Who do you think was more responsible for Democrats victory in 2006 & 2008?

[yurbud]

Poll question: Who do you think was more responsible for Democrats victory in 2006 & 2008?

One of the oddest things about the Obama presidency is how he has rewarded the very Democrats in Congress who did everything to obliterate the differences between the two parties during the Bush years and has essentially http://thehill.com/homenews/administration/71075-conyers-obama-told-me-to-stop-demeaning-him?tmpl=component&print=1&layout=default&page=">shit on those who fought for our core values and therefore made it clear that people had a real alternative when they came to their senses and woke up from the Bush fear and ignorance cult.

It's a little like the Allies liberating France from the Nazis and then recognizing Marshall Petain, the Nazi puppet leader of Vichy France, instead of Charles DeGaulle, the leader of the resistance.

Frankly, I wouldn't care if he gave the corporatists in the party a free rein if he at least did some issues right like health care, war, or spaying and neutering the sociopaths on Wall Street. Instead on every issue, ''compromise'' has meant that 90% of the progressive position is discarded to avoid offending the corporate criminals.

With that in mind, APART FROM BUSH, are these Blue Dogs and DLCers the ones that won these unprecedented majorities that Obama is squandering on unnecessary compromise?

[Tommy_Carcetti]

1. Other.

Margot Kidder, of course.

[Captain Hilts]

2. George W. Bush. nt

[timeforpeace]

35. Yep.

[mdmc]

3. the neo-cons

the failure of the neo-cons left the Dems as the only game in town..

[AlphaCentauri]

4. George Bush gave the democrats the opportunity to win

democrats where living in the closet

[yurbud]

6. Not all, just most

[FBaggins]

5. Other - The sad truth

is that each of those votes "counts" just the same amount. The winning coalition was made up of the hard-core left finally starting to see a candidate that they might support... along with the "moderate" wing desperate for a victory... AND large numbers of unaffiliated and even republican voters who were absolutely sick and tired of Bush and Republicans in general.

We had a candidate who did a very good job of appealing across those lines. Liberals knew he wasn't a warmonger and cut him slack with times he had to "talk tough" on Afghanistan (etc). Moderates saw an articulate candidate who really came across as open to new ideas and their priorities... a man who could bridge gaps in partisanship.

The third group saw "not Bush"... and that was all they needed. :)

[Craftsman]

Shrub and the Rethug lost, the dems did not win

Both seem to dance to teh same Wall St. masters fiddle.

[FBaggins]

12. No offense... but isn't that the right-wing take on the election?

And hasn't it been for the last few losses?

"We lost because we weren't true to ourselves... when real republicans run they win... the electorate hasn't moved from right-of-center, we just lost our way" ???

How about "The left didn't win... democrats did. We just didn't know what we were getting" ?

[Craftsman]

20. My take is the rethug lost because the sucked worse then the dems

I've yet to see either party do more then lip service to the needs of teh middle and working class. Wall St bail out instead of jobs, free trade instead of fair trade.

[alcibiades_mystery]

7. Other: Margot Kidder

Fuckin' duh!

:-)

[HopeHoops]

8. The shrub.

By 2006, BushCo had already done a shitload of damage to the country. McCain added to the issue in 2008 by picking a dunce for a running mate, but the GOP can mostly thank the shrub for their defeats.

[laughingliberal]

9. Dean's 50 state strategy and Bush's failure nt

[yurbud]

10. that would be progressives. DLC wanted to aim only at swing states, not GOP strongholds

[laughingliberal]

19. True. But felt Bush' failure was enough of an issue not to answer purely progressives nt

[Sebastian Doyle]

11. The man who should have been elected President in 2004

[Bitwit1234]

13. HOWARD DEAN--- HOWARD DEAN--- AND

the democrats with the help of Emmanuel stripped him of the post and gave it to a do nothing like Tim Kaine. That's the trouble with the democrats people like Emmanuel call the shots and they are not AT ALL GOOD AT WHAT THEY DO.

[BuelahWitch]

23. +1

How soon people forget...

[yurbud]

24. Howard is a progressive--at least compared to DLC & Blue Dogs

he's actually fairly moderate, but he's not bought, which makes him anathema to other so-called moderates.

[Ready4Change]

14. Other: War planning & Economic failures under Bush.

The Dem's didn't win. The Bush administration screwed things up so badly that the Repub's either couldn't over come it, or didn't WANT to overcome it.

I still think the Palin nomination was the Repub's way of throwing the election. It's the only excuse I can think of that makes sense.

[BeFree]

15. Progs got one vote, hot damn!!

Because what put the dems over the top was the progs who have been against Bushco from the beginning.

Since the people who never voted before agreed with the progs, and being they were motivated the last two times by the progs -- they voted like the progs voted.

Too many voted prog for the voting machines to steal it.
Over the top, baybee~!

[OneTenthofOnePercent]

16. George Bush - The dems just got out of the way and let him kill the GOP. n/t

[kctim]

17. Easy

Independents who believed the Bush administration had put too much govt into their lives.
Moderate Democrats who believed the same.
Moderate Republicans who believed the same.

[Occam Bandage]

18. Bush. nt

[ecstatic]

21. Though we hate to admit it, Pelosi. She's more low key these days

so I'm not sure if she can save us in 2010.

[zipplewrath]

22. GOP Congress

They refused to oppose Bush at all. They let him get away with every single stupid thing he did.

[Peace Patriot]

25. Well, I think this question ignores a huge and overriding reality as to

who gains elective office in this country and what agenda they will be serving. And that reality is the 'TRADE SECRET' voting machines, with the programming code owned and controlled by a handful of rightwing corporations, with virtually no audit/recount controls. There is hardly an election in this country that can be verified. Half the states have NO audit/recount controls AT ALL. The other half have a meager and inadequate 1% audit. (A 10% audit--comparison of ballots to electronic totals--is the minimum needed to detect fraud in electronic voting systems, according to experts whom I respect). The public has no right to review the 'TRADE SECRET' programming code by which all of our votes are counted.

And these rightwing corporations are REALLY rightwing. One of them is funded by a reclusive rightwing billionaire who also gave one million dollars to an extremist 'christian' foundation (the Chalcedon foundation) that promotes the death penalty for homosexuals! (That's ES&S, which just bought out Diebold and now has a monopoly over a large portion of the voting machine 'market.')

What this means is that the U.S. election system is now entirely manipulable from "behind the curtain." Outfront you have the corpo-fascist 'news' monopolies and the filthy campaign contribution/lobbying system (--about to get even filthier, if the Supreme Court rules for unlimited corporate campaign contributions this week). And if those things don't work well enough to enrich the war profiteers and banksters, they "play" the electronic vote counting system like a "piano," producing a symphony of corruption--including crude crescendos like the Bush Junta, or contrapuntal minuets like the "Blue Dogs," or subtler woodsongs like Obama. And we don't get to see the strings, which are locked inside the piano box.

Don't get me wrong. I think Obama was elected--likely by a bigger margin than we know--on the plaintive hopes of the American people for peace and justice at long last--but what this 'TRADE SECRET 'code system means is that the bad guys can un-elect him, at their will, and furthermore inflict him with a Puke/"Blue Dog"-infested Congress, to curtail any instincts he might have for real reform. And I frankly think Obama has been set up to take the fall for the mindboggling corporate/war profiteer crime spree of 2000 to 2008. They permitted him to be elected, and you gotta wonder why, when they clearly now have an entirely secret system with which to install anyone they want in the White House.

As much as I know about our election system, and how unbelievably bad it is, still I was pretty shocked when the Democratic Party took over Congress in 2006, on the strength of anti-war sentiment in the country (the Iraq War being the TOP issue on voters' minds, according to the polls), and, within two months, had ESCALATED the war on Iraq.

You gotta figure the war profiteers are playing this system like a piano, you really do. And you don't have to look far for the instrument. It's staring us in the face. 'TRADE SECRET' vote counting.

So, back to your poll and your question: Who is responsible for the Democrats' victories in 2006 and 2008? Private rightwing corporations exercised direct control over those vote counts. Ergo it must be in the interest of private corporations and rightwingers to have permitted those victories--likely, to launder the Bush Junta crimes through a short period of supposedly "liberal" government (in which real liberals have no real power), and then to blame "the liberals" for the long term consequences of that mindbogglingly criminal era. The American people thought they were electing liberals. But they were really electing liberal fall guys, and selected false-liberals (as well as a number of obstructionist, outright fascist Pukes).

You don't believe me? Show me the evidence that anyone currently in office in Washington DC was actually elected. You can't. No one can. And that's a fact.

Then ask yourself: How can vote counting have been rendered totally non-transparent, and placed in the hands of rightwing corporations with 'TRADE SECRET' seals upon it, in what was once the greatest democracy in the world?

[BeFree]

27. A bit too long...

...for most DUers to read, but nails it dead, on a subject that needs to be understood.

Indeed, the voting machines have the chance to make or break any election.
And the world needs to understand that.

As you may have seen, last week I asked a bigshot DUer just how his vote was counted and that person didn't have a clue!! Gawd!

There can be no faith in how our votes are counted by the electronic vote counting.

As you state, Peace Patriot:
"Show me the evidence that anyone currently in office in Washington DC was actually elected. You can't. No one can. "

[stray cat]

26. Bush!

[yurbud]

28. all those who said ''other'' for Bush have a far lower opinion of the Democrats than me

I think some are good.

[Marr]

29. No Democrat gets the credit. The party's leadership took the

position of simply rolling over to every demand the Republicans made. That way, their corporate owners were made happy, and the Dems could just step into power after the Republicans wore out the welcome and continue the same policies.

It's more a case of Republicans losing than Democrats winning, if that makes any sense.

[yurbud]

30. yes, and I think that's the conventional wisdom. I was wondering if it mattered that

some Dems behaved differently during the Bush years.

If they had all been doormats, why would people have even bothered to vote for them?

[Marr]

32. I think it mattered, personally, sure.

A few vocal Democratic politicians managed to bring issues to the public's attention that would probably have otherwise been completely buried. They occasionally managed to pick fights with the Bush Administration that helped highlight the nature of that Administration and their pet Congress.

I don't think people were voting for Democrats, however, as much as they were voting against the much more widespread corruption.

[yurbud]

34. as soon as Obama delivered the other half of the Wall Street bailout, he made corruption bipartisan

in the public perception.

[Marr]

37. Yep. Pretty much. n/t

[Tippy]

31. Progressives.....For sure played a big roll...

Blue Dogs and DLC are one in the same...Blue Dogs think more about their re-election...Bush being such a failure helped and I hope one day to see President Obama drop the word bi-bipartisanship from his vocabulary....I hope before the next election he realizes fully just which side his bread is buttered on

[Last Stand]

33. The same people who put Bush/Cheney in.

After all, they didn't give up their means to control voting machines overnight, you know. Don't you get it? Having Obama and his alleged political capital in there just makes us feel good. Hasn't changed anything. Wall St., Iraq occupation, health care, credit card rates, tax structure, war-mongering, big oil profits, outsourcing, Presidential powers, Bush Admin investigation, big pharm...where do I stop?

[Ignis]

36. It was purely "Anyone But Bush" for many Americans.

So why are we continuing so many of Shrub's destructive policies? :shrug: