Are some people really making the argument

[Ken Burch]

That we have to have one more Democratic president that is uncomfortably right-wing and pro-corporate on some issues in order to eventually get one who ISN'T?

That seems to be the implication of some of the recent posts in various threads.

I'd appreciate it if somebody could explain to me how that strategy would work.

[yourout]

1. Alot like giving up single payer to get a strong public option.......oh wait.

I mean giving up a strong public option for an equally strong trigger....oh wait

I mean giving up any possibility of a public option so everyone could buy into Medicare....oh wait.

and wait and wait and wait.

[Ken Burch]

2. Actually, in the latest version, we all just get an autographed picture of "Trigger"

[Jim Sagle]

17. Wallah...that's our pony!

;)

[patrice]

4. That's C - O - N - G - R - E - S - S!

[LooseWilly]

16. A simile is not a didactic analysis. Using the word "like" makes it a comparison of similarities.

In other words, the strategy of more corporatist presidents in order to get one who isn't, is like, as in- similar to, runs in an ideationally parallel fashion to... the Congressional Strategery being employed in order to pass "Health Care Reform".

I hope this post has explained to you the underlying irrelevance of your own post, so that you will, next time, better prepare your irrelevancies... or perhaps post something more relevant.

[patrice]

19. I stand corrected, though I dispute that Congress is irrelevant to all of this bitching about

a guy doing pretty much what he told us he was going to do in '08.

All of this faux surprise and heartbreak about Obama is really about 2010 and if it isn't faux, then it IS uninformed and hence less relevant to what it claims.

[LooseWilly]

23. Congress is indeed relevant, perhaps overly so, to the bitching.

I was simply pointing out that your response was a permutation of the "kneejerk- blame Congress" response that resides up the sleeves of so many who will brook no criticism of Obama.

The problems with HCR can largely be dropped at the doorstep of Congress, like the proverbial burning bag of dogshit that HCR seems poised to become. The notion that Obama is "doing pretty much what he told us he was going to do in '08" seems to me to be a stretch, a reachable stretch perhaps, the top shelf in a cabinet rather than the moon... but certainly a stretch. Obama talked about a public option and no mandates. Congress is making a liar out of him. Does he have the (realistic) power to stop them doing so? No and yes... but he sure as hell has the capacity to make a show of standing up for the "bill of goods" that he sold during the election. That, he has not done.

Gitmo. Transparency. "Fierce Advocate". "Nation of Laws" (Yoo defense from DoJ in addition to the government retaining private counsel for Yoo??).

It is about 2010, in my opinion, precisely to the extent that a loss of seats for Democrats might wake the party up to the consequences of failing to "throw a bone", or even a "scrap" to the liberal wing of the party. Unfortunately, rather than the "center" realizing that they are being "douchey" (to quote Matt Taibbi, tongue in cheek) in dismissing the liberal wing of the party... the center instead likes to try to convince itself that it is the "left" that is "douchey" (silliest epithet ever) for having "sabotaged the party" for the "petty reason" of the party "deciding to metaphorically piss on them".

I'm not sure of the internal mental context that makes your use of the phrase "faux surprise and heartbreak" make sense to you... and as a result it makes no sense to me... so I will leave you to deduce what my response probably would have been...

[asdjrocky]

12. Just give up.

It feels better.

[yourout]

14. Sorry to say.....I'm gettin there.

I will still vote Dem but you can bet my donations will be very targeted.

[tabatha]

18. Obama never considered single payer.

That makes your post irrelevant.

[patrice]

3. All of this bullshit about Obama is REALLY about 2010. The Senate is weak. We need the People to

get strong enough to put a Senate and House in place that does what we want, until then it will mostly just be Obama reacting to Congress.

A lot of the crap about Obama going on on this board is about either Republicans or "third party" (Libertarians, LaRouchies, Green Party) candidates succeeding in 2010. Fuck whether that ruins HCR or keeps us in Afghanistan past 2011.

[Ken Burch]

5. Well, we need a mobilization to make the senate filibuster-proof

Then, when we have that, we need to either do away with or sharply restrict the filibuster.

Frankly, we'd have done better MAKING them filibuster stuff and then having the whole thing play out on C-Span and, if possible, at least one major television network, just to show the people what the obstructionists are really like and the reason they need to be removed.)

[vaberella]

6. So you're saying Obama is right-wing and a corporatists...Fuckin' hell! Whatever!

Your post is a waste of bandwidth.

Edited for spelling.

[Ken Burch]

9. The policies, not the man. Don't twist the posts into personal attacks when they're not

I still have hope the man will get it at some point that business is not on our side.

[vaberella]

15. I find your statement to be false in lieu of Obama's past actions.

You never said policies---and based on the nature of other posts in a similar vein, it's all about the man using the guise policy critique and I'm a bit fed up with it.

And it gets even more silly to say it's policy when in regards to corporations he's going after off shore business accounts, he wants mandates forcing businesses to provide insurance to ALL workers, he's putting caps on bonuses, opening a separate entity to actually oversee the SEC and Fed, and various other things. But you disregard all of that and say he's a corporatist.

AS for right-wing---I don't know. If he was, he wouldn't be ending the war in Iraq and putting a timeline to remove troops in Afghanistan. He wouldn't actually have signed a bill to provide funding for community health programs not only in the US but also in our commonwealths-- it's a bit to socialist for them, he wouldn't have created a department addressing the Urbanization issue and all issues pertaining to it---that's new under his watch in which we're looking at urban sprawl, gang movement, and redevelopment of poor neighborhods.

But none of that means anything because to you all he is is a Repub Corporatist clone. I'm not saying that some of his policies don't lean a bit anti-left (I've had my issues with him on that). But I'm not about to sit there and post misleading and ill-representative posts with such a narrowed point of view that it really isn't worth to respond too.

By your statement, you just belied your intention. You claim it's about policy when obviously it's far reaching than that or you would have refrained from sweeping a broad brush over the Obama presidency---so far.

[LooseWilly]

22. "blah blah blah *in light of* Obama's past actions."

"in lieu of" means that you are going to take something "in place of" something. As in:

I will take your word for it in lieu of thinking about it for myself.

Whereas, "in light of" means you are taking something into consideration. As in:

I can't help but suspect that the President will do nothing for the poor in light of the fact that he's a politician, and politicians very very very rarely side with the working classes or the poor, over the interests of the corporations and their lobbyists.

:) :)

[vaberella]

27. Why do you start a discussion thread if when someone says something you dont like it's

blah blah blah. And again as I stated...your post is a waste of bandwidth.

[LooseWilly]

28. Uhh... do you realize that that response, to me, is incoherent?

I mean... firstly "Why do you start a discussion thread if..." - I didn't :) I'm not the OPer here.

Nextly: "... when someone says something you don<'>t like it's blah blah blah." Uhh, I didn't say anything about like or not like. I was simply providing you with a correction for the incorrectly used "in lieu of", when you meant to use "in light of". The reason for the "blah blah blah" was two fold- 1: What you had said previously was irrelevant in the context of the correction of "in light of" for "in lieu of", and 2: I do not agree with the meaning of the words that you had typed, and as a result they registered in my head as a rough equivalent to "blah blah blah"... but as I was not feeling like actually going to the effort of challenging those words... I transcribed them as "blah blah blah" in lieu of "..."

Lastly: "And again as I stated...your post is a waste of bandwidth." Well, the "again" would be incorrect, as it implies you had stated this before, which you didn't, because I am not the OPer. The assertion itself "your post is a waste of bandwidth" is firstly fallacious, as it obviously assumes that it is being directed at someone to whom it is not being directed, and is secondly incorrect, possibly, in that I may have educated you, or someone else, as to the proper use of "in lieu of" vs. "in light of". Or, maybe you are correct... and no one will know the difference as a result of my post.

:shrug:

[DJ13]

7. Its a stall tactic

The DLC'ers are happier than pigs in fresh mud with Obama, so they'll say most anything, promise most anything, to keep their gravy train going through 2016.

After that, honestly they dont care if another Democrat wins as they are the kind who can be whatever party affiliation it takes to keep the game going.

[cliffordu]

8. Your opinion in these matters is very monochromatic.

Do you think reposting the same tired horseshit is going to start a real dialogue, change some minds, restore some faith in 'activism'??

Ken, I like your tenacity and intellect, even, but you really, really have hit a point of zero returns and almost zero credibility with the same fucking thing over and over and over again.

It's no skin off my ass, but if I hit this kind of wall, I'd take a fucking break and go protest something on a street corner somewhere.

[Ken Burch]

10. This is a different subject.

And it's not your place to tell me to stop posting. You don't have to read my threads if you don't want to.

[cliffordu]

11. I told you it was no skin off my ass and it ain't -

I just told you what I'd do -

As far as I'm concerned you can post twice the number of shitty little screeds if you want to; it won't change one thing.

Actually, I think they're amusing. In kind of a stalker-hopeless-romantic-skinner box-keep-hitting-the-button-for -a-reward kind of way.

have fun!!

:hi:


(EDIT: that would be B.F. Skinner, shrink extraordinaire and really good writer.... Not our beloved leader)

[apocalypsehow]

13. You mean sometime in the future? Because the current Democratic president isn't "rightwing" anything

:shrug:

[provis99]

25. he's renewing the Patriot Act. In what worldview is that not rightwing?

[johnaries]

30. It's not the same Patriot Act. It's been heavily revised. Still

not where it should be in my opinion, but much improved from the Patriot Act Repukes forced down our throats in 2001. Do a little homework.

[apocalypsehow]

32. You really should read up on the subjects you post about. It helps your posts not look ridiculous.

[tabatha]

20. Isn't it funny that the right

wants to impeach Obama for socialist policies?

I mean come on, trying get to health care reform to bring down costs, and get more people covered is so right-wing.

[Sebastian Doyle]

31. Forcing people to buy insurance from corporations is VERY right wing

Of course Obama did NOT run on that position, which is why he shouldn't sign any shit health care bill that contains it.

[NYC Liberal]

21. Sorry but

no matter what Democrat is elected people here will be complaining about them being a "corporatist" or whatever.

Obama (like all presidents) represents 300,000,000+ people - not the roughly 150,000 registered here on DU and the much fewer who actively post. So no president will escape charges of not being a "real liberal" because of some position they have on somebody's pet issue.

[stevenleser]

24. No

[JVS]

26. The Republicans have learned that by becoming a conservative cadre party, they pull "moderates"...

far enough to the right that the conservative agenda doesn't lose ground even when out of power.

[OHdem10]

29. When we we layed down and rolled over as the GOP declared

this country a center right country, the fix was in.

DLC or New Democrats can only be President in a center
Right Country. I am not flame baiting. My observations
over the years have proven this.

Clinton, DLC. Carter--Conservative Democrat. As soon as
Obama was sworn in--surrounded by New Democrats, DLC.

Center Right is not a little right of Center. We have not
seen the Center in years. Center Right is CONSERVATIVE Right Wing.
If the country is conservative the logical answer is
Conservative Republicans or Conservative Democrats must
rule.

[stray cat]

33. Easy - just elect the progressive president you want!

If the entire nation really wants a more progressive president, senate or house. However, so far candidates like Kucinich haven't done well nation wide and can't seem to even break 5% on a national election. It makes it seem like the nation doesn't want the progressive president many on DU want and in a democracy that means the person is elected by the nation and not by DU