Gibbs has a point....

[uponit7771]

Most who are complaining about how "unleft" the White House has been are UNWILLING to get them the CONGRESSIONAL resources to be more progressive.


For some it's easier to cry in a dark room rather than turn on some kind of light...


Your take?


TIA

P.S. For those who are wondering what those resources are....

FDR 83% dem congress (or senate)
LBJ 69% dem congress (or senate)
BHo 58% dem congress (or senate)

[provis99]

1. The White House is not progressive

They are not going to be more progressive because we give them time and money. End of story.

[Phx_Dem]

2. Thank God for that.

[iamthebandfanman]

20. for someone who seems to dislike progressives..

you still seem to come to a forum where the majority of the people are progressive...


what kind of self hating and loathing existence do you have buddy?

[FrenchieCat]

47. Wether folks are true progressives rather than indirect regressives who use malcontent

to complain about every fucking thing there is, is arguable.

Some here have even joined their teaparty friends in trying
to make us losers in November.

Don't be so naive. This forum is for those who join; no party credentials required,
as long as you can criticize this admin for whatever, you're good to go.

[Exilednight]

52. So "we" can lose? The DLC is not party of my Democratic party. n/t

[Milo_Bloom]

36. And we wonder why the country is on the wrong track.

[uponit7771]

4. Time and money is ALL the resources they need? I'm sorry, have you been even paying half ass'd....

...attention?

[CakeGrrl]

3. It's the schism between

the President saying "I need your help" and some on the Left saying "I voted you in. Now do what I elected you to do!"

The gap isn't closing.

[uponit7771]

6. It seems most who are screeming aren't working to get Obama the resources needed to be more progress

...progressive either.

[havocmom]

5. Huh? We got the WH a DEM majority in BOTH HOUSES

What more do they want? Evidently they don't want to govern left of right of center and they don't want to make good on what they campaigned on.

[uponit7771]

7. SERIOUSLY?!?!?!? You think that's ALL that is needed?!?!?!? REALLY?!

Historically those on DU do NOT have a good perspective!!!

FDR 83% dem congress
LBJ 69% dem congress
BHO 58% dem congress...


See the issue?!?!

[elehhhhna]

10. I see we have a majority and don't frikkn USE It.

that's what I see.

[uponit7771]

14. Again, we need more than a majority...we've needed a super majority for the last 6 months to do....

...ANYTHING

[Ignis]

19. And before the past 6 months?

"Keeping our powder dry" is the usual excuse, I believe. :eyes:

[uponit7771]

24. He was in office 10 months!!!! MY GOD!!!

[Ignis]

30. Oh, no need to be formal; you may call me "Ignis."

So, is an answer to my question forthcoming, or do you not do that sort of heavy lifting?

:shrug:

[elehhhhna]

50. Oh please. Lazy George had the Iraq invasion planned in his first 10 months.

shit was divvied up to the last penny, also, by the way.

[Caliman73]

57. Did the Republicans have a veto proof majority when they gutted the New Deal?

During the Clinton presidency, what was the Republican Majority? Did they have 83% or 69%. Did they have filibuster proof majorities in the Senate from Clinton to through Bush? How is it that they were able to push through all the bullshit they did in those 16 years and the Democratic controlled Congress can't even get decent progressive legislation through?

[havocmom]

25. Yep

A) if the GOP threatens to filibuster, roll out the cots and FORCE them to keep talking. This gentlmen's filibuster needs to end NOW. Make them stand up and keep talking or call the damned votes.

B) POTUS working for DINOs in Primaries when those DINOs will lose in November shows me he not only won't utilize having a majority, he seems not to even want one. POTUS just wants scapegoats for why he WON'T do as he said he would during the campaign.

[havocmom]

12. Seriously, I will not let a DEM president with a DEM Congress off the hook

I have heard enough excuses.

Those who don't get it might consider a CODA* meeting or twelve






* Co-Dependents Anonymous

[sandnsea]

16. Pictures of your Baucus/Tester sit-ins?

Thanks. Look forward to seeing them.

[havocmom]

21. Baucus is the senator I long to primary

Better luck next time. I happen to be in MT and you have no idea what I do in regard to the turncoat.

[sandnsea]

32. Exactly, your Democrats are the damn problem

How dare you bitch about anything until you've got two Senators who are as progressive as Dennis Kucinich. Tester opposed the public option, proposed ending the additional $25 unemployment, opposes filibuster reform, is one of the deficit hawks, and on and on.

YOUR state is the reason we have to compromise on every damn thing.

[uponit7771]

17. So now Obama needing a super majority is an "excuse"?! WOW!!!! Again, some just dont like the guy

[Name removed]

22. Deleted message

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

[uponit7771]

23. So you're saying dems DONT need a super majority to get things done now?!

[havocmom]

26. No, they don't

They just refuse to do it and use the excuse

[uponit7771]

31. Republicans have forced a supper majority on 90 + % of votes, you should pay closer attention to wha

...is going on.

[Atticus]

42. "Republicans have forced" their bullshit on us because we ALLOWED them to do it!

Too many in Congress are apparently afraid to piss off the other side of the aisle.

YOU should pay closer attention---and you should also be aware that your philosophy of accomodating the wingnuts is actually a pro-Republican attitude, although I'm sure that's not your intent.

Right?

[27inCali]

44. you need 60 votes to break a fillibuster in the Senate

Dems have 59 votes. Obama can't sign shit until it crosses that hurdle.

It's pretty fucking straight forward. You want more progressive legislation, we need more Dem votes in the Senate. But I bet your answer is not to vote for Dems and put more Repigs in the Senate -like that is gonna make the situation better?

[Atticus]

54. Amazing. Sad, but ---amazing.

Your insistence that it requires "60 votes to break a filibuster in the Senate" comfirms my point: you insist on accomodating the Repubs rather than showing some grit and leadership and getting rid of this undemocratic relic that the GOP has so thouroughly corrupted to their narrow purpose.

That's only "pretty fucking straight forward" if you are OK with letting the minority dictate terms to us, the majority. I'm not.

Finally, your remark that you bet my "answer is to not vote for Dems and put more Repigs in the Senate" is worthy of Karl Rove or Glen Beck. You have no basis for that remark, but you don't like what I am saying, so you simply make shit up and sling it at me.

I'm a liberal. I'm a Democrat. I walked my first precinct with my precinct committeeman father in 1956 for Adlai Stevenson. The first dollar I ever made was for tacking up campaign posters for Democrats.

Your accusation that I would like to see more Republicans in the Senate is offensive, as is your tone, your choice of words and your obvious inability to marshal facts to support your opinions.

The mildness of this reply is only because of my respect for nearly everyone else who posts here.

[catgirl]

37. What you're saying is beyond a yucky lie

He needs scapegoats? So you think he's happy that the repugs are fillibusting
everything they can? That is the most outrageous comment I've seen on DU.

[Atticus]

34. First, may I suggest where you shove all those sophomoric exclamation points and question marks?

Second, you damn right she's serious. So am I. To say that our majorities in both houses are insufficient to enact our legislation is to buy into the MSM and DLC bullshit that we HAVE to accomodate the Republicans.

It does NOT take 60 votes to get something done in the Senate if we REALLY want it done. The GOP had a smaller majority during the Bush years and still seemed to deliver just about everything W asked for.

Do YOU see the issue? (!?!?!?!?!? if it makes you feel better)

[frylock]

46. all he needs is a super super super majority

FTS

[FrenchieCat]

8. It's not what the want......it's that they need more.

and they are making good on what they campaigned on.....
and the only folks that see it otherwise,
are those who have been complaining from jump street,
about every fucking thing they could come up with.

[uponit7771]

9. AMEN!!! My god, they could'nt have said it more clearer! Some people dont WANT to hear the truth

[bvar22]

38. ?

http://www.thedailyshow.com/watch/tue-june-15-2010/respect-my-authoritah

I don't remember Obama campaigning on Mandates without a Public Option plus Cadillac Taxes.
:shrug:

[Wilms]

41. Yeah. He campaigned on wiretapping and torture.

[uponit7771]

45. ....nor did he complain on being perfect, but if we had a congress that was against torture then...

...there's little Obama would be able to do.

But the far left would rather bitch than get said congress...

[Wilms]

53. Utter BS response/argument. Sorry I wasted our time. n/t

[sandnsea]

13. How are Baucus and Tester voting?

How is it that you people from the states with the Democrats that put up the biggest obstacles, are always the ones bitching about Washington.

FIX YOUR FUCKING STATE, then bitch about Obama.

[havocmom]

27. Tester is an improvement over Burns

What is your problem?

[sandnsea]

33. How come he's not a progressive?

Why isn't he supporting single payer and gay marriage and ending the wars and cutting the defense budget in half??

Hmmm??? Why don't YOU have someone like that in Washington so Obama can get the votes he needs??

Tell me tell me.

What good is "better than Burns" if it's not a progressive? Primary the bastard!!

[elana i am]

18. that dem majority

isn't a progressive one. a huge chunk of it is blue dogs.

progressive direction is not going to happen without a progressive majority.

come on, be real.

[bvar22]

35. "We got the WH a DEM majority in BOTH HOUSES"

More important that THAT was a HUGE Popular Mandate for "CHANGE".
...Pissed away on Bi-Partisan Consensus, Reaching across the aisle, and sensible Centrist Incrementalism.

If Obama had USED his Popular Mandate, there is no telling WHAT we could have achieved.
IF during Tea Bagger Summer Obama had called us to come STAND with HIM on the Capital Steps for Health Care...MILLIONS would have answered the call!

A Manadate Not Used,
IS a Mandate Wasted.

That will be the epitaph for the Centrist Obama Administration.
"A Mandate Unused."

[CakeGrrl]

40. Would that have made the Republicans vote with him?

Without the power of the filibuster, you don't NEED the magic 60 votes.

But when the filibuster's in play, and you have Repubs who have no compunction about using it, and you're saddled with Blue Dog Dems who can't be counted on to support Dems unless you water some shit down, then 60 is a damned tough number to reach and keep a lot of Progressive legislation intact.

[bvar22]

55. Yes. It Would.

Especially if you target 1 or 2 obstructionists and use your HUGE PUBLIC MANDATE to target them in their home states...
especially when polls in their home states indicate a clear majority in support of a Public Option.

YES.
That WILL change votes.

[Wilms]

11. So what percentage is required before we end wiretapping and torture, and, and...?

You get the picture.

TIA

[uponit7771]

15. 83%, same as FDR...next?

[Wilms]

28. And why is that the number? n/t

[havocmom]

29. Go to a CODA meeting

[frylock]

49. that shit ends with the stroke of a pen..

can the 83% shit already, because that will NEVER happen, and if that ain't going to happen then whats the fucking point?

[Caliman73]

58. But LBJ did it with 69%...

The Republicans gutted Glass-Stegal without a 55% majority. They passed Graham-Leach-Bliley with the same percentage, and they passed other such gems without the 83% that you are saying we need. So is it really the numbers or is it the leadership? FDR never had 83% Democratic make up in congress either. Even with the Farm-Labor and Progressive alliance the most he got was 74%. LBJ was famous or infamous for twisting the arms of reluctant congress persons, something that President Obama has not been doing.

We do need more Democratic senators and representatives, but we need much more leadership from the administration as well.

[Bluenorthwest]

39. Except Gibbs said none of that and lots of other bullshit

I have two Senators, Democrats, one freshly sent in 08 via hard work. I have one House Rep, a Democrat. Whoever is not giving them the resources you speak of, it sure is not me, my district nor my State.
How about you? I've got my end covered. Gave them what they need, so I guess that means I am free to speak.
Gibbs is a hot mess, in the wrong job, and he needs to go.

[uponit7771]

43. Gibbs said nothing about resources needed to pass a more progressive agenda? TIA

[woo me with science]

48. Sounded to me like he was ridiculing the desire for a Canadian-style

health care system.

[sandnsea]

56. Uh, checked Wyden's voting record?

He opposed Medicare at 55, praised the treatment of Gitmo detainees, introduced the Lawful Interrogation & Detention Act, opposed habeas corpus for detainees, supported Bush's Healthy Forests, voted for the Medicare Drug Bill, and I could go on.

There are very few Democrats who haven't put in some craptacular votes at one point or other. We could do better than Wyden in the Senate, way better. But this wouldn't be the year to challenge him. We've got Kitzhaber and DeFazio to get elected.

[Exilednight]

51. FAIL ...... My representative is pretty much where I am on the political spectrum. I can't say ....

the same about Obama.

Gibb's is a mouthpiece, nothing more.