Blaming the Republicans is all well and good.

[JayhawkSD]

Obama and those who support him, and that includes me, blame Republicans for the mess that we are in and for obstructing the efforts to take corrective measures. All well and good, but there is more to the story that complicates the picture.

Democrats took control of Congress in January 2007 with a mandate to end the war in Iraq. We made no effort to do that either by withdrawing authority for the war or by defunding it, and instead we allowed the "surge" in that war.

Democrats maintained control of both houses of Congress in January of 2009, and added control of the White House.

While in control for two full years we left in place the slow-walking withdrawal from Iraq as established by the previous Republican president, so that it is almost three full years later before military forces are drawn out of that conflict zone. Why?

While in control for two full years we increased and escalated wars in Afghanistan, Pakistan, Yemen and Somalia, and began a new war in Libya, all without raising taxes to pay for the increased war activity, and with all of that funding being requested "off budget" precisely as Republicans had done previously. Is there not a certain taint of hypocrisy in criticizing someone for an action in which we ourselves are engaging?

With two full years of control of both houses of Congress and the White House, the subject of taxes on the rich never came up for discussion. This was a time when we could possibly have done something about them, but not until Republicans regained control of the House did we even raise the subject. Is it not a bit hypocritical to complain about not being able to change those taxes when we did not even attempt to do so until it was certain that we would not be able to?

We cannot be successful in implementing our policies when we are blaming our opponents and are unwilling to see where we ourselves are at fault, where we ourselves need to do better. We cannot win a battle in which we have nothing good to say about ourselves and can only say that our opponents is worse, because the voter will say, and not without some justification, "Well, they may be, or they may not, but you are certainly useless."

[patrice]

1. Dysfunctional relationships, everyone KNOWS what they are and HOW they work.

We NEED to be honest about it and accept the personal responsibility to stop reacting and start pro-acting.

[ProSense]

2. Wait,

"Democrats took control of Congress in January 2007 with a mandate to end the war in Iraq. We made no effort to do that either by withdrawing authority for the war or by defunding it, and instead we allowed the "surge" in that war."

...Kerry-Feingold (2006) ring a bell?

"With two full years of control of both houses of Congress and the White House, the subject of taxes on the rich never came up for discussion."

Does this or this ring a bell?

"We cannot be successful in implementing our policies when we are blaming our opponents and are unwilling to see where we ourselves are at fault, where we ourselves need to do better. We cannot win a battle in which we have nothing good to say about ourselves and can only say that our opponents is worse, because the voter will say, and not without some justification, 'Well, they may be, or they may not, but you are certainly useless.'"

So the most important thing is not to call out Republicans, it's Democratic introspection?

Republicans are to blame. They aren't called out enough, not by Democrat and rarely by the MSM. In fact, the OP reminds me of a typical MSM piece.

Oh, and screw Republicans. They're the problem and the reason why we're in this mess.

[mikekohr]

3. Last sentence sums it all up

[JayhawkSD]

7. Was that a rebuttal

"...Kerry-Feingold (2006) ring a bell?"
How does a 2006 bill rebut accusations of inaction of a Congress which did not convene until 2007?

"Does this or this ring a bell?"
The first link is about oil and gas tax credits, not "tax the rich" to which I referred, the second is a political piece, not serious discussion of actual legislation.

"So the most important thing is not to call out Republicans, it's Democratic introspection?"
I said that calling out Republicans was all very well, but that failing to look at ourselves was a failing policy. They are not mutually exclusive, an intelligent person can do both.

"Republicans are to blame. They aren't called out enough,"
Apparently you have not been listening to President Obama speak about cars and ditches.

"Oh, and screw Republicans. They're the problem and the reason why we're in this mess."
And Democrats have done such a wonderful job of solving it by pointing fingers at Republicans. The finger pointing has accomplished precisely what?

[ProSense]

9. Why

"Was that a rebuttal"

...yes it was

"...Kerry-Feingold (2006) ring a bell?"
How does a 2006 bill rebut accusations of inaction of a Congress which did not convene until 2007?

Are you assuming that from that point on nothing was done? Seriously, this is lame, especially since Iraq was a major factor in Dems winning in 2006.

"Does this or this ring a bell?"
The first link is about oil and gas tax credits, not "tax the rich" to which I referred, the second is a political piece, not serious discussion of actual legislation.

Let's quote the OP: "With two full years of control of both houses of Congress and the White House, the subject of taxes on the rich never came up for discussion."

Utter nonsense. Not only were there discussions, including a last minute decision not to hold a vote before the election, there was a huge discussion leading up to the December vote. Note: That was part of the two years of Democratic control.

"So the most important thing is not to call out Republicans, it's Democratic introspection?"
I said that calling out Republicans was all very well, but that failing to look at ourselves was a failing policy. They are not mutually exclusive, an intelligent person can do both.

Let me apologize in advance for saying, "Fuck Republicans." There will be plenty of time for introspection. One year before an election with the GOP pushing its right-wing agenda is not the time.

"Republicans are to blame. They aren't called out enough,"
Apparently you have not been listening to President Obama speak about cars and ditches.

Oh please, you think that's enough?

"Oh, and screw Republicans. They're the problem and the reason why we're in this mess."
And Democrats have done such a wonderful job of solving it by pointing fingers at Republicans. The finger pointing has accomplished precisely what?

Let me apologize in advance for saying, "Fuck Republicans," they deserved to be called out and voted out.

[Tiggeroshii]

41. Win.

[karynnj]

4. The Democrats did what they could in 2007 on Iraq

They passed a funding bill that called on Bush to set a deadline on being in Iraq - which got the 50 plus votes needed for the budget bill in the Senate and they passed it in the House. Bush vetoed it. We could not override the veto, which would have required 67 votes. This was a HUGE shift by elected Democrats as only 13 voted a half year earlier for Kerry/Feingold which was similar.

Though it failed, Bush somewhat later agreed to a timeline with the Iraqis for exiting, which though longer than Kerry/Feingold was not that much longer than what either Hiollary or Obama had in their plans. (Very few Democrats claimed this as Bush finally agreeing with the Democrats - but different wording aside, it was.) That is the withdrawal plan that Democrats now want followed - and which Pannetta's plan certainly is consistent with.

Now, I know Dennis Kuchinich and others called for filibustering the war funding. The problem was that doing that would have been politically disastrous and more important, even leaving costs money.

[TheKentuckian]

5. A future exit will also cost money. Probably more as fuel costs go up.

Staying deployed is not a cost saver.

[karynnj]

10. Not my point at all

The point was that the ONLY thing the Democrats could have done that they didn't in 2007 would have been to refuse to fund the war. Then I was explaining why they could not really do that.

[golfguru]

14. I respectfully disagree

IMHO the main reason McCain lost by 3% shift of votes was because he wanted to continue the Iraq war. People were and are ready to end the wars to no where, fought with more and more borrowed money from China on which we will be paying interest for the next 1000 years, since there are no budget surpluses.

[karynnj]

32. I was speaking of 2007 - there were two years when the Democrats

controlled Congress. I AGREE that there were very different things that could have been done when Obama became President.

[saras]

6. The "official line" covers all this

The official line is that "we" never did have Congress because there were too many Republicans who had been elected as Democrats, and wouldn't support any Democratic proposals.

But if someone then suggests that this is a problem, and that these people need to leave the Democratic party, then the OTHER side of the official line steps in and says that these people are representative of "real Americans" and the progressives are the wacky fringe that needs to leave or shut up for things to get done.

[ProSense]

8. Well

"The official line is that "we" never did have Congress because there were too many Republicans who had been elected as Democrats, and wouldn't support any Democratic proposals.

But if someone then suggests that this is a problem, and that these people need to leave the Democratic party, then the OTHER side of the official line steps in and says that these people are representative of "real Americans" and the progressives are the wacky fringe that needs to leave or shut up for things to get done."

As much as I was excited about seeing some of the blue dogs who voted against health care reform lose, their presence allowed Pelosi to be Speaker of House.

If only they could be replaced now with better Democrats, that would be a good thing.

[jefferson_dem]

11. Is this really DU?

There are so many posts / threads bashing the Democraitic Party, the Democratic Congress, the Democratic President. ... Hard to tell.

[mtnsnake]

12. Well

more than a few diehard Democrats are frustrated to see a Democratic president cave to Republicans on traditional Democratic values like taxes and the environment (extending Bush's obscene tax cuts for the rich and his other, much more recent, terrible decision to back off on the very important clean air bill).

Don't forget, this is the same DU that saw relentless attacks upon the Clintons for more than a few years, so why the big surprise when President Obama is held accountable for his actions, or lack of?

[jefferson_dem]

13. I had to chuckle at the 'diehard Democrats' line.

So that's what they are, eh. Got it. :eyes:

Speaking of taxes, see this - http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=433x770861 and this - http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=433&topic_id=770662&mesg_id=770662

[mtnsnake]

18. Why is that? You don't think they are diehard Democrats?

Nice, real nice.

[jefferson_dem]

24. Some "critics" here have aggressively advocated against voting for the eventual nominee for presiden...

and have been critical of virtually every signature policy accomplishment of this Democratic President and Democratic Congress.

Would a "diehard" Democrat do that?

Wrong, very wrong.

[mtnsnake]

26. I think you & I are talking about 2 different groups of people

As I suggested in my post, I'm talking about diehards who have every right to express their concerns on certain issues if they feel their president is bowing to Republicans on those particular issues. It doesn't mean for a second that they would not vote for the Democratic nominee.

As far as what you said about those who "have been critical of virtually every signature policy accomplishment of this Democratic President and Democratic Congress," then that's a different group altogether.

[jefferson_dem]

27. Fair enough.

Glad we cleared that up.

For the record: Of course, constructive criticism is encouraged. Some perspectives offered here (not necessarily talking about this OP) don't qualify as such, in my opinion.

[Mimosa]

34. Oh, bull.

What are the NUMBERS, Jeff Dem? Surely you have been counting and taking names.

During the last month I've seen just one post advocating against voting for the 'eventual nominee'.

Most everyone on D.U. admits Democrats have no other choice for President in 2012 than Barack Obama. The people who you keep 'battling' are those of us who supported him like crazy during 2007-2009 and became disappointed. Obama has critics. Some people want the critics to shut up and swallow our disappointment.
We'll swallow it. But we have a right to crtiticise bad policies.

[ProSense]

15. Yup

"more than a few diehard Democrats "

...nothing says "diehard Democrats" more than a "leave the Republicans alone" OP!

[mtnsnake]

20. My post had nothing to do with the OP itself. I was responding to a post by jefferson_dem

about DU.

[ProSense]

22. Wait

"My post had nothing to do with the OP itself. I was responding to a post by jefferson_dem"

...wasn't that a reponse to the OP?

[mtnsnake]

23. Huh?

...wasn't that a reponse to the OP?

Are you pulling my chain? :)

[Mimosa]

35. You're gettint tagteamed, MTNSnake. ;)

Nothing wrong with your OP. It's thoughtful. But any criticisms of policy, any expressions of disappointments, are considered threatening by some.

[ProSense]

37. Actually,

I found plenty wrong with the OP and the subsequent attempt to rebut those points.

[golfguru]

16. Does bashing a policy one disagrees with equal bashing the party?

[jefferson_dem]

25. No.

Not in my opinion. :hi:

[Name removed]

29. Deleted message

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

[JayhawkSD]

17. I'm just not sure I reallu understand this.

Thoughtful dialog is what liberals have always welcomed. It used to be that if you put eight liberals in a room you got about ten different opinions. Now we have marching orders that say that the Democratic Party may not be critically examined to see if we can do better and the only dialog permissible is that Republicans are the source of all evil.

I did not claim in the original post that there was anything that was in any way good about Republicans.

I did not claim that Democrats were the source of the problem.

I said that we need to look to ourselves and be sure that our own skirts are clean and be willing to admit that they are not as clean as they should be. And I am attacked because Democrats may not be subjected to critical review. This is not a thinking discussion. This is the ranting of ideaologues.

[ProSense]

19. President Obama is

ending the Iraq war and the process to draw down in Afghanistan is underway. You went all the way back to 2007 to make an inaccurate statement about Democratic efforts to end the war.

[Mimosa]

36. You think Democrats want to end the war?

The winding down goes on but hiring by private contractors and building of permanent bases is going ahead. I doubt you're really interested in pursuing the facts.

The US now has a war-based economy. Obama has made two major policy decisions based upon his fear that to do what he originally intended would hurt the economy. The insurance, hospital and pharma CEOs 'showed' the president that a switch to single payer would affect at least a million private sector jobs. Health insurance related jobs would be cut under a more efficient single payer system. In theis and the future white collar economy those workers would have no places to go. So out of fear Obama's admin backed down.

Now, how would the US employ returning military? How would we employ millions of aems related, IT, and systems engineers who are employed NOW and in the future in our colonising schemes in Afghanistan and iraq?

I understand learning about that part of the US economy isn't in your job description, ProSense. But I'm not a Pre, but because i care about the direction this country's been going, I learned. ;)

[ProSense]

38. It's

"The winding down goes on but hiring by private contractors and building of permanent bases is going ahead. I doubt you're really interested in pursuing the facts."

...fascinating that when anyone points outs that troops are being withdrawn, resulting in a decrease in the war budget, people suddenly become concerned about the well-being of contractors, who they despise as mercenaries.

There is never any evidence presented to substantiate the claim, but it has to be made to bolster the argument that even though the troops are being removed the war isn't ending!!!

But the wars are ending:


Obama Plans $42 Billion Cut in War Costs With Iraq, Afghan Troop Reduction

The Obama administration’s plan to reduce the number of U.S. troops in Iraq and Afghanistan will cut the Pentagon’s war budget by $42 billion -- a 26 percent decrease from this year’s level, according to government officials.

The proposed $117 billion for fiscal year 2012, which begins Oct. 1, would be the lowest expenditure for the wars since fiscal 2005.

<...>

The Pentagon today has roughly 97,000 troops in Afghanistan and 47,000 in Iraq. The 144,000 total is the lowest since July 2006, when the U.S. had about 148,100 deployed, according to military data compiled by the nonpartisan Congressional Research Service. U.S. troops are scheduled to leave Iraq by the end of this year.

The war-spending number is the smallest since Congress approved $102.6 billion in fiscal 2005, said Amy Belasco, war cost analyst at CRS.

<...>

- In June 2009, U.S. Forces occupied 357 bases. U.S. Forces currently occupy 121 bases, and are expected to reduce that number to 94 bases by the end of August.

link

Operation New Dawn began with 94 military sites in Iraq, in September 2010. Today, that's down to 48 sites. Seven more sites will shut down in August, Richardson said.

more

On June 22, 2011 the President addressed the American people about the way forward in Afghanistan. We have made substantial progress on the objectives the President laid out at West Point in 2009, and he made clear that we will begin the drawdown of U.S. troops from a position of strength. We have exceeded our expectations on our core goal of defeating al-Qa’ida – killing 20 of its top 30 leaders, including Osama bin Laden. We have broken the Taliban’s momentum, and trained over 100,000 Afghan National Security Forces. The U.S. will withdraw 10,000 U.S. troops from Afghanistan by the end of 2011, and the 33,000 “surge” troops he approved in December 2009 will leave Afghanistan by the end of summer 2012.

link

[mtnsnake]

21. Your original post was just fine

Some people just like to dissect anything and everything and pick it apart to suit themselves for sake of beating you up in debate-style fashion instead of getting involved in the thoughtful discussion you were hoping for. Agree with your OP or not, it is well written and worthy of discussion.

[McCamy Taylor]

28. Without a Democratic Supermajority, we controlled nothing. FDR and LBJ had

super majorities. If Dems really want to get things done, they need to vote more, not less.

[Arkana]

30. Congress may have been blue but the Blue Dogs set the agenda.

Without them there was no majority, and they got to drop the gavel smack in the middle of Obama's legislative agenda.

[FrenchieCat]

31. Well, Good AND Accurate.....

NEXT!

[Mimosa]

33. K&Red this to no avail

Why would anybody un-rec the truth?

[Skittles]

39. that's the deluded fanbase

the guy can do no wrong

[mtnsnake]

42. Ditto to what Skittles posted

Why would anybody un-rec the truth?

Often it's because the truth hurts. The un-rec feature seems to me to be DU's clever little method of letting the vast majority of people diminish the importance of the minority of posters who are all too often telling it like it is.

Thanks for your support upthread, Mimosa :)

[lynne]

40. Ah, accuracy and truth! That's bound to upset some -

- as demonstrated by the unrec's. Why in the world would someone unrec facts?? :shrug: