Squandered.

[Bluebear]

v. squan·dered, squan·der·ing, squan·ders
1. To spend wastefully or extravagantly; dissipate. See Synonyms at waste.
2. To fail to take advantage of; lose a chance for: squandered an opportunity to go to college.

http://www.thefreedictionary.com/squander

[villager]

1. apparently, that first unreccer thinks the last two years were played brilliantly...

...all leading up to this triumphal midterm!

[AnArmyVeteran]

26. I reced to undo the unrec! How do you spell last 21 months? 'Squandered'!

[muriel_volestrangler]

43. Or maybe they thought a one word OP wasn't "the best of DU"

If saying one word, and copying a dictionary definition, counts as 'the greatest', we're setting the bar abysmally low.

[Bluebear]

53. Poor baby. Sometimes less is more, and one word is understood.

[orleans]

2. k&r. what a waste. n/t

[Lasher]

3. Wasted on being foolishly bipartisan.

And not even getting credit for that in the corporate media.

[KamaAina]

18. bi.par.ti.san (adj.)

1. Of or relating to both major political parties.

2. (newer usage) willing to bend over for the minority party's every whim with no lube.

[Ignis]

45. Got me with #2

:spray:

:spank:

[sabrina 1]

4. I wonder, now that we did it their way,

eg, 'we can't prosecute war criminals because people might think we are being partisan and we might lose the next election', if we ever get a chance like that again, do you think they might try doing the RIGHT thing, since NOT doing lost them the election anyhow?

What a sad night ... I would just like to know who was advising this party over the past two years. They need to be fired!

[Leopolds Ghost]

5. They didn't WANT to do the "right" thing, they wanted to take the party back from the "left".

And reinstall a corporate centrist coalition composed of entrenched interests and elites capable of raising as much cash as Karl Rove.

Sort of "become like the enemy to defeat him"

[Raine]

7. Yes exactly

because it works so well for them the money just keeps rolling in. It doesn't work for us but what do they care. :argh:

[Bluebear]

9. 'they wanted to take the party back from the "left"--- you said it. Well, they certainly did. nt

[chimpymustgo]

14. So sad, but true. Kicked us right to the curb and cuddled up with Rethugs and Corporations.

:puke:

[suzie]

11. Are you a prosecutor?

Have you ever sat through a criminal trial?

Because your "war criminal" rhetoric seems wonderful--on the internet.

In the real world of courts, maybe not so much.

[sabrina 1]

12. I have sat through plenty of criminal trials.

I trained as a Court Reporter for one thing and spent plenty of time observing some of NY's best criminal trial attorneys.

You are free to support torture if you wish I suppose, but that doesn't alter the fact that we have laws against it. You also appear to be unaware that other countries have jurisdiction under International Law regarding the crimes committed by the Bush administration, and are planning to go ahead and prosecute some of our war criminals themselves. Spain, eg, named six of them, but waited to see if a new administration would do the job themselves. Are you aware of International Law? Since it has become clear that the U.S. not only doesn't prosecute its war criminals, no matter which party is in power, it seems those prosecutions will proceed.

How shameful that this country condones violations of the Geneva Conventions under both parties.

[suzie]

15. We have laws for a lot of things, but saying that doesn't automatically secure

a conviction, as anyone who has ever waited on a jury to come back or served on one knows.

And that has to do with all that pesky "due process" stuff that the Founding Fathers set forth for us. You remember them, you talked about them just the other day.

John Adams, Thomas Jefferson, Ben Franklin--do you really think they had in mind your cheerleader attitude for outsourcing our criminal justice system to foreign countries? Really?

That seemed like one of the main things they were against--and why we got saddled with all that "due process" stuff to begin with.

Personally, I'll still go with the Founding Fathers and U.S. Courts, even if the process may not be as efficient as some folks like you would want.

You're certainly free to support outsourcing our inefficient criminal justice system to other countries--but personally I'll stick with that envisioned by the Founding Fathers.

[walldude]

17. Wow impressive.

Are you saying that because a guilty verdict would not be automatic that we should have not tried? Or are you saying that they aren't guilty? Or is it that we are above the law?

The Republicans tried to IMPEACH Bill Clinton for lying about having sex with an intern. But they get away with lying about non existent weapons, about imminent danger, about Iraq's involvement in 9/11, without even a slap on the wrist. And all because we "might not get a conviction"? Wow, so glad Justice is a high priority for someone who seems to know much about the court system.

[Bluebear]

21. +++

[suzie]

25. Correct me if I'm wrong. Did the Republicans succeed in IMPEACHING Bill Clinton?

As in, remove him from office? Did he get a slap on the wrist from the Senate, because I don't remember that. I think there might be a problem with your parallels.

And I don't think that any of the procedures of the impeachment process are quite like those in a court of law.

But, just curious, do you have want the British Parliament to look at the alleged misdeeds of Clinton, Bush, Obama? How about the General Assembly?

I mentioned that our criminal system has lots of built in safeguards and that I'll take it over cheerleading for some other nation to deal with our public officials.

And that I think the Founding Fathers would have agreed. What you're trying to say, I'm not quite sure about.

[Hassin Bin Sober]

41. "our criminal system has lots of built in safeguards "

It sure does. Most of which protect the rights of the accused and prevent innocent persons from being found guilty....

But the criminals make it pretty fucking easy when they ADMIT TO THEIR CRIMES in full view of the public - on film and in writing.

The fact that torture was ordered by high ranking members of the Bush administration IS NOT IN DISPUTE. Cheney said he would do it again fer christ sake!


Re: Your comments about "outsourcing or justice system" and invoking our Founding Fathers. If you take a look at the wonderful document written by our founding fathers, you will notice treaties ratified by the U.S. become law of the land.

It's not "outsourcing of justice system" when we abide by ratified treaties. Treaties which, by the way, include provisions for prosecution by cooperating signatories should other signatories fail to enforce laws like torture and war crimes.

[Individualist]

44. Yes, the republicans did succeed in impeaching BIll Clinton.

See http://www.questia.com/library/impeachment-of-bill-clinton.jsp

Impeachment does NOT mean removal from office. http://www.questia.com/library/impeachment-of-bill-clinton.jsp

[laughingliberal]

67. Thank you. FFS, I thought we were the smart ones. Now, I wonder. nt

[suzie]

77. Excuse me, but I used the terminology of the other poster.

But I explicitly asked--was he removed from office? and Did he receive a slap on the wrist from the Senate?

Both of which were what the original poster stated, but none of the rest of you have responded to.

[Individualist]

82. Your exact question (caps included):

Did the Republicans succeed in IMPEACHING Bill Clinton?

The answer is obviously yes.

[Ignis]

46. Yes. Yes, indeed they did.

The Republican-controlled House impeached him in late 1998.

Fortunately for all of us, he was acquitted by the Senate in early 1999.

[sabrina 1]

70. It must be that you don't read very well because your post

in no way relates to anything I said.

To put it briefly, I am totally AGAINST this country leaving the prosecution of our war criminals to other countries. And that is basically what I said.

But, since this administration has now made it clear we do not apply the rule of law to our own war criminals, we are told to 'move forward', the duty falls to someone else. But justice must be done, for the victims, for the other countries whose citizens were kidnapped and tortured by this country.

It is not up to me, but other nations don't take kindly to having their citizens kidnapped and tortured, and then being told that the criminals will never be prosecuted. So, they will do what is necessary to get justice done. I guess if they can do it, we could have.

All these excuses 'it's hard to prosecute criminals'. Well, it gets easier when they arrogantly confess in public, as both Cheney and Bush have done. And if we had that attitude about all crime, no one would ever be prosecuted and we might as well throw our Constitution in the garbage, which is essentially what was done by Bush, and now by this administration when it was announced we were just going to ignore war crimes.

So cheer lead all you want for letting criminals go free, I believe in the rule of law and the FFs would not be at all surprised to learn that if this country failed in its duty to apply the laws of the land, that someone else would have the absolute right and duty to do so.

They would warn against NOT applying it so that such an embarrassment did not happen.

[suzie]

78. Sorry, but I believe that the court system as developed in this country has lived up to the

vision of the Founding Fathers and has been the example for countless other systems around the world.

Bush and Cheney should certainly be vilified for their attempts to undermine that system. Their use of DOJ attorneys to justify their bad deeds should--and has been condemned.

But I'm not willing to throw out our 200+ years of developing a magnificent court system simply to fulfill the revenge fantasies of people who seem to care little about the justice system, other than it must respond to their own personal interests.

Nor am I particularly persuaded by references to a prosecutor who made his name by only trying headline-grabbing slam dunk cases.

Nor am I impressed by those who wish to ignore that even the "criminals" on the SCOTUS that they so dislike disagreed with the Bush administration and upheld that pesky due process stuff that makes it so difficult to prosecute people like Bush and Cheney.

Or by your assumption that because some mythical "they" in some foreign court system could hypothetically obtain a conviction, that would automatically happen in our U.S. courts.

Like many, you believe in the rule of law in the U.S. so long as it suits exactly what you see as the outcome.

However, if U.S. law doesn't arrive at the perfect solution of your revenge fantasy, then you cheerlead for throwing the U.S. Constitution out the window and outsourcing American justice to the lesser due process standards of other nations.

Doesn't seem to me that you believe in the rule of law as envisioned by our founders any more than Bush or Cheney.

[sabrina 1]

81. Clearly you don't understand the U.S. and International Law.

Or the FFs ideas on justice. Nor do you read very well, as I said before.

I did not make the rules, or write the laws. This country has ratified its agreement to abide by International Law, something we as a country should be proud of, and were.

When a country fails to prosecute its own war criminals, International law, which we are a party to, makes it necessary for someone else to do it.

If you don't like that idea, then tell the U.S. government to do the right thing and stop embarrassing this country by harboring criminals and refusing to prosecute them.

I see you consider yourself to be a mind-reader too. Take my advice and stop embarrassing yourself. You're not much of a mind-reader either.

I see others have attempted to explain our system of laws to you also, and our role in International law so I'm probably wasting my time. But one more time, when the U.S. does NOT abide by its own and International laws to which it is a signatory, other participating nations can start the process to get justice. The majority of Americans do not want this to happen, which is why many of us demanded that this country start investigating and prosecuting those who have disgraced this country by violating those laws. If you don't like what is happening, talk to your members of Congress, not to me I have not control over these things. I'm just reporting the facts.

[Name removed]

79. Deleted message

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

[AnArmyVeteran]

29. Can't blame advisors. Right is right, but this administration went too far right.

[Jamastiene]

30. No, they will not change course and do the right thing because they never learn.

Why that seems to be true? I don't know. I wish I did.

[Raine]

6. Two years wasted

after all the work Dean put in to give us the majority. :mad:

[Hekate]

8. What did you think of Rachel Maddow's election eve comments?YouTube link below in case you missed it

She went on for 15 minutes about what Obama has done so far, so this is in 2 parts. To sum up, she feels he spent his political capital hand over fist. It's interesting to listen to. I'd like to know what you think.

Hekate




http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rnoPpWdlG3A 



http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tBHK7zsz7xU 



[LittleBlue]

10. What an absolutely marvelous job of shitting away such a huge advantage

Gotta hand it to those Dems, they put in an historic performance. And they got exactly what they deserved for caring about corporate profits ahead of people.

[terrya]

13. Yep. Recommended.

[kiva]

16. "to spend wastefully"

Exactly.

[Lance_Boyle]

19. Spend? They're still keeping their powder dry.

The Democratic Party has some of the driest powder Earth has ever seen. No sense, no balls, no concern for the people they purport to represent, but boy oh boy do they have some dry powder. Better stop now before Sen. Vitter gets too excited.

[kiva]

31. I was thinking along the lines of the fact that a mandate

was spent wastefully trying to woo Republicans. And I agree, Congressional Dems best hope no one comes near with a match, that dry powder will blow.

[de novo]

20. Sums it up succinctly.

Oh what could have been.

[LoZoccolo]

22. He squandered all the help you were giving him too.

Must be hard for you since you were rooting for him every day.

[laughingliberal]

32. I called and wrote over a year ago and told them if they kept playing to Republicans...

the voter turnout in 2010 for Democrats would be suppressed and we would lose the House. I, also, mentioned that a team who ran such a brilliant Presidential campaign should be able to predict that.

I call warning them about the danger ahead and the curves in the road helping.

I call standing up and cheering for them as they cut their own throats unhelpful.

[LoZoccolo]

35. I'm going to call them right now and tell them if they move to the center they'll win next time.

If they win, I'll tell DU about it. If they don't, I won't.

NOTE: This post is sarcastic.

[laughingliberal]

36. I wrote about it on DU at the time I made the calls. nt

[LoZoccolo]

37. So did I, just now. n/t

[laughingliberal]

38. Yes, just as I posted my calls to them over a year ago and how I was proven right yesterday.

:hi:

[LoZoccolo]

39. Yes, just as I will be posting two years from now saying I was proven right.

But only if they win. If they don't, I just hope that no one's combing through two years of posts trying to find something like what I just posted here to shame me with.

[laughingliberal]

55. Bookmarking. nt

[sabrina 1]

75. Don't worry, no one will have to comb through two years of posts

to do that. Just the most recent you may post at the time would probably suffice :evilgrin:

[Bluebear]

48. I don't "root" for politicians, fanboy, I root for policies & things to be better for people. nt

[QC]

51. You never really loved him!

:cry:

[Bluebear]

52. I'm waiting breathlessly for some lame DLC-style poll to pop up any moment. nt

[QC]

57. That happens all the time anyway. n/t

[uponit7771]

23. Like IOWA?!?!?!?!?! Big Unrec no doubt

[Bobbie Jo]

24. Undermine.

un·der·mine (ndr-mn)

tr.v. un·der·mined, un·der·min·ing, un·der·mines
1. To weaken by wearing away a base or foundation: Water has undermined the stone foundations.

2. To weaken, injure, or impair, often by degrees or imperceptibly; sap: Late hours can undermine one's health.


http://www.thefreedictionary.com/undermined

[TwilightGardener]

27. Not at all.

[leftstreet]

28. K&R

[Name removed]

33. Deleted message

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

[laughingliberal]

34. K & R nt

[TexasObserver]

40. maybe someday we will find, that it wasn't really wasted time

I hope it hasn't all been wasted time.

[VMI Dem]

42. Rec.

[Overseas]

47. Yes indeed. The GOP was at 29% popularity early in our President's term.

Millions crossed party lines to vote D for Drive -- D for FDR -- because they did not want the GOP that crashed our economy and decreased our national security.

Why didn't my Democrats let the President be all diplomatic and bipartisan with a few key Democrats in that group while most Democratic legislators insisted on democratic values like Medicare for All (so they could later walk it down to public option)and a massive jobs program?

Why didn't my Democrats make it a point to have the GOP carry out a filibuster or two, especially on a critical thing like jobs programs and call them out on it while they were wasting time?

When too many Democrats joined in to beg for GOP votes on critical issues, we looked weak and gave them an opportunity to pretend they still had any credibility.

[chimpymustgo]

59. So very true. We couldn't have fucked up any worse if we'd tried.

[chill_wind]

64. Ponder that.. Where we are now has taken some real doing.

60 Dems he had to make phone calls to last night.

[CommonSensePLZ]

49. Unrec'd

Bipartisanship was worth a try, because not only could the reps not be able to bitch about fascism, but neither Bush nor anyone else on their side will ever in the forseeable future try to work with our side; You people like Jon Stewart's Sanity? Then you WILL acknowledge those facts.

[Bluebear]

50. "on there side"..."You people"

:rofl:

[CommonSensePLZ]

56. And the magic of edit button makes your rofl null and void

Kind of like your original half-baked post by my prior argument.

[Bluebear]

60. Duh.

[jgraz]

62. God Hates "You People"

:P

[Autumn]

54. K/R with a great

big :grouphug: It didn't have to be this way.

[Rex]

58. Not on the level of Bush/Cheney after 9/11 they could have had

the world kissing their feet, but no had to go and start all kinds of mass illegal wars to make a buck. BUT HEY THATS OKAY! No one principle involved got hurt or had to do any jail time. Now this last 2 year squander has me shaking my head and wondering why we decided to move to the right again? Oh right, to let crazy people lie like bastards so people will be worse off if they are on welfare or social security. Wait...did people really vote for their own demise?

I believe I hear a sea of Darwin awards quickly approaching the shores of oblivion! Forward hoooooooooooooooo!!!!

[Catherina]

61. Rec'd n/t

[donheld]

63. He's got us on Ignore

The President does. Refusing to dance with them what brung him, and begging repubs to dance with him instead.

[lonestarnot]

65. Bluedogs.

[Bluebear]

69. +

[Duncan Grant]

66. KnR

:kick:

[TriMera]

68. k & r. n/t

[LostInAnomie]

71. They sure got a bunch of shit done to be considered squanderers.

[cherokeeprogressive]

72. With all due respect...

The American Public seems to have felt like what they "got done" wasn't what said American Public wanted.

Feast on that.

[LostInAnomie]

73. If we're going to use the election as a spotlight on what the American public wants...

... what's that say about the party that got it's ass kicked last night? It must mean they want Republican policies, right?

We're a nation of petulant children that lash out blindly when things are going bad. There isn't any kind of coherent thought behind it. Why else would the American Public vote in a party that they are sure will be a disappointment in the next two years: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2010/11/03/house-gop-disappoint-2012_n_778281.html

[cherokeeprogressive]

74. Strange notion that; using an election as a spotlight on "what the American public wants..."

We're a nation who gives its Citizens the opportunity to change the direction of the country every two years, putting the spotlight squarely on "what the American public wants".

"what the American public wants" is what elections are all about.

"petulant children" don't vote. Adults do.

[Bluebear]

76. 'There isn't any kind of coherent thought behind it.'

Dissatisfied people are just incoherent, you see.

[LostInAnomie]

80. Then what was the coherent thought?

It wasn't because they think Repukes will do a better job.

It wasn't because they want Bush's tax cuts extended.

It wasn't because they think the Repubs will do better on economic policy.

It wasn't because they have a higher opinion of Republicans than Democrats.

It certainly isn't because they believe the Republicans will pass single payer, repeal DADT, investigate Bush and Cheney, legislate against Citizens United, or any of the other things that progressives on here want.

They voted the party in power out for no reason other than that they were in power. Cutting your nose off to spite your face isn't coherent thinking.