"I'm furious at Obama for reviving the monsters of the right instead of crushing them"

[Better Believe It]

I Have A Dream, 2010 Version
by David Michael Green
September 12, 2010

Our national problem isn’t that we honorably disagree over two equally respectable philosophies of governance and therefore don’t get along because we’re all such good citizens that our passionate commitment to the public weal as we each see it best pursued leads us to be occasionally intemperate. No. Our problem is that there is a group of elite raptors who are seeking to vacuum every ounce of wealth out of the pockets of the other 99 percent of us and scoop it into their own pockets instead, and that they’ve employed a set of politician stooges who have in the last several decades jettisoned all meaningful behavioral limitations on what they’re willing to do to achieve those ends. In that sense, the idea of some religious crackpot cracker in Florida burning the Koran isn’t some bizarre anomaly. It is, instead, precisely the logical outcome of a set of politics in which you have “mainstream” members of Congress challenging the president’s very nationality and his religion, calling him a socialist, and accusing him of legislating death panels to kill grannies. It is precisely what we should expect to have happened. It is precisely the product of three decades of Atwater/Gingrich/Rove style politics.

These (alleged) people cannot be negotiated with, because they are not interested in public policy-making that is in the national interest. That’s not their mission, and only a naive fool or someone who had spent the last thirty years underground excavating the seventh moon of Jupiter would fail to understand that. Changing the tone in Washington – which, in any case, is always a far secondary aspiration relative to getting people jobs, protecting the environment, ending criminal wars, and so on – simply will never happen until all the bomb-throwers and barrier-builders in Congress are driven from the temple, and until political aspirants across the land get the message that whatever form of McCarthyism du jour they are contemplating employing in order to get elected will cost them more votes than it will gain them. Neville Chamberlain is almost universally despised and derided today for trying to negotiate with Hitler. Which part of that lesson do you not get, Barack?

Like many progressives, I feel duped by the Obama of 2008. (I know there are many other lefties out there who think that any of us were fools to believe that Obama might have done great things as president, but I think those folks were wrong to assume that. I’m quite sure they would have said at least as much in 1932 about the theretofore aristocratic, safely uncontroversial and careerist Franklin Roosevelt. But look how that turned out. FDR became a “traitor to his class” and turned crises into great progressive achievements. LBJ – a Texan, for chrissakes – did much the same during his at-bat. Obama had at least as much potential to join that club.)

I’m furious enough at Obama for squandering opportunity, for taking care of the privileged and allowing the rest of us to suffer, for reviving the monsters of the right instead of finishing the job of crushing them, and for setting back the cause of policies and ideas I care passionately about. But it adds massive insult to injury for him to turn around and come, hat in hand, back to the people who put him into office, singing his populist song right before an election.

Read the full article at:

http://www.commondreams.org/view/2010/09/12

The writer is certainly furious and angry believing that he has been betrayed by President Obama. I believe his article reflects the anger and frustration of many progressives who had high hopes for President Obama. Like all of us, I've heard that anger among people who voted for "change we can believe in". It's not just or even mainly right-wing wackos who are angry. While most of us won't agree with all of the writers views, he deserves to be heard as do so many others who are starving for bold and decisive political leadership in Washington. BBI

[BrklynLiberal]

1. can't blame him.

[Name removed]

2. Deleted message

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

[Better Believe It]

3. You read the entire article in less than two minutes? Unbelievable!

After you've actually read the article I'd like to read your detailed and precise critique of it.

I'm listening.

[geek tragedy]

11. Anyone who is familiar with the history of the American rightwing

knows that it always gets most revived during times of social progress--reconstruction, the civil rights era, etc. They went apeshit when Clinton got elected.

Anytime the politics of the country threatens the racist, homophobic, sexist, anti-working class structure of our society, the rightwing noise machine kicks it into high gear.

[Better Believe It]

15. You seem to be not familiar with that history. Unless you're only concerned about "noise".

Reaction grows during periods of economic crisis such as during the 1930's.

Ever hear of fascism and the Nazis?

The KKK, White Citizens Councils and Jim Crow segregationists were totally defeated by the civil rights movement in the 50's and 60's. The racists were very noisy but they were soundly defeated.

[geek tragedy]

26. "were totally defeated by the civil rights movement in the 50's and 60's."

You mean that struggle wasn' over after 20 months? That it took many years over many presidencies?


Thank you for proving my point.

[Name removed]

49. Deleted message

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

[roguevalley]

153. I agree with the author. He had the chance to stick them in the face

with righteousness but he didn't. He could have been the next FDR, who didn't give a shit about the other guy. He just wanted good legislation.

[liberal N proud]

Just as nothing was bu$h's fault - everything is Obama's

It is the right wing way!

Similar to the commercials that have been running here in Ohio, blaming the government for everything and calling it too big but also complaining about not solving "their" problems.

[Jim Sagle]

5. It's not real freakout, it's kabuki. They get to call him a Nazi Muslim commie soashulist while

he enacts their policies. Then he gets to loses the house and senate and deal with the Republican congress as intended. By 2012 the Democratic party will be on life support and Obama will be stepping up to a big payday in a rightly grateful corporate Murika.

For him and his buddies on Wall Street and K Street, it'll be all good; for us, not so much.

[geek tragedy]

10. How about his stand on Israel? Are the people who think

he's not pro-Israel enough insincere?

[Jim Sagle]

18. I'd rather not sidetrack the discussion - don't want to turn this into an I/P thread.

[geek tragedy]

28. Well, why should we disbelieve one group of rightwing

critics but take another group of rightwing critics at their word?

[Jim Sagle]

41. A better question is, why should I (or anyone) pay attention to your obvious attempts to destroy

this thread?

[Dr.Phool]

101. They wouldn't try to distract the discussion, would they?

[geek tragedy]

108. In other words, only the rightwing criticisms

you agree with are made with honesty.

[Jakes Progress]

112. Best reply to the professional interrupters yet.

Let their silliness sink and continue the real discussion. Hard not to take their bait though. They seemed to be well-trained.

[TBF]

123. +1000 nt

[indepat]

109. The key is "enacts their policies," HCR and a much watered-down financial reform bill

that's not likely to do diddle-dy-squat then the next financial meltdown is thrust upon us: and some seem to play-like it ain't so. :shrug:

[FiveGoodMen]

132. Agreed.

That's exactly how I see it as well.

[Safetykitten]

65. Being There. When a garden with good soil is provided even weeds can overtake the good plants.

Obama really had no comment basically on the asshattery that went on. So he provided the good soil.

The fact is he will probably be looked at as the enabler of the far right resurgence, with his hesitation on conflict or basically backhanding them. He was elected to be the guy that everyone but republicans wanted to go in there and do what needed to be done, and not do a HCR/republican/Wall Street love fest.

[Pirate Smile]

4. Oh FFS. Focus on the monsters.

:eyes:

[Usrename]

111. Do you mean monsters that claim the right to murder us?

What could possibly be more monstrous than the leader of the free world claiming the right to disappear people?



If you have something that can top that, then let's hear it.

[BzaDem]

6. It is amazing how many boneheads keep claiming that Obama "negotiates" with the Republicans

in the name of "bipartisanship."

They rail on and on against it, notwithstanding the fact that it is completely bogus and untrue, and has never been true.

Of the three big legislative accomplishments of Obama's presidency, each and every one got EXACTLY the 60 votes required to pass. That means that the bare minimum number of Republicans voted for it to get any bill, and not a single Republican more. (In the case of HCR, not a single Republican voted for it.)

These people claiming that Obama "revived the right" (as opposed to a typical outcome of a President's first midterm election, amplified by the bad economy) seem to be unable to work within the parameters of the current reality. Instead, they have to construct a brand new imaginary reality and a narrative to fit their talking points.

[flamingdem]

9. Excellent point about 60 votes nt

[Better Believe It]

12. Especially when President Obama could have passed legislation with 51 votes.

They refused to challenge Republicans to engage in actual filibusters. Republican Senators were allowed by Senator Reid to engage in "pretend" filibusters in which they didn't even have to be on the Senate floor and the Senate was allowed under Senator Reid's rules to debate other matters during a pretend filibuster!

So to get those few Republican Senator votes the Democratic leadership compromised, and compromised and gave up more and more ground to the Republican obstructionists.

Three Republican Senators for all practical purposes wrote the 2009 "stimulus" legislation! They weakened the crap out of it and that guaranteed its failure. The so-called Republican "moderates" got exactly what the wanted .... a stimulus doomed to fail.

[BzaDem]

19. You have said that crap so much that you probably even believe the false words you write.

The problem with your narritive that you keep peddling is that the Senate rules actually do NOT allow Democrats to force any more than one Republican to ask for a quorum call every 15-30 minutes (for which the Senate adjourns unless there are 50 Democrats to answer the call).

Your crap is false every time you write it.

[JTFrog]

95. Thank you. n/t

[Better Believe It]

187. Once again I have to say that you seem to be totally unfamiliar with Senate rules and procedures.

Would you like me to respond to your post with some hard, documented information? My facts prove that Senate Democrats, with the support of Senator Reid, can either force Republicans to engage in real filibusters and the Senate Democrats also have the power to immediately shut down any and all Republican filibusters of either the "pretend" or real variety?

I'd be happy to do that, especially since you were unable to refute the above points in previous posts.

:)

Of course, if you really want civil debate and discussion on this particular matter based upon facts, you could start a new post on this subject on this board. You could present your position and I would respond.

How bout it?

[geek tragedy]

33. That is simply not true. It's a MYTH perpetrated by the "Obama sux"

and "Democrats suck!" crowd.

http://www.congressmatters.com/storyonly/2010/5/19/2299/-Filibuster-reform-hearings-continue

"We also hear a lot of demands for Dems to "make the Republicans filibuster" -- in the old school sense -- but under current rules that puts much of the burden on those who don't want additional debate, and very little on those who say they do. If there are going to be changes made, what about considering one that keeps the numbers the same, but puts the burden where it belongs?"

That author-David Waldman-knows more about Congressional rules than every one at DU combined.

[Dr.Phool]

102. God forbid that we cut into their fundraising time.

And ask them to do their jobs.

[rhett o rick]

184. Didnt the Democrats get to modify the rules at the beginning of the session? nm

[Better Believe It]

190. Is David Waldman aware of the fact that Senator Reid did force Republicans to engage in a real .....

on-the-Senate-floor filibuster one time?

Reid can use his power and Senate Rules to force real filibusters when he wants to.

[pnwmom]

82. You can't change Senate rules in the middle of a session.

Senate rules, including those governing the filibuster process, can only be changed at the beginning of a new session.

[Hansel]

128. Also Obama's in a different branch of government.

People bitched because Bush ran the country like a dictator, over-stepping his authority and crossing lines separating the other 2 branches of government.

Now some of the same are bitching because Obama doesn't do the same.

[rhett o rick]

185. So why werent they changed at the beginning of the session? nm

[Better Believe It]

197. The Senate has the power to change its rules at anytime during a session.

Including any "rule" that indicates rules changes can only be made at the beginning of a new Senate session.

[indepat]

110. Well, I believe it: weakened to guarantee failure

:thumbsup:

[leftstreet]

14. 60 votes is a myth n/t

[BzaDem]

20. Yeah, and Obama was born in Kenya. Both your statement and that one have equal veracity. n/t

[leftstreet]

23. No offense meant. You seem very informed so I'm surprised you didn't know this

This 60 vote thing has been debunked so many times, it's almost boring at this point.

Try Google

[BzaDem]

24. The problem with your argument is that all the "debunkings" are actually pure bullshit.

All one Republican has to do is ask for a quorum call every 15-30 minutes. That forces 50 Democrats to show up and answer (or the Senate is adjourned). If 50 Democrats show up, then 15-30 minutes later, Republicans do the same thing. All the other 40 Republicans can go home and sleep, while 50 Democrats and one Republican continue to stand in silence.

[leftstreet]

25. OMG is that also what the Dems did to the Repubs?

No wonder they're scared

:scared:

[BzaDem]

27. They didnt need to, because Republicans gave up.They failed with SS privatization, ANWR, immigration

and everything other partisan bill that wasn't a budget reconciliation measure (which must be tied to the budget and only requires 50 votes).

The mere threat of a Democratic filibuster on all of their partisan 60-vote non-reconciliation proposals was enough to kill all of them. The idea that Bush got through whatever he wanted is pure revisionist history.

[jgraz]

50. Yeah, like the invasion of Iraq and the appointments of Roberts and Alito

Oh wait...

[BzaDem]

52. Bush would have gone to war with or without Cognress' say so. Supreme court justices have not been

successfully filibustered since Abe Fortas during the Johnson years.

I am talking about actual legislation, and you know that's what I'm talking about. You're just trying to change the subject because the facts of this subject don't suit your narrative well.

[jgraz]

56. Then let him go to war without Congressional approval

I don't understand how any of your excuses can justify the capitulation we witnessed.

You're talking about actual legislation? How can any legislation be worse than a lifetime appointment of a radical rightwing nutcase to the SCOTUS? They can overrule ANY legislation we wish to pass.

I think you're simply looking for ways to limit the discussion so you don't look so foolish. If you just want to talk about legislation, maybe you can explain how the gun liability exemption, the PATRIOT act or Medicare Part D got passed?

[BzaDem]

58. You are acting as if blocking Roberts would have resulted in not getting a radical rightwing nutcase

and that is just pure fantasy.

The 3 pieces of legislation you mentioned PASSED WITH 60+ VOTES. The Patriot act passed with almost unanimous consent. NO ONE (certainly not me) is arguing that bills cannot pass with 60+ votes. Pointing out Medicare part D or the patriot act as evidence that bills can pass without 60 votes is silly to say the least. I am simply pointing out the obvious fact that non-reconciliation bills with fewer than 60 votes cannot pass. This says NOTHING about bills with bipartisan support and more than 60 supporters.

[jgraz]

59. You just made the argument for never standing up to the right wing ever

It would have cost the Democrats NOTHING to filibuster Roberts and Alito. All it would have done was to energize the base and call attention to Bush's radical judicial appointments. And if the Repugs killed the filibuster, then we would have just steamrolled them from '06 on.

It's this weak-willed, milquetoast, "no we can't" attitude that is why we're about to lose Congress. Think about that the next time you advocate caving in to the right wing without a fight.

[BzaDem]

67. No, they would only have killed the filibuster for judicial nominations.

And nothing would have changed, because Supreme Court nominations are not successfully filibustered.

"It's this weak-willed, milquetoast, "no we can't" attitude that is why we're about to lose Congress."

That presumes that there are scores of people who are about to aide and enable the Republicans because Democrats "haven't been liberal enough." That's why your argument is a crock of shit.

[jgraz]

70. Pathetic.

Take your head out of the sand and pick up a newspaper. The chasm between registered Democrats and those likely to vote in the fall is about 10 points.

The only people "who are about to aide and enable the Republicans" are those like you who continue to kiss the robes of Democrats while excusing their disastrous behavior.

[BzaDem]

71. What you neglect to mention is that almost always happens in a President's first midterm election.

The opposition party almost always is much more enthusiastic, which is why the opposition party almost always gains seats (and often a significant number). Reagan lost 26 seats, and that was after they were already in a minority and had only safer seats left to lose. Compare that to now, when we are at a high-water-mark with a large majority hinging upon fickle seats in districts that McCain won by double digits. 26 seats taking a minority into an even smaller minority is quite significant.

Furthermore, if people hated Obama's policies as much as you claim they do, he wouldn't have an 85% approval rating among Liberal Democrats (which beats every president since JFK). You keep acting as if people who want Democrats to lose from the left are large enough to be relevant in the midterm election, when in reality they are not. Many people who want Democrats to lose from the left talk to others who want Democrats to lose from the left, and this creates sort of an "echo-chamber effect" that makes them think they are large enough to be relevant, but that doesn't actually make them relevant.

[jgraz]

74. Good thing we didn't elect someone who promised to change things then

I'm happy to know that things are going along exactly as they have in the past. It's so upsetting when things happen that are different from before, isn't it?

[BzaDem]

75. Well in reality Obama has brought lots of progressive change. Your inability to see that

doesn't make it any less true.

After all, many people thought that vague promises of "change" implied single payer, even though Obama specifically campaigned AGAINST single payer in ads a month before the election. If the best you can do is say that the word "change" implies Obama promised to please you with every bill he passed, you are as much of a fool as Republicans who are now calling for "change" and assume that "change" means abolishing all forms of government help to the poor.

[jgraz]

77. If you're going to try to magically make things happen just by saying them...

could you please put up a few posts about how the Packers will definitely make the playoffs this year? I'd really appreciate it.

[BzaDem]

78. Well then 85% of liberal democrats are magically making things happen just by saying them.

And you are the lone voice of reason.

:rofl:

[jgraz]

79. Not quite up on our logical fallacies, are we.

Why don't you google "argumentum ad populum" -- get back to me when you figure out where you went wrong.

[BzaDem]

80. In this case, I am making an argument that people like you are numerically irrelevent

in the coming midterm. So perhaps the ONLY evidence of this is, in fact, evidence as to what the people think. If I were arguing that everyone THINKS that everyone disagrees with you, that might fit in your category, but I am simply presenting evidence that everyone ACTUALLY disagrees with you, in order to prove my point that everyone ACTUALLY disagrees with you (and that therefore your group of people who interprets "change" differently enough to disapprove of Obama is not relevant). Nice try though.

As far as your idiocy with respect to policy, I have outlined a great many reasons why most of what you said is entirely false. This is completely independent of the fact that the vast majority of Democrats happen to agree.

[jgraz]

83. Oh really? You've "outlined a great many reasons"?

When you're done with "argumentum ad populum", you might want to take a crack at "outlined" and "reasons". It probably wouldn't hurt to refresh yourself on "a great many" while you're at it.

I'll make it easy on you: name three true progressive reforms that, in your words, "Obama has brought". That should be no problem, since you obviously have "a great many" to choose from. As an added degree of difficulty, try doing it without cut-and-pasting from Politifact.

[BzaDem]

84. Sure.

Abolishing discrimination on the basis of pre-existing conditions
Ending lifetime caps on health insurance
Percentage profit cap on health insurance companies.
Mandated benefits packages for health insurance policies.
200 billion/year in subsidies for the poor and lower middle class to help them buy mandated-benefit-package, high-actuarial value health insurance.
A consumer financial protection agency (itself the largest increase in pro-consumer regulation in decades)
Significant clampdowns on trading of financial derivatives
Regulatory taxes on bank "bigness" (or "systemically-important-ness")
Resolution authority to allow banks to fail, rather than requiring a 100% bailout to maintain an economy
Tens of billions in aid to states
Tens of billions in alternative energy projects

And that is just off the top of my head. I'm sure if I went to politifact I could list many more. Many of these would be large achievements if they were enacted independently (let alone in combination).

We have already argued about most of these, and I have provided many of reasons in each of these arguments. (I don't know if I provided, say, 100 reasons, but it was certainly in that approximate order of magnitude.)

[jgraz]

90. I'm sorry I wasn't clear. I meant *actual* progressive reforms. In reality.

Abolishing discrimination on the basis of pre-existing conditions

Crap. Insurance companies can still discriminate by charging sick people more for premiums.


Ending lifetime caps on health insurance

Worthless without cost controls.


Percentage profit cap on health insurance companies.

A built-in incentive to raise rates through the roof. More revenue leads to more profit.


Mandated benefits packages for health insurance policies.

Again, worthless without cost controls.


200 billion/year in subsidies for the poor and lower middle class to help them buy mandated-benefit-package, high-actuarial value health insurance.

Taxpayer subsidies to pay insurance companies whatever they want. How progressive.

And of course, ALL of the above "reforms" need to be considered in the context of Obama's giant wet kiss (with tongue) to the insurance, drug and for-profit healthcare corporations. If you toss a few crumbs to the people and then give the rest of the loaf to corporations, can it really be called progressive? (Answer: no)


A consumer financial protection agency (itself the largest increase in pro-consumer regulation in decades)

Currently run by Tim Geithner, staffed by Tim Geithner and forever answerable to Tim Geithner. And with no actual regulations in place, forever dependent on the people appointed to run it.


Significant clampdowns on trading of financial derivatives

Ahahahahah. You crack me up. Read the bill.


Regulatory taxes on bank "bigness" (or "systemically-important-ness")

This can barely be called a centrist reform. A progressive reform would have been to break up large banks and re-institute real restrictions on how banks can trade with our money. Obama didn't even bother to propose that.


Resolution authority to allow banks to fail, rather than requiring a 100% bailout to maintain an economy

With zero up-front funding from the banks? Good luck with that. Again, barely centrist.


Tens of billions in aid to states

How is this even remotely progressive? (Hint: it's not progressive just because the Repugs don't like it)


Tens of billions in alternative energy projects

You say progressive, I say centrist. Potato, potahto. Unless, like the Republicans, you consider any government spending to be "left wing".



At this point, I have to ask: do you even understand what "progressive" means? This is not a taunt, it's a serious question. It really seems like you've bought the Fox News line that ANY government activity is by definition left wing.

[BzaDem]

91. I have already debunked your talking points on financial reform. Your points on HCR are bogus.

"Crap. Insurance companies can still discriminate by charging sick people more for premiums."

Absolute falsehood. Insurance companies can not charge a sick person ONE PENNY MORE than a healthy person. They can vary by age up to a defined amount (though not nearly as much as they could before), but NOT by health status. Not by one penny. There won't even be a mechanism for discriminating on the basis of health status, because the exchange website gives you a rate before you even give them your NAME.

It is amazing how you have the gall to bash a bill that you don't know the first thing about.

All of your "worthless without cost controls" arguments are bogus, because the Medical Loss Ratio IS a cost control. If they raise premiums without paying more for medical costs, they have to rebate every dollar back to the customer. And in any event, if they try to raise premiums to more than 8% of most people's incomes, the mandate no longer applies for those people.

"Taxpayer subsidies to pay insurance companies whatever they want. How progressive."

Using that argument, we should end food stamps, since that just pays food companies, and food companies are corporations.

"At this point, I have to ask: do you even understand what "progressive" means?"

:rofl:

It doesn't even make sense for you to be bashing a bill as "not progressive" when you don't even understand basic facts about the bill. Educate yourself about the actual bill, and then we can move to a broader discussion. Baby steps first.

[jgraz]

92. Nice tactic. Let me try it: I've already proven you wrong before, so there.

No? Not good enough?

"Crap. Insurance companies can still discriminate by charging sick people more for premiums."

Absolute falsehood. Insurance companies can not charge a sick person ONE PENNY MORE than a healthy person. They can vary by age up to a defined amount (though not nearly as much as they could before), but NOT by health status. Not by one penny. There won't even be a mechanism for discriminating on the basis of health status, because the exchange website gives you a rate before you even give them your NAME.

Ah, right. They can charge three times as much based on age. That's *much* better. :eyes: I notice you conveniently omitted that obscene multiplier. It makes your nitpicking look a bit worthless.


It is amazing how you have the gall to bash a bill that you don't know the first thing about.

I'll take my occasional error about complex legislation over your outright dishonesty any day.


All of your "worthless without cost controls" arguments are bogus, because the Medical Loss Ratio IS a cost control. If they raise premiums without paying more for medical costs, they have to rebate every dollar back to the customer.

This is basic economics. With this system, the pressure will be to raise the cost of healthcare in general. That way, insurance companies can charge more, pay out more and make higher profits in terms of absolute dollars.


And in any event, if they try to raise premiums to more than 8% of most people's incomes, the mandate no longer applies for those people.

Ah, so your freedom to go without insurance is restored. Quite the progressive reform, there. :eyes:


"Taxpayer subsidies to pay insurance companies whatever they want. How progressive."

Using that argument, we should end food stamps, since that just pays food companies, and food companies are corporations.

Food companies produce something of social value. Insurance companies do not. Funneling our tax dollars to these parasites in not in any way progressive.



For those playing along at home, we now add "debunked" and "bogus" to the list of words you don't understand.


And still, you have yet to list one, single progressive reform. I understand, really I do. You're hampered by the fact that it's late, tomorrow's a work day and Obama hasn't produced any progressive reforms.


I know, I know, you had a dream where you proved me wrong. :rofl:

[BzaDem]

93. The problem is that you don't regard things like facts and evidence as relevant, unless it confirms

your narrative, rather than refutes it.

For example, every one of the reforms I mentioned is a progressive reform. Whereas you claim I haven't listed any. As another example, rather than admitting that I debunked your financial reform talking points in another post, and that you stated a falsehood about THE key benefit of the bill, you claim I don't understand words such as "debunked" and "bogus." When I point out that in addition to the above points, very few take your points seriously, you regard that as a problem with everyone else, rather than with yourself.

It is really impossible to have a productive conversation with people like you. It is almost like arguing with the people who claim 9/11 didn't actually happen (i.e. there were no planes or victims). You could point out that, yes, actually, there were planes, and there were victims, and produce evidence of those facts. But then they say the video was edited and eyewitness testimony is unreliable (and in any event, must be false, because it goes against their preconceived narrative). You could point out in addition to the objective evidence, no one agrees with them, but they also regard that as a problem with everyone else, rather than with themselves.

There comes a time where instead of playing this game ad infinitum, it is time to allow you to wallow in your irrelevancy and move onto more productive conversations (specifically, conversations where "being against your preconceived narrative" does not imply to either party that the assertion in question is false, notwithstanding all the evidence and facts to the contrary). Now is one of those times. I hope my posts in this subthread have at least educated other people, who are not members for the sole reason of spouting talking points that have little or no basis in reality.

Have a nice morning. :hi:

[jgraz]

94. Yeah, you don't even believe that crap.

Keep repeating that something is progressive and soon it will be, eh? Your self-delusions are truly impressive.

Oh, and feel free to post the link where you "debunked" my claims about the financial bill. Of course, we both know you could have posted it an hour ago if you actually believed you'd done any debunking.

[truedelphi]

158. Okay so let's try this out, starting with the nice little mantra of

"They can vary your premiums by your age but not by your condition."

Hmm, Sherlock, how many totally healthy sixty year olds do you know?

How many?

If a person has hereditary heart conditions, or diabetes, usually those have shown up by the time they're sixty.

Compiche? So by their understanding of how a human beings body usually works, they have managed to make sure that most of the people who are in bad shape pay higher premiums.

And then because we older people have to pay higher premiums, our ability to get hired in this economy is very remote - because since any larger employer has to pay the insurance premiums of the workers, they simply will not hire a sixty year old whose premiums only slightly cost less than the salary of the Queen of England, when they can hire a younger person whose premiums will cost them rather little.

But you conveniently forgot to think about that.

[TheKentuckian]

113. I can't say it is certain but I'd say the Packers are much more likely than not.

You may as well be having cocktails with George Will, Harold Ford, Maria Barforama, Cokie Roberts, and Mika Brzezinski.

If it ain't beltway, it ain't up for discussion.

Next time you get a notion you best run it by Mort Zuckerman, The Don, and check in with The Eye and Peggy Noonan to make sure you're on message, rather than just pushing the "right" policies.

We can't be hurting "confidence" by striking the wrong chords.

[TBF]

124. Please define "progressive change". nt

[jgraz]

163. Bza defines it as "anything Obama has done"

The rest of us define it as "change that is politically left of center".

[newspeak]

178. well, I'd say the opposition party would be more enthusiastic

if they hadn't fekked the whole country for eight long years!!!! Some of these right wing, absolutely over the top candidates are greedy, scary, pro-corporate, anti-mainstreet people. Angle in Nevada, Paladin in NY---totally ideologically scary. We cannot afford to be lackadaisical at this time.

I am disappointed in this administration, disappointed (during a huge economical meltdown) that people like Geithner, Summers get appointed--still feeding us the Freidman bullshite (or reagan's trickle on) economy. Still believing in Santa Claus. But, I know exactly who got us in this fekked up mess with his "let the corporations and wall street" police themselves, give the wealthy some more tax breaks and they'll hire good americans, privatize some more government responsibilities so my buds can make even more money and give half assed service and let's give out some no bid contracts for all my glorious wars. Ya know, history's gonna judge me and say I was another julius caesar!!!!

The media, the talking heads that keep on the agenda telling the public that Obama is a socialist, obama is a liberal--attempting to convince the people of that unbelievable shite, when he is a pro-business corporatist, just not as bad as the neo-cons or some of the truly certifiables that are infesting our government.

It appears by some of the polls, that you can fool most of the people most of the time-at least half of this damn country!!! Here in Nevada Angle should be no where close to Reid, but she is. I didn't realize americans had such a short term memory when it came to who actually got us into this mess and their ideology!!!!!

I'm voting and I am urging everyone to vote and then i'm joining a progressive state group to actually support progressive candidates. But this country can not, I mean, can not handle anymore of these "free market" (now that's truly BS with globalization), anti-labor, greedy, self serving a**holes who use religion as a tool to bamboozle the plebes.

Okay, that's my rant of the day--and if another FDR type comes along me and my whole family will vote for him or her in a heartbeat!!!!

[Crystal Clarity]

182. +1 and then some for persistance

You rock BzaDem

[Techn0Girl]

194. "Trolling" isn't spelled with a "p"

[NorthCarolina]

104. You may be proven correct when the Senate votes on the Debt Com. 'recommendations'. eom

[Name removed]

21. Deleted message

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

[Name removed]

22. Deleted message

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

[Skittles]

31. it's not alternate

it's just plain reality

[BzaDem]

32. Most people living in alternate realities don't actually admit it. But that doesn't make their

vision an actual reality, anymore than the Republican vision of Obama as a Kenyan marxist usurper is reality.

[Skittles]

35. if your vision of reality was REAL

there would be no discussion of REPUKES making GAINS in November

[BzaDem]

39. Actually, the party out of power almost always gained seats in a President's first midterm.

And then the economy is in bad shape, the number of seats that switch only increases.

In fact, it would be much more surprising if Democrats were expected to gain seats.

[Skittles]

40. please.....stop with the endless talking points

it's BORING

[BzaDem]

44. I know, truth hurts. Facts hurt. Anything against your preconceived narrative hurts.

If you keep posting bullshit that is directly contrary to the truth, you better get used to being called out for it.

(Unless, that is, you can somehow contradict the fact that first term presidents almost always lose seats in the midterm. I'm waiting, though I don't expect much, since the data is the data and facts are facts.)

[Jax]

195. You don't have facts or truth

just your pathetic insults.

You do not help Obama on these forums at all.

Is that your real point? hmmmm......

[depakid]

46. Didn't happen in 1982, did it?

A notable "villian" posits why:

Voters look for politicians who take a stand, who know who they are and can show they side with the people, not global companies that have no allegiance to the country that bred, subsidized and defended them.

So how did Reagan, even as a big business apologist, hold the 54 GOP Senate seats and only lose 26 House seats in the mid-term election of 1982? Reagan was, in the words of Jim Kessler, “facing 10.8 percent unemployment, 6 percent inflation, a declining GDP, an approval rating barely above freezing and the indignity of having drastically increased the budget deficit over the previous year after running as a fiscal hawk.”

Maybe it is because enough voters saw the “Gipper” as knowing what he stood for and showing steadfastness and better times coming soon, in comparison to the wavering, concessionary posture of the then-majority Democrats in the Congress.

More: http://www.commondreams.org/view/2010/09/11

[BzaDem]

48. He lost 26 house seats! That's actually a lot when you consider that Republicans were ALREADY

in the minority.

Of course a party with a large majority (with many Congresspeople in McCain districts) is going to lose more seats than a party in 1982 that is already in the minority (which means most of their seats are much safer). Any party in the minority is going to have fewer competitive seats than a party with a large majority. Given that, a 26 seat loss was a bloodbath. This is trivial mathematics (not that I expect that you would understand it).

[newspeak]

183. even when that party fekked the country so badly

that any one in their right mind wouldn't vote for them (or so you'd think). I'd say the teabaggers started out as an artificially created group, funded by big business--they are just another leg of the repug party--most so over the top, it's absolutely scary.

Blah, blah, blah the opposition party always gains more seats in the mid-term, even after they royally screwed the country. Because most people in this country are masochists by heart--they love getting slapped around by big daddy (repug party). Apparently, we've got some democrats, too, who love getting whipped by some of the most ignorant speaking, greedy, self-serving repugs.

[depakid]

37. It's exactly what's been done- as shpwn on the record repeatedly

How'd that triangulation on offshore drilling and insistence that rigs "were safe" and "didn't cause pills" work out for ya?

Talk about coopting an issue- that was a beauty, and couldn't have had better timing.

[BzaDem]

43. Offshore drilling still has upwards of 60% support. Sorry to rain on your narrative's talking points

Obama's policy is that offshore drilling is required as a bridge during the transition to clean energy. Whether or not you agree with that position, it has certainly not hurt him politically.

[depakid]

51. Spoken (inaccurately) like a true conservadem!

Of course, by your logic the President and the Dems should have fought for and enacted the Public Option- which repeatedly polled in the mid 70% approval range.

Of course, as inept as capitulating to Republican oil drilling policy (six months after a disastrous rig explosion and spill in the Timor sea), in the court of public opinion- in the midst of unprecedented populist anger and resentment it wasn't nearly so tone deaf as praising noted banksters and "not begrudging them them their bonuses" because "they were like baseball players who hadn't won the world series."

That one was a real eye opener.

[BzaDem]

53. Yeah, I know you don't like polls and facts and stuff. Too inconvenient.

"Of course, by your logic the President and the Dems should have fought for and enacted the Public Option"

Again, Obama could have dissolved the legislature and enacted the public option as a dictator (as many here would seem to support). But I am happy that he chose not to try.

[depakid]

99. More hogwash

The votes would have been there through reconciliation had the President been willing to push the matter- rather than give it up to the insurance lobby.

Unfortunately, as with the half measure stimulus (and many other matters) the administration didn't even try...

Yet another great "victory" for the FAIL wing of the party and the Republicans they enable, legitimize and ultimately support.

[defendandprotect]

68. From whom.... ? The oil industry . . . ???

Americans aren't stupid --

NATIONALIZE the oil industry -- that would be the quickest way to get alternative energy!

[BzaDem]

72. No, all American adults. n/t

[Techn0Girl]

166. Since you refuse to provide facts and just continually derail discussions I'm putting you on ignore

[BzaDem]

175. Mishion accomplished. I would rather talk with people who don't put their fingers in their ears

and sing "lalala" whenever someone tells a truth that they aren't thrilled about.

[defendandprotect]

177. And where's the evidence of that? We had a 26 year FREEZE on off-shore drilling ....

never once saw a protest against it except by those interesting in profiting from

oil rigs --

[BzaDem]

179. Even the poll Techn0Girl posted herself indicates that 52% support offshore drilling in general. n/t

[defendandprotect]

192. That only suggests that oil industry propaganda re oil drilling and the

"necessity" for it is as well-financed and well-directed at the population

as the oil industry's anti-Global Warming propaganda --

Yeah -- right wing propaganda works -- especially when there is no Democratic Party

opposition setting the record straight -- and knocking over the lies and misinformation/

disinformation!

[Techn0Girl]

157. 60% support for offshore drilling? I call BS ...

Links or it didn't happen - and don't link me to an oil company sponsored poll because I'll just call you on that.

And by the way the WaPo says only 25% support offshore drilling in a June article :
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2010/06/09/AR2010060903547.html


Only Politico (yeah the same right wing guys who trashed Acorn and Shirley Sherrod) and Rasmussen (right wing shills) have polls saying otherwise

[BzaDem]

176. Even your OWN POLL has support at 52%. Your 25% figure is those who oppose EXPANDING of offshore

drilling, not those who oppose offshore drilling period. The poll actually later asks the question of whether you support it period, and that figure is 52%.

You should probably read your own polls before you post them.

[scubadude]

106. 60 votes isn't 60 votes.

Once a bill has enough votes to pass, many members will cut and run. Go the way his constituency or party wants him too, regardless of how he would have voted otherwise. Many yes votes turn into no's once that 60 threshold is reached. Politicians routinely look for cover.

[BzaDem]

107. Except that actually didn't happen on any bills here.

The only votes that were ever in contention for the Stimulus were the 3 Republicans that voted for it. The only vote that was ever in contention for HCR was Olympia Snowe, and she bailed rather early in the process (long before it was known whether the Democrats would get 60 votes without her).

Financial reform initially was different -- a bipartisan compromise seemed possible at the outset. But once the Democrats decided to go for a very expansive consumer protection agency, the only votes that were ever in contention for the bill were Snowe/Collins/Brown/Grassley, and Grassley just wanted voted for an earlier version so he could brag about it to his constituents.

[newspeak]

188. I find it so amusing that now we are into polls

when Little Boots, himself, said he wasn't for no stinking polls. He just did what was on his agenda and dragged us with him if we liked it or not. Unfortunately, his agenda was not for the best interest of this country, for his greedy global friends, yes, for most of us, no.

[NoSheep]

129. I wish I could rec this post.

[USArmyParatrooper]

196. SSSHHHHHH! This isn't the real world, it's the internet!

Stop with all of that reality crap!

[another saigon]

7. me too!

k&r!

[Lisa D]

8. What a waste of five minutes

I'm a progressive and I think this article is ridiculous.

[veganlush]

164. hi Lisa, welcome to DU...n/t

[Initech]

13. The monsters of the right revived themselves Terminator-style.

[bluestateguy]

16. and an Unrec.

I'm tuning this shit out for awhile.

[leftstreet]

17. The Zombie Republican Party revived at the Healthcare Town Halls

The Democrats GAVE the Zombie party it's new life.

Interesting there weren't any Bank Bailout Town Halls, or Afghan War Escalation Town Halls.

hmmm


K&R

[kentuck]

29. Well, I'm angy too but I'm not suicidal...

"...I don't even expect to vote Democratic again in my lifetime. The exception would be if the left were to do what the far right has done to the GOP - namely, hijack the party. That might happen, but I don't it see it on the horizon right now, that's for sure."

I can understand the anger and maybe it needed to be said?

But, what's the alternative? It's OK if my vote only causes me pain and suffering but what about all the other people that will have to suffer also? And they will suffer mightily under the next Repub President.

The President did not only inherit a "Great Recession", he inherited a political Party that had been diluted with Republican ideals since the days of Clinton. Clinton was lucky. He had a tech "revolution" to pull his nuts out of the fire. Even then, Monica Lewinsky was clinging to them.

Giving the President every benefit of the doubt, when he stepped into the job in January 2009, he had to pick people that he could trust or were referred to him by friends, to help get us out of the pickle we were in. There were no Harry Hopkins waiting in the wings to advise him.

So, it has been almost two years. I would argue that it is too soon, under the circumstances, to turn on him. We have no choice. We must wait and see what he does after the election. If he is not impeached?

[Skittles]

30. he had a true mandate to crush them

squandered

[austin78704]

34. As a Texan

I feel slighted by the author's LBJ reference!

But I agree wholeheartedly with the rest of article.

[SidDithers]

36. Does David Michael Green deserve an unrec?...

You Better Believe It!

Sid

[Scurrilous]

45. Unrecced.

Next!

[austin78704]

54. Negated. n/t

[Catherina]

73. Negated. It's sad that you can't stand the truth. n/t

[scheming daemons]

118. The next time David Michael Green deals with the "truth" will be the first time...

...he's the worst of the worst. Far more dangerous than the worst Republican... at least the worst Republican doesn't PRETEND to be on our side.

[Liberal_Stalwart71]

38. Neither you nor he speak for THIS progressive!!! n/t

[kentuck]

42. A little over the top on the passion, methinks...

Sort of like the screaming Republican from Stark County, OH?? :-)

[Octafish]

47. Justice.

Until there's justice, there'll be no peace and prosperity and democracy.

[ProgressiveEconomist]

55. IMO left and right both now live in progressivly more tightly-sealed bubbles, freer

and freer of challenges to strongly held but empirically shaky beliefs, thanks to evolving media technology and media ownership, and the demise of the Fairness Doctrine in the 80s.

Left-wing twaddle such as the OP is no more in touch with objective reality than right-wing twaddle such as the Glenn Beck show on Fox 'News'.

When broadcast media had to comply with the Fairness Doctrine, before cable and the Internet fractured audiences into dozens of segments along the political spectrum, political arguments were focused on facts, figures, charts, and tables that virtually everyone agreed with, especially in print media.

Now those facts and figures are absent from most all of the political bubbles voters live inside, because they have become irrelevant. Polls show that most voters believe their taxes have gone up under Obama, when in fact they have gone down with the largest middle-class tax cut in history. Because Democratic and independen voices are weak on Fox 'News', Republicans get away with saying repeatedly that the President's stimulus has had no effect, when in fact it has brought about the fastest recovery from recession in decades.

How can the OP possibly blame OBAMA for this?

IMO, we all ned to think about ways to burst the political bubbles inside which most of us now live. And arguments such as those in the OP are not helpful.

[Steely_Dan]

57. Absolutely One Of The Best...

essays I have ever read. He expresses my exact feelings towards the Obama Administration. I only wish I would have written it.

-P

[kentuck]

60. I must say...

he hit a nerve.

[yurbud]

61. Obama & DLC are like vampire hunters who carry around kegs of human blood and

drag dying vampires out of the sunlight and into the shade.

[kentuck]

62. You must have watched TrueBlood tonite?

:-)

[yurbud]

63. my HBO has been out dammit! Don't spoil it.

[Safetykitten]

64. That's only part of it. Look for the real deal to begin after the election.

This is probably how it will go:

The republicans take the house but not the senate. Then the republicans, organized as they are will start to talk about the current "depression" the country is in. They will hammer the story that now that they are back, it would be the time to take a look at how President Obama is handling "The Second Depression" or whatever they will hang on it, and how the need is for a republican president.

The economy will have gone from Great Recession to 2nd Depression in the span of three weeks.

Could he done more? Could he have driven the stake through the republicans? Yes, and he chose not to, to all our peril.

[G_j]

86. Fucking Reagan and Bush did it

drive a stake through the Democrats, that is.

[Techn0Girl]

144. I completely agree with your analysis and came to much the same conclusions myself ....

he end result is that we will lose the '12 elections if things go as you say ( and I believe they pretty much will).

We will have the DLC to blame in our party and their democratic teabaggers (demobaggers ??) who went along with them.

But you know there really is not much difference between the DLC contingent and Republicans - they are both rich privileged sociopathic assholes who have no other agenda than increasing their own wealth and influence.

[DeSwiss]

66. Goddamn right.

K&R

[defendandprotect]

69. Agree -- "feel duped by Obama" -- and ....

I’m furious enough at Obama for squandering opportunity, for taking care of the privileged and allowing the rest of us to suffer, for reviving the monsters of the right instead of finishing the job of crushing them, and for setting back the cause of policies and ideas I care passionately about. But it adds massive insult to injury for him to turn around and come, hat in hand, back to the people who put him into office, singing his populist song right before an election.


What a squandered opportunity in the trampling of MEDICARE FOR ALL ---

and what an intended goal for the administration in preserving health care in PRIVATE HANDS!!


Here is the quote: ”In a Thursday interview, White House chief of staff Rahm Emanuel argued that rather than recoiling against Obama, business leaders should be grateful for his support on at least a half-dozen counts: his advocacy of greater international trade and education reform open markets despite union skepticism; his rejection of calls from some quarters to nationalize banks during the financial meltdown; the rescue of the automobile industry; the fact that the overhaul of health care preserved the private delivery system; the fact that billions in the stimulus package benefited business with lucrative new contracts, and that financial regulation reform will take away the uncertainty that existed with a broken, pre-crash regulatory apparatus.

http://dyn.politico.com/printstory.cfm?uuid=B2F85DDF-18...

That was posted on DU 8/12/10 by another poster --

[Catherina]

76. Spoke for me. Duped and won't be duped again. Recommended,. n/t

[Techn0Girl]

147. I truly did have the audacity to Hope. Now I'm sufferring the agonies of Reality.

[pnwmom]

81. He's an idiot to think that any President, in the space of less than 2 years,

could have "crushed" the "monsters of the right."

An idiot, or another troll.

[G_j]

87. one never knows unless they try, nt

[Techn0Girl]

150. Do yourself a favor and educate yourself by looking up "FDR 100 days"

You can even use Wikipedia if it's easier for you.

Not everyone who has a better grasp of history than yourself is an "idiot or another troll"
They may simply be better informed.

[Jim_Shorts]

85. We badly need an F.D.R.

and what we got was an average politician, thats what hurts so much. Like Hillary said during the campaign, it takes more than just being able to give a good speech. The fact that he decides to woo the progressives 2 months before the midterms is telling.

I agree with most of what the professor says and my eyes are bleeding a little but only because the problems are so urgent and I don't get the feeling Obama can see the urgency.

It is maddening to me too, that Obama (and other democrats) continue to try to work with republicans, when they wanted their tax cuts they just went to reconciliation. (they didn't give a sh*t what democrats thought)

[BzaDem]

88. The problem with reconciliation is you can't make anything permanent. You can just extend it further

until we are in the same position years down the line.

To make any tax cuts permanent that aren't offset, you need 60 votes, which means at least one Republican.

[depakid]

98. Not a problem at all- at least not for anyone who's interested in good policy instead of excuses

10 years down the track, do you honestly think that people will support sunsetting out, say a Public Option?

Didn't think so.

Hiding behind the "everything requires 60 votes" AKA the "gentleman's filibuster has not only buried the Dems put the nation inexorably on track toward third world status.

[TheKentuckian]

114. Ten years is more than appropriate for stimultive tax breaks

It is perfectly fine to reevaluate the benefits and problems in a decade. Clearly, you must have a permenent law for structrual policy but this argument is hollow for the current proposals of tax cuts.

The real issue is our numbnuts lacked the vision to foresee that the Republicans would take the most predictable action imaginable and failed to include the proper budget instructions.

An error so absurd that it had to be done willfully. I can't give them the benefit of stupidity on this one. The thought that we wouldn't have to play hardball to kill the breaks for the top bracket is beyond naive to the point of no credibility.

The notion that hard filibuster rules weren't absolutely critical is almost as ridiculous, considering the obstruction levels in the last Congress.

Our leaders willfully chose this path from the very beginning when they set rules and crafted instructions since the logical outcome was as we are experiencing unless some magical change was expected from the opposition and their allies.

Whining about the very rules you set and have every right and power to change isn't going to cut the mustard and actually makes the situation look worse than is being argued.

You move the debate from stupid and weak to complicit with wilful malpractice. That or so lacking in vision that it might be worse.

What is the positive case for being so incredibly inept as to not be prepared for TeaPubliKlan obstruction and dishonest brokering?

Rules and budget instructions should have made in clear that if there was not reasonable participation that the steamroller was on standby.

[Better Believe It]

173. Exactly!

"Rules and budget instructions should have made in clear that if there was not reasonable participation that the steamroller was on standby."

[pnwmom]

89. Reconciliation only works if the bill results in a reduction in the deficit.

The Rethugs had to "sunset" their tax cuts because even their phony numbers showed rising budget deficits after 10 years.

[tomp]

96. i understand being furious at obama.

but he's furious for the wrong reason.

he should be furious at himself for failing to see what has been just as painfully obvious for decades: the democratic party has worked hand in hand with the republicans to advance the cause of the rich at he expense of everyone else. he should be furious at obama for leading that party.

[SidDithers]

97. "You could almost feel bad for Barack Nothingburger," - David Michael Green...

http://www.counterpunch.org/green02012010.html


"Barack Obama has now, in just a year’s time, become the single most inept president perhaps in all of American history," - David Michael Green
http://www.counterpunch.org/green01222010.html


"We could hardly have a president more ill-suited to our time if we were to dig up Herbert Hoover and prop his weary bones up on the presidential throne." - David Michael Green
http://www.counterpunch.org/green06142010.html


"It would be a gigantic mistake to believe that Barack Obama, Nancy Pelosi, Harry Reid or anyone else of prominence in today’s Democratic Party actually gives a damn about the fate of the American people." - David Michael Green
http://www.counterpunch.org/green03152010.html


"Obama has been as idiotic a president as could be created if you sat down with the intention of making one," - David Michael Green
http://www.counterpunch.org/green09062010.html


"You know, I’ve really been trying not to write an article every other week about all the things I don’t like about Barack Obama. But the little prick is making it very hard." - David Michael Green
http://www.counterpunch.org/green12212009.html




Lather. Rinse. Repeat.


Sid

[Name removed]

103. Deleted message

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

[geek tragedy]

105. People who HATE Obama love David Michael Green. nt

[sendero]

100. I could have written the article myself..

.. it is EXACTLY the way I feel. And even now, now that Obama sees FINALLY that his direction is not working, when he fires up the rhetoric he SHOULD HAVE BEEN USING FROM DAY ONE, he STILL talks like a dumbass Republican about tax cuts and other nonsense that isn't going to do JACK SHIT.

It's fucking amazing.

[TheKentuckian]

115. I'm pretty sure he hasn't had a come to Jesus moment at all

He still subscriber to the same economic principles and listens to the same hacks. He is now attacking the Republicans but is endorsing their policy orientation.

The differences are in execution not underlying principles. A difference in degrees and focus not direction.

[Jax]

116. +1000

me too sendero.

"he still talks like a dumbass Republican about tax cuts"

It is amazing and disgusting.

[txlibdem]

168. +1

You are absolutely correct. Our President is a center-right Republican in Dems clothing. Too bad for us he didn't have the moral and intestinal fortitude to be another FDR -- that is what we needed and what I foolishly believed he meant when he promised Change and Hope.

I didn't know that my money would Change into the corporations', big banks, insurance and for-profit medical industries' money.

I didn't know that I would have to Hope that I never get sick because I sure as hell won't be able to afford the health care premiums they are charging elder people now, what are they going to be charging when I am in my 60s?

[scheming daemons]

117. David Michael Green is the best friend the GOP ever had

...

[opihimoimoi]

119. Its all part of a movement to dump Obama...they are losing and they are in desperation

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dp72a6rx9-M&feature=fvsr

The poor things are Pathetic....

[ooglymoogly]

120. He has his hammer on the nail and I give him an A+

for getting it.

[uponit7771]

121. "...for taking care of the privileged and allowing the rest of us to suffer..."

[PBass]

122. David Michael Green is either a fool, or a damn liar

Either way, he doesn't deserve our attention.

"Like many progressives, I feel duped by the Obama of 2008. (I know there are many other lefties out there who think that any of us were fools to believe that Obama might have done great things as president, but I think those folks were wrong to assume that.

Obama wasn't even the most liberal Democrat running for president in 2008 - that was Dennis Kucinich. Even Hillary Clinton was more liberal than Obama. So either this guy is a naive idiot about how our current political system works, or he's flat-out lying about how his optimism has been crushed.

Either way, to hell with him.

Winning the election in 2008 was just the BEGINNING, screw all you quitters who want to give up because you didn't get your Magic Pony. Grow the hell up.

Proud to unrecommend this drivel.

[TBF]

125. You may not believe David Michael Green -

but the truth will come out in Nov. We'll see how many buyers are interested in what you're selling.

[PBass]

126. Um, was that supposed to make sense?

Since voters are angry, that means... what?

That I'm supposed to cheer as we go backwards towards the Bush policies we just got rid of? Uh, "have fun with that" I guess.

There will NEVER be a perfect president, or anywhere close to perfect. There has NEVER BEEN a perfect president, or near perfect. Never. Am I disappointed with Obama? Not at all. It takes a long time to undo the problems we have. It's like trying to turn an ocean liner around and go the other direction. But we don't want an America that whip-saws back and forth like a ping pong ball, depending on who is in office at the moment. Think long term - Obama still has 6 more years to get some things done, hopefully, with another Democratic president after that.

I agree with BZAdem that Obama has already accomplished a lot, in less than 2 years.

[TBF]

131. It's not the speed, it's the direction -

this has been a very conservative administration, and he's accomplished quite a bit but I don't see how any of it helps workers.

I think it may look like improvement to those of you who are under 30, and have lived under Reagan, Bush, Clinton, and Bush. They were all very conservative as well. Admittedly Obama is much more attractive and articulate than the other four, probably even more charismatic than Clinton, but I don't see him turning that liner at all.

I would notice a significant jobs program and I would notice the end of warfare. I might even believe that gas evaporates into air if I saw evidence that further drilling would be curtailed on our shores.

I'm sorry, I am just not seeing these accomplishments you allude to.

[Techn0Girl]

136. I have a special place for you to put your "Magic Poney" bullcrap .

We need a new word for the equivalent of "teabaggers" in the Democratic Party.

[newtothegame]

127. I'm enamored by Obama because "he made history." nt

[SemiCharmedQuark]

139. That's the only thing you ever say. In every comment, you always say the same thing?

Why does it bother you so much that Obama was the first black president? Why are you so very very very bitter?

[LaPera]

130. It's amazing how the Democrats NEVER remember the greedy hateful diabolical republican monster

and lying smear distorting crushing republican machine....THEY NEVER learn - Carter ignored it and tried to appease them, Clinton did as well and Obama too thought if he was nice, he could tame the lying two-faced, hypocritical greedy republicans -

Republicans are sociopathic, many psychopathic slimy selfish assholes - They care nothing for the American people ONLY the wealthy and their corporations - That's it and if a Democrat want to help the worker middle-class & small business the republicans will use any back-stabbing tactic to make sure nothing goes to the less fortunate!

[CLANG]

152. who needs a memory

when we see what these bastards do and say on a daily basis?

This has to be that biggest dumb-ass infested country on the planet. Regardless of anything, I'm pulling the "Democrat" handle in November.

[Techn0Girl]

155. "who needs a memory when we see what these bastards do and say on a daily basis?"

Who needs a memory you ask?

"Those who cannot remember the past are condemned to repeat it."

I hope you someday really look at what you are saying and reconsider your call for the "dumb ass" people in this country , as you eloquently remark, to forget history - forget remembering the past and just see what happens day by day.


One more thing... when you say "Regardless of anything, I'm pulling the "Democrat" handle in November." you make every politician in a 100 mile radius have a little orgasm.
Pull it Baby, pull it Harder!

[CLANG]

160. Just one more willful misinterpretation of my posts

Have a wonderful day!:eyes:

[Techn0Girl]

161. Direct quotes taken in context really sting don't they?

Being unable to see what you are actually saying - or to not be able to stand seeing it being requoted - is a hallmark of an unactualized mind.

[CLANG]

169. Wow, what a clairvoyant you are! You really pegged me! Now go away.

[McCamy Taylor]

133. Edwards and Clinton promised "angry confrontation" with the right.

Obama promised to get along.

Next time listen to your candidate before you cast your vote.

[Techn0Girl]

142. I listened to the candidates but heard Obama say a LOT different things then he is now doing ....

and in hindsight (20/20) I do now believe I should have voted for Hillary in the primaries.

[Techn0Girl]

134. Upvoted and Thanks ! ....

So much group think going around on this board lately - it's nice to be reminded that there are true liberal progressives (like the OP and David Green) who can see it and tell it like it is.


It seems I spend a considerable amount of time on DU lately arguing against BUSH imposed policies that the Obama admin now supports and because they are now being supported bu "our side" some DLC happy DUers are now gangbsters FOR them.

I remind everyone here that :

1 We STILL are in two wars with 100,000 young men and women set out there in harms way. We are spending more in Afghanistan then we are for our unemployed for heaven's sake!

2. The vile Patriot Act is STILL in force and hasn't been even discussed lately at being repealed.

3. WE STILL don't have any kind of reasonable health care for or citizens and the proposed "reform" policy doesn't give it to them (aside from a few inconsequential crumbs). We see articles daily about HMOs raising their rates

4. The people who CAUSED the financial crisis (goldman sachs et al) have been placed as HIGH LEVEL APPOINTEES to the Treasury.

5. 30 million (9.5%) people are out of work according to government U2 figures - 50 MILLION (17%) according to the U6 figures .

WE ARE BEING SCREWED BY THIS ADMINISTRATION.
Wake up.

Write your Congress men and women.
Write the White House.
Attend a protest.

Don't be a sheep.

[h9socialist]

135. He needs a sedative . . . even though he's right about a lot things.

Seriously, if people get so offended because politicians aren't equal to their rhetoric, we might as well forget all this democracy stuff. I, for one, am not quite that cynical. If, in 2008, you believed that President Obama was going to create a left wing utopia, you were hopelessly naive to begin with! Obama has two problems: (1) in order to get anything he's had to compromise -- and that's not really his fault because the U.S. Constitution is designed to frustrate democratic majorities, and; (2) Happy Days are NOT here again, yet -- this is not his fault either -- the capitalist system imploded from within -- any sort of economic recovery is difficult when the old arrangement essentially collapsed.

I am not saying that I approve of all Obama has done. I would much rather have seen Medicare-for-All than the hodge-podge private crap that emerged from the Congress. The economic stimulus was chincy by global standards but just big enough to get the Tea Party morons going ape. I would far prefer the Administration pursuing policies that REALLY the Tea Baggers and their corporate-fascist benefactors.

But prior to Obama there wasn't even an attempt to do the right things. For all his faults Obama has moved the ball down the road. Not a compelling argument I grant you -- but a bit of hard core realpolitick that can't be ignored.

[UrbScotty]

137. Bullshit! How is OBAMA to blame for BECK's madness?

[Techn0Girl]

141. You need to read the actual entire article rather than the title....

And if you did - and were able to comprehend the words - then you would know why your question has nothing to do with the OP

[NJmaverick]

138. The "professional left" is responsible for reviving these monsters

as they stopped guarding against them in favor of attacking the President

[Techn0Girl]

140. "My President Right or Wrong"

How unoriginal.

[NJmaverick]

143. not as unoriginal as your disingenuous rebuttal

:eyes:

[Techn0Girl]

145. "I'm rubber and you're glue" ... you really want to go there ?

That's about the height of your rhetorical skill set is it?
I'll take a wild guess here and assume that you weren't a member of your high school debate team.

Let me do us both a favor and I'll press the "ignore" button now.

[NJmaverick]

146. How ironic, you could only offer up simplistic insults in your own responses

but you feel more than entitled to critique the responses of others.:eyes:

[kentuck]

148. Revived the monsters ??

Indeed, that was my first thought. The vampire Party had a wooden stake thru its heart and somehow the Democrats managed to remove it and give them a blood transfusion.

They had just doubled the national debt. They had started two wars and put both on the credit card. They had done away with all meaningful regulations. They had the most massive transfer of wealth in such a short time in our nation's history. They had the slowest growth rate in many decades. They left a $1.3 trillion dollar deficit on the doorstep of Barack Obama. They were discredited around the world, along with the reputation of our country. They were near death, at least, it appeared that way.

But now, they are ready to kick ass and take names. Yes, we will agree to nothing if we do not get the taxcuts for our millionaire friends extended! No room to negotiate! They are back and sucking our country dry once again...

[AlbertCat]

151. "They" are Congress.

The President does not make laws. Congress does.

The President is not up for re-election, Congress is.

So, why is Obama getting ALL the blame? I think he had to be bipartisan at 1st just to prove it wouldn't work. But the REAL problem is not holding Bush, Cheney, Rummy, Rice, Pearle...etc accountable for their CRIMINAL behavior. Can't Congress (again) do 2 things at once? Have hearings and pass some laws. Sure the RW would scream "Revenge hearings!" but they are doing that kind of thing anyway so....

This Administration should show Americans, including politicians that you cannot break the law and get away with it. Instead we get "We must move forward, blah blah blah" FROM DEMS!

It's not all Obama's fault, but he picked lousy advisors and he should tell Harry Reed to make the Repugs REALLY filibuster if they want.

[deutsey]

149. I agree with a lot of what's in this diatribe, but, man,

after reading it, I feel like I've just had the shit beat out of me.

Or maybe it was the last little bit of hope I've been trying to hold onto.

:evilfrown:

[Techn0Girl]

154. An interesting post upthread by SidDithers brings out that Green has a history...

of Obama bashing .... so Green does appear to have an agenda.

Nevertheless I unfortunately agree with much of what Mr. Green has to say and from the looks of this thread so do many others here as well.

[Panaconda]

180. Not really that interesting

and of course simplistic. Green actually supported Obama rather ardently. He's now feeling betrayed and is rather irate that his bubble has been busted. Sure, Green is a fool, but not for being angry or for feeling betrayed.

Ya get it yet?

[truedelphi]

159. Same here. n/t

[impik]

156. Wow. That is too Obama's fault???????? God, i hope

Obama goes homes in 2012, and all you so called progressives gets the president you deserve.

[Bluebear]

198. Obama goes homes! Obama goes homes! Whatever.

[BlueJac]

162. He was all talk and a no show......

he loaded up with retreads from the past. Some change, use the retreads and think the outcome will be different, brilliant! Now it is time for the country to pay for his mishandling on the job he was given. He took the Democrat right out of me and made me an Independent!

[DailyGrind51]

165. Why do you think he became a law professor instead of a trial lawyer?

With his oratorical ability, he would have held a jury spell-bound, if it were not for the fact that he would have to oppose someone who is in the room staring him down. For Obama to look an adversary in the eye in an accusatory manner is just not within his capacity.

[SkyDaddy7]

167. FDR had it easy!

FDR could push through much of what he wanted without having to deal with endless filibusters & Rupert Murdoch's Media Empire.


Obama has not done everything I have wanted or what I agree with but I am not going to sit here and continue to lie to myself and say someone could have done more than what Obama & the Democratic Congress have done...It simply could not happen! Especially as fast as many seem to think it should have. Obama is not perfect no one is but I like where he is trying to go for the most part. I understand he could change this country big time if he had the support for 4-8 years because change does not happen in 2 years.

Then if Obama had seriously pushed prosecutions of the Bush Administration as I think most of us wanted I know nothing else would have gotten done...By the time the investigations would have got rolling Rupert Murdoch would have had the majority of Americans thinking it was simply a witch hunt!

I know folks here choose to push aside, ignore, act like it is not there or whatever...But the power & influence Rupert Murdoch has over the media (even what he does not own) & the public is far greater than I think many here want to admit. I use to tell myself the same thing.

Please don't yell & scream at me I have heard how sorry & disgusting Obama is & how the Democrats deserve not to be in power...And you will get everything you wish for come November. Then we will be subjected to non-stop investigations into Obama with Rupert Murdoch doing his thing to push the investigations into the minds of the public & keep the rest of the press following his lead. All to discredit not just Obama but the entire Democratic Party & 2012 will be what many here have said they think the Democrats deserve.

SAD!

[liberation]

172. Well, historical revisionism is even easier, as you demonstrated.

However, I don't think you truly know much about FDR's presidency nor its historical context.

I personally don't think that having to deal with polio, and being president through the worst economic crisis in our country's history and probably the second most volatile period in the history of the USA after the civil war, could be construed as "having it easy." Obama most certainly has not had to deal with an attempt to overthrow his presidency via a foiled military coup. The level of venom that the GOP and monetary elites threw openly and as a systemic manner towards Eleanor Roosevelt (and FDR himself who was labeled as a "traitor" openly and frequently) was trivial even when compared with the level of vitriol coming from the current crop of reactionary idiots labeling themselves as teabaggers.

Roosevelt's policies were neither an instantaneous success, nor they were easy to pass. He however, unlike Mr. Obama, had the will to pass them. That is very different than the obvious tangential red herrings some of you are trying to come up in order to mask that fact. And that is where the crux of the problem resides.

Saying that FDR had it easy with respect to Obama's situation, it uttered as a manner of either sheer ignorance or intellectual dishonesty. Neither are good things btw.

I am not saying that Obama has it easy, in fact I don't think no actual liberal in this site really is saying that Obama has had it "easy" when they criticize the DIRECTION of Obama's policies, if throwing red herrings around makes some of you think they are making a point. So be it. But no one said or expected any presidency to be easy, much less this one. However, it is galling to see the sheer intellectual dishonesty of someone claiming that FDR had it "easy" in comparison. No FDR was a remarkable president because he FOUGHT damned hard for the policies he supported, some worked some didn't and some were trashed and panned, but at least he tried and he championed for his policies passionately and sincerely... and that is why he got reelected so many times, because the people saw he stood for something.

[newspeak]

189. yep, FDR has it easy

going against some of the greediest robber barons and don't forget the business plot.

[McCamy Taylor]

170. I believe in free speech, but why have not the mods shut down this thread?

A post that was half this inflammatory about gays/Israel/Blacks would have been tombstoned long ago.

I worry that the Koch dollars are even funding the so called progressive media now, and that the nation's so called progressive blogs will not be able to afford to bite the right wing hand that feeds them.

[Techn0Girl]

174. Let me get this straight .... You "believe" in free speech ....

But you are "concerned" as to why the mods haven't shut down this thread.
And you are "concerned" that right wing billionaires have taken over DU and that's why this thread is still up.

Isn't there an Internet phrase for people who express such "concerns" ?
I'm concerned I haven't put you on ignore sooner - I'm going to rectify that now.

[MissDeeds]

171. K&R n/t

:kick:

[and-justice-for-all]

181. Yeah, Dems should have bulldozed the pukes

right into a fucking dumpster.

[Frisbee]

186. Best two sentences I've read in a long time....

"Neville Chamberlain is almost universally despised and derided today for trying to negotiate with Hitler. Which part of that lesson do you not get, Barack?" And truest.

[Jim_Shorts]

191. David Green is brilliant

"How astonishingly inept do you have to be to turn the world upside down on its axis and hand not only resurrection but in fact control of Congress to such thugs, and hugely despised ones at that? What kind of a full-blown multiple-car crash of a politician do you have to be to make the party of Bush, Cheney, Boehner and McConnell seem preferable to the public, by a wide margin?"

"A related brilliant move is to mobilize a giant army of passionate volunteers dedicated to putting you in the White House, and then do nothing with them once you get there, other than taking them completely for granted"

[Techn0Girl]

193. An Army of passionate volunteers ....

"A related brilliant move is to mobilize a giant army of passionate volunteers dedicated to putting you in the White House, and then do nothing with them once you get there, other than taking them completely for granted"


SO VERY TRUE !
So very glad you posted that quote. I was one of those passionate volunteers at OFA during the election . After the election we were dropped like a cheap whore who's served his purpose. So many of us left OFA disillusioned - but still hopeful!

I can't speak for the rest but I am no longer hopeful. I think this country is destined to go much into the crapper and frankly I also think that the sooner it gets there the sooner more and more people will wise up and turn it around.