General Discussion
Related: Editorials & Other Articles, Issue Forums, Alliance Forums, Region ForumsPresident Obama Richly Deserves to Be Dumped
Published on Wednesday, December 14, 2011 by The Providence Journal (Rhode Island)
President Obama Richly Deserves to Be Dumped
by John R. MacArthur
As evidence of a failed Obama presidency accumulates, criticism of his administration is mounting from liberal Democrats who have too much moral authority to be ignored.
As Ron Suskind’s book “Confidence Men” confirms, there was never any question of doing things differently. Describing the then president-elect’s choice of economic advisers, he notes, “Obama, after all, had selected for his top domestic officials two men [Lawrence Summers and Timothy Geithner] whose actions [in the Clinton Administration] had contributed to the very financial disaster they were hired to solve.” These anti-reform appointments did not go unnoticed by party regulars, even though they were ignored by Obama groupies. “I don’t understand how you could do this,” Suskind quotes Sen. Byron Dorgan (D.- N.D.) saying to Obama. “You’ve picked the wrong people!”
The “wrong people” included Rahm Emanuel, now mayor of Chicago, and his replacement as White House chief of staff, William Daley; both of these advisers were four-star generals within the Chicago Democratic machine who cut their teeth in Washington during the campaign to pass that job-killer North American Free Trade Act and who later worked for investment banks. But Obama’s hypocrisy in Osawatomie, Kan., set a new standard in deception. Among other things, his speech blamed “regulators who were supposed to warn us about the dangers of all this [the unfettered sales of bundled mortgages], but looked the other way or didn’t have the authority to look at all. It was wrong. It combined the breathtaking greed of a few with irresponsibility all across the system.”
What’s truly breathtaking is the president’s gall, his stunning contempt for political history and contemporary reality. Besides neglecting to mention Democratic complicity in the debacle of 2008, he failed to point out that derivatives trading remains largely unregulated while the Securities and Exchange Commission awaits “public comment on a detailed implementation plan” for future regulation. In other words, until the banking and brokerage lobbies have had their say with John Boehner, Max Baucus, and Secretary of the Treasury Tim Geithner. Meanwhile, the administration steadfastly opposes a restoration of the Glass-Steagall Act, the New Deal law that reduced outlandish speculation by separating commercial and investment banks. In 1999, it was Summers and Geithner, led by Bill Clinton’s Treasury Secretary Robert Rubin (much admired by Obama), who persuaded Congress to repeal this crucial impediment to Wall Street recklessness.
Read the full article at:
http://www.commondreams.org/view/2011/12/14-6
John MacArthur proposes a Democratic primary challenge against President Obama which I'm opposed to. BBI
= new reply since forum marked as read
Highlight:
NoneDon't highlight anything
5 newestHighlight 5 most recent replies
sharp_stick
(14,400 posts)I guess the first bunch of times this drivel was posted wasn't enough.
RiffRandell
(5,909 posts)
pnwmom
(110,259 posts)have complained recently about Obama. Bill Moyers I respect, but I haven't seen him calling for Obama to step down. He knows enough history to know what the result would be.
This is a crock.
bettyellen
(47,209 posts)
libinnyandia
(1,374 posts)bettyellen
(47,209 posts)pnwmom
(110,259 posts)She's hardly a "prominent" liberal.
Vanje
(9,766 posts)I was familiar with Barbara Ehrenreich years before I'd heard the name, Barack Obama.
MrMickeysMom
(20,453 posts)But her book pointed out what was happening to the average working American. It told it like it was and she was one of the first to be interviewed by liberal media, the same number of radio shows that were shrinking an have all become mostly internet shows.
She was prominent where it counted with her book and had a lot of good things to say to those who cared to listen, which probably wasn't the average Democrat.
Maraya1969
(23,495 posts)for Nader in 2000. Some people just don't know how to win a game that entails some strategy. She and the OP are a great big FAIL with this one.
ClassWarrior
(26,316 posts)NGU.
JNelson6563
(28,151 posts)and I'm going on the record now as saying I wasn't all that impressed with her book. Sure, she stepped into the dirty world of the unwashed masses but, PhD or no, she's not quite bright enough to be fluent in other mindsets. I thought the book was rather flat and could have been much better.
Just sayin'.
Julie
valerief
(53,235 posts)
Hissyspit
(45,790 posts)her here for years.
Good grief.
There was a national controversy several years when right-wingers tried to censor UNC-CH from having incoming freshmen read her book "Nickeled And Dimed" as summer college-preparatory reading. She's on the editorial board of The Nation.
Here are some of her many works:
Nickel and Dimed: On (Not) Getting By In America (2001)
Global Woman: Nannies, Maids, and Sex Workers in the New Economy (ed., with Arlie Hochschild) (2003)
Bait and Switch: The (Futile) Pursuit of the American Dream (2005)
Dancing in the Streets: A History of Collective Joy (2007)
This Land Is Their Land: Reports From a Divided Nation (2008)
pnwmom
(110,259 posts)If someone like Kucinich or Barney Frank were calling for him to be opposed in the primaries, that would mean something. But all the prominent Democrats are smart enough to know that the incumbent will only be weakened by a primary, and less able to beat the Rethug in November.
bettyellen
(47,209 posts)I may not agree with her here, but I'm not willing to write her off as a nobody. I have heard her books discussed here many many times.
pnwmom
(110,259 posts)And DUers are much more informed than the rest of the population.
emcguffie
(1,924 posts)
FarPoint
(14,763 posts)But really, my guess is that only trolls will appreciate. We need to realize that the next 11 months, DU and other Democratic boards and blogs will be infiltrated with GOP propaganda .....we just need to chill and filter appropriately.
Ferret Annica
(1,701 posts)The 'my president right or wrong' is not a becoming posture to take.
I don't think competition would hurt President Obama's chances at the nomination, but it might give him pause to think more clearly on some things and relize he can't just take people's support for granted.
spanone
(141,601 posts)Ferret Annica
(1,701 posts)It is the duty of Americans to vote their conscious even should it mean apposing an incombant.
I have criticized the blind herd of lemmings off a cliff into the ocean affectation many GOPers suffer from very deeply. Democrats are a far smarter and more reasonable class of people by and large, I don't think competition for the nomination hurts anything. In fact, this sort of competition is very healthy.
So I would respectfully submit you reconsider your lack of tolerance for diversity of support for contenders for the Democratic nomination.
spanone
(141,601 posts)Response to spanone (Reply #136)
Post removed
Fantastic Anarchist
(7,309 posts)We're supposed to shut the fuck up and pick one of the two shitty parties.
Thanks for the tip.
You'll not mind if I don't fall in lockstep with that kind of thinking, eh?
bertman
(11,287 posts)Fantastic Anarchist
(7,309 posts)emcguffie
(1,924 posts)What you said doesn't make any sense to me. What is a "lack of reality"? Do you mean that some of us "have" reality and some of us do not "have" it?
We all live in reality. Some of us may not perceive it the same way, and there are some people who are probably perceiving things, like voices and such, that are not real, in the reality shared by most of us, anyway.
For me, I am terrifically disappointed in Obama, yet I have faith in his inherent goodness. I may be not perceiving reality very well. I may be wrong! I don't know! I can't really tell if I am right or wrong about him.
So these endless arguments focusing on whether or not members of this forum should be allowed to voice their discontent, their disappointment, their desire for an alternative is UNACCEPTABLE!
I do think Obama needs a good kick in the ass. I think it is all good for him to get a clear picture of how extraordinarily upset many people of just-fine conscience, who voted for him, some of whom will vote for him again and some of whom will not, are today with some of his actions. I think the example in the OP is a good one.
I appreciate the discussion, and I am getting so sick of so many Democrats who want to shut it down, as if it is disloyal to even express criticism. I don't like many things that Obama has done, and may do, and I have the right to talk about it! Even here!
And I will probably vote for him. But that is a personal decision that I think we all recognize is best left up to the person making it. And engaging in discussion is a pretty healthy activity for most of us who want to make such decisions while in possession of the relevant facts. When Obama says one thing and does another, that is relevant to me.
Geez!
You speak of reality? Here on DU, I often feel like I have fallen into an alternative one!
SixthSense
(829 posts)the inevitability argument is pretty hollow
Control-Z
(15,686 posts)I don't recall. Do you have a link, please?
SixthSense
(829 posts)It was in an interview with Katie Couric in 2007. Hillary said, and clearly 100% convinced as she said it, "I will be the nominee."
You can probably find the original video on CBS news, it used to be on Youtube but they probably copyright claimed it off.
AtomicKitten
(46,585 posts)
Old and In the Way
(37,540 posts)No, she wasn't. Need better equivalencies.
hfojvt
(37,573 posts)the voters get choices.
Response to Ferret Annica (Reply #14)
SidDithers This message was self-deleted by its author.
Ferret Annica
(1,701 posts)I am a Pacific Green, I know little about the party you speak of. And I would never come here and shill for a Green at DU. That is against the rules.
SidDithers
(44,333 posts)two discussions running at the same time on two different threads, and I've buggered them up 
Sorry for the confusion.
Sid
Ferret Annica
(1,701 posts)I knew where you were coming from and respect that.
FarPoint
(14,763 posts)Never, ever challenge the incumbent President who happens to be of your political party. Such a challenge alway has crippling effects to that party and the opponent ultimately prevails the victor. Thus, nothing accomplished and 10 steps backwards.
Ferret Annica
(1,701 posts)But President Obama's reckless and dangerous support of indefinite detention and making this country a battlefield means I cannot in good conscious support it.
Politicalboi
(15,189 posts)For jail if a Repuke gets in office. Possibly just for not being a Repuke could maybe put you in jail. Must follow our Dear Repuke leader. Ron Jong IL.
Hutzpa
(11,461 posts)nt.
leftyohiolib
(5,917 posts)how sad. it's amazing dems ever get elected to anything with the base behaving as it is
dorksied
(348 posts)I'll fill with horsepiss and arsenic...
Since its MOSTLY pure water, will you drink it?
dennis4868
(9,774 posts)voted for the indefinite detention of non US citizens so that means we should stay home and not vote or vote for the repub....WTF? Even if Obama vetoed the bill it would have become law.....
Thor_MN
(11,843 posts)Nothing is ever perfect. Deal with it. In all these inane threads, one thing seems to be missing: a candidate who could win and do a better job.
Fantastic Anarchist
(7,309 posts)Daveparts3
(49 posts)Harry Truman had two primary challengers and one in the general election and still won by over a million votes. An illusionary choice is just that, an illusion.
leftyohiolib
(5,917 posts)
jefferson_dem
(32,683 posts)There is no "legitimate" competition for the nomination. The OP knows that. The post is simply meant to ignite a flame war. Hence...trollish.
gateley
(62,683 posts)friend who was going to "leave her husband" so he'd realize what he'd be missing -- are you prepared to live with the result either way?
I don't think the time is now to attempt something like this. Too many people would get their hopes up on a potential alternative, and when Obama inevitably remains the candidate, might become too disenchanted/frustrated/angry to vote.
And right now, we need every vote.
If we want a more progressive candidate, the time to begin is right after the 2012 election in preparation for 2016.
Just trying to be pragmatic. These Republicans scare me too much to use the time between now and the election to try to "show" Obama anything.
WheelWalker
(9,401 posts)pnwmom
(110,259 posts)for the general election.
Obama will beat any primary opponent; but having an opponent now will only make it easier for a Rethug to finish him off in November.
Old and In the Way
(37,540 posts)Ronald Reagan was the result.
Vanje
(9,766 posts)Maybe its the inherent weakness of the incumbent that invites primary challenges, and calls for primary challengers.
Have you considered that?
MrMickeysMom
(20,453 posts)In fact, I really hate the mindset that we've taken about my prez right and even if he is wrong... he's better than the really bigger fascist.
Scootaloo
(25,699 posts)Ferret, think back to 2010. it wasn't that long ago, i'm sure you can remember. All those democrats, much like yourself, demanding we throw our candidates in front of a train to "teach them a lesson" and "show them they can't take our votes for granted."
This was followed by an immediate strong leftward swing in our politics once the new, very liberal congress was seated. They saw the error of their ways, and now we have... oh... oh wait, a bunch of batshit-crazy Republicans won in a telling sweep, and have been busting hteir tiny, tiny testicles every day to fight any and all legislation that has even a slight scent of progressivism to it! My mistake!
How many times to we have to "teach them a lesson" before we realize all our efforts to throw victory to the right again (1980) and again (1984) and again (1994) and again (2000) and again (2010) and again (2012?) DO NOT FUCKING HELP US?! When is that going to sink in through your heads, folks? How much is it going to take?
You're not going to get progressive legislation if you keep hustling caveman conservatives into office every fucking election cycle because you're pissed that Democrats aren't living up to your towering expectations. So long as you keep handing victory after victory to the Republicans, year after year, all that the Democrats are learning is YOU PREFER REPUBLICAN POLICY. How helpful.
Maybe a primary challenge wouldn't hurt obama's chances at nomination. But it would be guaranteed to hand victory to whatever dribbling idiot the Republicans come up with.
Which is, I presume, your entire point. After all, it really sticks it to those disappointing democrats, when you stab yourself in the face over and over again.
Whisp
(24,096 posts)I don't understand the mentality either - take two steps back to possibly maybe perhaps get one back the next election if the conditions are right and the waterbeetle in the matchbox is rolled on his side. Something between wishful dreaming and raw stupidity in that line of thinking.
flabbergasted. Progress is moving forward in increments not backward in a mad dash. sheeeesh
Number23
(24,544 posts)But they'll continue to bray that they are only "holding the president's feet to the fire."
RC
(25,592 posts)There is a lot of truth in that article. For instance:
"As Ron Suskind’s book “Confidence Men” confirms, there was never any question of doing things differently. Describing the then president-elect’s choice of economic advisers, he notes, “Obama, after all, had selected for his top domestic officials two men [Lawrence Summers and Timothy Geithner] whose actions [in the Clinton Administration] had contributed to the very financial disaster they were hired to solve.” These anti-reform appointments did not go unnoticed by party regulars, even though they were ignored by Obama groupies. “I don’t understand how you could do this,” Suskind quotes Sen. Byron Dorgan (D.- N.D.) saying to Obama. “You’ve picked the wrong people!”
The “wrong people” included Rahm Emanuel, now mayor of Chicago, and his replacement as White House chief of staff, William Daley; both of these advisers were four-star generals within the Chicago Democratic machine who cut their teeth in Washington during the campaign to pass that job-killer North American Free Trade Act and who later worked for investment banks. But Obama’s hypocrisy in Osawatomie, Kan., set a new standard in deception. Among other things, his speech blamed “regulators who were supposed to warn us about the dangers of all this [the unfettered sales of bundled mortgages], but looked the other way or didn’t have the authority to look at all. It was wrong. It combined the breathtaking greed of a few with irresponsibility all across the system.”"
What part of the above quoit is not true?
sharp_stick
(14,400 posts)with the constant regurgitation and multiple cut/paste posting of poorly thought out commondreams tripe.
on edit: being able to figure out who recs this thing every time it's reposted is giving me a pretty good insight.
RC
(25,592 posts)There are a lot of us that recognize reality and know it is a lot more than "poorly thought out". It is based on Obama's record and that record is not very progressive.
leftyohiolib
(5,917 posts)RC
(25,592 posts)I'm not seeing much with Obama.
polmaven
(9,463 posts)I so miss the un-rec feature.
blue neen
(12,465 posts) 
grantcart
(53,061 posts)Posting anti Obama screeds that you don't agree with but are very 'concerned' about helps ensure that idle hands are not used for other more useful activities like pulling the wings off of butterflies.
As an advocate for butterflies I say leave the OP alone.
Historic NY
(40,036 posts)
BlueCaliDem
(15,438 posts)on a DEMOCRATIC UNDERGROUND site for chrissakes!
Maybe they should rename it to FireBagLake 2.0?
This shit is getting out of hand. It appears the PL are itching for another Republican in the WH since they've clearly got TBagger memories, and have forgotten 2000.
HDPaulG
(241 posts)Who are the alternatives the D's and I's will vote for? Willard (Mitt) Romney? Gingrich? (pronounced 'Gingrick' in his family), Rick Perry (another Republican lack of gray matter TX Gov.). etc. of who low voter IQ republicans will vote for?
uppityperson
(116,020 posts)
great white snark
(2,646 posts)Better Believe It
(18,630 posts)grantcart
(53,061 posts)
tblue
(16,350 posts)There is no defense for the indefensible, so they trash you and/or other posters instead. No facts, just attacks. Speaks volumes.
You're not alone. But, face it, it is hard to buck the establishment and President Obama is now the establishment. I'd sooner defend the people losing their homes or the innocents killed by our drones or the reinstatement of Glass-Steagall. But that's me and definitely not the establishment PTB, which is, btw, on the wrong side of history.
cstanleytech
(28,470 posts)imo atleast its not so much that "There is no defense for the indefensible" but rather people are sick and tired of the near constant attack posts directed towards the president so are beginning to tune them out.
BlueCaliDem
(15,438 posts)gets so disenchanted and not go vote resulting in a President Romney or Gingrich - and the PL can sit back and all that dough roll in from the angry and fired up Democrats.
Apparently, since Obama's been president, it's been meager pickin's for the PL. You gotta do what you gotta do to fatten up that bottom line. Who cares about the country, right?
Bobbie Jo
(14,344 posts)Ferret Annica
(1,701 posts)I would do what I did for President Obama in the Oregon primary and return temporarily to the Democratic party and vote for them. Hell, I would do grass roots work for them.
The battlefield U.S.A. measure passed authorizing indefinite detention and extraordinary rendition to a hell hole like Gitmo makes this stand requisite of me.
I must always be true to my conscious and live by my deepest principles.
NorthCarolina
(11,197 posts)There would be little added benefit in switching bookends around.
Ferret Annica
(1,701 posts)And my desire is a wake up call to the president about his advocacy for a bad statue turning the U.S. into a battlefield, allowing Extraordinary rendition, and indefinate detention.
I asked myself, what would William O. Douglas do were he still alive and turned his passions lose in response to this turn of events making this unconstitutional statue law.
The first thing I did was to cancel my monthly for President Obama's campaign, and supporting competition in the primary season and at the convention is the next logical step for me to make.
NorthCarolina
(11,197 posts)and would continue to signal to DC that Democrats are still willing to accept DLC New Dem politics as representative of Democratic values.
tblue
(16,350 posts)We got nobody.
surfdog
(624 posts)Would have forced the GOP to accept single-payer.
What's wrong with Obama why didn't he just force the GOP to accept single-payer
I'm so outraged ...yawn
Old and In the Way
(37,540 posts)BlueCaliDem
(15,438 posts)and he would've bashed Congress over the head to give him the funds to shut down Gitmo, "or else", emptied all the military bases in Europe and forced all employers in the U.S. to hire all the unemployed soldiers in private sector jobs - to the tune of hundreds of thousands in one, fell swoop - personally run the Treasury, DOJ, and all other governmental departments, and did away with DADT and DOMA with a flick of his wrist.
All before he sweeps on his big, red cape with the huge "L" on it.
But the definitive word in my comment above is "force". That's what Kucinich would have to do; force all these changes because fact of the matter is, he has NO FRIENDS in the House, let alone in the Senate. Well, maybe Bernie Sanders, but Sen. Sanders likes everyone.
blue neen
(12,465 posts)serves on the board at the Death Penalty Information Center.
Damn, you just can't get any more progressive than that! 
I hope that you will continue to be true to your conscience.
redqueen
(115,186 posts)In these days of headline politics, to somehow remain ignorant of the intent of garbage like this is a serious problem.
Number23
(24,544 posts)
A-Schwarzenegger
(15,812 posts)stockholmer
(3,751 posts)bleeech is all I can say
lunatica
(53,410 posts)She's actually DLC along with her husband.
Beacool
(30,517 posts)Where the hell are the emoticons?
I can't find anything anymore.
MrMickeysMom
(20,453 posts)She quit being a progressive when she ran the first time.
harun
(11,381 posts)emcguffie
(1,924 posts)This one really gets me. I think you mean your "conscience," not your "conscious." Look it up.
BeyondGeography
(41,101 posts)Where to begin? LBJ was a hawk and you had RFK on the bench, ready to pounce if McCarthy's antiwar candidacy showed life. How does that compare to the present? Let's say Wall Street = Vietnam; who is the RFK of the anti-Wall Street movement right now and who plays his foil?
It's a very muddle-headed piece. The Democratic Party runs Obama, but some Allard Lowenstein-type can still emerge and promote a McCarthyesque run at Obama while the real savior (RFK) waits in the wings. OK...
pnwmom
(110,259 posts)A primary challenge now will give us who? President Mitt? President Grinch?
Cigar11
(549 posts)well until the Republicans restrict that right also.
SidDithers
(44,333 posts)arguing for an action that you're opposed to, as a community service to your fellow DUers.
Thanks, I guess.
Sid
Better Believe It
(18,630 posts)Didn't I have you on my old ignore list for numerous personal attacks on DU'ers, including me, that you disagreed with?
If so, did you want me to put you on my new DU3 ignore list?
SidDithers
(44,333 posts)You can do whatever you like at DU3.
Sid
UnrepentantLiberal
(11,700 posts)as a public service? I'm not calling you a pathological liar but I find that a little hard to believe.
Disclaimer: I don't necessarily agree with this post, I'm just throwing it out there for discussion.
Better Believe It
(18,630 posts)I more often than not don't agree with everything I read in an article.
That's called being a critical thinker rather than someone who simply mouths establishment political talking points.
How about yourself?
UnrepentantLiberal
(11,700 posts)There is never a good reason to hit a woman. Ever.
Ikonoklast
(23,973 posts)I'd never have thought I would read a sentiment posted here to the otherwise.
I was proven wrong in a sadly dramatic fashion.
Better Believe It
(18,630 posts)If a right-wing union busting a-hole is throwing punches at union pickets would you turn the other cheek if the -a-hole is a woman?
Would it be OK for a woman demonstrator to defend a picketline from an attacking right-wing strike breaking a-hole who happens to be a woman?
If you encountered a right-wing terrorist, who happens to be a women, getting ready to set off a bomb would you try to stop her using physical force, run away or smile at her and threaten to dial 911?
Do you see how silly your statement "There is never a good reason to hit a woman. Ever." seems?
But, that's another subject and if you really want to pursue it I suggest you start a new post to find out the range of opinions on DU. Just caption it:
"There is never a good reason to hit a woman. Ever. But, there are good reasons to hit a man"
Now just go ahead and do that if you really want to start a discussion on that topic or you can post comments in this string that are relevant to the actual subject matter.
OK?
SidDithers
(44,333 posts)Sid
Better Believe It
(18,630 posts)Don't you distort what I actually wrote and tell me what I said!
I'm not going to let you get away with that sort of bull shit here.
I can see you haven't let up at all with your personal attacks on DU'ers you disagree with.
Since you find it impossible to engage in civil discussion and would rather disrespect DU'ers and Democratic Underground by treating it like some trash talk board I'm putting you back on ignore.
Bye.
SidDithers
(44,333 posts)"Don't you distort what I actually wrote and tell me what I said!"
I invite any DUer to read your posts, here and at DU2, where you do exactly that. A quick advanced search of your posts that start with "So you ..." and then veer off into something completely in your own imagination.
Not so much fun when the tables are turned, eh? 
Sid
emcguffie
(1,924 posts)I think he has a point.
But I may be a little simple-minded, I realize that. But to me it does seem that you resort to personal attacks quite often. That seems to pass for discussion pretty frequently on this board, which I do like a lot, but that doesn't mean it is discussion.
People have the right to disagree. When a bunch of folks jump all over and slam repeatedly those with whom they disagree, does that add something beyond bad feeling to the conversation? I cannot see that it does. Some people might find it entertaining. Maybe that's what it is. Like watching a fight. Personally, I can't stand to watch fights, either.
Just my opinion. I think I have a right to that, don't I? Even here?
Dragonfli
(10,622 posts)And the right wingers in Canada suck, so why do we need the advice of a conservative Canadian anyway?
SidDithers
(44,333 posts)
Keep trying.
Sid
Response to SidDithers (Reply #129)
Post removed
A-Schwarzenegger
(15,812 posts)UnrepentantLiberal
(11,700 posts)"Any 'man' who would hit a woman is a fucked up piece of shit who should have his ass kicked by a real man."
I think you expressed the joy of beating up women much better in this thread: http://www.democraticunderground.com/124013092
You're complaining that this post is off topic? You're a piece of work.
P.S.
Feel free to hide this post. People will read it anyway.
JNelson6563
(28,151 posts)
Zalatix
(8,994 posts)when all Presidents get dumped due to term limits.
And not a DAY before.
great white snark
(2,646 posts)
Also, belated welcome Zalatix.
ProSense
(116,464 posts)"President Obama Richly Deserves to Be Dumped "
...the election draws closer, expect the anti-Obama crowd to get louder in their condemnation, pretending that they've had an epiphany after all the President's "failures," but it's the same criticisms (Social Security, ending the war, Guantanamo) being repeated over and over, regardless of the President's overall record. Congress' role in the process is also ignored to lay the blame for every obstacle at the President's feet. This was true of Guantanamo.
John MacArthur:
March 2009: Obama is Far from a Radical Reformer
http://www.commondreams.org/view/2009/03/18-6
June 2009: Obama a Very Smooth Liar
http://www.commondreams.org/view/2009/06/17-4
December 2009: More and More, Obama Seems a Faux Liberal
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/john-r-macarthur/more-and-more-obama-seems_b_394341.html
Yeah, I knew the President wasn't a "radical reformer," but I had no idea how his Presidency would unfold two months into its existence.
MacArthur isn't the only one who has focused his negativity on Obama since early in his term.
Now he's calling for Obama to be dumped?
Reality:
The "Bush = (insert Democrat's name)" equation has failed miserably
http://www.democraticunderground.com/100238406
CNN poll: Renominate Obama 81%
http://www.democraticunderground.com/100242021
The Case for Obama...a truly historic presidency
http://www.democraticunderground.com/100233108
Response to ProSense (Reply #11)
Post removed
spanone
(141,601 posts)RC
(25,592 posts)It is a good, working headline. Obama really does need to be Primaried for his continuation of so many of bu$h's policies.
His needless caving and up-front concessions designed to give away the farm in the name of bipartisanship.
Obama has done some good things, yes, but he is too beholden to Wall Street and has not done any real favors for the average worker.
sharp_stick
(14,400 posts)will be reccing it up to the top of the greatest page once again.
Better Believe It
(18,630 posts)Cigar11
(549 posts)I guess his Cool till has their panties in a bunch.
treestar
(82,383 posts)People need to get a grip. it's not whether any politician "deserves" the office, it's whether or not we want him or his opponent in the office.
SunsetDreams
(8,571 posts)copy paste...
broken records and all that.
Every single person who advocates for Obama being primaried knows damn well that in the end the Republican party would win. If you want someone more Liberal/Progressive, I suggest you start picking them now, and start working on getting them out in the public before 2016. We are in it for the long haul with Obama now. I plan on supporting him in his re election bid, because I will be damn if I sit idly by while a Republican asshole comes in and does EVERYTHING that I don't want, and NOTHING about what I need.
rfranklin
(13,200 posts)while following the orders of Wall Street and a few billionaires. This country is damned unless we can stop big money from controlling the game. And that looks like an insurmountable task. The frustration that people feel with the "same old, same old" is growing and the consequences will not be pretty.
SunsetDreams
(8,571 posts)If you have someone in mind, please get them out there now and start working on 2016.
If we do get someone Liberal/Progressive enough, then we better make sure we have a House/Senate full of Liberal/Progressives to push through the kind of legislation that will meet the purity test(no sarcasm intended).
rfranklin
(13,200 posts)but rather that the system is so distorted by big money that it is impossible to elect people who will vote for those policies. Instead we get distractions like Newt Gingrich to keep us occupied until Willard goes nose to nose with Obama and we will be served more distractions.
Better Believe It
(18,630 posts)And how close have you come to achieving that objective in the past 30 years?
Response to SunsetDreams (Reply #20)
SidDithers This message was self-deleted by its author.
LeftishBrit
(41,453 posts)
Autumn
(48,961 posts)but it's too late now. To do so now with what we are facing is unthinkable.
SunsetDreams
(8,571 posts)If there were "many" people then you would have already seen a Third Party give any of the two parties a run for their money. They don't even come close.
But you are right, to do so now would be unthinkable.
Autumn
(48,961 posts)
There are several , I believe I read 14 others running for President, and all have supporters. Like it or not there are many out there who think he should be dumped. No they will not even come close, but it is their right to run as President.SunsetDreams
(8,571 posts)I suspected as much as that is what appears to happen anytime you have a third party in the mix.
Comparing percentages Democratic/Third Party/Republican. It sure does look like several and not many.
Autumn
(48,961 posts)it all depends on the meaning of the words, several versus many. I'm not going to get into a battle over words with you. Like it or not many people feel Obama "should be dumped". People who voted for him last last time feel they can't vote for him this time.
SunsetDreams
(8,571 posts)You are right, that it all depends on the meaning of the words, which was my point when you talk about the whole voting public of the USA. It isn't many.
My intent was not to get into a battle with you over the words of many, or several, I can assure you. It appears that the use of "many people" feel the way I do, or agree, what have you, is used way too much to bolster ones opinion. I can see from fleshing it out, that you didn't intend that
Marrah_G
(28,581 posts)Frankly I would really like to have a primary challenger. I would also like to have a government not owned by wall street. Sadly I dount I will ever see either.
Romulox
(25,960 posts)with him. Plus all the crappy free trade threads. 
Better Believe It
(18,630 posts)and engage in civil debate and discussion.
So go ahead.
Refute the writer .... others have without being put on ignore.
I'm listening.
Ikonoklast
(23,973 posts)Say it's Kucinich, but, you pick whatever name you want in that spot
Show me the electoral numbers, state by state, and I will supporet that candidate's primary run.
stockholmer
(3,751 posts)The only 'hope' is that Obama disproves a lifetime's worth of my predictions, throws caution (and personal safety to the wind) and turns the full fangs of the massively over-empowered POTUS office against the systemic controllers.
http://upload.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=439&topic_id=1909639&mesg_id=1909639
1. Measures to reduce speculation and minimize the burden of fictitious capital:
End all bailouts of banks and financial institutions. Claw back the TARP and other public money given or lent to financiers. Abolish the notion of too big to fail; JP Morgan, Goldman Sachs, Citibank, Wells Fargo and other Wall Street zombie banks are insolvent and must be seized by the FDIC for chapter 7 liquidation, with derivatives eliminated by triage. Re-institute the Glass-Steagall firewall to separate banks, brokerages, and insurance. Ban credit default swaps and adjustable rate mortgages. To generate revenue and discourage speculation, levy a 1% Tobin tax (securities transfer tax or trading tax) on all financial transactions including derivatives (futures, options, indices, and over the counter derivatives), stocks, bonds, foreign exchange, and commodities, especially program trading, high-frequency trading, and flash trading. Set up a 15% reserve requirement for all OTC derivatives. Use Tobin tax revenue and a revived corporate income tax to provide immediate tax relief to individuals, families, the self-employed, and small business by increasing personal exemptions and standard deductions. Stop all foreclosures on primary residences, businesses, and farms for five years or the duration of the depression, whichever lasts longer. Set a 10% maximum rate of interest on credit cards and payday loans. Re-regulate commodities markets with 100% margin requirements, position limits, and anti-speculation protections for hedgers and end users to prevent oil and gasoline price spikes. Enforce labor laws and anti-trust laws against monopolies and cartels. Restore individual chapter 11.
2. Measures to nationalize the Federal Reserve, cut federal borrowing, and provide 0% federal credit for production:
Seize the Federal Reserve and bring it under the US Treasury as the National Bank of the United States, no longer the preserve of unelected and unaccountable cliques of incompetent and predatory bankers. The size of the money supply, interest rates, and approved types of lending must be determined by public laws passed and debated openly, passed by the congress and signed by the president. Stop US government borrowing from zombie banks and foreigners -- let the US government function as its own bank. Reverse current policy by instituting 0% federal LENDING with preferential treatment for tangible physical production and manufacturing of goods and commodities, to include industry, agriculture, construction, mining, energy production, transportation, infrastructure building, public works, and scientific research, but not financial services and speculation. Issue successive tranches of $1 trillion as needed to create 30 million union-wage productive jobs and attain full employment for the first time since 1945, reversing the secular decline in the US standard of living. Provide 0% credit to reconvert idle auto and other plants and re-hire unemployed workers to build modern rail, mass transit, farm tractors, and aerospace equipment, including for export. Extend 0% federal credit for production to small businesses like auto and electronics repair shops, dry cleaners, restaurants, tailors, family farms, taxis, and trucking. Maintain commercial credit for retail stores. Create an unlimited rediscount guarantee by the National Bank for public works projects to provide cash to local banks for bills of exchange pertaining to infrastructure and public works. Repatriate the foreign dollar overhang by encouraging China, Japan, and other dollar holders to place orders for US-made capital goods and modern hospitals. Revive the US Export-Import Bank. Set up a 10% tariff to protect domestic re-industrialization. Nationalize and operate GM, Chrysler, CIT, and other needed but insolvent firms as a permanent public sector. Maintain Amtrak and USPS.
3. Measures to re-industrialize, build infrastructure, develop science drivers, create jobs, and restore a high-wage economy:
State and local governments and special government agencies modeled on the Tennessee Valley Authority will be prime contractors for an ambitious program of infrastructure and public works subcontracted to the private sector. To deal with collapsing US infrastructure, modernize the US elgeneration, pebble bed, high temperature reactors of 1,000 to 2,000 megawatts each. Rebuild the rail system with 50,000 miles of ultra-modern maglev Amtrak rail reaching into every state. Rebuild the entire interstate highway system to 21st century standards. Rebuild drinking water and waste water systems nationwide. Promote canal building and irrigation. For health care, build 1,000 500-bed modern hospitals to meet the minimum Hill-Burton standards of 1946. Train 250,000 doctors over the next decade. The Davis-Bacon Act will mandate union pay scales for all projects. For the farm sector, provide a debt freeze for the duration of the crisis, 0% federal credit for working capital and capital improvements, a ban on foreclosures, and federal price supports at 110% of parity across the board, with farm surpluses being used for a new Food for Peace program to stop world famine and genocide. Working with other interested nations, invest $100 billion each in: biomedical research to cure dread diseases; high energy physics (including lasers) to develop fusion power and beyond; and a multi-decade NASA program of moon-Mars manned exploration, permanent colonization, and industrial production. These science drivers will provide the technological spin-offs to modernize the entire US economy in the same way that the NASA moon shot gave us microchips and computers in the 1960s. These steps will expand and upgrade the national stock of capital goods and enhance the real productivity of US labor. Return the federal budget and foreign trade to surplus in 5 years or less.
4. Measures to defend and expand the social safety net:
Restore all cuts; full funding at improved levels for Social Security, Medicare, Medicaid, food stamps, jobless benefits, WIC, Head Start, and related programs. Offer Medicare for All to anyone under 65 who wants it at $100 per person per month, with reduced rates for families, students, and the unemployed. Pay for this with Tobin tax revenues and TARP clawback, and by ending the Iraq and Afghan wars. Seek to raise life expectancy by five years for starters. No rationing or death panels; savings can come only by finding cures. Quickly reach a $15 per hour living wage. Repeal the Taft-Hartley Act and affirm the right to organize. Pass card check to promote collective bargaining.
5. Measures to re-launch world trade and promote world recovery:
Create a new world monetary system including the euro, the yen, the dollar, and the ruble, plus emerging Arab and Latin American regional currencies, with fixed exchange rates and narrow bands of fluctuation enforced by participating governments. Institute clearing and gold settlement among member states. Replace the IMF with a Multilateral Development Bank to finance world trade and infrastructure. The goal of the system must be to re-launch world trade through exports of high-technology capital goods, especially to sub-Saharan Africa, south Asia, and the poorer parts of Latin America. Promote a world Marshall Plan of great projects of world infrastructure, including: a Middle East reconstruction and development program; plans for the Ganges-Bramaputra, Indus, Mekong, Amazon, and Nile-Congo river basins; bridge-tunnel combinations to span the Bering Strait, the Straits of Gibraltar, the Straits of Malacca, the Sicilian narrows, and connect Japan to the Asian mainland; second Panama canal and Kra canals; Eurasian silk road, Cape to Cairo/Dakar to Djibouti, Australian coastal, and Inter-American rail projects, and more. American businesses will receive many of these orders, which means American jobs.
FedUp_Queer
(975 posts)emcguffie
(1,924 posts)I think you are not stating the truth. I think you are poking a stick at the OP. Why do you do that? Do you mean you disagree with him? If you disagree, why don't you state what it is you disagree on?
This is like watching a bunch of kindergartners in a mud fight. And the ones throwing the most mud are the Obama supporters. That is distressing to me.
I'll probably vote for him. I am very torn about him. He has done many things that I cannot abide. He seems to be doing things he said he would never do. I have trouble with that. Still, I will probably vote for him. I want to believe he is the good guy I always thought he was, who has found himself in an impossible situation. But I can't really say what that is, or I might be labelled a "c...dirty word theorist."
I also think it is best for democracy for these things to be discussed, openly, with light shining on them. Not with mud smeared all over them.
Just my opinion. And I realize I am not at all entertaining.
gtar100
(4,192 posts)"As evidence of a failed Obama presidency accumulates..."
Bullshit. Obama may not be your piece of cake. Heck, he's not mine. But to call his presidency a failure is complete bullshit. That's all I hear from republicons who don't have the sense to actually consider everything that has gone on. This article may cover relevant points but it smells of manipulation.
Smells like GOP BS
matmar
(593 posts)...a Progressive movement that has enough support from the voters that can make a difference in elections. That Progressive movement can only gain strength if enough people know about it and only if enough people are hurting to the extent that they will entertain a real left-leaning agenda.
...Otherwise the American people are stuck with a system corrupted by money.
In corporate controlled, Wall St-run America - you don't make it to positions like the POTUS if you are a left-wing liberal.
frazzled
(18,402 posts)Honestly, nobody is ever going to rationally convince people who think they've found the Messiah at common dreams that this stuff is over-the-top, factually misleading tripe. Let them believe it, like a religion. It's just a cry for attention, and giving it attention is the main reward for them.
I'm thinking of what I was taught when being trained in election techniques. You never waste your time trying to convince those who oppose your candidate; you cross them off the list. Instead, you focus in on getting the people who are committed, or very nearly commitable, to get to the polls.
Arguing with people who have a different "belief" system is a real time waster, and distracts from the real work that needs to be done.
SunsetDreams
(8,571 posts)great white snark
(2,646 posts) redqueen
(115,186 posts)The last time I saw this headline it had plenty of recs (150, to be exact).
I don't know how ignoring something that many of us consider misleading tripe is supposed to work when many here agree with it wholeheartedly.
frazzled
(18,402 posts)It's infuriating. But every time I try for a while I realize I'm just wasting my breath (or rather, fingers). It just makes them ratchet up their hostility even more.
And the more rational and fact-based you try to be, the more angry diatribes and insults are heaped upon you. They're really threatened by facts.
SunSeeker
(58,274 posts)I sure didn't rec it because I agree with the author of the article BBI offered up for discussion!
redqueen
(115,186 posts)Number23
(24,544 posts)+a million.
And I agree with your use of the word "fringe" to describe these types of posts and the people who agree with them.
Mr Dixon
(1,185 posts)News flash if want to vote for someone then do so, OBAMA has my vote no matter how many BS Cut and paste jobs are post on this webpage.
liberal N proud
(61,194 posts) Republican talking points drivel
emulatorloo
(46,155 posts)MjolnirTime
(1,800 posts)bhikkhu
(10,789 posts)The article hinges on the "stunning contempt for political history and contemporary reality" that Obama allegedly demonstrated, by ignoring the causes of the 2008 meltdown ("Democratic complicity" notable here)...which itself ignores the banking reform bill, which was passed with great difficulty over fierce republican and industry resistance.
Reading up on the Dodd-Frank Bill gives a better perspective (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dodd%E2%80%93Frank_Wall_Street_Reform_and_Consumer_Protection_Act), not that very many would buy into the type of hyperbole and pre-election self-immolation advised by the OP.
Blue_Tires
(57,596 posts)The author 'conveniently' neglects to identify which 'true liberal' can/should step in at the 11th hour, defeat Obama in the primary, win a national election, and usher in our new socialist utopia (while at the same time winning every tug-of-war with a teabagger congress)...
I challenged the "primary" crowd on this site over a year ago to dig up a realistic, viable candidate (hint: Hillary and Dennis aren't interested), and since that time it's nothing but the same empty talk...
CakeGrrl
(10,611 posts)Crap like this will make his re-election all the better.
saras
(6,670 posts)What people "deserve" has little to do with anything except our own moral systems, and others don't generally follow our moral systems unless we are fanatical dictators.
JNelson6563
(28,151 posts)Still funny, if not getting a little boringly predictable.
Enjoy voting Rethug!
Julie
Better Believe It
(18,630 posts)Your claim that I will "enjoy voting" Republican is a continuation of those personal attacks.
If you can't stand serious debate and discussion and would rather engage in personal attacks and trash talk perhaps you can find a discussion board that encourages such behavior.
In any case, you've just earned a place on my DU3 ignore list.
Bye.
JNelson6563
(28,151 posts)Yeah, maybe if I started cutting and pasting loads of pap then I could be a great debater and discusser, like you!
lolz I know it's not intentional but you always crack me u.
Julie
ProSense
(116,464 posts)http://www.dailykos.com/story/2011/12/21/1047553/-BlackAgendaReportCom-Rips-Off-the-Emperor
Idiotic diary, but great comments.
For the record, I despise Glen Ford.
Obama’s Siren Song
http://www.counterpunch.org/2007/06/14/obama-s-siren-song/
tridim
(45,358 posts)And BTW, thanks for post, it'll make populating my ignore list extremely easy.
Number23
(24,544 posts)Politicalboi
(15,189 posts)It's just a Repuke ploy.
Response to Politicalboi (Reply #78)
Post removed
Bobbie Jo
(14,344 posts)emulatorloo
(46,155 posts)is a tried and true Republican strategy.
(and no, I am not saying BBI is a Republican. I do not know what motivates BBI to post thead after thread of hyperbolic opinion pieces)
Better Believe It
(18,630 posts)I couldn't automatically move that list over to DU3 so I will now place you on my DU3 ignore list.
Bye.
emulatorloo
(46,155 posts)about Democrats.
And you did not like getting caught.
SidDithers
(44,333 posts)That poster doesn't like being shown to be wrong.
Sid
Bobbie Jo
(14,344 posts) emcguffie
(1,924 posts)Is that okay? May I disagree? May I say so? Is that allowed?
center rising
(971 posts)disndat
(1,887 posts)by the Supreme Court Justices that he has appointed and tried to appoint. So far they have all been great progressive Justices. I am waiting to see what his 2nd term will be like. As the first black President in a mostly white country, he has been under enormous pressure, plus the awful mess Bush left him. A third party would only bring more Justices like Scalia, Roberts and Alito , God forbid, into the Court. Of course Obama will also need both Houses of Congress to be Democratic or we will be back to square one.
opihimoimoi
(52,426 posts)Mitt, Perry, Cain, Paul...to replace Obama?
WTF is this Toad telling us this GOPer SHIT?
Hey, dumbass, we tried Stoopid w Bush2...now ya want us to go with INSANE?
Are you Nuts?
Hutzpa
(11,461 posts) 
bvar22
(39,909 posts)The "dumped" has a different meaning to those of us that were around in 1968.
I also disagree with some of the unnecessary inflammatory language.
However, I DO agree with much of the content.
The “wrong people” included Rahm Emanuel, now mayor of Chicago, and his replacement as White House chief of staff, William Daley; both of these advisers were four-star generals within the Chicago Democratic machine who cut their teeth in Washington during the campaign to pass that job-killer North American Free Trade Act and who later worked for investment banks."
I also support a Primary.
The reason is I believe that our President is NOT above questions and accountability.
If Obama has NO opponent INSIDE the Democratic party to ask these questions,
the National Dialog will be limited to only those narrow areas where Obama disagrees with the Republicans.
If nobody inside the Democratic party forces President Obama to discuss the areas of disagreement with Liberal Democrats,
than many Left Leaning voters will feel ignored, and direct their money and support elsewhere.
IF Democrats who are Anti-WAR, Pro Single Payer, Pro-Equal Rights/Protections for everybody, Anti-Unitary Executive, Pro-LABOR, Pro-Working Class are given a voice and platform inside the Party and a seat at the table,
it would provide a strong inducement to STAY in the Fold and work inside the Party.
It would also make President Obama look like a strong statesman.
He does extremely well in debates.
In fact, THAT is his Strong Suit.
Let him play that hand.
It is a Political Fact of Life,
Vacuums are filled.
QED: 2000
The Democratic Party NEEDS to cover the Left Flank,
and quickly.
You will know them by their WORKS,
not by their excuses.
[font size=5 color=green][center]Solidarity99![/font][font size=2 color=green]
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------[/center]
MissDeeds
(7,499 posts)frazzled
(18,402 posts)The war was shit, and he lied to us. He also, as we now know, desperately wanted to end it but didn't know how. 1968 gave us riots, two horrible assassinations, and Richard Nixon. It was the worst year I ever lived through.
bvar22
(39,909 posts)I NEVER though I would EVER say that LBJ was the most Liberal President of the last 1/2 CENTURY,
but There it is!
No president since 1960 can come close to matching LBJ's contributions to the Working Class with Medicare and the Civil Rights Act, along with a host of other Great Society programs.
THAT was the Democratic Party High Water mark for the last 1/2 Century,
...,and THAT is so sad.
http://thejohnsonpost.blogspot.com/2009/08/johnson-treatment.html
Can you imagine Joe Lieberman standing up to LBJ, stamping his little foot,
and saying, "NO! I'm NOT going to support your Medicare program."
We would STILL be finding little pieces of Lieberman's ass spread all the way from Washington DC to Texas.
LOL.
You will know them by their WORKS,
not by their excuses.
[font size=5 color=green][center]Solidarity99![/font][font size=2 color=green]
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------[/center]
rhett o rick
(55,981 posts)would end the war. Last time I believed a republicon.
rhett o rick
(55,981 posts)right of center vote that is disgusted with the clowns. He has been on this tact since his inauguration. I think he figures that embracing the left will lose him more votes than he will gain. The left has no choice but to support him as we are told over and over and over here in DU. But those on the right of center are important votes because they would be votes his opponent doesnt get.
However, the President is under estimating the Republicans. Choosing to shun the left may come back to bite him when the REpublicon nominee turns out to be Jeb Bush. The Republicons will be so happy not to be represented by one of the clowns they will flock to Bush III and the Pres will lose the right of center votes.
bvar22
(39,909 posts)...and we all know what happened.
They are setting up an even BIGGER Perfect Storm for 2012.
The VACUUM on the Left Flank is much stronger and the Democratic Party moves relentlessly to The Right.
This may also have something to do with The Power Behind the Throne.
The "Centrist" Democrats deliver for their Corporate Masters.
It doesn't matter much to the Money Men whether the power is held by the Corporate Democrats
or the Corporate Republicans.
WIN/WIN for them either way,
but the LAST thing they want is an actual FDR/LBJ Democrat in a seat of power,
so they ("Centrist" Democrats & Republicans) work together to make sure this NEVER happens.
In fact, it LOOKS GOOD to have a change over in figure heads every 8 years.
That reinforces the ILLUSION of a choice.
wial
(437 posts)...and I suspect the republicans know it. It's almost as if they're deliberately running clowns in this election because they'd like nothing better than a democrat who veers right in the absence of pressure. It moves the whole discourse right, and they get the authoritarian state they crave.
Yet we have to line up and vote for him anyway, because the GOP is so much worse it's like a hostage crisis, or good cop bad cop.
Meanwhile, support independent democrats with Occupy ties.
cali
(114,904 posts)snooper2
(30,151 posts)
Now,
Where's that freaking new record you promised!
Martin Eden
(15,622 posts)If another candidate capable of winning the general election can actually defeat Obama in the Democratic primary, I'm willing to listen.
If you're suggesting to not vote for the Democratic nominee, I could not possibly disagree with you more strongly.
stockholmer
(3,751 posts)In a pincers-movement, the tyranny of the money-changers systemic control is now the only 'viable' option in the 2 party political chattel yoke.
Martin Eden
(15,622 posts)... if a Republican occupies the White House in January 2013.
How will 2 steps backwards take us forward?
stockholmer
(3,751 posts)constituted will bring about the systemic destruction of the banking cartel is folly as well.
Martin Eden
(15,622 posts)Some practical questions come to mind, that need to be answered.
Either a Democrat or a Republican will be the next president. In terms of the systematic change you speak of, does it matter which is elected in November 2012?
If it makes no difference in that regard, does it make a difference on a host of other issues that will significantly impact peoples lives, at least in the short term?
I think the answer to that 2nd question is YES.
Now comes the hard part.
Is a complete financial collapse (of the kind you predict in your other post) inevitable?
If so, what is the strategy for building something better to emerge from the ashes?
I'm not convinced that a financial apocolypse is inevitable, perhaps because the human tragedy on a massive scale is horrible to accept. Therefore, I base my strategy on changing the financial system and reversing the trend towards plutocracy within the democratic (small d) means provided in the US Constitution.
Reforms are needed, including Instant Runoff Voting and a complete remake of campaign finance by Constitutional Amendment if necessary. This is going to have to take place from the bottom up. The OWS movement is a good start, but many more people are going to have to get involved and make an effort. The power of the internet needs to be better utilized.
Bottom Line;
Keeping a Republican out of the White House is imperative for a number of reasons which should be obvious. Beyond that, we need to understand how the necessary change can come about.
emcguffie
(1,924 posts)Correct me if I'm wrong. I take your post to say that unless we individual posters here at DU have another viable candidate to offer up, we should just keep our mouths shut? We shouldn't post articles we think are good and want to share, that perhaps express our viewpoints better than we ourselves could? Or articles that information in them that we think might be enlightening to some?
I'm a member of DU. I don't spend all day every day here. I didn't see this article before. I am glad to have it brought to my attention, and I agree with a lot of what it says.
Was the OP doing something objectionable by posting it where DUers like me could see it? I am thankful to him for posting it.
If all you've got to add to the discussion is that, what you said, why bother to say it? Or, you could say it without being so negative. You could say, that you respectfully see that the poster is well within his rights to post such an article, that unless there is a viable alternative, you will vote for Obama. Hmm, I apologize for my most inartful attempt there. What I am trying to say is why be so -- disagreeable about it?
I'm just so tired of all this mud slinging. It's all over the place. As if people who disagree have no right to state their opinions. And I object to that.
I sincerely mean no offense. I wish we could all say what we mean without appearing to actually mean offense, without appearing to want to put the other person down, to "get him," to win out over him, to "show him." I don't think that gets us anywhere good.
Martin Eden
(15,622 posts)In response to the first sentence of your reply to me, I'm correcting you because you're wrong. I have slung no mud, nor have I suggested anyone should keep their mouths shut.
I typed two sentences, my point being made in sentence #2:
If you're suggesting to not vote for the Democratic nominee, I could not possibly disagree with you more strongly.
I expressed MY OPINION, after which you accuse me of all sorts of made-up nonsense.
One of your questions was:
If all you've got to add to the discussion is that, what you said, why bother to say it?
My answer:
First of all, you are doing what you falsely accuse me of doing: trying to silence another member of DU. Secondly, I felt the need to speak up because lately I've seen a lot of people on DU stating openly they will not vote for Obama in the 2012 presidential election. Do you honestly think someone other than Obama or the Republican nominee will win that election? If not, then if enough disgruntled Democrats/Liberals/Progressives vote for someone other than Obama the result may very well be victory for the Republican nominee.
IN MY OPINION, a Republican president for the next 4 years would be much worse -- orders of magnitude worse -- than the alternative (4 more years of Obama). I think war with Iran would be much more likely. I think the social safety net and the Environmental Protection Agency would be in much greater danger. I think income inequality and the tax structure would tilt a lot more towards the rich. I think a Republican in the White House would have a very negative impact on the lives of many people I care about and many that I don't know, and that more people would die prematurely at home and especially abroad in another war.
I wrote that I'm willing to listen if there is a viable alternative to Obama. I would like to see worthy challengers step forward in the Democratic primary, although most knowledgeable politicos caution they could not succeed and it would only hurt Obama in the general election.
I don't give a rat's ass about Obama's personal political career. I care about the future of my country and the people therein, which I believe are gravely threatened by the prospect of Newt Gingrich or Mitt Romney or any of the current crop of batguano Repuke presidential wannabees holding the power of the presidency.
I am appalled that so many on DU are stating they will withhold their vote from Obama, knowing full well (do they know?) that such a decision could very well result in a Republican president. I have not forgotten Florida 2000 and the HORRORS of the GW Bush presidency. We've got a long way to dig oursleves out of THAT hole, and thousands are dead & buried as a result.
I have no problem whatsoever with anyone posting articles or opinions highly critcal of Obama. We need to know these things, or point out where something in the article might be in error. But my ire is considerably roused when I see a movement in this forum towards dumping the Democratic nominee for president.
Do you know of a viable alternative??
If so, I'd like to hear it!!!
emcguffie
(1,924 posts)I pretty much agree with everything you said.
And I get my ire up when, when a member of DU posts an article, like the one above, and he gets dumped on and insulted and pointed at and all kinds of shit for having the audacity to post an article that is critical of Obama. I myself am extraordinarily critical of Obama. I don't have all the information. You can read for hours every day on this site and go away quite confused.
We will all decide based on ourselves, what we think, what we feel -- it is subjective.
Personally, I believe all of our elections are hacked, and to win we must win by a landslide. I don't think we lost all those elections in 2010, not really.
So, my two cents is just why react like so many on this thread are doing, when what the OP did was post an interesting article? Why not address the article, instead of all this mud slinging? If folks who will vote for Obama just lose their tempers and scream nasty things at those of us who are horrified by what Obama has done and may do, do you think that might convince them to vote for Obama? I don't think so.
I don't have any answers, sorry. I do have a lot of questions, and don't think all this nastiness and ugliness is adding any clarity to our rather desperate situation. THat's all. My opinion.
Thanks for answering seriously.
Martin Eden
(15,622 posts)I was being critical of DUers stating they will vote for someone other than Obama in the general election, and I was raising an alarm about the potential consequence.
As it turns out, we're pretty much in agreement on that. Heck, the person who started this thread doesn't even agree with the article! The last line of the OP (the only part written by the DUer):
"John MacArthur proposes a Democratic primary challenge against President Obama which I'm opposed to."
The meaning of my post was exactly the content of what I wrote, nothing more. Where we get in trouble (and spark flames) is when we jump to conclusions based on erroneous assumptions. DU appears to be dividing into separate and often hostile camps -- those who defend & support Barack Obama, and those who have come to see him as an enemy (that may be an over-simplified characterization painted with a broad brush, but I think you'll agree emotions run high against Obama among many DUers).
However, many of us don't fall into either camp. I consider myself a realist. I'm very disappointed in the Obama presidency, but I realize the next president will be either Obama or a Republican. I think it is absolutely imperative for the good of our country that the latter be kept out of the White House.
I think some people here feel so betrayed and/or outraged by some of Obama's decisions that they have lost sight of that imperative.
I apologize if my lack of clarity caused offense or misunderstanding. I was brief in my first post because the point I was trying to get across was (I thought) quite straightforward. I appreciate that your replies have been honest and serious, and I think this would be a better place for all DUers if everyone made more of an effort at understanding before flaming. We are, after all, on the same side (and in the same camp) relative to what we want for our country.
Merry Holidays and Happy Christmas!
emcguffie
(1,924 posts)Turns out we agree on just about everything. Just goes to show!
But I have to say I myself often do just react, with temper. And when I do that I am obviously doing the same thing.
And, on the other hand, there seem to be some readily identified folks on one side of this and on the other, who perhaps regularly face off across this divide.
I wish they would stop that yelling at each other.
stockholmer
(3,751 posts)Either way, it will end in tears within 5 years.
If the Anglo/American bankster cartel is able to play 'beggar they neighbour' with the EU and its coming Euro collapse (or a programme of sovereignty-robbing, auterity-accompanied ECB money-printing, capitulating to a flood of massive inflation to backstop the banksters), and the US government and the Federal Reserve are able to falsify the economic stats enough to fool the majority, then Obama will be re-elected.
If not, and the EU contagion spreads to the US by a factor too large for the corrupt government to cover up, then the US will more than likely get a Republican POTUS. If there is not a brokered GOP convention, and the Rethug POTUS is one of the current ones, then you will know that the systemic controllers threw the election on purpose to Obama to oversee the increasing collapse.
Either way, the empiric wars will continue, the debts will explode further, the wealth will flow ever-narrowly and ever faster upwards to the guilded class, the corporate fascistic takesovers will trod onward, and the US constitutional civil liberties will be further decimated.
2013 to 2016 will be a nasty 4 year spiral downward from all major levels of measurement, and by 2017 the nation, unless there is an utterly dramatic systemic change, will be beyond saving as a constitutional republic.
----------------------------------
The argument that the two parties should represent opposed ideals and policies, one, perhaps, of the Right and the other of the Left, is a foolish idea acceptable only to the doctrinaire and academic thinkers. Instead, the two parties should be almost identical, so that the American people can "throw the rascals out" at any election without leading to any profound or extreme shifts in policy.
- Carrol Quigley, Tragedy and Hope (1966)
Cali_Democrat
(30,439 posts)
jefferson_dem
(32,683 posts)"empiric wars"!!!1!!1!(won) 
The Doctor.
(17,266 posts)Although I'm a little fuzzy on what is meant by 'empiric wars'. I have an idea, but I'd like your take.
stockholmer
(3,751 posts)War it is not just a means to and end for ever-dwindling resources, it is also an end in itself. Bankers and their military-industrial complx profit and gain systemic control via debts in the build-up to war, in the execution of hostilties, and then the rebuild.
The privately held central banks (Fed Reserve, ECB, BoE, BoC, etc etc) and their multi-national counterparts (IMF, World Bank, etc and the big granddaddy BIS) run the world thru a hyper-complex web of monetary debt control over private firms, markets, and sovereign nations alike.
1990 nations that didn't have a City of London/Wall Street network controlled (indirect) central bank:
Afghanistan, Iraq, Sudan, Libya, Cuba, North Korea, Iran, Somalia, Syria, Yugoslavia
2004 nations that didn't:
Sudan, Libya, Cuba, North Korea, Iran, Syria, Somalia (Afghanistan, Iraq, and the former Yugoslavian all invaded by Nato, et al)
2011 nations that dont
Cuba, Iran, Syria, North Korea
(Sudan split into north and south, both parts have London/WS network-controlled central banks, Libya, Somalia (nominal control by the network backed government) inavded by NATO, proxies, et al)
See a pattern? I do.
The Doctor.
(17,266 posts)One would have to acknowledge that it is possible these countries allowed these banks in to have advantages not otherwise available.
But since the pattern of these banks is so very clear, it is more reasonable to assume that this is part of the slow takeover that has been evolving for nearly 200 years.
The formula seems so very clear. My projections concluded that sometime between 2017-2019, the final, largest collapse would occur. It would even coincide with the severe climate catastrophes we are beginning to see now, but will be orders of magnitude worse by then.
In the US, there would be a Republican President, and all the framework would be in place for them to establish martial law and a new fascist structure. The really frightening part is how deliberately the media is turning our own countrymen into fascists in a very insidious and pervasive manner. They make them so afraid of 'losing their freedoms' that they will gladly give up all loyalty to the democratic process and don the black boots to march all the 'commie liberals' into camps.
The only piece missing from this scenario is the camps. If these camps really exist, then all the pieces fit into place.
If this is the picture, it's still not too late.
stockholmer
(3,751 posts)bvar22
(39,909 posts)
My Tea Leaves say the same,
and my cat bones also agree.
[font size=5 color=green][center]Solidarity99![/font][font size=2 color=green]
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------[/center]
AnOhioan
(2,894 posts)Raffi Ella
(4,465 posts)"After several rough months, President Obama's approval ratings are on the rise..."
http://theweek.com/article/index/222704/president-obamas-rising-approval-rating-4-theories
Pigheaded
(164 posts)
JoePhilly
(27,787 posts)BootinUp
(51,314 posts)uppityperson
(116,020 posts)emcguffie
(1,924 posts)Apart from the trolls, I mean. So, why does this have to be so spiteful? What is wrong with someone disagreeing with you? When you say you find it enlightening to see who recs what threads, you are suggesting that you are, say, keeping a list of people with whom you disagree, as if they are doing something wrong somehow.
Isn't that what this is all about? The right to disagree? And the right to have a discussion about it, without being labelled and branded? I object to this notion of taking sides, when supposedly we all are here because we really want some kind of a similar outcome. What we disagree on is how to get there.
We should all be on the same side, and we should all be allowed to disagree. And getting things out in the open is good. It is not good to insist on shutting down all those who disagree or want to call attention to unpleasant facts.
And on edit I am adding that this is just my opinion, of course. Which I think I have been invited to express here as a lifelong Democrat, and member of this forum since 2004.
uppityperson
(116,020 posts)Sorry you took it that way. You have a right to express yourself here as I do. Also a lifelong Dem and member of this forum since 2004.
Scurrilous
(38,687 posts)Oh wait. BBI? Nevermind...
Response to Scurrilous (Reply #106)
Post removed
emcguffie
(1,924 posts)I am glad to have seen it. I am thankful to the OP for the article, which I personally find interesting, and which I agree with, pretty much.
Doesn't mean I'm saying to primary Obama. I don't know about that. I don't know, one way or another. I will very probably vote for Obama. But I think he should be made very aware of how disappointed, how very betrayed, many of us feel. He should certainly be made to know that, at the very least.
Many of his actions have been, to me, unforgivable. I hope there is some reason I do not know about for them. So, I am not judging him, yet, on those actions that I find so objectionable. I will do that later, when I have more information.
sulphurdunn
(6,891 posts)Fortunately, we don't always get what we deserve. While I agree with MacArthur's conclusion, I would not support actually dumping Obama even though he deserves it. Firstly, because he may appoint a mere conservative Supreme Court justice in his next term rather than another Federalist Society fanatic, and lastly because he gives the Republicans an excuse to campaign rather than actually govern, which they know they are incapable of doing but don't want their base to know. Regarding Obama, there are no factual errors about his presidency in MacArthur's article.
ehrnst
(32,640 posts)And this will be better?
No, I don't see a third party candidate having a snowball's chance in hell of winning. They would hand the election to the party that they opposed the most.
T S Justly
(884 posts)
FarLeftFist
(6,161 posts)
kenfrequed
(7,865 posts)I think that the president was mistaken. I think he mistakenly thought that most of these people desperately wanted to be liberal but had convinced some within the party that they were "realists." I think the president bought into them the same way that teh American people bought into it.
At least I hope.
jefferson_dem
(32,683 posts)He's the nominee.
Must suck to be you.
Better Believe It
(18,630 posts)I see you just can't engage in civil debate and continue to engage in personal attacks and trash talk.
Bye.
Response to Better Believe It (Reply #138)
Post removed
brooklynite
(96,882 posts)...that he doesn't have an alternative candidate to dump President Obama for.
OregonBlue
(8,215 posts)This is just silly speculation. Not to be taken seriously.
medeak
(8,101 posts)It's Hannity for fecking dems who want to give up
tblue
(16,350 posts)Party Line all the way.
medeak
(8,101 posts)I mean...really...actually wrote bills in congress. What a concept.
Pakid
(478 posts)anything that we do a this point to tear him down only help the GOP. Who in their right mind would want to give any one of the clown running on the GOP side any kind of help. Can you imagine the damage that these fools could do to us in 4 years!
RBInMaine
(13,570 posts)Better Believe It
(18,630 posts)Are you a university professor?
blue neen
(12,465 posts)IMHO, your way of defending the article referred to in the OP is to try to insult other peoples' intelligence.
Or, maybe I don't have any insight and knowledge, either. Anything is possible...I'm not a university professor.
Better Believe It
(18,630 posts)If you do, well I would have to agree with you on your insight and knowledge.
blue neen
(12,465 posts)It is also far more effective than "I will now place you on my DU3 ignore list".
Maraya1969
(23,495 posts)and powerful rebuttal to an over the top piece written of his opinion and from where I am sitting it is abundantly clear that if Obama is dumped, (as this asshole suggests) we end up with some stupid, uncaring, greedy, war-hound as a president for the next at least 4 years - minimum.
I think that is an effective rebuttal because it lets go some of the pent up hostility the rages in some of our minds when we see republicans doing everything they can to try to win back the presidency next year which includes ragging on the current democratic president and then we see our own democrats giving them a hand!
So yea that guy can go fuck himself!
BlueMTexpat
(15,689 posts)If Common Dreams wants to republish this s###, fine. Although their reposts are usually liberal and informative, at least they don't call themselves a "Democratic" site.
Why bother to repost it here - which is a site that does style itself as "Democratic" - and perpetuate the negative Obama press which is already overwhelming?
Is it simply that people still don't get that while some, even many of us, who may be disappointed in part of what the Prez has done or failed to do in this very short period after the worst Presidency in US history, with a solid block of Rethug opposition to anything he proposes, are still behind him 100% because we know that right now, he's the best we have? Because we are. And he is. Anyone who does not get that is either not on the same planet or is using a regulated substance.
I get SO tired of seeing crap like this posted on DU, especially when you say in the small print at the very end of your OP that you are opposed to what the article is arguing anyway.
dionysus
(26,467 posts)SidDithers
(44,333 posts)Sid
dionysus
(26,467 posts) 
ElboRuum
(4,717 posts)Actual conversation about actual issues. What ends up on the front page? This shit again. Unrec, with all of its faults and failings, did a damn fine job of keeping this irritatingly divisive tripe off the front page. I know you really haven't much to do with who recs things, but it really is eye-opening to what does get rec'd.
bjobotts
(9,141 posts)Obama is the best that can be achieved at the present moment. There is none better out there who could be president so cut this bullshit out. Why headline "The president needs to be dumped" crap when the alternatives are way beyond crazy or untenable at best. We want Obama to do more yes but still he's the best we got right now and that's still pretty good.
Big praise for his EPA passing mercury level restrictions polluting the airfrom coal plants and others...that is huge...wouldn't have happened under another president.
I hate when no credit is given to his achievements and only criticisms are offered. The man has achieved a lot in a horrible situation yet all this article does is bitch.
To his defense Obama hired men who were experienced with the crisis he had to face and told them what he wanted and trusted them to achieve it since they best knew how it was created. They lied and stalled but still he is pushing them to a progressive end...just watch. It is the republicans who are blocking all his good nominations and his consumer protection agency etc.. Look at the man and his life and you will see he is more honest and straight forward than any president we've had in a very long time. He is extremely intelligent and struggles in this toxic political climate to achieve what he thinks is best for the people of this nation...and you can see it as well as sense it.
You can both support and criticize Obama at the same time. Pressure him to be more progressive while applauding his efforts and successes. WHO ELSE COULD HAVE DONE BETTER.
cstanleytech
(28,470 posts)however I dont believe it was for a lack of trying rather he decided to attempt to work with the republicans early on to find a path to help the country that they would agree with him on (as a good president should with either party imo) but rather than work with him the republicans instead for the most part that their goal was to destroy him and try to make him a one term president regardless of whatever negative impact such attempt would have on the country.
kurtzapril4
(1,353 posts)The facts mentioned in this article, and indeed, there are some facts there, so I have a few questions. No one in this thread has of yet addressed any of the facts mentioned therein.
Why did OBama OBama appoint Summers and Geithner, et al, to solve the disaster they created?
Emanuel and Daley did indeed work very hard for the passage of NAFTA, which cost the US many, many jobs. Why are/were these two men even considered for positions in this administration, considering the dearth of jobs in the US?
Why is the administration opposed to the repeal of Glass-Steagall?
It would be nice to have answers to these questions, instead of snark towards me, or the person who posted the OP.
I'll either vote for OBama, or sit this one out. I haven't decided yet. As one poster said "he's the best we have." Which really is not a ringing endorsement, is it?
still_one
(98,883 posts)are two major problems. One a lot of the Congressional Democratics are lazy, and two, blue dog democratcs are more republican than they are democratic.
Bill Clinton was probably the worst thing that could have happened to the Democratic party, and the country. As great of a speaker as he was, he sold the country down the river to the corporations. It was his signature that gave us NAFTA, deregulation, and hurt many poor with the passage of "welfare reform". Essentially, he allowed republican polices that were held in check for decades to become reality. Probably his worst signature was the Telecommuications Act that he signed. It is the reason why 90% of talk radio is right wing.
Unfortunately, nothing will really change unless we have a progressive Democratic Congressional majority, and I do not see that happening in the near future.
There is one thing I am sure of though, Obama's choices for the Supreme Court will be drastically different than any current republican's choices, and for that reason alone I will vote for Obama
kurtzapril4
(1,353 posts)However, I see that none of the other faithful could be bothered to answer any of the questions I asked. It figures. Perhaps there's no excusing the inexcusable.
Taverner
(55,476 posts)Obama is the best we are going to get
We need to work with that rather than trying to knock down windmills
Honeycombe8
(37,648 posts)whether a writer/poster is an anti-Obama Republican or an anti-Obama Democrat.
But there it is, in the first sentence. A big clue. Huge. THE Republican talking point for the 2012 presidential election. The "failed" Obama administration. Listen to the Repubs on TV. Romney says it over and over. Perry, Gingrich, Bachman, pundits. It's repeated over and over.
And now some not-so-original thinkers have fallen into the Republican pit of quicksand. Patsies, I think they're called. There's one born every minute they say.
Anyone who is so easily swayed by Republican mantras, is so ready to pick up the Repubican meme....that person is not one to listen to. That is a follower. And they're following the wrong people.
4dsc
(5,787 posts)It won't matter who's president over the next 4 years because money has bought and pair for those at the top and they have rigged the game to their favor. Nothing short of throwing them all out and starting over will give the people back the power to run this country and government.
valerief
(53,235 posts)bertman
(11,287 posts)Response to Better Believe It (Original post)
Post removed
The Wielding Truth
(11,433 posts)still_one
(98,883 posts)The Wielding Truth
(11,433 posts)ooglymoogly
(9,502 posts)my mind has been made up.
bottomofthehill
(9,390 posts)look how good it worked out with pResident Bush, good thinking, throw the bum out.... yea thats it Newt, Newt, Newt
bigwillq
(72,790 posts)Maraya1969
(23,495 posts)Because it does not make sense that you would want such a dismal "failure" as president again.
Can you please answer my question?
Roland99
(53,345 posts)
JohnnyRingo
(20,868 posts)Maybe that's how his enemies can get rid of him. ...Ah never mind, that's been tried.
Maybe this op-ed is right, and we'll just put up the most liberal candidate willing to run against him and tell the rest of the country we want a do-over. Campaign spokespersons can go on TV and announce we think we're getting it right this time, and ask the voters for a little patience while we play musical chairs in the Oval Office. They won't be sorry this time, no sir. Just don't vote for the Republican.
It'll work too, because we know the majority of registered voters call themselves liberals and are just waiting for someone far enough to the left to toss their hat in the ring. That's probably why they stay home on election day.
Democrats couldn't offer Roger Ailes a better Christmas present than running a fruitless primary.
colsohlibgal
(5,276 posts)As things are now, the MSN is going marginalize any real progressive candidate....such as with Kucinich.
It all sucks but we're stuck until enough people have had enough and enough have gotten smarter. Once that happens maybe we can break this two party monopoly within most of our lifetimes.
Obama is indeed right of center on most issues, right of a lot of republicans from pre Reagan days. But the republican party has been kidnapped by far right wing pseudo religious zealot nut jobs, some of them very possibly to the right of old Adolph H.
There almost certainly will be 1 or more Supreme Court vacancies to be filled in the next term. We know Obama wouldn't appoint anyone much left of center if at all, but God knows what nut the republican would submit. That's the deal breaker.
So I'll hold my nose and vote for another Dem who pretty quickly did a 180 on a lot of his campaign talking points, another year voting against someone more than voting for someone.
But.....hopefully the OWS movement will grow and grow and we can take our country back from the corporate state, where big money runs our government.
SunSeeker
(58,274 posts)John MacArthur, whoever he is, can't seem to get it through his head that any primary challenge would hand the presidency to the Republicans--and end social security, abortion rights, and would surely mean war with Iran. I'm pissed about Geithner too, but what I'm happy about FAR outweighs any disappointments: Healthcare Reform (my brother will finally have coverage for the first time in his life); Ending the Iraq War and DADT; Killing Osama Bin Laden; Two great Supreme Court appointments...the list goes on. Just today, the USEPA put in mercury standards that will save thousands of lives. How ANY liberal could hate Obama or want him "dumped" is unfathomable.
BootinUp
(51,314 posts)the Clintons or Carter or LBJ.
History will rate Obama very highly compared to other Presidents. Democrats rate Obama well even now.
DallasNE
(8,007 posts)Are doing high 5's over this. It is pure insanity. Saying President Gingrich would absolutely make me vomit.
Common Sense Party
(14,139 posts)Hold him accountable?
A primary challenge is one very potent way of doing just that.
DeathToTheOil
(1,124 posts)It's a pptent way of ending up with a wingnut in the White House.
Common Sense Party
(14,139 posts)The challenge would just move Obama to the left, where he should be and where the American people want him to be. They aren't going to vote for any rightwing Teabag nonsense.
DeathToTheOil
(1,124 posts)You had Better Believe that Obama is the only person standing between you and honest-to-Bibi Endless War.
INdemo
(7,024 posts)and yes we could win in November and take our party back..The way it is now there are two choices..The Republican or the Republican
certainot
(9,090 posts)onenote
(46,139 posts)because the fact that you believe it to be true doesn't make it so.
Jennicut
(25,415 posts)Just raising enough money alone to run for President and to run an actual successful primary challenge means someone needed to come out of the woodwork months ago. Just to even get name recognition out there it needed to be months perhaps even a year ago. It is as silly as saying that someone can come along like Jeb Bush and take the Repub nomination. Its just too late.
certainot
(9,090 posts)"Besides neglecting to mention Democratic complicity in the debacle of 2008,"
one party was actively steering the country toward a cliff with the 1% pushing from behind, while for 20 years deregulating and obstructing any dem attempt at regulation
and they got away with it and were able to do it so well because the media is well bullied into blaming both sides equally half the time and the other half the time looking the other way when the right wing creates their own reality with 1000 coordinated radio stations and some visual reinforcement from fox.
dhpgetsit
(1,917 posts)We the People do not deserve a Mitt Romney or Newt Gingtich in the WH, or the people they might appoint to the Supreme Court. Obama has not been everything I wanted in a president, but there is NO FUCKING WAY I am going to sit by and watch one of these other idiots take his place.
Surya Gayatri
(15,445 posts)posting this sorry, trollish excuse for a political analysis.
"As evidence of a failed Obama presidency accumulates..."--the author discredits himself in the first line. SG
emcguffie
(1,924 posts)Why must those who disagree be so nasty about it?
I am glad to see the article. I agree with much of its content. I agree with the statement about Obama's presidency, certainly, to a degree. And I will almost certainly vote for him.
Discussion is good, it is healthy. It is also acceptable. It is even to be discouraged, rather than dumped on, as I take your post to be doing.
If you have nothing else to say, why bother to say that? Just to throw your wad of mud at the OP?
Bobbie Jo
(14,344 posts)"Why must those who disagree be so nasty about it? "
Obviously you've missed BBI's Greatest Hits. Some of us have been around to see all 17,000 hit the charts since 2008.
Mostly cut/paste jobs, with very little actual discussion or commentary from this poster.
Response to emcguffie (Reply #277)
Bobbie Jo This message was self-deleted by its author.