How bad are we gonna lose?

[tcaudilllg]

Man I can't even recognize this party. It's like money has completely taken over. The current chair does not know how to do the job. I don't understand why he even took it on... he exudes none of the energy Dean did. "We're gonna beat the Republicans!" -- way to play into the Republicon's hands, dude.

But really now, what happened? Since when does money win elections? I think the real problem is that Obama has too much influence over the party at this point. He's the party leader? How the hell does a man govern and be party leader at the same time? Answer: they don't. You've got to choose one or the other, because the responsibilities are completely different.

So you're using the powers of the presidency wisely, mostly as they should be used. Good example, keep it up. But Barack we elected you to be president -- that is, be commander in chief. We did not elect you to lead the Congress. In fact, we very much expect you to do EVERYTHING Pelosi tells you to. In fact, we're quite disappointed that you've argued with her as much as you have. Be the executive and leave the legislating to others, you are not a senator anymore.

I'm really disappointed at the failure of the housing assistance program. Barack left Geithner to do it and Geithner has been way too good to his rich buddies. The Bush tax cuts are going to expire? Great. Just great. What about the REST of the 2 trillion deficit? Where is THAT money going to come from? Hopefully, Tim, from you own pocket. And Barack's.

[sharp_stick]

1. This is quite possibly the strangest line I've read

on DU in quite some time.

"In fact, we very much expect you to do EVERYTHING Pelosi tells you to."

Anybody that thinks they elect a President to do exactly what the Speaker of the House tells them to do is lacking some basic civics lessons"

[tcaudilllg]

3. Well the bottom line is Pelosi is pretty much the soul of the party.

We elected Obama to be our voice and to keep a Republican from terrorizing us a la Bush. That's pretty much the only reason he's there, from a liberal perspective at least. I think he's taking it too seriously.

Granted I'm glad he was electable and our president is actually enforcing domestic law (imagine that?), but he's pretty much supposed to support progressive agendas. Which don't include things like, massive budget deficits on behalf of the rich; poorly executed federal assistance programs; and offshore drilling.

[tcaudilllg]

4. We nominate the president to assist the execution of our agenda.

Yes?

[cstanleytech]

12. And here I thought we (we meaning the american people)

tried to elect the candidate who could do the best job and who would hopefully lead us all well using his or her own brains to make their decisions.

[jaxx]

5. He's taking it too seriously?

Seriously?

[TexanRudeBoy]

7. "We elected Obama to be our voice and to keep a Republican from terrorizing us a la Bush. "

Well that's worked out hasn't it. I think Glenn Greenwald puts it best:

http://www.salon.com/news/opinion/glenn_greenwald/2010/08/30/assassinations/index.html

"t was an extreme outrage of the highest order -- a shredding of the Constitution -- when George Bush imprisoned or even just eavesdropped on American citizens without any due process. But it's perfectly acceptable -- even noble -- for Barack Obama to kill them without any due process."



Obama has continued or strengthened EVERY aspect of the Bush/Cheney terror doctrine using the exact same "legal" arguments. The entire crux of Obama's campaign was not being Bush and stopping the abuses of the position. He has failed miserably.

On top of all that he's completely sold out his few progressive policies. HC "reform" was a handout to Insurance and Pharma. The latest financial "reform" actually excludes the number one financial regulator (the SEC) from FOIA requests (more transparency you can believe in!!).

[tcaudilllg]

8. Texan I don't think it would have been a good idea to have the government employ the insurance indus

The Republicans never run anything like it's supposed to be run; the only thing they never cut back on is entitlement funding. So creating an entitlement was the right move.

Yes the SEC move was really bad. More malfeasance under Republicans... what were they thinking?

[TexanRudeBoy]

9. Such a simple mind......

You are the type the establishment loves. Blame is all on the "other side" rather than accepting this is the Fascist state we live in. There aren't two parties anymore. There are merely different special interest wings of the same party.

What has actually changed? Seriously?

[tcaudilllg]

10. If you keep saying it, maybe it will come true! n/t

[TexanRudeBoy]

11. So you don't have an answer....

I'm so shocked that you can't actually address any points I've made. I knew you couldn't point to anything concrete that has changed since Obama took over. Just keep yelling "Four legs good, two legs bad" and eventually you can drown out the truth right?

I'll take that as you fully endorsing the Bush/Cheney terror doctrine because the administration has continued or strengthened every aspect. Your response couldn't have been more inane.

Please just refute one single point made in updateII here:


http://www.salon.com/news/opinion/glenn_greenwald/2010/08/10/gibbs


I'm not holding my breath.........

[hendo]

21. Im sorry, but I DO NOT want our president to kowtow to Pelosi.

Let him be his own damned man. Let him succeed or fail on his laurels, not on Pelosi's. And, if you honestly think the American people would have voted Pelosi in as president you are sorely mistaken.

[Ken Burch]

20. I hope whoever the hell posted that doesn't expect the prez to do everything

Speaker Boehner tells him to do(if, God forbid, Orange Man actually gets that job).

[opihimoimoi]

2. Bizzarro Post...I no can unnerstan dis pilau olelo

[Sal Minella]

6. 'Bye. n/t

[urbuddha]

13. Meg Whitman ? Really ?

I'm lost...why does the OP have a Meg Whitman for governor ad on their
post. She is the GOP nominee for California governor and she would be a nightmare.

[Tunkamerica]

14. The ads are random and donators can't see them.

So there is no reason at all.

[Name removed]

15. Deleted message

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

[creon]

16. Did not do enough

Congress and the WH had no sense of urgency. The economy should have been first on the agenda. It was not.
The reforms that were passed were half way measures. The Congress and the WH followed the line of least resistance and took what they could get.
The GOP was reeling from 2006 & 2008. The advice of Wellington was not followed; the call call should have been: "Up Dems and at 'em! They won't stand!".

But, none of that occured. An opportunity to get great work done wwas dithered away.

[tcaudilllg]

17. Starting in 2014 every American will have access to affordable health care. That's an accomplishment

[tcaudilllg]

18. Finally, you forget that liberals do not control SCOTUS.

There is only so much the legislative branch can do. Additionally, only half the U.S. population leans left (the same as for any nation). There is always a possibility that elections will be razor sharp no matter what, as we saw in 2000. Karl Rove himself observes this will be a small numbers election.

My point: victory is never a guarantee, therefore there must be moderating checks on the party in power to keep social services stable.

[Mosaic]

19. We are not going to lose. Think Positive!

And why this post remains on the front page remains a mystery.

[Kurmudgeon]

22. Thinking positive...

Glad to see this post. How the voting public could forget the looming economic disaster of 2007-2008 caused by Bush Administration and previous GOP policy and vote to put the GOP back in power just amazes me.