One thing I know I won't be doing

[cali]

no matter how critical I am of President Obama's decisions on a host of issues:

I will not be taking part in any effort to dismantle his presidency.


I will not be calling for his impeachment on spurious grounds. I will not be supporting trumped up investigations into Obama apointees on flimsy evidence. I certainly will not be a tool of the right in their relentless efforts to destroy Obama.

It's one damn thing to criticize Obama, it's entirely another to try and destroy his administration.

[tekisui]

1. That, and I will not give the likes of Norquist the time of day.

[blondeatlast]

3. +1. nt

[cali]

5. well, yeah, but it's not only Norquist

it's the idea of finding common ground with the teabaggers. Their chief goal is destroying Obama's presidency. And there are going to be increasing numbers of right wingers who will try to exploit the anger an the left at Obama.

[frog92969]

81. Isn't that letting the rw control the agenda...again?

"The enemy of my enemy is my friend" makes for really weak politics.

[SemiCharmedQuark]

83. And it's not even just the teabaggers anymore. Two posts today claimed they were voting Republican

in 2012-presumably to show Obama what's what.

[tblue37]

103. Well, maybe such posts are from people who are teabaggers in disguise.

We know that some people pose as progressives on progressive websites in order to further RW aims.

[Jackpine Radical]

146. That's generally my assumption. There are a lot of trolls around.

A vote for the right is very destructive. Finding "common cause" with the likes of the teabaggers and Norquist is stupid.

If you wish to protest the current course of the government (and I do have problems with a lot of things that are happening), make it clear that the criticism is coming from the left. Don't muddle it with right-wing signals. And don't feed slime like Norquist.

[butterfly77]

150. Because they are..

remember when Limbaugh came up with his strategy to have repubs vote for Hillary to stop Obama. Remember a few months ago when Limbaugh said he was on DU..

[MH1]

11. Thank you.

[NJmaverick]

37. Glad to hear that!

:hi:

[monmouth]

2. You speak for many of us Cali....n/t

[goclark]

170. Yes Cali does speak for many of us

Thank you Cali.

[HipChick]

4. K&R +100...my thoughts exactly

[lsewpershad]

127. +one more

[panader0]

6. He's still light years ahead of bush or McCain (Palin)

I'm sure Obama is getting an education about how difficult it can be to get things done in DC. But I still have faith in the man. I haven'y taken my bumper sticker of yet, and never will.

[Jackpine Radical]

172. It may surprise some people around here to know this, but

I still have my Obama sticker on my car too.

[NJmaverick]

7. VERY well said!

BRAVO! :applause:

:patriot:

[liberal N proud]

8. It is far worse in the fire than the frying pan

With this I and many others are with you.

[lunatica]

9. I think if there's a Republican effort to impeach him he should

open the books for investigations into the Bush Administration in regard to Crimes of Treason. Starting with the top three. Bush, Cheney and Rumsfeld. Then move on to the next bunch

[vanboggie]

57. most definitely

:fistbump:

[webDude]

72. er, ...why the hell has he not done this anyway? blackmail is ...

...good? yes, no?

[billh58]

149. I believe that this

avenue has been thoroughly investigated, and the result was that the Dubya criminal cabal spent their last few years in office covering their collective asses miles deep in legal alibis, and inventing "just in case" loopholes. If you are old enough to remember the standstill the country almost came to during the Clinton impeachment hearings, the JFK assassination hearings, or the Iran-Contra hearings you also know the ultimate futility of the outcomes of those well-intentioned, but highly politicized, investigations.

Exercises in determining the truth like those mentioned above, and the eight long years of Neoconservative legalized bank robbery under the Dubya administration, are better handled by a competent Free Press, where they can be free from partisan politics. Unfortunately, we no longer have one of those is this country due to "deregulation" of the financial industry, and a purposeful relaxation of the few anti-monopoly laws left on the books. Where is another "Deep Throat", or another Ben Bradlee, when you need them...?

Unfortunately, the Internet and its many political bloggers are overflowing with accusations and conspiracy theories, but are extremely short on demonstrable facts -- or the resources to obtain the facts.

[DesertRat]

10. k&r

:toast:

[azmouse]

12. Absolutely.

Things could be much worse in this country if another Republican becomes President.

[cali]

14. I shudder to think of it. n/t

[HughMoran]

13. This is a point I've been attempting to make as well

Destroying Obama's Presidency is not going to lead to something better for liberals/progressives.

[tblue37]

105. Remember, Nader thught preventing Gore from becoming president

would further the progressive cause. How did that work out for us?

[Vinca]

15. Exactly. We might be pissed off, but we're not crazy.

[smoogatz]

16. +100000 K&R

[WeDidIt]

17. BRAVO!

Spoken like a true Democrat.

Thank you. Though I may disagree with you on policy, your approach is to be commended.

[cali]

21. well, I'm not really a "true democrat" as

I vote for Progressive Party candidates and always voted for Bernie and even Jim Jeffords, but I won't let my anger at the war in Afghanistan or what I consider a lack of leadership on health care drive me to the madness of trying to destroy Obama.

[frazzled]

18. One sure way to impede progressive ideals

Is to think the ends justify the means ... ever.

Those of us who lived through, say, the Weatherman era learned this a long time ago. There was nothing wrong with the ideals of the Weather Underground. They were, in fact, the ideals that we shared as liberals. But they got so over-the-top ideological that they thought bombing and armed robbery were justified in obtaining those goals (which, of course, they were never going to obtain anyway).

The result? Liberals and Democrats in general suffered by association and found themselves in the wilderness for several decades. And Reaganism ran roughshod over the country to this day.

[quakerboy]

19. I will not do those things either

But I will oppose the president when he is wrong. And I will be especially strong in my opposition when I perceive him to be doing the things that will destroy his own presidency. Will you?

[cali]

23. I've repeatedly criticized the President on a host of issues

not sure how you've missed that.

[quakerboy]

44. I don't read every post

And there are some who seem to be 100% supporters with ner' a criticism or doubt. Which makes me wonder at their motivations, and sanity. I have as yet to meet anything or anyone perfect in this world, and never anyone worth the personal devotion and hatred of any non-true-believer as I see exhibited here on what I perceive to be an increasingly regular basis.

And that goes for the supporters of O, DK, Hillary, et al.

I hate seeing people try to quash genuine debate on the merits of any topic with personal attack and generally hateful attitude.

[gratefultobelib]

20. With you all the way!

[laughingliberal]

22. And about the host of decisions on which you disagree with him...

what will you do to influence better decisions from his administration?

[cali]

27. that's actually hard, isn't it?

I have contacted the WH on such items as the escalation of the war in Afghanistan and expressed my disappointment over the lack of leadership on healthcare, but I don't delude myself into believing that will yield any results.

[laughingliberal]

30. Me too. Feels futile but maybe better than doing nothing. nt

[Cary]

122. I am not wild about Afghanistan or the health care bill

However I can see legitimate reasons. These are not easy issues and it's clear they are being considered. I am satisfied that I don't have a cowboy shooting from the hip any more.

I would love to see single payer. The votes aren't there for single payer which just means we have a lot more work to do to get it.

[Name removed]

132. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. 
[link:www.democraticunderground.com/forums/rules.html|Click
here] to review the message board rules.

[Texasgal]

24. Count me in!

Thank you!!!

[La Lioness Priyanka]

25. I agree, Critism of policy is different from wanting to destroy an elected and popular president

[Forkboy]

26. Four emotions are the easiest to manipulate: Love, Hate, Anger and Fear.

In the political arena (and life in general, actually) people need to be wary of how their own emotions can be used against them, no matter how correct or righteous they may be. We have the perfect storm here...some people who love Obama, some people who hate Obama, and a whole fuckload of people who are scared and angry. In that environment we have to be extra careful of how we let these emotions guide us, and in the tactics we use to get to our goals.

Not a single one of us here on DU is immune to being manipulated, and with so many sides doing their best to do just that, for good reasons and bad, it seems wise to regularly look inward and check our feelings and how it's leading us. At this point I'm wary of all extreme emotions and those that hold them.

[cali]

29. I often do just what you suggest by repeating to myself

that line from Yeats about the worst being filled with passionate intensity.

[sabrina 1]

166. I think you misunderstand Yeats, as many people do when

apply his thinking, based on that quote, to what is going on this country. Yeats, if he were here today, would be considered far left not only not opposed to taking necessary measures to stop the destruction of this country's constitution and the move further away from its original ideals, but supportive of far more extreme measures than any taken even by the most fringe political groups in this country today. I think in fact, he would bemoan the lack of passion after decades of submission to corporatism.

Yeats was in love with one of Ireland's most famous women revolutionaries, a woman not interested in preserving the status quo, which for many, including many Irish people, was a more comfortable place to stay than to start a revolution to end forever, the oppression of the Irish people under British rule. Jame Hansher eg, compared to the love of Yeats' life, is a cuddly kitten.

Her politics in the context of today in this country, would be considered not only radical, but terrorism.

Romanticists like Yeats take a lot of poetic license. So, without understanding the times he lived through, taking that quote out of context from the times in which it was written, (mainly about the aftermath of the Russian Revolution) without understanding the radical changes he was living through, and try to apply it to a country that has apparently completely succumbed to a corporate state, simply doesn't work.

Yeats and the woman he loved could have lived as part of the ruling elite had they chosen to do so, had they had no consciences. She ended up in jail fighting against Imperialism.

If she were posting on this board today, she would be viewed as a total radical from the fringes of society and yet it was she and others like her, who eventually helped Ireland out from under British rule. To Yeats, change was difficult. He had so romantacized the people of Ireland, but those people were oppressed. He lived through the revolution that eventually freed Ireland but felt that the people had absorbed the culture of their oppressors and mourned the fact that while they had reclaimed their country, they had not reclaimed their culture.

If he were here today, he would hardly be on the side of being patient with the corporate takeover of this country. No doubt in my mind, that Yeats would be under the bus with people like Kucinich, if for no other reason than his belief in the occult, eg, which would be used against him here.

[patrice]

36. Very perceptive of you Fb, very relevant!

"people need to be wary of how their own emotions can be used against them, no matter how correct or righteous they may be" including how they may be using their own emotions against themselves.

Not that anyone should alienate themselves from their own emotional motivations, but that we need to be very very clear in present circumstances what, exactly our priorities are at any given point in the process, indulging emotional expression, or making concrete steps toward identifiable objectives. We are being called to grow up and to commit to our own struggle for "the long haul".

[havocmom]

123. Good reminder for us to pause and look ahead at where any one element might try to herd the masses

It amazes me, around here, how often a poster will try to intimidate another with 'if you believe this, then you must NOT agree with this, this, and this' or the reverse.

This effort to put everything in a file and tie people to a total rigid dogma is astounding to me.

I can be pissed as hell about something someone does or fails to do, and still support their other endeavors. But on DU lately, I get called a GOPer, a rethuglian, a loony leftist, a Nader-ite, a gun nut, a naive pacifist, and so on.

This method of trying to intimidate through branding is not constructive and I grieve at seeing it employed so often here to intimidate dissent AND support.

Obama is the best we had to offer currently. He has done much. Much needs to be done. Things take time, but I understand urgency and the fact that many have waited too long for equality, justice, opportunity already. I am pissed as hell about calling this latest atrocity of legislation on the Hill Health Care Reform. It ain't, not in its present state. And I want Rahm out, as I don't like corporatist in position of that much power. I don't like a DEM chief of staff that so abhors the left wing of the party.

But I do not want Obama to fail. God, I want him to succeed for all our sakes. But I know that requires me and the rest of us to pay attention and apply pressure on various issues. I know democracy is not a spectator sport as surely as I know the belief that one person can save the day is a foolish abdication of our personal responsibilities to the nation. I know my head must always rule my heart in matters of politics and public policy. And I know others need to park their personal financial interests if they want to claim they serve the nation. Too many on the Hill don't even give that lip service.

[inna]

126. well said. good post. nt

:)

[MadMaddie]

157. Well said havocmom! Well said!

[proud patriot]

28. Huzzah

:kick:

[NJmaverick]

38. There are no where near enough "huzzahs" these days

:toast:

[Lord Helmet]

55. ditto

[Fire1]

31. Good for you, cali. I think you speak for many of us. n/t

[patrice]

32. Right On! We can either repeat the same OLD patterns over and over and over again, or

we can actually figure out something different and more autonomous to do.

[bigwillq]

33. Good post.

:thumbsup:

[tandot]

34. I totally agree with you.

It is a shame that posts doing exactly that are allowed here.

[Brickbat]

35. Hear, hear.

Well said, and I agree.

[varelse]

39. I can't believe Obama will do anything remotely impeachment-worthy

I don't care what party afiliation or political positions any elected official has - if he or she does break the law, I would be in favor of prosecuting. I just don't see it happening with this guy.

[vanboggie]

60. I didn't think Clinton did either

Lying about infidelity isn't high on my list of impeachable offenses. Stealing elections, starting unnecessary wars, murder, war profiteering and BushCo's myriad of other crimes - yes. But then we know which one was treated like a criminal and put through the impeachment process.

[cutlassmama]

40. K&R x's 11ty billion

[Hekate]

41. You speak for me, Cali. Thanks. nt

[cali]

42. Thanks, Hekate.

:hi:

[Number23]

43. Kicked and Rec'd

[FrenchieCat]

45. Kick now....

recommended a while back. :thumbsup:

[Champion Jack]

46. Well said, excellent post.

[Bobbie Jo]

47. K&R

[TheKentuckian]

48. I'm with you. I'm nopwhere near batshit insane just pissed on what I think is crappy policy

and not afraid to say my piece on it.

[NanceGreggs]

49. Amen, sister.

:patriot:

[Stinky The Clown]

50. So, if he was obviously guilty of some malfeasance, you'd give him a pass?

I'm not saying he's guilty. In fact, I mostly agree with what I take at face value to be your sentiment.

But no one is beyond investigating if there's something that smells bad.

[cali]

58. Please re-read the OP. I think you'll find that I make it obvious that

I'm talking about the SPURIOUS efforts of repubs.

[Stinky The Clown]

128. What seems spurious may not be. What is spurious may not be obviously so.

In both cases, you might be better off investigating - at least to a degree.

[Capt_Nemo]

51. K & R

[gateley]

52. Thanks for this post, Cali -- you represent many of us, I believe. nt

[liberation]

53. Another Red Herring argument...

... after seeing so many being fished in DU, no wonder we're running out of fish in the oceans.

LOL, nice try.

[cali]

59. except you have to be truly dim to think that the repubs aren't trying

exploit liberal anger at the President and aren't trying to destroy him. Hardly a red herring. And yes, dear, judging from the recs and responses, most people posting in this thread see that this is anything but a red herring.

[bertman]

133. Thank you, liberation. The sanctimony squad is out in full force on this one. I'm with havocmom

in post #126.

This is just another "I can't tolerate any criticism of President Obama thread."

I hear all of this squalling about how the Republicans investigated President Clinton and now they are trying to get to President Obama. Well, no shit, Sherlock, that's the way they operate. But when we had a our chance to investigate THEIR President Bush on the biggest international crime in half a century, our Democratic leadership took it "off the table".

Spare me the whining, please.

[Bobbie Jo]

54. Kick.

:kick:

[nofurylike]

56. k&r. very well said, cali!! thank you for posting this!! me too! nt

[nemo137]

61. It amazes me that this isn't understood!

I'm not even asking that we follow the Republican's 11th Commandment. I think that Jane Hamsher is wrong, but she's right to speak out about her problems with the healthcare bill. But do people not remember how stuff works? How Republicans use investigations as a blunt instrument? You just don't do that!

[laughingliberal]

70. I think she called for an investigation of Rahm and his connection to Freddie and Fannie

and called for his resignation. If it was Glenn Beck calling for the head of a liberal in the administration, he'd already be under the bus with us chickens.

[nemo137]

74. Sorry, I wasn't clear.

I was talking about her teaming up with Grover fucking Norquist in calling for the first in, if history is any guide, a lengthy series of politically motivated investigations.

[laughingliberal]

79. Well, that would be a problem but I have not heard of a lengthy series of investigations

and I hope that does not happen. But, if history is any guide, it is still true that if a right winger were calling for the head of one of President Obama's liberal staffers or advisers, they would already be under this bus with the rest of us 'lefties.' I have a problem with that.

[me b zola]

62. K&R

:thumbsup:

[gopwacker_455]

63. Me neither

[Violet_Crumble]

64. Hi Cali. If I were an American,, I wouldn't be doing that either...

I've seen some abject disappointment at Obama recently turn into really negative *I Will Never Vote For Him Again* stuff and it bothers me as an outsider looking in. Obama was never anything but a centrist (at least when he campaigned) working now under a lot of built-in constraints, and I can understand the bitter disappointment and feelings of being let down, but people shouldn't lose sight of the fact that what was in power before Obama was a zillion times worse and now that a Democrat is in power, if people are opposed to something the President does, try to change policy and stuff from within, but don't turn yr backs on his administration...

[cali]

66. Hi, Violet.

Yep, he's pretty much a centrist with some well muffled liberal instincts, but joining forces with the right to destroy his presidency is a fool's errand.

[mmonk]

65. Is there someone doing that?

I haven't heard about impeachment. I do know, however, the DLC and its enforcers like Rahm Emanuel are detroying the progressive coalition that built this party into a dominate one at one time. He is way more dangerous to the progressive tradition of the Democratic Party than the teabaggers and rightwing nutjobs in my opinion. I've never been so disheartened than to have to fight battles to fix this country on two fronts and without real definitive power to back up that fight.

[cali]

68. Yes.

There was even an impeachment thread locked here a couple of weeks back. And all one has to do is go in the way back machine to the 1990s to see how the right wing uses spurious investigations into a dem administration to try and destroy it.

[mmonk]

71. Boy that's a laugh, especially with the most impeachable President

and Vice President in US history that just left office still walking around without consequence.

[JTFrog]

90. Wow.

So does that mean you think it's ok to join forces with the likes of teabaggers and rightwing nutjobs to push Rahm out?

You honestly think that DLC and Rahm is more dangerous to progressive tradition than TEABAGGERS AND RIGHT WING NUTJOBS?

Am I understanding this correctly?

NanceGregg was spot on when she posted: Batshit Crazy, not only for Republicans anymore.

[mmonk]

91. To quote Margot Kidder:

"Give me a nut job for an enemy anytime. You can take aim at the obviousness of the problem and roll a strike 99 times out of a hundred. But if your enemy is disguised as a boring but harmless friend, and wears the same logo on his sweatshirt as you do, then landing a punch is like trying to slug mist. There’s no connection, no delicious smacking sound, there’s no obvious win. The fact that 20 to 25 percent of Americans support policies and politicians that are bat shit crazy is not as much a concern as the fact that 50 to 60 percent of Americans support politicians whose policies are for sale to the highest bidder, and exist independent of any underlying morality or consistent philosophy of government. Arlen Specter calls himself a Democrat for God’s sake. And so does Ben Nelson. And Blanche Lincoln. These are not Democrats; they’re Republicans in Donkey suits. And somewhat tasteful donkey suits at that. None of them would have strings of tea bags dangling from THEIR cowboy hats, you can bet the ranch on that. They are much more dangerous than Rush Limbaugh could ever hope to be."

And thanks for the insinuation about my character.

[JTFrog]

92. Then I guess I was understanding correctly.

You're welcome.

[mmonk]

94. I am not joining forces with teabaggers. I cannot stand their existence.

I'm pointing out a problem.

[JTFrog]

96. Good to hear.

I guess that's why I asked if I was understanding you correctly.

There have been several threads echoing the "enemy of my enemy" sentiment that have actually crossed "the line" so to speak. Using DU to round up troops for the teabaggers and rw nutbags is just not something I'm ever going to get used to.

[mmonk]

97. I can fight for my ideals by other means.

I will admit I do not like Emanuel. I can oppose him without holding hands with the right. That would cloud what I stand for. I'm glad you understand.

[Oldtimeralso]

67. K & R and proud to help n/t

[EmeraldCityGrl]

69. K&R I'm in for the long haul.

[johnaries]

73. Well said! K&R.

[bridgit]

75. Most Agreed!

[Ken Burch]

76. Any impeachment thing WOULD be silly and useless

Attempts to build a movement to make this administration actually be progressive(and to get out of Iraq and Afghanistan), however, would not be.

[liquid diamond]

77. You would think this would be a no-brainer here, but sadly

it's a necessary statement. I'd throw in the traitors that are threatening not to vote for him in 2012 which indirectly supports the GOP. 8 years of Bush not enough for ya Utopians?

[TreasonousBastard]

78. Nor me-- it's tough to get any administration to...

listen, but it's not all that difficult to stir up the masses for its destruction. Ask Carter or Nixon's ghost.

I can't point to just who they are, but I have no doubt that many of the voices of despair here and and at other Democratic and fellow traveller sites about Obama's administration, or the present Congress for that matter, have no interest in better government but are simply trying to stir unrest.

Don't let them.

[cliffordu]

80. Perfect. Me too. K&R.

[SemiCharmedQuark]

82. K&R.

[Vattel]

84. I am quite disgusted

by some of the smears of Obama that have been not only appearing on DU but also receiving over 100 recommendations. This is not to say that there isn't a lot of good, honest criticism appearing as well. But I have to say that some of the attacks remind me of the frequent smearing of the Clintons during the primaries by some supporters of Obama. When HRC mentioned Robert Kennedy's 1968 primary run, she was accused by many Obama supporters (including Keith Olberman) of expressing a desire for Obama's assassination! When you interpret everything someone says and does in the worst possible light, you end up smearing them, and I see that happening a lot around here with respect to Obama.

[cornermouse]

85. Right.

We think Geithner and Summers are nifty little guys. :sarcasm:

[lamp_shade]

86. You speak for most of us, Cali.

[urgk]

87. Exactly. When we disagree, we should act, not poop in our own fishbowl.

There is ample room between cheerleading and outright venom to disagree with particular policies while actively working to steer the President toward the goals we find important.

Support the President, but work towards the Change we all want.

[sandyj999]

88. We need to let the man do his job and stop second-guessing him.

He is the elected President and we are not. He has been in office one year trying to clean up a mess it took over eight years to make. We must have faith in the choice we made.

[mmonk]

95. Sometimes, second guessing is wise. If Americans had second guessed

the decision to invade Iraq for example, we could have saved ourselves a lot of grief. That being said, I'm not an opponent of Obama.

[sandyj999]

116. And we could have stopped Bush and that decision? Explain how. I don' t recall getting a choice.

And that is not meant to come across as snarky. I would like to hear your opinion.

[mmonk]

139. I'm speaking about Americans as a whole.

A few people in the opposing party will have little effect. The point is it is wise to second guess at times.

[sandyj999]

144. No disagreement here. I get it, thanks.n/t

[malaise]

89. K & R n/t

[fishwax]

93. k/r

:kick:

[Undercurrent]

98. A hearty K&R!

[ChiciB1]

99. I May Be Critical Of Many Things & Wish He Would Do A Turn-Around

on many things, but won't call for any serious threats to him or impeachment! Just wish he would lend his base an "ear!" He has talked about his ears you know??

Still, I'm very upset with how much "ear" Rahm has!!!

[freddie mertz]

100. Problem is, anyone who is even remotely critical is immediately attacked...

... as a "hater" and a "freeper mole" who is trying to destroy the president.

Which has a polarizing effect.

By continuing to subborn this kind of red herring argument, I think this post is polarizing too.

[NJmaverick]

107. "remotely critical"?!?! There was a frickin anti-Obama petition posted

here on DU that made it to the greatest page. You are seriously underselling what is going on around here.

[Buzz Clik]

108. No shit. DU has turned into a more open version of the Free Republic.

... which, by the way, is fully sanctioned by the management. :wtf:

[freddie mertz]

117. What did the petition call for? I missed it.

[NJmaverick]

120. It called for a White Water style attack on the Obama administration

So your claims of mild criticism is badly under selling the situation.

[freddie mertz]

136. Is there a link for that? ALSO...

I have seen the numerous attacks on every kind of critic as a "hater," so don't tell me that is a fantasy.

We all know what has been posted here, long before this thread you mention ever went up.

[freddie mertz]

138. OH! I think I found it! It's about Rahm.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=389x7333750

This it?

[NJmaverick]

141. You are posting a link to a locked thread

sounds like you are also guilty of more than mild criticism.

[freddie mertz]

142. What? I went looking for the thread you mentioned, but did not link to.

Is that the one?

Cause I missed it before, probably BECAUSE it got locked.

[billh58]

155. The accusations of

"hater" and "Freeper" actually occur much less often than many would have us believe. Crying "wolf" too often, and too loudly, is just as fishy and polarizing as the strawman you rail against.

The fact of the matter is, both supporters AND detractors of President Obama assume things which were not said, become highly defensive, and end up lashing out at each other -- to the benefit of absolutely no one. The anonymity of DU allows a certain "blog bravado" and confrontational atmosphere which would, in all likelihood, never arise during a face-to-face conversation with a fellow Democrat (or even a Republican, for that matter).

I've been around the "Internets" since they first became widely available in the 70s and 80s, and this "mine is bigger than yours" bullying phenomenon has been around in chat rooms and discussion boards since the outset. Other than obvious trouble-making and disruptive trolls, those who allow a heated debate to deteriorate into name-calling and ad hominem attacks, have allowed themselves to be suckered into displaying juvenile behavior by becoming uncivil. Been there, done that, tryin' to quit...;-)

[OneGrassRoot]

101. It's a holiday miracle!

I only saw two "red herring" comments throughout this whole thread! This is one of the least contentious threads I've seen here in ages.

It is a no brainer, to me, so I agree with you completely, Cali.

:hi:

[tnlurker]

102. K and R

[Name removed]

104. Deleted sub-thread

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

[Buzz Clik]

106. Sweet effin' jeebus.

I will not be calling for his impeachment on spurious grounds. I will not be supporting trumped up investigations into Obama apointees on flimsy evidence. I certainly will not be a tool of the right in their relentless efforts to destroy Obama.

Not exactly holding a high standard for "not dismantling." You couldn't take part in impeachment proceedings unless you're in the House of Representatives.

And the relentless efforts to destroy Obama started at DU roughly 18 months ago, and they have only increased in intensity.

But, thank you for this thread. I've found, once more, that putting the real assholes on ignore is far easier and less stressful than reading/responding or even reading/not responding. Your thread has flushed out another handful of scuzz who are now invisible to me.

[Douglas Carpenter]

109. kick and recommend!!! kick and recommend!!!!

[phasma ex machina]

110. This very thread ironically is the first talk of impeachment to reach my ears. nt

[NJmaverick]

112. I think DU may have beaten that other site to the impeachment talk

which is certainly a sad state of affairs.

[Adelante]

111. Absolutely right!

Thank you, Cali :hi:

[firedupdem]

113. K&R n/t

[dcsmart]

114. I am there all the way....

[Tailormyst]

115. I agree with you

That would make matters far worse, IMHO.

[pundaint]

118. I think it is stupid and reckless to give any politician from any party carte blanche

And if Charles Manson or Carl Rove accurately pointed out that someone wielding political power had abused that power to the detriment of the American People, I would demand action be taken. Absolving guilt based on the accuser is not the product of rigorous intellect. Unfortunately not much in American discourse is.

[cali]

119. did I suggest giving President Obama carte blanche? Hardly.

Not quite sure why you're bringing Charles Manson into this.

As for rigorous intellect, that might actually demand that you make a germane comment. One can only conclude that that's beyond your capabilities.

[pundaint]

125. Did I say you were giving Obama carte blanche? Hardly

But I wont include an insult to you in my response to yours.

I added Charles Manson and Carl Rove in response to the Grover Norquist comment on this post, as extreme examples of individuals who poses zero intrinsic credibility.

[Cary]

121. This is all that I have been trying to say

Haven't read the responses yet Cali, but I wonder if you will get attacked the way I got attacked. Maybe you're timing is better than mine, I don't know, but I was only lamenting those who seemed hell bent upon destroying Obama and the Democratic Party. That is all.

[natrat]

130. i dunno, seems like every bit of legislation is sleazy and benefits some elite

you can't point to anything of real significance that has been done that clearly benefits the people rather than some other interest. With that in mind i find it hard to love anything about current circumstances, and kneejerk support for political figures is beyond repulsive.

[Cary]

153. First of all it isn't "kneejerk"

There are people who don't agree with you who have actually thought their position through quite carefully, perhaps even more carefully than you.

Second it is unrealistic to believe that you can legislate anything with benefitting "some. . . interest." The art of governing necessarily involves balancing the interests of all.

I'm sure you're going to blow that into something more than I intended, so have at it.

[katkat]

124. The Senate is already doing a good job on that

In particular its stupid rules that let the minority hamstring the majority and Harry Reid's unwillingness to be anything but a paper tiger.

[mzmolly]

129. Hear hear!

And, I'm glad to see your sensible thread on the greatest page Cali! :toast:

[Autonomy]

131. K&R

[Name removed]

134. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. 
[link:www.democraticunderground.com/forums/rules.html|Click
here] to review the message board rules.

[AllentownJake]

135. Agreed Hamsher needs to put up or shut-up with fraud allegations nt.

[kstewart33]

159. Hard to understand Hamsher.

Sometimes liberals are their own worst enemies.

[AllentownJake]

161. She's pissed off and has gone on a witch hunt

There are plenty of factual things to post about Rahm without speculating on fraud without evidence.

[Goldstein1984]

137. I have been disappointed quite a bit by President Obama

and I intend to continue criticizing him. Nothing I've written on DU or elsewhere has not been included in my very regular--almost daily--emails to the White House.

He needs to be reminded of his campaign promises; he needs to hear from supporters who believe he has not departed enough from the Bush/Cheney Error; he needs to hear from supporters who believe he is making mistakes.

And I am writing my congressional delegation opposing the confirmation of Bernanke, for obvious reasons.

But I voted for him; I still generally support him, and I'm willing to give him time to get on track (it's only been 11 months); and I won't help the GOP "dismantle" his presidency.

I haven't decided who I will support in the next presidential primaries--that's up to Obama. But it would be stupid not to support him over the alternative if he is again the nominee of the Democratic Party.

Neither will I back off on my commentary on DU in response to ad hominem replies to my posts.

[cali]

154. makes sense to me.

I'm clearly not asking anyone to back off of legitimate criticism of Obama. I will, however, criticize bullshit criticism.

[RoccoR5955]

140. No reason to impeach Obama YET.

He was elected legitimately, and hasn't committed any crimes YET.

Unlike his predecessor, whose election was a big scam, then went out and committed many war crimes.

[SemiCharmedQuark]

143. Maybe you'll have to add in "I won't resort to racist fucknuttery in my criticisms of Obama"

since some people cannot grasp that concept.

[cali]

156. imo, there should be zero tolerance for anyone who uses racist terms

here. In other words that asswipe should have been tombstoned.

[John Q. Citizen]

145. Absolutely. And don't let yourself be triangulated. That is, don't stop making legitimate

criticism based on truth.

The usual outcome in these situations is that the left stops it's critique and it's demands based on the fact that the right is offering up a fake critique and making unreasonable anti-populace demands.

We need to learn to make our critique and keep making it while defending both against the bullshit right as well as deflecting, dogging, and dodging the inevitable push back from Obama and his White House. We usually aren't up to the task, which is our fault, collectively i guess, as citizens.

[kjones]

147. yes, think of the alternative n/t

[butterfly77]

148. Exactly!

:kick: :kick: :kick:

[tblue]

151. Oh yes! But who said anything about impeachment??? nt

[Doctor_J]

165. The right wingers. and of course it gets dragged in here by the trolls

I predict that Obama will be impeached, and so will every Dem president until we take the country back.

[tblue]

177. On what possible grounds could they impeach Obama?

And this is the first I've heard of it.

[berni_mccoy]

152. Thank you Cali! K&R.

[aaronbav]

158. I'd say O is doing a DAMNED good job of DESTROYING

Himself, all by Himself (o.k. also with the HELP of Rham, Timmy, Bennie and all the rest of the DLC Phucks)

[billh58]

160. As an opinion,

yours is valid. As a fact it falls flat.

[winyanstaz]

162. I no longer support President Obama but I will NOT be calling for impeachment etc...

However I will be voting for someone else in the democratic party come election day if at all possible.
I don't care what their race, religion etc is...only that they support the people of this great nation and not the special interests.
I am hoping that someone will be someone like Dennis Kucinich or Howard Dean or any of the other dems that have actually spoke up and voted for the interests of the American people instead of the corporations.

[bkozumplik]

163. support should be earned, not assumed with no backing

On the handling of the markets and reinstating glass-steagal, on the wars, on indicting bush, on negotiaiting for health insurance instead of health care, on pushing for anything but a very middle-right corporate way.

The problem is not just the repubs, its also this congress, our president and our own party. Its a problem because the Rahm/Obama strategy tries to be the corporate middle instead of the left. We are the party of the left. We need to yank them back to their roots. We need to remind them who they are supposed to be.

Now, we can either accept that in a two party system this is the best we can do, or we can actually demand change. Our only card is the election. The only way to put pressure on our dem leaders to make them act more like dems is to MAKE THEM by not supporting them now, and meaning it. If we do this they might start acting like Dems (earning our patronage, instead of assuming it by default). And we have to actually mean it when we say no support until you earn it. I repeat--We have to mean it. They will have no choice but to change if their approval was in the 30's.

I tell you, it would only take one big thing-- starting indictments on Bush, reinstating Glass Steagal, ending a war or two.. ONE THING and I'd be back on board.

If we just support them now because we are scared of the consequences of failure in our pursuits, then we need to settle for whatever it is our leadership does-- and I stress whatever they do. They can do whatever they want and hold us hostage like this, or we can play chicken with their re-election, and make them act like real Democrats, for once.

Lets play some chicken shall we. Beats being the center-right pro-war party with D's by our names.

[billh58]

169. Once again, the

only flaw in your, and other's, arguments for the emergence of alternative political Parties and candidates, is where do you draw your definition of "we" from? Whether you choose to believe it, or not, to be successful in ANY modern society, a political Party (or a candidate) must have financial backing, unity, a winning platform, and name recognition. Those who are self-declared "Independents," while numerous, do NOT vote as a block, nor do they do very much to sway the outcomes of elections: the vast majority of political winners remain either Republicans, or Democrats, who have won their respective Party's nominations.

There have been "fringe" political Parties in the United States for decades, and at present there are at least 30 registered third-Parties who periodaically offer up "alternative" candidates:

http://calstaging.bemidjistate.edu/sites/fringeparties/index.html (click on the links to the left of the page)

The truth is that average Middle Americans are the "we" in this country, and most will vote for a Democrat, or a Republican. Middle Americans are, for the most part, fiscally Conservative, and socially Liberal, and don't tend to be either right-, or left-wing extremists. Middle Americans can, however, be pushed to their limits as evidenced by the failure of the Dubya/Cheney/Rove Neoconservative religious-right movement, and their excesses of power, disregard for the Constitution, the collapse of our international image, and almost total destruction of our economic system.

Advocating the formation of yet another fringe political Party, or voting for "spoiler" candidates may seem noble, patriotic, and justified, but in reality will accomplish absolutely nothing meaningful. The better solution is to put all of that time and energy into re-building the Democratic Party, and continuing Dr. Dean's grassroots 50-State Strategy.

[patrice]

175. Absolutely right about the definition of "we"!! Ask any of these so-called 3rd partyers what

they are willing to sacrifice to get victory on whatever the issue of the moment is, i.e. "What are your priorities?", and you will hear absolutely nada and yet all of us are supposed to pitch in with them to take this situation down.

I'm definitely NOT in love with how things are, but I'm nobody's fool about what to do about that.

There's some bad folks around, Racists and such. Let's not get played here folks, make these anti-__________ (whatever) cough up their real priorities/objectives before you throw in with them.

[garybeck]

164. Yes, but....

will you support his re-election?

I'm with you so far... I will not support any efforts to destroy him. We elected him; I voted for him; he gets his 4 years.

But in 2012 I will have a difficult time voting for him again.

BTW I voted for Clinton in 1992 but not 1996.

[bkozumplik]

168. as of today, no

The only way to influence him is not to support him today.
He still has 3 years.
We dont support him now, and it makes him do the right things. Then he gets re-elected by his own right, not because we are propping up someone who takes us for granted.

We need to use short term strategy toward our long term goals.
I don't think that supporting him now will lead to him making decisions with his base in mind.

[billh58]

171. How exactly

does "We don't support him now, and it makes him do the right things" work in actual practice? I'm not getting in your face, but I honestly don't understand how we, as individuals, can either "support" or "not support" President Obama in any meaningful way that will be communicated to him, or cause him to change course.

Coming on DU and ranting either for, or against, the policies of ANY president doesn't gain much publicity or traction in the real world. As you stated earlier, in our form of representative government, our only recourse is either the vote, or personally lobbying our elected representatives in Congress.

I am thoroughly confused by this whole "hater/cheerleader" thingy, as in the end it makes absolutely no difference what ANY of our opinions are. And the reality is that our recourse to taking substantive action is severely limited. It seems to me that, as Pogo said, "we have met the enemy, and he is us" aptly applies to the Democratic Party at this point-in-time.

The real problem lies with our direct representatives: the combined Congress of the United States of America. Our Congress has been gradually deteriorating into a totally dysfunctional body since the Neoconservative movement of Ronny Raygun began. They are our voice in government, and NOT the Executive Branch, and it is them to whom we must show either support, or non-support. The POTUS is virtually powerless without the support of the Congress, and severly restricted when they exercise their Constitutional power of Executive oversight.

I sincerely believe that, as he mentioned on the campaign trail, President Obama wants to see the combined Congress go back to its Constitutional roots, and become a full partner in the governance of this country once again. Next up, the SCOTUS.

[bkozumplik]

174. polls

we start a movement where people commit to not vote for this president till he starts doing things in a left way.
We mean it when we say, unless he changes, he gets shown the door.

that will get back to him.

[billh58]

176. Again, your

definition of "we" is extremely vague. "Starting a movement" is a noble idea, but extremely difficult to achieve -- especially when the targeted participants are unaware of their purpose or involvement. You are basically calling for a rebellion against the structure of the DNC, and a complete overhaul of the Primary Election processes at the State level -- all 50 of them. Laudable, but logistically unrealistic.

Are there really enough of your envisioned voting population of "we" who identify as Leftists in order to even make a dent in a nationwide poll? I think not, although you may have better luck by approaching those Middle Americans who identify themselves as just plain old Democrats. In my experience, the terms "Left," and "Right" are highly subjective, and mean different things to different people. Try and remember that DU is a forum for political activists, and that we are already viewed with suspicion by those who are less "involved" -- and those are precisely the ones you need.

I remain convinced that continuing to work on Dr. Dean's 50-State Initiative:

http://www.democrats.org/a/party/a_50_state_strategy/

while strongly lobbying the combined Congress would be much more effective than attacking a single individual who remains very popular with the general population, including a majority of Democrats. I also believe that a movement calling for accountability and action from our elected Congress Critters would gather a much broader following than a hard-to-define campaign against a single individual.

:toast:

[hisownpetard]

167. I absolutely agree. It's almost a shame that this has to be stated here,

but you did it so well!

[Toasterlad]

173. Who's Doing That?

I certainly never said he should be impeached. If lying was an impeachable offense*, every president we've ever had should have been impeached. And I don't know anyone supporting "trumped up investigations into Obama appointees". As for being a "tool of the right", I'd say the Democratic party is doing a fine enough job destroying itself without help from anyone else.

I'm certainly not voting for Obama in 2012, but I don't expect anything would get better immediately if he wasn't the president. I doubt Joe "Credit Card Boy" Biden would do any better at keeping the corporation's hands off America's neck.

*I think we can all agree that Clinton's impeachment was pure bullshit.