This is what happens when Dems don't fight

[MadHound]

This isn't a referendum on the ideas of either party. This isn't the embracing of the radical right. This is simply a repudiation of the Dem's failure to fight.

Time and again over the past two years, the Democrats have refused to step up and fight. In an economy that is still screaming for job creation, Obama and the Dems tried to be "bipartisan" and wound up giving us a stimulus bill that was made up of forty percent tax cuts. When the public was begging for relief and protection from the health insurance juggernaut, the Dems caved and took the public option away. Time and again, at the least sign of resistance, the Dems backed away from the fight.

We put the Dems in power in '08 for one reason, to bring about positive change. Yet time after time, when the public clamored for such change, the Dems failed to fight for it.

The people in this country will not support you when you disappoint them. The Dems were elected with a mandate to bring about change, but all that most people saw was more of the same. Same wars, same caving to corporations, same assault on civil liberties, same attack on public education. When the public is wanting change and all you deliver is more of the same, what else do you expect to happen? The people want fighters, true agents of change. We understand that you're not going to win every fight, but damnit, at least try.

Obama and the Dems have the chance to regain momentum for 2012. But it is going to require the Dems to go out and actually fight. No more "bipartisanship" no more "post partisanship", but rather a return to the values, and fighting spirit of the Dems of old. It this is what the Dems undertake in the next two years, Obama and the Dems will sweep back into power. However if the Dems continue to be craven cowards too afraid to fight, as Obama has already hinted at, then they will go down to defeat again.

When you have power and use it to fight for what is right, the people will reward you. When you have power and waste it, the people will scorn you. It is that simple. The Dems were judged on the merits of their actions over the past two years last night, and found wanting. Hopefully they will learn from what happened yesterday and correct their course.

[closeupready]

1. K&R

n/t

[Lost4words]

2. If I could chisel that onto rock I would, GREAT POST!

all should read especially the current administration!

[SammyWinstonJack]

3. K&R

[joeybee12]

4. Exactly...the so-called middle didn't vote for Repukes because of their ideas, but

because they saw repukes as fighting for something...we roll over and play dead.

[Democat]

5. Democratic leadership is weak. Obama spent the day before the election apologizing to Republicans!

That says it all.

[Name removed]

6. Deleted message

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

[fascisthunter]

7. if they don't fight now...

... I will assume they want the same thing the right wants.

[LawnLover]

8. Not sure I want to give the Dems this much credit, but

maybe they WANTED to lose the house? Easier to spread the blame, that way.

[Name removed]

11. Deleted message

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

[LawnLover]

14. I would NOT characterize this administration as inept

Bad at getting their message out, yes. But they've managed to push through some groundbreaking progressive legislation over the last two years. More than the previous five presidents combined.

[MadHound]

18. The very fact that the public doesn't know anything about that

"groundbreaking progressive legislation" simply goes to point up that ineptness. When previous Dems won a key battle over progressive legislation, they would raise it on a pike on the highest hill in DC for all the world to know. Now what little (and yes, there has been very little progressive legislation enacted) legislation gets through is hidden away as though it is something to be ashamed of.

Meanwhile, when it comes to things like the public option, major progressive legislation that the large majority of the people were in favor of, the Dems run from it and cower. If you are going to be effective in DC, you don't cower, you go out and find the biggest battle you can and jump in and fight.

[LawnLover]

21. Well, I DID say

that they're bad at communicating. But we lost the House for one simple reason: the economy.

That's it. That's ALWAYS it. That will always BE it.

Which had nothing whatsoever to do with the Administration's "ineptitude."

[MadHound]

24. Yes, an where was that "change" in the economy?

C'mon man, a "stimulus" that was forty percent tax cuts? Where was a true WPA style job creation program? The administration and the Congress had the mandate and ability to get these things done in '09, but they wimped out and fled from that fight. If they hadn't, the economy would have improved dramatically and this election would have been a win, not a loss for the Dems.

[LawnLover]

26. We avoided a depression

Which is a great thing. But avoiding a depression does not make people jump up and down with joy. They have no concept of just how bad thing WOULD have been without the stimulus. They only know that Uncle Bill doesn't have a job.

Again, nothing to do with ineptness on the Administration's part.

The thing is this: THIS HAPPENS EVERY MIDTERM.

Why does everyone conveniently forget this?

[MadHound]

28. Really? Avoided a depression?

Then why do we have almost a fifth of our working population still out of work? Why are we continuing to get hammered by the economy? Yes, we bailed out Wall St. but where was the help for Main St.? Oh, yeah, this administration wanted to be bipartisan, the Dems didn't want to fight, so everybody caved.

Ineptness, unwillingness to fight, not a good combination.

While such losses do happen with regularity, they are not written in stone. This could have been avoided with a proper application of a spine, but that didn't happen.

The fact of the matter is that it is the Dems unwillingness to use the tools we gave them in '08 and fight for what was right that doomed them this year, and sadly, will probably doom them in '12. You may not agree with that, but that is the truth.

[LawnLover]

39. Do you even KNOW what a depression is like?

Apparently not.

[MadHound]

56. Yes, actually I do,

And in many ways we're looking at one right now, even though nobody wants to state the obvious.

[disillusioned73]

9. A-f%*king-men!!

I won't be holding my breathe though, it's astonishing how quickly the pendulum has swung back towards the corporations and their party - we're in deep shit these next two years.

[Lorien]

74. Not really. The Citizens United vote gives Big Money and even bigger edge now

unless we get serious about overturning that ruling (start by impeaching and removing two Koch brother's buddies on the SCOTUS), enact real campaign finance reform and reinstate the Fairness Doctrine it will just keep getting worse.

[City Lights]

10. R&K!

Well said! :thumbsup:

[no limit]

12. That and the media certainly didn't help.

[MadHound]

13. No, the media didn't help,

But if the Dems had put up a good fight, the media would have jumped all over it, it's great ratings. But instead we got more of the same mealy mouthed shit that we've been getting from Dems for the past thirty plus years.

[Democat]

16. The media cannot force Obama to apologize for offending Republicans!

That's his weakness.

[no limit]

38. The media shouldn't rely on any politician for the message, the fact they do is sad

[ibegurpard]

82. of course media didn't help

but not many had the stomach to try to counterract it when we had bullshit corporate-friendly policy shoved down our throats and marketed as "incremental change."

[whathehell]

15. K & R

[frazzled]

17. The Dems who fought all lost

The Democrats' freshman class included five progressives -- Alan Grayson, Tom Perriello, Carol Shea-Porter, Mary Jo Kilroy, and John Hall -- from competitive districts who didn't dart to the center at the first sign of danger. Their candidacies were litmus tests for whether conviction politics could help Democrats survive an anti-Democratic election. All of them lost.

http://tpmdc.talkingpointsmemo.com/2010/11/broad-and-deep-a-quick-look-the-gops-big-victory-in-the-house.php?ref=fpblg

So let's put that and every other generalization to rest. There were hundreds of different stories at play last night, each of them different. In some places it was a restless electorate looking to "balance" the government, in others it was individual candidates' personalities, in some it was just giving back seats in traditional conservative districts we'd won in the last anti-Bush rush. There is NO UNIFIED THEORY of last night's election. That's just all, as Mr. T would say, "jibber jabber."

[MadHound]

20. No unified theory, HAH!

Sorry, but you're simply trying to give Dems cover.

The fact of the matter is that the Dems were elected to bring change to DC. This meant that they were expected to fight. But when push came to shove, the Dems backed down, over the stimulus, over job creation, over the public option, over repeal of DADT, over. . .

I'm not the only one who is saying this, not by a long shot. People ranging from Maddow to Begala have said much the same thing, and have been saying it for months now. The Dems were given a couple of golden opportunities to show their fighting spirit just a month before the election, over repealing DADT and the middle class tax cuts. But sadly, they backed down again and again.

Yes, there were many other factors in play yesterday. But I guarantee you that if the Dems had fought for the public option, jobs creation, if the Dems had simply fought, they would still be in complete control of Congress.

[frazzled]

23. Yo, we were never for repealing the middle-class tax cuts

Get your facts straight if you want to argue a point. We were for repealing the tax cuts only for the top earners.

Sheesh.

[MadHound]

25. It isn't getting my facts straight, it is a matter of choice of grammar.

My bad. I was referring to repealing DADT and the middle class tax cuts as two separate issues. Yes, I used poor grammar, but I think that if you have been getting the gist of my posts you could have figured that out. Instead you wanted to play the gotcha game and jumped on anything you could use to attack. Congratulations, you proved your point, I have bad grammar after a long night and just one cup of coffee:eyes:

[Eyerish]

19. K&R

[treestar]

22. so tired of this "fight" and "guts" theme

It's just a way of avoiding the issue. We do not have solid support. We get abandoned quickly. We have voters who have to be coddled into going to the polls. The right wing has fanatics who would never dream of not voting and who never give up.

We have to look into the mirror to see who the "weak" people are. Our leaders know we are weak willed. And that we don't come in in midterms. That we start whining when it's not easy. They go for the middle of the road voters because of that.

[MadHound]

27. Ah yes, anything to deflect the blame from where it truly belongs.

Tell me then, why didn't the Dems fight for any of the major legislation that was supported by a majority of people in this country?

But as always, you want to blame the victim.

[treestar]

29. What victim?

You always want to BE a victim. A weak victim of others. You don't fight. No candidate of yours has enough support to win. That's why they don't. That's why centrists win and right wingers. Their supporters are not victims. They just keep fighting.

[MadHound]

31. And you always want to erect poofy strawmen to try and distract people from reality

You like to imagine things about people you disagree with, either that or you are deep into projection, I can't tell.

But again, can you tell me why the Dems didn't put up a fight for a single piece of major legislation, you know, like the public option, repealing DADT, things that the majority of Americans supported?

[treestar]

34. Because they know they would not get support for it?

Because they know their "base" is not fanatical, like the teabaggers do? They got the most they could, and it was still not enough for their "base" yet too much for the average voter?

Fact: it is a fantasy that you can just sit back, call your leaders "weak" and pretend to be their "victim" and get more progressive change. YOU would have to fight, and have fanatically cheered on Obama and the Democrats for getting the slightest leftward change. That's what Republicans do. That's why they win.

If the Democrats KNEW you were as strong as Republicans know their supporters are, they'd have turned the US into a real socialist state by now.

[MadHound]

36. It wasn't just the base that supported these issues

It was the majority of the American people, the ultimate political mandate. Hello, McFly! When you have that kind of support on your side, you force the fight, you force the filibuster, and you use that platform to beat your opponent bloody. That's realpolitik.

As far as what I've done, the support I've given, the battles I've been in, you have no idea, no clue. Let me ask you this friend, have you ever in your life reached the status, had the privilege of being a delegate to the national convention? Have you ever run state campaign offices? You don't get that by being weak or cheering from the sidelines. I got that because I fought for the party. Sadly, it no longer appears that the party wants to fight for me. Or for you for that matter.

Turned the US into a real socialist state by now, that's a laugher. The same Democratic party who pulled their help from the McGovern campaign because their boy Muskie self destructed, so they took their toys and went home? That Democratic party:rofl:

[treestar]

46. If that was true, why wasn't the Senate more full of progressives?

What you are missing is that majority of the US population that supports such things is crowded together in Cal., NY and the cities. Notice how even in Nebraska, the vote for the city there, Lincoln, went to Obama.

The hinterlands have disproportionate influence in the Senate. A state gets two Senators no matter how many people it has.

If you worked so hard on politics, you would realize that. What is your plan for dealing with that and how is it better than Obama's was?

If you had been the fanatical supporter of the Democrats that teabaggers are of the Republicans, along with all other "progressives," the Democrats could have "fought" harder. Maybe then Lieberman or Nelson would have not dared to oppose a public option.

[WorseBeforeBetter]

85. A vast majority of Americans supported the PO; most of the work for Obama was already done.

It would have been like shooting fish in a fucking barrel, but it's not what he or his administration, club members beholden to corporate interests, wanted.

[Skidmore]

30. ...........Arrrghh..

[MadHound]

32. Practicing for Speak like a Pirate day? You've got to get more growl in it, like ARRRRRRRGH!

;)

[Egnever]

70. So why did greyson and fiengold lose?

Surely you arent implying they didnt fight hard enough?

[HughMoran]

35. And don't forget the millions spent savaging Democrats by the Chamber and Crossroads

Too many are looking in the wrong place and it will lead to losses again and again - I personally think it's deliberate.

[MadHound]

37. Oh you've got me Hugh, I'm a double secret probationary agent for the 'Pugs

Geez, and people think that I'm into conspiracy theories:eyes:

Yes, the Dems were outspent by outside interest groups. But wait, didn't Obama promise to do something about all that corporate money last January, when we were all screaming about what a problem this was going to be? Oh, yeah, I guess he and the Dems failed to fight for that as well.

The fact of the matter is that if the Dems had fought for what the people wanted, took their lumps, lost some, won more, we wouldn't be having this conversation right now. People want change, they want somebody to fight for change, and the Dems simply fell down on that job.

[flamingdem]

41. The issue of Citizens United impact on elections is THE REASON for so many losses nt

[HughMoran]

43. Yep - especially in House races where targeting is more effective

I know we lost both NH 1 and NH 2 - Annie Kuster in part due to targeting by the Chamber and Crossroads - the ads were absolutely disgusting. Time has come to act against these criminals.

[flamingdem]

49. We would have kept the house if not for the imbalance in campaign financing

The GOP/Rove just targets, puts in a call to their deep pockets worldwide and zap they slam another dem.

[bvar22]

60. Before yesterday,

The Democrats held the House, The Senate, and the White House.
If anything was going to get done about Citizen's United, it should have been done BEFORE yesterday.
NOW, there is virtually NO CHANCE.
Where WAS the Democratic Party Leadership on this MOST IMPORTANT issue? :shrug:

[Codeine]

55. That's spot on, I'm afraid. nt

[bvar22]

59. What you are describing is a weakness of leadership.

You said:
"We do not have solid support. We get abandoned quickly. We have voters who have to be coddled into going to the polls."

THAT is a LEADERSHIP problem, NOT a problem with "the people".
People WILL support a STRONG leader with CLEAR goals.

Blaming the voters will NEVER solve the problem.
Examining WHERE and HOW the LEADERSHIP failed to motivate the voters WILL solve the problem.

"I welcome their hatred"--FDR


"If we don't fight hard enough for the things we stand for,
at some point we have to recognize that we don't really stand for them."
--- Paul Wellstone

[The Magistrate]

72. You Get Solid Support When You Fight, Ma'am

Fail to fight, people have no strong attachment to you, and why should they?

"A liberal is a man who won't take his own side in a fight."

[ibegurpard]

83. exactly

[BrklynLiberal]

33. This is what happens when Dems try to be more like repukes....

George Lakoff predicted this over 10 years ago....and again in July

http://www.truth-out.org/disaster-messaging61170

Disaster Messaging

Thursday 08 July 2010

by: George Lakoff, t r u t h o u t | Op-Ed

Democrats are constantly resorting to disaster messaging. Here's a description of the typical situation:

* The Republicans out-message the Democrats. The Democrats, having no effective response, face disaster: They lose politically, either in electoral support or failure on crucial legislation.
* The Democrats then take polls and do focus groups. The pollsters discover that extremist Republicans control the most common ("mainstream") way of thinking and talking about the given issue.
* The pollsters recommend that Democrats move to the right: adopt conservative Republican language and a less extreme version of conservative policy, along with weakened versions of some Democratic ideas.
* The Democrats believe that, if they follow this advice, they can gain enough independent and Republican support to pass legislation that, at least, will be some improvement on the extreme Republican position.
* Otherwise, the pollsters warn, Democrats will lose popular support - and elections - to the Republicans, because mainstream thought and language resides with the Republicans.
* Believing the pollsters, the Democrats change their policy and their messaging and move to the right.
* The Republicans demand even more and refuse to support the Democrats.

We have seen this on issues like health care, immigration, global warming, finance reform, and so on. We are seeing it again on the Death Gusher in the Gulf. It happens even with a Democratic president and a Democratic majority in both houses of Congress.

Why? Is there anything the Democrats can do about it? First, it has to be understood. It doesn't just happen.

<snip>

The Point

Almost every day, I get a request from somewhere in the US - or various other countries - to help some group do disaster messaging. It's sad. Reframing rarely works with disaster messaging.

To work, long-term, progressive messaging must be sincere and direct, must reflect progressive moral values and must be repeated. Progressive framing is about saying what you believe, telling the truth and activating the progressive worldview already present in the minds of those who are partly conservative and partly progressive.

Framing is, of course, about policy, more than about messaging. What you say should go hand in hand with what you think and do.

And, of course, the best messaging requires an excellent communications system, or it won't be heard. Progressives have the money to build such a system. The question is whether they understand the desperate need for such a system and whether they have the will to build it.

Lots more good stuff at link

[bvar22]

62. Shit, Harry Truman laid THAT out 60 years ago.

Still TRUE today:

""I've seen it happen time after time. When the Democratic candidate allows himself to be put on the defensive and starts apologizing for the New Deal and the fair Deal, and says he really doesn't believe in them, he is sure to lose.

The people don't want a phony Democrat. If it's a choice between a genuine Republican, and a Republican in Democratic clothing, the people will choose the genuine article, every time; that is, they will take a Republican before they will a phony Democrat, and I don't want any phony Democratic candidates in this campaign."--Harry Truman

"If we don't fight hard enough for the things we stand for,
at some point we have to recognize that we don't really stand for them."
--- Paul Wellstone

[Howler]

40. Truth to power. n/t

n/t

[Exultant Democracy]

42. people respond to leadership not weakness.

[Lorien]

71. Yep; they'll even vote for "strong but wrong" over "right but weak"-epecially

in times that are tough.

[BzaDem]

44. The people "scorning" the Democrats are about to learn a hard and painful lesson.

Just like Nader voters learned after 2000 (90% of which learned their lesson and came back in 2004).

Of course, it would probably have been in their interests to have learned this lesson before election day. But whatever. If another hard lesson they need, another hard lesson they will get. While it is unfortunate, the apathetic non-voter and the non-Democratic-voting voter will feel the full force of the consequences of their actions, and they will have no one but themselves to blame. If anyone thinks that the next two years won't be substantially to the right of the previous two (solely because of our losses), I would like to know what planet they are on.

While this is so obvious it shouldn't need to be stated, enabling Republicans means the government moves to the right (and it NEVER, without exception, moves the government to the left). If people thought the last two years was too far to the right, they are in for an extremely rude awakening. It is inevitable that they will eventually learn how elections work in this country -- it is simply a question of time.

[MadHound]

47. Ah, so it is the voter's fault eh?

I would buy that except for one thing. Namely this administration and the Dems didn't use their position or power to do anything that would advance the situation. No public option to rally around, no WPA jobs creation program to make the people grateful, no repeal of DADT, all programs popular with the American people, none which the Dems thought worthy of fighting for.

Politicians and parties are not afforded automatic votes, voters aren't obliged to vote for a particular candidate. Politicians and parties have got to earn people's support. The Dems have failed miserably to do just that, earn the votes. Instead, they have backed down from fight after fight. Their harshest words aren't reserved for 'Pugs, but no, they are reserved to berate and belittle their base.

The Dems failed, failed to fight, failed to stand for what the people wanted, failed to earn the vote of the people. The only ones the Dems have to blame this on is their own selves.

[BzaDem]

50. Of course it is the voter's fault. Voters elect (or don't elect) politicians.

"Politicians and parties are not afforded automatic votes"

Sure, people have the RIGHT to enable Republicans. But that doesn't mean they shouldn't be accountable for their own enabling of Republicans.

"Politicians and parties have got to earn people's support."

Again, if you don't feel the Democrats sufficiently "earned your support," you have the absolute right to enable Republicans. But that doesn't mean you won't be reaping what you sow.

"The only ones the Dems have to blame this on is their own selves."

The Dems that lost will go on to make multiple times what they were making in Congress, and have nothing to worry about from future Republican policies. The only people that are actually punished are the people that enabled Republicans.

[MadHound]

51. And how do those voters decide on whom to vote for?

Oh, yeah, a candidates record and how they campaign. The Dems have a pretty weak record over the past four years, they have failed to fight time and again. When any party fails to fight, it doesn't attract voters, and thus loses the election. It's that simple.

If you want to win, you've got to attract voters. Through their lack of a spine, the Dems failed to attract voters.

[BzaDem]

52. They look at the available viable options and pick the best one available.

The weakness of the Democrats over the past four years isn't even relevant if the Republicans would be worse. If people think that enabling the greater of two evils is somehow better than electing the lesser of two evils, then they are about to experience the full consequences of their actions.

"Through their lack of a spine, the Dems failed to attract voters."

I'm not arguing that some liberals didn't stay home. I'm just pointing out the obvious fact that they are about to learn a hard and painful lesson about the consequences of doing so, and that they really shouldn't blame anyone other than themselves when their actions come back to bite them in the ass.

[MadHound]

53. So in your mind the candidates have no responsibility to the people,

That their record shouldn't be judged, how effective they are shouldn't be judged, just vote for the person with a D next to their name, right?

[BzaDem]

63. The primary is the opportunity to elect the best candidate that reflects your views.

If you don't believe the Democrat in office has been effective, then vote for another Democrat in the primary. If you can't convince enough of your fellow primary voters to agree with you, continuing to work on it until you succeed is probably more productive than enabling Republican candidates.

[MadHound]

66. Nice theory, but that is not reality

In reality, if a candidate is perceived as weak, not fighting, not doing the hard work to get popular programs passed, then they are held accountable either in the primary or in the general election.

[BzaDem]

73. Again, I'm not arguing that some liberal's didn't stay home -- I'm just pointing out that they have

no one but themselves to blame for the inevitable consequences that follow.

If people want to enable Republicans, there is no law stopping them. People can enable whoever they want to enable in a democracy. They have to live with the consequences.

[MadHound]

77. So again you are arguing that the Dems have no responsibility for their record in Congress or the WH

You are assuming that Dems are owed votes, out of either loyalty or fear of the greater evil.

Again, Dems aren't owed a damn thing, neither are 'Pugs, Greens, Libertarians or any other party. They have to earn the votes, through hard work, their record and fighting for what the people want. The Dems failed to do this, so thus we get to live with the result.

[SunsetDreams]

57. Great post!

[SunsetDreams]

58. dupe

[Lorien]

68. Stop making excuses. Voters want something to vote FOR, not AGAINST

until you and "Democrats" like you grasp that fact and stop enabling the spinelessness that's losing votes NOTHING WILL CHANGE.

[Egnever]

76. This election should point out to you how looney tunes that idea is.

What do you think they voted FOR this election? Sorry they Voted Against socialism and death panels and gun grabbing and abortion and gays and the list goes on and on and one onlky needs to look at all the adds funded by the corpoprate donors to see they werent ads about what a great job the rpuke would do but how horible and scary the dem was.

Vote for :rofl: You obviously have not been paying attention to what works in politics for very long.

[bvar22]

67. If The Democrats had been able to march...

...several million 50+ Working Class Americans across the national stage crying in gratitude about their new access to Medicare, we would be celebrating VICTORY today.


"If we don't fight hard enough for the things we stand for,
at some point we have to recognize that we don't really stand for them."
--- Paul Wellstone

[indypaul]

45. It continues to be the Repukes ball game

"Play ball with me and I'll shove the bat right up your ass."
Their caucus chairperson (Pence) was crying "no compromise"
throughout the campaign and he is reelected with 70% vote.
Gotta clue yet?

[Poboy]

48. Exactly. It matters NOT what any issue or position one takes. People want CONVICTION.

Someone who is willing to fight for their ideas. We allow ourselves to get beat up by R's for passing Republican legislation!

[Celtic Raven]

54. Damn straight!

:thumbsup:

[Ganja Ninja]

61. People were pissed off about the war and the economy.

If only the Dems had stopped the damn war and the spending it required. If only they had prosecuted the Bush cabal. This country would have looked very much different and the results from last night would likely have been different too.

[Joe Chi Minh]

64. How could the Dems lose the House when they didn't have it to begin with - a right-

wing party much closer to the Republicans and the large corporations, rather than that elected by the people (notably, professional 'lefties'), seems to have won a majority in the House. No change, then, as far as the major issues the Republicans care about, are concerned.

[Joe Chi Minh]

81. Perhaps some of you think I was exaggerating about the of the minds of

these Republicans being perceived by the rest of the world as being of unsound mind. Read this article in today's Guardian Online/ Comments. :

http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2010/nov/04/us-midterm-elections-barack-obama

No. Not Orlov, in this instance. He lays out the economic disaster they created. Seumas Milne, again of the Guardian addresses the point:

http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/cifamerica/2010/nov/03/obama-needs-a-tea-party-to-deliver-change

[Lorien]

65. Yep, you've summed it up perfectly

now if only they would listen...

[BeFree]

69. Wrong

The democrats were not judged on their merits, they were judged by big money and big money ended up buying more of the government.

The dumbass non-democrats are the failure. We have been working our asses off and they stabbed us in the back.

[MadHound]

75. So, you don't think that if Dems had fought for and won a WPA style jobs creation program,

If they had fought for and won such popular policies such as the public option and repealing DADT, if the Dems had these positives on their record, they still wouldn't have won.

Yes, big money can buy a lot, but as Brown and others proved it can't win everything. A candidate's record on the issues, and how they fight still counts for a hell of a lot with people.

You weren't betrayed by the voters, you were betrayed by a Democratic establishment that refused to fight for what the people in this country wanted.

[BeFree]

78. No, I'm right

The democrats did nearly everything we asked except stop both wars.

Much progress has been made in 21 months, and now the progress will come to screeching halt.

Some of us like to think our shit don't stink and that we are God's gift to America, but guess what? Most of America hates our guts.

Answer why they hate our guts, and you have the reason we now have a big stop sign in our way.

Clue: That stop sign is bought and paid for by big money.

**************

PS: Told a guy I was a liberal Tree hugger, and guess what?
He claimed I was responsible for BP's mistake in the gulf. No, I am not kidding.

[MadHound]

79. No, you're out of touch with reality

"The democrats did nearly everything we asked except stop both wars." Really? When did Gitmo close? When was the public option passed? When was DADT repealed? When was a WPA style jobs program created? How much longer do you want me to go on?

The fact is that on all these major issues and more, the Dems backed away from the fight time and again. Yes, big money was a large factor, but the reality is that the Dem's unwillingness or inability to fight for what the people wanted played a much longer role.

[BeFree]

80. I know

None of it happened in 21 months so we throw the baby out with the bath water.

Progress was being made, and had we united even more progress would be coming. Guess what? It's halted now. Stopped. We will never get much else.

Making stuff up about what HAD to be done in 21 months is bogus pandering to a dream that all we had to do was snap our fingers or click our heels together.

The reality is that big money was at stake and big money won while we sat around and gazed at our navels and pissed on our friends. YMMV.

[bobbolink]

84. When was the safety net repaired and strengthened?

[GeorgeGist]

86. This is what happens when the President ...

turns off progressives.