Democratic Underground Latest Greatest Lobby Journals Search Options Help Login
Google

What did reaching out to the right get us?

Printer-friendly format Printer-friendly format
Printer-friendly format Email this thread to a friend
Printer-friendly format Bookmark this thread
This topic is archived.
Home » Discuss » Archives » General Discussion (1/22-2007 thru 12/14/2010) Donate to DU
 
jpgray Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Nov-04-10 08:38 PM
Original message
What did reaching out to the right get us?
Did we retain Independent votes? Blue Dog seats or seats in red districts/states? Did we get support for the president and party accomplishments from conservative Democrats? Did "moderate" GOP pols break with their party in any significant way? Is Obama seen as bipartisan, in the laudatory media script sense?

No--to all of the above, in every significant sense.

You can't say reaching out, all by itself, -caused- these problems--that it caused independents to flee; or Blue Dogs to lose; or Democrats to run away from Obama, Pelosi, Reid and our signature accomplishments; or GOP intransigence. You -can- say that all of this happened -despite- reaching out to the right. Reaching out simply was not enough, and may never be enough, to stave off the evils listed above.

Was it worth it? You could argue such reaching out mitigated the harm in this election, but I can't see that we gained anything commensurable with what was lost.

The Democrats turned away from the left, and scolded us at every chance. We stuck by them. The Democrats reached out to conservatives and moderates, and in every case they got little to nothing in return. From the left, the leadership got volunteers, workers, votes. From the conservatives and moderates, they got betrayal, apathy, and rout.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
AngryAmish Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Nov-04-10 08:39 PM
Response to Original message
1. BAMMO- they kicked us right in the balls
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
gateley Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Nov-04-10 08:40 PM
Response to Original message
2. More abuse. nt
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
jpgray Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Nov-04-10 08:41 PM
Response to Reply #2
4. What did we get?
And what in the above do you see as abusive? I'd like a quote.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
gateley Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Nov-04-10 08:45 PM
Response to Reply #4
8. I meant more abuse from the Right -- I didn't make myself clear. Do you
know understand my intent or did you think I meant more abuse from the Left/Dems?

If you disagree with me and are asking for something to back up my opinion, let me know and I'll get to work on it. :7 :hi:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
jpgray Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Nov-04-10 08:48 PM
Response to Reply #8
10. I did think you meant my post was abusive
:D I was trying to be very polite and avoid knee-jerk explosions of dander, and now look: I act in just the way I wanted to avoid in reply to your post. I'm very sorry for misunderstanding.

:dunce: :hi:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
gateley Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Nov-04-10 08:58 PM
Response to Reply #10
11. No no -- your post wasn't that way at all, and it made me realize that once
Edited on Thu Nov-04-10 08:59 PM by gateley
again, what I was THINKING didn't make it into my post. That's why I wanted clarification because I didn't really understand why you were asking for a quote. :7

So you did well - no knee-jerking whatsoever. Carry on! :hi:

EDIT: Embarrassing misspelling. :blush:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
jpgray Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Nov-04-10 09:59 PM
Response to Reply #11
26. No worries!
:)
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
AndrewP Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Nov-04-10 08:40 PM
Response to Original message
3. It got us a punch to the gut and a 30 stitch gash on our forehead
Some of us actually favor fighting back. Go figure. LOL
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
leftstreet Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Nov-04-10 08:42 PM
Response to Original message
5. It bought the party political cover
Which, in this Ruling Class R Fucking You Over climate, is priceless
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
jpgray Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Nov-04-10 08:59 PM
Response to Reply #5
13. It didn't even buy that. Obama was still a Hitlerian crypto-Kenyan Stalinist apparatchik
I don't know what's left in the slur-bag for them to reach for, had we moved further left.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
WhiteTara Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Nov-04-10 08:44 PM
Response to Original message
6. a kick in the keester
with no lessons learned at the highest levels of our party.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Guy Whitey Corngood Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Nov-04-10 08:45 PM
Response to Original message
7. A big fat dick on Tuesday Nov 2. nt
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
WHEN CRABS ROAR Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Nov-04-10 08:46 PM
Response to Original message
9. No more compromise.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
ProgressiveEconomist Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Nov-04-10 08:58 PM
Response to Original message
12. The biggest healthcare reform since Medicare, the biggest middle-class taxcut in history,
stimulus funding for hundreds of thousands of teachers and firefighters, historic pro-consumer financial regualtion, and many other accomplishments that the American people may not have accepted had Obama been seen as an "ideological" "go-it alone" "radical". The process was not pretty, and Republicans and their Goebbels Roger Ailes perpetrated several HUGE Big Lies.

But IMO Obama spent his political capital wisely, played rope-a-dope with the Rs, and got the job done. He remains popular personally, while both Congressional Democrats and Congressional Republicans have historically low approval ratings.

Now he can focus on rebuilding his political capital with PR, photo-ops, and stern veto threats. He can "attack from a defensive position" and stay largely above the fray of posturing in Congress. for the next two years. IMO the Senate needs to can Harry Reid and give Durbin or Schumer the reins for a much more aggressive stance demonizing Republicans just the way Republicans tried and failed to demonize Obama.

After re-election, Obama can use his new political capital for more historic legislative victories.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
HughMoran Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Nov-04-10 09:01 PM
Response to Reply #12
14. Shhhh, you're supposed to pretend it was a complete disaster, not the most productive Congress in a
generation.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
jpgray Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Nov-04-10 09:11 PM
Response to Reply #14
17. Who in Congress was proud of their productivity? Who in Congress scorned it?
It's like those sad pols who voted against extending unemployment. That's a cold and unfeeling way to win, if it were actually a way to win. For most of those pols, it didn't protect them. Just as reaching out did not protect Obama and the Democrats from charges of radicalism, socialism, Hitlerian Stalinism, crypto-Kenyan anti-colonialism, and any other slur in the grab bag.

Not one voter in two hundred had any concept of what they had done or what they sacrificed to get it, and many of the moderates and conservatives in their own party were shouting that they were wrong to even try.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
HughMoran Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Nov-04-10 09:30 PM
Response to Reply #17
21. Not worth talking to you
You've already got a completely distorted view of what was accomplished during this Congress.

Until you're ready to acknowledge that people are never aware of the history being made all around them at the time it's made, there's no point in talking.

You've already made up your mind.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
jpgray Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Nov-04-10 09:36 PM
Response to Reply #21
22. Well, if you have disagreements, post them--I won't reply if that's what bothers you
Others might read them and agree with you, or at least know where you're coming from.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
HughMoran Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Nov-04-10 09:38 PM
Response to Reply #22
23. The whole premise of this post is just another cheap-shot at Democrats
This theme has been posted 1000 times here and it still is a point where there's no right or wrong answer and too many seem to forget that Nelson, Bayh, Blanche, Liebermann etc even existed. I cant do that - I live in the real world, not the Matrix.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
jpgray Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Nov-04-10 09:48 PM
Response to Reply #23
25. I'm just asking what the practical gain was from reaching out
Again, I'm not arguing you could run thirty Feingolds in Blue Dog districts and win them. But reaching out to the right has not prevented us from losing them either, though we did hold on to some. It seems to me Obama, Reid and Pelosi have a right to expect some fealty and support from the conservative and moderate Democrats they worked so hard to include and support, but from many they got neither. From a number of them they got vituperative attacks and shunning. That wasn't much protection for your seat either, of course.

From the GOP and the establishment Obama got treated as though he were a radical socialist, despite his reaching out. He did accomplish much and in the face of terrific opposition, but he receives no credit from any but the left-leaning in Congress, all for fear that identifying with anything approaching a progressive agenda is deadly on election day.

Maybe for many Blue Dogs it would be, but I don't see running down that agenda as radical socialism as having saved too many seats either.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
HughMoran Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Nov-04-10 10:07 PM
Response to Reply #25
31. There are many aspects to this issue
The "getting it done" part is what I like to focus on because, even though there were compromises made, historic legislation was passed that will benefit Americans for years to come (assuming the Repukes don't overturn it - which would be a disaster for them IMO.) As far as how deals were made and how particularly vulnerable Dems were "protected" from Republican attacks - well, it gets complicated. Was there any winning on this? It was always known that a large number of Blue Dogs were being sacrificed to pass HCR - and I was fine with that. Could they have protected all of the vulnerable Dems after the vote? I don't think so - they were lost the minute that passed. The RW accountant at work was practically spitting mad that HCR was passed. When I told her is was good for everybody she had no response, but the venom these effing morons have for ANY successes for Democrats is palpable (yes, they are hate filled nutcases.) Was passing all these bills at the sacrifice of 30 Blue Dog seats that bad of a compromise? I don't know - but I'm glad we didn't fail like in '94. As far as properly receiving credit for these accomplishments - the Dems have done a terrible job of tooting their own horns. I would have repeated $300B tax cut (for 95% of Americans) 75,000 times as we all know that plays well with moderates. We will need better message control or what MM was saying on O'Donnell will come to pass. I think Obama & the Dems have learned something after 2 years of rule. It has been a while for Democrats so perhaps some of the problems are due to lack of practice. :shrug:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
jpgray Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Nov-04-10 11:51 PM
Response to Reply #31
36. I really am not liking the simplistic blame-slinging on either side
As you say, there may have been no winning this year, much as others would like to offer their own ideology as a hindsight guide to the promised land. If we had stuck hard on the public option and not dealt with AHIP or PhRMA, we may have had a long bitter fight resulting in absolutely nothing. That's possible, and maybe even likely. However, the hatred of voters for legislative complexity was guaranteed to assail this bill--there was no simple, straightforward idea at the heart of it. There were many small pieces which were enormously popular and will be beneficial, but no one noticed them to any significant degree. What we needed was something perhaps as basic as "Medicare open to all, don't have to take it if you don't want to." No way this would be made deficit neutral, of course, and there are a host of difficulties in getting it passed, but it's something one could explain in a sound-bite.

The stimulus tax cuts were ephemeral to voters perhaps because they were similarly mired in a large, complex bill which was readily defined as wasteful spending. In any event, I'm not sure it at all defused the "my taxes are too high, GOP will cut them" animus among some voters. Further, more tangible, can't-ignore-it infrastructure spending, that creates jobs in local communities, such that there's arguing with its impact, might have been a better value. It might also have been impossible to pass.

That nobody gave Obama much credit for a deficit-neutral HCR bill, or a $300B tax cut, including members of his own party, makes me think we should carefully examine whether these moves are worth it. If the goal is to inspire independents and conservative Democrats, I don't think it was enough to do the job this cycle, and I'm not sure in this environment such measures were even noticed by a significant number of Americans. Likely they saw it as "huge spending, no benefit to me that I can see." That's not how the Beltway saw it, but our target should not have been the Beltway in the first place.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
ThomCat Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Nov-04-10 10:07 PM
Response to Reply #21
30. Except you?
You always seem to believe you're the exception. The vastly superior person, if only people would recognize it. :eyes:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
jpgray Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Nov-04-10 09:06 PM
Response to Reply #12
15. But the moderates and conservative Democrats run all these things down at every opportunity
Edited on Thu Nov-04-10 09:07 PM by jpgray
Folks like Feingold stood by these accomplishments, while Blue Dogs ran ads condemning them. That running to the right was the only way to get things done was certainly the establishment view, but take health care, and consider these polls:



We had support. The country knew, without even being encouraged, educated or otherwise pushed, that Medicare for all as an option would be a great thing. Those who "knew" reaching out to the right was the only way saw no farther than the Beltway, and the public option, therefore, got no further than a few campaign speeches.

Schumer, incidentally, is utterly beholden to the financial industry. He had some $10 million on hand for this election, mostly from the securities industry, and his opponent barely had what, $150,000? Durbin I could see.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
ProgressiveEconomist Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Nov-04-10 09:10 PM
Response to Reply #15
16. Durbin would be my first choice too But even Schumer would be a vast improvement
over Reid to lead a populist, aggressive, Republican-exposing Senate. And Schumer clearly wants the job, and has no worries about re-election, after a two-to-one victory.

IMO it's too bad Doorgan retired--he would have been the perfect populist for the next two years.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
jpgray Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Nov-04-10 09:19 PM
Response to Reply #16
19. No matter what, it's tough to guide a party forward while looking over your shoulder
I've never fully understood why we looked to potentially vulnerable folks like Jim Wright for speaker, or Daschle and Reid for Leader. Pelosi at least was certain to weather the storm, and little deserved to lose the speakership after all she got done in comparison to the Senate.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
SarahB Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Nov-04-10 09:40 PM
Response to Reply #12
24. You're equating "biggest" with "effective".
Not even close.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
ThomCat Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Nov-04-10 10:05 PM
Response to Reply #12
29. You're believing the spin.
The healthc care "reform" is a mandate to buy insurance. Insurance is not the same as health care. Never has been, never will be. Especially while co-pays and deductibles and costs keep going up, and while insurance companies are dropping coverage for groups of people state by state.

What this health care "reform" amounts to is an upcoming 22% income tax on healthy people paid directly to private insurance companies, with everyone else who really needs insurance shunted directly to medicare plans in order to guarantee that private companies will always make their profits.

Notice that the wealthiest STILL pay the least in taxes, and unearned income is STILL taxed at a lower rate than earned income. The division between the rich and poor is still Growing. Crow about tax changes when we have some changes that really benefit the middle class.

The re-regulation of wall street was all for show. It did not re-impose any of the same regulations that had been removed. It did not restore the Glass-Steagall act, for example. The removal of Glass-Steagall was what allowed the fraud and the bubble that collapsed the economy. So why wouldn't they reimpose the terms of Glass-Steagall if their aim was to seriously re-regulate wall street? Their aim was to impose just enough regulation to CLAIM that they had imposed regulations and declare victory, without actually having imposed any real regulations that would bother wall street at all.

The biggest claim of the new regulations is that wall street has some additional REPORTING requirements now. When they do things that might be risky, afterward they have to announce it! That's the big reform. The reform doesn't prevent them from doing anything. It just says that someone has to know what they did. Afterward!

But wall street knows that after they've done something it's already too late. They've already made their profit. If there is any harm, they already have their plan to make sure we will end up on the hood for it.

Nothing in the re-regulations STOPS wall street from doing anything. That is what we still need, regulations that stops wall street from doing the fraudulent and bad things that we know wall street has been doing and is still doing.

There is no excuse for believing spin, public relations materials, and press releases wholesale without even a hint of skepticism.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
ProgressiveEconomist Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Nov-04-10 10:11 PM
Response to Reply #29
32. So anything short of your definition of PERFECTION is a step backwards?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
ThomCat Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Nov-04-10 10:32 PM
Response to Reply #32
34. I didn't say anything about perfection.
but if you're going to believe incredibly obvious spin, that's a bit of a problem. If you're that gullible, perhaps you should work on that problem before you go posting judgmental announcements about what other people should believe.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
jpgray Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Nov-05-10 12:24 AM
Response to Reply #29
37. Financial reform ought to have been simple
Regulate that which caused the disaster. End too-big-to-fail, regulate OTC derivatives, institute penalties for predatory and socially damaging practices, remove incentives for bubble-building.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
ThomCat Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Nov-05-10 12:42 AM
Response to Reply #37
38. You're right.
They had watchdogs telling them exactly how to do it. They had everything except the political will. :(

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
grahamhgreen Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Nov-04-10 10:46 PM
Response to Reply #12
35. "you must buy crappy insurance or get a fine" is not reform
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Radical Activist Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Nov-05-10 12:59 AM
Response to Reply #12
43. Consumer Financial Agency
would not have been created without a few Republican votes. The fees banks and credit cards can gouge consumers with are now lower. Health care is really the only major bill that passed with no Republican votes and that still had to be watered down for conservative Democrats.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
ThomCat Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Nov-05-10 01:49 AM
Response to Reply #43
46. In return for lowering fees, banks can now charge higher interest
rates on credit cards. Banks don't give up anything unless the get something in return. :(

It remains to be seen whether the Consumer Financial Agency will have the support to do any kind of real work policing bank abuses and making any real punishments stick.

You are right, the health care bill can still be watered down. And even if it doesn't get watered down, it was garbage as it was written because of loopholes written into it by the insurance companies. It's already a 22% income tax on healthy people, payable directly to insurance companies. With everyone else put in Medicaid, and no chance that the few doctors who accept medicaid will ever be able to accept this suddenly humongous pool of medicaid patients. Once republicans mess with this some more, it's going to be even less workable.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Radical Activist Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Nov-05-10 02:07 AM
Response to Reply #46
47. That's interesting how you twisted my words there.
You changed my comment about HCR having been watered down to a negative prediction that it will be watered down even more in the future, a point I never made. I agree with Obama that it needs to be further strengthened and improved upon.

Obama had two choices.
1) Water down his original proposal to gain support from conservative Senate Democrats plus Lieberman.
2) Get no bill at all.

The refusal to accept that reality has caused a lot of senseless consternation, whining and conspiracy theories about the health care bill. It's extremely unhealthy for the party and the effort to get better reform. There's no point in having a discussion on the issue without first accepting that reality, which the OP apparently doesn't.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
ThomCat Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Nov-05-10 02:17 AM
Response to Reply #47
49. For someone who refuses to have discussions
with anyone who doesn't "accept reality" you seem to argue with a lot of people.

You also frequently accuse people who disagrees with you of things like "a lot of senseless consternation, whining and conspiracy theories."

That's a nice way of always being right, by pre-define everyone else as always being wrong. Yet you still keep arguing with people.

If you're so all-knowing why come here? Why don't you just stay home and glory in your omniscience? :shrug:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Winston Wolf Donating Member (117 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Nov-04-10 09:12 PM
Response to Original message
18. Kicked...
...and recommended.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
and-justice-for-all Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Nov-04-10 09:20 PM
Response to Original message
20. I thought it was raining...
and they were pissing down my back..nt
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
H2O Man Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Nov-04-10 09:59 PM
Response to Original message
27. Off balance.
And off balance is not a good way to be.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
HCE SuiGeneris Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Nov-05-10 02:19 AM
Response to Reply #27
50. Yes.
I am a bit 'tilty'. I think it's part of the reason I'm up late tonight.

The time has approached where greater participation on my part is a must.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Naturyl Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Nov-04-10 10:04 PM
Response to Original message
28. A beating
When you reach out to bullies, you will always get a beating.

Not rocket science.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
lonestarnot Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Nov-04-10 10:13 PM
Response to Original message
33. Meh, You and President Obama may have reached out to the fuckwits, but I never did.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
HCE SuiGeneris Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Nov-05-10 02:23 AM
Response to Reply #33
51. Bwahahaha
Fuckwit clean. :rofl:

Don't think I reached out too far.. but I'm definitely tainted. :9
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
kenny blankenship Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Nov-05-10 12:45 AM
Response to Original message
39. Wasted time, watered down ineffective solutions = the appearance of not having the answers.
Edited on Fri Nov-05-10 12:47 AM by kenny blankenship
Looking like a party that doesn't have a viable alternative to Republican rule and that apparently can't get from bed to bath without falling on its ass twice. Then comes the inevitable stroke of the axe. That's what appeasement bought us.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Radical Activist Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Nov-05-10 12:49 AM
Response to Original message
40. The facts don't fit your narrative.
Actually, yes, a few Republicans voted for most of the major bills passed over the last two years including finance reform and credit card reform. And yes, I'll know you'll come back to tell me how useless they were. But before you fall back on that cliche, let's start out by you getting your facts right.
Democrats did not have 60 votes in the Senate for most of the last two years, so it was get a few Republicans on board or get nothing at all. You seem to prefer nothing at all.

Obama introduced progressive legislation and you turned away and scolded him at every chance.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
jpgray Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Nov-05-10 01:06 AM
Response to Reply #40
44. You think that Obama received all he deserved for his concessions, then
I disagree. I think he received no significant compromises from the GOP, unwarranted desertions on the campaign trail from conservative Democrats, and a glib portrayal of his accomplishments as radical socialism from the media--including wholesale silence on all worthwhile and popular measures in the big bills.

My question was, is this the best we can expect when making concessions? You think that it is, and we should be happy about it. I don't think even Obama is happy about it.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Radical Activist Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Nov-05-10 01:32 AM
Response to Reply #44
45. Obama recieved a few Republican votes for most of his major agenda items.
Edited on Fri Nov-05-10 01:33 AM by Radical Activist
It was the difference between them passing or not passing. You asked what Obama got and that's the answer. He got financial reform, credit card reform, the stimulus package, among other things.

You asked if "moderate GOP pols break with their party in any significant way?" Yes a few did, enough to pass major legislation, which is significant.

I answered your questions that you gave a false answer to. When you gain a grasp of reality and accept that the claims in your OP were not factual then we can have a discussion.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
krispos42 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Nov-05-10 12:53 AM
Response to Original message
41. Stumps

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Name removed Donating Member (0 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Nov-05-10 12:55 AM
Response to Original message
42. Deleted message
Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.
 
Zhade Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Nov-05-10 02:16 AM
Response to Original message
48. Spanked.
NT!

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
DU AdBot (1000+ posts) Click to send private message to this author Click to view 
this author's profile Click to add 
this author to your buddy list Click to add 
this author to your Ignore list Mon Jan 13th 2025, 11:15 AM
Response to Original message
Advertisements [?]
 Top

Home » Discuss » Archives » General Discussion (1/22-2007 thru 12/14/2010) Donate to DU

Powered by DCForum+ Version 1.1 Copyright 1997-2002 DCScripts.com
Software has been extensively modified by the DU administrators


Important Notices: By participating on this discussion board, visitors agree to abide by the rules outlined on our Rules page. Messages posted on the Democratic Underground Discussion Forums are the opinions of the individuals who post them, and do not necessarily represent the opinions of Democratic Underground, LLC.

Home  |  Discussion Forums  |  Journals |  Store  |  Donate

About DU  |  Contact Us  |  Privacy Policy

Got a message for Democratic Underground? Click here to send us a message.

© 2001 - 2011 Democratic Underground, LLC