FDR had an 80% dem congress, how do progressives get Obama at least 70% progressive congress?

[uponit7771]

FDR had an 80% dem congress, how do progressive get Obama a 70% dem congress who wont stab progressives in the back?


Jus sayin, looks like there's more work to do to get the middle class back to where it needs to be...


Thx

P.S. I don't believe Obama is a corporate whore or Rahm is a pimp or that they dog, bo, hates bambi or some other shit the haters make up about Obama....lets start with the premise that Obama wants change for America's middle class.

Thx

P.S.S Anyone thinking a progressive congress is impossible please look at a picture of Obama and ask yourself was it possible to elect a black man to the presidency of one of the richest countries in history?!

Thx

[valerief]

1. Let's believe in unicorns, too! Trees, meet forest. nt

[uponit7771]

2. A black man got voted for president in America, I don't believe unicorns are that far off :-)

[uponit7771]

3. Why would someone unrec this?!....yaw a trip

[SIMPLYB1980]

6. Because you make a valid point they

don't agree with. They see it as an attack.

[DebbieCDC]

4. Let's try getting a progressive president to start with

And if he wanted to deliver on the "change" he promised we'd see a different set of circumstances going on right now.

None so blind as those who will not see

[uponit7771]

5. A progessive congress can overide a non progressive president no? Seems like they have the power

..right now anyway.

[treestar]

24. Now stop making sense

Congress is not progressive and these people want to stamp their feet that the POTUS cannot make them be progressive by using the bully pulpit and pulling their chairmanships and taking their Democratic party money away so they can be replaced by Republicans and challenging them to duels and just calling them poopy-pants to make them vote his way.

I mean he's just so "weak" because he cannot force them to be progressives!

[BlueIdaho]

7. I don't think we need a 70% progressive congress - we need to kill the filibuster.

[uponit7771]

8. Yeap, or set the rules back to where they were....true

[Laelth]

9. The first thing Democrats need to do is act like Democrats.

If the economy gets worse (and it might), the climate might be right to get more Democrats in Congress, but there will be no incentive for the American people to vote in Democrats if the Democrats in power now keep acting like corporate whores. Electing more corporate whores will not solve the problem. If, however, the Democrats start acting like Democrats, then the American people might elect more of them when the need for more real Democrats becomes apparent.

:dem:

-Laelth

[treestar]

25. The voters love their "corporate whores"

Republican and Democratic.

[NJmaverick]

10. This will be a tall order but the right prescription for true change

As to how it's about support and campaign and provide grass roots support.

[Armstead]

11. He could start by being more progressive himself

[uponit7771]

13. A progessive congress can overide a non progressive president no? Seems like they have the power

...right now

[Armstead]

16. There are enough progressive in Congress that....

if Obama got on their side they could start to tip the balance. His lack of back up for them helped to result in this abortion of a health care bill.

Plus, Obama could help set the stage to re energize that "change you can believe in" thing, which would help to get more progressive Democrats elected.

He can't if he sits on the sidelines, or continues to allow himself to be swayed by the non-progressive "centrists."

[uponit7771]

26. Not the senate, again...a 70% progressive rule in house and senate gets Obama the power

...that is needed to pass meaningful reform

[Armstead]

50. I don;t disagree...I have written something similar before

However, I was responding to your specific about what Obama might do. My answer was he could start by being more of a progressive.

It's not the only answer obviously, but it'd be a good start.

[phleshdef]

18. Cop out response that wouldn't make any difference. The OP is dead on. Stop avoiding it.

[ClarkUSA]

12. And LBJ had 68 Democratic Senate votes and dozens of moderate Republicans to work with.

Anyone comparing him unfavorably with either former President hasn't got a clue.

[uponit7771]

14. yeap, I had to TP this to make sure to drive it home...expecatations haven't been set right IMHO

[ClarkUSA]

20. No, they haven't.

BTW, what's "TP" mean?

[uponit7771]

23. top post

[mzmolly]

15. Agreed.

:(

[Liberal_Stalwart71]

17. The problem is that there are too many moderate Democrats out there.

Where are the progressive, fearless Democrats? Back during that era, the Democrats embraced progress and weren't afraid to be called liberals. Nowadays, Democrats run as fast as they can away from liberalism. It is because being a liberal has become such a perjerative, I don't know how we can get more progressives in Congress. The corporate Democrats are just too powerful!

[Armstead]

19. The peoblem is that too many potential progressives/liberals have...

....become cynical because of the lack of representation of liberal values by Democrats.

Not just "lefties" but average working class and middle class people, who dismiss it with "they're all the same. Doesn't matter which party gets elected."

And others have succumbed to the swan song of conservatism because Democrats failed (didn't try) to sell what liberalism is. Instead, the Democratic machine worked so hard to sound and act like conservatives that people chose the real thing.

If there were a clear liberal message coming from the Democratic Party I believe a lot of people would support it.

[IndianaGreen]

21. Don't vote for Blue Dogs, neoliberal imperialists, and any flavour of conservadems

The issue is not a Democratic Congress, which has been a dismal failure, but having a Left-kind of Democratic Congress.

[Stevepol]

22. In simple terms: GET RID OF THE VOTING MACHINES!!!!!!!!!

Max Cleland would have been in Crongress already and perhaps 8 other reps and senators would be Dem today if the 02 vote had not been counted on hackable, easily misprogrammed voting machines. The reason I say "perhaps" is that it's impossible to know anything for sure in the world of elections in the US of A.

Not anymore.

Get the voting machines out or get paper and audit the hell out of EVERY election everywhere.

That's how you get a 70% progressive Congress or more. We would already have that percentage if our election system was democratic (small "d").

[Sebastian Doyle]

27. That's only step one.

Step two is public funding of elections. No corporate funding allowed.

Step three is breaking up the whore media conglomerates, and not allowing any media ownership that is a clear conflict of interest (i.e. a defense contractor owning several television networks). This begins by preventing the Comca$t takeover of NBC.

[mmonk]

28. All I know is Bush never had more than 55 Republican Senators

to get his agenda on America through. Evidently, the Democratic Party is a conservative party or the explanation why the Democrats needs so many more is weak.

[uponit7771]

29. Part of the problem is Reid, Bush had Tom Delay Obama has...well...

[Ter]

30. We don't

Different times, no party will ever hold anything near 80% again.

[uponit7771]

31. ...and pigs will fly when a black man is voted for president of this country.....Come on...

...lets not give up before we've start no?

[Ter]

48. Well, I'm only 37

Not sure what was said 50 years ago, but I have always thought a black man would be president, so I never said "Pigs will fly" before we have one.

Look at it this way. The last time one party one 49 states was in 1984, only 25 years ago. But one party will NEVER win 49 again, at least not until several more decades. No Republican will carry NY, CA, HA, or MA anytime soon, and no Democrat will carry UT, AL, or ID. Not being pessimistic, but we don't need to win 49+ states (or even 40 states). Likewise, we shouldn't need and 80% congressional majority to get our agenda passed.

[AllentownJake]

32. Simple go back in time and don't pass TARP nt.

[uponit7771]

33. Obama passed TARP? You know that's a winger talkin point right?

[AllentownJake]

34. He organized the effort in the Senate to vote for it

His Chief of Staff was the Whip in the House for it.

I didn't say sign Tarp now did I.

[uponit7771]

35. Obama did the organizatin?!?!! Link and quote, you know what the whip does right?

[AllentownJake]

36. Obama was the leader of the democratic party

Do you honestly think that TARP gets many democratic Senate votes without is explicit approval.
I told you we made a great team is the email Obama sent after TARP to Rahm.

He was chasing him for the admin since August.

[uponit7771]

37. Yes, I do think it would get enough dem votes and Obama would've looked silly had he

...not advocated for it cause he wasn't treasury secreatary then and folk that at least Paulsen had some sense but he was a crook too...


The onus isn't on Obama for that...

[AllentownJake]

38. Same could be said than for every Democrat that voted for the IWR than.

[uponit7771]

40. There was enough doubt AND time to vote against the IWR but not TARP, the two don't even come

...close to the equivocalness of the information the Bush admin through out

[AllentownJake]

41. Your right there was an actual debate for the IWR

:rofl:

[Milo_Bloom]

39. Your question has a fundamental flaw

You presume Obama wants to do these things and all evidence is that this presumption is wrong. He could have had his way with the banking industry and really pushed credit card reform.. these were easy goals given the crisis and the mood of the country.

Why didn't he?

Why does the credit card bill do almost nothing for consumers?

Why did the bankers make out like bandits? Why were no serious reforms enacted to stop what happened before from happening again?

Answer those questions before considering how progressive congress needs to be.

[Perky]

42. Not possible but we coulf get to a 65% Democratic Congress

If you allow moderate to play a role.

[asdjrocky]

43. How about we just get a President that gives a shit about the 99%?

[rug]

44. Now he gets a pass until we elect 70 senators?

[treestar]

45. Do you believe the Senate should have power?

Do you believe their elections should be separate from the election for President? Should they be elected by the states, two to each state? Because your comment tends to indicate that you think they are like the Veep, all elected with the President.

Are you implying that all Senators should be in lock step with the President? He should be so mesmerizing and such a hypnotist?

[rug]

46. The point is thataway > > > > >

[treestar]

47. I thought we were so against lock step

And so proud of not agreeing with the President?

Yet these Senators should.

[VMI Dem]

49. FDR was a progressive.

Start there.