.

He curries favor with big Medicine while mouthing vagueness about affordable health care.

He sucks up to power blocs and makes good to establishments right, left and center. That's the definition of pandering.

Here's the number 2 definition from dictionary.com:
"To cater to the lower tastes and desires of others or exploit their weaknesses."

Here's their number 2 definition of panderer:
"A person who serves or caters to the vulgar passions or plans of others (especially in order to make money)"

I'll give him the break to HOPE that his more extreme supporters are right and that this ballet-worthy performance is merely clever positioning for the day he steps into the phone booth and puts on his cape and tights, but it's pandering, pure and simple. It's sucking up to powerful institutions and concepts and playing to the cheap seats.

[FrenchieCat]

94. You are correct in that Obama is not an idealogue.......

and I am correct, based on your past and present posts, in assessing that you can't stand the man, and never have?

If only John Edwards could have held on......
if not for your sake! :cry:

[PurityOfEssence]

106. No, he's not. He seems well-meaning, but he's a true cipher.

Yes, I DO have extreme problems with him, and have since very early in his candidacy when he brought religion to the fore in such a big way in early '07. The 40 Days of Faith and Family cavalcade that fall just disgusted me. I'm pretty extremely anti-religion, and always have been; people should be perfectly free to worship whatever they please, but it should be kept out of government as the constitution requires. I also have serious questions of trust with people who invoke religion: it's not playing fair, and I just don't generally believe them; it's also a rather unfair playing of an extremely emotional card.

His expediency is sometimes impressive to watch, but the net result is a big, huge question: just what, if anything, really MATTERS to him enough so he won't jettison it when convenient. The constantly proffered theory is that he's just doing this for positioning and will suddenly changes his stripes when attaining power, but there's precious little evidence for what he WILL do, and what there is isn't impressive. He's pretty obviously pro-corporate, he says nice things about workers' rights, but he's careful to make sure conservatives know he's against empoyees having too easy a time suing their employers. He's far too warlike for my taste, and yet he feigns (or has in the past) a stance of being anti-war.

Much as ideologues (like perfectionists) tend to spoil everything, at least they stand for something. My early and continuing take on Mr. Obama is that he principally stands for Obama. Thus, I'm not a fan. I prefer ideologues, because at least you know where a Pete Stark stands. (You used to know where a Jan Schakowsky stands, but she's too tied up carrying water for her local team these days, so that's an open question now.)

People who constantly skirt hard decisions and specific issues and ask for my "trust" and "hope" and "faith" set my bullshit meter to redlining immediately; this is what con artists do, and much as some of them can be quite effective when they get in power, there's no guarantee.

I also view him as a compensation candidate, with many things to disprove. Such people are dangerous to everyone they touch because they're shadow-boxing with the past and their egos. He has to be a tough-guy and pursue Bin Laden into a sovereign nation's territory to disprove that he's a weakling peacenik and soft on Muslims. He has to go super-christian to prove that he's not a Muslim. He has to cozy up to corporatists and go along with power-coddling to dispel fears of him being a lefty. These compensations have him looking over his shoulder so much it's hard to stay focused on the immediate or long-term future.

His calculating willingness to sacrifice others for his success is extremely disturbing, and his tendencies toward a bit of imperial control are also worrisome. FISA does NOT need any more power.

Coziness with Medicine Incorporated seem to preclude any meaningful health care reform, but we shall see. Perhaps this, too, is just clever maneuvering.

Those who invoke hero-worship ALWAYS worry me, and I'm much more concerned about some of his supporters than I am about him. I think that his tendency to play it safe and always position himself for the next positioning to maneuver himself into the groove where allegedly he'll actually make those bold moves or resolute stands will actually keep him from being TOO dangerous: he'll play it safe.

As for Edwards, yes, that was a great disappointment, even though I still like him and respect him. I hope he won't be as wasted by this country as Gary Hart has been, but I can't fail to see the sad irony there.

I see it as an inevitability that many people will be disappointed with Obama, and there will be a payback for slickly getting everyone to think he agreed with them on diametrically opposed stances; he's been on both sides of so many issues, that he will, by definition, cause MANY very vehement groups to feel betrayed. When he and his people excuse it with "proof" that he never said any such a thing, it will be shown just how uber-cautious, evasive and downright deceptive he was, and that's going to rankle people.

He's appealed on an emotional level at a time when people are very vulnerable, and disappointment at that level has a serious downside. Maybe he has the chops for it and can rise to the occasion, make specific stands and take the heat, but that doesn't seem to be in his repertoire yet, and I have my doubts, seeing how he's been so very successful with his Hillaryesque dance of a billion veils.

I'm a hardcore liberal; he's our guy, and I don't want him to fail. That's why we should cry foul when he and his team make boneheaded moves or refuse to make moves.

[TTUBatfan2008]

147. No offense...

but if you think Edwards is any less of a triangulator than Obama, I've got oceanfront property in Arizona for sale. They're both mainstream, triangulating politicians. Sadly, triangulation seems to be a requirement to be a "mainstream" Democrat these days. Hell, it's been that way for a long time unfortunately. And you are right, in many ways we don't know what Obama truly believes on quite a few issues because he's always so cautious that it's tough to tell. I guess we'll find out in the next 4 years. If he sucks, he'll be sent out on a rail.

[PurityOfEssence]

159. Let's take a look at that

First off, no offense taken, and thanks for the tone of this.

I would point out a fundamental difference between Edwards and the other two. Whereas they're all somewhat "mainstream" and deft at going with the flow, Edwards was the one who stuck his neck out on a VERY important issue that is not politically expedient in the least: helping the poor. The Reagan years taught us how easy it is to appeal to human selfishness to wedge the working and middle classes into thinking that their little pile is going to be diminished by helping the unfortunate. There is really NO upside to proposing to help the poor; it may get some smiles and applause in the Democratic Primaries, but even there it's not a help. He did this simply because this is what mattered to him. He was the one who forced the other two to come up with health plans; I don't think that would have been much of an issue at all had he not brought it up, and this is important.

From the very beginning of his '04 run, his stump speech was about how the Bush Administration was trying to shift the tax burden from wealth to wages, and he constantly went back to it.

Edwards was unequivocating and adamant that there should be no more nuclear power; it was a decision that it took him some time to arrive at, but when researching it, he finally determined that the waste was just too dangerous. That's a pet policy of mine, so that meant a lot to me. The same went for his recurring restating of the importance of the separation of church and state when asked about religion, and he didn't bring religion up on his own. He didn't even hide behind religion when explaining why he didn't support gay marriage, and he was very specific about that in '03 when Diane Sawyer tried to sandbag him with it, going on to specifically state that ALL the rights of marriage should be conferred on same sex couples, enumerating property, survivorship, visitation and all that.

He didn't duck and weave so much. He BROUGHT UP his yes vote for the Patriot Act in the '04 campaign, pointing out what he felt was good (tapping individuals instead of phone numbers), while agreeing that Ashcroft had taken the provisions way too far. (He also led the charge to try to defeat Ashcroft's nomination in '01; that was where I first was drawn to him.)

In this infuriatingly binary world, I believe in looking at things as they are: virtually all shades of grey, with no easy way out. As such, I see and saw Edwards as MUCH more authentic and willing to stand up for what he believed in, whereas the other two were two of the biggest wafflers this side of the International House of Pancakes, always avoiding controversy, accommodating the reactionaries, being on both sides of issues and endeavoring to NEVER rock the corporate boat.

Ah well; what might have been...

Anyway, hopefully the current team will clean up their act and prove me wrong by fulfilling their staunchest supporters correct and leaping forth as the champions of the people. Regardless, it's our duty to speak up and hold their feet to the fire; hell, they've promised or hinted at all sorts of glorious things, so we're JUST holding them to their words. With as big a margin as exists in the legislature, this is a time where we don't have to cower and go along with the gag lest we mess up our delicate foothold; there's never been a better time in my adult life for some serious leveraging from the left. I don't feel that this is destructive or counterproductive, I think this is necessary, constructive and our due.

We'll just have to stay tuned.

[depakid]

149. " Coziness with Medicine Incorporated"

During the massive Portland rally, several times on stage he made bold statements and drew huge cheers about UNIVERSAL HEALTHCARE -though that's not at all what he was (or looks to be) proposing.

That struck me as sort of sad- because he could easily have been honest and said affordable health care and drawn just as much applause.

Even so, all politicians who want to win pander to some extent- especially when they're campaigning.

So it's best to wait & see how he handles the issues when it comes down to policy making and implementation, before determining how much of a pander bear he is. My guess is that he won't come close to Bill Clinton in that regard!

[burythehatchet]

165. Best post I've read in a long time.

Great observation: He's appealed on an emotional level at a time when people are very vulnerable, and disappointment at that level has a serious downside.

..and that is why I am beginning to feel very negatively towards him. During the campaign I cried almost every time I heard him speak, now I have to mute the tv when he speaks.

[donco6]

205. Good post

"I see it as an inevitability that many people will be disappointed with Obama, and there will be a payback for slickly getting everyone to think he agreed with them on diametrically opposed stances; he's been on both sides of so many issues, that he will, by definition, cause MANY very vehement groups to feel betrayed. When he and his people excuse it with "proof" that he never said any such a thing, it will be shown just how uber-cautious, evasive and downright deceptive he was, and that's going to rankle people."

I think we just happen to be among the first.

[salguine]

95. Virtually every cabinet pick, with one or two exceptions, has been pandering if you ask me.

[Tarheel_Dem]

112. Well, apparently he has "pandered" to the satisfaction of most of America.

January 2, 2009

Liberals’ Confidence in Obama Remains High
Conservatives’ opinions of president-elect becoming more positive

PRINCETON, NJ -- Gallup Poll Daily tracking finds support for Barack Obama among liberal Democrats holding steady at 93% despite news reports that his core supporters are disappointed with some of his cabinet appointments and other decisions. Meanwhile, in recent weeks, Obama's ratings have improved among conservative Republicans, up from 23% to 29%.

More than 9 in 10 liberal Democrats have expressed confidence that Obama will make a good president since Gallup began tracking these opinions after the election last November. Moderate and conservative Democrats show nearly as high levels of confidence.

Obama's recent decision to have conservative preacher Rick Warren deliver the invocation at the Jan. 20 presidential inauguration and his choices of Republicans Robert Gates and Ray LaHood for cabinet positions have been controversial among members of the political left. Additionally, women's groups have been reported as expressing disappointment that Obama has not selected more women for cabinet-level positions in his administration. But these decisions apparently have not shaken liberal Democrats' confidence in Obama to any perceptible degree, according to aggregated data of thousands of Gallup Poll daily interviews from the immediate post-election period (Nov. 5-30), early December (Dec. 1-17) after he announced many of his cabinet choices, and in recent days (Dec. 18-28) after announcing Warren's role in the inauguration, arguably his most controversial action to date.

Perhaps because his choices may signal a more politically moderate approach to governing, conservative, moderate, and liberal Republicans have become more confident in Obama's potential in recent weeks.

Of course the grumblers always seem to have a bigger megaphone than the rest of us, so I'm sure we'll be drowned out.

http://www.gallup.com/poll/113602/Liberals-Confidence-Obama-Remains-High.aspx

[burythehatchet]

166. and thank goodness the mob is so well informed.

[Raineyb]

235. Well that would be the point would it not?

When one panders one does so in order to curry favor. Using polls showing any politician's popularity in order to argue that said politician is not pandering is like using boggy land to prove that we're in a drought. Politicians pander in order to bump up their favorability ratings. This is a ridiculous way to try to prove your point.

Regards

[NYC_SKP]

96. Recommended. And anyone who was listening KNOWS THIS.

Which, to me, means the drama here is just disruption disguised as righteous indignation.

:patriot:

[Tarheel_Dem]

104. Thank you NYC.

:hi: I must admit that I can't see most of the responses to me, because I put the vile name callers on Ignore soon after this debate began, and from the looks of this thread, I'll have to add more still.

[NYC_SKP]

118. All the usual suspects....

I can't bring myself to using ignore, so I see all the narrow-minded responses that so often arise here.

And, interestingly, it comes magically from a select few. Wow, imagine that.

I screen-saved a very interesting post about three weeks ago. It's pretty clear what's going on.

Go Tarheel_Dem, Go Obama!

[Binka]

136. I Have Not Been In This Dust Up

But you have a weird undeserved arrogance. I have been here a while and I have NOTICED a very VOCAL group that joined up here in the Spring. I have saved some screen shots of various posts, some of them might make you cringe, it is pretty clear what's going on...and they are YOURS.

[NYC_SKP]

139. .

:scared:

[Inspired]

98. All politicians pander. Obama is no exception.

[Skittles]

107. correct

some DUers are VERY naive

[Vanje]

232. Well Dammit!

I wouldnt mind so much. if he would only pander for a bit in my direction.

[Critters2]

99. Pandering to the Christian Right already.

So, thanks for your input. Try waiting until you're right before posting again. Thank you.

[bluedawg12]

100. I think there is an enormous danger

on the part of public figures to rationalize or justify their actions by claiming God’s mandate. don’t think it’s healthy for public figures to wear religion on their sleeve as a means to insulate themselves from criticism, or dialogue with people who disagree with them.

Rick Warren and his five non-negotiables, comes to mind.

[Liberal_Stalwart71]

101. He is already pandering to the Religious Right and the DLC

[Runcible Spoon]

105. Please repair the incoherent syntax in your OP.

I don't have the energy to take you to task on the condescension and blindness of your opinion, which I'm sure you will try to defend as "fact". I'll just pick on your grammar instead. :evilgrin:

Wake me up when the Obama-Inspired Rainbow-Shitting Unity Festival begins.

On edit: Wake me up when it ENDS!

[Critters2]

108. You don't like ponies? nt

[NJmaverick]

109. well you certainly managed to waste everyone's time with this post

Unless you were attempting to show just how real condescension is done. :eyes:

If you have something intelligent to add, please do so. There is no reason to hold back.

[Runcible Spoon]

115. You're a one trick pony.

What's the point of trying to teach you anything? :shrug: I usually don't bother arguing with those already drunk on indoctrination and blind faith in politicians.

[NJmaverick]

116. What exactly qualifies you to "teach" anyone??????

Clearly your ego has put you beyond the reach of logic and reason.:eyes:

[Runcible Spoon]

121. ahhh projection!

:rofl:

[Bluebear]

122. More than one person here bought that "deep thought" seat!

:)

[NJmaverick]

124. Hey didn't say you were leaving, after you were embarrassed badly?

[Bluebear]

126. Well, no I didn't. Go babble at someone else.

[NJmaverick]

131. Yes you did, on post 67

when faced with your admission that you feel you are to good to follow DU's rules. So you ran away. I guess the chance to hop on this sad exchange (I can't even characterize it as a discussion), figuring two weak minds might be better than one, was too good for you to pass up.

[Bluebear]

133. You sound like a Bill O'Reilly wannabe. You really do.

[NJmaverick]

135. That's the best you can come up with?

you are not worth my time. welcome to ignore

[Name removed]

137. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Runcible Spoon]

143. you're in good company, though!

:hug: I was having a good time, though. Too bad we wore out his prodigious intellect so quickly! :rofl:

[donco6]

194. No kidding. n/t

[Runcible Spoon]

129. hahahaha Bluebear!

:hi: :loveya:

[NJmaverick]

123. Is the laughing icon your qualifications?

While that might be enough for lesser minds, I require more than that.

[Bluebear]

127. "While that might be enough for lesser minds, I require more than that."- talk about EGO!

and so apropos of nothing.

[Runcible Spoon]

128. Well, we could start with the fact that my grasp of the English language exceeds yours.

I pointed that out already. This is fun! :rofl:

On edit: I could give a fuck if your English is perfection and I think it has little bearing on intelligence. However, YOU strike me as the kind of person who cares quite a bit about things like that, so it's just deliciously ironic that you struggle with the construction of coherent sentences.

[NJmaverick]

134. Well I find there are too many DUers to respond to all of them

as such, I have established an intelligence minimum. Below a certain threshold, you get put on ignore.

In other words you are not intelligent enough to ride this discussion. :hi:

[Runcible Spoon]

141. hahahaha you can't be serious! Oh, you ARE?

Are you really that deluded to think you are somehow more intelligent or educated than I am, when the ENTIRE POINT of my original post to you was mocking your poor ability to craft prose? And beyond that, you accuse others of the exact same shortcomings you exhibit in your exchanges with those who call you on your idiocy. Good Lawd, it's a good thing you have a well-developed sense of cognitive dissonance to prevent you from sensing what you TRULY are.


BWAHAHAHHAHHAHAHAHAHA! Thanks for the chuckles!

[Bluebear]

151. OMG...talk about delusions of grandeur!

:rofl:

Too much, eh?

[donco6]

158. Now THAT'S how you do condescension.

Thick and oozy - like a ChapStick you left in the car on a hot day.

[NJmaverick]

171. Yeah I gave ignored a taste of their own medicine

I gave ignored a chance to back up why ignored was so arrogant and condescending, but ignore had nothing. The only thing more annoying than arrogance, is unjustified arrogance.

[donco6]

177. Or childish tit-for-tatism.

But maybe that's just me.

[NJmaverick]

179. Just you, I saw your deleted message

so I can safely say, it's you.

[donco6]

181. I haven't had a deleted message that I know of.

Refresh my memory.

[NJmaverick]

188. Post 161- seeing how you are all over this thread

I could see how you lost track

[donco6]

195. Well, if it was me, it must have been really good.

Wish I'd saved it . . .

[FrenchieCat]

110. Will wake you up in 8 years......

and then you can catch up on what you missed.

[AtomicKitten]

119. He'll be accused of it anyway. It's a stock rationalization for some.

[NJmaverick]

125. Yes clearly that is the case

However beyond the concept of "I said so", I haven't seen any facts or reason to support such a position.

[BostonMa]

225. -

[IsItJustMe]

130. If that is true, whether I like what he is doing or not, then I can live with that. I think we

will be able to see very quickly on the way he hadles the Isreal situation.

[NJmaverick]

132. Can't be any worse than what George Bush has done

Did you hear Bush's speech for today? It sounded like he had it written for him, by Israel officials.

[IsItJustMe]

156. Sad to say, but I think there forces at work in this country that even outweight the power of the

presidency. But, Yes, I think you are right. No worse than Bush.

[depakid]

138. I guess that you haven't followed his senate career or the presidential campaign...

[IndianaJones]

144. I think we know he will not pander to racists....now other bigots, well...nt.

[yardwork]

145. But they aren't really bigots, after all.

[MasonJar]

150. I was appalled that he voted for FISA; that really threw me.

[Captain Hilts]

152. Me too. And he turned on the DC Gun Ban and used NRA language to describe...

what gun laws should be.

[cynatnite]

155. He's a politician who doesn't pander? n/t

[Lorien]

160. Oh geez. You just don't quit

have you thought about picking up a hobby?

[Name removed]

161. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[NJmaverick]

169. Why should I quit?

[GeorgeGist]

162. Nonsense

[From The Left]

163. Unless He's "Pandering" to Rick Warren

Barry is pandering to the most extreme views held by the religious right. Or maybe this doesn't count???

[NJmaverick]

175. President Elect Obama is not pandering, which is why he wouldn't cave

to special interest groups that demanding millions of Americans be excluded from our government, based on their religion.

[donco6]

183. So, you're saying . . .

that Obama would rather endorse people who actively opposed him in the election, at the expense of those who actively supported him? And that's not pandering?

WTF?

[Solon]

234. Oh those poor persecuted religious people, cry me a river, please...

No comparison between them and those who are excluded from Civil Rights in this country.

[burythehatchet]

164. He only panders to the right

[NJmaverick]

173. That's what special interests complain about, when they don't get the

pandering they expected.

[donco6]

185. Since when did gays become "special interest"?

You make us sound as if we aren't "real" democrats. Is that your intention, or inadvertent?

[MadHound]

168. How you can say this with a straight face is beyond me

Given that Obama has already been pandering almost from the day he won the election. Pandering to centerists, corporatists, DLC types, oh, and let's not forget the religious right.

[NJmaverick]

172. What you call pandering, the vast majority of liberals and the nation

(based on polls) see as being inclusive and making an honest effort to be a good President to all America. You know that whole unity thing.

[Kurt_and_Hunter]

174. The majority of the nation favors prayer in public schools. Is that a good idea?

[NJmaverick]

176. School prayer is a rather complex issue and the wording on those polls

are often written to favor a pro prayer response. Like, "do you favor prayer being illegal in school?"

[area51]

178. Disagree.

Obama already said that single-payer healthcare is off the table; he's pandering to the rightwing, pro-death insurance companies.

[NJmaverick]

180. What proof do you offer? I mean what do you base your assumption

that Obama thinks a single-payer system would be the best system?

[donco6]

182. He DOESN'T think a single-payer would be best.

Did you misspeak?

[NJmaverick]

184. Nope, if he doesn't think it's best, than he is not pandering by not supporting it

[donco6]

187. He's obviously pandering to the status quo.

Which is unfortunate.

[NJmaverick]

189. That was an odd and illogical statement

[donco6]

190. Not at all.

The reason you pander is to obtain power. You obtain power from people who possess power, not from people who do not possess power.

The people in health care who possess power are the insurance companies. They are the status quo. You pander to them, because they can award you power. You don't pander to those who support single-payer, because they have no power to lend.

It's really pretty simple.

[NJmaverick]

191. It's a simple idea built on a foundation of quick sand

if Obama doesn't believe in a single payer system, he is NOT pandering when he doesn't support it. Pandering involves the cynical support of issues or people or polices you DON'T agree with. In this case, he is simply doing what he thinks is right.

[donco6]

193. Oh. I see.

So, when he does something, it cannot be pandering, because he's always doing what he thinks is right.

I got it now.

[NJmaverick]

197. You love to disagree for the sake of disagreeing

You just argued around in circles. I asked for proof to support the pandering accusation and your response is this?!?!?? Well it seems from your spamming of this post, your deleted offensive post and the general lack of intelligent content, you are a prime candidate for the ignore list.

so good-bye:hi:

[donco6]

198. C-ya. n/t

[sniffa]

214. He's such a tool

Dont' you feel better that you wasted 30 minutes of your life on this subthread?

[donco6]

216. GAWD! No effing kidding.

It took everything to be reasonable with that idiot.

[sniffa]

218. It's not worth it

Be glad he put you on ignore. You'll still have to read his idiocy but he won't be dancing around the barn with you.

[Sunnyshine]

233. He certainly supports it in principle, but says it would only work if starting from scratch.

Thought it best then:

May 2007:We can have universal health care by the end of the next president's first term, by the end of my first term,'' Obama said, bringing 600 union workers to their feet during a question-and-answer session with members of AFL-CIO affiliated unions.suntimes.com

Back in 2003, an Illinois state senator named Barack Obama spoke to an AFL-CIO group and what he told them is now making headlines across the Internet. "I happen to be a proponent of a single-payer universal health-care plan," he said to applause. "I see no reason why the United States of America, the wealthiest country in the history of the world, spending 14 percent of its Gross National Product on health care, cannot provide basic health insurance to everybody." truthout.org

Still does now, but thinks it is better to reform the current one and add to it- for now:

President-elect Barack Obama said at a town-hall meeting in August that he would "probably go ahead with a single-payer system" if he were designing a system from scratch.npr.org

Reality: Obama Has Consistently Said That If We Were Starting From Scratch, He Would Support A Single Payer System, But Now We Need To Build On The System We Have
barackobama.com

[acmavm]

192. If by pandering you mean 'keeping his campaign promises' you're right.

He won't.

[leftofthedial]

196. ha ha ha!

:rofl:

hahahahahahaha!

LOL :rofl:

Thanks.

I needed that.

[NJmaverick]

199. guess you are one of the people that are pissed off that he didn't pander to you

:eyes:

[leftofthedial]

201. I never expected him to pander to me.

I didn't expect him to be a moderate repuke either.

:eyes:

:puke:

:banghead:

[donco6]

204. But . . .but . . . Obama CAN'T be a panderer!

He's doing it from the heart!

:sarcasm:

[NJmaverick]

206. Glad to see you are waiting until he is President before passing judgment

:eyes:

[leftofthedial]

208. Why should I (or anyone) wait until some arbitrary date of your choosing?

He is already acting. He's selected the group who will define the early policy vector of his administration. His choices about whom to appoint and nominate for key administration positions are IMPORTANT DECISIONS with FAR-REACHING CONSEQUENCES. Commenting about them now is perfectly relevant. He has given speeches, held press conferences and previewed many of his plans. IMPORTANT PLANS. Commenting about them now is perfectly appropriate. He went out of his way to invite a bigot fundie to set the spiritual tone of his inauguration. That decision is SYMBOLICALLY RELEVANT. Commenting about it now is necessary.

Ferfucksake. Wake up. Snap out of it. I know you had a dream. It's over. Rise and shine.

[NJmaverick]

209. Yes if you don't rush to judgment you will have the crowds of reasonable people to deal with

you know the ones that wait and see what sort of policies and laws he enacts, before they condemn him (or while hard for you to believe, praise him).

[leftofthedial]

210. "rush to judgment"?

Are you willfully ignorant, or just not awake this morning?

By all means, let's wait until all the damage is done before we say anything. God forbid that citizens of a democratic republic have opinions and speak out. That would be outrageous, so let's make up silly reasons to ridicule them and tell them to shut the fuck up.

:puke:

[NJmaverick]

211. lol! yeah that must be it

anyone that doesn't share your extreme and out of touch views, must be "willfully ignorant" or "not awake"

:eyes:

[leftofthedial]

212. not anyone.

just you.

[NJmaverick]

213. judging by your close minded view of the world

I find that hard to believe

[leftofthedial]

215. Why do you care? Why bother posting responses to me?

After all, I'm extremist and out-of-touch and close-minded.

(Never mind that apparently you call me these names for no other reason than that you disagree with me. You've offered no substantive discussion on any issue I raised, just ad hominem and calls for me to shut the fuck up until after January 20 for reasons that make no sense.)

Your own irony escapes you, doesn't it? It will make life hard in ways you will never understand, but as they say, ignorance is bliss.

[NJmaverick]

217. Well I like to keep an open mind. So I gave you a chance to lay out a reasoned argument

and show me that you are open to new or different ideas. It was only after this back and forth, was I able to tell where you were coming from.

As for the irony that you speak of, it has not eluded me.

I find it ironic that the DUers that scream the loudest about their feeling being hurt are the ones that make repeated efforts to hurt the feelings of other DUers.


I find it ironic that the DUers that scream that they are being told to STFU, are the same ones that flame threads and then report them, so they can shut them down and hamper free speech and thought.


As for your last comments, I am sure you are a very blissful person. :hi:

[donco6]

219. delete

[cosmik debris]

203. Why would he quit pandering?

It has been a winning strategy so far!

[cbc5g]

207. He definitely panders, and if you don't think so you are really drinking the kool-aid BUT...

I think he has reasons to pander. He has to in order to build a bigger coalition to get things done.

[varelse]

220. Of course he will

he already has, and he will again. He's a successful politician. Pandering is what they do to survive and get reelected. It's also what they do to forward their own agendas, whatever those might be. We've got (at least) four years to see Obama's true agenda develop. It's obvious that he has the will and the skill to push it through. I'm curious to see what it is.

[danania]

221. That kind of support for pandering wasn't present when Hillary "pandered"

When the Clintons pander, then it's abominable.

[varelse]

224. I accept that pandering is part of politics

I don't support pandering or like it, but I've yet to see any powerful force in politics that at some point did not stoop to it - well maybe someone like Jimmy Carter, or Dennis Kucinich. Maybe.

I do object to setting up unrealistic expectations of any politician, because those expectations are bound to lead to unreasonable disappointment. I voted for Obama because I expected him to to a better job of leading the country than his "runner-up" opponent would have done. That expectation hasn't changed, and I don't think I'll be disappointed. I don't expect him to break the mold most politicians are formed in. He's got a country to lead back from the brink of disaster, and a reelection campaign to consider in just under four years.

That does not mean people should not voice opposition where they believe their elected leaders to have made wrong decisions or gestures. Not at all. That's OUR job. Let's not decide that this man is either a living saint or a backstabbing villain, before he's even spent ONE DAY in the Oval office. Let's not pre-judge him, either way.

That's all I would ask.

[sundog]

222. do you ever fucking stop?

[Bluebear]

223. Answer: no.

[sundog]

226. it's becoming more & more obvious that this poster's primary objective

is to disrupt the glbt community

[mmonk]

229. Are you saying we will be ignored as usual?

Let me ask something you don't seem to understand. How is our concerns being ignored any different than what has transpired over the last several years? Are any of our concerns good for the nation?

[nolabels]

236. Pandering to any size of a majority is a mistake

As much as peoples emotion and greed escalate the continued reexamination of that noble bill rights proves even more correct. There is no such thing as an easy out, with each mastermind of an idea new sets of problems will arise. We will all end up having to learn, even to our last breath :-(

[IndianaGreen]

237. And what do you call the Saddleback Church and its Fuehrer Rick Warren?

Did you know that they are associated with the homophobic and anti-woman Southern Baptist Convention?

[Skwmom]

238. Yeah, the cold shoulder he's been giving the DLC hacks has been a sight

to behold. No pandering there.

[Skwmom]

239. Yeah, the cold shoulder he's been giving the DLC hacks has been a sight

to behold. No pandering there.