Silly Rabbits! Many of you think that Obama and Congressional Dems WANT to have a majority

[Vinnie From Indy]

The fact is that an argument could easily be made that Obama and many Dems in Congress find it FAR easier to be in the minority. Being in the minority gives Dems PLAUSIBLE DENIABILITY. For Congress folk it makes the cocktail parties and fundraisers so much easier to deal with. Candidates and incumbents can rail against all the evil shit being done by the GOP without actually having to do anything about it. Right now, they are screwed because many progressives and base Democrats are angry as shit at the lack of attention to issues near and dear to them. It could very well be that the Gibbs statement was designed to keep progressives and the "professional left" at home this year instead of voting. Being in the minority is EXCELLENT cover when you are really interested in sucking up as many of the corporate dollars available and don't want constituents calling you out at fundraisers etc.

[RandomThoughts]

1. I posted about that.

It is possible they want to lose so they can have grid lock, and are not exposed for not doing what they promiss in campaigns.

Been hard for them to explain why they can't get some popular things done with majorities.

It would be funny if they got even bigger majorities show what is really what.





Bingo!

That is why the staying alive song had "they can't lose", even if they try, LOL that is so funny.

Staying alive.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IHWeuQyFouo

[RandomThoughts]

46. I should clarify that post.

If they wanted to lose they could by free will of coarse, my comment is about people that want to lose but are not honest about it.

Although I doubt there are many people like that.

But my point is there are interps of that last post that could be seen as not following concepts of free will. So although humorous, not something I would believe in.

Note it is funny, but has errors in some of the ways to view it. I think taking free will would be wrong, nor do I support that action.

Although it could be argued that lying is part of free will, so those that lie and want to throw a race, would have that right by free will, so honestly I would not think stopping that would be correct either, except by pointing it out if someone was to do that.

Although lying is also stealing free will, since it takes other peoples abilities to make an informed choice, since a person could not make a decision without correct information. So it is possible it could be rules applied back, interesting thought there.

[geek tragedy]

2. This is delusional. nt

[LostinVA]

3. We have found something to agree on

:wtf:

[LostinVA]

5. dupe self delete

[coti]

6. Actually, it's the only reasonable explanation for the Administration's behavior. nt

[geek tragedy]

7. No, it's insane.

Literally insane, with no grounding in reality.

It posits that Democrats try to lose elections so that they can raise more money.

Think about that for three seconds.

[coti]

21. Think about the consequences of what Gibbs said for two seconds.

And think about the facts that he didn't feel the need to apologize, and the Administration isn't backing away from him.

They want to lose.

[geek tragedy]

22. No, they're human beings who get frustrated and then say stupid

shit.

Unless that's never happened to you.

[coti]

24. That's not their explanation. They don't even have one.

They're just standing behind it.

[geek tragedy]

27. Of course it isn't.

But if you really think they're happy that Gibbs made those comments to a reporter . . .

[coti]

30. It seems likely it was either planned or is now implicitly condoned. nt

[geek tragedy]

31. Obviously, they do have a great deal of frustration

with certain segments of the left. But, it's often smart to leave frustrations unexpressed.

[Proud Liberal Dem]

25. Yeah, people shell out money to professional losers all of the time, right?

:eyes:

:crazy:

[Jim Sagle]

37. They're not losers, they gatekeepers.

[Proud Liberal Dem]

39. What is a "gatekeeper"?

:shrug:

[Jim Sagle]

45. One who works to protect and enrich the corporate powers.

"Our" "centrist" Dems do just that, knowing that if the voters kick them out, they can land a high-paid job in the corporate sector.

[Proud Liberal Dem]

50. Gee

Then what's the point of being involved with the political process at all??? :shrug: Maybe we should just surrender to the corporate and political oligarchy and get it over with, huh?

There seems to be way too much defeatism around here IMHO. If nothing we do matters and that there's no possibility of any good changes, then what's the point of, well, doing anything about anything?

Just because no group of people (a very diverse group at that) can reverse all of the bad things that have happened in our country's political history, particularly the last 20-30 years or so, doesn't mean (at least not to me) that it's not worth trying to fix things. We've only had 1-2 years after getting out from under the yoke of either a Republican Congress or a Republican WH when we have had a real ability to make a lot of meaningful changes and it's hard for me to believe that anything more dramatic could have been accomplished faster in our current political climate (reality).

[NuttyFluffers]

47. a gatekeeper is the complement to a keymaster -- Dr. Egon Spengler, "Ghostbusters"

and "the next time someone asks if you are a God, you say yes!" -- Dr. Peter Venkmen, "Ghostbusters"

[Proud Liberal Dem]

48. LOL!!!

Love that movie :rofl:

[Jim Sagle]

51. No, Dems don't 'try to lose elections so that they can raise more money.'

They try to lose elections so they can go to corporate jobs and EARN more money.

And it doesn't take even ONE second to know that makes perfect sense.

[Champion Jack]

34. No, there is nothing reasonable about it, it's bullshit

[BootinUp]

9. LOL, you got to get into it baby

:rofl:

[Nuclear Unicorn]

32. I certainly don't believe the WH wants to lose the congress to the GOP

But the fact Gibbs redoubled his comments seems indicative that the administration as a whole shares his sentiments otherwise they would have made him at least walk-back his comment.

I think they are fatigued by us demanding what they actually campaigned on. I'm sorry but I'm not sorry for wanting that.

If he can't give it he shouldn't have campaigned for it and told us to hold him accountable for his results.

Don't sell me a Mustang on craigslist with pics and all then deliver a Kia.

I might be upset.

But to your larger point: no, I'm not buying the CTs either.

[socialist_n_TN]

33. Oh I don't know. It has a ring of truth to me...........

The DLC would LOVE to either lose majority status OR have a VERY bare majority. Then they would have a ready made excuse to NOT do ANYTHING progressive and do a lot that's REGRESSIVE, like gutting social security and letting Wall St. play with that money.

[newspeak]

49. Well, let's see what happens

I'm voting--I want a clear majority in both houses. But, if democrats lose the senate or house, I'm going to see how long it takes for the privatizing of SS to come up for vote. I'm going to see how long it takes for the repukes, in a time of true need, shreds every damn social contract. And, the democrats can say, "we couldn't do anything about it." However, if the democrats keep a clear majority, then, I want to see how they play the game. See if we get progressive bills or repuke bills.

Oh, and a side note, talking about privatization. The five corporate owned prisons in Arizona, apparently have a bad track record for escapes. And, the repukes in Arizona want to privatize all of their prisons. But, what is really disturbing is the sociopath in UT who under Bush helped set up Abu Ghraib and was in a scandal in UT (I remember it), where a mentally disabled prisoner was strapped down over (I believe) sixteen hours and died--well, he's the one who runs the prison corps. in Arizona. Some really scary shite. I smell fascism in the air.

[27inCali]

4. I'm sure that it's true of some

but if you think this of the whole party, then why do you even waste your time posting at a place called Democratic Underground? Obviously you think the Democrats are bunch of scum bags and hey, that's your opinion, bit if it is, why be here?

[Junkdrawer]

8. With a Republican House, Obama can safely be a Democratic hero....

Heck, he can even veto a bill or two before signing a compromise. It really does enhance his reelection chances.

[Proud Liberal Dem]

26. If the Republicans don't impeach him first

Or simply shut down the government, or cut funding to health care reform, etc...................

Yeah, otherwise the Republicans running Congress for the next two years will be WONDERFUL for Obama and the country (not to mention, the "professional left")!!!!

:sarcasm: :banghead:

[Junkdrawer]

29. "or cut funding to health care reform, etc."...

Whose idea was it to delay the big health care programs until 2014 or beyond?

[Proud Liberal Dem]

38. Well

I don't know exactly why they did it that way. I assume that it was because they had to in order to smoothly transition to this new system (i.e. exchanges) but that doesn't mean that we should just LET the Republicans mess around with it, does it???!!!

[no limit]

10. So if I follow your logic with all the dirty tricks Bush pulled during elections

he was actually trying to lose those elections?

[geek tragedy]

11. More than one person has theorized that the Republicans

threw the 2008 election as part of a corporatist conspiracy to install the Manchurian Candidate Barack Obama into office.

[no limit]

12. well that makes sense

[Kurt_and_Hunter]

13. No. Obama would benefit from pugs taking congress but congresspersons would not

Obama will probably win in 2012 if pugs take congress in 2010 and will probably lose in 2012 if Dem hold congress.

I am not saying Obama is that cynical, merely that he could arguably have a motive.

No congressperson, however, wants to be in the minority. It means less power and less money.

[geek tragedy]

17. Obama will probably lose in 2012 if Democrats control Congress?

Really?

If unemployment is at 10% then, sure. But, even a modest recovery in employment and uptick in national mood would ensure an easy re-election.

The Republicans don't have a group of all-stars to run. Mostly retreads from 2008.

[howaboutme]

20. Well said

The less obvious is often the real agenda.

But when is the real agenda going to be about making America stronger and better for Americans instead of working for other countries and our elitist over class?

The real question that is never answered is about - when will politicians work unquestionably for the American people instead of for other interests that may neither be American nor the American people?

[Xipe Totec]

14. Yes, I'm sure a bunch of Democrats are thinking of deliberately losing

Taking one for the team, as it were.

Yea, that's the ticket.

[ithinkmyliverhurts]

15. Jesus Christ, this thing has +12 recs.

Do we simply eat lead chips for lunch.

Dog almighty, the contortions of logic here. I'd like to argue that you're a troll trying to see how many you can get to rec. just as a goof, but I'm just not that optimistic.

[Xipe Totec]

18. Sorry, some of us don't pay attention to that crap

Maybe we should.

[Name removed]

19. Deleted message

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

[uponit7771]

16. Obama also wants global warming and all little bunny rabbits to have smaller tails :rolleyes:

[Proud Liberal Dem]

23. Ummm.........sure

Democrats don't want to be in the majority so they don't have to do anything...........:eyes: Remaining a permanent minority? THAT'S their big plan???? Becoming professional "intentional losers" while the GOP runs wild and does a bunch of scary evil s**t to the country???!!!

:wtf: :crazy: :silly:

[uponit7771]

28. Somehow this has 10 recs....this is crazy

[Proud Liberal Dem]

40. +1

Maybe Gibbs was onto something. The reaction that his rant has gotten really seems to have "upped" teh crazy.

[the other one]

35. Unspoken but implied. R'd.

[bvar22]

36. I see no other rational explaination for the recent White House behavior

a la Gibbs et al.

Heavy losses in the 2010 election will give them better cover for advancing the Republican (NeoLiberal/DLC) agenda.

After all, nobody who can count really believes that "we need 60 votes" nonsense.

[MrSlayer]

41. Indeed. It isn't just the Republicans who are owned by the corporate oligarchy.

They are deeply entrenched in both parties. They own everything and they are never giving it back. This country is over.

[sendero]

42. However you slice it..

... it is ABUNDANTLY CLEAR that this administration has no intention of doing the right thing on any issue involving economics. Period.

[w4rma]

43. The DLCers in Obama's cabinet want to gut Social Security and public education.

Losing a few Democratic seats would help them reach their right-wing goals.

Prepare yourselves. These corrupt DLC politicians are going to try to rob us.

More likely, they want fewer progressives and more corrupt DLCers.

[Zorra]

44. Ya know...the sad thing is...it almost seems like that is true sometimes. nt

[havocmom]

52. How about: both parties want to be majority & minority? Take turns?

Seriously, I have decided the One Big Party is comprised of two parts that are playing ping pong to keep us amused and diverted from the real power and all the damage it is doing.

Nobody wants to do anything because they are just actors on a stage. Going for the win is a big crowd pleaser. When you win, you whine you can't do anything or the other guys will win next round. Then you lose. Game starts all over.

Lather Rinse Repeat

[earth mom]

53. Yep-they're passing the buck.

:grr:

[Fumesucker]

54. Error: you can only recommend threads which were started in the past 24 hours

[Major Hogwash]

55. Tricks are for kids!

I wished I made more money for being a member of the professional left, but alas I am but an amateur. A sad, poor amateur who only begs for his dinner at the feet of the press secretaries. Woe is me.
Woe is Gibbs.
Woebegone.