How we lose congress in 2010 and how we lose the White House in 2012

[AllentownJake]

I constantly am warning my fellow democrats off of DU not to get complacent. Not to get too happy with our recent success. Here are three issues that will cause us to go down in flames if our party doesn't live up to its promises.

1) Health care

If we do not pass real health care reform we are going fucking down and it won't be the Republicans that kill it. Like in 1993 it will be moderate democrats who have lined their pockets from the insurance industry that block real change. At a minimum we need a public option and the President should firmly come out against taxing workers health benefits. If a tax passes on employee's health care benefits we will have enacted one of the largest increase in taxes on the middle class in the history of this country. We will be out of power for a generation...and we should be.

2) War

Whether its Gitmo, Iraq, or Afghanistan we need progress in ending this war on terror. If in 2010 Gitmo is still open and troops have yet to be drawn down in Iraq expect to see a very angry liberal base. Liberals aren't just going to fall in line on those issues. The disaster of a vote from our cowards in congress hopefully won't be a sign of things to come.

3) Banking/Economy

The credit card bill was a disaster, thanks to our corporate moderate democrats. No real reform but it has a pretty name. The American people aren't fooled that easy anymore. If we continue this path of bank enablement there is going to be some serious back lash. The last thing we need to do is become the party of the banks. There was an article this week about a new regulatory agency to regulate consumer financial products. It would go a long way in restoring our credibility. See how the corporate dems attack it.


In all these issues, we have one common enemy. The Corporate/Moderate democrats in the Senate. It is not the Republicans who are enemy to change right now but members of our own party. Its like 1993 redux. No one ever said the corporate dems were smart, just greedy.

[Gman]

1. You are correct that there will be a lot of dissatisfaction,

but where will the voters go? To the GOP with the memory of everything Bush and a crashed economy still fresh? Or will they just stay home and allow the GOP to pick up seats? Dem approval ratings are down, but I do not think it means people are fleeing to the GOP.

[AllentownJake]

3. 1974-1980 my friend

Remember Richard Nixon left office in disgrace in 1974. In 1980 Ronald Reagan won by a land slide.

[Gman]

6. I still maintain to this day that

Carter lost because of the effect of the end of the Vietnam war on the economy. We had been in a wartime economy since 1942. Once the war ended the economy decayed quickly. We as a nation had no idea what to do as the world had never wound down from a wartime economy that had lasted that long. Even Ford's WIN (whip inflation now) buttons wouldn't have made a bit of difference.

THerefore, I maintain that it matters not who was president from 1977 - 1981, the economy would was going to crash and the president at the time was going to take the blame. And don't rule out the fact that Poppy Bush cut that deal with the Iranians to not release the hostages before the election. I'm not completely certain that the same Poppy Bush bunch, with their known very close connections with Saudi Arabia didn't instigate the Arab oil embargo.

Reagan was a damn good actor that didn't know when he wasn't off the stage. Carter was an engineer. Which one is more charismatic? End of story.

[AllentownJake]

12. Well things aren't that different from 1977 are they right now?

Carter was also a Southern Evangelical that ended up losing the south and the Evangelicals. He was our answer to Nixon's strategy.

Democrats in congress are perfectly willing to fuck up a democratic President if they think it will keep them in congress. It was true in 1977, it was true in 1993, it is true in 2009.

We are our own worse enemy.

[Gman]

19. Like Baseball, that is another constant thoughout history

congresscritters that do whatever to stay in office.

[suchadeal]

18. Carter had some "help" losing in 1980

Hostages for arms and all that. Remember?

[AllentownJake]

21. There is this criminal named Cheney running around

and I don't think anyone on here would put anything past him.

[snot]

125. Carter also had a shitload of "help" from the media -- I wasn't paying much attn in those days

but even I knew the putatively "liberal" Ted Koppel was crucifying Carter nightly over the Iranian hostages -- but without ever explaining what in hell Carter should have done about it.

[byronius]

134. 'October Surprise'. I remember it well.

And the terrible sinking feeling when Reagan won.

[The Hope Mobile]

102. Agreed. I always thought that it was in large part because of the Iranian hostage

crisis which made Carter look impotent and ineffectual. Amazing how they released everybody almost immediately on Reagan's watch . . . :eyes:

The economy, the oil embargo, etc., were pretty clearly manipulated and weighed heavily against him.

The question now is "What (else) are they going to do to manipulate Obama's presidency" and will he let them get away with it? Right now I'm pretty concerned. He's starting to look a little bit like a deer in the headlights of the military industrial complex/BFEE.

This is my 1000th post!:toast: :kick: :fistbump: :headbang: :woohoo: (Mini celebration!!)

[Chulanowa]

126. It was the whole Iranian thing, not just the hostages

Americans have this complex where they want to deliver an asskicking to someone who does something htye don't like - especially so soon after losing Vietnam. The pro-American tyrant of Iran gets kicked out, protests against America break out when we give him free cancer treatment, and then they take hostages ("Captured spies" is more accurate, but hey, at the time nobody knew that). So Americans naturally wanted to blow up a bunch of Muslims. It was a national hobby even all the way back then.

Carter is talking diplomacy.
Reagan is talking about blowing away a bunch of motherfuckers.

The Americna people defeated themselves, simply by their constant desire to be the guy with the biggest dick. And boy, we got one hell of a big dick in 1980.

[The Hope Mobile]

129. LOL!! The GOP is full of Dicks. Tricky Dick, Cheney . . . LOL!

I like your analysis.

[Enthusiast]

135. But Carter actually launched a rescue

And I believe to this day that a covert operation countered it and my main suspect is poppy Bush. Hey, these guys are fascist filth.

[Chulanowa]

201. He also negotiated the release of the hostages

Something a lot of people often forget, due to the weird idea that a president's term ends on election day. Same thing that leads some people to think Clinton got us into Somalia

[Enthusiast]

205. Convenient thinking, for some.

:fistbump:

[mike_c]

50. the same place I've already gone....

Green, at least for the left. They represent my political interests FAR better than today's democratic party does.

[Gman]

58. Going Green is EXACTLY the reason we got Bush for 8 years

and all that implies.

Ralph Nader bears a direct responsibility for what happened during the Bush years.

[Raineyb]

61. It is not Ralph Nader's fault that the Democratic party has refused to

do right by its base. It is the sense of entitlement when it comes to the certain members of the base is why the Green party can peel off votes in the first place. Perhaps it would be better if Democrats behaved like Democrats rather than screwing over the base and then expecting the base to vote for them anyway. Clearly based on the recent behavior of many Senators and Congress-critters of late they've not learned a damn thing.

[frylock]

69. well stated..

i'm pretty much done voting a straight dem ticket just for the sake of voting for dems. as far as i'm concerned, this is their last chance, and if real change isn't affected, then i'm going back to voting third party.

[creeksneakers2]

73. The Greens aren't the base

They are a fringe group. Moderates are the base. Look how Kucinich did in the last presidential primary.

[Raineyb]

76. Greens siphoned off members of the base because the Democratic party

decided to be Republican light. And they're not doing any better now. It can and will happen again if the Democrats can't get anything done for the people rather than the bankers, the insurance companies, the mortgage companies and the drug companies.

[creeksneakers2]

79. I've heard that a million times

Countless posts on here about how somebody is swearing off the Democrats over some issue, often trivial in comparison to all that there is out there. The Democratic agenda is not Republican light. It just isn't socialist, which is what the Greens and their siphoned voters are.

We need banks, insurance companies, mortgage companies and drug companies. Its sensible to regulate them. Its nuts to go to war and get rid of them.

[DireStrike]

85. Or to regulate them, or to stop giving them money for robbing us, according to centrist dems

[Enthusiast]

136. Really?

What did Harry Reid say about closing Gitmo recently? He repeated GOP talking points word for word. There is your leader and if it isn't Republican fucking light I would like to know what it is.

[Raineyb]

180. I didn't say anything about getting rid of them. But as we all just saw the Democrats just passed a

credit card "reform" bill without doing a damn thing about the most abusive part of the business namely the usurious interest rates but they made sure the people can't go to a national park without worrying about getting shot to death by some gun nut. But apparently in your world, if people get disgusted and don't vote or vote Green not having enough Dems to get better legislation passed will be the fault of the disgusted voter?

Not for nothing, but considering the number of Dems who are in the pockets of the banks, insurance companies, mortgage companies and drug companies who actively vote against the interests of actual people it's bloody difficult to see the difference between them and the Republicans on these issue.

If it takes large amounts of money from corporations, votes to put the interest of corporations before the interests of actual people and keeps ideas that the people are in favor of off the table when discussing "reform" then it's a Republican unless it's a DLC Republican light.

I am a registered Democrat but the Democratic party has to earn my vote. That you and others think the vote is something to which the party is entitled to without having to actually do anything but make promises that they will proceed to forget or outright break once in office is the problem. Not people who decide that perhaps the Democratic party may not be working in their best interest.

You demonize the people who decided to vote Green one year without addressing the fact that the Democrats constantly make promises without bothering to keep them but it's the people who got fed up with lies and broken promises that's the problem. :sarcasm: Right!

[Gman]

119. It can and will happen again?

Apparently stupid is incurable.

[Raineyb]

181. And what exactly is intelligent about voting for the same

old Dems and expecting new behavior from them like behaving as though they have spines, listening to the people, or voting in the people's interest. Because based on what's been going on in the Senate of late apparently they don't think we the people are worth listening to. But they'll take our goddamned money and votes come election time.

[mike_c]

88. then the dems won't mind losing my vote permanently...

...which is what will happen if the party keeps "moderating" to the right of NIXON, for Pete's sake. If I'm so "fringe," why do dems here constantly castigate me for voting Green? The democratic party simply does not represent me any longer-- and I haven't changed over the years-- it's the dem party that's changed.

[creeksneakers2]

116. The party is already working on more things that the country can

afford. Right of Nixon? Universal health care? Cap and trade? Credit card interest rate limits? Mortgage foreclosure assistance? Employee Free Choice Act? The party is way left of anyplace its been before.

[cascadiance]

189. Credit car interest rate limits?

That was REMOVED from the bill that just passed. We still get nailed with 27%+ interest rates! So much for our "bill of rights" that sounds like the "clear skies" initiative in terms of framing legislation falsely.

Why was the cram down measure rejected if they're trying to help with "mortgage foreclosure assistance"?

Employee Free Choice Act? That looks like its being killed now too!

Universal Health Care? NO! Single payer is not being looked at. And many feel that the corporate lobbyists are looking to handicap the public option so that it will fail and we'll still have insurance companies stealing from us at the same level they've been that has been destroying our economy.

Cap and trade? Haven't looked at this closely, but was hearing complaints that the current legislation is still emphasizing centralized energy sources instead of distributed energy sources (central solar power dishes instead of those on people's roof tops, etc.) to keep the corporate sector in charge of our power supply too (which allowed them earlier to do things like the Enron scams they did, which wouldn't have been possible if there were enough people on the grid supplying solar or wind power back on to the grid to keep their manufactured "energy shortage" scams from working).

And all of this is being done with the "liberal" Democratic Party in charge...

[creeksneakers2]

192. The bill caps rates on existing balances in 2010

If you run a cap on interest rates, you're taking away the chance for people who desperately need loans to get them.

Most of what you are complaining about isn't right wing corporate stuff. Its stuff that's left wing but doesn't go far enough or have enough votes to satisfy you.

[cascadiance]

196. Surely you can regulate those that have been raised since people got the cards...

If someone had a lower interest rate earlier, they weren't getting the card to get the higher interest rate because they were "desperate for money". They were hooked on classic *loan shark* bait and switch technique. I'm sorry but this practice needs to be regulated and there be a cap on these sorts of rates.

And many of those that are being put in a position of being "desperate" for cash now, are there also because of the many other failures of our system today to not adequately regulate predatory home loans, provide adequate health care coverage, etc. Not everyone in this position is there by choice.

To basically focus on desperate people paying for the profits of credit card companies so that their CEOS can get huge bonuses, and those customers that are well off at the top can get no interest rates on their credit cards and a lot of other perks is basically stealing from the poor to pay the rich, that has been the pattern of this corporate elite serving society for so long now.

Companies are entitled to a profit for their services, but if they are trying to gouge a certain segment "because they can", that's abuse that needs to be regulated.

It's why there is so much abuse in the home loans, health care, energy sectors, etc. because so many of us NEED those goods and services, and are more victim to being gouged or taken advantage of without adequate regulation.

This is why we need public campaign financing now, to get rid of the institutionalized bribery that is going on now.

[mike_c]

195. I thought the response was sarcasm...

...since NONE of those supposed dem advances have actually come to pass. Now I suppose the DUer is simply uninformed.

[Selatius]

101. Moderates have no more claim to the Democratic Party than do Liberals.

The "base" of the party really only refers to somebody who consistently votes for Democrats. Many folks fall into that category be they liberal or conservative, relatively speaking.

[nadinbrzezinski]

118. Otherwise known as a coalition, and any politician that ignores part

of that coalition is bound to loose them...

I suspect this is happening arready

[creeksneakers2]

193. "The base"

Was used in previous posts to identify a subset of the party with certain opinions. I like your definition better.

[cascadiance]

190. If the Dems don't feel the left amount to much, then how about putting in Instant Runoff Voting?

Surely, if "moderates" are the base, and greens, liberals, etc. are on the fringe, then you should have nothing to worry about doing that?

WHY hasn't the Democratic Party even looked at putting that in place? Because they KNOW that it will force them to be more accountable to the MANY people who vote for them, not because they're enthused about supporting a party that screws them many times, but because they aren't as bad as Republicans who are worse, and don't want to put someone like Bush in again.

But the country is moving more towards the left. Deal with it! And the Dems better also deal with it, or its just a matter of time where there's enough people to vote their conscience in another party and not feel like they have to vote for the lesser of two evils any more.

There's a reason that America's moved away from the GOP. And it's not just to allow conservative politics to move in and set up shop to control the Democratic Party. It is for REAL change that will try things that haven't been tried for over 30 years now to get us off that path of failure that's been going on for about that long.

[Deja Q]

97. facts are indeed useless things

:)

[Gman]

108. Ralph Nader ran and pulled votes from Gore.

Base? Ha! It was idiots that were too fucking stupid and naive to vote as they should have voted for Gore. They carry blame as well.

[Greenheron]

159. Nader

I don't know how many times I have had to say this to people who falsely blame Nader, but more registered democrats in Fla. voted for Bush than Nader got in total votes. I voted for Obama and it is getting increasingly difficult to defend his actions to righties when the points they make have merit. Of course I find myself asking them where they were for the last eight years with all this thinkin stuff.

[Chan790]

160. It is however Ralph Nader's fault...

that by-and-large Greens are becoming increasingly militant against the Democratic Party...rather than working to form coalitions that will achieve some of their agenda while pulling the Democratic Party leftward (by which in time they would likely achieve their entire agenda), some (by which I do not mean solely the sainted Ralph) bluster about how the Democratic Party is the same as the Republican Party. Anybody who would really believe that, hasn't been paying attention.

They (by which I mean every last member of the Green Party) belong at the bottom of the rapidly-filling cistern that America now sits after 8 years of failed Bush rule for having no clue that they are centrally-part of the problem of the larger left-of-center political spectrum. Between the Greens and the DLC, we can expect to hand the government to the GOP for even longer next time, the result of yet more internecine feuding rather than achieving anything with power once we have it. Those who would bicker rather than achieve even modest goals are the enemy as much the GOP. Not because we don't all share largely a similar ideology, but because some have unilaterally decided they wish to be the enemy. If you want to call me "enemy", you can't be chummy with me anymore.

[demodonkey]

77. No. Gore actually won FL in 2000 and David Cobb TRIED HARD to shine light on the mess in OH in 2004.

...I was there, in Ohio, most of December 2004 as one of the nine regional coordinators for the Green Party Ohio Recount. (and yes I am a lifelong Democrat)

David Cobb, Green Party candidate 2004, saw the problems in Ohio and did his best to bring the truth to light by calling for the recount which as a Presidential candidate he had standing to do. David was joined by the Libertarian candidate Michael Badnarik. But NO Kerry. Kerry's 15,000 lawyers on the ground were nowhere to be seen. The whole time there I saw ONE (1) early 20's-something kid acting as a 'democrat observer.' No one really representing Kerry, lest he be seen as a sore loser I guess.

It was bad. The Ohio GOP Secretary of State did everything he could to thwart that recount. Why??? Well I saw things in Ohio during the recount that would make your hair curl. Locked ballots boxes with numbered seals on them supposedly since election night, chosen at "random", and upon opening to recount all the ballots inside were sorted by who was voted on for President. etc etc etc.

Blackwell was successful in making the recount pretty much useless at proving anything, and then evidence was destroyed in many places. We will never officially know who won. I can't prove this, but after being there my gut feeling is such that I will go to my grave knowing that Kerry won Ohio in 2004.

The one good thing that came out of the 2004 Recount efforts of David Cobb and the Greens in Ohio was to shine the light on our nation's desperate need to improve our elections and give a huge push to the movement for election integrity.

Sadly, many progressives seem to think now that because Obama won, the voting machines and everything else that was wrong with our elections is fine. Guess again. All 2008 proved was that a popular Dem could win a landslide against a hugely UNpopular Republican. Wait until things get closer in another election -- and beware.

Democrats ignore the threat to our elections (bad voting machines, e-pollbooks, vote centers, etc.) AT THEIR PERIL.

[HillbillyBob]

96. The rpigs did cheat this time around too, but its hard

to cheat a landslide.
In 2000 in Fla there were those 350,000 dems that were slashed from the rolls by Katherine Herris and Jeb Bush (for having names that 'sounded like felons'. Um the real felons have been in control of our country for decades.
Not only that they cheated a lot of counts and they really cheated the Fort Lauderdale count by dumping the ballots from at least 1 district the one that I lived in directly into truck mounted shredders, in the parking lot of the polling place in the middle of the night. We were There as Eyewitnesses, so was a fox noise truck! They even showed the so called post count shredding, I still say it was the same footage we saw being shot.

[Gman]

109. Yes, Gore won FL in 2000. That is a fact

But Nader still pulled quite a few votes in Florida in 2000 and made it much closer than it should have been. Nader made it close enough to steal.

[Enthusiast]

138. My thoughts exactly.

The theft of Ohio in 2004 was a covert operation. They got away with it. Just look at this country now as a result. The Democratic Party and President Obama had better take the next 12 months very seriously.

[HillbillyBob]

100. No election fraud/theft by rpigs is what got us bush

nt

[Gman]

110. Without Nader it would never have been close enough to steal

Nader has blood on his hands that he'll carry to his grave.

[olegramps]

158. Nader is a narcissistic asshole.

Like it or not this is a two party democracy. Nader is nothing more than a spoiler who knows that he could never get the nomination in either party.

[Raineyb]

183. If Dems didn't constantly cut to the right the Green party wouldn't have been

able to entice voters away.

Stealing implies that they votes were Democratic ones to begin with and they have no votes until the votes are cast. This sense of entitlement is part of the problem.

[Gman]

212. I had previously assumed that those that voted Green in 2000 had some intelligence

9 years later, people still want to justify voting for Nader. That tells me that they are fucking stupid and I gave them too much credit.

[Raineyb]

215. Your need to insult just shows you've learned not a damn thing

They don't owe you an apology for voting their conscience. And it's the Republicans who deserve your scorn.

[cascadiance]

191. if you feel that way then put in Instant Runoff Voting to not worry about that any more...

Oh wait, you might have to worry more then, if a lot more people move to someone like Nader if they don't have to worry about voting for the lesser of two evils any more. Maybe that might make the Democratic Party not take the liberal base it has for granted any more and be more accountable to them. But then that's too much work for them. THAT is why we won't get the instant runoff voting, and continue to blame candidates like Nader for failing to work for their progressive base that has been voting for them...

[Gman]

213. I think the best thing is to make sure someone like Nader, or anyone Green, for that matter

is kept off the ballot. that will keep down the opportunity for someone to do something completely stupid.

[Raineyb]

216. Well that's very undemocratic of you.

Why bother allowing people to vote at all. Perhaps you should make all the decisions since you know so much more.

[Gman]

217. It's called hardball politics.

Why the hell would I or any other good Democrat want to give voters any more choices than absolutely necessary?

[Enthusiast]

137. We won the fucking election!

In 2000 we won the election so going Green did not lose it. And the problem is not 'Green', it is the way Green is portrayed in the MSM.

[vssmith]

162. I suppose it was Nader that made Gore act like an ass in the debate

[Tesha]

202. See now I thought it was the fact that the DLC has completed confused the voters...

...about what "Democrats" stand for. Republicans still have a clear
message, even though it may be a pack of lies and bigotry.

Tesha

[HillbillyBob]

94. I will likely be voting green or independent

I am F ing fed up with the spineless turncoat dems.
I have always voted dem every election. Obama almost lost me on FISA since my own home and phones were invaded for speaking out against bushco.
The rest of this bullshit...im going to be changing my affiliation or would that be afliction? Single payer, out of Irag, Afganistan, and my f in bedroom.
My partner and I still cannot marry, I was outted and put out of the service of our country for being gay.
They do not deserve my backing, just the sight of my backside.

[Torn_Scorned_Ignored]

174. good for you HillbillyBob!

I like everything you said. They say one thing and do another. I fed up too.

[Ken Burch]

111. Maybe they'll create new parties or elect all sorts of independents

That's easier to do on the local, state, and Congressional level.

And nobody thought in early '93 that the GOP would have the landslide it had in '94.

[bertman]

120. Gman, they won't flee to the GOP, they'll stay home. Just as bad.

[tan guera]

131. Where would the dems go?

To a third party candidate if one is smart enuf to start campaigning now. In the last election, I talked with both repugs and dems who weren't happy with their respective choices.

Isn't it time for a choice? But who? I love Howard, but......

[yodoobo]

209. If Dems stay home the the repugs win

Thats the thing, it doesn't take Dems switching over to GOP, it just takes Dems staying home.


Nonetheless, I don't think that will happen. We'll pick up even more seats.

Obama didn't get to be the most popular President in history without knowing how to get people excited.

[rurallib]

2. I could not agree more.

Not keeping promises at a time when true Rooseveltian leadership is needed will lead to a huge cynical backlash. The only thing that may save some democrat hides is that the repubs are so sleazy, so incredibly sleazy.
ETA not that I want Dem hides saved, but I sure want no repugs either. Is ther another choice? Can Bernie Sanders be cloned a few million times?

[Citizen Worker]

31. Limited choices

Rurallib, you have hit on the dilemma, lack of any meaningful alternative. Our political choices are limited to the right wing and the left wing of the same bird of prey. This was made clear to me a few years when I spoke with a candidate for our state's legislature about "free trade." He made it clear to me that he didn't know much about the issue and closed our conversation saying, "where else are you going to go?"

It took a republican, Nixon, to begin the process of "normalizing" US/China relations. Had a democrat attempted such a move he would have been labeled a communist sympathizer. It took a democrat to usher in the job killing "free trade" agreements and set this nation on the road to serfdom. A republican would have been labeled as pro-corporate and anti-worker.

It took a democrat to "end welfare as we know it" becaue a republican would have been labeled racist. Instead, Clinton was hailed as the "first black president."

In the present Obama has continued two wars and has escalated the number of troops in Afghanistan. The already bloated "defense budget" continues on and we're well on the way to replicating the Soviet defeat while the death toll of Afghans and Iraqis continues to mount. Where and when will the killing end?

The evisceration of the Constitution remains with no apparent plan to restore the Bill of Rights. Yet, we are silent.

Obama has continued the Bush bank bailout plan transferring hundreds of billions of dollars to the already super rich and we are silent.

It will take a "democrat" to reform Social Security and without substantive opposition from the public it will happen.

Change we can believe in!!!

[cascadiance]

34. I wouldn't be surprised to see Jesse Ventura run as a newer Ross Perot...

... in the coming election. His book tour seems to start building for that possibility now.

Though he's not as progressive as many of us want here, I think he does hit home on many issues we care about (like government transparency with torture, etc.) and I think he would run as not being a corporate toadie, which I think has the potential for grabbing voters from both sides in a big way from voters that are increasingly seeing the damaging influence of Korporate Amerika lobbies on both of our parties and feel no place to go with either of them to correct this fundamental problem of our system.

If Ventura is smart, he might run with someone like Sanders to both gain some valuable political experience on the ticket and get voters from both sides and focus more on the unifying issues such as the economy, government transparency, etc. and try to minimize the social issues as ones we can deal with in a democratic fashion later when they get in power, but that they fundamentally will fix the problems where the elites have bought off the government to serve 10% or less of the elites in the economy at the expense of the other 90% of Americans.

And if Obama and the Democrats don't wake up and telling the Blue Dogs where they can SHOVE their corporatist agenda masquerading as "moderate", the true moderates of the U.S. will migrate to someone like Ventura/Sanders...

Ventura/Sanders might not win then, but they would probably split the vote enough that Obama could be unseated by the GOP as well if he's not careful. Message to Obama, don't continue to take the non-right wingers for granted!

[AllentownJake]

35. Ventura/Bloomburg would be his smartest bet

He'd have his financing wrapped up.

[cascadiance]

38. But if he really wants votes from the left (like me) to vote for him Sanders might be better...

And someone like Bloomburg might counteract the image of trying to represent the majority of Americans vs. the elites and seem more pandering than genuine.

Without someone like Sanders (doesn't have to be him necessarily), it might be harder to bleed voters away from Obama.

Having Bloomburg or other big wealthy progressives endorse him might be helpful though...

A lot could happen before 2012 though. With moveon and other progressive PAC's already trying to threaten Blue Dogs that will increasingly get funding to help in that regard at the expense of other Democratic funding operations like the DCCC and the DSCC, these organizations might support such a ticket if they feel that they will be represented, and might help to build a well-funded campaign. Especially if many of us get frustrated without any progress in the coming years in an increasingly failing economy and failing environment facing global climate change messes.

And if they do have a very "threatening" campaign, then a fundamental issue that would be used to negotiate ANYTHING in terms of pulling out is to legislate and pass instant runoff voting at a federal level, which would limit such parties as being a spoiler and at the same time empower them to be a threat to win an election if neither of the top two parties do the right things. That's what I have said Nader should have done if he wanted to be accepted as not just being a spoiler in the past too.

[L0oniX]

42. Kucinich/Sanders 2012

[cascadiance]

43. Though Kucinich might have to leave the Democratic Party for that to happen...

... and losing his voice in the House I think would be a tragedy, if he and Sanders weren't able to win...

[tan guera]

132. How about Spitzer/Boxer or Kucinich

[cali]

139. Bernie would never run for president or vp

and he wouldn't run with Kucinich. They really don't have much in common as far as their approaches go.

[Raineyb]

74. Bloomberg is not a progressive.

This is a man who thinks it's appropriate to charge rent for a cot in a homeless shelter rather than making it more affordable for working people to live in the city. I wouldn't vote for him on a dare. And now that he's overturned the will of the voters by making it possible to run for a 3rd term despite the fact that term limits were passed by the electorate I will not be voting for him a third time.

[cascadiance]

82. Precisely... If a third party is going to succeed it will need to have a populist appeal...

No longer will a rich guy like Ross Perot appeal as much this time around.

Even though their are some fundies who will continue to vote against their interests by voting for the GOP that will likely still be under corporatist control, there will be a whole group of moderates and even religious folk with more brains that that low level set that will be looking for another alternative to get rid of the corporatist hegemony that we have now. Now I think some of them were attracted to Huckabee for the GOP nomination for that reason too, but perhaps enough of them will realize this time that being too extreme in their religious principles won't get them the nomination. On the other hand, a ticket that's "too liberal" will also tune them out too. That's why I think that Jesse Ventura might be uniquely positioned to grab some of these folk and if he has a ticket that doesn't look corporatist at all, and doesn't have any extreme right wing positions and has someone like Bernie Sanders as his running mate, it might just work at grabbing a lot from the center and many of us on the left that see getting rid of the corporate control over our government as our first priority (especially if Obama continues to not get the job done in that area now along with the other Blue Dogs). I tell you, I might myself look strong enough at such a ticket if I think it had a big tent but not a tent that would keep out the corporate and elite special interest lobbyists.

Like you, I believe throwing Bloomburg on the ticket would do the opposite of what's needed to make a big enough third party move to make this anti-corporate statement, which I think is the only way a third party can compete with the other two. I do understand that funding is a big issue in this regard, since corporate money won't be coming in, but if enough of the public is fed up (including many of the PACs like moveon.org, etc.), you might be able to compete against the corporate duopoly that we have now... I think it will be easier to overcome the funding difference than it would be to cover the lack of a coherent and consistent anti-corporate populist message.

It would be hard to get other more populist Dems like Kucinich on the ticket, as like I said, it would push them out of the offices they are needed in now and in the foreseeable future. Perhaps Nader might also be another running mate, but he's already been on his own a few times at the head of his ticket, so I don't think he'd be a running mate for Ventura, whereas I think Sanders might be persuaded to get on it to present a winning combination. Though Sanders might also be pressured to vacate his seat which also is up for reelection in 2012 if he were to be a running mate then. At least it might make it so that the Dems would decide to run a candidate against him then if he ran for president, which they didn't last time.

[HillbillyBob]

99. I sure won't vote for Korporate Kapitan Bloomberg.

nt

[cali]

141. Ventura isn't smart and bernie would no more run with him than

hw would with Ron Paul. You guys seem to be clueless about Bernie.

[cascadiance]

175. Perhaps Ventura is not the ideal person... But he does hit a nerve I think...

... and if you could find a more intelligent person who IS non-corporatist, but also perhaps has more conservative views on things like gun ownership, etc., I think even Bernie might recognize that working with someone that "expands the tent" of a third party run with a unifying theme of being "non-corporatist", that might be a message that wins over voters, because it is one STRONG theme that I think many in both parties are concerned about their own parties being too much of a problem with, and a third party could be a big beacon for them.

If you have a ticket that has a pair of candidates that appeals to both the GOP moderates and lefties on our side with people they trust working for their interests, I think that ticket might have the potential for winning, whereas if it is slanted to either side, it probably won't win.

In the past, the "moderate big tent" message to grab the middle and others has been more to be fickle on social issues that can attract enough on both sides. However, in those cases the typical pattern is that ultimately the important issues for "moderates" in both parties is that they do the right thing for the corporate masters they have. If you had a "big tent" ticket that wasn't too slanted in its views and is more vocally against corporate influence, that would be new and I think that is something that might win. Perot was appealing to voters like that in the past, but I don't think the corporate influence issue then was played enough to be a winning hand. And the country is facing far more critical issues now caused by this corporate influence.

Ventura is probably brighter than some people give him credit for. Though I share your concern that for president I might someone like Sanders heading the ticket instead and him being paired with someone that is more equivalent to Sanders in brain power who I respect a lot. If you have other ideas of similar political figures that are more detached from the major parties, feel free to share. I think either Ventura, or someone LIKE Ventura might be helpful on a ticket, if that person could be persuaded to working with those of us on the left as a "big tent" strategy to get rid of corporate influence for both sides of such a party as the primary strategy, could be a pragmatic winning hand.

Right now Ventura's being talked about a lot. Maybe a few months or a year from now, someone else with similar views/positions will be more visible and a better choice. We'll just have to wait and see. Though probably not too long, if such a campaign for 2012 is really something that should be pursued then.

[Mari333]

4. when Nader siphoned off many of the votes in 2000

a lot of people were , I think , assuming that the Dems would be 'getting a message'. I dont think they ever got the message.
I see the DLC still running the show. I dont know what I will do. I may just write in a candidate if this keeps up. I wasnt harsh enough with Clinton . Then we swung so far right we were in neofascist territory. I have a sneaky feeling that Obama is appeasing a lot of neofascists right now, but it isnt working for him. Its only making the left angry.
If we end up with a republican in 2012 it will be because of that. people will stay home, or just write in other candidates.

[AllentownJake]

27. Its a shame that Al Gore paid for Bill Clinton's sins

I think Al would have been a far more progressive and better President than Bill.

[Mari333]

30. true. and I know Gore won

but Nader didnt help much. again, the Dems havent learned, many of them, that pissing off progressives makes them lose elections. its Bizarro world, where they appease the rabid right..makes no sense.

[mike_c]

52. I voted for Gore in 2000, but frankly I've always regretted NOT voting...

...for Nader instead. Yes, it's clear that Gore would probably have been a better president than his candidacy made him appear, but dammit-- no matter how much people refuse to hear it, Nader was RIGHT, and still is. The democratic party is NOT substantively different from the republican party, at least not with its current leadership.

[Vidar]

112. Unfortunately true.

[Phoebe Loosinhouse]

155. My husband and I argued for years about Ralph Nader.

He voted for Nader and I voted for Gore. His Nader vote though, was in a state that couldn't have been safer for Al Gore, so he didn't have any qualms about possibly putting Bush in office , he just wanted to "send a message" of Democratic disaffection. Of course, that message ended up in the dead letter office. The other day, I apologized to him and told him he had been right all along and I was wrong.

[Raineyb]

184. I voted for Nader in 2000

But I live in New York I knew my vote wouldn't cost Gore the state. I was hoping to help put the Green party over the 5% mark so they could get matching funds because I didn't see the two party duopoly making any changes for the better. I thought then and still think now that we need more viable choices in our elections. And quite frankly, I thought that the Democratic party was taking certain votes for granted based on how Clinton governed and needed to be sent a message. My Nader vote was deliberate and strategic. I do not regret it nor will I apologize for it.

[Enthusiast]

140. They appease the corporations.

Mostly the military industrial complex, the pharmaceutical industry, the insurance industry and big energy producers. Without publically funded elections we will never see an end to this conundrum.

[RufusTFirefly]

47. Of course they didn't get the message!

It was way too easy to demonize the messenger rather than to confront "the inconvenient truth", that Democrats had grown complacent, establishing an unholy alliance with corporate apologists at the expense of their progressive base.

We as Democrats could've learned something from that challenge -- not to mention from the theft by the BFEE. It was a teachable moment, and we failed miserably.

[Raineyb]

185. I don't think that the party "leaders" have learned that lesson yet.

And I don't know what the hell has to happen for them to learn it.

[Juche]

5. I don't agree

Because no matter how bad the democrats screw up, the GOP is worse and I don't see the public voting them back in.

The GOP started the war, and they are the ones that want to block healthcare reform. There may be a handful of dems that want to block healthcare reform, but almost all of the GOP wants to block it.

As far as banking, its pretty obvious which party causes more problems than the other. The one that always sides with corporations over people.

This is like a woman saying 'if my new boyfriend doesn't start to put the toilet seat down, I am going back to my old boyfriend who beat me up and stole my money'. Not going to happen. What will likely happen if/when the dems don't live up to their promises is just massive apathy and disappointment. The dems will not lose control of the country, but the public will become severely disappointed, jaded and apathetic.

[AllentownJake]

7. Lower voter turnout means Republicans get elected

The rabid righties are going to show up every election. The only reason why McCain got as many votes as he did was the Rabid Righties. They still have their McCain Palin stickers on their car. Part of our success in the past 4 years has been peeling off moderates, however we are also increasing turnout because we are making people care again.

Remember that Richard Nixon guy? After him they should have been out of power for a generation. They were out exactly one election cycle.

[Badgerman]

8. And if none of these things get done before 2010, then a large % who voted Dem will not return,

They will simply not vote and every vote that was previously Dem in 2008 that does not return is a vote for the republican opponent. Thems the facts like it or not. I sure as hell hope Obama realizes this quickly.

[cali]

9. I don't see the dems losing Congress in 2010

they may lose numbers but not their majority. 2012 is a different matter and given certain failures, the dems could lose both houses and the presidency. odds are against it, but it could happen.

[AllentownJake]

16. There are warning signs

We have chances for pick-ups in the Senate, however we also have chances for losses. It all depends on if we royally do something to screw up like taxing people's health care benefits or if the GOP actually lets a few moderates run.

The Florida and PA Senate races should be interesting bellweathers. If Crist loses the nomination in Florida and Toomey faces no moderate challenger in PA than the GOP isn't ready to admit their strategy lost and we should have a cake walk.

[cali]

22. good points about FL and PA. Those two races and the one in CT

could be quite interestng.

[AllentownJake]

24. Dodd needs to retire and put his country and party first.

He's tainted and we have driven the GOP out of the Northeast. Letting them regain a place here would be very bad.

[Phoebe Loosinhouse]

65. I wish he would retire and Lamont could run in his place.

Couldn't the Obama White House offer him a face saving position? He's not looking too strong right now .

[Tierra_y_Libertad]

10. Our elections are about popularity rather than principles. And, popularity is a slippery handle.

Obama won because Bush had completely lost his popularity and McCain was obviously another Bush.

Obama is massively popular now, but when things start to go wrong, his popularity will wane. The Democrats in congress enjoyed a small surge in popularity but are wasting it by dong nothing but preserve the status quo and deferring to Obama.

Fortunately, the Republicans are doing a helluva job of reducing themselves to a regional party of neo-fascists and their popularity is akin to a turd in a salad.

[End Of The Road]

11. "It's the economy, stupid"

If the economy continues to tank, that is the ONLY thing that will matter.

[AllentownJake]

13. The Economy continued to tank for the first 4 years under Reagan

People thought he was doing something about it. He got re-elected in a landslide.

[End Of The Road]

17. But the Repubs lost big-time in the 1982 midterms.

Just sayin...

[AllentownJake]

23. The map favors us right now

However, it all depends on the candidates. If the GOP continues the purge of anyone who won't question the President's birth certificate and call him a baby killer they will continue to lose. If they get their act together they may win some.

[Mr. Ected]

14. Let's Not Forget Clinton's Congress 1992-1994

Constantly battling the President, remaining mute against relentless Republican attacks, allowing them to frame the public debate.

It's eerily deja vu all over again.

[kentuck]

15. Republicans are never hired to clean up messes...

They are only hired to create messes. If we have a healthy economy and it looks like we are on a long range recovery, the Repubs stand a better chance of winning. Then they can create another mess and the cycle continues...

[Optical.Catalyst]

20. We are not losing anything

We are on a roll. The Republicans don't stand a chance of regaining the House or the Senate. They only have 39 Senators right now after being blind sided by Arlen Specter switching parties. Al Franken will give us 60, Republicans will have 39, with Bernie Sanders as Independent. The Republicans are impotent in Congress.

We are only 140 days into President Obama's eight years. Give the man a chance. Don't put the saddle of failure on us before we have even left the starting gate.

[AllentownJake]

25. We are only on a roll as long as we represent what we say we do

I'm not saddling for failure, I'm warning people if we don't do what we promised, we will look like the GOP in 6 years.

[Optical.Catalyst]

37. Well half your problem there is in the Main $tream Media

The M$M cooks up a message that the M$M says represents us, then proceeds to 'inform' the American people we are failing meet excitations. When we allow the media to define the objectives and then define the failures, we will lose every time.

Democrats need to be clear about what the Democrat message is, not what the Main Stream Media decides what our message is.

[AllentownJake]

45. That credit card bill is shit

That vote on Gitmo was shit and if we tax health benefits and don't have a public option...shit.

[Enthusiast]

143. And you are exactly correct.

The MSM hosts were falling over themselves for the last two weeks crying for someone, anyone, that would characterize President Obama as weak on terrorism. How many times did we hear "President Obama is being criticized by Vice President Cheney." ?

No factor is greater than MSM influence.

[Enthusiast]

142. With Democrats voting to leave Gitmo open

it is them I worry about even more than President Obama. Just look how this undermined Obama's credibility. They created a GOP talking point. Way to go assholes!

[kentuck]

26. People do remember the economy that Bush and the Repubs inherited in 2000..

and how they screwed up everything to the max. It may take a little more time for this trauma to be erased from their memories?

[AllentownJake]

28. Not really

I can see a populist GOP candidate calling us the party of big health care and the banks if we don't legislate real reform in both.

It will work. I already know who is the perfect player for the role. Mike Huckabee.

[glitch]

33. Easy pickings.

In fact it's a no-brainer. Now that Poppy is pushing Jeb I wonder if they'll try to rebrand him as a populist. They can call him Johnny or Jack and most American's won't remember there ever was a Jeb.

Don't laugh, the rebranding worked with "he's a good man", "charming", "W".

[emulatorloo]

60. Huckabee is too crazy to get elected. Moderates/Independents can see that. EOM

[cascadiance]

87. Huckabee won't, but he shows a segment of GOP voters who DON'T LIKE corporatists!

And who might be willing to vote for a ticket that's viewed as a moderate but anti-corporatist ticket... Someone like Jesse Ventura heading it might get their interest this time around, who wouldn't be someone that progressives interested also in throwing out corporate America would throw out like the plague (as Huckabee would be for us progressives looking for alternatives).

[walkaway]

29. Sorry, we're too busy constantly attacking Nancy Pelosi to be worried

about moderate Dems. We get our marching orders from the GOP.

[votingupstart]

167. FIRE - her press manager and the aide who attended the briefings

between the aide putting out contradictory information and the press manager for allowing her to start the whole CIA is lying thing ON RECORD - WTF? this is a downward spiral caused self-inflicted wound - all she had to do was be quite now instead of pushing ahead you/me/we/congress are stuck working through this instead of the real work ie ECONOMY, GREEN ENERGY, HEATH CARE just to name a few.

[creeksneakers2]

200. The stategy of ignoring attacks failed for years.

Its best to respond to attacks quickly and forcefully. Congress has time to still work on the issues you are interested in.

[L0oniX]

32. I we don't stop the wars and have single payer health care I don't give a damn what happens...

to this fucking country. If it doesn't care about me why should I care about it?

[readmoreoften]

36. I hear ya. /nt

[Coyote_Bandit]

39. +1

My first priority and loyalty is to myself and my family. I refuse to advance the interests and agenda of anyone who does not serve to protect and advance my own. And that most definitely includes politicians. Even Dem politicians.

[mike_c]

53. agreed....

eom

[Enthusiast]

144. Believe me, it can even get worse.

How would you like it with no healthcare reform, no collective bargaining, no social security, no medicare and a huge war with Iran? These are GOP wet dreams.

[L0oniX]

177. I imagine that is going to happen anyway.

[SammyWinstonJack]

161. That's about where I am now.

:thumbsup:

[Torn_Scorned_Ignored]

178. Exactly!

[bvar22]

40. Botched Health Care Reform will be enough for me.

I support MediCare for All (HR 676), but will settle for a viable, well funded Public Option that does NOT funnel $Billions into the pockets of the Health Insurance Industry.



After 40 years of voting the straight Democratic Party Line, I SWEAR this:
If the Democratic Party SCREWS THIS UP (no viable Public Option), I'm GONE forever, and I'm taking as many former "Democrats" with me as I can.

There is NOT a single issue that is as Black & White as Health Care Reform.
The Democratic Party is either working for the Health Insurance Industry OR the People of America.
If the Democratic Party is working FOR the Healthy Insurance Industry, they are working AGAINST my own Economic Interest. They will no longer receive money or votes from me and mine.


If you are smart, you will join me in my "contract" with the Democratic Party, and
Let them know where YOU stand.

(I will still support the 93 Democrats in Congress who have co-signed HR 676, but I will do so from OUTSIDE the Democratic Party.)

[dgibby]

44. That's where I draw the line in the sand, too.

I'm tired of a 2 party system in which both parties sacrifice the people in favor of their coporate masters. With few exceptions, Congress is bought and paid for by K street. When 60% of Americans want single payer and can't even get a seat at the table, that tells me we are no longer a Democracy. Sad.

[Raksha]

51. I agree with you 100%. That's my position too.

Re I support MediCare for All (HR 676), but will settle for a viable, well funded Public Option that does NOT funnel $Billions into the pockets of the Health Insurance Industry.

After 40 years of voting the straight Democratic Party Line, I SWEAR this:
If the Democratic Party SCREWS THIS UP (no viable Public Option), I'm GONE forever, and I'm taking as many former "Democrats" with me as I can.

There is NOT a single issue that is as Black & White as Health Care Reform.
The Democratic Party is either working for the Health Insurance Industry OR the People of America.
If the Democratic Party is working FOR the Healthy Insurance Industry, they are working AGAINST my own Economic Interest. They will no longer receive money or votes from me and mine.

[corpseratemedia]

41. i consider dlc/blue dogs to be cointelpro

[Individualist]

67. Agree!

DLC is the cancer that has destroyed the party.

[mmonk]

46. We could be approaching that point people like Emmanuel and others

have worked so hard at; that is finally shedding the "liberal base". If this happens, they will no doubt view it as the Democratic Party not being conservative enough.

[Raksha]

54. Fine...let 'em shed the liberal base - they'd be doing us a favor.

There are a hell of a lot of us, and we progressives are the most aware, informed and dedicated citizens in America. We're a long way from being a majority, but there are still enough of us to mount a serious challenge, especially if we can provide a REAL alternative to the corporate Democratic party. The Democrats can't win without our support, and they know it. We could form a viable third party if we only had the chutzpah. Just because it hasn't been done doesn't mean it can't be.

[mmonk]

56. In many states, the system is rigged to prevent competing parties.

That will make it hard to win on a large enough scale most likely. However, if the "liberal base" was separated out, it might become more respected as a swing vote movement.

[Raksha]

57. Unfortunately, that's how it would have to start, as a swing movement.

But we all agree that the DLC/Blue Dog corporatists are useless anyway. They don't represent us. So the Democrats would lose, but for the very first time they couldn't just sneer at us: "Where are you going to go? Who are going to vote for?" They would no longer have our votes by default the way they do now. And that in itself would shake them out of their complacency and be a major force for change.

[creeksneakers2]

81. Test that logic

That by withholding some votes it will push the party to the left. That strategy withheld needed votes in 2000 and the following four years were the most suck-up-to-Republicans years I can remember.

How about running a study? Start with a graph and label one axis with from a respected group's liberal scores for Congressmen on the liberal scale. On the other access, make the other axis represent the percentage of Democrats in the Congressmens' districts. I'd bet real money that you'd find that the Congressmen with the safest districts tend to have the highest liberal scale scores.

The logical thing for a politician to do if they lose a fringe vote from the left is to move a little to the right.

[creeksneakers2]

78. Where have I heard that before?

The people who call themselves "progressives" are a tiny minority and can't win a primary battle with anybody who is mainstream.

[cascadiance]

84. I guess just a "tiny minority" of us want single payer health care and to end the wars!

Not to mention a majority of Americans don't like the banksters getting bailouts!

COME ON! There ARE issues where we can reach even beyond the Democratic Party with a populist AND progressive message!

[creeksneakers2]

115. Just a tiny minority is angry socialist

[cascadiance]

124. Hmm.. . Methinks you watch Faux News too much...

You're echoing their talking points here on trying to minimize majority of American people's opinion which progressives share as "a small minority of angry socialists"... That's like calling those that are "centrist moderates" fascist... Not very accurate though perhaps moreso, with corporate interests being those who they prefer to serve even though that relationship is what has been basically destroying our country for the last 30 years.

[creeksneakers2]

148. No. I mean socialists

Lots of the people on this board who call themselves "progressives" also describe themselves as socialists. I'm not using it like the right uses it to call Obama a socialist. I'm talking about actual socialists.

[cascadiance]

173. But you are equivalencing them in an effort to minimize the significance of progressive views...

Progressive views such as stopping the war, stopping the unchecked bailouts, getting single payer health care "on the table", are NOT necessarily just supported by socialists, as you call them. And they are supported by a majority of Americans, not just "socialists", even if the administration and many other Dems seek to minimize them in the interest of keeping their campaign contributors happy.

Therefore, just because socialists which are perhaps more of a minority than those with progressive views doesn't mean that the Democratic Party should disregard PROGRESSIVE views. Socialists and how many people are socialist doesn't really factor in. How many people are socialist is really not the same equation as to how many people have progressive views.

[creeksneakers2]

179. If you take the sub-thread from the beginning

It was in response to someone who called the Democratic Party the "corporate Democratic Party." That's not a mainstream characterization. Its also way off the mark, unless one looks at the Democratic Party from the perspective of an angry socialist.

My guess is a majority still supports the war in Afghanistan. Progressives do not. 80% support the way Obama is handling Iraq. Progressives don't. I don't think a majority of the people who want single payer health care are more concerned with making a statement than in getting a good compromise of universal health care.

Why is do you decide everybody you disagree with is corrupt? Obama is looking for a compromise on health care. How can that have anything to do with his donations. Obama got $700 million in donations so any one interest is just a tiny slice. Much of what Obama got was from people who prefer single payer.

[cascadiance]

188. Criticizing the Democratic Party's ties to corporate money doesn't make one a socialist!

That's YOUR conclusion, not a scientific or objective assessment.

It doesn't take a socialist to realize that Max Baucus is MORE tied to corporate America than the citizens of Montana or a majority of American citizens when he keeps single payer advocates out of committee meetings and arrests those that try to be a part of them. If it's not fealty to corporate America, then WHAT explains his actions?

Here's an example of a poll that contends with your THOUGHTS that a majority of people don't support single payer health care. Are the Associated Press and Yahoo "socialist"?

http://www.grahamazon.com/over/2008/01/poll-shows-majority-support-single-payer/

It's not just who Obama gets donations from himself that is of issue. It is also who provides donations to who he works with amongst many other things. Can he stop Baucus from closing the meetings to single payer advocates directly? Now if he were to try, then I'd give him credit for trying to fight the corruption. But there's so many places that he himself is either not confronting it or letting it run its course and just giving us lip service of fighting it without any meaningful action. We are still waiting for him to take some meaningful risks of taking on the powerful corporate lobbies in Washington and have yet to see it. And each other time he moves more to the corporate centric views as opposed to working for us, it makes us feel like we're being played. It started with hiring Rahm Emanuel, who IS a corporatist, and someone who he had the choice to hire differently if he really wanted to fight corporate corruption.

[creeksneakers2]

194. What I said was

"I don't think a majority of the people who want single payer health care are more concerned with making a statement than in getting a good compromise of universal health care." I didn't say that a majority doesn't support single payer. I said only a minority refuses to compromise.

How do you know that Max Baucus is doing what he does because of his ties to corporate America? He's probably a pragmatist like me. Its best to stick with what might actually be accomplished and not divide those who might support the public option. Even the public option will be hard to get as it is. Maybe he wants to support as much of the president's plan as possible.

A majority of Americans don't label everybody who disagrees with them as a corrupt corporatist. The public option is not corporatist.

[cascadiance]

199. You forget. It is Max Baucus that is REFUSING to compromise and HEAR those advocating single payer!

Not even allowing them in to the meetings and saying it is "off the table" is an attitude of NOT COMPROMISING, not one of pragmatism! When most people want to see single payer looked at, as the poll shows, he's NOT representing the people! WHO is he representing then? If you say it is being a pragmatist because it is too hard to get things through the system that a majority of the people want, then isn't that saying there's something wrong with the system?

[Raineyb]

187. Your use of the term "angry socialist" belies your claim n/t

[Individualist]

86. Damn the DLC!

[Enthusiast]

145. But the MSM can continue to characterize

progressives as a bunch of nuts.

[mike_c]

48. agreed 100 percent-- the real enemy is NOT republicans...

...it's the republican wing of the democratic party. Unless the dems begin to legislate REAL alternatives to the corporate and MIC status quo, they're indistinguishable from the republicans. One party, with different flavors.

[tan guera]

133. I call what we have on Çapitol Hill

The One Bi-Polar War Party!

[tnlefty]

49. Slight quibble with point #2:

The repubs that I know in TN and GA who voted for Obama did so because the more they realized that they had been lied to about Iraq and the more the costs soared, they became fucking sick of it, so it won't be merely a liberal base who will be pissed off.

Remember those young people who couldn't wait to vote? The ones that I know were sick of the death and destruction and the money spent on it as they watched their schools falling into disrepair, etc.

I just don't think that it will only be a liberal base that will be very pissed. :hi:

[AllentownJake]

55. Wars are seldom popular after a year

For good reason, unless your a sociopath, having your people kill other people and them kill you will weigh on your mind.

[leftstreet]

127. You make an important point

The repubs that I know in TN and GA who voted for Obama did so because the more they realized that they had been lied to about Iraq and the more the costs soared, they became fucking sick of it, so it won't be merely a liberal base who will be pissed off.

Same thing here in my state(s), the Pacific NW. A lot of dissatisfied Republicans went with Obama, and they'll be extremely dissatisfied if the wars continue.

[autorank]

59. k*r So what your saying is...

...reflect the will of the people.

OUTSTANDING!!!! :patriot:

[ProgressiveProfessor]

62. Then there are the things we should not do...like additional gun control or another useless AWB

[EPIC1934]

64. yep

clear and practical. Note that these are 3 class-related issues. Not ONLY class related but all 3 of these issues in one way or another were handled differently by the New Deal Democratic coaliton, 1932-80. The third is the toughest one to argue.

This post reminds me that moving to the left of the DLC (these days its almost impossible not to) is not ideological. Its practical.

[kath]

114. AWB??

Sorry, my brain is toast tonight...

[benEzra]

170. The "assault weapon" fraud. AWB = Assault Weapons Ban.

"Assault weapons" being gun-ban-lobby-speak for the most popular civilian rifles in the United States.

The MSM and the corporatist/Third Way communitarians really want another "assault weapons" ban, even though only 3% of U.S. murders involve any type of rifle. It's a moral crusade.

So far, Obama has steered well away from that minefield, and I hope he continues to leave it alone. The new-gun-bans position is a loser, just like it was in 1994, 2000, and 2004.

[depakid]

197. The gun types think everyone in the nation is so keen on their obsession

and their "right" to own assault weapons that they tossed the election to Republicans.

lol. But hey, hey cowardly and obsessed people think some irrational things.... what can one say?

[benEzra]

218. Since "assault weapon" is Third Way newspeak for the most popular civilian rifles in America, yes.

More Americans own so-called "assault weapons" than hunt. And I dare say that if you tried to institute a hunting ban, there'd be a backlash, too.

[RagAss]

63. We're already going down....same as it ever was politics !

[The Wizard]

66. Democrats should never

give in to Republican feigned indignity where they always demand an apology. When ever a Democrat apologizes at a Republican demand they lose. Just call the republicans demanding an apology or resignation, as in the case with Speaker Pelosi, tell them to eat shit and bark at the moon.

[Proud Liberal Dem]

68. Well, Pelosi is still here

and AFAIK she has not issued any apologies for her comments about the CIA nor is she planning to resign. Plus, several Dems have come out and publicly supported her. Probably not as many as we like but as evidenced by the recent lack of discussion about the big flare up over a week ago, I haven't heard much more about the Republican's "outrage" over Pelosi's comments and supposed knowledge of (and inaction about) their criminal interrogation methods. I too had been kind of worried that she might actually resign or that some Dems might call for her resignation but for what, exactly????

[anonymous171]

70. As long as we avoid gun control we will be fine. nt

[howmad1]

98. OK. As long as we avoid guns, we'll be OK.

As long as dems bring knives to gunfights, we'll also be fine. Are you serious?

[anonymous171]

104. OK = avoid any cataclysmic shifts in power (eg 1993.) nt

[nichomachus]

71. People here will say

"well, you should have listened to or read what Obama really said about {insert name of issue here}"

The real question that should be asked is why did those millions of people vote for him. What did those young people and first time voters hear and why did they come out and vote.

That's what really matter -- not some over-parsed policy statement from an old web site somewhere. That doesn't really matter.

Millions of people came out expecting, at the very least, change. If they don't see something substantive by November of 2010 -- 17 months from now -- the shit could hit the fan. People can whine all they want about "well he never really said blah blah blah," but if people feel they were shafted, they aren't coming back.

I gave a lot of money that I really didn't have to Obama. If I don't see something that is a real change -- and I don't mean reversing some executive order of Bush's, naming a Republican to his cabinet, or taking the bible quotes off of the daily briefings, I will be donating whatever money I have to other causes.

So far, I've seen a few cosmetic changes, but nothing substantive. The war goes on. Gitmo is still there. Torturers are walking around free. The treasury is being emptied into the pockets of Wall Street. Workers are being screwed right and left. Health care "reform" is shaping up to bed another insurance-industry bait and switch.

If Prop H8 is upheld on Tuesday, I know that any money I scrape together between now and 2010 is going to go to that -- because Obama has pretty much proven he doesn't give a sweet fuck about the GLBT community, except for our money and our votes. He says a few nice words now and then, but talk is cheap.

[emsimon33]

72. Yes! Obama needs to step up and call these people out.

We have been given a chance to change things and pretty names is not change.

[creeksneakers2]

75. Tax and spend

You can raise taxes on the rich to an extent, but the rest of the public won't put up with their taxes being raised. The fiscal numbers don't add up now and something has to go. If Dems choose to raise taxes on middle class folks it will be bye-bye.

[Occam Bandage]

80. We follow the lead of Clinton-era Democrats:

Sit on our asses, bitch about the party, and let the Republicans set the message without challenging them.

[lonestarnot]

83. Why aren't we having a contest to rename bluedogmotherfuckers?

[Cleita]

90. We could call them the DemocRAT DLC Party.

Works for me.

[lonestarnot]

146. Works for me too!

[rhett o rick]

121. Well there shouldn't be blue in their name. Red Dog Bastards gets my vote. nm

[lonestarnot]

147. reddogmotherfuckers, better.

:evilgrin:

[rhett o rick]

182. Dont think it will catch on with the media. just sayin. nm

[depakid]

89. The politics of disappointment. Here's how it went down in 1994:

And why the corrupt DINO's are worse enemies than Republicans.

Think about 1994.

Pundits credited major Republican victories to angry white men, Hillary's failed healthcare plan, and Newt Gingrich's "Contract with America." But the defeat was equally rooted in a massive withdrawal of volunteer support among Democratic activists who felt politically betrayed. Nothing fostered this sense more than Bill Clinton's going to the mat to push the North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA).

Angered by a sense that he was subordinating all other priorities to corporate profits, and by his cavalier attitude toward the hollowing out of America's industrial base, labor, environmental and social-justice activists nationwide withdrew their energy from Democratic campaigns.

This helped swing the election, much as the continued extension of these policies (particularly around dropping trade barriers with China) led just enough Democratic leaning voters in 2000 to help elect George Bush by staying home or voting for Ralph Nader.

No place saw a more dramatic political shift than my home state of Washington. In November 1992, Democratic activists volunteered by the thousands, hoping to end the Reagan-Bush era. On Election Day, I joined five other volunteers to help get out the vote in a swing district 20 miles south of Seattle. Volunteers had a similar presence in every major Democratic or competitive district in the state. The effort helped Clinton to carry the state and Democrats to capture eight out of nine House seats.

But by 1994 grass-roots Democratic campaigners mostly stayed home, disgruntled. In Washington State, there were barely enough people to distribute literature and make phone calls in Seattle's most liberal neighborhoods, let alone in swing suburban districts. Republicans won seven of our nine congressional races, and reelected a Senator known for baiting environmentalists.

The same was true nationwide.

More: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/paul-loeb/hillary-and-the-politics-_b_73957.html

[gorfle]

91. Another one.

Firearm restrictions.

Any move against the second amendment will have serious repercussions at the ballot box, just like it did in 1994.

[Enthusiast]

149. And firearm restrictions

won't accomplish a thing other than firearm restrictions. That and losing millions of voters.

[depakid]

198. What a load of horsepucky

[Enthusiast]

204. No horsepucky, friend.

I am a long time hunter. My family lives in a rural area where hunting is a way of life. People around here fear 'liberal types' will take their guns away. These people will vote against every single one of their best interests if there is proposed anti-gun legislation. So, anti firearm legislation will not save a single life but it will cost us many many votes.

[panzerfaust]

92. We The People Voted FOR Change

and if we don't get it ...

Certainly, to my mind, president Obama does not REALLY get it. He has held on to several leaders of the Republican War, committed more forces to the Graveyard of Empires, appointed foxes to guard the chicken-house (who is Sec of Treasury?), supports indefinite confinement without trial (moving GITMO onshore to CONUS is NOT closing it), etc, etc ... he even supports the Bush Anti Polar Bear policy!

Change is NOT more of the same.

[Enthusiast]

150. Before the election President Obama

expressed admiration for Ronald Reagan. That should have warning enough.

[totodeinhere]

93. Your points are well taken. A lot of people wrote off the GOP in both 1964...

after the Johnson landslide over Goldwater, and also after the Watergate scandal in 1976. But in both cases the GOP was back in the White House four years later. And after Carter won in 1976, as we know, the GOP took the White House in four out of the next six elections. Only arguably one of the most skilled politicians ever, Bill Clinton, broke that streak.

So you're right. We can't be complacent. But actually, I am more worried about holding the WH in 2016. Historically, it has been very hard for either party to win three consecutive presidential elections.

As far as Congress goes, I think we are safe in 2010. I am more worried about holding the Senate in 2012 and 2014 when all of the Dem freshmen who swept into office in 2006 and 2008 will be up for reelection. In both cases the Dems will have a lot more seats to defend than the GOP does.

[Ken Burch]

113. The key in BOTH of those elections

Will be in getting as much stuff done as close to the elections as possible, so that the memory of the achievements will be fresh in the voters' minds and so that we can say "reelect us so these new ideas can have a chance to succeed".

Getting some kind of positive spin out in the media will also be important. The alleged "liberals" at the major television networks and the major newspapers were declaring LBJ's anti-poverty programs a failure by the fall of 1965-in other words, right after they were passed. And LBJ let himself be spooked into not standing up and defending those programs himself(he actually started cutting them back almost as soon as they were in place).

We will need, above and below, to be defending and speaking out for all that is put into place because the MSM will be determined to destroy it in the name of creating a "horse race" in 2012 and 2014, followed by a story of a "GOP comeback"(and most likely, G-d help us, features about a "New Palin").

[UP_4012]

95. Bingo!

:applause:

[eridani]

103. This won't be because working class Dems vote Green

It will be because, like in 1994, many will just stay home, or will merely vote and not do any work for or donate money to Dem candidates.

[demodonkey]

105. You forgot #4 -- ELECTION PROBLEMS

It could be theft, fraud, error, or just plain breakdown of the bad voting systems we have now.

Caging and Voter ID pushing Dem-leaning voters away from the polls. e-Pollbooks failing in Dem areas and forcing provisional ballots that are never counted.

And worst of all -- millions of voters are still voting on paperless Direct Record Electronic (DRE) machines that voter's can't verify and leave nothing to meaningfully audit or recount.

Jake, if you really live in Allentown PA, you are voting on the Diebold (now called Premier) TSX, a voting machine that is so full of security holes it ought to be nicknamed Swiss Cheese. Look it up on the Top To Bottom Report done for the Secretary of State in California, or the EVEREST report done for the Secretary of State of Ohio. Then DEMAND THAT LEHIGH COUNTY SWITCH TO A VOTER-MARKED PAPER BALLOT SYSTEM in time for 2010. Centre County did it. Lackawanna did it. Lehigh can too.

Then we need meaningful audits of all elections, in Pennsylvania and nationally.

Become an in-the-poll pollworker. Join the election integrity organization of your choice. Nationally, verifiedvoting.org is good. In Pennsylvania please help us work for better elections and join us at http://www.VotePA.us , on Facebook at http://www.facebook.com/group.php?gid=54456381502 , or on Change.org at http://www.change.org/votepa . Your own vote will be a lot safer in the long run if you help fight for election integrity.

There is no excuse for paperless electronic voting and other risks to our elections.We need to pay attention to our elections and GET THIS DONE.

[AllentownJake]

106. I voted on Tuesday

I cringed when I saw the Diebold on the corner of my machine. Same machines as on November 4. As a security measure for my own vote I pick a race I don't give a shit about and do a write in. Than I check to see if my write in is recorded.

The wonderful poll workers were having trouble with the machines when I went when the polls opened on Tuesday, I said it would be so much simpler with paper ballots.

[demodonkey]

172. I do the same thing with a write-in but that does not mean every vote is being counted correctly.

My county (Westmoreland) uses the ES&S iVotronic which was also mentioned in the EVEREST report as having horrible security problems. I have been doing the same thing as you, casting a write-in every time to see if it comes out in the results. But even if it does record the write-ins, the regular votes could be miscounting, or even be lost. If there is ever a fraud going on they will probably be smart enough NOT to tamper with the write-ins, knowing that people will be watching for them.

Please take a look at this short video; it is a Penn State computer science professor who worked on the EVEREST report for the Ohio Secretary of State Jennifer Brunner, speaking in State College at a community event: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8EvYi5iyobs

And here is another three-minute video which shows a Diebold machine being hacked on national TV: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cy1IlAXeV30&feature=related The PA Department of State knows about this hole, and their response has been to require all counties to reinstall the software from a clean copy every election. The sad thing is that if a machine is infected, it could go down to the deepest level of the operating system so it is possible that clean software won't really help. Plus an infected machine could infect others.

All this is very scary and there is no excuse that a huge state like Pennsylvania still allows these dangerous, unverifiable touchscreen and pushbutton machines to handle our votes. Even though we have been voting Dem in the last few presidential elections, we are still a huge swing state and could be flipped -- and we could flip the whole country just as Ohio and Florida did.

The Pennsylvania Democratic Party should be paying huge attention, but Ed Rendell "likes" the machines they use in Philly so I guess that is the cue for everyone else to believe that all is well.

:scared:

[MasonJar]

107. I am a liberal and I am furious on all three of the above plus more.

Obama has promised change but is not fulfilling his promise; he is not backing single payer and is not investigating war crimes and torture and has not come to Congress and the people to push for much of anything, except bank bailouts. My rep is also a liberal so I will be supporting him in 2010. However, if Obama does not improve, I will be hoping for a challenger from the left in 2012 (although I am confident it will not happen.) Our problem is that we liberals have nowhere to go in 2012. Obama has sidelined Hillary and no one else is strong enough. Do NOT get me wrong; I hope he improves and soon. It could still happen I suppose.

[elocs]

117. The truth is that Democrats have a pseudo-majority in Congress.

Plus, it is a big, big, big mistake that so many make in writing off the Republican Party. Not only are Republicans not dead, in Congress they have the ability to stand together and support their own agenda and point of view. Republicans seem more pragmatic than Democrats inasmuch as they have the ability to pull together for a common party good and not have every faction of their party take an all or nothing attitude toward their own important ideas or issues.

Here at DU we tend to mock and denigrate all things Republican, but even though we disagree with them their issues and ideas are as important to them as ours are to us. I think we diminish our own credibility when we always paint them as the evil boogeyman who stands in the way of all things dear to us. I think we made a mistake in making a caricature and a buffoonish cartoon character out of Bush because people tend not to take that type seriously and what Bush did was serious and not cartoonish.

[rhett o rick]

123. Buttttttt the current leaders of the republiCon party are driving the rank and file moderates into

the Democratic Party. This will tip the Democratic Party heavily to the right. What I see happening is that we will end up with a small republiCon party of right wing wacko's and a small left wing party maybe the Green Party and a large conservative Democratic Party. The Senate is already there. I bet John McCain defects as well as Colin Powell and Sen Snowe and Sen Collins.

[Enthusiast]

151. Really?

Bush lost two Presidential elections.

[rhett o rick]

122. When you say "we lose" who are you refering to? The Democrats might win

but it mite be the DLC Red Dog Bastards.

See this post: http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=389&topic_id=5704338&mesg_id=5704338

[leftstreet]

128. K&R

Nicely done!

[progressoid]

130. True but I would put them in reverse order of importance.

1. Banking/Economy
2. War
3. Health Care.

IMHO.

[Enthusiast]

153. I'll add one.

Breaking up concentrated media control.

[Phoebe Loosinhouse]

152. Where are disaffected Republicans going? To the Democratic Party

Pulling us even further to the corporatist right. This might be the major fact behind many of Obama's acts and decisions that disappoint so many of us self-identified "progressives". Leaders of the Dems see an opportunity to basically anihilate the GOP in the coming elections since they have co-opted so many of their stances, and even some people, some in major positions. Even worse than being a 2 party nation with obvious choices, will be being a one party nation with little to no choice. This is where I see the greatest danger - a single party nation with a strong leader in control who posesses established extra-legal powers like "preventive detention" and the ability to suppress any unpleasant information as a "national Security issue" along with a corporately controlled media.

If Obama continues his rightward movement, I think you'll start to see a shift in the media coverage of him becoming a lot more positive. Who knew that the all the work and organizing and excitement for overwhelming Democratic victories could lead to something like this? We might get a lot MORE change than we ever bargained for.

[pipoman]

154. I think you are forgetting the elephant(s) in the corner

Why did we begin loosing ground in 1994? Because the party took a big steaming crap on blue collar/rural/evangelical dems. Without righting some of these wrongs, or at least working to maintain this HUGE voting block, we will see defeat again soon. This is a prime example of the mentality that will cost us in the near future if we allow it to be the loudest voice of the party... http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_topic&forum=389&topic_id=5658853 ...IOW, if I disagree, throw the fuckers out, will not maintain the congress or the presidency.

Now for the elephants in the corner

1. Full embrace and full on tongue in mouth lockstep in "free trade agreements" which sell rural and blue collar traditionally Dem voters down the proverbial river. I will never forget the bizarre coalition of Dem and pug lawmakers having carnal relations at NAFTA and GATT press conference despite some 85% disapproval by both parties. I expected that shit from the pugs, I would have NEVER expected that the "labor party" would agree, in fact spearhead, such a completely predictable shit on blue collar and rural voters.

2. The icing on that cake was implementation of gun control, most notably, the completely nonsensical, predictably ineffectual assault weapons ban.

These 2 issues cost us 1994 and refusal to back up off of them has cost our party ever since.

When are we going to learn that we cannot win elections without acceptance of multiple areas of belief? It is time for realignment to principals which appeal to the largest number of voters. The NAFTA and GATT (etal) have dramatically reduced our ability to act against corporatists who are profiting greatly by taking advantage of 3rd world labor markets and stripping the US blue collar industrial base. Further not one single vote would be lost by abandoning the gun control plank in our platform and leaving gun legislation to the states for good, yet many many likely voters would vote dem if it was removed....gun control, as with other civil rights restrictions, is not a Liberal position regardless of how often the tiny vocal fringe claim it is.

[clear eye]

157. Blue-collar and/or rural Dems are impacted by the OP's core issues as well.

Yes the "trade" agreements, which are about so much more than trade, are an abomination, but don't you think that giving the people you speak of Single-Payer, would create a feeling of inclusion? I think restructuring the banking system along the lines Stiglitz and others recommend so they are no longer a bottomless pit for borrowed money would be appreciated as well. These people are part of the same country as the rest of us, and are not solely controlled by the wedge issue of gun control. To a large extent they became fervent Democrats a couple of generations ago in support of FDR, and his economic revitalization measures. Yeah, Obama's remarks about PA and W VA voters "clinging" to values issues will always rankle, and was the single most tone-deaf thing he ever said, but stepping up to the plate on critical pocketbook issues would win most over. It's this current combination of the memory of that remark, and let them eat cake economic policies that sustains the alienation.

[pipoman]

206. No doubt

we all are. The best thing we could do, IMHO, to win millions of Dem leaning centrist votes (these are the deciding factor in every national election) would be to find a way to remove the financial incentive to move manufacturing out of the US. The trade agreements make most disincentives impossible. I think the FDR type leadership is nearly quashed by corporate interests and the force of the power pyramid...without a revolutionary leader to risk everything including his/her life to fix these wrongs as FDR did I see no change in sight.

[AllentownJake]

164. At this point trade agreements would be reaching

Any action on gun control would be foolish. I think we need to have a discussion about the number of murders committed by fire arms in this country. However, now is not the time.

[pipoman]

207. Fix the socio-economic issues in this country,

fund mental health treatment and return hope to the masses and we will see a reduction in all types of violent crime without the need to challenge civil rights issues at the national level.

[Echo In Light]

156. Recommended

[sendero]

163. It's all pretty much moot to me..

... yes, Obama will be a one termer. By the time 2012 rolls around, the media and pol blather will not be able to hide just how ON IT'S KNEES this country is.

And the people are going to be ANGRY. They do not have the attention span to assign blame where it belongs, on the Bush administration, for getting us into pointless wars and hobbling the economy with their absurd notions of how businesses operate. On the other hand, Obama will have failed with the economy because he sided with the bankers over Americans, so he'll deserve his fate.

No, the electorate will roll the dice and throw the bum out.

But, it doesn't really matter, because as things are right now there is little any government can do. Thing ARE that bad, and the Dem party has shown quite clearly that while it might not create messes as fast as the Reps, they are just as incapable of cleaning them up.

You are on your own, get used to it.

[kentuck]

165. I think you may be right, sendero...

unfortunately.

[JNelson6563]

166. Valid points

Agreed.

[BlooInBloo]

168. We're doomed.

[AllentownJake]

203. If the democratic government raises taxes on the middle class

I'm honestly done with every single person who votes for the bill and I'm done with the President if he signs it.

I have better things to do with my time than to help these assholes.

[JamesA1102]

169. Agree 90%

I agree that if there is no significant movement on all three of these issues both there will be challenges for Dems in 2010 & 2012. However, where I disagree is with the analogy to 1993 in two major ways.

First your analysis of what happened in 1993 is dead wrong. The reason that Dems were defeated in the 1994 election was because the base stayed away from the polls. It was because moderates (the so-called Reagan Dems who voted for Clinton in 1992) went for the GOP because the Republicans were able to cast the Dems as radicals who were over reaching.

Second, the situation and mood of the country is very different now than in 1993 & 1994. The GOP is in disarray now. They were not in 1993. The same arguements they used then are ineffective now, they just don't have the credibilty with the public. I think it would be hard for them to be as organized and effective in 2010 as they were in 1994.

I do agree that Conservative Dems like Evan Bayh and Ben Nelson are the problem and need to be replaced.

[mdmc]

171. So you dont think Obama can win playing good cop to the GOP bad cop?

It looks like that is his play - I hate to admit it (cause I support all 3 of your planks) but Obama might be right. At least he got all the votes last year - I didn't.
I hope he knows what he is doing.
I wish it was different.

[high density]

176. I'm happy to see incremental progress

Given the makeup of the Democrats in the senate I think we are doing pretty good. Nobody should've expected an instant 180 degree turn from the Bush years after Obama was elected, yet that seems to be the overall feeling among DUers.

[elizfeelinggreat]

186. If we are smart and organized

we will be able to use this (not enough change momentum) to get more liberal/progressive Democrats into Congress in 2010.

Then we might affect the desired changes more easily.

[travelingtypist]

208. Isn't the quest for ideological purity what is killing the RePugs?

The Republicans are strictly a Southern party now. They have ceded the West and the Northeast to us. And they're trying to kick out one of their most popular members, Colin Powell, because Darth Cheney prefers Limpballs.

Do we really want to go down that road?

[QueenOfCalifornia]

210. You are correct

and this makes me sad.

I will not vote for Obama again if he does not get us the fuck out of Iraq and close Gitmo. These are giant issues for me. If he wants to appease the GOP then maybe he should just come out and tell us, the people he promised these things to, to go fuck ourselves.

It's obvious that the banks have our house and senate by the balls and it is obvious that Obama is giving the banks a big blank check and a pass.

[cboy4]

211. Don't forget teh gays will be blamed some how.

[Jack_DeLeon]

214. Gitmo should stay open...

Honestly not too many Americans really care about foreign terrorists, if we close it and there is even any sort of single terrorist incident in the US, our opposition will jump on us about being wrong on Gitmo.