Democratic Underground Latest Greatest Lobby Journals Search Options Help Login
Google

If OBAMA Was A LIBERAL We'd Have A Better Bill

Printer-friendly format Printer-friendly format
Printer-friendly format Email this thread to a friend
Printer-friendly format Bookmark this thread
This topic is archived.
Home » Discuss » Archives » General Discussion (1/22-2007 thru 12/14/2010) Donate to DU
 
Segami Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Dec-23-09 10:48 AM
Original message
If OBAMA Was A LIBERAL We'd Have A Better Bill
Here is a refresher in case you forgot their past campaign positions.

<http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZjA6eJ3R-UQ>


Candidate Obama was against mandates before Pres. Obama demanded them for us all. If Obama was a liberal he would have embraced mandates from the beginning, understanding that they go with the public option, which is the only way to offer choice to people while cutting costs. He didn't.


If Harry Reid was a liberal we'd have a better bill, because he wouldn't have played Let's Make a Deal host, with the biggest winner the insurance companies.


If Speaker Pelosi was a liberal she wouldn't have invited religious leaders into the room to craft language that takes rights away from women we won through the law decades ago.

Liberals wouldn't let something like this happen either:


... We're not changing our health-care system very much at all, in fact. Nothing happens in 2010. Or in 2011. Or in 2012. In 2014, when the bill really begins, the insurance situations of 18 million people change. A full 16 million of those people are uninsured. Aside from the small sliver of people who will pay a surtax on the final few dollars of uncommonly expensive insurance plans, the country simply will not notice this legislation.....


If Democrats today were like liberals of the 1960s, some Christmas gift deadline would matter less than getting legislation that offered choice to people, didn't hold them hostage to an insurance monopoly, protected women's rights that have already been enshrined in law, didn't tax the middle class, or penalize people and enforce by fiat mandatory rules to buy insurance inside a fixed market, wouldn't strap elderly and sick in a rigged system, all on the altar of getting it done before church bells ring on Christmas Eve.


If the Democratic majority was liberal, all of the above would be unnecessary, because the conference committee would be real instead of some (likely) arbitrary Senate rubber stamp.


If Russ Feingold was a liberal he wouldn't have waited until now to blame Obama for not backing the public option; but he'd also not have voted against women's preventative health measures.


If Barbara Boxer was a liberal she would have said no to compromises that offer less to women than are already in the law. Ms. Boxer, who said she'd never heard of the largest nurse's union in the U.S., when appearing on "Countdown" last night, if she was a liberal, would likely know their name.


If Tom Harkin was a liberal he wouldn't be trying to sell the Senate legislation that forces people into health care insurance that doesn't guarantee quality health care.


If Democrats in Congress were liberals, we'd at least have a front loaded bill that gave people goodies so they'd bond to the legislation.


If the progressive caucus, wherever they are hiding their spines, were liberals instead, maybe they would have drawn a line in the sand on principle instead of praying to the Let's Go Incremental gods while accepting "progress" in the name of capitulation.


And no liberal would ever believe that something as important as reforming health care has this chance and this chance only to make it happen. Now or never is a rallying cry for losers who don't have the breath for the long haul.


If we had more liberals in Congress, instead of blathering about perfection being the enemy of the good, we'd have heard a rallying cry that mediocre is the enemy of effective. The death knell of solutions at a time when action is required to save this country and its middle class from economic catastrophe at the hands of people who support a corpocracy over our democratic republic.


If we had liberals in the Congress, we wouldn't be levying a middle class tax for health care most families can't afford.


...and on that note, liberals wouldn't lie outright and say we were going to insure another 30 million people, when many of these people will likely have to pay the IRS penalty instead of buying the insurance, because the reason they don't have insurance in the first place is because THEY CAN'T AFFORD IT.


If we had a liberal in the White House who understood the middle class at all, maybe we wouldn't be giving the insurance companies a guaranteed new group of customers without any choice at all.


If we had a liberal Congress, they would surely know that once the insurance monopolies have their new Fish Meet Barrel customers there really is no incentive for them to do anything for them.


Honestly, if we had this bunch of legislators in the Senate during the 1960s, JFK's call to go to the Moon would have landed us in the middle of the Atlantic, falling well short of his vision.


You can't shoot for greatness if you won't use all of your powers.


You can't be a senator or representative and do your job for people in the Legislative Branch if you're more interested in saving the person in the Executive Branch, putting political party over what's right for We the People.


But if you're going to insist on a selling out to corporate interests and the insurance monopoly, like what Pres. Obama and the Democrats are doing on health care (just like what happened with big banks), the least you could do is give up the goodies to the people from the get go.


It's always better to give someone a kiss first.


Dumb and Dumber had nothing on this bunch.


<http://www.huffingtonpost.com/taylor-marsh/if-obama-was-a-liberal-we_b_401407.html>


Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
Dinger Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Dec-23-09 10:53 AM
Response to Original message
1. Touché
K & R
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
NJmaverick Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Dec-23-09 10:54 AM
Response to Original message
2. If Obama was a liberal he would have magical powers and he
could have turned Liberman into a unicorn. He could have zapped Nelson with his magic wand and turned him into a newt. Plus he would have zapped all the Republicans and turned them into Democrats. Boy if only he was a magical liberal.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Avalux Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Dec-23-09 11:05 AM
Response to Reply #2
4. Excellent!
:fistbump:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Segami Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Dec-23-09 11:06 AM
Response to Reply #2
5. It was Obama who challenged the masses to step outside their fears and usher i
in a new era of HOPE & CHANGE through his election. Magic he brought, he brought with him the good old magic dipsy-doodle campaign promises trick, ' now you see it, now you don't '. Where did it go?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
NJmaverick Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Dec-23-09 11:10 AM
Response to Reply #5
7. He challenged them to help him, but that help hasn't materialized
instead all he got was a bunch of people sitting on the sidelines complaining.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Segami Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Dec-23-09 11:14 AM
Response to Reply #7
9. Who are these so-called " bunch of people sitting on the sidelines complaining "?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
NJmaverick Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Dec-23-09 11:21 AM
Response to Reply #9
11. If you ask that question, I am thinking you are not open to any sort of answer
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Segami Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Dec-23-09 11:25 AM
Response to Reply #11
13. That sounds like a non response to me.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
NJmaverick Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Dec-23-09 12:02 PM
Response to Reply #13
19. no just someone who is capable of seeing when a question isn't a question
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Segami Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Dec-23-09 12:11 PM
Response to Reply #19
24. You give yourself too much credit for this special gift of ' insight ' you claim to possess
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
leeroysphitz Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Dec-23-09 12:12 PM
Response to Reply #7
25. He never said anything about helping him craft and promote garbage legislation
that hurts working families.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
RaleighNCDUer Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Dec-23-09 11:34 AM
Response to Reply #2
14. Or, he could have cornered Reid, and had Reid threaten Lieberman
with the loss of his chairmanships, and complete non-support for any further office, as well as refusing to back ANY bill submitted by Lieberman on any subject for any purpose.

Lieberman COULD be made irrelevant, if people had the will to make it so.

Politics is the use of the carrot and the stick, but we've only been using the fucking carrots. It's time somebody got the stick. Maybe, if Reid stuck it to ONE, the others would fall into line.

It's not magic. It's not even rocket science. It's politics - a lost art to the Democrats.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Kahuna Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Dec-23-09 11:37 AM
Response to Reply #14
17. If Reid threatened lieberman in any way, don't you think that lieberman
would just switch parties???? Give me a break. The truth is, unless the dems can get another senator elected, lieberman has them by the nads. Yet, all I see on DU on a daily basis is how, "progressives" are going to sit out elections. WRONG ANSWER.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
RaleighNCDUer Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Dec-23-09 01:33 PM
Response to Reply #17
32. And what would be the practical difference if he DID switch parties?
It would still leave the repugs well short of a majority, and he would be no more of a spoiler as a republican than he is now as an 'independent'.

When dealing with partisan politics it is usually to your advantage to know exactly who is on the other side - we CAN'T continue to pretend that Lieberman is caucusing with the Dems, when he is voting with the Repugs on EVERY issue.

Fuck him. Cut him loose and let him sink. Give his chairmanships to Dems who deserve them.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
NJmaverick Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Dec-23-09 12:04 PM
Response to Reply #14
21. and if Liberman said go ahead, he joins the GOP
and the GOP blocks every future bill with filibusters. Not a good idea.


maybe you need to worry more about your "fucking carrots" and more about realistic assessments of the situationl.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Echo In Light Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Dec-23-09 11:02 AM
Response to Original message
3. A 'liberal' mindset is dysfunctional to the dominant economic systems, hence unwelcome
That's why dwelling on trying to determine a representative's ideological perspective sometimes misses the point; people set aside and compromise their values and beliefs in order to fulfill an institutional role ... and really, since the system by and large churns out like-minded types, indoctrinated into perceiving reality through a very specific lens, most, by the time they'd want to begin a career in these fields/social systems already hold to a mentality that of course favors the system's chief aims and interests, which is profits over people, but since we supposedly have a 'rep democracy,' are forced to be mired in all of this newspeak/doubletalk as to whose interests are being served first and foremost.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Kahuna Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Dec-23-09 11:08 AM
Response to Original message
6. Obama is not a "candidate" anymore. He is the president. There is a big
difference in what is reality and feasible between the two.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
closeupready Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Dec-23-09 11:11 AM
Response to Reply #6
8. But he's outright lying about never having campaigned for a public option.
How can you sit there and APOLOGIZE for him?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Kahuna Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Dec-23-09 11:34 AM
Response to Reply #8
15. He has always said a PO is desireable. That's all he campaigned on too..
Even if he did "promise," I'm not naive to enough to believe in Santa or the Easter Bunny either. :patriot:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
cbdo2007 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Dec-23-09 11:17 AM
Response to Original message
10. If Obama was a Liberal he never would have been elected President.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
T Wolf Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Dec-23-09 11:22 AM
Response to Reply #10
12. Exactly. Liberals are like athiests - the pariahs of the US political system as run by the
wealthy elite.

This will never change.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Echo In Light Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Dec-23-09 11:35 AM
Response to Reply #12
16. Which is why w/o a strong 3rd party, change will NEVER occur via voting in sham elections
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
cbdo2007 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Dec-23-09 11:51 AM
Response to Reply #16
18. It's all a catch-22. Change will never occur w/o a strong 3rd party and a strong 3rd
party will never occur w/o change.

It's obvious the future of our country is liberal with the huge numbers of young people mainly going lib, but too many people here want it to be all liberal all the time starting 20 years ago. Change will come but it takes a long-ass time.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Echo In Light Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Dec-23-09 12:03 PM
Response to Reply #18
20. Timing is on our side! The naturally liberal young don't have as many "career opportunities," hence
.... less sell-outs vis a vis what's considered the 'normal,' daily round of life. Without as many kissing ass to jump through hoops and climb ladders, there'll be a greater, sustained opposition to corporate rule.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
leeroysphitz Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Dec-23-09 12:19 PM
Response to Reply #18
26. Wait untill all those "young Liberals" hit their 30s and 40s and see how liberal they are then.
It won't be the first time we've been betrayed by a once liberal generations.

We need to fight for our ideals here and now and not wait for some pie in the sky flood of new liberals to come along.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
fascisthunter Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Dec-23-09 12:07 PM
Response to Original message
22. Liberals need to start Listing the Policies they Championed for Americans
Edited on Wed Dec-23-09 12:08 PM by fascisthunter
and force people to acknowledge that many things they take for granted were the result of the left pushing this government hard.

Then contrast that with policies of the moderates and conservatives.... we win hands down, a fact they can deny, but a fact catches up with deniers so its a bigger gamble for them.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
leeroysphitz Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Dec-23-09 12:10 PM
Response to Original message
23. KnR
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Better Today Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Dec-23-09 12:24 PM
Response to Original message
27. If Obama was the kind of liberal you want, he would either
have to force that liberalism in essentially unconstitutional ways as babyBush did, OR his demands would be in the bill and the bill would be stalled in the Senate forever, kind of like HillaryCare.

I don't like this bill anymore than anyone else, but to hold Obama responsible for the mis-deeds of BlueDog dems at this point in the process is foolishiness, imo.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Segami Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Dec-23-09 12:31 PM
Response to Reply #27
29. I surely don't agree with your assessment. Its sounds like more of the same old same old.
Your position has been the Democratic Party's main staple diet for years on end which has allowed Republicans to continue framing Democrats as weak.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Better Today Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Dec-23-09 02:46 PM
Response to Reply #29
34. It isn't "my position," it is the truth, we saw HillaryCare. I think that
the party should do something to clean the BlueDogs out, but how? I don't know. I know that I'm pissed as hell that I voted for a Dem Rep and he's voted Republican on every issue. I think the Blue Dogs need to be scatted out of the way and the DNC and Dem committees need some tighter controls over whom they support. Won't happen, but I'd sure like to see it. BTW, the Dem was voted in by folks like me that just didn't want a Repub. He cleverly never actually had a stance on much.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Ozymanithrax Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Dec-23-09 12:29 PM
Response to Original message
28. What 60 votes would Obama have used to break a Senate fillibuster?
Reid used every vote that exists at this time.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
closeupready Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Dec-23-09 12:42 PM
Response to Reply #28
30. WHAT filibuster?
Oh, that's right - there WASN'T any filibuster.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Ozymanithrax Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Dec-23-09 01:24 PM
Response to Reply #30
31. Was that sarcasm, or are you saying Republicans didn't declare a.filibuster...
and force a series of procedural votes in order to slow down the health care bill. I did not realize that the 60 40 vote meant that Republicans support the health care bill 100%. They opposed it so Democrats would not know that they really support it. Clever strategy.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Orsino Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Dec-23-09 02:22 PM
Response to Original message
33. If Congress was liberal, we'd have a great bill.
If Americans were liberal, we wouldn't need a bill.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
DU AdBot (1000+ posts) Click to send private message to this author Click to view 
this author's profile Click to add 
this author to your buddy list Click to add 
this author to your Ignore list Thu Dec 26th 2024, 07:52 PM
Response to Original message
Advertisements [?]
 Top

Home » Discuss » Archives » General Discussion (1/22-2007 thru 12/14/2010) Donate to DU

Powered by DCForum+ Version 1.1 Copyright 1997-2002 DCScripts.com
Software has been extensively modified by the DU administrators


Important Notices: By participating on this discussion board, visitors agree to abide by the rules outlined on our Rules page. Messages posted on the Democratic Underground Discussion Forums are the opinions of the individuals who post them, and do not necessarily represent the opinions of Democratic Underground, LLC.

Home  |  Discussion Forums  |  Journals |  Store  |  Donate

About DU  |  Contact Us  |  Privacy Policy

Got a message for Democratic Underground? Click here to send us a message.

© 2001 - 2011 Democratic Underground, LLC