Would ANYTHING worthwhile happen in a second Obama term?

[Ken Burch]

(anything worthwhile, that is, for anyone who actually stood, cheering, with tears in their eyes, on Election Night 2008)

We can assume, now that he's gone Republican on taxes, that he'll be Republican on everything else(as Clinton was after 1994 on everything but the trivial side issues).

Are you ok with settling for that?

Do you really believe we HAVE to settle for that?

Doesn't it bother you that settling for that means giving up our self-respect as a party?

[somone]

1. Nah. Just more bedded bliss in love and bipartisanship with Republicans

[Name removed]

2. Deleted message

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

[Cal33]

25. Oh yes, it is going to be a bad thing. If a Repub. takes over the

White House after 2012, it's good-bye democracy, and hello Corporate States of America!
Bush started to dismantle our Constitution. The next Repub. president will try to
complete the job!

Right now we have a very sick democracy, because corporations have too much power, but
at least democracy is still living. And where there is life, there is hope. If we elect
a strong Progressive after Bush has served his terms, democracy may blossom and thrive
again in our nation.

Does the above sound reasonable to you?

[Scurrilous]

34. ROFL

*deleted*

[Donnachaidh]

3. it will be worthwhile for the elites, at the expense of the middle class

Boehner had a meeting with Randall Terry -- so they are going to go back and *correct* every one of their pet projects. Middle Class, poor and women will be attacked from all sides.

I don't expect the Capitulator in Chief to do much to stop it, either.

[Ken Burch]

4. Well, I did adjust the OP to clarify that I meant "worthwhile for those who VOTED for Obama".

n/t.

[Donnachaidh]

9. and those same middle class, women and poor voted for him

So the answer is a resounding no.

[Pirate Smile]

5. Yeah - Gore = Bush. What could go wrong? No reason to fight for an Obama second term.

:eyes:

Why not let more RW'ers get on the Supreme Court. That'll be great for the country.

People who consider themselves smart can't be this dumb.

[Ken Burch]

13. We weren't going to get any more Court vancies to fill anyway.

Alito, Roberts, Scalia and Kennedy will all live to be older than good. And there's a limit to what "The Court, The Court, The Court" justifies.

It damn sure didn't justify in settling for Clinton's second term.

And it damn sure didn't justify in settling for that "Democratic" president persecuting people on welfare and expanding the death penalty. What else could outweigh THOSE things?

[Pirate Smile]

29. Right. Because we know that for sure so just don't worry about it.

:eyes:

[Ken Burch]

33. Are court appointees worth what staying with Clinton meant?

things like an EXPANDED death penalty and the persecution of poor women?

At some point, there has to be a limit.

[Pirate Smile]

42. Dole court appointees would have been so much better.

:sarcasm:

[Ken Burch]

43. Was a Court appointment worth accepting Clinton's hateful welfare bill?

Obviously, no Court decision could ever be as positive for the poor as that bill was punitive. And we can assume that no Clinton Supreme Court appointee would ever have been confirmed after 1994, so it's moot in that case anyway.

[peace13]

6. Many worthwhile things have come from Obama already.

Are we openly bashing Obama 100% here now. Why bother posting?

[nc4bo]

11. Look, wasn't it President Obama himself that said that we should continue to keep the pressure on

and fight for the values we believed in and we know would benefit every person living in this country?

Did he not tell us that we should not be silent?

Why is it when we give voice to our concerns, we're told and treated like we're retarded, ignorant, radical, noisemaking children that need to be disciplined?

I. don't. get. it.

[Ken Burch]

12. We now know he can't do anything worthwhile in the future

No Democratic president ever did anything progressive after a betrayal of this magnitude in the past. None of them ever even tried.

They just all joined the right, like LBJ did after 1967 or Carter after 1979 or Clinton after 1994.

We had the right to expect some conviction from this man. He's never shown any. He's never drawn a line in the sand. He probably didn't even care that his conservatism lost us Congress.

As to why I'm posting...this is DEMOCRATIC Underground...not Obama Underground.

If I were to defend what he's done here, it would mean I'd given up everything I believe in for the rest of eternity. This really is THAT important.

After this, nothing else matters. There are no remaining issues and there isn't anything on which he could still be progressive.

[peace13]

14. Your route forward is a pecarious one.

You have nothing worth wile to expect for the next two years. Good luck with that. My guess is that if you really feel the way you do about Dem Presidents then you should vote for another party. Just saying that things around here are not really 'Democratic' Underground at all.

[Ken Burch]

15. You couldn't possibly have anything worthwhile to expect from Obama either

Centrism isn't worthwhile. Neither is a "Democratic" president who NEVER stands and fights for his principles.

BTW...did you mean, anything worthwhile AFTER 2012? You couldn't have actually thought anything of value could be done while Boehner runs the House, did you?

[frazzled]

7. In the words of 2010 Nobel Peace Prize winner Liu Xiaobo

“Hatred can rot away at a person’s intelligence and conscience.”

http://thelede.blogs.nytimes.com/2010/12/10/text-of-chinese-dissidents-final-statement/?scp=2&sq=Liu%20Xiaobo%202008&st=cse

[dennis4868]

8. ".....he's gone Republican on taxes"

what does that mean? Are you saying that Obama is for tax cuts for the wealthy? The bill he signed today would never be signed by a republican so to imply that he has turned republican is utter bullshit to the highest degree...if we the people give Obama a fillubuster proof Senate and a majority of Dems in the House in 2012 Obama will not have to compromise with the repubs.

[Ken Burch]

16. If he signed them, that HAS to mean he was always secretly for them.

He couldn't have meant the promise he made if he was ever willing to break it. And we can't possibly ever trust him again now that he HAS broken it.

And there's no way that ONE thing outweighs the surrender to the rich. We both know there's nothing he could possibly do to make up for letting the Bush tax cuts go on(and we both know they'll now be in place forever, given that no one will ever have the guts to get rid of them in the future if Obama didn't have the guts this time).

[dennis4868]

31. so you are saying there is no such thing....

as compromise? Compromise is a give and take....when you give something up in a compromise that does not mean in anyway you want it....just the opposite.

[Ken Burch]

32. There is legitimate compromise, but you have to have honorable people to compromise with

You CANNOT compromise with the dishonorable and the vindictive. Ever. And that's what this was.

[dennis4868]

35. But when the dishonorable people have something...

over you (the fillubuster) you have no choice or there will be collteral damage....there have been many instances in history where countries have compromised with eachother even though they viewed the other as dishonorable (i.e., the Israel/Egypt peacr treaty).

[gkhouston]

10. We have no way of knowing. Feeling lucky? n/t

[Poboy]

17. I think this is what is so devistating. We realize at BEST we have 6 more years of

this impotence, capitulation, and general pathetic incompetence.

[treestar]

18. Depends on the Congress elected at the time

The court appointments would be reasonable; a Republican President would continue the conservative 5-4 majority and increase it. And lower federal courts.

[Ken Burch]

23. God, I am sick of the "think of the Court" argument

That was used to get us to accept Clinton persecuting poor women with kids AND his signing of legislation making it easier to execute people.

There has to be a limit to what we're made to swallow. At SOME point, there has to be limit.

There is no way that the poor, labor, LGBT people, feminists, people without healthcare, and activists for justice deserved this treatment.

[mmonk]

19. Good question.

I dare not answer.

[Lucky 13]

20. We need a primary challenger.

He sincerely believes he doesn't need the support of the "left" and is not representing our interests in the slightest. In fact, he is downright disdainful of any resistance, protest, criticism of his dealings with the GOP or Wall Street. He doesn't want to hear and certainly doesn't care about our opinion.

So my hope is that another Dem challenger steps forward for a primary fight.

Beyond that... what do you suggest? I have seriously considered voting green or independent. I've signed up for the Green Party news letters just to learn more... so that at least my choice in 2012 isn't JUST between "bad" and "worse". But all that really does is allow me to choose between "bad", "worse", and "unelectable".

There are no good options. A serious paradigm shift would be required for any additional choices to manifest. Like the breakdown of the two party system. But I don't know that that could every happen. The parties have too much power... mostly because the parties are just two sides of the same coin.

[Ken Burch]

28. A third-party presidential campaign makes NO sense

The Electoral College makes it impossible for such an effort to succeed.

We need an electoral reform movement(on the order of the Chartist movement in 1840's Britain)to break the stranglehold of the anti-democratic aspects of our electoral system.

We need a fight for Communications Democracy...that is, not only net neutrality, but a democratization of the means of mass communication, so that it is no longer a tool that exists solely to reinforce the messaging of the wealthy.

We also need a serious campaign to organize working people, the unemployed, and the long-term poor in common cause on economic and social issues. Clinton did horrible damage to progressive politics by talking solely about "the middle class" while leaving the poor and labor out in the cold. We have to repair that damage or face permanent ideological minority status.

We have nothing to gain from this party continuing to try to be a party of the "upwardly mobile". What they want from us is a moral fig-leaf...the chance to vote for a party that gives them low-guilt Reaganism. That leaves us with the kind of a mess we're in now. A social conscience and the desire to "make it" don't really co-exist successfully in anyone's mind, since the things people need to do to "make it" force the aspiring, in the end, to get in touch with their inner bastard.

[Lucky 13]

21. dupe

[brooklynite]

22. I didn't become a Democrat for "self-respect"...

I became a Democrat to get things accomplished that I thought were important, and because I thought that the Republican alternative would invariably be worse.

Because I DIDN'T get EVERYTHING I wanted, in the way I wanted it, doesn't change the second point.

In an abstract world, a different Democrat MIGHT get more accomplished, BUT any of the "other" Democrats trumpeted here would either not get elected themselves (based on 40+ years of political activity and analysis) or cripple the President even more. I'll stick with what we've got and work on changeing his philosophy and tactics.

[Ken Burch]

24. It's not about "getting EVERYTHING I wanted"

It's about not always seeing the changes watered-down to nothing or(as in the case of tax surrender) a fiscal situation being created that makes any progressive policies impossible, since all progressive change requires spending.

We don't have to settle for "it's this or nothing".

The tax surrender can't lead to anything positive for anyone but the rich.

[SoCalDem]

26. and a republican senate & house.. We've seen this movie before

the ending sucks:(

[Cal33]

27. I agree. I think many DUers are too emotionally involved right now. Let's

give ourselves more time. Eventually reasoning should take over again.

[Pirate Smile]

30. I wouldn't count on it. It is amazing the dumbass crap people are spewing now.

No one should say the left side of the dial is more rational or reality-based then the crazy right any more. The last 6 months have shown that was just wishful thinking, I guess. It is kind of amazing.

[Ikonoklast]

36. When did that ever happen?

The loons are driving out any thoughtful posters; this is an anti-Democratic site now.



SEE: Below.

[GSLevel9]

37. second TERM?? or second HALF of this term?

No on both btw.

[Pirate Smile]

39. LOL. Why don't we impeach him then. There ya go. Biden's with Obama so he sucks too. Hey, let

Boehner become President. Woo Hoo!!!

DU is just fabulous now.

[Ken Burch]

44. Nobody was saying that and you know it.

You just want us to "re-elect Obama" no matter what. Even if he ends up so far to the right that it can't be worth anything, as it wasn't worth anything to re-elect Clinton, since he was only different from Dole on trivial side issues.

[Pirate Smile]

45. So Dole would have been just as good as Clinton? You really believe that?

[Ken Burch]

46. I believe both of them were abysmal.

There was NOTHING to celebrate on Election Night, 1996. And there wouldn't have been if Dole had won.

We NEVER deserved to have the choice reduced to the worthless nothingburger of that contest.

You can't honestly think it mattered who won between them?

There WAS a difference between Gore and Bush, but not any differences that mattered between Clinton and Dole.

The DLC was a totally negative influence on this party, and it was a disgrace that we ever had a Democratic president whose adminstration bragged about hurting the poor.

[madinmaryland]

38. Would ANYTHING worthwhile happen in a first Palin term?

:scared:

[Ken Burch]

40. Those aren't the only two options

It doesn't have to be Obama, no matter what, OR Caribou Barbie. A Democrat who DOESN'T always cave in could win, too.

We don't have to always play politics on the Right's terms.

[sadbear]

41. Fat Tony might not make it to 2016.

Having Obama name his replacement would be more worthwhile than a republican naming his replacement.

[MilesColtrane]

47. That depends on the makeup of Congress.

[frustrated_lefty]

48. I really fear he'd do more damage than good.

Two years is a long way away, so I'm resting my hopes on the emergence of a viable primary opponent.

[L0oniX]

49. His veto pen will gather dust.