Where did this "deserve my vote" nonsense come from? Who the hell are you...

[TreasonousBastard]

to be so important that a politician has to kiss your ass to get a vote? That used to be called pandering.

To be President, you have to get around 60 million or so people to vote for you. Not one of those millions will agree on everything with any candidate-- just vote for the better of two. That's all there is to it.

Granted, Obama doesn't seem to have the fighting spirit of Truman or the skull-cracking talents of LBJ, but neither of them had an opposition party solely dedicated to taking him down. Not opposing him on policy or principle, but quite willing to let the country go to hell if that is the way to destroy the black man they can't openly mention being black, but who most certainly doesn't deserve to be President.

I don't expect him to "earn" my vote, but just do the best damn job he can to hold this mess together. I don't have list of ponies or dealkillers, just the hope that ANYONE in that job can survive it and beat back the barbarian hordes until this nation can stop arguing about gay marriage, abortion, and Mexican gardeners long enough to at least admit what the serious problems are.

So far, he's doing just that, and I WILL fight to re-elect him and regain our majority in the House.

To do anything else is somewhere between sour grapes and pure madness.

[CakeGrrl]

1. At this stage,

anyone who thinks the GOP might as well have the White House is part of the problem.

[Historic NY]

2. +1 !

[MrDiaz]

3. Number one

A politician does have to EARN your vote, if a democratic president is not acting like a democrat you are telling me that it is my "duty" to vote him in anyways... bullshit, although Obama will get my vote, the overall masses will feel like they were betrayed by their leader. The huge problem is whether Obama has done enough to get the NUMBER of people who voted him in back into the same range it was in 2008, regardless of what you or anyone else who refuses to see it says, we as a whole are not as fired up about this next election as we were in 2008, and that will pose to be a huge problem. I hope Perry doesn't get the nomination because if he did, their are plenty of dumb repukes and teabaggers to vote him in, especially if obama doesn't get his supporters back up.

[COLGATE4]

4. +1

[TreasonousBastard]

9. I'm asking who do you think you are to define "acting like a Democrat"...

Is there some rule book out there that he's supposed to be following? Or is it that expectations were far too high when he took office? Of course no one is fired up like '08 because we were looking for that breath of fresh air after 8 years of Bush. Now it's back to the basics of just trying to keep it all together-- sounds like work.

I like most of what he's done, don't like some of it and don't care at all about the rest. Doesn't make him any less a Democrat in my view than anyone else out there. That some of my pet issues weren't dealt with just the way I would like to see is not necessarily Obama's fault.

He's not perfect, but all this whining about him not meeting some mythical ideal just makes it easier for the other side.

[MrDiaz]

42. how about

ending wars and not escalating them, maybe he could close guantanamo and stop torturing people, or maybe he could of fought harder for a public option, or maybe he could of let the BUSH TAX CUTS expire instead of making them the OBAMA TAX CUTS. How's that for a start? Or is that to high of expectations, i'm looking forward to your response sir, hopefully you don't let me down.

[rucky]

5. Would you feel the same way if we had, say, 4 or more major parties?

[TreasonousBastard]

10. Probably.

[mother earth]

6. The sad thing, is the devil you know is the best bet, no

expectations of big things with a 2nd term. When Congress is this bad, other measures are called for, gotta go partisan and fight is all.

[Logical]

7. -1 for telling people how to think!

[Tarheel_Dem]

13. That shouldn't be a problem for you.

;)

[treestar]

17. Some people need to be told

Some people need a good swift kick of reality.

[Logical]

33. LOL....yes, and you are one of them. The dream world you live in must be great!

[tanyev]

8. K&R

[frylock]

11. bahhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhh

[Tarheel_Dem]

12. I wish I could rec a 1000 times.

:kick:



:applause:

[Recovered Repug]

14. Where did this "entitled to my vote" nonsense come from?

Who the hell are they to believe that the only qualification for office is the initial after their name?

Also, if you believe that Obama has done "the best damn job he can" (your words), has he not "earned" your vote? Others may simply disagree with your assessment.

[treestar]

16. They never claim to be entitled.

They just need enough votes to win, or the Republican will.

People are insane if they think it is between them and the candidate. It is between you, the candidate, and 100 million or so other voters.

By all means, vote for the Green Party candidate who "earned" your vote and delight in the purism of having done so. But don't complain about the Republican President if that's the result.

[treestar]

15. Great post. I get sick of that earn my vote crap.

I'm just one of those 60 million people. I'm not going to waste my vote on someone who can't win who may have "earned" my vote. I'm going to make sure no Republican enters the WH if I can. That means the Democratic candidate, who will "earn" my vote by being a Democrat - who has a chance of winning.

[Llewlladdwr]

18. Bravo!

Thanks TreasonousBastard! It's high time that the voters stop thinking for themselves and just do as their betters tell them.

[Enrique]

19. yeah liberals should sit back and be grateful for what Obama decides to give us

while the teabaggers make a huge stink and Obama gives them everything they want. Great strategy!

:rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl:

[Honeycombe8]

20. "Don't ask what your country can do for YOU, but what YOU can do for your country."

Seems like that old adage has gone out the window for many these days.

[Amonester]

41. ++ (n t)

[SidDithers]

21. Good post...nt

Sid

[TwilightGardener]

22. Wow--my thoughts exactly. I also don't have dealkillers and lines in the sand--

I'll just vote for the person who better represents my interests and the interests of the country. Well said--thank you.

[Vattel]

23. If the incumbent has done a crappy job,

there's a sense in which he or she doesn't deserve anyone's vote. I might vote for him or her anyway because the other candidates suck even more, but I don't see the problem with saying that someone who has done a crappy job as President doesn't deserve my vote.

(Not to imply that Obama has done a crappy job.)

[Hutzpa]

24. Amen brother

There are those who have convinced themselves and some like them that Obama cannot win 2012 without them
because he has not done as they say, he is not listening to them so he should be replaced, what does that remind
you of, sounds to me like something the slave master would say to those that they have given the priviledge to live
inside their house.

[Llewlladdwr]

26. You have opened my eyes.

I never realized it before but being a Democrat who wants a president more supportive of Progressive goals that the current president is EXACTLY like being a slave owner. Thanks Hutzpa!

[Hutzpa]

28. Well, welcome to the world of the living

where an attempt to be sarcastic can be met with drunken stupor.

[Llewlladdwr]

29. Now I'm very confused.

Are saying you were attempting to be sarcastic?

[Vattel]

27. you forgot the sarcasm thingy.

[Phx_Dem]

25. Amen.

[frazzled]

30. So true, and it's a lot like that old Carly Simon song ...

"You're So Vain" (You probably think this song is about you).

True progressives think about collective need, not what their own egos require or the ways in which they have been personally "let down" or "disappointed." Now, many will argue that their concerns are indeed about collective needs--jobs, etc. But it never seems to really be. A true progressive does not want to see this country fall back into another recession, and thus will sacrifice some of the things they would like to see the government do, and even accept some hard compromise, in order to get something that will help the situation. Something possible (like an extension of unemployment insurance, or a little more aid to the states to avoid layoffs, or an extension of payroll tax cuts). But the disappointed crowd only wants what their own maximal desires have set as an inviolable bar, and believe that "losing big" is a better than a partial solution. Whether or not losing makes the situation worse. Thus for example the health care debate, where the loss of a public option was the only consideration. They would rather keep us in thrall to the private insurers as they currently operate (dropping people, refusing to cover them, and paying their executives exorbitant salaries) than have the government require that they accept people with pre-existing conditions, end recissions, and dedicate 85% of their monies to actual health care. Nope, no public option meant we were capitulating to private insurers--the same private insurers they would prefer to let run rampant in their current state rather than be regulated without the public option. That's not progressive. It's about accepting nothing less than the progressive ideal and the hell with who it hurts if anything short of that ideal is accepted.

"I had some dreams they were clouds in my coffee, clouds in my coffee ..."

[Number23]

37. Really nice post

I saw a post from someone just a few days ago who said that he didn't care about the millions of people that would be helped by HCR. Because HE couldn't personally benefit from it, it meant nothing as far as he was concerned.

I was absolutely blown away. Didn't sound very "liberal" at all to me. I've seen a couple dozen posts from people just here on DU who have said that the HCR will tremendously benefit them. Even if I didn't benefit from it at all, seeing how it helps others in desperate need would be all the impetus I'd need to support it.

[Name removed]

31. Deleted message

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

[DisgustipatedinCA]

32. Where did it come from? Who am I?

1. It came from the basic notion that in our representative democracy, we can vote or not vote according to our own internal barometers, hopefully after giving the matter much careful consideration. Among those considerations is the answer to the question, "does this candidate deserve my vote or not?". If you believe that the candidate has acted in a way that's consistent with your ideals and worldview, you should consider voting for that candidate. If, on the other hand, you don't believe that the candidate has acted in a way consistent with your ideals, you should consider not voting for that candidate, possibly voting for someone else instead. All of this, of course, is opposed to the line of reasoning that tells us to stop thinking, stand in line, and vote the way we're told to vote. But yeah, the answer to your question #1 is: it came from the notion (or illusion) that each of our votes is important and that we should cast those votes after careful consideration.

2. I'm me--the guy with precisely one vote to cast.

[Puglover]

34. LOL

I have voted a straight D ticket since I could vote. And although I have issues with the President I'll vote for him as there simply isn't another viable choice. But I'll tell you what. Arrogant, idiotic OP's like this aren't going to bring anyone over to our side.

Jesus, happily unrec this swill.

Oh and PS. It's nice to know that you don't consider the fact that my partner of 14 years and I don't have the same rights as you a "serious problem" But it's hardly surprising.

[Arkana]

35. He'll have deserved my vote just by looking into the abyss and not blinking at this point.

[Number23]

36. "Who the hell are you..." Question of the CENTURY!!!

:applause: :applause:

[Name removed]

38. Deleted message

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

[Marrah_G]

39. Actually I think Equality, Control of ones own body and Immigration are all important

Obama does indeed need to earn my vote. If he sways to far away from my values then no, I won't vote for him. If I see him moving in a progressive direction then he will have my vote.

Your post is really condescending towards those people on DU who have dedicated their lives to making positive changes in subjects you mockingly call ponies and not serious problems.

[Union Scribe]

40. Yeah! Who the hell are you stupid citizens

to hold your leaders to STANDARDS? You high and mighty fuckers, thinking people you're voting for should have somehow resonated at some level with you or shared principles or been able to show progress after a term in office! Makes me sick, just fucking puking, to see uppity peons mouthing off as if they were of any importance. Pieces of shit!

Let's RUN ON THAT!

[LWolf]

43. It came from simple fact.

Elected representatives are supposed to represent voters. They earn votes for future elections by doing so.

My vote, as a citizen, isn't owned by or owed to any candidate. It is mine to give to the person who has earned it.

Nobody has to "pander" to me. It's a simple reality. A candidate who wants my vote will earn it. A candidate who doesn't earn it should not expect to get it.

Elected representatives and candidates make choices about what groups to cultivate, what groups to represent.

[Autumn]

44. Very good post

"A candidate who wants my vote will earn it. A candidate who doesn't earn it should not expect to get it." That line says it all.:toast:

[LWolf]

45. It's pretty simple, isn't it? nt