Tired of Defeatism

[babylonsister]

http://www.boomantribune.com/story/2010/9/6/22729/03413

Tired of Defeatism

by BooMan
Mon Sep 6th, 2010 at 10:07:29 PM EST


The president made a proposal. That's great. Except David Sirota says the proposal is just another example of Obama looking out for the Big Guy, and John Cole says it won't even merit a debate. You want to know what the problem is? No one on the left is fighting for the president's agenda. Half the progressives are spending all their time bitching and the other half are spending all their time in utter despondency.

"Some powerful interests who had been dominating the agenda in Washington for a very long time and they're not always happy with me. They talk about me like a dog. That's not in my prepared remarks, but it's true," {President Obama} told a crowd largely consisting of union members.

Hell, everyone is talking about him like a dog. All told, the president today proposed $150 billion in new stimulus money (although, sssh, don't call it stimulus). That's almost 20% as big as the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009's $787 billion price tag. Taken together, the Recovery Act and the new proposals would be approaching a "paltry" trillion dollars in spending. But Sirota is upset because the proposal would be two-thirds tax cuts for research and development, and Cole is upset because:

Mitch McConnell just needs to go on David Gregory, purse his lips delicately, dismiss it, and the debate will essentially be over. There will be no discussion of the benefits of the added rail miles. No discussion of the ease of air travel with these improvements. The idea will simply be dismissed, and Republicans will pay no price whatsoever for killing yet another jobs bill.

To which I respond, "Was it over when the Germans bombed Pearl Harbor? Hell no!" Or something. We really need a pep talk. Above all, we need some realism. Put yourself in the president's shoes for two seconds before you mouth off. He's not a dictator and Cole's right about McConnell's inclinations, as well as his power, as well as the vacuous, unhelpful media. You want the president to create some jobs? You have to support his efforts and stop nitpicking. As it is, Congress is unlikely to pass anything beneficial. But when no one has the president's back and everyone wants to treat him like a dog?

It's far past time for people to wake up.

[JTFrog]

1. K&fuckinR!

[CTLawGuy]

2. seriously

it angers me that Obama is getting hammered from the right, but instead of having his back "progressives" are hammering him as well. He and progressive democrats in congress have done the best they could under extremely hostile circumstances, and all "progressives" can do is complain about what's not done without acknowledging what HAS been done.

Do they think that having Speaker Boehner will move Obama and the democrats to the left? nope, to the contrary it will probably push them farther right, if they want to get ANYTHING done. And even if the Dems retain control of congress, the more seats they lose, the more power blue dogs have and the farther right the dems will have to go, regardless.

So don't think that staying home and punishing democrats is going to push them farther to the left. It didn't work in 2000 and it won't work this year.

[girl gone mad]

3. If he wants their support, maybe his staff should stop calling them retarded druggies, etc.

You catch more flies with honey.

Just sayin'.

[CTLawGuy]

6. learn the facts

Emanuel referred to one group's strategy of running ads against wavering dems as "retarded." He most certainly did not refer to all liberals or progressives that way.

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748703808904575025030384695158.html.

How are you supposed to interact with people who are wilfully ignorant?

[Chan790]

12. The Wall Street Journal is a biased mouthpiece of RW yellow journalism.

You'll need a legitimate citation to peddle that trash argument around here.

[CTLawGuy]

68. if that's the case wouldn't they make it seem that Rahm

insulted all liberals? wouldn't that be a better angle if you are the Republicans? this story goes against their bias so I believe it is ok.

regardless, where's your story proving that he called a liberals "retards."

[rhett o rick]

15. The article you link doesnt give Emanuel's complete sentence so we cant tell from that

who or what he is calling "retarded". The facts are that Emanuel hasnt courted the liberals, and has, in numerous cases said things that indicate he has no love for liberals. Numerous members of the liberal caucus have complained about his attitude toward them.

More important Pres Obama has shown no indication he wants liberal support.

[zipplewrath]

21. Picking nits

He has a history of pejoratives aimed at the left side of the party. Picking nits about exactly what he said when avoids the larger point which is that he is generally hostile to the left. He worked hard as the head of the DCCC to prevent left leaning candidates from even running in primaries. Exactly what he said to do that is relatively pointless, the "problem" is that he is generally hostile to the left side of the party.

[CTLawGuy]

69. that a strategy is "f'n retarded" vs. liberals being "f'n retarded"

is not a matter of "picking nits." They are very different statements. Your reasoning that it doesn't matter because he is "hostile to the left" is frankly sad.

[zipplewrath]

87. It's a metaphor

Your complaining because of the use of that expression as a metaphor for the larger attitude of Rahm and the administration towards the left side of the party. That's what makes it picking nits. If you don't think that the administration is hostile towards the left, fine, but picking nits isn't the way to make that case.

[Cherchez la Femme]

50. "How are you supposed to interact with people who are wilfully (sic) ignorant?"

You are talking about Rahm & other meretricious, perfidious, official <--as in remunerated representatives of the White House;
bashers of our liberal & left citizenry, correct?

And BTW, I don't believe the attempts at ameliorating such negative and ultimately unnecessary comments
--a tactic which is (at best) condescending, specious and patently & deliberately deceptive--
is fooling many

-- but you keep trying, that I'll give you.

[CTLawGuy]

70. I'm sorry I offended the spelling police

you got me :eyes: feel proud of yourself :crazy:

Also, I'm not sure why everyone is getting all bent out of shape because I point out that Rahm didn't actually say what the left thinks he said. Does truth not matter anymore?

Either prove me wrong with an article that says he called liberals themselvs "f'n retarded" or don't say anything.

[girl gone mad]

79. Rahm can apologize and clarify his remarks.

As things stand, he's very publicly insulted liberals. Not exactly the best strategy, but precisely what one would expect from an arrogant tool like Rahm.

[CTLawGuy]

81. your source for that is?

NT

[TBF]

88. Yet another example -

why in the world would you call someone "willfully ignorant" if you are trying to persuade them?

With friends like these who needs enemies ...

[PVnRT]

89. So, care to parse for us what Rahm meant when he said "Fuck the UAW!"?

Just curious.

[Cha]

93. How can they play the poor little

victim if facts are considered?

[AndyA]

4. You're another "Either Or" person.

You put everyone in two categories: you're either for Obama and the Democrats, or you want the GOP back. And you're wrong.

Everyone knows about the hostile environment. But how much did Obama fight back against it? Not very much. Health reform that excluded anyone with a public option suggestion from the table was doomed from the beginning. Reform with no cost control and no competition? Right.

Obama didn't lead the way on health reform, in fact he was mostly silent about it. And now we've got what we've got, and it missed the mark by a mile.

No, I do not want the GOP to take over in November. But is it my fault that the Democrats didn't get their shit together? Is it my fault that Reid has a stack of bills stalled in the Senate? Is it my fault that the mere mention of a filibuster from the right was enough to put a halt to everything? Am I responsible because Obama has lots of unfilled positions still, almost two years later? I don't think so.

I did my part. I donated money. I gave time. I covered for others so they could leave town and be a poll watcher for Obama. I made phone calls. I did my part. Have the Democrats done what they promised me they'd do? No, they have not.

So, the solution here is to just keep electing them because they aren't as bad as the GOP. Well, when we keep doing that, the Dems will keep moving right. Soon, there will be very little difference between the parties. It's already hard to tell the difference on a lot of things.

So, let me ask you this: How do you propose we keep the GOP out, and get Democrats in office who will actually keep their promises and not move to the right once elected? If they keep lying to us, and we keep donating money to them and voting for them, there is no incentive for them to ever change.

And that means we'll keep getting crap bills like the health reform bill that really isn't reform, it just forces millions more people into the trap of the wealthy insurance corporations. And those corporations are making record profits.

And we'll keep getting credit card reform that allows the banks plenty of time to raise everyone's interest rates and lower their credit limits. Who could have predicted that would happen, right? Those banks are doing quite well now, have plenty of cash and they aren't lending any of it.

Just exactly whose interests are being protected here? It certainly isn't the American people's interestes, because we're the ones who continue to pay the price for the corporate greed in America, and our elected representatives are the ones looking out for the corporations at the expense of the voters.

The Democrats are much better than the Republicons, but they seem to keep moving to the right. How do we stop the cycle? Other Democrats keep expecting the progressives to give up their priorities to keep the party in power. When does the party return the favor, and recognize without the progressives, they won't get elected?

I'm not trying to stir things up, but I'm tired of the "you must want Speaker Boehner, or you would probably by happier with President McCain..." That's bullshit, and that's a silly attitude. But there is a legitimate issue here, and there has to be more than being told you just have to keep voting for them and donating money to them, and maybe things will change in the future.

[babylonsister]

5. Nobody said it was your fault, but you sound like you fall into

the despondency category. What do you suggest given the complete obstruction and lack of ideas the rethugs have presented the Dems with? They are part of this equation whether we like it or not. Oh, and Ben Nelson.

You're worried about Dems moving to the right? Stand by, because your wish will come true should the rethugs gain control of Congress, then you'll really have something valid to complain about.

[AndyA]

7. You just proved my point.

Either I just keep doing what I've been doing, or things will really get much worse and then I'll really have something valid to complain about.

So my issues aren't valid?

My desire for affordable health care isn't a valid issue?

My desire for equality for gay people isn't valid?

If you aren't gay and you have great insurance through your employer, those aren't issues for you, but there are millions of people where those two items are an issue.

This is exactly what I'm talking about. The attitude is, the Dems aren't as bad as the GOP, and if the GOP gets back in things will be much worse. I already know that.

What I'm asking is, how do we stop the destructive cycle? Because I'm not seeing any suggestions or solutions, just more of the same. We've already given up a lot to the right, how do we stop it?

[babylonsister]

8. Hey, I agree with you,

the admin still has a lot to accomplish, and I don't blame you for feeling let down, but it's not over yet. I'm hoping we'll see lots more progress towards equality for all people.

As for insurance, I don't have any either; I didn't have employment until very recently, and it's only a p/t job to keep the wolves at bay.

But I very much fear the rethugs; at least we have a shot at getting things done with a Dem admin; if rethugs gain control, we can all kiss that shot goodbye, because we know they don't give one good damn about any of us.

I'm sorry if I offended you; that was not my intention at all, and I do think your concerns are valid. We still have a huge mountain to climb, and it will take time, but I do see eventual progress, but only if Dems retain control.

[AndyA]

11. No, babylonsister, you didn't offend me.

I almost always read your posts because I respect what you have to say, so I know that wasn't your intent.

The real issue this election is getting the Democrats out to vote in numbers high enough to prevent massive losses, and I just don't see how that's going to happen. Too many people have been pushed aside the last two years, people like me who worked really hard to get Democrats elected.

Yes, I'm going to vote, and I will vote for Democrats, of course. But there are many others who aren't planning to vote, and their votes will be needed.

The Democrats have got to start offering something to progressives, an incentive to keep them active and voting. The attitude by so many here at DU is just awful. And it seems to reflect the attitude of many elected Democrats. We've got to stop the "we're not as bad as they are" cycle.

There has to be another way forward, other than just keep donating, keep voting, and keep hoping for change. We've already been down that road, and it hasn't necessarily worked out for many of us.

[rhett o rick]

60. Well said. Seems the OP is saying for the progressives to back off and go with the flow.

But that will not stop the party from sliding to the right. Seems that to keep the party from becoming republican-light, the progressives need to fight harder for decent health care and equal rights.

[bkozumplik]

51. completely agree

straw men and false choices seem to be the only ideas recognized by the party mainstream. Do this or do that, and thats it. Theres no accountability, no real discussion, and no effort at all to give feedback or communicate with our leadership, merely a question, are you in or out?

I'm sick of that crap. I want a seat at the table, or I wont show up. period. If that means the evils win, then thats going to be our party leaders error for not doing their damn job, and ignoring a chunk of the electorate they NEED.

And all you people who talk about "willful ignorance" and so forth about those of us who demand more from our representitives in washington, right back at you, with all your petty slurs. Why dont you stick em where the sun don't shine. When the votes are counted, you'll have a good lesson as to how effective that sort of stuff is.

[Name removed]

10. Deleted message

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

[impik]

9. "Progressives" too will get what they deserve in November

They worked hard to destroy this president. They deserve the GOP.

[Chan790]

13. The President destroyed himself...

He too will be getting his comeuppance in the form of a GOP-majority Congress if he doesn't start leading and fighting for Democratic ideals to prevent it.

[Jennicut]

24. "comeuppance"? No, we will get it if we don't go out and vote.

But hey, enjoy destroying yourself.

[Chan790]

26. He isn't doing crap for my issues.

So it doesn't affect me win or lose.

Have a nice day! :D

[BeyondGeography]

35. The only thing I can tell from that post is you have issues

[Cherchez la Femme]

62. Gee, wouldn't it be NICE to not HAVE to have any issues?

Which I wouldn't if

I either lived in a country that treated not only its own citizens with full equality (via its laws) but all people of the world,
and had the same respect for everyone's humanity over every other thing, including profits and 'national interests',

--or--

I lived in a sweetly perfumed, hermetically sealed, rose-tinted bubble.


It must be so nice to be so personally secure and assured of every single one of your rights...

[slay]

42. +1

I completely agree and no amount of "but you HAVE to support EVERYTHING Obama does" from - some people - is going to change the fact that Obama has NOT represented Democratic ideals very well at all. If Dems lose in Nov, it's not my fault, it's not your fault, they have only themselves to blame.

[rhett o rick]

19. What a divisive post. Are you trying to start a fight? nm

[bkozumplik]

54. and you suck up middle of the roaders

always take whatever you are given, so you implicitly deserve whatever it is you get, good or bad, so you'll be right there with us, wont you.

[Cherchez la Femme]

61. Yes, we "Progressives" *"deserve"* the GOP

(I'm forced to dare to assume you mean the GOP taking majority of either one or both houses of Congress? You don't specify)

Why? Because we "Progressives" (your er, italics) dared to hang on to long-standing Democratic principles rather than marching in mindless lockstep behind a give-it-all-away-before-even-beginning-negotiations (hence in our view ineffectual, if not worse) corporatist, Democratic(my italics) President?


And, may I remind you, we "Progressives" did this dastardly act by following exactly what President Obama told us to do:

1) "keep making your voices heard, to keep holding me accountable, to keep up the fight", and

2) 'make me do it' (as if following the wishes of those who voted him into office wasn't near impetus enough).

By actually performing what he himself avowed he wanted us to do, it is your contention that we've therefore 'destroyed him'? (Do I have that right?)

...does it not then follow that he has made himself the textbook example of a voluntary, predetermined, self-defeatist?


Are you sure you're on his side?

[Nicholas D Wolfwood]

14. Best post I've seen in a long, long time.

It is absolutely time to nut up or shut up, to borrow a phrase from Zombieland (which seems eerily appropriate for today's political climate). I want to see ads by MoveOn and the AFL-CIO tirelessly promoting this new bill. I don't want to see a single fucking commercial break without something that urges passage of this bill. If we want this, it's time to fucking fight for it for a change instead of pouting in the goddamn corner like we did during health care.

[Radical Activist]

16. I'm sure everyone who called for Obama to do more infrastructure and public works projects

will chime in with enthusiastic support for this new proposal. Right?

[rhett o rick]

18. Absolutely. But it is difficult to get progressives to be enthusiastic about watered down measures.

Progressives strongly support single payer and would have and will support the President's effort to get such passed. But to criticize progressives because they are satisfied with a bill watered down by the health care industry is absurd.

[Radical Activist]

20. Everything Obama does will be called "watered down."

First, because it has to pass the Senate. Second, because a sizable portion of left pundits have ideological motivations for calling anything he does watered down no matter what the substance of it is.

So basically, we've dug our own hole on the left by guaranteeing that progressives will never be enthusiastic. Ever.

[rhett o rick]

23. It's easy to get progressives enthusiastic, but the Pres has taken a different tack.

He seems to have decided to get his agenda passed without progressives. His decision made crystal clear. Why didnt he shoot for single payer and settle for less? He was afraid he would alienate the DLC Centrists. He wasnt worried about progressives. His decision. Now he is trying to sham progressives into supporting him.

[Radical Activist]

25. You're doing guesswork about tactics.

Most of the public don't even know what the term "single payer" means. What you're suggesting is that Obama should have wasted everyone's time with a proposal that would have been seen as a political stunt with no chance of passing either chamber. You think that would have resulted in a better compromise than what we got, but that's total speculation. It could have resulted in no HCR bill passing at all. No one knows.

The rhetoric about Obama being "afraid" and pandering to DLC centrists fits into the same narrative we've been hearing since the days of Bill Clinton. I'm not surprised that people accept a familiar, comfortable narrative so easily. But the fact is that Obama introduced a plan to the left of what the Senate passed and spent months trying to get them on board. If Obama had really introduced something watered down to appease conservative Democrats then there would have been no need for the Senate to water it down even more. They would have just passed what he introduced if it was what they wanted.

And why did you change the subject to health care? Are we supposed to ignore all of Obama's progressive actions in office and instead obsess over one issue? Isn't stoking that grudge about the public option playing into the Republican strategy?

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=389&topic_id=9068899&mesg_id=9068899

[rhett o rick]

34. Of course the public is uninformed about single payer. Neither the Pres or the MSM saw fit to inform

them. If you think that shooting for single payer is a waste of everyone's time, then you and are are a long way apart. I question your "radical activist" moniker. I believe single payer is the only salvation for our nation's children's health care, but you and Pres Obama and the centrists apparently think the health care industry modified bill is good enough for the peons.

I also resent the argument that if we dont agree with the president 100%, we are "playing into the Republican strategy".

[Radical Activist]

40. I think you're showing an authoritarian bias.

I don't think it's smart to depend on or even expect any President to do the work of pushing for single payer. That's the job of a movement to build support and demand it. Obama will respond when the movement does its job of building a critical mass of support. That's how most meaningful, lasting change happens. Without that mass movement, no amount of talking by Obama was going to get single payer through the current Congress.

I don't fault you for disagreeing with Obama. I don't think the current bill is good enough. My problem is that you're misplacing blame for actions taken by the US Senate. Just electing a friendly President isn't enough to make those kind of dramatic systemic changes like single payer and Obama said as much on election night.

[uponit7771]

33. It's "EASY" with no filibuster proof senate?! You're kidding right?

[rhett o rick]

37. I am sooo sick of the "we cant do anything because of the Senate, so let's surrender", meme.

It is easy to be enthused if you have a president fighting for your rights, but hard when giving in to the demands of the Republicans is the tune of the day.

I know progressives that today are working their butts off trying to save Social Security. But when the Alan Simpson's committee decides it is necessary to make so "improvements" (code for cutting benefits), the centrists will tell the progressives to shut up and get in line. Fuck that shit.

[Radical Activist]

41. How about: "we cant do anything because of the Senate, so let's target the Senate"

That's the argument myself and others make. It doesn't help any progressive cause to let the Senate off the hook because all people did was blame Obama.

[babylonsister]

45. Yes, that would be a novel and fruitful idea, but gains no traction

around here.

[rhett o rick]

47. Your attacks on progressives is divisive and unwarranted. nm

[babylonsister]

48. Huh?

Quit your whining; you're proving the point.

And they are not 'my' attacks; I found an article, happen to agree with it, and posted it.

I'm very sorry if you don't like it, but this is a discussion board. You're not discussing anything but placing blame on everyone but yourself.

[rhett o rick]

52. Your attacks on progressives is divisive and unwarranted.

I know I will fight hard for Pres Obama as I did in 2008. I resent implications otherwise. However, I will not sit down and shut up until I am dead. I will fight hard for the ideals of Democrats and democracy. I will never compromise on issues concerning freedom and democracy. I will fight hard for decent health care for all Americans and will not settle for less. I will fight to save Social Security and against wars and obscene defense spending.
I will fight hard for equal rights for our gay brothers and sisters. If my stand on any of these issues makes you think that I am not supporting the president, then maybe the president needs to change his agenda.

And your last sentence where you speak of "placing the blame". All I hear is that the blame goes to the progressives for their lack of support of the president. Isnt that what your OP is about? Who is "placing the blame"?

Do you think it will help the cause to alienate progressives by divisive posts?

[rhett o rick]

46. Prove that progressives are letting the Senate off the hook.

That's pure bullshit. I have spent 100 times more effort trying to convince the Senate than the President. However, when the president makes it clear that he isnt even going to ask for single payer, nor a decent public option, it undermines my attempts to convince my Senators to do such.

"Waaa we cant ask for freedom because it would never get thru the Senate." I am glad our forefathers didnt have that wimpy attitude.

[Hansel]

55. Amen. nt

[uponit7771]

32. ...yeap, figured...they'll FIND an excuse to complain about what Obama does no matter how hard...

...he tries

[rhett o rick]

39. Bullshit. We will see how hard he "tries" to save Social Security. As hard as he tried to

get single payer health insurance. or repeal of the Patriot Act or Military Commissions Act or end domestic spying, etc. How about DADT? Is he trying?

[rhett o rick]

17. Blame the progressives again. The progressives worked hard for single payer,

trying to get the Patriot Act repealed and end domestic spying. The progressives worked hard to support the president's goal to withdraw troops from Iraq. Progressives are working hard everyday trying to turn around the damage caused by Bush, but are told time and again it's too hard. Now who is the defeatist?

[zipplewrath]

22. Amen

We are told every day, in every way "No we can't". The worst part being that they start out that way and don't even try.

[ClarkUSA]

27. Booman points to the "progressives" who spend most of their time "bitching"

As a lifelong liberal activist who has been disgusted at the 24/7 venomous attacks aimed at Pres. Obama and the Democrats here at DU, I can't say I blame him.

"You want the president to create some jobs? You have to support his efforts and stop nitpicking. As it is, Congress is unlikely to pass anything beneficial. But when no one has the president's back and everyone wants to treat him like a dog?

It's far past time for people to wake up."

[rhett o rick]

43. So will you have the president's back if he cuts Social Security? Dont ask me to. nm

[ClarkUSA]

49. I don't base votes on hypotheticals. I've always voted a straight Democratic ticket.

The alternative is not acceptable: an orange man who's third in line to the Presidency.

If Democrats lose Congress in November, it's because they don't vote:
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=433x433594

[rhett o rick]

91. My point is that the "cat food commission" will undoubtedly recommend

improvements to Social Security that will in effect cut benefits. Should the president go alone with that, progressives will be asked to support him. I am having this conversation now because afterwords it will be water under the bridge. For example, the Pres health care bill was supposed to be a foot in the door. If true we should be discussing the next step in the door, but it has dropped off the radar as many predicted.

[Cherchez la Femme]

63. You're a "lifelong liberal activist" who decries "nitpicking" and

is perfectly fine with this President?

Amazing. It IS BizarroWorld! :wow:

[suzie]

28. Progressives in fact did very little for single payer.

As radical activist states, most of the public didn't even know what "single payer" meant. Reading DU during the health care debate, I often wondered what it meant, other than something for the anti-Obama crowd to rally around.

If progressives talked about "Medicare for all", the public might have understood that and even been for it. But they didn't.

[rhett o rick]

38. Bull crap. Progressives were pushing Medicare for all and single payer, but it is uphill

when you dont have media outlets. The MSM and the pres never mentioned single payer. Petitions were signed and emails, letters and phone calls were made. But none of that got any media attention. The centrists were convinced that single payer "was too hard", and that a decent public option "was too hard", so they were tickled to death to let the Republicans and health care industry write the bill. And please dont give me that shit about it being better than nothing. Is a little freedom better than nothing? Not to me.

I believe Thom Hartmann mentioned Medicare for All everyday on his show. But then centrist dont listen to Thom.

[suzie]

65. Sorry, but even on DU, Medicare for All was rarely discussed until close to the end of the

health care campaign. There's a reason that "death taxes" and "death panels" and the latest conservative creation designed specifically to to divide Democrats, "the Catfood Commission", resonate and give people something to focus on.

"Single Payer" seemed to have many meanings to those who insisted that it was the only way and that Obama was the ultimate evil for taking it off the table. It sometimes seemed like there were as many versions of single payer out there as people pushing it. Because for some on DU, it meant "British socialize health system" which I think is quite different from "Medicare for All". I think that would be "Veterans Administration for All".

"But then centrist dont listen to Thom". Wow, thanks for backing up my point.

On one show, one commentator mentioned Medicare for All, and those of us who didn't listen to that commentator...well, I guess we all fall into some category that shouldn't count.

[rhett o rick]

76. Of course you missed the point entirely. The progressives were pushing Medicare for All. You didnt

notice because apparently, as you admit, you dont listen to progressive radio. How do you know what progressives were pushing? Do you judge progressives on what you read on DU?

I want single payer. Maybe it isnt possible but I believe we should fight for it. Apparently you do not. Apparently you dont wish to fight even for a public option. And as we were told over and over, that the health care bill was only a start. Well, are "we" working on improving it? We have millions of people without health care and that is not acceptable. I would like the president to say that maybe that's all we can get in this environment but IT'S STILL NOT ACCEPTABLE. I will not sit down and shut up and let the DLC and the health care industry kill Americans for profit. I see first hand what the health care industry and their bought and paid for politicians are doing to decent people and I will not stand for it. It may be fine with you but not me.

[suzie]

86. Wow, what a great example of why the single payer advocates were not terribly great at getting

anyone to buy what they were selling.

Because there's no opportunity for me to listen to progressive radio in my region, then you get to insult me because "YOU DON'T LISTEN TO PROGRESSIVE RADIO!!" Yeah, that's the way to garner support for a particular idea.

You want single payer? And I want to win the lottery, but that doesn't mean it will happen, because I want it. Or because I can insult as many people as possible when I don't win.

So, if I think that trying to sell MEDICARE FOR ALL would be more successful than simply repeating SINGLE PAYER ONLY, SINGLE PAYER ONLY, SINGLE PAYER ONLY, as many so-called "progressives" have done over and over and over, then I'm not for a public option. Let's see, the public at large knows about Medicare and those who have it like it. Those who are close in age to Medicare can't wait to get it. But somehow, trying to sell that doesn't make sense. Instead, a better thing is to alienate people by insulting them as not caring about a public option.

I'll wager that I called my representatives, senators, and emailed the White House about the importance of a public option as many if not more times than you did.

[rhett o rick]

90. You made the statement that progressives werent pushing Medicare for All. I am telling you they were

Pushing for single payer wasnt and isnt a bad thing. I am still pushing for it even thought it has been demonized by centrists.

[suzie]

92. Well, since Medicare for All, like "removing the death tax", might be understandable

by the public, I can see why you'd continue to talk about your commitment to "single payer".

[rhett o rick]

94. Sorry but I am totally lost where you are going. nm

[uponit7771]

31. "Now who is the defeatist?" The "no difference" overall people

[flamingdem]

29. K n R sister! nt

[Bluenorthwest]

30. I remember Donnie McClurkin, and what Obama said when

the GLBT community complained about him using as surrogate a man who has called gay people vampires and child killers. I recall that the President ascribes to a faith which teaches that one gets as one gives, reaps as they sew, bread returns upon waters and all of that. I opposed McClurkin not only because of his talking about us like rabid dogs, but also because it was a hell of a stupid thing to be sewing in a world full of Republicans ready to help you reap.
So yes, none of us like being talked about like dogs. Or vampires. Or child killers. Or as being apart from God and nature. We never did, Mr President, not out of you, your staff, your surrogates anymore than out of special interest groups and Republicans.
I wonder if he will finally get it. I wonder if he has finally felt the sting he has delivered to so many who worked for him?
Obama said the hate speakers who attack gay people would always have a place at his table, he called them 'good, decent, and moral people' and told us to deal with it. He talked to us like we were dogs, in fact. Being told how to act at the master's feet, at his 'table'. Obama never seemed to see the smugness of his language, the depth of the contempt conveyed in those words written by another. Maybe now he will. One can hope.
No one likes to feel contempt and dismissal in the words of others. I feel badly for the President, because I know exactly how he feels. I'm a damn dog, after all, a vampire. And I have no say in who sits at the table of the master. Being a dog and all.
Respect is a state of being, not a thing that is delivered in a box by others as a gift. Respect is a place, a way of life. It either is, or it is not. You can not both disrespect others and expect respect from anyone. Because the state of being you have chosen is one of disrespect, disregard and discrimination.
And that is the last I have to say, dog to dog, in a dog eat dog world,filled with dog whistles.

[IndianaGreen]

57. Rick Warren was behind the Uganda death penalty for gays

until his fat ass got caught!

[Winston Wolf]

78. Beautiful.

Sincerely, I thank you.

[rhett o rick]

36. So your message is get in line and shut up? No thanks. nm

[slay]

44. That is ALWAYS the message from some people

some people I won't name, but it really isn't that hard to figure out. :eyes:

[backscatter712]

59. Considering that one troll got outed on Daily Kos today, gotta wonder how many are still out there.

"Huey Long" on Daily Kos was outed as a staffer working for Rand Paul.

http://www.dailykos.com/story/2010/9/7/899749/-KY-Sen:-Rand-Paul-staffer-caught-posing-as-progressive-at-Daily-Kos

[IndianaGreen]

64. DU should adopt that most excellent Kos rule

As stated in the Daily Kos FAQ:

Registered users working in paid (or unpaid positions of authority) for political campaigns must disclose their affiliation when it is relevant to the conversation.
Admin Moderation: Warning, suspension, banning and, in an exception to the outing rule, exposure of the paid person's real name.

[backscatter712]

66. Yes indeed - if trolls turn out to be paid GOP staffers, OUT THEM. Real names and all! n/t

[IndianaGreen]

71. They should all disclose, regardless of party!

Can't have someone that is posting stuff against climate change legislation because his/her politico gets money from coal industry do so without disclosing their agenda.

[Exilednight]

72. One of the things this community needs to do is find out if it stands for ..............

Democratic values, or for anyone with a (D) in front of their name. But until that is done, it will just be more of the same old same old.

[backscatter712]

73. There are a few paid staffers that post openly on Kos.

But they follow the rules, disclose that they're staffers, and posting on behalf of a Democratic Congresscritter or an interest group, and are generally awesome progressives that are welcomed by the site!

[IndianaGreen]

74. There is nothing wrong with that!

I just don't want someone singing praises to "Clean Coal," only to find out that they, or their boss, gets coal industry money.

[Parker CA]

53. K&R!!!!

[IndianaGreen]

56. Blaming liberals for the failure of DLC economics, aren't we?

Nothing surprising here!

[Chan790]

58. Sometimes, just because I live here.

I like to take the Metro down to K St. Farragut W and walk around in my "Kill the Monetarists" tee shirt. It's hard bein' a Keynesian gangsta in the nation's capital. Nobody respects the liberal economics anymore.

[rug]

67. Tired of blaming it all on 60 votes.

[rhett o rick]

77. Agree. Dont ask for freedom. It would never make it thru the Senate. nm

[tomp]

75. in other words...

...get in line, haters.

yawn.

[Liberal_Stalwart71]

80. ABSO-FUCKING-LUTELY!!!!!! K&R!!!

[Number23]

82. Wow! This went from 28 to 41 recs in like two seconds!

Is it possible that sanity has returned to DU??

Nope. Sis just posted this in the right forum. Good news/reality is welcomed here. :)

[paulk]

83. if the President's agenda was progressive

maybe progressives would be more enthusiastic about it.

The R&D taxcuts aren't exactly new, btw - Congress has been approving them on a year to year (bipartisan) basis -

also - if Cole is right that the Republican's won't even debate this - and "booman" agrees - why not make the package more than $50 billion? Throw some real money out there - enough to make a difference!


This is just more blaming of the left for Obama's timidity.

[solara]

84. Yes!

:patriot:

[angee_is_mad]

85. kick

and keep kicking till November!

[chrisa]

95. I think some of it is from the one-issuers.

Not saying people shouldn't be passionate about an issue they feel strongly about, but don't base your opinion on Obama solely on how he feels about one issue.