I SUGGEST that we who feel the need to criticise Obama's administration

[old mark]

admit that GOP gains in the congress and in the governor's mansions and in other November elections would not in any way improve anything.
I am just saying the differences are pretty obvious - the GOP is so far to the right it would be a disaster for our country if they gained ANY MORE power.

I WILL be voting for Democrats in November, and I already am supporting many of them with my limited finances, even some outside of my own state.

I SUGGEST we put our traditional Democratic differences aside till after the coming election and just support and vote for Democrats in 2010.

mark

[Pisces]

1. I agree

[lsewpershad]

20. Me 2

[Go2Peace]

21. Very few who are critical will not vote for a Democrat.

I don't get why those on this site keep harping and "worry warting" about that. People want this admin to change tactics, but that does not mean that they are not still democrats or that they do not recognize that Republican administrations are far inferior.

Folks would do far better to "worry" about the poor leadership that is essentially loosing the people when our party was handed power on a platter.

The Bush Administration gave the Democrats HUGE political capital, but they have squandered it by not recognizing the shift and what it means, and mealy mouthing, hem and hawing, around.

The sooner we recognize it the better. Because until our leadership grows a spine we will continue to struggle and never get where we need to be.

[elocs]

71. Very few Republicans will not be voting for their candidates either, but concede the middle

and you lose. Enough of the truly middle who may swing either way need to be convinced to support the Democrats. They already hear the constant drumbeat of criticism of Democrats from the Right so hearing it from the Left as well doesn't help the cause. Give them reasons to support Democrats, not reasons to vote Republican.

Anybody who actually believes that Democratic loss of either house will move the party further to the Left really needs to get in touch with reality and stop toking so much.

[geek tragedy]

88. There are several people on this thread indicating

that they would prefer the Republicans to win.

[HankyDubs]

149. No there aren't

Nice strawman though.

[Kweli4Real]

165. My Fear Is That This Sub-set of Democrats ...

won't vote republican; but rather, they will voice their angst by staying home, i.e., not voting. And this will have the effect of voting republicans in.

And then when the sh!tiness of the state accelerates, this sub-set of people will then act all brand new ... refusing to accept their role in the outcome.

[OnyxCollie]

168. Tell me how this works.

"...they will voice their angst by staying home, i.e., not voting. And this will have the effect of voting republicans in."

Business A and Business B have products for sale. Consumer C chooses to buy neither product. How does Business B's profits increase over Business A's profits when Consumer C has given neither business any money?

On edit: Since I don't expect a reply, I'll answer my own question. Both Business A and Business B have partisan consumers, Consumer A and Consumer B respectively. Consumer C is impartial in that, according to research, Consumer C has the least knowledge of what Business A and Business B really stand for, and only makes his decision to buy based on how the businesses treat groups, including the one that Consumer C is a part of. Consumer C is the largest of the three consumer groups, in that weak members of Consumer A and Consumer B are overlapped by the lack of understanding (and therefore strength of ideological constraints) of Consumer C. The strongest members of all groups are also the smallest number of total members of all groups.

All consumers receive information about Business A and Business B (other businesses are virtually ignored or marginalized) from opinion leaders. True educators are few and far between as opinion leaders, so most consumers receive information from non-educators. These non-educators provide information to persuade, rather than to inform.

Neither Business A nor Business B are immune to influence from non-democratic forces, so both businesses must use functionaries and media outlets to provide messages to all consumers to persuade them otherwise. Since these messages are sent to persuade, it will be the most knowledgeable of all consumers to determine the veracity of the claims. The rest of the consumers will use information provided by the non-educators to determine if the treatment of groups satisfies their illogical (yet principled) ideology. There is a preference among non-democratic forces for Business B; however Business A, in a concern for its survivability, realizes that non-democratic forces must be courted, in a give-and-take game of power, that is at odds with the constraints of its charter.

In short, If Democrats lose in November, it will be because: (a) the smartest of the Consumer A group realize they are being lied to and treated like shit, resulting in a decision not to buy; (b) the Consumer B group will have their beliefs reinforced by non-educators with events like Beckapalooza to increase enthusiasm and likelihood in buying; and (c) Consumer C will look at how they have been treated and how other groups have been treated by what non-educators have told them, and will make their decision to buy from the business that serves their interests the best.

Dems either need to get more and better liars, or stop kissing corporate ass and fucking act like Democrats.

[onpatrol98]

177. Good Point!

"Business A and Business B have products for sale. Consumer C chooses to buy neither product. How does Business B's profits increase over Business A's profits when Consumer C has given neither business any money?"

I do think the argument could probably be made, however, if one of the businesses is slated to go out of business, and the customer will be left with the other...it may cause a problem.

If it's republican versus democrat...I think you have to vote democrat. If it's become a matter of personal principle. I understand that as well. Will the worse democrat be better than the best republican? For most of us, that's a fairly easy answer.

But, if we continue to vote for people, who don't do what we ask them to do...over time, wouldn't they just continue to do what they want to do and simply assume they have our votes. At what point, do politicians begin listening to the people again. It clearly isn't when they can get our money, our time, and our vote, and then do the exact opposite of what we'd like them to do. It seems foolish of us to expect a different set of behaviors in that scenario. I think most politicians do...what is politically expedient for them. And, don't do, what isn't?

[Kweli4Real]

276. You keep thinking that way ...

republicans are motivated to vote. When democrats sit out elections republicans win those elections.

Then those same non-voting, but "smartest" democrats flock to sites such as this a whine about the horrors of those horrid republicans.

[Name removed]

277. Deleted message

Sub-thread removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[OnyxCollie]

278. Then those same non-voting, but "smartest" democrats

will flock to sites such as this and say, "We fucking told you so, but you didn't listen."

[dkf]

2. Yes. Maybe less criticism and more discussion would be appropriate.

We still need to understand and dialogue but maybe we can leave some of the more heated verbiage out.

[Enthusiast]

26. If the Administration had done

the correct thing with regard to HCR and financial reform their would have been no criticism. Now President Obama has stacked the Deficit Commission with right wing zealots. If you don't want criticism stop doing the wrong thing!

[donheld]

52. Indeed. If we never criticize

the bad behavior will just continue. Obama said "make me do it" We cannot say we're trying to make him do the right thing if we are total "yes-men and Yes-women"

[sce56]

58. BINGO! We have a winner

[Sherman A1]

62. Precisely

I don't believe that anyone here thinks that a GOP win would make things better. Nevertheless we want things better than they are and seem to be going.

[JDPriestly]

65. I'm with you, Enthusiast. Whether I vote will depend on whether

I find out what is going to happen to Social Security. There are so many things that I am disappointed in that it is just painful to even think about it.

[mzmolly]

162. And the correct thing would have been not to pass anything?

eom

[bc3000]

171. yes

A bad law is worse than no law. With no cost controls, this is a bad law. This bill could end up hurting liberal democrats for decades.

[mzmolly]

184. A good law is better than a perfect

law is more apt. Polls show that the majority of Americans don't want health care reform repealed, so how this bill will supposedly hurt any Democrat is beyond me.

[Enthusiast]

186. The fact that the HCR enacted

is controversial should be enough to tell you it leaves a whole lot to be desired.

It didn't raise your suspicions when the President agreed in secret to restrict re-importation of pharmaceuticals? This is one area where we could have reined in corporate greed and made drugs more affordable for the sick and needy. Since then we have seen a sharp increase in drug prices. Imagine that. Those benevolent corporations let their greed shine through.

Every day corporations grow more bold in their abuse of the consumer and the worker. They know they can get away with it when they have all three branches of government on their side.

[mzmolly]

189. Some create controversy. Obama's birth is "controverisal" as well.

That doesn't mean it's a legitimate controversy. Drug re-importation can be dealt with in different legislation.

[OnyxCollie]

244. We'll fix it later!

After we fix NAFTA, PATRIOT Act, FISA, HCR, etc.

Blather, dismiss, repeat.

[mzmolly]

257. You don't think that democracy is constantly evolving and requires

adjustment from time to time? The founding fathers disagreed when they established the Constitution. That's why we have a first amendment and 26 others.

[Enthusiast]

245. Drug re-importation

won't even be discussed again. Are you kidding?

[mzmolly]

258. No

I'm not kidding. Do you think the world is coming to an end or something?

[SusanaMontana41]

265. "Bad law is worse than no law." Agree 100 percent.

n/t

[mzmolly]

271. Gee Suzana,

you're back with a vengeance huh?

[SusanaMontana41]

178. Totally agree.

I appreciate the OP's "suggestion," but I am as free to criticize this president as I was to criticize Bush. Dissent is a right — indeed, an obligation — that many of us hold dear.

I didn't vote for Barack Obama so he could escalate the Afghan War and bargain away progressive principles to benefit Big Pharma, Big Insurance and Big Oil. Remember Obama telling us to hold him to his promises? I do. He must do better, because my vote is not an automatic for the Democrats. At least not until Democrats begin behaving like Democrats.

I am an Obamapologist no more.

[mzmolly]

190. Did you criticize Bush here?

Or, on Free Republic? This IS a discussion board for Democrats. As such, it's odd to suggest that we should welcome the same critique of Bush and Obama.

[OnyxCollie]

210. Why?

Because you are incapable of believing that Obama can do anything bad?

That's a conservative trait. Perhaps you have more in common with Free Republic than you realize.

On edit: In the Islamic faith, a person can violate all the constraints of what it is to be Islamic, yet they are not considered an infidel until they come out and admit they reject Islam.

So, you can call yourself a Democrat. You can call yourself a liberal. I will respect that. However, if your behavior reflects behavior that correlates with Republican party identification, I will point it out.

This IS a discussion board for Democrats, after all.

[SusanaMontana41]

216. Couldn't have said it better myself.

I defended Obama until I saw Thad Allen carrying water for BP. Who is Thad Allen's boss? That's right: Barack Obama. The man I voted for. The man who said in triumph on that glorious November evening that "change has come to America."

Escalating the Afghan War is not the change I voted for. Boondoggles for Big Insurance and Big Oil are not the changes I voted for. Talk about debts and deficits 10 years from now when the long-term unemployed — of which I am a member — are worried about tomorrow is NOT the change I voted for.

I expect more from this president because he told those of us who voted for him to hold him accountable. That is exactly what I will continue to do.

No hard feelings, mzmolly, but I ain't you.

[mzmolly]

220. No, because I read the name of the board before I joined.

As for my behavior, it reflects a person who's tired of constant critique from the Republican Party (and others), and does not come HERE to read it.

[OnyxCollie]

223. Really?

You must be eisegetic because it says "Democratic Underground", not "Democratic Circle Jerk".

I'm tired of Republican behavior and I don't come HERE to read it from those who lost their way on the liberal/conservative self-placement scale.

[SusanaMontana41]

228. Have nothing to add to such a perfect post.

:)

[Enthusiast]

246. It is perfect, yes.

One of the best.

[mzmolly]

229. You must have missed the user rules?

"Constructive criticism of Democrats or the Democratic Party is permitted. When doing so, please keep in mind that most of our members come to this website in order to get a break from the constant attacks in the media against our candidates and our values. Highly inflammatory or divisive attacks that echo the tone or substance of our political opponents are not welcome here."

It's "republican behavior" to come here and shit on Democrats and later piss and moan when you're called on it. I wont accept this kind of bullying from republics or their "liberal" enablers.

[OnyxCollie]

232. LOL!

It's funny to watch you go around in circles.

"Highly inflammatory or divisive attacks that echo the tone or substance of our political opponents are not welcome here."

Weren't you just telling another DUer to leave? Can't have any contradictory statement enter your closed belief system...

[mzmolly]

235. "Leave"

is not a Republican term.

Again, cheers.

[SusanaMontana41]

236. She did indeed tell me to leave.

It sounded kind of Bush-like.

[mzmolly]

239. I thought you were done? I don't recall telling you to leave. I merely

suggested you find a supportive internet home for your new anti-Obama position.

[SusanaMontana41]

241. And I thought YOU were done! lol!

We both seem to want the last word. Our Dem credentials are impeccable.

My home is DU. I'll chat with anybody but won't agree with everybody. That's the best I can do.

Best to you, mzmolly. Time to take a break.

[OnyxCollie]

225. Bubbles are nice.

They keep out all the scary stuff that you don't understand.

[mzmolly]

262. Trolls aren't.

:hi:

[SusanaMontana41]

266. So someone who disagrees with mzmolly is a troll?

Trip trop trip trop. I'm under the bridge.

[mzmolly]

269. No.

Trolls who quote Rumsfeld, are trolls.

[SusanaMontana41]

217. Are you seriously saying that because I voted for a Democrat for president

that I can't criticize him here?

How dare you.

I'd say those who suggest we march in lockstep with ANY politician should be posting on another board, because that suggestion is hardly democratic (big D or small d).

[mzmolly]

218. No. I'm asking you if you criticized Bush HERE?

And, I'm suggesting you find a place that is open to your critique.

[SusanaMontana41]

219. Of course I criticized Bush here.

Apparently, mzmolly, it's you who is not open to my critique. Put me on your ignore list and save yourself the stress.

I will NOT march in lockstep with my party just because you expect me to.

[mzmolly]

221. I don't expect you to march in lock step. I expect you to find a better place

to vent is all. :hi:

[OnyxCollie]

224. If you don't love America, you can leave.

Where have I heard that before?

[mzmolly]

231. No, if you don't support a particular group, don't join a support group

for said group. This place isn't called "American" Underground.

[OnyxCollie]

243. I support (d)emocratic principles.

In the past, those principles had correlated with the Democratic party. After evaluating the actions committed by the current Democratic party, I see those principles are no longer represented. Do I "adjust" my principles to accommodate torture, indefinite detention, warrantless wiretapping, etc., or do I call out the leaders of the party to do what they were elected to do, i.e. act like Democrats?

I'll leave the former to the ignorant group who see "pragmatism" as a way to combat ambiguity and reduce anxiety. I'll take the latter.

[Enthusiast]

247. Oh baby!

You have a way with words, OnyxCollie.

[mzmolly]

256. In the past, a certain Green Party candidate made the same claim.

If evaluating the actions of the current Democratic Party leaves you feeling less than euphoric, again please find a place to share your perfected, Utopian vision on an continual basis. Skinner started this board with the intention that its membership be generally supportive of Democratic Candidates. You, are not. In fact, your mentality brought us GWB and the torture policy you claim to abhor. MY President is attempting to undo the mess created by the guy you supported either directly or indirectly.

[Name removed]

260. Deleted message

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

[mzmolly]

261. MY simplistic grasp of politics?

:rofl:

"We've entered a higher level of discussion now" Certainly YOU have not entered into any high level discussion. Unless you consider your grade school-esque "circle jerk" analogy and the transparent tactic of quoting Donald Rumsfeld (while claiming to be progressive) uh high level?

[OnyxCollie]

263. You have become tedious and redundant.

You're boring me. Away with you, petulant child.

[mzmolly]

264. Who are you quoting now?

BillO? :eyes:

[SusanaMontana41]

226. You and I will just have to agree to disagree.

As long as my president's policies remain Bush lite, I am obliged to dissent.

I would never dream of telling anyone on DU what (s)he can/cannot post or that (s)he should post elsewhere. Our Constitution is big enough for dissent; surely the tent that is the Democratic Party — and the umbrella that is DU — can handle criticism of Democrats.

I do like your moniker. On that we agree.

:)

You made your points; I made mine. Let's move on.

[mzmolly]

227. I'll move on after I remind people that DU is for those generally supportive

of Democrats. Calling Obama "Bush lite" (which is the same attitude that brought us Bush Jr.) does not sound supportive to me?

[OnyxCollie]

230. Of course it doesn't sound supportive to you.

If you know nothing of policies, seeing others refuse to faithfully root for the home team must be very confusing for you.

[mzmolly]

234. Another non-response

from a person claiming to actually have something to contribute.

Bye. :hi:

[SusanaMontana41]

233. What would you call it?

Does escalation of the Afghan War remind you more of Bush, or is this the "change" you expected when you voted for Obama?

I was an Obamapologist for a long time. I will continue to hold him accountable for his Bush lite policies until they change.

I'm moving on. No hard feelings, mzmolly.

[mzmolly]

237. No hard feelings here either. But I do want to mention that Obama said he was going to

re-focus on Afghanistan when he ran for office. He's simply doing what he said he would. I'm not an "Obamapologist" I'm an educated voter who sees a President carrying out his well stated intentions for the country. If some didn't listen to his clearly stated goals when he ran for office, that's not the fault of the President.

Peace

[SusanaMontana41]

238. Never meant to imply that you are an Obamapologist.

I just said that I used to be but am no longer.

We'll have to agree to disagree on the rest. At least, I will.

Best to you, mzmolly. I mean it.

[mzmolly]

240. I will not show you his clear position prior to the election, but I do encourage you to look it up.

Best to you as well SusanaMontana.

[Mimosa]

253. That's rotten to tell other members to leave!

I support the President when he does something right and criticise him when he messes up. And he messed up health care reform. And God only knows about the BP toxification of the GoM. Or what's in store for Social Security. We must discuss these issues.

[mzmolly]

255. Spare me.

:eyes:

[SusanaMontana41]

267. No worries, Mimosa.

Those of us who expect more of President Obama are still here. And here we'll stay.

[mzmolly]

270. Expect more than what?

eom

[liberation]

67. Obviously "discussion" does not mean what you think it does...

.

[Deep13]

104. Criticism IS discussion. nt

[boppers]

275. Proclamations aren't a discussion.

Criticism can be part of a discussion, but criticism is not discussion in and of itself.

[bkozumplik]

150. maybe more leadership would be appropriate

I'm waiting to start get courted by my own damn side. still waiting.

[MadMaddie]

3. Well said Mark!

Boehner has already come out and said that they will start investigations. That means two years of nothing but investigations.

Also remember that if the Repugs gain control of the Senate that the Repugs will pass bills and Obama will veto them. This country cannot afford two years of absolute stagnation.

Get out the Vote!!

[CrispyQ]

33. On day one, the dems should have started their own investigations.

But no, Obama wanted to look forward. Fine. This is what he gets to look forward to. Maybe if he had taken action against the criminal Bush administration, he wouldn't be in danger of the GOP taking back Congress. :grr: :grr: :grr:

[MadMaddie]

37. I agree with you that there should have been some

investigations. It only emboldened the criminals. I hope that a lesson has been learned. It's still not too late.

[TheEuclideanOne]

69. Actually, Yes it is too late.

That ship has sailed.

[SusanaMontana41]

181. No expiration date on war crimes.

But I agree with you that "that ship has sailed" for the Obama administration, at least. Unfortunately.

[RaleighNCDUer]

172. And why would he veto Republican bills that Republicans send up

when he doesn't veto Republican bills that Democrats send up?

[hughee99]

4. Is it that time again already?

We can't criticize politicians before an election because, however much we disagree with them, the alternative is worse. We can't criticize them after an election because "Jeez, they just got into office, give them some time". There's a middle area there, far enough out from the last election that they've had time, and far enough from the next one that it won't much hurt their reelection chances when it's okay to criticize them. Unfortunately, this happens to be the period of time when they least care what we think, since they don't need us for anything.

Is it okay to continue to criticize those politician NOT up for reelection, or is this sort of a blanket "play nice" for all the elected Dems?

[flpoljunkie]

8. OK to criticize, but the R's aim to Privatize Social Security and Voucherize Medicare

Reasons enough to vote for the 'lesser evil'--let alone extending Bush's tax cuts for the rich and destroying the planet to enrich their Big Energy paymasters.

[hughee99]

15. I'm unconvinced that *'s tax cut for the rich will end

regardless of how the election turns out. Again, all good reasons to vote for Democrats, as I will, but I always find it interesting how the only "good time" to criticize your elected officials is when they don't have to give a F' what you think.

[flpoljunkie]

16. I do share your concerns and sentiments, but we cannot let the R's win back the House.

No way! No how!

[awoke_in_2003]

32. It is Wall Street's aim...

to privatize Social Security- they will get it done regardless of what party a politician belongs to (and all but a handful belong to the Money Party)

[flpoljunkie]

80. Disagree Dems will privatize Social Security, altho agree too many Dems captive to special interests

[pattmarty]

107. No, they'll just "adjustment" it to the point that when the Republicans.....

..............get back in power (and they will again) the people will be so disgusted with what SS has become by then they won't give a fuck if the Republicans privatize it.


LEAVE FUCKING SS ALONE, THERE IS NO PROBLEM WITH IT.


For fuck's sake, that and Medicare is all us peons have left!!!!

[awoke_in_2003]

207. you have a point...

only Nixon could go to China.

[Arkana]

51. No, it's more "Criticize, but do it in good faith".

[bkozumplik]

151. oh *we're* the ones who havent been acting in good faith

You're joking right?

[Arkana]

167. No, I'm not joking.

[Diane R]

5. That would be so refreshing. I'm starting to worry about this circular firing squad.

[whatchamacallit]

6. I admit it but

that won't stop me from speaking my mind.

[MadMaddie]

38. We need everyone to speak their minds

but we also need to work together to make sure the Repugs never come into power again.

[denimgirly]

7. I just wished we had a choice for a party that gave a damn about us.

To me both parties stink. But the lesser of two evils is obvious..vote democrat but seeing as how we have not accomplished anything but give more to the top 1% i am less motivated to go out and vote...and my guess is so is most.

[old mark]

9. I really agree - I find the administration's attitude offensive, BUT

I find the GOP's attitude absolutely insane and delusional and at times scarey, so there's my choice.

I'd rather be pissed at the Democrats than having the right wing marching down the street "taking their country back."

I can be just as pissed at the Dems later.

mark

[pnwmom]

12. +100. n/t

[lark]

158. See, that's the thing

If Obama signs off on significant SS cuts, the seniors aren't going to think that Repugs are worse, they are going to vent their ire at Obama. Without Seniors, Obama doesn't win. What the hell is wrong with the man. He's doing more to make the Dems look bad than the Repugs ever could. He's doing their job! It disgusts me when Repugs run ads about not cutting SS when I know that they really want to KILL it, while Obama who claims to want to protect it - really wants to cut it to shreds. What is wrong with him? Seriously, I'd like to know.

:wtf:

[pnwmom]

11. If nothing else, think about the Supreme Court. The fewer Democrats in the Senate,

the less chance we have that a good Justice will be approved.

[vi5]

13. That does'nt exactly fill me with warmth....

Obama's first pick was a good one. But then he tried to be much more cautious with Kagan as his concern was more who would get less of a confirmation fight than who would be the absolute best justice, and although she has yet to show how she truly will vote there is enough of a deference to entrenched power in her background and writing that it concerns me.

And if he went with such a safe pick when his party still had control (by a fairly wide margin) in the senate then I'm not feeling all fuzzy about who he is going to pick if we only have a 50 or 51 seat majority.

[Pirate Smile]

17. Kagan was confirmed by only 63-37. Please be realistic about the Senate he has to navigate

through to get anyone confirmed or any legislation passed.

The Senate has been the real problem, not the House and not the President.

[vi5]

30. Aversion to any kind of fight or conflict....

That's what I have the issue with.

Bush had a much slimmer majority in the Senate (when he had it at all) and that's even immediately discounting DINO's like Lincoln and Nelson. Even without them we have larger majorities in the Senate than he did at any point, especially when he nominated extreme right wingers like Alito and Roberts.

But Bush nominated them, and then he stepped up and DEMANDED that they be confirmed, and he and every other republican trumpeted from the rooftops about presidential deference on nominees and all sorts of other garbage, until he pretty much DARED the senate not to confirm his nominees.

Same thing with a lot of legislation passed during that same time.

So yeah, if you want me to say "The democrats are and will be better" than fine I've said that. If you want me to say Im going to continue voting democrat then fine, I say that because it's true. But if you want or expect me to say that any of them (including the president) are doing a great job, or that they are doing everything they can in their power to pass good legislation then I'm just not going to buy that because it's patently untrue.

Everyone involved had a choice when we took control of the house, the Senate and the presidency. They could have governed with a strong hand like the republicans did, they could have cajoled and twisted arms in a visible way, and they could have picked a lot of hard and difficult fights over a lot of things. But by and large they didn't. By and large everything they've done has started from a point of "O.K. how much can we compromise and how quickly can we compromise it in order to get the 60 votes "needed" to pass legislation. They could have thrown the republicans words about simple majorities and up or down votes at them and shoved it in their faces at every turn and at every opportunity. But they didn't. They caved at the outset and pretty much entrenched the notion of the 60 votes supposedly needed to pass legislation.

So yeah, again.......I'm voting democratic......the democrats are (marginally) better than the republicans at this point......but my point is please don't expect many of us to be excited about this stuff, and definitely not excited about the prospect of more vague, mushy-middle, possibly very centrist and possibly very pro-corporate and pro-power deference supreme court justices.

[CrispyQ]

35. This John Kerry quote perfectly sums up the current democratic party.

The headline of the story reads:

Democrats, Obama willing to scale back energy and climate change bill

but it could just as easily read HCR bill or financial reform bill.


http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0610/39165.html

snip...

Sens. John Kerry and Joe Lieberman told reporters after the 90-minute West Wing meeting that Obama held firm in his calls for a price on greenhouse gases. But they said the president acknowledged that he could agree to a more limited climate and energy bill than any the senators had previously drafted.

“We believe we have compromised significantly, and we’re prepared to compromise further,” Kerry said.

~ emphasis added

:applause: for your response, vi5.

[MadMaddie]

39. You are correct. There are still 300 bills that have been passed by the House

The Senate is a wasteland. We need more Dems.

[lark]

161. WRONG

The president is the problem - he's the one who stacked the social security commission with people who hate the program and want to cut it, total corporatist who can't stand anythign that helps common folks. Shit, the commission didn't even have to be formed, yet he CHOSE to do so. He could have chosen people who wanted to remove the cap, the logical fix, he didn't do that because he's enthralled with the rich and on their side, not ours.

[bluethruandthru]

272. Bingo!

I really want to hear from Obama about this commission. Why it was formed...why he picked the most rabid SS haters he could find...why the dems of this "bipartisan" commission are the bluest of blue dogs...and why he thinks anything should be done to social security other than strengthing it..and why he thinks that social security is a major cause of the deficit.

[pnwmom]

40. We don't have a "wide margin." We don't have the MINIMUM number of

Senate votes to overcome a filibuster, and we never did.

To say otherwise is to serve the purpose of the Rethugs.

[vi5]

42. Look we can argue this until we're blue in the face.

How many republicans were in the Senate when Alito and Roberts were confirmed? Was it 60? 61? Refresh my memory on that.

A majority is 50 votes. We have 59. Even being generous about the lost cause of conservadems we have 55.

Bush had far less than that and was able to get through 2 right wing extremist judges, because he fought and his caucus fought and fought and fought and challenged and challenged and challenged. They talked and screamed endlessly and day in and day out about "simple majorities" and "up or down votes".

Our side didn't do that. Our side didn't even TRY to do that. At all. They didn't even ATTEMPT to address the ridiculous number of "fillibusters" that have been waged. They have sat back and they have taken it and they started from a position of compromise.

So o.k. yeah, boo hoo we don't have enough to overcome a fillibuster. Fine. But let's not fool ourselves into thinking anyone involved here did everything within their power and effectively made a case for, or fought for any of it because they didn't.

Again, I say: Fine, I'm voting for dems. Fine, yes I'll go on record as "It would be much worse with republicans in charge". But please do not try and sell me that our democratic and house majorities and a democratic White House have done everything they can and fought as hard as they could because the facts just do not support that.

[pnwmom]

45. Until now, there has never been a period where the minority party filibustered

-- or threatened to filibuster -- virtually every initiative and appointment that came down the pike. Yes, some Democrats helped to confirm Alito and Roberts. But that was in a different era. Until Obama became President, filibusters were rare; now almost everything has to get past that obstacle.

And there is nothing they can do about the "ridiculous number of filibusters" you mention. Not until a new Congress, when the rules may be changed. That will be a good time to pressure the Senate, assuming it's still in Democratic hands.

[vi5]

46. The way Bush/Republicans did it....

..was to go on the offense. Before someone was even nominated they were talking about filibuster abuse (even though it clearly was not abuse) around the clock. They were speaking loudly and forcefully all the time about it.

Democrats and Obama have not.

And the fact is that the right-out-of-the-gate compromise has been going on since very early in this administration's tenure. So yes, now it's very easy to talk about the unprecedented number of filibusters. But they were caving and compromising even before it reached fever pitch.

If early on they were swinging for the fences and coming out strong and fighting rather than asking before the word "Go!" what they could possibly compromise or give up and then eventually just played with the hand they had then I could see that.

But they didn't. They started with compromise and capitulation, and the republicans and conservadems sensed weakness at the outset and exploited it accordingly. If they showed strength and fortitude and solidarity early on and a willingness to twist arms in their own caucus to get things right then maybe the conservadems would have realized they couldn't get away with their childish tantrums, and then republicans would have realized they can't get away with complete obstructionism.

But instead it was made clear early on that bipartisanship and compromise was going to take priority over strength, and good democratic legislation. And that was blood in the water. So yeah, republicans deserve every bit of blame for the legislative and political bloodbath we have in this country. But as of January 2009 Democrats deserve some blame for handing them the metaphorical gun they've used for that slaughter.

[pnwmom]

47. I wish, as you do, that Democrats were handling this better. I think they keep hoping

for a return to the old days, when people like Hatch and Kennedy could actually be friends. I don't see those days returning, though.

[vi5]

49. Yeah, I agree.....

I really do think that's what it is. I'm not (or I try not to be) a conspiracy type guy and think that the fix is in, or that it's all just cut an dried money corruption. But I'm not sure that thinking it may just be naive gullibility makes me feel all that much better about it, especially since as you said the good old days aren't coming back any time soon.

[RaleighNCDUer]

179. Then LET THEM FUCKING FILIBUSTER.

Let the Republicans grind the process of government to a stop.

When nothing comes out of the congress at all because of Republican obstructionism, will the public blame the Democrats or the Republicans?

Is it better to enshrine in law bad policy with long reaching consequences, just to get things passed, or to do nothing at all?

Caving out of fear of a filibuster does nothing but empower the minority.

DON'T COUNT THE VOTES! FORCE THE VOTES!

[pnorman]

18. we do have a choice; several in fact!

But this country is as Two Party as it can possibly be. So can we risk giving giving the neo-Dixiecrat the edge they're so desperately striving for at this particular time?

[w4rma]

57. We do when you consider that the Democratic Party actually consists of two separate parties.

A progressive party that is being dominated by a big business party (due to this DLC administration), with both being liberal on social issues.

So, pick a side within the Democratic Party and protect and expand it. You can bet that the DLC is doing the same thing.

[Sherman A1]

63. Agreed & Well Said

[vi5]

10. I will always vote the lesser of 2 evils....

...but will not stop saying that the direction that the democratic party has drifted and continues to drift is in fact rooted in evil because it is. It is a distinct and clear rightward drift rooted in Republican advocated trickle down supply side economics and a pro-corporate bent, and it is prevalent in not just the blue dogs and the conservadems like Lincoln, and Baucus, and Nelson but also in many who at one point have not been so corrupted. And that includes many who the president himself has chosen to surround himself with and put in charge of major government positions that affect so many of the poor and middle class.

So yes, I will acknowledge that the GOP would be worse, but that is iced cold comfort given the state our country is in, and many on "our side" are just as culpable.

[old mark]

27. Again, no argument - still, the more we can do to get fewer republicans, the better -

To me, it has become that simple.

We have a lot of DINO's right now, and that will be a problem, but I see no advantage to having fewer nominal Democrats in power.

Even a bad Democrat is much better than any living republican.


mark

[jefferson_dem]

14. Good post.

:kick:

[Milo_Bloom]

19. To be honest... I am torn.

We went through HELL with bush in office... endless wars.. corporate give aways and it led to its logical conclusion.

A completely out of control economic bubble that came crashing down, taking most of the world with it and nothing to show for years and years of wars except for death and destruction.

All of this finally led to my dream scenario... Democrats being swept into office in amazing numbers, riding a wave of popularity and hope.

I supported Obama strongly in the primaries.. donating $$, time... spending countless hours convincing people he was going to do the right thing. As the election drew near, I became very skeptical, based on his choice of VP who strongly spoke out for and voted for the IWR in 2003... so I voted green in a safe state to let "them" know where my true priorities were.

When Obama was elected, I celebrated (actually on a party broadcast live on the internet where tens of thousands of people tuned in to watch!) I didn't expect MIRACLES.. I knew single payer wasn't a real option... I didn't expect them to tackle corporate personhood (one of the biggest reasons for our problems) in any significant way.. BUT I did expect some real SOLID progress.

I have watched opportunity after opportunity get completely squandered. We COULD have had a public option, we COULD have had an energy bill with cap and trade (which would have done WONDERS for the economy, since it would create a whole new marketplace!) We COULD have had REAL, EFFECTIVE wall street and credit card reforms, but everything was weakened to the point of near pointlessness. We didn't even return to regulation pre Clinton! We wound up with some type of watered down Clinton deregulation that won't prevent another meltdown, but gives us the incorrect sense of security!

Worse, where I actually thought bush was just stupid and didn't know what he was talking about... I actually believe Obama is HIGHLY intelligent and knows better when he lies to us about the effects of legislation... lies is a harsh word... let's say SPINS. For example, I don't believe Obama can't see the giant loophole in the 85% profit rule in HCR... I don't believe Obama can't see the giant loophole in credit card reform... so when he says, "Banks will no longer be able to charge an inactivity fee", he knows full well they can change it to a "membership fee" and simply waive it based on activity, thereby creating the IDENTICAL fee with different wording.

So I wind up torn... do we reward democrats with 2 more years as a thanks for squandering what was the greatest chance in our generation to enact REAL, EFFECTIVE change?

orr... do I take an, I don't care position and hope that IF republicans get in, they spend the next 2 years doing investigation after investigation and tying up ANY progress and HOPE that in 2012 the American people, completely frustrated by the republicans lack of ANY substance, hand us a second chance at huge majorities and that this new group of representatives LEARNS from the mistakes of the previous chance and actually uses the opportunity to enact REAL, EFFECTIVE change???

[mitchtv]

22. generally I am with you

I will not vote for Ca Dems who voted against marriage equaity when they had the chance. That is one only, who is coincidentally a Corporate dem.Dems like that have to go. That may be OK for some states but here it should be the kiss of death

[geek tragedy]

87. The idea that the Republicans winning would help advance a progressive

agenda is a fairy tale, a fantasy, and is less likely than Obama being born in Kenya.

[Milo_Bloom]

129. But.. didn't it already happen to a large extent?

Do you think democrats would have been swept into office in such overwhelming numbers in 2006/2008 if the republicans hadn't had control between 2001->2005 and done such a terrible job?

Secondly, it doesn't seem that putting Democrats in office has helped advance a progressive agenda either.

So what is left?

[russspeakeasy]

111. Thanks for saying what I was thinking...

We threw Mr. Obama a nice catchable pass in the endzone and he
dropped it...

[JoePhilly]

23. Agreed ... fight in the primaries, stand together come election time.

Gain some ground, hold it. Gain some ground, hold it.

Argue priorities and tactics internally during the primaries, then fight the true enemy (the GOP) when the elections come.

Any other approach ensure that the GOP gets back in power every few years.

[Enthusiast]

24. I agree.

We don't need a more Republican makeup of our legislation. The problem all along has been the Administration's reluctance to take a left position on issues. We certainly don't need to exacerbate the situation by electing more Republicans.

[Aramchek]

25. some people would rather be pissy than intelligent.

[old mark]

138. Gosh! You certainly can't mean LIBERALS!!!!!

:rofl:

mark

[bkozumplik]

153. and some people will take any abuse that comes their way

and say, "thank you sir, may I have another?"

[Hissyspit]

28. So it was acceptable to be discussing critically

immediately after the 2008 election even though people were told not to criticize because it was TOO EARLY and then told not to criticize a year later because it was UNDERMINING STRATEGY and then were told not to criticize two months ago because it would ludicrous for us to think that McCain and Palin would be better and now we need to stop discussing critical points because of the midterm?

What will be the reason we should all shut up immediately after the mid-terms? Let me know the scheduling logic this time so I can keep it straight.

[old mark]

36. HS, as far as I am concerned, you can criticize them all you want - they certainly deserve it.

I have little respect for many of this administration's machinations and their obvious dismissal of the left.

But I will vote for Democrats over republicans every chance I get.
I will continue to give Obama and his gang hell as I see fit.

And I hope you will as well.

mark

[LostinVA]

201. Who on here has advocated voting GOP -- except for the Cristos?

[vi5]

43. Last I checked I believe the threshold is....

..when democrats have 100 seats in the Senate, then we're allowed to criticize any of them for anything.

Although then I'm sure the goal will be moved yet again and we'll be told that until government is overhauled to allow 3 senators from each state and that they all have to be Democrats that "Well, you know that's just the way it is. We just really can't do that much about it with the Senate we have. Would you prefer McCain and Palin?!?!?!"

[geek tragedy]

89. Would you prefer Boehner or Pelosi?

That is your choice.

Would you prefer Republicans having absolute power over which social safety net programs get funded, and having the ability to defund every single good thing about the health care reform bill while leaving the bad parts in place, and having the ability to defund the EPA's efforts to finally start implementing climate change regulations?

The crew that would take over the House makes John McCain look like Karl Marx.

[vi5]

174. Then why doesn't everyone just admit....

..this is as good as it gets, and it's really not very fucking good. At least if people were honest about it then I wouldn't be so bent out of shape.

But in 2000 a lot of people, including myself ranted and raved at all the Naderites and everyone else who were speaking of the democrats as only being"lesser of 2 evils". I screamed my fool head off at those people.

But essentially now, the best most people can muster up is "Well they're better than the republicans." as justification for continually lowering the bar for what should be expected from the democratic party.

So basically "the lesser of 2 evils" has become the democratic party slogan, and as a lifelong democrat who has been voting straight ticket dem, and donating, and working for democrats to get elected for almost 25 years now, I'm done doing anything other than halfheartedly pulling the lever for the lesser of 2 evils because I recognize that's true. Pathetic, but true. And I know most in my family feel the same way.

So if the party faithful wants to think this dissatisfaction and disgust only a fringe portion of hardcore leftie activists, then they are sorely mistaken.

[geek tragedy]

86. People have been bitching up a storm about the Democrats

since well before Obama's inauguration.

During election season, it's time to pick a side. Elections are zero-sum, with us or against us affairs.

The people who refused to support Obama and Dems during the 2008 election got their sorry asses kicked to the curb, and that should happen again.

[bkozumplik]

155. who exactly got kicked to the curb?

Obama's progressive staffers all did. His finance advisors were all for show. Even Volker got kicked to the curb. Anyone not far middle right was kicked to the curb.

You can try to argue what it means, but thats what happened.

[Bluenorthwest]

29. Ponder the fact that I will be voting for Democrats who

criticize Obama's administration when such is called for. We have also heard the President criticize all of the Democrats we will send back to DC.

[TBF]

31. Will all due respect Mark, these are not "traditional democratic differences" -

our party has been hijacked by the DLC.

[Exilednight]

34. There's a difference between supporting a party and a person ..................

I support my Congressman and one of my two Senators. One of my Senators is up for election. I refuse to support Gillibrand and will be supporting a third party candidate. I find it impossible to support anyone with a 100% voting record with the NRA, she might call herself a Democrat, but she doesn't act like one.

Sadly, my district is purple and can swing either way, so I am stuck supporting the Rep I have since we probably can't do much better in terms of ideological view. Bishop is about as far to the left as the NY 1st is ever going to get.

[liquid diamond]

41. I've been saying this for months. However, there are those

here that would rather see the repigs get back into power than to vote for a party that does not do EVERYTHING they demand. I appreciate you being realistic.

[grahamhgreen]

134. Realistic would also be admitting that we could get more votes by enacting more progressive ideas.nt

[Kurt_and_Hunter]

44. I admit nothing

What's with the loaded language?

I state that GOP gains in the congress and in the governor's mansions and in other November elections would not in any way improve anything.

Why would that constitute an admission?

[geek tragedy]

110. The statement does not apply to sane people like you.

It's the ones in this thread repeating the old chestnut that letting the Teabag-led Republicans win in 2010 is what's needed to usher in true progress.

[saracat]

222. I haven't seen that malarky stated anywhere.

[martymar64]

268. Please cite and link to who said that and when and where they said it

Otherwise, I suspect you're just propping up a strawman.

C'mon Dude! You're making that assertion, time to link or slink.

[Skittles]

48. just because we know things could be worse

does not negate the fact that things should be better

[hulka38]

50. The greatest lessons may be learned from setbacks and defeats.

Whatever happens, let's not fear the future. The future isn't only the short term but what happens afterward. We have the power to make a better, more representative and courageous party regardless of the outcome.

[MadHound]

53. Long term or short term gains?

Yes, in the short term we gain nothing. But in the long term we might actually get the ear of the party. Which is all people are asking for, a voice in the party, a place at the table.

[geek tragedy]

83. No, the left would become even less relevant--the entire party

would lurch to the right--just as they did after 1994--in order to pander to white centrist Independents who want the deficit chopped immediately.

Anyone who wants the Republicans to control Federal Spending for the next two years needs to leave DU, period, since they obviously do not care about their fellow citizens--the ones who would lose their social safety net, jobs, environmental protections, green jobs initiatives, etc.

No exceptions.

[MadHound]

93. Why would the left become even less relevant?

The entire party has already lurched to the right, has been for the past quarter century. Sorry, but your argument simply doesn't hold water since the dire predictions you are making are already in effect.

Oh, and you don't get to determine who stays and who goes here at DU, you are not an admin or mod, you are simply another poster in the passing crowd. Deal with it.

[geek tragedy]

100. Site rules: Advocates of Democratic defeat absolutely forbidden.

"You are not permitted to use this message board to work for the defeat of the Democratic Party nominee for any political office. If you wish to work for the defeat of any Democratic candidate in any General Election, then you are welcome to use someone else's bandwidth on some other website.

Democratic Underground may not be used for political, partisan, or advocacy activity by supporters of any political party or candidate other than the Democratic Party or Democratic candidates. Supporters of certain other political parties may use Democratic Underground for limited partisan activities in political races where there is no Democratic Party candidate.

Do not post broad-brush smears against Democrats or the Democratic Party."

If you want the Republicans to win, you are against us. If you are against us, you will not be allowed to stay here and will be treated as a hostile.

If you continue to advocate the Democrats losing in the fall, you will get your ass banned.

And you certainly can't describe yourself as any kind of Democrat. Advocate the Republicans taking control, and you're functionally a Republican, protestations to the contrary notwithstanding.

[MadHound]

140. In other words you either can't, or won't answer my questions

I understand, the answers are ones that you don't like. But trying to be a rules lawyer, well, that's just lame.

Oh, and stating that people are Republicans is against the rules as well. But then again, in your case, it all comes back to that whole concept of being lame.

[geek tragedy]

148. The idea that letting the Republicans win would be good for America

is not only against site rules, it's also completely moronic and flies in the face of history.

Parties lose elections when they lose the center and independents. They move rightwards ater doing so.

It is anti-progressive, anti-GLBT, anti-black, anti-union, anti-environment, anti-worker, anti-woman, anti-Democrat, and anti-humanity to root for Republicans to control Congress.

People rooting for Republicans to win in November are the enemy--without a single exception. They can and will be treated like Freeperscum.

[MadHound]

251. An idea is now against the rules?

Hmmm, looks like the mods and admins disagree with you, since the post is still up after almost twenty four hours.

First of all, you are twisting my words to fit your vision of what my idea is. Secondly, you're not an admin or mod, you're just another poster like me. You have no power to say who comes or who goes. So take your rules lawyering and shove it. You are not worth having a discussion with anymore.

[TheKentuckian]

54. Your stance is a license for the party to do as they please. You state that you'll be calling

them out and holding them accountable but that irregardless your vote is in their pocket.

That means it makes no difference ho much noise you make, its just hot air.

Well, my vote is not in the bank, in the bank it has no power at all other than a rubberstamp on bad policy.

Your calls, letters, and cries are of no importance because you aren't willing to do anything about, that's not power but a cage.

[urgk]

81. So, the only way to effect change is through vote coercion?

Really? That just doesn't seem like good policy.

[TheKentuckian]

92. We have no shortage of poor policy, nothing new there.

You tell me how to move politicians other than by votes or money.

Under the paradigm described, what is the politicians motivation for different behaviors? If they can do whatever they please and expect noting other than complaining from sure voters then they'll just tune out the noise and continue business as usual.

You have neither stick nor carrot. That's not smart and is not operative anywhere else in reality.

No it isn't the only way but it is a tool to be used to keep the rockheads in line.

[urgk]

96. This is the problem - you may have to carry through on the threat.

In the end, you're forced to withhold votes on an issue by issue basis. Say Obama gets Elizabeth Warren to stand up for us against Wall Street, but doesn't end DADT (which I think, beyond all question, needs to go). There will be those who have to carry through on the threat not to vote and end up with some jackass in power that hurts the country in ways that inaction on any group of issues can't possibly hurt it. OR, we have to suck it up and vote D anyway and lose any credibility our coercion might have had.

I just don't think it's a smart strategy.

How do we convince them otherwise? How about running against them? Not just withholding votes, but voting for the person who will do the right thing. Once it's down to one D versus one R, it's asinine to give it to the Republican. But in the primaries, where we can show real support, that's where we have the leverage.

Or...Money. Like the kind Alan Grayson is getting for doing the right thing. We put our money where our mouths are and feed politicians like dolphins. Every time they show the cajones to do the right thing, we send them $5, $10, whatever we can afford. What if politicians became wealthy for doing what's good for the American people instead of the corporations? It's worth a try.

[TheKentuckian]

113. I make no threats, it is a commitment if you fail to represent me then no vote

I cannot compete against Goldman Sachs, BP, and Humana with bribes nor can you nor can even all of us combined.

Your suggestions to effect change are the status quo. You may as well have posted "How we fix the problem is doing what we do now and voting Democratic party no matter what they do come November".

[geek tragedy]

114. We live in a Democracy. What is consensus at DU is not

a centrist position in the United States.

If you do not like the policy positions of your fellow citizens as represented in Washington, change your fellow citizens' minds so that they don't elect people like Michelle Bachmann and Jim Inhofe.

If you want Democrats to be bold and progressive--make those positions the popular ones with the masses of voters out there.

Instead of bitching about Democrats in DC, try persuading your fellow Kentuckians to not elect rightwing assholes like Mitch McConnell and Rand Paul because their ideas are horrible.

[TheKentuckian]

121. I will do as a see fit. My conscience is clear regarding my efforts to elect the right people

in this Commonwealth and around the nation.

I find your commentary empty. It is certainly void by its failure to assess reality in its accusations.

It is not my job to function within your perceptions but my own.

I need neither your permission, approval, or consent to use my votes and my voice as I see fit.

[geek tragedy]

125. In your private life, sure.

But advocating letting the Republicans win around here is not acceptable per site rules. It is an offense against the entire community, and nation for that matter.

[Name removed]

127. Deleted message

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

[urgk]

194. Does the status quo say to find good, honest, electable progressives?

No. I didn't think so. How about this - except for a handful of admirable congressmen and wome, I'd be happy to replace every one of our elected Democrats with better Democrats. But under no circumstances will I be voting for a Republican out of spite.

And I stand by my point. Denying votes in the general election to let the Republicans win just isn't smart.

[TheKentuckian]

199. Thanks for sharing your opinion

[urgk]

213. That was actually a question.

It had one of those curly things with the dot under it right at the end.

[LostinVA]

202. WHO has EVER advocated voting Republican on here?

Except for the Crist boosters???

[urgk]

212. Sorry. I meant "non-voting" for a Republican. (n/t)

[LostinVA]

248. This doesn;t even make any sense

If you are saying that someone not voting is the same as voting for a Republican, that is ludicrous.

[urgk]

250. No, but it works toward the same end.

If you vote for a Democrat, it either cancels out a Republican vote or puts us one ahead.

If you don't vote, it does neither.

[pecwae]

280. No one,

but I've seen this type of accusation repeated on other boards until it's accepted as truth. It starts with a response to some criticism with, "You'd rather see President Palin?" That stupid question gets posted enough and suddenly the 'reason' it's being asked is because there are so many posters who are going to vote Republican. And it's snowballing here.

[Smashcut]

143. "Vote coercion"

:rofl:

What spin.

What do you think voting is for?

[urgk]

195. Pouting. About stuff we didn't get. By staying home.

And you?

[LostinVA]

203. The use of "pouting" this way is against the rules, as per Skinner

It is not allowed to be directed at fellow posters.

[urgk]

209. Oh, it's not being directed at anyone.

I'm using it to describe a type of "voting."

Let me be clear, I am assuming that nobody in this site would undermine the party that way.

[geek tragedy]

84. If you find Republicans winning in November to be acceptable,

you do not belong here.

Period.

Dissent is one thing--welcoming the destruction that the Republicans would bring is quite another.

[TheKentuckian]

95. I don't find it acceptable by any stretch, nor is it acceptable to have politicians with no

motivation to serve their people.

By making your vote a certainty, you cede power to influence power.

If your vote is an entitlement than you don't belong in the electorate at all because your vote is that of a thrall, your idea of democracy is a distortion not so different than voting for a dictator running unopposed.

If your vote is not conditional then it isn't a vote at all but a rubberstamp approving of what is done in your name.

[geek tragedy]

101. You will have to decide that fairly soon.

It's not allowed to advocate defeat of Democrats in November.

[TheKentuckian]

115. Decide what soon? I'm not advocating any defeat and you are a mistaken if you claim such

I said that my vote is not an entitlement program. If you consider that advocacy then I'd advise a dictionary.

What I do advocate is victory for the people of the nation, if you are against the people then you are a traitor.

[geek tragedy]

119. The people are going to vote in November.

So, the people 'will win' by definition.

[Name removed]

122. Deleted message

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

[geek tragedy]

123. "Now piss off before you raise my ire."

Hee hee, apparently it's too late.

[TheKentuckian]

128. Nope, you'd be surprised. I consider you an annoyance at most.

Nobody likes me when I am truly angry, including myself. I'd hate to go there but you don't always get what you want.

[urgk]

196. Thinly veiled threats?

Or just bluster? I think those are the only two choices, but there may be a third.

[TheKentuckian]

197. I am capable of communicating exactly what I wish to convey, I can't help with processing issues.

[urgk]

211. "I am capable of communicating exactly what I wish to convey..."

Okay, I'll take you at your word, but are you actually doing it now? Or is this one of those semantic parlor games? Like "There's a cabin in the woods. Everybody in it is in a chair dead. They weren't poisoned, shot, stabbed or otherwise murdered. How did they die?"

Because if it is...that's tricky.

[Swede]

254. Hulk smash!

[urgk]

259. No, those are purple denim-clad threats.

:-)

[hulka38]

193. You're either with President Bush or with the terrorists. Fall in line.

Same authoritarian stench all over this thread. What makes you think liberals will buckle under now when we didn't in 2001 - 2004 when the pressure was heavy, real and relentless? You think you're applying pressure. It's the minor leagues.

[Smashcut]

142. +1000

[HughMoran]

55. Of course I will be giving to Dems as much as I can

...and voting for Dems. Heck, the people I can vote for are great Democrats - why wouldn't I vote for them?

[w4rma]

56. If the GOP gains at the expense of the DLC, then things will improve.

The DLC is a cancer inside the Democratic Party that is killing the host. The DLC needs to be purged, no matter what.

Just spend resources on non-DLCers in competitive races. Ignore the DLCers, they want to get their money from big business anyway... So, let them.

[geek tragedy]

85. Only idiots and Republicans think that Republicans controlling

Congress--with Michelle Bachmann as a committee chair and with John Boehner as a speaker--will improve things.

[FredStembottom]

59. I agree wholeheatedly!

We need to live to fight another day. And that fighting takes the form of giving money to INDIVIDUALS only in the primaries.
I did this with Virg Bernaro in Michigan because he talks of stopping outsourcing. I gave even though I am here in Minnesota. That's the ONLY contributions I made this season.
1 guy, SOMEWHERE in America talking genuine progressive values.

AND. HE. WON!!!!

And I feel good for a change.

[demodonkey]

60. Get out and Vote DEMOCRATIC in November....

...K & R this post!!!

[earcandle]

61. I agree on the President, but lets cut loose some of those Senatators and Reptiles.

[geek tragedy]

103. The President is not on the ballot.

The replacements for any 'bad' Democrats will be evil Republicans.

[JDPriestly]

64. Here is my problem.

I don't think that Democrats can win without the help of people like me to register voters, etc. But -- I just cannot defend what Democrats have done. In particular, the giveaways to banks and the lack of help to homeowners are just two policies that are downright reprehensible. Then there is the fact that the Obama administration has done nothing to prosecute people that I really believe did criminal acts in the Obama administration.

Sure, I can vote, but even that will be an act of utmost hypocrisy.

If we always vote for the better of two evils, how will we ever get anything good?

[eridani]

66. What to do about the Democrats who don't give a shit about the little guy

Primary the bastards until we get good enough to turf more of them out. There are no third parties (with the exception of parties like the Working Families Party in states where fusion voting is legal) that take voter contact and elections seriously.

[TheEuclideanOne]

68. With all due respect.... IT IS NOT ABOUT YOU!!!!

Sure, you are a voter and every vote counts, but what is significant is not what who we here at DU vote for. Obviously a large majority of the folks here will vote for Democrats, knowing what the alternative is. The more important narrative is in what we are seeing with regards to how the next election will turn out. We are seeing such an opportunity cost wasted and realizing that with each mistake that Obama makes, he throws thousands upon thousands of votes away and there is nothing that we can do to stop it. The only thing that we can hope for is that he starts making decisions the way that Senator Obama would have. If he doesn't, assuming that it is not too late already, it wouldn't matter if everybody at DU agreed to vote 'D' across the board, the other 300 million people will vote based on the outcome of his decisions. At a certain point, it becomes train crash where we can do nothing but watch.

[old mark]

74. No respect is necessary - I agree that at times Obama has been his own

worst enemy, but what I am SUGGESTING is that voting for Democrats will have a better outcome FOR THE WHOLE COUNTRY than voting for republicans or not voting at all.

If you want to sit idly by and watch the train wreck, enjoy it, but don't bitch about the outcome if you didn't participate.

mark

[TheEuclideanOne]

78. Did you actually read my post?

Hey, no problem. You have your point that you want to make, so just keep repeating it. I won't get in the way by trying to suggest anything that suggests anything other than the point your are trying to make, so no matter what anybody says, just keep repeating back "vote for dems and not republicans".

[Bluenorthwest]

106. You failed to address so many posts to you in this thread

Loaded language and the lexicon of a bully, these are in fact the traits I despise in the current leadership and those that wish to bully for them.
The President is opposed to equal rights for minorities he thinks an invisible being does not like. That IS the President, a man with prejudices against certain groups of people. Thankfully, I do not have to vote for that this year. I get to vote for Democrats Obama does not like much, liberals whom he criticizes openly, loudly, while he calls the GOP honest brokers and that sort of thing.
The lack of respect in your OP and the lack of responses to that OP, it is the definition of the conservative thinking side of this Party. Shout at others then run for cover. Gibbs would be proud. McClurkin would sing for you!

[Scuba]

70. I will also vote for Dems, the near-right being better than the far right.

[deacon]

75. You could say near right compared to the insane right. n/t

[Scuba]

118. I don't think the manipulators are insane. They are...

...cold, calculating and greed-driven. While some of their followers may be insane, I believe most are just dupes.

[kuroman992]

72. sorry guys, but i wont vote for a republican.

you can shape it any way you want. but i am sick of settleing for the lessere of the two evil right.
ill vote my consience

[creon]

73. vote democrat

I intend to vote Democrat. I live in a safe GOP state and a safe GOP congressional district. But, I will vote Democrat. I think Congress did a poor job of writing legislation; and, the WH did a poor job of managing Congress. Both will hurt prospects for the election. The important matter, though, is the economy. We have a serious recession and people are having a lot of trouble. People will tend to blame the party in power for that.

I am critical of Congress and the WH because both have not been able to write and pass legislation that solves problems. Obama and the Democratic congressional majority are at fault. But, I will vote Democrat.

[Tarheel_Dem]

126. What a load of horse puckey.

"I am critical of Congress and the WH because both have not been able to write and pass legislation that solves problems. Obama and the Democratic congressional majority are at fault. But, I will vote Democrat."

:eyes:

[deacon]

76. It will be easy votes for me supporting democrats this election.

That other party is nothing more than a party of extremists and radicals.

[deutsey]

77. I agree...but it would be nice to vote for Democrats because they're fighting for my interests

not because I'm afraid of the GOP regaining power.

[urgk]

79. Agreed. We can both push the administration and support it.

Like a buttress.

Keep demanding the progressive changes. In fact, it's what our President asked for early on. I like the guy, I believe he honestly tries to do what's right and you can believe I'll spend all of my free time in 2011 working for the cause. But that doesn't mean I won't write him a letter every now and then about the lack of a fully formed health care reform or join in with calls for DADT to end.

Support doesn't have to mean blind allegiance. And disagreement doesn't mean we'd be better off with McCain.

Let's all be smart about this.

[lunatica]

82. I always vote for Democrats

I don't need anyone to convince me. I know that Democratic policies are far better for this country and for its citizens. I also know that many times it's tokenism, but still it's better than any Republican administration by a factor of 100.

[gulfbreeze]

90. I live on the Gulf Coast...

and watching this administration (including the coast guard) and BP lie thru their teeth has killed every bit of hope I ever had for a change. I drove voters to the polls. I participated. Yesterday, our local paper had the Coast Guard spokeswoman uttering this:

"Judy Silverstein, a Coast Guard spokeswoman at Incident Command in Mobile, said testing is necessary because people are taking advantage of the BP oil spill and dumping their oily bilges.
And, she said, some of the oil could be from natural seepage into the Gulf."

http://www.pnj.com/article/20100829/NEWS01/8290334/Oil-spill-Search-is-on-for-more-oil-in-waterways

I can't take it anymore. I'm done!!!!

[nenagh]

164. Don't give up gulfbreeze...

I've spent hours reading oil blogs since the blowout, and the BP/oil people response seems to always be that the oil could be a natural seep or someone dumping oil..

The Coast Guard, as depicted by the RightWing on those blogs are stupid people, lets push them out and let the real men do the job..

Thud Allen, he's called... while he's mocked and ridiculed..He doesn't know the oil business.. his terminology isn't correct...

And as for "SaintBarack" and "Moochelle" ? and that stupid scientific team? Why they are nearly the cause of the disaster...

I'm sure Thad Allen, who is also referred to as something akin to Porky Pig by these rightwingers, and his Coast Guard might find it easier to use the OilLingo for awhile.. at least until the Oil is determined by testing to be from the Macondo Well.

Best of luck to you, gulfbreeze... and thank God, that the uproar of the good people living in the area has forced the testing of the oil..

I just reread that you think that even the Coast Guard has lied to the people... I am so sorry to hear that... :(

[Gman]

91. Vote straight party Democrat

The smell you sometimes have to hold your nose for will not be so bad if you pull one lever, or vote straight ticket Democrat. That way you don't even have to actually even see the name of the one you don't like.

[Bluenorthwest]

109. Many, many States do not have such 'ticket' voting.

In my State, we have no levers to pull, we have ballots in our homes for many days, which have to be individually voted line by line. We then mail them or deliver them to elections offices.
We like to read our ballots, and cast willing votes. We 'have to' see the names of those we vote for.

[Bluenorthwest]

112. 16 States have 'ticket' voting. Of those, how many have two

Democratic Senators like my State does? Many? Any? Few? None?

[wookie72]

94. I will vote for them

But I don't admit anything. Hold their feet to the fire. And if it turns out the mosque burning in Tennessee is in fact a hate crime, I really want Obama and the rest to speak up.

[RBInMaine]

97. This is exactly what Howard Dean said. Good post. (Also remember though that it can't be all about

"criticism." Under this administration, while we have not had progressive purity, we certainly have had a hell of a lot of PROGRESS, and credit must be given for that, per Maddow herself.

[meowomon]

98. OMG, I have to vote!

Even if I am so disappointed at the "change" I had "hoped" for. Oh, it IS change. Just not what I'd hoped for.

[era veteran]

99. I will HOLD MY NOSE and vote blue dog Ben Chandler KY6

Even after I told him if he voted against HCR I would never vote for him again. His opponent is so right, Barr, it would be an act of idiocy to not vote. Campaign finance reform is the only way out of this fucked up version of the USA. Corporations already had too much power and now they are even enabled more because of Robert's Court.

[Oceansaway]

102. well said....nt

[Deep13]

105. I've always taken this for granted. nt

[The Green Manalishi]

108. Because our two party (one corporatist party, actually) is so fucked

most of the time the only way to know which one is the Democrat is by the letter after the name.

Hold your nose, vote for the (D) because the only alternative is an (R).

And we wonder why the turnout is so low.

[Name removed]

116. Deleted message

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

[Jakes Progress]

117. Grab ankles and chant

"Thank you sir. May I have another?"

[asdjrocky]

120. You should start your own discussion board so you can make all the rules.

You don't make all the rules here.

[geek tragedy]

124. The OP is stating DU rules accurately.

You are not permitted to use this message board to work for the defeat of the Democratic Party nominee for any political office. If you wish to work for the defeat of any Democratic candidate in any General Election, then you are welcome to use someone else's bandwidth on some other website.

Democratic Underground may not be used for political, partisan, or advocacy activity by supporters of any political party or candidate other than the Democratic Party or Democratic candidates. Supporters of certain other political parties may use Democratic Underground for limited partisan activities in political races where there is no Democratic Party candidate.

Do not post broad-brush smears against Democrats or the Democratic Party.

Advocating defeat of Democrats during election season is a surefire way to get banned here, as it should be.

[TheKentuckian]

133. Then let the purges continue and then those left can fight about which of them loves the party most

Or K&R talking points until the bitter end.

[geek tragedy]

145. That is your choice. If you choose to willfully violate site

rules and shit on this community by advocating Republican victory in November, you will have no one to blame but yourself.

[TheKentuckian]

198. You are willfully disseminating false information, I have never advocated for any Republican

in any fashion other than TDR and Abe Lincoln, neither of which have been on any ballot in my lifetime nor would either likely be a Republican if alive today.

I do not have to accept false witness against me. You are a manipulative liar and can burn in the deepest ring of hell you fucking traitor to truth and America.

You have repeatedly made a false allegation that you know is false and I'm not take it regardless of any rule made by any human.

I think you are breathing my air.

[Fearless]

136. Criticizing policy is not working to defeat Democrats for Republicans.

[geek tragedy]

146. No one said it was. nt

[Fearless]

156. Well... Why else post this?

"You are not permitted to use this message board to work for the defeat of the Democratic Party nominee for any political office. If you wish to work for the defeat of any Democratic candidate in any General Election, then you are welcome to use someone else's bandwidth on some other website."

[old mark]

137. If you READ my OP, the word in large print is SUGGEST - You certainly free

to do as you wish, and I am the last person to make rules for anyone else... I don't even make New Years Resolutions for myself because I never follow them...

You can do anything you want...this is America!


mark

[Balderdash]

130. Oh absolutely

I may not be %100 happy with this administration but I'll take them over the
Republicans any day.

[Frisbee]

131. I agree, but...

it doesn't hurt to hold their feet to the fire and let them know we are not happy right now. Until we start having strong candidates who stand for the things we progressives believe in, who can pose a serious threat to the centrist and conservadems in the primaries, maintaining the status-quo is probably the best we can hope for. Not voting for the Democratic candidates (even if it means holding your nose as you do so) in the general elections can only be counter-productive. Hopefully, the Dems can maintain at least some degree of control until this current wave of FOX News lead ultra-conservative, hate-mongering, corporatism fades. If not, I fear this country is done for.

[grahamhgreen]

132. As an Obama critic, I agree, and most of us will vote Dem in NOV, however

the people we'll be losing are friends and internet pals of mine whom I was able to convince to vote for Obama, but I can not convince them to vote in November - mostly because of the punishing mandate to buy insurance, the ongoing wars, outsourcing, and the administrations funneling vast pipelines of cash to the ultra-rich and the banksters.

It's sad, because if we reached a 2/3'd majority in the senat - the Dems would have no choice but to pass real reform (although would they?).

[Fearless]

135. The with us or against us attitude is not helpful.

You need to accept the fact that sometimes Democrats disagree on how best to serve this nation.

[geek tragedy]

147. Democrats NEVER disagree on who to root for in November. nt

[Fearless]

159. That's not what I remember last November.

While none of us were rooting for Republicans, there were, and always are, differences.

[geek tragedy]

185. Nope. The choice was McCain or Obama.

Just like it's Boehner vs Pelosi this time around.

[Fearless]

187. You confuse policy for politicians.

We debate policy here. We support the politicians who support our policy beliefs.

[geek tragedy]

191. This is also a political site. Politics is about elections and votes. nt

[Fearless]

208. You can keep your politicking, I'll keep my scruples. Thanks.

[Name removed]

215. Deleted message

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

[Fearless]

242. Be nice.

[old mark]

139. Thanks to EVERYONE who replied to this - I appreciate all the opinions, and I was

merely SUGGESTING a course of action that I favor and will follow.
I email the WH at least a few times each month and I would not be surprised to find myself on some sort of list of "bad people" because of some comments I made there.

I will support Democrats because I cannot abide republicans. I know there are several factions in the Democratic Party, and I was no fan of Bill Clinton when he was president, either. BUT the idea of Newt actually being an important member of our government back then made me want to puke. The idea of the GOP morons actually winning more control over the government of MY COUNTRY is appalling to me.

I believe we can still kick Obama and his Chicago gang around at will, and I certainly plan to continue to do so.

But I will be voting for Democrats in preference to seeing "Speaker Boehner"
next year...

Of course, we are all free to do as we wish in this country...at least so far...


mark

[felinetta]

141. I agree 110%. We must get out the vote. I will not shed a single tear for any Dem who won't vote.

[iamthebandfanman]

144. the party hasta be changed at its core

trying to 'scare' dlcers with threats of no votes just doesnt work...
as republicans are buddies with corporations too... so , they still win out financially with a republican victory.

so ultimately, they still win.


they arent about to let ideaological morality get in the way of their money, so go on.. dont vote. they dont care.

[cjbgreen]

152. Vote

I think we must seek to influence policies and let our representatives know when we believe their direction is destructive. And I think we can financially support candidates that represent progressive policies. Voting for Republican, never! Not speaking out because of fear, not a great strategy.

[drm604]

154. I think that constructive criticism is possible

while at the same time supporting and voting for Democrats in 2010.

I say that as someone who has not been an Obama basher on here in any way.

There is a very vocal minority on here who've been threatening not to support or vote for Democrats but I don't think they're enough to make a difference and I don't think they're representative of any meaningful number of Democrats in the general population.

[watajob]

157. Please read this...

... before you do anything:

http://seminal.firedoglake.com/diary/67922

[Fire1]

160. Oh, I have my criticisms as well, but I WILL be voting

Democratic. BELIEVE THAT!!!

[valerief]

163. What hurts more, a slap or a punch? What if you don't want to be hit at all? nt

[jgraz]

166. I also "admit" that water is wet.

What I don't admit is my criticism of the Obama administration has anything to do with any potential gains for the GOP this fall. The White House -- and Democrats in general -- have proved again and again (and again) that they are ridiculously underskilled at managing the politics of a national party.

Even if I grant the infinitely questionable argument that individual criticism demoralizes voters, my criticism will only reach a tiny percentage of the electorate. Obama's failures are reaching everyone in the party. If a few Democrats stay home this fall, you might be able to point the finger at one or more critics. If millions stay home, that's the result of political mismanagement by the party and its leader.

[old mark]

170. I agree - I feel like I'm voting for local Democrats - we have a Senator

and a Governor to be elected, and both of the GOP candidates are really terrible to contemplate...Toomey is one.
I DO NOT feel the critics are to blame for any Democratic apathy - the administration obviously did not listen to us in the first place, so how can we be at fault?


mark

[dave29]

173. a lot of opinion based on a suggestion. I don't think anyone is confused about your opinion

or any of your infinitely questionable arguments. But thanks for the reminder that everything has been woefully mis-managed, and your criticism couldn't have any bearing on morale. I felt the same way right before I voted Nader in 2000. In Texas no-less.

[old mark]

182. Sorry you are so offended. nt

[dave29]

192. not aimed in your direction :)

aimed squarely at the serial shitstarter

[jgraz]

204. Noun, verb, Nader.

:eyes:

[dave29]

205. ?

I'm no Giuliani But I suppose that's cute ?

[defendandprotect]

169. Democrats didn't fight to get where we are now to go backwards -- neither with GOP nor with Obama !!

That's the point you don't seem to be getting, i.e., that this administration

has to be moved to the left --

What you're offering is FEAR-based reasoning -- try to devote some attention to how

to progress, rather than obsessing about going backwards!!

[slay]

175. As is always with these "back the Dems or else" threads, I have to disagree

not so much with the statement that Dems will be better than Repubs. I TOTALLY agree there. However, the Dems have never been more corrupt and useless in my eyes than they are now. Escalating wars, not making sure everyone has equal rights, just to name a few.

Will I vote for the Dems in 2010 and 2012 - yes and no. Locally, there are some I will be voting for. But what I won't do is vote for CORPORATE DEMOCRATS any more! I've just had it. Those days are done. If Dems want to act like Dems and stand up for THE PEOPLE, I will vote for them. Otherwise, I will not. It's that simple. I refuse to let the Republican boogeyman they dangle in front of us - whether it be Rand Paul or Sarah Palin - be the reason I vote Dem cause it's not. It's why I don't vote Repub, but the Dems need to give me something to vote FOR and not just something to vote against. That's Republican tactics, and the Dems seem to use them more and more every year. The Dems are a huge disappointment to me right now. I dare one to call and ask for money. I just dare um.

[old mark]

183. I am not afraid of republicans-I hate them. I don't see why a party

with around 40% of the voters should have so much power, or why we should help them get more.

mark

[DeSwiss]

176. K&R n/t

[wndycty]

180. K&R

:kick:

[OnyxCollie]

188. Kick. nt

[RetroLounge]

200. Your concern is noted

:eyes:

RL

[yurbud]

206. I will be voting for Dems in Nov, but if they lose, it will be the fault of Dems in Congress & Obama

you can't shit on people 24/7 then tell them to vote for you because the alternative is even worse.

[DCBob]

214. Yep, then after the elections the "bashing" can start again..

clearly there is no benefit to any Democrat of sitting out this election.

[yurbud]

249. that would be fine if the DLC hasn't been suggesting that since the inauguration:

shut up and let us do it our way.

[Imagevision]

252. Yeah! going back to the way George W. Bush ran things sounds peachy right now...

[ZombieHorde]

273. You're right. I would like to vote my hopes, but I will vote my fears once again. nt

[golfguru]

274. But it will teach DLC'ers a lesson not to

become republican light.

[Hawkowl]

279. Obama does not equal all democrats

I will not let my disgust with Obama carry over onto other democrats. They deserve better. We deserve better.