The Angry Left.

[kentuck]

Why is the left so angry? What did they realistically expect from this President and this Democratic Party??

Was it not enough of a change that for the first time in history, we have elected a black President. That, in itself, is historic change.

After eight years of the most criminal and incompetent Administration in our memory, why would anyone think there would be massive changes? The War on Terror? Still going strong. The screwing of the American people by the Big Banks? Making more money than ever. Regulations restored? Nope, everything still the same. Healthcare reform? It changed to health insurance reform after the election.

So why none of the changes people expected? Is it primarily because the economy collapsed and none of these changes are now possible? After all, it is not possible to raise taxes during such a severe recession and downturn. We don't want to make the big banks angry or they will stop lending money altogether. True, but the most important issue is jobs and we have to be very careful not to make it more difficult to find a job.

It is simply not possible to have the change you expected. The President wants to be like Abraham Lincoln. He wants to unite the country. He doesn't believe that the Republicans hate his guts.

[Odin2005]

1. I expected Obama not to bend over backwards for the insurance companies.

[jgraz]

51. Actually, I think he's bending over frontwards

Or is he bending us over? Hard to keep track these days.

[votingupstart]

60. +1...

while jgraz and i don't see eye to eye on firearms i agree whole heatedly that we are going to get screwed by the insurance companies when (hopefully) a health care bill gets passed

[anonymous171]

2. Capitulation =/= Compromise. Obama is acting like Buchanan, not Lincoln. nt

[jgraz]

52. James? or Pat?

:hide:

[anonymous171]

54. James, lol. nt

[DJ13]

3. He doesn't believe that the Republicans hate his guts.

And in the process of pandering to the GOP he loses his own party's support.

Great plan.

[Laelth]

50. Agreed.

And if Obama doesn't believe that the Republicans hate his guts, he is incredibly naive.

:dem:

-Laelth

[Zoeisright]

4. I'm not angry.

I'm furious.

Massive change is NOT impossible.

And we certainly can raise taxes - on the rich. There's plenty of money out there, and the top 1% have most of it. Nobody needs to make hundreds of millions a year. Tax the hell out of the rich and you'll see massive change.

[Luciferous]

8. Exactly how I feel. I'm tired of the excuses.

[notesdev]

5. I expected them not to help the banks loot the Treasury

I seem to have a penchant for unrealistic expectations, though.

[Mari333]

6. come November, the DLC dems will see the change they didnt expect

their arrogance, greed and hubris will ensuffer it's final consequences.

[Luciferous]

9. Yeah, I have a feeling they are in for a rude awakening.

[jaxx]

11. Will seeing the gopers take over make you happy?

I don't think there are enough of you who will actually go against the Democratic majority. But talk is cheap.

[Name removed]

17. Deleted message

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

[jaxx]

38. In there is the center-left President we elected.

He didn't try to fool you on that.

[freddie mertz]

21. No. Which is why I am trying to fights against the losing DLC strategy.

The "centrists" are doing the damage here.

Not the "angry" left.

[still_one]

24. The country is centrist. /nt

[anonymous171]

30. The country is whatever you tell it to be.

The GOP understands this. That's why they play those word games. Reality is constructed by our perceptions. Change those perceptions and beliefs and you change reality. So dems should be saying "America is a leftist country" over and over again until Americans believe it. We should be deifying our heroes like FDR, JFK, and LBJ. Clinton should be forgotten completely.

[still_one]

35. It is all in the eyes of the beholder. Viet Nam and the Bay of Pigs were major blunders /nt

[anonymous171]

39. It is. For example. Ronald Reagan was not the "most popular president ever"

but because of GOP propaganda, most people (especially the media) tend to believe that he was. Bay of Pigs was bad and so was Vietnam, but who really gives a fuck? All the bad things about those presidents need to be forgotten. We need to construct a history that shows that leftists were always right and conservatives were always wrong. We need to stress Eisenhower's role in Vietnam, and Nixon's betrayal of LBJ's peace process. JFK has already undergone this kind of revision. During his presidency he was quite the hawk and was very pro-rich. However, ask any liberal about him and you will hear about how Kennedy was a dove and fought for the common man.

[freddie mertz]

31. Then why did they vote for "change"?

Most people could care less about these labels.

The public wanted something to be done about the financial system, about jobs, the crooks in the banks, about credit card gouging, about mortgages.

They wanted the wars to end.

How's all that going?

[still_one]

36. Because the bush administration went too far right /nt

[freddie mertz]

56. I think there was more too it than that label.

The economy tanked. The wars dragged on. The torture was shocking. Katrina was a shock and a national humiliation.

You can call that "too far right but I don't think that even BEGiNS to describe what people were feeling, or hoping for.

And I don't think they were hoping for the usual DLC pablum.

[still_one]

23. For some I actually think it would make them happy, believing that the country would be so unhappy

they would suddenly want a move toward the left

That sure isn't going to happen tomorrow, and yes, things could get a lot worse if republicans took back control, which won't happen in 2010

[PassingFair]

43. It won't make anybody happy but the republicans...

but there's nothing we can do about it.

[OnyxCollie]

7. Replacing the politicized US Attorneys would be a start.

After all, they serve at the pleasure of the President.

Apparently, Obama is OK with that.

Seems like a pretty good reason to be angry.

[annabanana]

12. This is the object of my greatest dissapointment...

I will not stay home or vote repug in protest, however...

[Phoebe Loosinhouse]

26. And maybe firing all the deadwood in the Wage and Hour Division

who were incapable of following up complaints for eight years.

Bush Labor Department Failed to Properly Investigate Wage Theft, GAO Tells House Panel
http://edlabor.house.gov/newsroom/2009/03/bush-labor-department-failed-t.shtml

And not to mention the Voting division of the Civil Rights Department
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/01/22/AR2006012200984_pf.html

[depakid]

10. "The President wants to be like Abraham Lincoln."

Which is exactly the wrong approach for the times.

This country doesn't need the status quo maintained, it needs a complete change of the way this country is run, and the type of people running it. But if you were one of the banksters, health insurers or pharma execs, you'd have a different view of things. You'd want to preserve what you'd plundered, and hire some human buffers to get between you and the 300 million Americans you'd ripped off.

[OHdem10]

13. Many of us knew that uniting bit was pie in the sky. At least some

some of seem to know and understand the GOP better than does the
President.

Here is my problem with him. He is right of Center politically
and seems to believe the Center in this country is somewhere
between Joe Lieberman and Tom DeLay. I cannot not comprehend
a Democrat who is this far right. The anger comes from the
fact that he did not campaign as a Center Right Candidate.
He never would have gotten off the ground. He continues
the Policies which defer to Business and Wall Street. Nothing
could be more on the right.

[anonymous171]

14. THIS THIS THIS. nt

[Jamastiene]

25. +1

[NRaleighLiberal]

15. Not angry. Not impatient, but disillusioned and disappointment at the direction, not pace.

There is change, which is difficult and takes time - then there is turning in the direction of change, which is also difficult, but can be effected more quickly and more clearly. It is taking on the necessary fights. And that is what I wish to see more of.

[Name removed]

16. Deleted message

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

[anonymous171]

19. Mandates are not progress.

Increased commitment to our military occupations is most definitely NOT progress.

[freddie mertz]

18. The complacent, defeatist center. It is losing us elections.

Or haven't you noticed?

Unrec.

[branders seine]

20. WTF dude?

He's black so we should give him a pass on blatantly breaking specific campaign promises?

[DerekG]

22. Not to worry. America doesn't have a Left.

If it did, the Democratic Party wouldn't be able to get away with this crap.

[still_one]

32. There is a left and a right, but the country on the whole, is centrist. Your impression I don't

think is too far off

[DerekG]

40. Oh, they're not centrist.

They want health care and jobs, and would thus be receptive to a leftist movement. But without voices and organization, there's no Left.

They're not centrists; they're nothing.

[jonathon]

27. I didn't expect anything other then he advocate on the side of the people

I agree that he has a huge and herculean task before him. And, I have no grand expectations that this system that took decades to crest to this breaking point, Obama would be able to patch up in one or even two terms.

I believe this is about Obama's current actions around the health care bill, the bank bailouts, the bush era policies extended under Obama, the expansion of the war in Afghanistan (requesting to borrow another 33 billion dollars for war while everything here is collapsing).

I think the problem is Obama had the choice of two paths at the beginning of his administration. One, he could try to work within the broken system to create some positive change for the people. Or, two, he could have realized that the system is so broken and corrupt that there is no way to work within it and he could have utilized the massive energy and goodwill of the people to lead for a whole new path and direction. I am in no way surprised that he didn't choose the second path as he gave no indication of that in his campaign. People need to find some courage to back candidates who will stand up against this system. It is our own fault because we buy the media line that the only candidate who can win are those who will work to operate within & maintain the current system.

That's what people really wanted, but they didn't listen to what candidate Obama was saying. That thought their projections of him were the reality. That's our fault, not his. The question is how do we break the cycle of a two party system that really operates under the one rule of the corporate dictate?

That's where the conversation needs to start.

[jotsy]

47. Welcome to DU

Economically, I see us as on a boat, tied to heavy anchors falling deep in the ocean and the line is shorter than where the bottom can be found. We sink or we cut it loose and brave the whim of the waves.

Taking private money out of a publics process is the best first step to take, IMO. Second would be to poke holes in the ranks of these two tall walls that say the only road is between them.

[xchrom]

28. I was always of the opinion that dens were

About more than a game of keep away.
I.e. It's enough to keep repukes out of elective seats.

Apparently I was wrong.
But you know what? I survived bush -- both of them -- I survived reagan - and
I hAte those asswipes --

from now on though people will really have
to work for my vote.
I didn't - won't sign on for a game of keep away.

Either have the courage too govern - or you
don't need me.

[bobbolink]

63. The thing is, a lot of "Swing voters" are feeling the same way as you.

Maybe the coming disaster in November will show some of these Dem Rightists the folly of their blame game.

Or not. :shrug:

[begin_within]

29. What's really sad is the huge numbers of people that got involved in politics because of Obama

college students and those just turning old enough to vote - what must they be thinking now, having been sold a bill of goods and then left with nothing now? An entire generation may be turned away from politics as a solution to anything, because of this.

[freddie mertz]

33. Excellent point.

Young people are facing a world of no jobs, no credit, increasing war, and steeply rising college tuitions.

I don't think that is what they voted for.

[jaxx]

44. You're laying all that on Obama?

Wow and I thought the right were the ones who rewrote history!

[freddie mertz]

55. I think Obama embodied the desire for change.

To that extent, I also believe his first year of governance has been a disappointment to many.

Maybe I'm wrong, but where, tell me, is the groundswell of Dem enthusiasm that we saw in 2008?

[DerekG]

34. Not sad; an object lesson

We should start placing trust in each other, rather than in politicians. Taking a gander at the labor and civil rights movements.

[Goldstein1984]

37. Do any of us herd animals ever question why those who are

supposedly democratic brethren unrec this kind of post into DU Oblivion at the bottom of the page?

I think we would find that the answer to that question is the same as the answer to the question: Why hasn't electing a Democrat as President, and having a Democratic majority in Congress, made much of a difference?

This is the Democratic Underground in name only; in reality it is the Democratic Party Mainstream. Liberal activists--the "Angry Left"--are bad herd animals--the crazy aunts the party faithful prefer to lock in the attic between elections.

We won't drink the Party Kool-Aid. If the President wants to be remembered as the next Lincoln, then let him take the kind of decisive action Lincoln took. Right now, he's looking more like he's going to be remembered as the next Carter.

[jotsy]

41. A chapter in a the book of a nation's history that is under some pressure to be pivotal or see its

conclusion. I'm sure that's very chicken little of me but I am a quirky bird. The many factors in play have rendered a public that sees its viability unraveling and I believe their feeling of betrayal is justified.

The criminal enterprise we refer to as the Bush administration left a mess that rivals the one from the Cat in the Hat.

"This mess is so big and so deep and so tall we can not clean it up there is no way at all."

For me that's the tangible part of the equation. American civilization has always enjoyed the luxury of seeing itself as the 'good guys' which like everything else, it can now ill afford. The manner of tyranny from this dark era has left something of a shadow on us in the doubt of that perception. It's made us edgy and defensive. The rule of law serves as something of a spine to the structure of our country, without its equal application, accountability and atonement, can we really stand reliably independent?

[Marr]

42. Here's the really funny part. After the corporate Dems lose the next elections,

they'll turn around and blame liberals. As if we just forgot to vote for them or something. No one will ever suggest, at least not on television, that the party lost because it became too right wing and alienated it's base.

[Tesha]

57. It's becoming routine, isn't it?

1. The Centrist Democrats get elected, largely because groups like unions
and progressives and the like get out and do the work.

2. The Centrists then tell everyone who isn't just like them to piss off.

3. They then do a bunch of things that disenchant the voters at large
and in doing so, lose the next election.

4. They then blame it on the unions, the progressive activists, and the like.

One of these elections, we really *OUGHT* to stay away since they're
going to blame their loss on us anyway.

Tesha

[Vinca]

45. I honestly thought Obama was better than a politician.

I truly believed he would be different and that his campaign promises were more than lip service to get votes. Apparently, I'm still naive at 60 years of age.

[leeroysphitz]

46. I didn't vote for a RACE. n/t

[pretzel4gore]

48. the reactionary right are sub human

Obama is limited by the very news media that gives the subhumans their lead in USA/the world. They've been tricking us since...since adam and steve, or madam and Eve, or whatever. They lie as a matter of routine. And we are the victims of their lies. How many people know it was the allies who forced partition on Germany after ww2, and not USSR? How many care? But that's where they fukked the people. We destroyed the USSR, in part because of 2 Germanys/Iron Curtain etc, but WE made 2 Germanys/Iron Curtain despite Stalin efforts to maintain the west/USSR alliance. And history can't even straighten out that little fact(!) Stealing candy from a baby is harder then defrauding a cruel and selfish bunch- and no one was as cruel and selfish as the people on winning side in 1945! But facts can't disturb the myth- built at a vast cost and so utterly satisfying to the greatest generation! All a goddam lie. And now we face the consequences

[MSchreader]

49. Honestly, I didn't expect much of anything

But that's because I actually read his platform before the election.

"Was it not enough of a change that for the first time in history, we have elected a black President. That, in itself, is historic change."

Yes, it was "historic change", but it's not enough. Americans are suckers for making history, in spite of all of the social backwardness that swirls around us. In a sense, some of the Republican strategists knew this, too. That's why they went along with Palin; Black man or white woman -- either way was "historic".

"After eight years of the most criminal and incompetent Administration in our memory, why would anyone think there would be massive changes? The War on Terror? Still going strong. The screwing of the American people by the Big Banks? Making more money than ever. Regulations restored? Nope, everything still the same. Healthcare reform? It changed to health insurance reform after the election."

Greater changes have happened at faster paces in U.S. and world history. I'm sorry, but the Bush regime cannot be used as an excuse when the Democrats control both houses of Congress and the White House. And if the Dems are worried about a filibuster, then amend Rule 22 of the Senate back to pre-1975 language (with one exception: reduce the number needed for cloture to 55) so that if they want to grandstand, they'll have to drag out the cots and spend all their time there reading out of the phonebook or something.

"So why none of the changes people expected? Is it primarily because the economy collapsed and none of these changes are now possible? After all, it is not possible to raise taxes during such a severe recession and downturn. We don't want to make the big banks angry or they will stop lending money altogether. True, but the most important issue is jobs and we have to be very careful not to make it more difficult to find a job."

Oh, heaven forbid we upset the banks! We'll just keep bribing them a trillion dollars at a time until they're fat and happy ... and the rest of us are eating mites. And the banks really aren't "lending money" at all. That's the ongoing problem; the credit system is still more or less frozen, and the banks are using the bribes they received to buy up competitors and create monopolies. Next on the agenda appears to be PNC buying up National City (if it hasn't been done already).

"It is simply not possible to have the change you expected. The President wants to be like Abraham Lincoln. He wants to unite the country. He doesn't believe that the Republicans hate his guts."

By that logic, we'll have to wait to see the big changes until after the Republicans try to secede from the U.S. and begin a shooting war. Personally, I'd prefer a little "pre-emption" in this case, given the alternative.

[jgraz]

53. By your reasoning, maybe we should have elected Michael Steele

or maybe Alan Keyes...


:eyes:

[pretzel4gore]

58. you betcher!

darn tootin'
(actually, Homer Simpson, from Springfield, Illinois)

[bobbolink]

59. Hey, go ahead and get rid of us.

You asked for it, you can get it.

Just boot us out.

The way the republicans have done it is working fine, so you can copy their MO.

Have at it.

Feel better now that you have found your bogeyman?

[ShortnFiery]

61. Gee, then where will these democratic "leaders" get the true WORKERS ...

Oh just glean another DONATION from the large corporations, perhaps you can HIRE people to canvass ... because, unlike the past, this woman will NOT work for CORPORATIST Democrats.

Enjoy those corporate dollars ... too bad it won't CASH INTO VOTES. :evilgrin:

You want LIBERALS back? Do something for "civil rights" reinstatment: Reverse the Patriot Act. At least PRETEND that you give a damn about the welfare of the wage slave WORKING AMERICAN? :grr:

[bobbolink]

62. I have been trying to keep track of all this dissing of "leftists", so that come

October and November, when there is all the crying for "help", we can shove it right back in their moaning faces.

They are following the same tactics as the RW, but think they are soooooo superior.

Yup, if we had the courage to all just pull back for one election cycle, and let 'em do it all on their own, I think a few would begin to have a bit more appreciation.

BUT....most of us have too much integrity, and too much love of our country to do what needs to be done.

:cry:

[ShortnFiery]

64. Both parties are fascist: I don't volunteer but vote for the least corporatist candidate. eom