If Dems & Obama want to hold back GOP in November, they have to give progressives something BIG

[yurbud]

not a list of past accomplishments that nearly all include concessions to corporate, Wall Street, banking and insurance miscreants.

But an unqualified victory for progressives.

Without that, it will be difficult even for those progressive groups that want Democrats to hold onto Congress to make the sale to their constituents apart from fear of the GOP takeover, which will be kind of a tough sell since Obama & Congressional Dems has spent so much time seeking their bipartisan advice and making concessions to them even when Democrats had a super-majority.

I want to see Democrats pursue a progressive agenda and hold onto Congress. Those two goals are not mutually exclusive but synergistic: if they acted in a boldly progressive way, this would not even be a close election, and Republicans be trying to figure out how to regroup under a label.

[Me.]

1. Elizabeth Warren!

[yurbud]

3. that would be a good start. I would like to see his whole economic team fired

[Me.]

28. I Second That

[smalll]

43. That's a good one! Also, fire Mr. "Fucking Retarded," "Professional Left" and "310 million tits" --

on the same day, all at once! We'd be back with him then. :shrug:

[yurbud]

61. and apologize for having hired them

[CaliforniaPeggy]

2. I agree.

And what do you think our chances are?

Good? Fair?

Slim to none?


I don't know...

I'm hoping.

[yurbud]

5. Obama is fighting the last war. Appeasement of the right made a sort of sense in the Bill Clinton

era, but after Bush, it was the wrongest of wrong ways to go.

[izquierdista]

31. Helped him a lot with that Lewinsky problem, didn't it?

As I recall, Repubs were lining up to help him with that after he gave them what they wanted with welfare reform.

[yurbud]

67. I think they were in a panic that he would get credit for their ideas

[Enthusiast]

53. "Wrongest of wrong ways"

Yes, after the Bush era we need to correct the abuses.

[niceypoo]

59. Clinton didnt appease the right

Clinton didnt seek bipartisanship, he steamrolled over the GOP on most things.

[yurbud]

62. like? I remember him standing up to them on the budget once and calling their bluff on a government

shutdown, and that was one of the few things he did that earned my respect.

[niceypoo]

76. Clinton won every budget fight with the GOP

You have selective memory

[fascisthunter]

4. I'm Hoping for a Better candidate

but it looks as if the party will never allow anyone besides a corporate friendly candidate to represent the Democratic Party.

[yurbud]

6. if that's the case, things will have to get much much worse before they get better.

[fascisthunter]

13. for a better candidate

you might be right about that. I just don't think Obama nor this Administration have any intention of doing anything meaningful that is progressive. I am very cynical these days. We will see...

[impik]

44. "corporate friendly candidate". Such BS

Go read a little bit, see the scale of the war Wall Street declared on Obama, stop listening to Jane Hamster all the time.

[yurbud]

68. declared but was it fought?

[fascisthunter]

72. Rude and Undeserved... I read and don't need your advice, got it?

[Kdillard]

7. If you say so. Quite frankly I don't think there is anything that

Obama can do that will make progressives happy. It would be great if that happened but I wouldn't count on it.

[yurbud]

10. there has been plenty and a lot of it fairly doable, for one, putting more progressives in the

cabinet and not the architects of our economic collapse who largely agree with the GOP.

For another, tossing rather than embracing the GOP education agenda.

And he could have twisted the minority of blue dog arms on health care instead of the majority of progressive who were told to shut up because they would get even less under the GOP.

[Kdillard]

20. Seriously. Cabinet members who have to be approved and

the GOP who have been more than willing to obstruct his appointments especially if they have a hint of progressive ideals. As for twisting the blue dogs arms I believe nothing would have gotten done if he went about it the way you wanted him to do it. I think he did a good job considering the multiple fires he was fighting to get anything done. I also think that a majority does you no good if you need the minority in order to actually get something done. The reason the progressives dealt with the blue dogs is because if anything was going to get done on health Care we needed to stick together and we cobbled together an agreement because we are a big tent party and can get it together for something important. This election is very important and I am hoping tha all Democrats realize what is at stake so we can all work together to help Dems keep the House. If you think things were bad for progressive ideals just wait till the Republicans get control of the House. They have no actual agenda for getting anything positive done but will instead waste mmillions of tax payer dollars to harass Obama and his White House and it will certainly not make Dems or Obama any more progressive with his hands tied.

[fascisthunter]

14. well, that's because he's done very little that is Progressive

[Kdillard]

22. I have seen progressives do little other than complain from the

moment his hand was placed on the bible.

[fascisthunter]

25. Progressives have every right to complain

and it isn't all we have done. Without us he wouldn't have won the election.

[Kdillard]

30. A lot of other people can make the same claim. I don't

know why or how progressives got the idea that they would be the only voice he was going to listen to or that he could do everything they wanted.

[fascisthunter]

33. "only voice"... are ya kidding me? We can't even get a seat at the table

Your centrists have been in power... if they want our votes they better play ball. That's how democracy rolls, you earn votes not pretend to be sympathetic to progressive policies then turn a 180. If ya didn't know he did that ya better read more. I'm not wasting time with you so spare me the whining that progressives are whining because that's exactly what you implied.

[frylock]

36. progressives are the only voice he hasn't listened to..

and that "progressives will never be happy no matter what he does" meme? you know where you can jam that, mkay.

[Skittles]

51. WTF?

they not only ignore us, they TRASH us :thumbsdown:

[impik]

45. Yes, the self-proclaimed "progressives" think that the most progressive president in decades didn't

do anything that is progressive.

[nightrain]

56. Obama is a self-described "New Democrat" not a liberal, not a progressive.

read up on the New Democrat Coalition.

[fascisthunter]

73. not good enough for me

learn to accept that, because you are not changing my point of view especially with that attitude.

[Jim Sagle]

23. It would be nice if he tried.

[Phx_Dem]

8. Progressives don't deserve shit. All they've done is piss and moan for 2 years.

[yurbud]

9. that's your get out the vote campaign? fuck you, now vote for me?

[MissDeeds]

26. That seems to be the attitude

And a lot of it is coming straight from the inner circle at the WH.

[Aramchek]

64. how about this? fuck your attitude, now either vote for the GOP or against it.

your childrens' future depends on your choice.

[yurbud]

11. what Democratic Party values do you agree with?

[Jim Sagle]

24. OTOH, DLCers ain't nuthin' BUT shit.

[ClassWarrior]

32. Progressives put Obama in office. I know lefties who wrinkle their noses...

...at the mere mention of the Dem Party who volunteered FULL TIME in 2008 for the O campaign.

But who needs 'em, right? :eyes:

NGU.

[Ignis]

66. Thanks for convincing more people to stay home in 2010/12.

Great work...just not for the right side.

[BlueJac]

12. Would that be "Change we can believe in"?

What a fucking joke they are. They are not Democrats, they are a disgrace to Democrats.

[greendog]

15. How about a wooden nickel with the sensible woodchuck on one side and...

...and a Goldman-Sachs logo on the other side.

[yurbud]

19. no thanks, we already got that.

[elleng]

16. Gimme Gimme Gimme

damn, grow up!

[yurbud]

17. uh...what exactly do you think we vote for? And what do all those corporate donors give money for?

it aint fucking altruism, especially on the part of the rich.

The rich invest their money and voters invest their time and vote in candidates because the expect to get something in return.

[yurbud]

18. I hope you're being sarcastic not retarded.

[elleng]

21. Neither

Lets be real, and recognize what it takes to govern.

[ClassWarrior]

34. Consensus. How's that working out for you?

NGU.

[yurbud]

47. bowing and scraping to those with money and screwing the rest of us?

[Skittles]

52. gawd

not that fucking meme again :thumbsdown:

[fascisthunter]

27. You post "Gimme, Gimme, Gimme" and tell him to "grow up"?

[Blue Meany]

29. Or they can run a Republican-style campaign of fear...

saying that if Repubs get back in power they will finish demolishing the economy once and for all and turn us all into serfs. This, as Kissinger used to say, has the advantage of being true. But running on a message of we're not as bad as the Republicans isn't very inspiring.

[Imajika]

35. But it's independents we are losing...

...not the "liberal" base.

Poll after poll after poll shows that base voters are supportive and approve of the President. Progressives may have their issues with Obama, but it looks to me like the vast majority are going to vote Democratic come November anyway.

Our problem is with independents.

So why do you think some major piece of progressive legislation is the answer? I mean, it may energize the base and that will help us, but if we lose independents on a scale the polls seem to be indicating then we are going to get stomped.

[frylock]

37. you know that are indys out there that are liberal, right?

there are lots of people out there, myself included, who don't want any part if associating themselves with the dem party.

[depakid]

40. In fact- according to the data on the issues MOST of them

and they haven't been particularly pleased with the pandering to health insurers, PhARMA and the banksters.

Not exactly the brightest way to take advantage of populist anger and resentment across the electorate.

[Enthusiast]

54. We like to ignore that inconvenient data. nt

[denimgirly]

38. #1 Fire the entire Economic Team, #2 Stop Looking to the Right on Everything.

That alone might win a lot of the people back that voted him in. The problem is that Obama and the rest of the WH dont seriously give a damn about its base and always, ALWAYS look to appease anything the right and corporate, Wallstreet or any one else who is willing to take a bribe.

[AtomicKitten]

39. LOL.

[Rosa Luxemburg]

41. the anti republican fight is more important at this stage

people are getting fired up again

[yurbud]

48. that's wishful thinking and assumes that the Democratic base has the right's memory of a gnat

[boppers]

42. There's not a damn thing he can do to make us all happy.

Ever dated an emotional vampire?

There is no end to the demands, to the "not doing enough" emotional abuse. It's hard.

Now, magnify that across millions.

Obama could try to declare, by executive fiat, that gay marriage is legal in all 50 states, and personally officiate at every ceremony, and people would bitch about his outfit at the ceremony, or that he was slow for flying around too much, or that a "true progressive" would allow 4 gay men to marry each other at the same time.

Some folks are just perpetually miserable, and more than happy to tell you about it, and blame you for not fixing it.

That's what makes them abusive.

[Rosa Luxemburg]

74. the pendulum swings left right left right

the voters are lokig for a Messaiah

[impik]

46. Really? Obama is at 85% approval with Democrats. The 24/7 professional left whiners are hardly his

problem.

[yurbud]

49. 85% think he's better than a Republican

[Name removed]

50. Deleted message

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

[yurbud]

55. graded on a curve, she's done better than Obama and certainly better than Reid

who still acts like the leader of a microminority.

[great white snark]

60. Huh? It's approval for the job he is doing, not who he is better/worse than.

He already gives Liberals enough...it's the far left who is perpetually unsatisfied.

[Jeff In Milwaukee]

57. A horse?

Unemployment is hovering near 10%. Even with an effective "Blame Bush" campaign, there are going to be a lot of people who are ticked off at the incumbent -- any incumbent -- and since the Democrats have a majority (and more incumbents), they're going to take one in the shorts.

At Labor Day, there's little that Obama can do that's going to make that number move, particuarly is large corporations are strategically holding off hiring in hopes of getting a Republican Majority in at least one house of Congress - or at least smaller Democratic majorities.

[TBF]

69. Hint - it's not like major corporations are going to hire massive amounts

anytime.

We need a "WPA" style program to deal with our current problems. Obama needs to figure out how to do it, because big corporations are not his friends (no matter how hard he tries to appease them).

[Jeff In Milwaukee]

70. While I agree with you....

I think it's too late in the electoral calendar to do something like that.

It's my major beef with the Obama Administration is that they allowed themselves to be spooked by the deficit hawks and create a stimulus program that was far (far) smaller than what's necessary. From Day One, they should have emphasized creating jobs and battling forclosure. The stimulus package was somewhat effective on jobs, but its starting to peter out -- and the program to prevent foreclosures was just plain anemic. Had those two been priorities, I don't think we'd be having this discussion right now.

I suppose he could announce a program for next year, with the proviso that there have to be enough Democrats in Congress to pass it (hint, hint), but I'm not sure that it wouldn't be received as an act of desperation.

[TBF]

75. Agree completely -

Day one should have been focused on the economy - creating jobs, assisting with housing etc... Then people would be back to work (even if temporarily) and you move on to other issues - the wars, health care, re-vamping education if that's needed, etc. Clinton understood "it's the economy, stupid".

Admittedly Obama had a lot on the platter to deal with from day one, I just question his strategy and "jobless recovery". I don't know how it would best be presented (either before or after the elections) but jobs still need to be dealt with or we're going to see the affects in other places (foreclosures, homeless, increased crime, etc).

[WI_DEM]

58. What if a progressive like Russ Feingold loses? but we hold the senate anyway.

[Aramchek]

63. Not all Progressives are selfish children who take their ball and go home if they're not appeased

[andym]

65. It's the economy on election day that will determine if the Democrats hold back the GOP

that and the vast number of moderates who seem to be leaning Republican according to the latest polls.

[Better Believe It]

71. President Obama needs to present a clear plan to create several million infrastructure jobs now!