The Progressive: "Why progressives should no longer invest hope in President Obama"

[Better Believe It]

Obama’s Pathetic Post-Mortem Response
By Matthew Rothschild
Editor of The Progressive
November 4, 2010

The President’s post-mortem press conference underscores why he lost, and why progressives should no longer invest hope in him.

.... he adopted the messaging of the Republicans. He talked about the need to reduce our deficit so we don’t “leave our children a legacy of debt” and so we’re not “racking up the credit card for the next generation.”

.... he saluted business and the free market: “The reason we’ve got an unparalleled standard of living in the history of the world is because we’ve got a free market that is dynamic and entrepreneurial and that free market has to be nurtured and cultivated.”

Then he pitied big business.

“You just had a successive set of issues in which I think business took the message that, well, gosh, it seems like we may be always painted as the bad guy,” he said. “And so I’ve got to take responsibility in terms of making sure that I make clear to the business community as well as to the country that the most important thing we can do is to boost and encourage our business sector.”

Really??? That’s “the most important thing” he has to do? Wow!

He also backpedaled fast on expanding the role of government, conceding without qualification that some people thought “government was getting much more intrusive into people’s lives.” Amazingly, he said, “I’m sympathetic to folks who looked at it and said this is looking like potential overreach.”

Sounding like John McCain, he endorsed the idea of cutting “earmarks” several times.

He said he wanted to “accelerate depreciation for business,” which is about the least efficient way to jumpstart the economy.

That’s his vision?

This is pathetic.

Please read the full article at:

http://progressive.org/wx110410.html

[Davis_X_Machina]

1. Been a subscriber off and on for nearly forty years...

...and I remember when they gave up on Carter, and when they gave up on Clinton.

If you go back far enough I suppose you can find their open letter to Eugene V. Debs, accusing him of being a sellout.

[Better Believe It]

7. Aren't you exaggerating just a wee bit for impact?

They attacked Debs?

I doubt it.

Do you also think they gave up on FDR.

I also doubt it.

Do you think that President Carter caved-in to Republican demands and ideology like President Obama has in the quest for bi-partisan love and friendship?

I don't think so.

Now could you be more specific and indicate what points you disagree with in the article and why?

Thank you.

[Davis_X_Machina]

11. The world needs noodges.

But it doesn't just need noodges.

[Puregonzo1188]

86. To be fair, they very may well have given up on FDR.

I'm taking a course on John Dewey right now and have been reading Westbrook's biography "John Dewey and American Democracy" all day today and I was surprised how anti-FDR/New Deal he was (from a left-wing perspective).

I guess that shouldn't be that surprising--I once read The New Republic endorsed Norman Thomas for President in 1932. None of these things were considered out of place for American intellectuals. We should be troubled by how narrow the debate has become. There was a time when radical ideas about industrial democracy, socialism, workers control of the means of production, and even (gasp) communism were being discussed seriously in this country. Those days are long gone.

Attacking Debs? Who knows, they were founded by Robert LaFollete, who was a Republican Senator at the time, so I suppose it's possible, though he was supported by the Socialist Party when he ran for President (largely ran on their ballot line despite officially being the candidate of the "Progressive Party"). People used to live in more interesting times I suppose, and sadly those days seem to be gone. Hopefully not forever though.

[asdjrocky]

42. I remember when I gave up on Carter and Clinton too.

A sell out is a sell out is a sell out.

[SidDithers]

2. Unrec...

lather, rinse, repeat.

Edit: you conveniently edited out the part where the author compares the President to Rand Paul

Those lines could have come straight out of the mouth of Rand Paul!

And like Rand Paul, he saluted business and the free market: “The reason we’ve got an unparalleled standard of living in the history of the world is because we’ve got a free market that is dynamic and entrepreneurial and that free market has to be nurtured and cultivated.”

Pretty fucking disingenuous.

Sid

[BootinUp]

8. +1

[Jackpine Radical]

13. Gee--How do you know he edited that out?

Maybe because e provided a link to the full article?

And anyway what's the big deal about leaving out a reference to Rand Paul if the foo shits?

[SidDithers]

18. Why would he edit it out?...

That's the better question to ask.

Sid

[bread_and_roses]

31. I'll counter that with a big R then

I was embarrassed just READING the President's remarks - I can't imagine what it might have felt like to watch or listen live. And the remark in question is, indeed, "just like" Rand Paul's.

[countingbluecars]

3. Unrecommended n/t

[druidity33]

45. K&R, nt.

[Bobbie Jo]

50. Unrec /SSDD

[polichick]

4. His positions on offshore drilling and natural gas are the last straw for me...

I'll support a primary challenger because I'd rather go down in 2012 fighting for progressive policies than watch Dems lose for being lame wanna-be Republicans.

[Hawkowl]

29. Obama = last of the Bluedogs

I'm with you. I will not support the lesser of two evils. If I'm going to lose, I will lose on principle.

[grahamhgreen]

46. Not to mention his pro-nuke position.

[polichick]

56. That too - it's incredible how much ground he is willing to give up...

...for what in return? Nothing.

[countrydad58]

101. Me too!

[Hell Hath No Fury]

103. I changed my registration the day he announced -

new offshore drillng, And I faxed a copy of my form to him with a note saying why I was changing. At some point you just have to say you will not be an enabler.

[ibegurpard]

5. As always, I'll take his words with a grain of salt

it's his actions I'm watching

[TheKentuckian]

6. K&R for truth

[Jackpine Radical]

9. While you're on that site, read Matt's commentary on

the Feingold defeat.

[Better Believe It]

12. Here's the link:

http://progressive.org/wx1103b10.html

[EFerrari]

49. There's also an interview with W.S. Merwin in this issue.

He gives great interview.

[Jackpine Radical]

65. I've loved the Progressive for years.

I have often chatted with Matt at places like Bobfest, although I'm sure I'm no more than a vaguely familiar face to him.

[AC_Mem]

10. So, are we supposed to invest hope

in the GOP? I mean, really?

I support President Obama and will continue to support him. Two years is not nearly enough time to manage all that he has had to deal with since he was elected. I don't know of ANYONE who could have walked into the mess that was handed to him and done a better job while facing complete and total obstruction and opposition from the right, every step of the way.

How quick some throw away hope and how quick some will abandon the best President we could have elected. It makes me very sad for America.

[Better Believe It]

15. "So, are we supposed to invest hope in the GOP? No. Who is suggesting that?

The Progressive has long been one of the hardest and uncompromising opponents of the Republican right-wing and their agenda.

Their record on that is unstained and clear.

[polichick]

17. I'm investing my hope in the progressive grassroots and a movement toward...

...a party - Democratic or otherwise - that actually believes in progressive policies and will fight for them.

Over and over again, this prez proves that he is a DLC/Republican wanna-be Dem.

If a progressive primary challenger steps foward, I'll work for him or her.

[Recursion]

53. Then we need to clone progressives

Because the numbers just aren't there.

The way we get a caucus big enough to control the House is by running Democrats that can win moderate and conservative districts. Guess what? Those Dems are not liberals.

[jpak]

14. unreccing - more anti-Dem crapahola

yup

[Better Believe It]

16. Nonsense. The Progressive has long been one of the strongest supporters of progressive Democrats

[somone]

23. Yep. I don't know what Obama is or professes to be

but Obama is NOT a progressive.

BTW I've been reading The Progressive for many years.

[polichick]

20. Yeah, it's "anti-Dem" to want a Democratic president to fight for...

Democratic principles.

[The Uncola]

21. Truth hurts..

.. eh, friend?

[jgraz]

27. There's nothing more anti-Dem than continuing to support a strategy that just lost the House

Do you *want* Obama to lose in 2012? No? Then you'd better join us whiners on the professional left who have been urging him to change course for two years.

[The Uncola]

19. Too bad nobody at the WH..

.. bothers to be in touch with the Real World enough to get this message.

[ananda]

22. Luckily I'm not a Progressive.

I'm an out and out liberal leftie, proud of it, and I never had much hope
in Obama.

[polichick]

24. Do you see a primary challenger coming from the left? It's our only hope...

...for keeping the WH in 2012 imo.

[Name removed]

26. Deleted message

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

[Recursion]

47. Bwah

:eyes:

Yeah, that's a great idea. The lesson we should draw from failing to keep moderate/conservative districts is that we weren't liberal enough.

[jefferson_dem]

120. Might as well say...

"I don't know American political history." The opposite is true. FACT: Primary challenges are NEVER good for the Incumbent president's party on general election day.

[RickFromMN]

58. Shame on me, I use progressive and liberal or liberal left, interchangeably

I hadn't considered there was a difference between the label,
progressive, and the label, liberal, and the label, liberal left.

I thought the label, progressive, came into fashion, because the label, liberal, went out of fashion.

I assume, usually, these labels don't matter because progressives and liberal lefties want many of the same things.

For my education, can you tell me which causes people of one label support and people of the other label do not?

I have to agree...however, I am not happy with President Obama.

I wish Hillary Clinton had been our standard bearer in 2008. She might have been better.
I was an Obama supporter in 2008. I voted for him in the 2008 Primary.

I will vote for President Obama, in the 2012 general election, if he is our standard bearer.
I really wish I had a more liberal choice, and I wish I had a choice that was more of a fighter.

Perhaps I am being unfair to President Obama. Perhaps he is good fighting behind the scenes, which I don't see.
Unfortunately, I lose my enthusiasm, from what I do see. Enthusiasm is important.

Enthusiasm determines whether I will try and argue with those of opposing views or just remain silent.
Enthusiasm determines how much time and/or money I commit.

Even if we couldn't get a single-payer, national health system, we should have had the fight.
Fighting and losing would have given us a reason to come to the polls in 2010 with more enthusiasm.
We might have gotten a better deal during the compromising by forcing the Republicans to compromise too, well maybe.

[Recursion]

61. "Progressive" was a term coined for pro-reform Republicans in the early 20th century

It was a movement of social, education, business, and government reform. Its main successes were women's suffrage, an end to many city political machines, and prohibition (that was their moment of overreach).

Liberalism is historically distinct from progressivism (and liberalism contributes elements to both the Right and the Left in this country).

[mistertrickster]

95. Trying to keep the label police happy does get tiresome, doesn't it.

I've pretty much ditched both liberal and progressive and just call myself a radical leftist.

[jaxx]

25. Sounding like John McCain and Rand Paul?

Why would a progressive magazine bash the Democratic President? Really this is just one more odd post today, but the have explained the verbiage we are seeing more of lately.

Unrec.

[polichick]

28. Because progressive magazines - and voters - rightly expect Democratic...

...presidents to fight for progressive policies - not to adopt Republican policies whenever he's bullied by the other side.

[jaxx]

32. Really, that says nothing but more bashing

and comparing the President to the republicans. That isn't much of a progressive policy.

[polichick]

35. It's not "bashing" to call out a prez for caving to Republican demands...

...and failing to fight for progressive policies.

fyi: When a prez fights harder for Republican policies than Democratic ones, he begs comparison.

Wake up - blind allegiance is just that, BLIND.

[jaxx]

37. Blind is actively working to undermine the Presidency of our Party.

I'd remind you of all the legislation passed and signed into law by this President, but I'd be wasting our time.

[polichick]

39. I'll continue to work actively for progressive policies and Dems...

...who fight for progressive policies - being a Dem who just as easily adopts Republican policies doesn't cut it.

[jaxx]

40. Yeah and I'll support the liberal President and the Democratic Party.

[polichick]

41. If we ever have a liberal prez, I'll support him or her too. nt

[hfojvt]

36. speaking of progressive policy

what would you call this?

"He talked about the need to reduce our deficit so we don’t “leave our children a legacy of debt” and so we’re not “racking up the credit card for the next generation.”

...

“You just had a successive set of issues in which I think business took the message that, well, gosh, it seems like we may be always painted as the bad guy,” he said. “And so I’ve got to take responsibility in terms of making sure that I make clear to the business community as well as to the country that the most important thing we can do is to boost and encourage our business sector.”

...

He also backpedaled fast on expanding the role of government, conceding without qualification that some people thought “government was getting much more intrusive into people’s lives.” Amazingly, he said, “I’m sympathetic to folks who looked at it and said this is looking like potential overreach.”

"he endorsed the idea of cutting “earmarks” several times."

"He said he wanted to “accelerate depreciation for business,” which is about the least efficient way to jumpstart the economy."


Because mone of that sounds very progressive. It sounds more like a Democrat saying "I agree with Republicans on economic policy". Somewhat like Clinton, the only way he intends to be progressive, if at all, is on social issues. For the rest, he is there for the business people, not for the working people.

You wanna see a speech I would cheer, try this, just for contrast

http://journals.democraticunderground.com/hfojvt/61

[jaxx]

38. If he was going repub he'd be yelling and crying and saying no

to everything. We're in good hands, the President knows how to behave in public. He is in a foreign country where every move is fodder to the naysayers, it's to be expected. I guess.

[Recursion]

51. Yeah, because that's an accurate description of the past two years.

:sarcasm:

Good Lord, people. It's not the 1960's anymore and we're starting from a country that's much farther to the right than people seem to think it is.

[polichick]

55. Bullshit. The country is only right if you're talking labels - when you're talking...

...policies, it's progressive - that's why 70+% supported the public option.

[Recursion]

59. They support it until you talk about how to pay for it

And then it drops like a rock.

[eridani]

87. You pay for it with the money you are now giving to useless insurance parasites n/t

[Recursion]

92. Nope. That doesn't even come close to paying for it. NT

[eridani]

112. What a bunch of horseshit. We pay twice what other countries pay to take care of everyone n/t

[Recursion]

114. Yes, that's the problem. Even Medicare pays much more than other countries

We spend 2 and a half trillion a year on health care. Not health insurance, health care. That's how much the insurance companies, Medicare, Medicaid, the VA, and individuals pay to health care providers every year. It's "only" 2 and a half trillion right now and not much more because we exclude 50 million some-odd uninsured people from receiving care.

[eridani]

115. With single payer global budgeting, the government could dictate costs

That is what happens in the rest of the developed world. Where private insurance is in the mix, it is treated like a public utility. That's why a night in the hospital costs $20 in Japan, and why my husband was able to get the first stage of a root canal done in the Netherlands for $25 in 1996. There was a nice German car in the building's reserved parking spot, so the dentist couldn't have been hurting all that much.

[Recursion]

116. Not even England simply "dictates costs" to providers; they're negotiated

And that avoids the question: which medical providers are making too much money now? How much can you reduce that 2.5 trillion by, and from whom does it come?

[eridani]

117. The negotiation resuts in costs that are half of ours with far better outcomes

Comparison charts showing particular costs in other developed countries would be useful.

[Recursion]

124. UK and Canadian doctors don't graduate with half a million dollars of debt

And they don't have a reimbursement system that encourages "doing as much stuff as possible". And, hell, to throw a bone to the right wingers, it's also true they don't face nearly as high malpractice insurance rates.

How far down can the government really negotiate the prices? Medicaid pays more for procedures than Canada does, despite being a structurally almost identical payment system: state-by-state insurance pools paid for out of general revenue. Even so, pretty much no provider in the US has figured out a way to take Medicaid patients without losing money.

[eridani]

125. All of the things that other countries do to hold down their costs, we can do as well n/t

[hfojvt]

33. Why would a Democratic President want to sound like Republicans?

When Clinton gave his "the era of big government is over" speech, I fired off an angry letter to him. I would like to see a Democratic Party, and a Democratic President, who is fighting for the working people, not one who is fighting for big business.

My unrec is for Obama's rhetoric.

[Greyhound]

30. K&R for another "nobody could've predicted" excuse.

[chill_wind]

34. Zero surprises there. Two words: Austan Goolsbee

Poster boy for the brilliant Republican-lite DLC.

Former Senior Economist.
http://www.ppionline.org/ppi_ci.cfm?knlgAreaID=85&subsecID=108&contentID=253912

[QC]

48. Yes, that was one of the early clues that a few people here tried to point out

but were generally shouted down and hounded off the site as a result.

[scarletwoman]

43. No problem, I stopped investing hope in Obama quite some time ago.

Right around the time he made his cabinet and C.O.S. picks.

Once in awhile Obama talks a good game, but his actions show him to be pretty thoroughly bought into Republican framing and pretty thoroughly invested in the status quo and conventional wisdom -- as dictated by the Beltway and the PTB.

sw

[polichick]

44. You're right - the writing has been on the wall for a long time...

The campaign was awesome - but perhaps a true boondoggle.

[ooglymoogly]

69. +1 nt

[ooglymoogly]

70. sorry wrong place nt

[Tierra_y_Libertad]

52. Obama and the "pragmatic" centrists rang up a massive No Sale last week.

How could that happen when the policies are so "bi-partisan" and attractive to the "moderates"?

Oh, I forgot...it's the fault of the Left.

[ooglymoogly]

99. +1 nt

[Creative]

54. Don't give up hope.

Perhaps he will do as Clinton did (make lemonade).

[newspeak]

96. I voted for Clinton to keep NAFTA-GATT from passing

There is nothing in that treaty to protect environment or labor--it was a corporate carte blanche where corporations from each country gained more power than the people. And, NAFTA was poppy's baby--nothing but another corporate control over the people. Yeah, contaminate people's drinking water and when the state ousts you, you can successfully sue the government because of the treaty.

Obama kept two Goldman Sachs stooges, Bernanke and Paulsen, on board. These were little boot's choices--how does keeping them on help mainstreet? It helps Goldman Sachs and Wall Street, but I see no value on keeping them on in helping main street. I guess if wall street--especially the gamblers, betting on our misery, is doing swell, then everything is right in the world.

To me, this is "business as usual" and some of those on wall street, I do not consider Americans--they'd bring down this country in a heartbeat to make an extra buck or to wield more power.

[Creative]

108. All politicians are power hungry--that is "business as usual."

And although I favor free trade in general, I am skeptical when it takes 1,700 pages (NAFTA) to define the terms.

Nevertheless, the economy did very well during the Clinton-Gingrich era.

[datasuspect]

57. we need a better candidate in 2012

seriously.

[Name removed]

60. Deleted message

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

[Recursion]

62. Whom would you suggest? NT

[ooglymoogly]

100. Alan Grayson. nt

[treestar]

79. the republicans would love this so much

[Better Believe It]

63. Obama will make "midcourse corrections" to win over electorate and work with empowered Republicans

In India, Obama vows 'midcourse corrections'
msnbc.com news services
November 7, 2010

MUMBAI, India — Nearly halfway through his term, President Barack Obama on Sunday acknowledged he must make some "midcourse corrections" if he is going to win over a frustrated electorate and work with empowered Republicans.

Speaking on an economic tour of Asian nations, Obama told college students here that the midterm elections back home reflected the "right, obligation and duty" of people to express their unhappiness by voting out the incumbents.

Obama said he will not change his determination to invest money in education, infrastructure and clean energy at a time when the pressures in Washington are to slash spending. But he said the election "requires me to make some midcourse corrections and adjustments."

He said how those will play out over the next several months will depend on his talks with Republicans.

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/40052058/ns/politics

[Better Believe It]

75. So this election with about 20 million less voters than 2008 somehow "empowered" Republicans?

[felix_numinous]

64. The system has been corrupted

so the job to recovery in this country involves much more than just replacing one person with another. And unless the left has a viable progressive who will not be defeated by the republicans, the safest strategy is to stay with President Obama, or we will lose much more than we can imagine right now. 2012 is just 2 years from now, would Grayson or Feingold run? Time is running out for that.

[TheKentuckian]

104. Rubberstamping Obama's "Marxist", "Socialist", "liberal" policies is movement suicide

I'm not talking an election cycle or even a few, I'm talking terminal.

Leaving this pile of shit as crossing the border past the acceptable American left is insane at about any price. Leaving this would be an utter and complete frame loss.

Even if he can stay in office the past two years will be an "over reach" that he will retreat from or stick with, either way this is the border. That is not acceptable nor is it functional. If this is the edge then for all intents and purposes, turn out the lights because the party is way fucking over.

No tools, no example of ideology translating to effective action, no repudiation of the failed ideology of the corporate right, a complete fucking waste. No actual harm reduction but an effort to smear it about perhaps more evenly at the bottom. Little if any actual correction of our suicidal course.

Trying not to lose in this fashion is likely to end up with a mudhole stomped in our collective chest and a rather radical reframing of the American political spectrum in a most counter-productive and ugly way.

What we are talking about is what the young folk might call a fuckload of fail. People are apparently hoping to get broad, recognizable success from these grab bag policies or they just don't give a crap about the people. Buying these long odds when you look at how many of the moving parts simply do not fit at all is like buying a lottery ticket and when I feel my odds are that long then I'm obligated to actually go with what I want as the last hill.

[BlueCheese]

66. I really wish he'd quit reinforcing Republican memes.

In his October interview with the NYT, Obama said that he let himself look too much like the "same old tax-and-spend liberal Democrat."

Way to go, Mr. President! Let's reinforce completely false memes that the Republicans love! Even though Reagan, Bush I and Bush II ran up giant amounts of debt, and Clinton balanced the budget, let's call Democrats tax-and-spend. This will surely help the party at the ballot box and in the national discourse.

[Better Believe It]

68. President Obama is certainly trying hard to demonstrate he's not one of those "liberal Democrats"

[wildbilln864]

67. and a k&r! nt

[ooglymoogly]

71. KR, stopped investing in him shortly after he was sworn in

and let us know who he was by his appointments and his inexplicable attitude toward the constitution; and it ain't what he pretended to be. He has proven this so many times it is embarrassing to hear the folks still making excuses. I am waiting with baited breath for a contender like Alan Grayson to step into the ring for a knockout.

[readmoreoften]

72. Rec. Imagine how many recs this has without the "unreccing crew."

[scarletwoman]

77. It has 94 recs at this time.

Go here to see the "Just Recs" list: http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=greatest_threads&topten=1

[Blue_In_AK]

106. It would have 95 if it wasn't too late for me to recommend.

:hi:

[maryf]

73. K&Rnt

[maryf]

74. K&Rnt

[Karmadillo]

76. Pathetic is an understatement. K&R.

nt

[Stinky The Clown]

78. Isn't "The Progressive Since 1909" one of them lefty, commie, pinko magazines?

[MrScorpio]

80. So the far left should just leave the Democratic Party now because of Obama?

Do we all get our ponies and ice cream for going a "third way" and creating a party that only makes up to 22% of the electorate?

[Djinn]

84. This is the 'question' put to Australian progressives

Over the last 20 years many Oz lefties have given up on the Aust Labor Party because they've become economic rationalist neo-libs. People asked why we would vote Green when their % of the vote was so low. It is now up to 20% and growing. The Greens are the govt in one state and federally they hold the balance of power. Interestingly once the ALP cottoned on to the fact that people could no longer be bullied and threatened into voting for (if you don't vote for us the evil doers will win - nevermind that our policies are 99% identical to the evil doers) they've actually started implementing actual progressive policies. Eventually they might even be a progressive option once again. It's about short term losses for long term gain. We were lectured at for years that 'working within' the ALP was the best way to drag them back from the right however it was only the threat of permanently lost votes that has had some effect on that score

[MrScorpio]

85. Which would be a valid direction for a party in a country with parliamentarian coalitions

But not really in this country.

A split of the Democratic Party between the left wing and everything else would pretty much guarantee that the GOP control the reins of power for perpetuity.

Is that what we really want?

[eridani]

90. The teabagger whackjobs don't let their low numbers stop them from pushing for what they want

They got some of their craziest people elected doing that.

[MrScorpio]

102. Sooooo, let me get this straight...

You're saying that we should emulate a gang of delusional, corporate financed, right wing, bullies, who have irreparably horse whipped a major political party into rejecting a whole slew of its moderates, in a campaign of political distillation that went on to send some 191 proof crazy people into public offices in the halls of our government?

Are you saying that something like this, that's akin to the far left, is a good idea for the Democratic Party?

Please, tell me that you think that really want to left wing teabag the Democrats.

What ever happened to getting left leaning people to the polls?

[Better Believe It]

110. How is the "far left" in the Democratic Party? Who from the "far left"

is in a top White House policy making position or for that matter a Democratic Party policy making position?

Hell, are there even any more moderate liberals/progressives in such positions who are not DLC centrists?

[MrScorpio]

111. That message was addressed to supporters of the Democrats, like those of the left here on DU

And frankly. it looks like a message that says that, if you are on the left, then you have absolutely no business supporting either the President or the Democratic Party.

It's no more than that age old message that we've heard a million times that there is no difference between the Republicans and the Democrats.

Which is, of course, marginalized fringe hogwash.

When I cast my vote for Barack Obama, I knew that he was much more of a centrist than I was... I had actually listened to what he had to say, instead of projecting all of my own tightly held lefty beliefs on him. Now why would I do such a thing? Well it's simple; Because I recognized that Barack Obama was the best person to fix the franchise after years and years of damage from GOP malfeasance and incompetence. I didn't expect him to be some harbinger of a great Euro-style, Social-Democratic paradise here in America. I live in the real world.

I also understood that the greatest danger that Bush and all of the other Republicans before him was the fact that their policies would become precedence and some would likely to be carried on by subsequent Democratic presidents. That trend works both ways, as Republicans are also bound to carry on with Democratic initiated policies. That's how our government works, with continuity that fosters societal stability. Only some loon would have expected Obama to jump in and stop every single GOP initiated policy in order to turn the government around on a swivel.

That's not how things work and it's never worked that way. The President is bound by oath to uphold the laws that are on the books. So, do you want to change all of that? Well there's only two ways to do that; Get Congress to write better laws and get the existing laws thrown out in the courts.

But somehow, we have to hold Obama responsible for the fact that people are scared and went out of their way to blame the people who were in office at the time. That's exactly what happened... Scared people voted their fears.

Think about this, why did so many of the Blue Dogs get the boot this last time? Was it because the Blue Dogs weren't lefty enough? Of course not. The Blue Dogs are all from right leaning districts, so those people there just went with the safe vote and went for the freaking Republicans.

And that is the key to our dilemma... The left's message is not properly resonating with enough people who would go into the voting booth and turn that lever for us. These people are scared, they're scared of change and they're afraid to share whatever benefits that being an American offers with people who are unlike themselves.

Now I ask you, when was the last time that people like the writer of that article did something to actually change the minds of the vote-for-the-GOP-because-it's-safe voter? When did the The Progressive's message resonate to them, instead of just preaching to the choir about the fact that they're not getting their ice cream and ponies without actually working hard and fighting for it? Probably not since the time of Eugene V. Debs. So, what are we getting now? "Leave the Democrats and come on over to the Dark Side. people. You and I will rule the Universe together!"

So you want a leftist agenda to have a place in the halls of government? I know that I do. And the best way to do that is to do what has always worked before, which is to co-op the party that most likely to accept us lefty types as we already are. And that is, of course, the Democratic Party with our Democratic President, rather than abandoning it and let the opposite happen, to the detriment of the Democrats and the benefit of the Republicans.

There is no viable third way right now.

But I'll tell you this, if the Greens, the Socialists and the "Progressives" will ever get up off of their fat duffs and start producing significant numbers in the voting booths to get elected to office and then FREAKING lead, instead of leeching off of the Democrats like that article suggests should happen, then I will listen to them.

But frankly, I am not willing to cut off our Obama noses to spite our Democratic faces, just because we didn't convince enough of the yahoos to vote everyones' best interests.

[jefferson_dem]

119. 22%?

Ha. 10% on a good day. The fringe of the fringe...

[donheld]

81. +1

[LoZoccolo]

82. The Progressive: automatic unrecommend n/t

[Enrique]

97. automatic unrecs are pretty dumb n/t

[LoZoccolo]

98. They seem to be affecting some people. n/t

[Djinn]

83. Progressives should never have invested hope in him

The US electoral system is so stacked against everyone but the obscenely rich it stands to reason that you will never reach the WH unless you put business profits before the interests of the people. There was AMPLE evidence prior to his election to President that Obama would support corporate hegemony. People voted on a slogan - if they looked at his stated policies and voting record it was plain as day you weren't getting anyone remotely progressive.

[Skittles]

89. that's true, but it's all said and done

the question now, is how to we proceed - and giving up hope is, well, never a good idea

[Skittles]

88. can't give up hope

have to have SOMETHING to cling to :(

[jonnyblitz]

91. k & r. nt

[DailyGrind51]

93. "...boost and encourage our business sector.” The $$billions in stimulus wasn't enough?

[oldlib]

94. Business is the problem.

The President and the Democratic leadership should introduce legislation to force CEO's to bring their manufacturing back to this country. I have sent a letter to Senator Barbara Boxer regarding this issue.

[Ganja Ninja]

105. I gave up hope awhile back.

I'm also giving up hope the Democrats will ever move back to the left.

[kctim]

107. A VERY wise man

"some people thought “government was getting much more intrusive into people’s lives.” "

President Obama said he would represent ALL, not just some. This is why he will win re-election without any real problems.

[Better Believe It]

109. Will President Obama represent ALL classes equally and how is that done?

[kctim]

113. IMO, yes

and it is NOT done by favoring one over the other. More importantly though, he acknowledges that the majority of people believe government has become to intrusive and THAT is what caused them to vote as they did in 2010.

[jefferson_dem]

118. Whoa...

Haven't spent much time over in GD in a while. Now it seems all well-reasoned perspectives have left this place.

[old mark]

121. "No Longer"? How about - never? Democrats have yet another waste of time President

and another GOP Lite Administration, now with a GOP-controlled congress and new Red states. Great work in only 2 years, Democrats! Oh, yeah, and the wars will go on longer, DADT is still in effect, more large corporations are moving good jobs to Mexico and the unemployment rate is around 10%.

And the guy who will be heading the environmental committee in the House believes that god promised Noah the earth would last as long as god wanted it to so all environmental concerns are nonsense.

People get the government they deserve - we must have been pretty bad.


mark

[alarimer]

122. I am certainly not voting for him in 2012.

Third party or not voting at all.

I really don't care what happens.

[quinnox]

123. Weak and wimpy leadership will go down to defeat every time

That is what Obama needs to learn from the ass kicking the Dems took in the election.

People don't respect weakness and won't vote for it. They respect boldness and strength, which have been sorely missing from President Obama so far.

Time for Obama to step up to the plate and be a bold and decisive leader, not the capitulator-in-chief.

If he starts giving in to the GOP for the next two years then he will be a one termer for sure as people he is trying to attract will vote for the real republican rather than one who is acting like GOP-lite..