General Discussion
Related: Editorials & Other Articles, Issue Forums, Alliance Forums, Region Forums"Obama has governed as a conservative. So, the question for progressives is, “What do we do now?”
What Obama's Willingness to Deal with the Tea Party Right Means for Progressive PoliticsObama was willing to make substantial cuts to the crown jewels of liberalism--Social Security, Medicare and Medicaid--in order to get a deficit-reduction deal with Republicans.
By Guy Saperstein
Guy Saperstein is a former civil rights attorney and past-President of The Sierra Club Foundation. He is a board member of Brave New Films.
April 4, 2012
Obama’s willingness to bargain away core progressive values of the Democratic Party in a deficit-reduction deal comes after his meltdown on a large range of issues dear to progressives: His unconditional support for Bush's Wall Street bailout; his escalation of the Afghanistan War; his acceptance of Bush-era limits on civil liberties; his shift from supporting the healthcare public option and opposing individual mandates during the 2008 campaign to subverting the public option and backing individual mandates in 2009; his extension of the Bush tax cuts for the rich (in exchange for Republicans allowing an extension of unemployment benefits and aid to cash-strapped states); his withdrawal of strong EPA rules on clean air; his gratuitous attacks on “the professional Left.”
So, the question for progressives is, “What do we do now?”
Obama supporters would answer that question by arguing that now is not the time to criticize the president because the alternative--electing a Republican--would be worse. Now is the time to mute criticism, because criticism can be embarrassing and dispiriting. Buck up, Dems, forget issues and actual performance, now is the time for cheerleaders, not critics. We can reconvene on the issues after Obama gets re-elected
I think exactly the opposite is true. The only leverage progressives have on Obama is now, not later, not after the election. After the election, what is most likely is that Obama will return to his vision of himself as someone standing above politics, capable of making a “Grand Bargain” with Republicans, as a serious deficit hawk, as someone willing to put Medicare, Medicaid and Social Security on the chopping block before he demands more sacrifices from the rich and well-connected.
Read the full article at:
http://www.alternet.org/news/154851/what_obama%27s_willingness_to_deal_with_the_tea_party_right_means_for_progressive_politics/?page=entire
= new reply since forum marked as read
Highlight:
NoneDon't highlight anything
5 newestHighlight 5 most recent replies
ProSense
(116,464 posts)..."governed as a conservative" because he's President and not king. So now what?
What a crock of shit!
http://www.democraticunderground.com/1002515429
I'm voting for this guy:
MannyGoldstein
(34,589 posts)NDAA, Cantor's JOBS act, and prosecuted war criminals, and all of the other stuff he did.
Or actually didn't.
blkmusclmachine
(16,149 posts)we'll still be getting GOP legislation dressed-up as phony "bi-partisanship." And there's NO assurances that BHO would not appoint rightwingers next to the SCOTUS, just to be "bi-partisan." Hey, did BHO invite the Dominionists to pray with him again at the WH for Easter ?!
xtraxritical
(3,576 posts)you'll get what you want. He's had to overcome R obstructionism, phony filibusters, T party inanity and more to get anything accomplished, and he's accomplished much. VOTE A STRAIGHT DEMOCRATIC BALLOT you'll be glad you did.
dotymed
(5,610 posts)Until "we the people" get the money out of politics, it will get worse. It is obvious to most people that the U.S. is now completely owned by the wealthy. Both parties. I will not break DU rules and call for more political parties.
MannyGoldstein
(34,589 posts)in Congress?
Last November's "free" trade agreements were a robust, bipartisan attack against the 99%. They tell an important story.
nxylas
(6,440 posts)Yeah, that emboldened him all right 
Doctor_J
(36,392 posts)And he still caved in to every right-wing demand. And all his appeasement got him was a trouncing in 2010, which he deserved by abandoning the people who vote for him in 2008.
the majorities next year will be smaller than his first term, if they exist at all. So if you're saying he can't do anything without bigger majorities than he had during his first term, you have waved the white flag.
DCBob
(24,689 posts)If our economy collapses all other issues become meaningless.
MannyGoldstein
(34,589 posts)through 3 new "free" trade agreements will revive the economy?
Maybe the 1% economy, but at the expense of the 99%.
DCBob
(24,689 posts)the fact Obama tends to side with free trade does not make him a "conservative". Most Dems agree with most of the free trade agreements we have in place.
MannyGoldstein
(34,589 posts)I doubt that. Got a link?
DCBob
(24,689 posts)I dont have a link but do you really doubt that?
MannyGoldstein
(34,589 posts)They are the Other Party of the 1%.
It's still far-right stuff, an assault against the 99%.
DCBob
(24,689 posts)Do you have a problem with that? That's the way this nation has been governed since its inception.
MannyGoldstein
(34,589 posts)They run as Democrats, they govern as far-right nuts.
It has to stop.
DCBob
(24,689 posts)good grief.
MannyGoldstein
(34,589 posts)Good grief, indeed.
Ken Burch
(50,254 posts)And has nothing but far-right effects.
Wage cuts are far right.
Benefit cuts are far right.
Outsourcing is far right.
Layoffs are far right.
There are NO offsetting positive consequences of free trade. It benefits only the rich.
Just accept that already.
SidDithers
(44,333 posts)
Sid
Doctor_J
(36,392 posts)because they are.
MannyGoldstein
(34,589 posts)with your own Conservative Party? Do your Conservatives reject universal single-payer health insurance?
white_wolf
(6,257 posts)Most Democrats are conservative.
indepat
(20,899 posts)Rahm Emanual had not been rudely condescending to the left, if most of junior's RW policies, actions, wars, and even appointees had not been continued, and if BHO had not selected key members of the Catfood Commission known to be of a very conservative persuasion and hating social security. (Even if the Catfood Commission were not more about eviscerating social security than putting the nation on a sound fiscal footing through fair, reasonable, and equitable tax policies). What a fool I was, but thanks to you, I'm learning, even if slowly. PS Part of my fallacious thinking stems from the conviction that almost everything government does for the exclusive benefit of the uber wealthy and large corporations, and consequently to the detriment of we the people, were conservative/right-wing in nature.
xtraxritical
(3,576 posts) Herlong
(649 posts)h
And what we do next is vote, like we have always done!
JDPriestly
(57,936 posts)Oh, wait a minute. You mean he refused to compromise with southerners who wanted northerners to send escaped slaves back to their masters.
Good thing Roosevelt didn't prosecute war profiteers or bankers who committed fraud. You mean he did prosecute at least some and embarrass even more of them?
Two presidents who refused to compromise away all progressive ideals. And we still have a country?
Egalitarian Thug
(12,448 posts)your apparently obsessive need to insult and belittle any and all criticism than the GOP could ever hope to?
The GOP is in the midst of, once again, committing suicide. Just shut up and let them get on with it. Maybe this time the Democrats won't resurrect them.
FarLeftFist
(6,161 posts)They are a VERY small minority, FAR smaller than the Liberals & Progressives that make up a percentage of the Nation. I have thousands of Liberal & Progressive twitter followers and those I follow. They're ALL voting for Obama and can't wait to do so.
JDPriestly
(57,936 posts)We follow most political stories pretty carefully. In a sense, we are the intellectual leadership. We are not inclined to just adopt the ideas that the party leadership is selling at the moment. We seek information in unlikely places and share it. I have read quite a few of the other sites for Democrats. There are some other good ones, but they cover current affairs less comprehensively than DU does.
If DU Liberals and Progressives are less enthusiastic about Obama, it is because we know more about him.
FarLeftFist
(6,161 posts)
TBF
(36,665 posts)have endorsed Obama (Communist Party USA). We can't afford not to vote given the threat from the teabaggerati. A 3rd party challenge is way too risky (aside from being against TOS here) ... but that doesn't mean we can't Occupy and resist in other ways. And my argument is that things like general strikes would be a very good idea.
JDPriestly
(57,936 posts)Obama does not have to sign nearly every bill that the conservatives send him. He could and should do much better.
Will I vote for him? There is no other realistic choice for me or other progressives.
But the author quoted in the OP is correct. Obama needs to realize not just how much he needs our votes but the moral and economic wrongs for which he will be blamed if he continues to accommodate conservative bullies, continues to refuse to veto conservative bills that will harm our country.
Obama is a young man. He will, hopefully, be around a long time after his second term in office (if he gets one). I would not want to have to live in his shoes if he agrees to Republican plans to end social policies that are vital to the peace and prosperity of our society.
We are not progressives because there is great profit in it for us as individuals. We are progressives because we are proud of the great moral tradition in the US that fought for and brought the abolition of slavery, equal rights for women, voting rights for all, public education, respect for human rights and social programs such as Social Security, Medicare and Medicaid.
Slavery was not abolished because President Lincoln compromised. It never would have been.
Equal rights, voting rights, human rights and social programs were all hard won. Were there compromises? Yes. But it was not compromising with conservatives that won WWII, or brought social progress and economic success to our country. It was boldness and moving in a progressive direction.
Obama will either support the progressive agenda, or he will have to live for a long time with the consequences of his failure as a president.
It is time for Obama to start thinking about his legacy. Will it be one of retreat and weakness or one of progress and strength?
We progressives need to remind him of these choices.
nashville_brook
(20,958 posts)
secondwind
(16,903 posts)
Rosa Luxemburg
(28,627 posts)
Champion Jack
(5,378 posts)just1voice
(1,362 posts)"Bullshit" is so fun to say, weeeeeeeee!
quinnox
(20,600 posts)
SidDithers
(44,333 posts)Sid
fascisthunter
(29,381 posts)FarLeftFist
(6,161 posts)JDPriestly
(57,936 posts)
Kaleva
(40,365 posts)Even then he dared not touch the civil rights for blacks issue lest he lose the support of the Southern Democrats.
JDPriestly
(57,936 posts)He lost his majority in Congress because he did not take the bold direction that Americans wanted. He got mired down in the details of health care insurance policy instead of moving the economy in a new direction.
Hopefully Obama will avoid the mistake of pandering to the right-wing fools this next term. If not, as I have said above, he will have to live with a legacy of failure.
Kaleva
(40,365 posts)MNBrewer
(8,462 posts)Kaleva
(40,365 posts)Would we be singing his praises now if he had ended up being a 1 term president who didn't accomplish anything of note?
MNBrewer
(8,462 posts)How Progressive would Barack Obama be with a supermajority?
tavalon
(27,985 posts)But, he is the first black President and that's great. I'm hoping in his next 4 years, he'll create a better legacy than that. I want to see the content of the man's soul, I know his skin color. But he built my hopes to the sky and governed a little right of Clinton this first round. But he made great supreme court appointments. I want to see a few more of those!
FarLeftFist
(6,161 posts)put them in internment camps. Or when he passes New Deal legislation that doesn't include blacks or women. Or when he nukes 2 major cities.
chrisa
(4,524 posts)Not to excuse the other two horrible things.
FarLeftFist
(6,161 posts)
JVS
(61,935 posts)Daniel537
(1,560 posts)Some people apparently want the Pres. to run the country as if he were Fidel Castro or Bashar Assad. Thank goodness for that pesky little thing called the constitution.
Lydia Leftcoast
(48,223 posts)1. Vetoing bad bills, such as the continuation of the Patriot Act
2. Twisting the arms of those Democratic Congresscritters who vote like Republicans. What's the use of an alleged "majority" if a sizable chunk of the DINOs typically vote with the Republicans?
3. Not entering into "free" trade agreements with countries that have markedly lower wages, labor rights, and environmental standards than the U.S.
4. Appointing more left Democrats to important positions.
5. Now that Osama Bin Laden is dead (the purported objective of the Afghan war), getting the hell out of that troubled country. We can't "fix" it. We helped break it. It's worse off than it was before the CIA began egging on the Islamic extremists against the Marxist government in 1978, long before the Soviet intervention.
6. Negotiating from a position of strength instead of letting the Republicans set the agenda. Rule #1 of negotiation is "Always ask for more than you think you can reasonably get." Instead, Obama (along with a lot of DUers) seems to think that it's a good idea to timidly suggest whatever they think the Republicans will accept. The Republicans see this as an admission of weakness and demand even more concessions.
Your claim (often repeated by others) that we want a dictator is a ridiculous strawman. We just want a president who, despite being a Constitutional scholar, either does not understand the power he has or chooses not to use it because he is essentially sympathetic to the Republicans.
Webster Green
(13,905 posts)
MineralMan
(151,265 posts)Pure, unadulterated FUD, designed to discourage people. Fact-free opinion. That is all. See the thread:
http://www.democraticunderground.com/124072756
GeorgeGist
(25,570 posts)Here are some of the facts in the OP:
JDPriestly
(57,936 posts)And worse.
He has failed to use the veto power that is granted to him by the Constitution.
He lost the House in the 2010 election because he lost the enthusiasm of progressives. The Tea-Party overwhelmed disillusioned Progressives.
From a political perspective, Obama cannot afford to continue to sell out Progressives.
From a moral perspective, Obama will regret shunning Progressives, not including them in his cabinet, not listening to them for the entirety of his life as a past president.
gulliver
(13,985 posts)Well that makes no sense whatsoever. Conservatives hate his guts. QED
Republicans ask whether what they think is mean before they ask whether it is effective or sensible. If it its mean, they accept it without further thought. That's how ridiculous they have become.
MineralMan
(151,265 posts)Uff da!
Bluenorthwest
(45,319 posts)The end. He is a conservative, extremely so in some important ways. If you don't like that, take it up with him. God is in the Mix! Sanctity of Marriage! Crap ala conservative.
MineralMan
(151,265 posts)How will you decide. I'm going to consider DADT as a step toward marriage equality, frankly. Then, I'm going to work my ass off to keep the Minnesota amendment from being voted into the constitution here. I'm going to do everything I can to re-elect Obama and Democratic legislators across the board. What option do I have, do you think? What option do you have? We'll get marriage equality done. We will.
Honeycombe8
(37,648 posts)He has a right to his personal views, and his personal views have nothing to do with gay marriage rights. The question is: What has he DONE?
Abraham Lincoln thought black people were less than white people, and should probably be shipped out of the country after the Civil War.
It's important to distinguish the right of every person to hold a personal view from the public position and behavior that a person exhibits.
His personal beliefs are rooted in his religion, his religious upbringing, and his culture. None of us are free from those influences. But he didn't force his personal views on others, did he? There is the difference between someone who TRULY wants individual freedom for all, and those who just talk about it.
Objectively speaking, there is no doubt that Obama is a left of center politician. He is definitely not right of center. He is not far left. No President ever is or ever will be. That's because most Americans are not far left and will not elect one.
He has pushed through a stimulus (a liberal bill), governed on the Democratic Party platform, signed an equal pay acts bill, set aside millions of acres for preservation, passed a health care reform bill that provides subsidized health care to millions and broadens free health care for children and the poor, and many other non-conservative things.
Only someone truly ignorant would try to convince people that Obama is conservative. And only a fool would follow that pied piper over the cliff.
When the right thinks you are a dangerous leftie wacko, and the far left thinks you're conservative....that's when you know you've got it right.
Clinton did a lot of damage when he was President, passing the extremely harmful NAFTA. I don't recall DUers decrying him as a sell-out, a conservative, etc.
Why would they claim Obama is? What is different about Obama? Hmmmmmm.
EFerrari
(163,986 posts)just1voice
(1,362 posts)I've read at least 10 posts saying exactly that with scores of other replies confirming it.
woo me with science
(32,139 posts)But he is certainly conservative on gay marriage.
HughBeaumont
(24,461 posts)Conservatives are now mostly called "Democrats". Unless you're someone like Sherrod Brown or Bernie Sanders.
Egalitarian Thug
(12,448 posts)Conservative; disposed to preserve existing conditions, institutions, etc., or to restore traditional ones, and to limit change.
Republican; a member of the Republican party.
Does this help?
aspieextrodinare
(82 posts)Such things are impossible and are entirely unrealistic, especially in this system of checks and balances (can happen much easier in a parliamentary system). To me I don't get how Obama is any more conservative than any past Democrat president, but I guess he is.
quinnox
(20,600 posts)It is correct, now is the time for progressives and liberal Democrats to tell Obama what we want and would like from a second term, and put pressure on him to turn left. Perhaps he will learn that this is the proper course of action, and actually follow through if he gets re-elected with progressive policies. Well, perhaps too much to hope for, but trying never hurt anyone.
...rationalization of nonsense. I mean, the article portrays Obama as a failure and argues that in his next term, he'll be a failure unless "progressives" recognize that the best time to criticize the President is during a GE against a Republican. It pushes a number of despiriting and false claims, like this one.
MineralMan
(151,265 posts)FUD.
Why is it so hard to recognize for so many?
BootinUp
(51,320 posts)
mopinko
(73,724 posts)i blame teaching to the test and the texas school book commission.
just1voice
(1,362 posts)An extremely direct article that spoke accurately about progressives is way too much for many people to handle.
FarLeftFist
(6,161 posts)showmethejedi
(20 posts)So when someones views are not "democratic" or arent " underground" enough they dont count or arr immediately dismissed as false. How American of you
obxhead
(8,434 posts)I expect lots of OUTRAGE! on this thread. The more they scream, the more that truth must burn.
bemildred
(90,061 posts)Constitutional power lies with congess, Obama will do just fine with a progressive Congress.
MineralMan
(151,265 posts)Last edited Sat Apr 7, 2012, 03:22 PM - Edit history (1)
to elect the best possible candidate who can win the election. Congress can either block all progressive action or it can facilitate it. I know which I prefer.
TMED
(51 posts)The advantage of incumbency is so overwhelming, I don't see how, at this late date, you can do much to get either a more progressive Democrat (or saner Republican, if you live in a heavy R district) elected. Largely because of gerrymandering, the time to fire incumbents is during primaries. Which means that, if you're serious, you have to start supporting real reform candidates well before primary day.
I think that, when you wrote
It is time to go to work in your own legislative districts to elect the best possible candidate who can win the election.
what you really mean, in many cases, is to support the lesser of two evils; and certainly to support a mediocrity, who is working against your best interests, if he or she is the "best possible" REMAINING "candidate."
MineralMan
(151,265 posts)There's still time. Beyond that, there's the whole campaign season. Individual work in precincts can definitely alter the outcome of elections.
TMED
(51 posts)cycle. About half the primaries have already occurred. All but 6 will be over by June 7.
I don't know what the optimal period, before a primary day, is to announce one's candidacy, but assuming you're not rich (and so, can make up for lost time by paying millions of dollars out of your pocket), I'd think it'd be at least a year.
Many progressives may like to whine about their choices, but what do they do to improve those choices?
MineralMan
(151,265 posts)my State Senate District in Minnesota. The incumbent, a one-termer, won in 2010. He's not a progressive in most areas. Well, when we held the 67th Senate District Convention, he came, expecting to get our endorsement. Surprise, surprise! He had two opponents, both more progressive than him. No endorsement was made at all, and the Convention blocked the district DFL directors from making any endorsement until after the primary in June.
The incumbent was pissed off, and there was no mistake about it. If the two challengers can get together to endorse one or the other, this moderate incumbent isn't going to be the candidate. Between the two challengers, the majority was 60%. They've been talking, and started talking to each other on the floor of the convention.
This is how we replace moderates with progressives in Minnesota. I'm quite hopeful.
One district at a time!
TMED
(51 posts)soon enough to make a difference. Minn. primary isn't until August. If progressives want to make a difference, nationally, they need to challenge in all districts where a Democrat is likely to win, and do so with enough time to negate (to the extent possible) the incumbent's $$ advantage.
lunatica
(53,410 posts)Progressives are not the opposite of the crazy teabaggers at the other extreme of the pole. Progressives come at many degrees on the Left. And we're outnumbered by the way, so if Obama could even do what the more extreme Progressives want then he'd be ruling like a king and not governing like President of all the people.
Elect Progressives to Congress and we'll see how much more can be done.
NBachers
(19,438 posts)Oh, goodness, I'm so dispirited *sob*
Doctor_J
(36,392 posts)He's far to the right of Ronald Reagan. If you still want to call him liberal, you're deluding yourself.
bemildred
(90,061 posts)
jeff47
(26,549 posts)He's been lobbying for an infrastructure bill for 3 years to reduce unemployment. He hasn't received one.
But in your mind he can get any bill he pushes for?
Doctor_J
(36,392 posts)and tell people that he's actually going to fight for the things he campaigned on in 2008. On the HC fight, declare, every day, that no bill is going to be signed that allows Americans to go bankrupt because of HC costs, period. Stop adopting Republican talking points. Stop negotiation with the Republican terrorists.Stop trying to appease people whose sworn goal is to destroy him.
jeff47
(26,549 posts)And the bill has gone nowhere. Infrastructure bills with high unemployment always happen because they're so middle-of-the-road. But no bill.
There is no magic wand Obama can wave to return sanity to the Republican party. And the blue dogs follow them.
happerbolic
(140 posts)... I wanna' see all the states in this nation turn such a dark blue, that one could almost make out the twinkling of stars.
The result of 2010 has helped with wiping away a lot of the offensive butt nuggets (DINO's) in our party's national seats, and a lackadaisical trip on our part led to a (temporary) repugnant filling some of those positions. I'm holding out great hope for our cleaner slate more than ever in the upcoming race(s).
apologies in advance for the anatomic posterior analogies in the response. Thinking of all those (temporary) bagger-cooks that are filthing up a lot of our state's chairs twists my responding attitude just a little.
bemildred
(90,061 posts)woo me with science
(32,139 posts)Hawkowl
(5,213 posts)So, I will vote straight Democratic Party all down the ticket! (Excluding president. I don't vote for conservatives.)
tomp
(9,512 posts)nor does he need congress to refrain from attacking social security and medicare, a la the "cat food commission," among other things he does not need congress for.
bemildred
(90,061 posts)Consider the case of Clinton's hummer. The USA has a constitutionally weak President, and that was intended. He is designated "Commander-in-Chief", but he is quite subject to the will of Congress, when the Congress chooses to have a will.
Doctor_J
(36,392 posts)in 2007, your argument fails.
bemildred
(90,061 posts)And all I'm saying is they damn well can, and they do.
malaise
(296,089 posts)
Better Believe It
(18,630 posts)SidDithers
(44,333 posts)And if it is, why the change?
Sid
just1voice
(1,362 posts)All I see from you is abusiveness directed right at several individuals. The article posted asks a serious question which you haven't even attempted to discuss.
Skittles
(171,704 posts)very robotic
Poll_Blind
(23,864 posts)PB
ProSense
(116,464 posts)Poll_Blind
(23,864 posts)What a steaming load...
PB
ProSense
(116,464 posts)What a steaming load...
...what's bullshit is the constant attempt to reframe Obama as some unknown quantity that people knew nothing about and should be afraid of.
It's bullshit, then and now.
Poll_Blind
(23,864 posts)PB
quinnox
(20,600 posts)Especially when this article, if you read to the end, is saying the opposite of that Obama defender reflex response.
malaise
(296,089 posts)
me b zola
(19,053 posts)"Obama supporters would answer that question by arguing that now is not the time to criticize the president because the alternative--electing a Republican--would be worse. Now is the time to mute criticism, because criticism can be embarrassing and dispiriting. Buck up, Dems, forget issues and actual performance, now is the time for cheerleaders, not critics. We can reconvene on the issues after Obama gets re-elected
I think exactly the opposite is true. The only leverage progressives have on Obama is now, not later, not after the election. After the election, what is most likely is that Obama will return to his vision of himself as someone standing above politics, capable of making a “Grand Bargain” with Republicans, as a serious deficit hawk, as someone willing to put Medicare, Medicaid and Social Security on the chopping block before he demands more sacrifices from the rich and well-connected."
unblock
(56,198 posts)we can quibble about strategy and details, but for the most part, obama is trying to be as effective a force of the left as he can be. how far left he would go if left to his druthers is a matter of sophomoric debate because it is irrelevant. a conservative would be pushing us ever further rightward, like shrub did and any republican would. obama is trying to pull us leftward. he's not meeting with immense success not because of his intent, nor because of his strategy, but because the POWER in washington is not entirely, not remotely, in obama's hands.
give obama a far more democratic, far more progressive CONGRESS, and obama would move left along with it, no doubt keeping just a bit left of the new center of congressional political gravity.
i don't undertstand how people continually confuse the american president for a king or dictator. a president's power is STRONGLY supported or limited by the make-up of congress.
fdr had unprecedented majorities in both houses, obama has opposition control of one house and has had fragmented and limited majorities otherwise. continuing to direct critique, suggestions, etc., at the white house is a WASTE OF TIME.
CONGRESS is what matters.
a more democratic and progressive congress, a congress more fearful of going up against environmentalists, women, workers, etc. is what obama needs in order to be what we on the left hope he would be.
quinnox
(20,600 posts)and making an argument against what it actually said, its more then can be said for many others who responded.
just1voice
(1,362 posts)We want a government that works for us. That's why Congress has an approval rating of 13%, nobody likes what they are doing.
unblock
(56,198 posts)woo me with science
(32,139 posts)because THAT is our problem with Congress...and the Presidency, too. As it stands now, one blue dog will be replaced by another, because they have made it virtually impossible for someone who does not take corporate money to compete.
If we are going to stand up as a nation and demand one thing, it should be reform of the system that allows our politicians and our election processes to be bought and paid for by campaign contributors and corporate lobbyists.
We will not make real progress on any other issue until this problem is solved. Once we are able to elect representatives who are not bought and paid for, activism in every other important area - the wars, economic policy, civil rights, you name it - will begin to mean something again and have a chance of yielding actual change.
HughBeaumont
(24,461 posts)Two parties only divided by social issues isn't going to accomplish a hill of dinosaur shit for the 99%.
unblock
(56,198 posts)it's the underlying power structures. the major corporations that benefit from right-wing policies, corporate welfare, etc.
money is the current mechanism for control their control of government and its "leaders", but the real problem is simply that these non-governmental institutions are just plain too powerful for our government to control. this must be undone.
and it won't happen by simply getting money out of politics, because they already have far too much control to let that happen.
jeff47
(26,549 posts)woo me with science
(32,139 posts)In case you haven't noticed, Congress is mostly corporatists now, and our system is rigged to elect corporatists. *Merely* voting, without standing up en masse and demanding this, will bring in more....you guessed it....corporatists.
TheKentuckian
(26,314 posts)I see Dimons and Duncans and Salazars and declarations of the power to kill on command without revue and silly military adventures and "free trade agreements" and Republican rehashed policy proposals and warrant-less wiretaps and lots of deference for "shareholders" and and race to the bottom education deform so in tune with their point of view that even the most dedicated obstructionist have to lean on fears of traps and doubletalk rather than disagreement of any substance and deals with big pharma and blind eyes and wags of the fingers for rich and powerful garbage and repeated efforts at austerity commissions even when the TeaPubliKlan sponsors cut and ran and shitloads and shitloads of accepting traditional right wing frames and worldviews from which he is given a pass on due to the batshit shift of the Republican party over the last several years.
The liberal Congress argument is real but it would be real under a Cheney Administration too but the latter would not be assumed to be happily shifting with the environment but resisting it and that would be true but I see very little evidence of Obama pushing in any direction but ones to support and maintain the establishment.
Calling the devils in the latter day Republican party conservative is perhaps the root of the misunderstanding. One must internalize that these fuckers are reactionaries, they are regressive rather than seeking to maintain, and that they are very much radicals all things that would be fairly incompatible with the status que and so have shifted conservatism to the rough center of our politics with reactionaries and regressives pulling one way and liberals and progressives pulling (to a much lesser extent) the other way because there aren't many radicals out opening new frontiers like there are on the opposite end, seeming pulling something crazier out of their asses every day of the week.
The current opposition strives against the present order and calls for devolution at least to the Gilded Age and in many ways further back than that. The feudal structure seems pretty good to the present crowd, right along with the domination of the church.
We are not served by allowing the language to shackle us into not looking forward and locking us into a battle not between the present and the future but between holding on to what we can of the present and recreating a past we have strived against for centuries.
The Turd Way has led us to nowhere. Their aspired to consensus was ever built on quicksand, no space has been shared and the promised land is an empty waste, the opposition is still there. No Age of Aquarius beckons just a dumbass war between conservatives and regressives. Both ideologies are opposites of mine despite being distinct and the radical regressives are certainly more abhorent but conservatives are still conservatives, protectors of the status quo. The spectrum giving ground to radical regressives doesn't negate that one bit or transform conservatives to liberals and moderates, even if the two party system reenforces such a point a view.
Back when the effective political spectrum ended at conservative, I was moderate with a conservative lean but now I'm a fringe leftist. I don't know where the Communists and left radicals went.
unblock
(56,198 posts)though the matters in which he holds "massive sway" don't occur in a vaccuum. the political reality is that if he pulled too far away from the washington center of gravity, he would create enough powerful enemies that he would accomplish zero outside of what he could do be executive order.
he needed to have some serious wall street cred in order to be able to sell credit card reform, for instance. there might even have been some kind of deal behind the scenes, i don't know. in any event, he couldn't have appointed only anti-wall street types and then gotten any kind of reform through congress. it just wouldn't have passed. similarly for health care reform; he needed the health insurance companies on deck from the start to avoid clinton's plan's fate, so there was an early deal.
even with the military, police, and other control structures, he needs them on his side for a host of reasons. hence some of the heinous decisions regarding individual liberties.
ultimately, there's too much power in amoral or immoral mostly non-governmental institutions (defence industry, insurance industry, energy industry, etc.) and that power exerts far too much influence over our government. or should i say their government....
obama's actions, and congress's actions, are a pretty good reflection on the underlying power structures.
tomp
(9,512 posts)...with anything like the energy that is required. it seems to me he makes his compromise and then doesn't even push for the compromise. this is a very powerful orator--he could sway a lot of public opinion if he tried. he comes across to me as a passionless leader, which ends up leading us away from our goal.
unblock
(56,198 posts)public opinion overall is pretty clearly well to the left of washington power.
it's not the public he needs to convince.
it's the real powers that be, who are motivated largely by more power, more money, more control.
great oratory is not as useful as it once was, no that the powers that be know they have enough power and control to (usually) ignore the public will with impunity.
if we are to wrest control back, we need powerful rival INSTITUTION on the left. strong unions, strong consumer groups, etc.
walkouts any boycotts are the sort of things they fear. if they understand that they can ignore the public will and we will still work and buy their crap and they can still get enough right-wingers in congress, then what difference does a brilliant speech make to them?
if obama has a failing, THAT's it. it's not a matter of where or how he's pitching policy, it's that he's a gifted community organizer, and his talents would be better put to use building those institutions (or giving speeches inspiring a nation of community organizers to do this) to work, building up the power of the left to fight future battles against the right.
sabrina 1
(62,325 posts)have awakened to the facts you posted:
From one of your above posts. The problem is, now that they have established themselves within the government, and no matter who is elected, Dem or Repub, many of their public faces, Gates is a perfect example, remain in power from one administration to the next.
The crackdown on OWS was intense because it was a signal to them that finally the people are beginning to understand how it all works.
I also agree that even with a majority of good Dems in Congress, that would not be enough, although I think it would be good step forward.
So I am at a loss as to how to even begin to dismantle the structure they have built within the government. But I do agree that this might work, and was beginning to look possible with OWS when the Unions joined them which may be why the crackdown was so fierce:
I think it needs to be Global though, and there are signs that it may come to that. I believe there is a General Global Strike planned for May which I hope comes to pass.
unblock
(56,198 posts)and the arab spring movements.
i think america has been made to get slowly comfortable with less and less wealth, less and less quality, fewer and fewer rights, and so on. we've lost our ability and perhaps even our will to fight. mostly because the institutions of the left, such as unions, have been slowly decimated.
but europe knows how to throw a strike. perhaps they will do something that inspires us.
Response to unblock (Reply #295)
sabrina 1 This message was self-deleted by its author.
sabrina 1
(62,325 posts)and some of their Union Members even kidnapped CEOs of major Corps. Of course their government, like almost all of them now, was deaf to the will of the people.
I did read that the Longshoremen have joined some European Unions but cannot remember the details right now. It is becoming more of a possibility that the people will go Global and it's about time. A massive strike that spreads across the world, could not be ignored imo. They've been Global for a long time, while the people were at a big disadvantage assuming their governments had their own countries' best interest in mind. Now people are learning that many of these Global Capitalists who influence governments, have no allegience to any one country. I hope it happens soon on a large scale.
unblock
(56,198 posts)and the whole country grinds to a halt.
america seems far too paved for that, nevermind that the police would have it cleared in a couple hours....
sabrina 1
(62,325 posts)Yes, which is why it would have to be so big, after they can't arrest people for simply staying home, that it would overwhelm them. I don't see that happening right now though.
tomp
(9,512 posts)....then why is the house in republican hands? and why so we keep electing republicans and republican-lites? i think it is partly because the people are brainwashed by the corporate-politico-media system. not that i'm expecting it but obama COULD stand above that if he chose. if he is not capable of doing that, he's of no use to us.
you'll get no argument from me about activating and strengthening left-leaning institutions, boycotts, strikes, etc. my point is simply that could he have created more of a groundswell for progressive policies, that he was perfectly capable of doing it, and didn't do it (he's in the perfect position to organize communities and he's not doing it).
the president and the democratic party as a whole are not working in the interests of the majority of people. in fact, if you read chris hedges' "death of the liberal class" you'll see that those left-leaning institutions have fallen through time and time again as well.
progressives must organize themselves independent of the democratic party and criticize obama and all our other false friends.
unblock
(56,198 posts)popular opinion, left to its own devices, is definitely to the left of washington politics.
the house does not express the will of the people as a whole because enough the power structure, by way of campaign contributions and such, influence turnout on the left and right and tilt those swayable in the middle.
they do this mostly by diverting our attention from the real issues to red-meat crap like flag-burning or the "war on christmas" or other crap. people end up voting for a republican so there will be no flag-burning when in fact is was never a significant problem, the republican isn't going to do a damn thing about it, but he will hand the keys to the treasury to his corporate buddies -- something the poor duped voter was opposed to but was made to believe, if only on election day, that stopping flag-burning was more important.
at this point much of it is simply social identification. many republicans are straight ticket voters because it's become a matter of religion for them. democrats are devils and republicans are saints, and there's no more convincing them otherwise than convincing them that their belief in god is false. but ask them about an issue before they've heard what rush has to say about it and often they come out on the left side.
tomp
(9,512 posts)...the senate should be republican too.
or could it be that the whole thing is a game made to LOOK like it represents the will of the people?
Response to tomp (Reply #221)
Post removed
Marr
(20,317 posts)They were going to expire on their own, but Obama chose to "negotiate".
unblock
(56,198 posts)the greedy powers that be behind the scenes wanted to, and the right-wing congress wanted them.
obama spoke strongly against extending them both before and after.
so what's your point?
Poll_Blind
(23,864 posts)PB
NAO
(3,425 posts)Anything else is pure delusion.
I doubt any progressive is having to hold their noses as tightly to support Obama as the conservatives are to support Romney.
However un-progressive you think Obama is, Romeny is less progressive. And the coat-tail effect.
Poll_Blind
(23,864 posts)PB
DevonRex
(22,541 posts)how many votes your constant anti-Obama rhetoric will cost Obama and US in the upcoming election. One, two, ten, more? Every single vote counts though.
And no president is responsible for every single thing that happens while he is in office. They do have to compromise. They do have to talk to the other party. Don't like it? There's not one goddamn thing you can do about that.
The houses of Congress also have to compromise. That's just how it is. Don't know what planet these folks are on but it sure isn't earth.
Poll_Blind
(23,864 posts)PB
MineralMan
(151,265 posts)Pure and simple FUD.
"2012 will be the most dismal election...." Yes...that really encourages people, and just when we need everyone encouraged. There are candidates for all offices to be elected. Discouraging people from voting isn't going to get the job of electing good candidates done.
Poll_Blind
(23,864 posts)From the article:
The progressive vehicle for this pressure may now be in sight with plans by The 99% Spring to train 100,000 people in nonviolent direct action April 9 to 15 to push a progressive agenda about foreclosure relief, student debt, protection of Social Security, Medicare and Medicaid, job creation, poverty, pollution, wealth inequality and the roll-back of tax cuts for the rich. Let us hope this potentially game-changing force puts its allegiance squarely behind real change, not protecting the president, or any other politician.
PB
jeff47
(26,549 posts)How do you you "push Obama to take more populist positions"?
Occupy protests? lol. If that worked, he would have already moved left and people like the author wouldn't be bitching.
The only way you can "push" Obama is to withhold your vote. So you're either going to elect Romney, or you're not going to actually withhold your vote. Either way you can be ignored.
DevonRex
(22,541 posts)most outrageous part. Makes me wonder even more.
As to the article itself? Summed up it says that "now is the time to really, really hold his feet to the fire!!! He gives purty speeches but so what!!! He thinks he can count on our vote!!! Oh, yeah???"
Same bullshit, different day. But it's getting close to election day now and I personally don't take kindly to anybody trying to discourage people from voting for the Democrat in any race.
As to your comment to me, you assumed far too much; however, I believe it's pretty typical that Obama supporters are underestimated in certain quarters around here. It's actually to our advantage. At least that's what I've found throughout my life. Have a pleasant afternoon.
Brooklyn Dame
(169 posts)We seriously need to get real. Those who thought the POTUS was a hard-left progressive rather than a pragmatic person right for these times (and stable enough to clean up the buckets of turd that the Bushes/Cheneys/Reagans of the world left to be mopped up) were not paying attention. It's politics. Nobody gets everything they want. And what's the choice now -- vote for an arseclown like Romney? Spare us all.
http://borderlessnewsandviews.com/2012/02/5-annoying-things-that-liberals-do/
http://borderlessnewsandviews.com/2012/03/set-the-record-straight/
quinnox
(20,600 posts)than reflex responses such as "We can't vote for Romney!" That has nothing to do with the article.
SidDithers
(44,333 posts)Sid
randome
(34,845 posts)
&w=770&h=592&ei=DY2AT49HyoO2B5ztyboG&zoom=1&iact=hc&dur=469&sig=106415036804199459274&page=1&tbnh=112&tbnw=146&start=0&ndsp=12&ved=1t:429,r
,s:0,i:155&tx=147&ty=135&vpx=522&vpy=174&hovh=197&hovw=256MineralMan
(151,265 posts)That's what's being sown by this editorial. "most dismal presidential election...." Bah!
How much FUD can we stand? I guess we're going to find out.
just1voice
(1,362 posts)you are saying, constantly.
Why is that?
randome
(34,845 posts)Maybe the difference is that the Bushbots were trying to make people afraid the same as the OP.
I'm being sarcastic by taking their main point to its absurdist maximum.
I am NOT afraid but that's what these 'we are all doomed' kind of posts are designed to do -make us afraid and too demoralized to vote.
Not going to happen for the vast majority of us. They have already lost.
woo me with science
(32,139 posts)What, exactly, is your problem with this?
Between now and the election, we need to take the lead from actions like McKibben’s and MoveOn and drive Obama as far to the progressive side of politics as possible, because if we don’t, once he is freed of having to run for re-election again, the Grand Bargain will be back on the table and it will take 20 years, or more, to reverse the damage. Ironically, by pushing Obama to take more populist positions, we will be helping to make him more electable, so there is no conflict between pushing him on issues and re-electing him.
The progressive vehicle for this pressure may now be in sight with plans by The 99% Spring to train 100,000 people in nonviolent direct action April 9 to 15 to push a progressive agenda about foreclosure relief, student debt, protection of Social Security, Medicare and Medicaid, job creation, poverty, pollution, wealth inequality and the roll-back of tax cuts for the rich. Let us hope this potentially game-changing force puts its allegiance squarely behind real change, not protecting the president, or any other politician.
quinnox
(20,600 posts)there are some who obviously can't be bothered to even read an article if it is not saying "We must praise Obama at all times, otherwise we are being bad Democrats!"
THe article is correct and well written, I agree with you.
woo me with science
(32,139 posts)it is sadly illustrative of what has happened to DU.
xiamiam
(4,906 posts)especially when some of those moves are so blatantly conservative and neo conservative...and when those executive orders shred pieces of the constitution. Hell, I'm 62 this year and NEVER imagined that I could be strip searched for being arrested for something minor. NEVER EVER in this country. But now its true and the okie dokie by some here renders their motives untrustworthy as far as I'm concerned. That's what has happened to DU imo. My question is who has the kind of time or even desire to spend hours upon hours on a website defending indefensible actions by this administration. Nobody, that's who as surviving is in the mix for many of us. So that is what happened here. I have a few on ignore but I can see them when I'm on my laptop as I don't log in and for the most part, it's as deliberate as a 9 to 5 worker. Most of us don't have that kind of time, so they've got the upper hand. I don't trust or anyone who never questions. It's just not natural, not at this time or with this much information about Obama at our disposal. Maybe in 2009, not now.
woo me with science
(32,139 posts)We have been living the corporate takeover and experiencing the many changes in our schools, our workplaces, our health care system, our media... The tentacles are deep, infecting every area of our lives now. It is upsetting, but somehow not surprising, to see the changes on a large, popular message board, as well.
I hear you.
Thanks for the post. You speak for so many of us, I am sure.
whatchamacallit
(15,558 posts)woo me with science
(32,139 posts)We have reached the point of bizarre. We are hearing not just denials of how bad things are, but flat-out denials of events that we were all here to witness, or that are clear as glass on the record, as when Obama put Medicare and Social Security on the bargaining table as hostages to secure an austerity budget, or when Obama's DOJ attorney argued FOR strip searches at the Supreme Court.
Your jaw drops, and you want to ask them when simply making things up become an acceptable strategy in a debate.
When you reach a point of having to fabricate history in order to defend the indefensible, yes, the denial is either pathological or brazenly, purposefully dishonest.
sad sally
(2,627 posts)On this latest oral argument by the President's justice people that a hypothetical political protester stopped by police would be hiding a gun while driving in a speeding car; bring the gun into jail when he's arrested - all for some minor offense at the demonstration - that he must be strip searched to find the hidden gun. Why was a protester used as an example?
Seemed to me, by using protesters as an example of who would be strip searched, the President is preparing (legally) to squash all dissent in the US. It's an assault on civil and political freedoms to think protesters (can you say Occupy) would be subjected to full naked body searches.
This ain't the kind of government or leader I want...
ProSense
(116,464 posts)The progressive vehicle for this pressure may now be in sight with plans by The 99% Spring to train 100,000 people in nonviolent direct action April 9 to 15 to push a progressive agenda about foreclosure relief, student debt, protection of Social Security, Medicare and Medicaid, job creation, poverty, pollution, wealth inequality and the roll-back of tax cuts for the rich. Let us hope this potentially game-changing force puts its allegiance squarely behind real change, not protecting the president, or any other politician.
...garbage on top of the other garbage in the piece. Summary: Obama is inherently a sellout, and if you don't spend your time and energy attacking Obama during the GE, he'll sell you out after he wins. What a crock of shit!
Also this:
Bullshit!
http://www.democraticunderground.com/1002515429
pnwmom
(110,260 posts)randome
(34,845 posts)Just believe. Believe that they are all out to get us and we are DOOMED!!!!!
woo me with science
(32,139 posts)
Care to explain?
randome
(34,845 posts)An article that says voting will be dismal in 2012 is clearly designed to make people too demoralized to vote at all.
I think the opposite will be true this year. People will be VERY motivated to vote.
woo me with science
(32,139 posts)what is the opposition to pushing him toward more progressive policies? ...particularly during an election year, when candidates are most likely to be responsive to feedback from voters?
randome
(34,845 posts)But the general thrust of the article seems to be dismay, using words like 'dismal' and 'depressing'. The only alternative right now to cooperating with the Republicans is to not get ANYTHING done.
Congress is the key. The President is not the 'decider', he's the one who signs or doesn't sign legislation created by Congress.
woo me with science
(32,139 posts)There needs to be much, much more of that.
For the record, though, Obama's embrace of corporate, neocon, and conservative positions has been evident in many huge areas that had nothing whatsoever to do with the makeup of Congress. I have posted even longer lists that you can probably find by googling, but here is a short sample:
Congress did not make Obama push for settlements for corrupt banks.
Congress did not make him sign NDAA.
Congress does not determine his "evolving" position on civil rights.
Congress did not make him fight to the Supreme Court for the right to engage in warrantless GPS surveillance of Americans.
Congress did not cause his administration to argue in FAVOR of strip searches in the recent SC case.
Congress did not force him to sign ACTA and then attempt to hide it from the American public by claiming national security.
That is just a small sample. The real problem here is that both Congress and the White House are serving corporate masters, and that will not change until we get the corrupting corporate money out of our political system. Election season is the BEST time to stand up and make progressive voices heard, and our efforts should be focused on encouraging efforts in this direction rather than reflexively mocking in an attempt to protect the candidate and the status quo.
MineralMan
(151,265 posts)Occupy as you will, but in the end, occupy the voting booth. That'd be great!
jeff47
(26,549 posts)The first paragraph claims that candidates will govern exactly like they campaign. You have to be utterly naive to believe that.
The second paragraph is just LOL. If Occupy was gonna have such a massive effect on Obama, it would have had an effect before now.
Fundamentally, their entire thesis fails for two reasons:
First, Obama isn't dictator. Obama could be a socialist and there would be little change, because Congress is full of Republicans and Blue Dog morons. "But he could LEAD!", you say. Well, he's been trying to get an infrastructure bill to reduce unemployment for 3 years. Such a bill is very middle-of-the-road and very frequently done during economic downturns. But he hasn't gotten one, thanks to the Republicans and Blue Dog morons. So you really think he's going to get single-payer, pro union and other populist legislation by "leading"?
Which means if you want a more progressive Obama, you need to get a more progressive Congress.
Second, the only actual influence you'd have over Obama is to withhold your vote. So either you're going to help elect Romney, or you're not going to actually withhold your vote. Since the authors state they aren't willing to withhold their vote, they can be ignored.
But they'd have a fantastic time saying "I told you so" while we suffer under a Romney presidency.
Doctor_J
(36,392 posts)it will help him get re-elected. Here a clue:
no matter how much he acts like Reagan, the Repukes will not consider him that way
Duh. With the War On Women, the Repukes have handed him an opportunity to lurch to the left and in the process score millions of votes. Prediction: He won't take the opportunity, but will instead talk about deficit reduction and "reaching across the aisle". Reason: He wants to be Reagan, not FDR.
Poll_Blind
(23,864 posts)PB
BootinUp
(51,320 posts)quinnox
(20,600 posts)I'll start using it when appropriate, thanks for the word invention.
OnyxCollie
(9,958 posts)You should submit that to the Urban Dictionary.
Response to Poll_Blind (Reply #40)
Marr This message was self-deleted by its author.
pnwmom
(110,260 posts)we have to elect 60 progressive legislators in the Senate and a majority in the House.
demgrrrll
(3,593 posts)Poll_Blind
(23,864 posts)PB
ProSense
(116,464 posts)"DLC, blue dog hacks"?
...who did you support in the primary?
Really?
SidDithers
(44,333 posts)Sid
OnyxCollie
(9,958 posts)
woo me with science
(32,139 posts)pushing for progressive policies.
Very revealing, isn't it.
Bobbie Jo
(14,344 posts)Anyone buys anything this poster puts up here at long last?
His tactics have been exposed ad nausem. We're talking cherry picking, all manner of misinformation and in some cases out and out lies? Sheeeeeesh.
Is it okay if a self-proclaimed "progressive" does it? Fox could take lessons from this one.
SidDithers
(44,333 posts)Sid
RC
(25,592 posts)No, our only real choice is between a Right of Center, DLC Blue Dog, or a falling off the cliff, wing-nut Republican.
I could make some money sell clothes pins for this election.
Obama ran from the Center-Left, then, as the article stated, governed from the Right. Why does anyone think the 'Recovery', such as it is, is so slow?
To win, he has to move to the Left again.
Why is it so hard for some to understand that Obama is no Liberal or Progressive?
The article nails Obama pretty good.
KG
(28,795 posts)even though I claim you are trying to destroy this president by posting on a message board! 
quinnox
(20,600 posts)from the President, heavens! The original writer of this should be investigated and possible shipped to Guantanamo as punishment...
Poll_Blind
(23,864 posts)
PB
Tierra_y_Libertad
(50,414 posts)ProSense
(116,464 posts)...on "principle," who are you voting for?
SidDithers
(44,333 posts)Sid
Tierra_y_Libertad
(50,414 posts)MineralMan
(151,265 posts)I assume the same is true for Democratic legislatures. What of those who live in areas where it's not assured? What's your recommendation for people living in those places? Should they follow your plan and vote for some third-party candidate? What say you?
Tierra_y_Libertad
(50,414 posts)If their principles urge them to vote for one of the establishment candidates they should do so. It's their votes.
Egalitarian Thug
(12,448 posts)to be a team player, and so forth, forgetting that is your team wins and then takes the same actions that the other would have is no win at all.
This is a time for heroes, not sycophants.
abelenkpe
(9,933 posts)That is how you get the president to "govern as a progressive."
Until progressives begin to concentrate on replacing conservadems and blue dogs with real democrats at the local and congressional level things will remain the same. Whining about the president working with the current congress (which in case you haven't noticed isn't progressive at all) isn't going to help, but could do plenty of harm. I cannot understand why anyone thinks it's a good idea to trash Obama when the alternative is a thousand times worse. It's congress that needs to be changed.
MineralMan
(151,265 posts)Some people are trying to discourage Democratic voters from going to the polls. They can do that without revealing their true beliefs. They just have to quote people who are also doing the same thing. It's a "movement."
SidDithers
(44,333 posts)Sid
pa28
(6,145 posts)Unless we insist on clearly defined positions regarding the big issues of SS, tax and trade we can expect another four years of having our interests traded away in quiet rooms.
He's better when he's fighting in public but I don't believe it's his preference. We've got to make him do it.
JoePhilly
(27,787 posts)
Poll_Blind
(23,864 posts)
PB
ProSense
(116,464 posts)"Why not just vote for him as the article suggests?!?"
...is depress the vote drivel.
I mean, do you really think there is something admirable about constantly tearing down the President just to claim that you're going to hold your nose and vote?
What the hell is the point of claiming that "morale among Democrats is low"?
MineralMan
(151,265 posts)You can reason something like that out from the article, but the tenor of the article is designed to discourage the vote, substituting some unnamed "activism" for the vote. It's a real stretch that there is any call to vote in that editorial.
ProSense
(116,464 posts)that this is about the 99% spring as the author claims is nonsense.
That movement is not about pushing the false claim that "morale among Democrats is low."
http://www.democraticunderground.com/1002530104
MineralMan
(151,265 posts)Let's see what's written after the election...
Poll_Blind
(23,864 posts)PB
JoePhilly
(27,787 posts)plan to kill Medicare, Social Security, and Medicaid.
Yup ... this is clearly an article that is trying to increase voter turn out for Obama.
Not.
MineralMan
(151,265 posts)Yeah...Boehner stopped Obama. Sure he did. If you believe that, I have some interesting mining equities I'd like to talk to you about.
JoePhilly
(27,787 posts)The article starts with that nonsense ...
Which I guess is necessary given the failure of all of those who endless predicted that Obama was, at any second, going to end those programs ... since it never happened ... it becomes necessary to claim that's his real plan.
Then we get the obligatory list of evil things Obama did ... my favorite is "escalate in Afghanistan" ... duh, as a candidate he said he'd do that. Apparently the intent there is to lie to progressives as if this is some promise he broke.
The funny part in the article is this. The article correctly notes that once he is reelected, Obama is free to do pretty much whatever he wants because he can't run again. But then, the article started to describe how some sort of pressure from progressives will force him to be more progressive in his second term.
That conclusion makes no sense. If he's free to do what ever he wants, he's free to do what ever he wants. And no amount of pressure from progressives can change that.
Interestingly, the article says nothing negative about Obama ... only that the tea party doesn't like him. Which sounds like a message aimed at the middle, not the left.
MineralMan
(151,265 posts)The point of the article was to stir up dissatisfaction and to discourage people from voting. This has been going on since 2009, and some have been posting the same garbage here since then, and from the same writers. It's really, really tiresome.
MineralMan
(151,265 posts)Maybe he can run as a dark horse candidate at the convention.
eridani
(51,907 posts)MineralMan
(151,265 posts)Just curious.
woo me with science
(32,139 posts)Push Obama to take more progressive positions.
eridani
(51,907 posts)bvar22
(39,909 posts)....pushing President Obama into adopting more progressive positions is pure poison to some people.
For many people in this country, the traditional Democratic Values of FDR/LBJ are also abhorrent.
I'm not surprised to find some of them here.
Any moderate Republican would be very comfortable in today's New Democrat Centrist Party,
and very happy with Obama's Center/Right Big Business administration.
Ask Arlen Specter.
I am OK with Centrists pushing for Centrist Policy.
I will listen to their arguments and reasons for sensible, pragmatic Centrism.
I am NOT OK with Centrists attacking loyal Democrats for pushing for Traditional Pro-Working Class Democratic Policy,
or for Centrists to demand that I support Center/Right Policy.
That is simply NOT going to happen.
If there is no longer any room in the Democratic Party for FDR/LBJ DEMOCRATS,
then so be it.
I will always be a mainstream/center Pro-Working Class FDR/LBJ Democrat,
and as such, I will work very hard to push our Party BACK to the traditional Democratic Party Values that made it great.
I've always believed that one of the biggest mistakes Obama made was handing over thee money to the Wall Street Banks BEFORE demanding concessions.
The same thing applies here.
President Obama needs to hear Loud & Clear that the Democratic Wing of the Democratic Party
is NOT happy with where his Center/Right administration is going.
I wish he would stop reading Reagan,
and start studying FDR, LBJ, and HST.
It is about The POLICY,
not the Person.
[font color=firebrick][center]"There are forces within the Democratic Party who want us to sound like kinder, gentler Republicans.
I want a party that will STAND UP for Working Americans."
---Paul Wellstone [/font][/center]
[center]
[/font]
[font size=1]photo by bvar22
Shortly before Sen Wellstone was killed[/center][/font]
You will know them by their WORKS.
[font size=5 color=green]Solidarity99![/font][font size=2 color=green]
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------[/center]
Art_from_Ark
(27,247 posts)
a2liberal
(1,524 posts)
asjr
(10,479 posts)tomp
(9,512 posts)Rex
(65,616 posts)Next question.
sharp_stick
(14,400 posts)I've had enough of you, it's time to bring the fucking ignore list out of retirement and put Mr cut n' paste in it.
randome
(34,845 posts)Your opinion will still be needed.
sharp_stick
(14,400 posts)made in a pique of pissed off. I promised myself I wouldn't use Ignore in DU3, I hope that nobody is beyond teaching.
RC
(25,592 posts)Facts matter.
Bobbie Jo
(14,344 posts)Exactly what he wants you to do.
sharp_stick
(14,400 posts)I won't actually ignore even the most "should be ignored" members. I made a promise to myself not to use it at DU3 and I hope to keep it up.
SidDithers
(44,333 posts)Sid
Poll_Blind
(23,864 posts)
PB
woo me with science
(32,139 posts)we may comment on Obama's policies will be issued, and anyone deviating from that list will be sent immediately to the cornfield.
Here is a preview of the list:
admirable, A-1, A-OK, aces, attractive, best ever, cat's pajamas, choice, commendable, cool*, copacetic, crackerjack*, deserving, dream*, estimable, excellent, exquisite, fine, good, great, greatest, hunky dory, keen*, laudable, meritable, meritorious, neat*, out of sight, out of this world, peachy*, praiseworthy, rare, solid, super, super-duper, superior, unreal*, valuable, wicked*, wonderful, worthy, accomplished, adept, beyond compare, blameless, classical, consummate, crowning, culminating, defectless, excellent, excelling, experienced, expert, faultless, finished, foolproof, ideal, immaculate, impeccable, indefectible, matchless, out-of-this-world, paradisiac, paradisiacal, peerless, pure, skilled, skillful, sound, splendid, spotless, stainless, sublime, superb, supreme, ten, unblemished, unequaled, unmarred, untainted, untarnished, perfect.
"It was a GOOD thing you did, Obama, signing NDAA. A REAL good thing!"
SidDithers
(44,333 posts)Sid
woo me with science
(32,139 posts)If DU takes the step of tombstoning people simply because they post and discuss news articles about actual policies coming out of this administration, it will mark the official DU admission of this site's transformation from discussion board to truth-censoring propaganda machine.
SidDithers
(44,333 posts)Sid
woo me with science
(32,139 posts)will depress voter turnout?
Wow.
SidDithers
(44,333 posts)Sid
Poll_Blind
(23,864 posts)...nebulous threats. Problem solved, if there really is a problem.
PB
SidDithers
(44,333 posts)Sid
Poll_Blind
(23,864 posts)They don't need Sid Dithers to ominously quote the Terms of Service and imply that those who disagree with him will be punished by the Admins after a certain date.
It's annoying to other users and, deliciously, it must be most annoying to the Administrators, themselves, when they see you do it.
So all I can say is be well, Sid, and keep it up!
PB
SidDithers
(44,333 posts)They have shown, however, that they will ban posters for TOS violations.
Sid
Poll_Blind
(23,864 posts)
PB
SidDithers
(44,333 posts)Sid
sharp_stick
(14,400 posts)at DU2 is littered with headstones. I promised myself not to ignore anyone at DU3 and I think I can hold out at least until the conventions.... After that all bets are off.
Poll_Blind
(23,864 posts)PB
quinnox
(20,600 posts)will not be pleasing to a certain deeply devoted group! Talking facts can be very uncomfortable, obviously.
Rex
(65,616 posts)There is none. It is not about clamming up, but about choices. We have one choice, unless someone here knows something they are not telling. Who else ya gonna vote fer?
Hillary.
Primary Obama!
Hey I voted for Hillary so don't get me started! 
Okay maybe I am the only one saying it, but it needs to be said - without a viable alternative, we are just wasting time discussing things that will never happen.
Like Mitt winning in 2012.
Never gonna happen.
DonCoquixote
(13,959 posts)How do people think that the person who, with her husband, helped destroy the left, is somehow going to govern to the left, is beyond me.
I will vote for her if she is the candidiate 2016, but watch her destroy OWS, go to war with iran, and somehow be anointed an icon in the process.
tomp
(9,512 posts)Poll_Blind
(23,864 posts)...force him into a more progressive second term. I'd be surprised if anyone genuinely didn't want that.
HINT: Read the article.
PB
jeff47
(26,549 posts)So let's pretend the delusional plan present here actually works and Obama makes all sorts of progressive promises.
Why would that actually force him to govern as a progressive? BBI's spent about 10,000 words whining about Obama campaigning against the insurance mandate, yet he signed it. So you can't force a damn thing.
If you actually want progressive policies, your target is Congress. Obama doesn't matter.
woo me with science
(32,139 posts)Marvelous graphic. Thank you.
Nye Bevan
(25,406 posts)and doesn't have to worry about being re-elected, that he will take more politically courageous positions.
I would be amazed, for example, if he did not come out in favor of marriage equality during a second term.
quinnox
(20,600 posts)Bobbie Jo
(14,344 posts) riiiight.
alfredo
(60,300 posts)That is a key to his success. Because the right has to reject him, they have to declare any conservative initiative "liberal."
woo me with science
(32,139 posts)targeted assassination of American citizens, defense of pre-emptive war as administration doctrine, spy centers for mining or surveillance of all phone calls and email without a warrant, internet IDs, military drones in American skies, coordinated violent crackdowns against peaceful protesters, strip searches for any arrestee, bailouts and settlements for corrupt banks, and austerity budgets in an economy that has already impoverished its middle class to be "moderate conservative" positions.
These are extreme corporatist and neocon positions that, together, are moving us steadily toward a corporate, authoritarian state. They are not "centrist" by any stretch of the imagination, yet they are defended and minimized, and opposition to them mocked routinely by a certain few on this site who can always be counted upon to support the next corporate or neocon assault on Americans. It always becomes about "hating Obama" or at the very least not loving him enough, whenever any one of these horrific policies is held up to scrutiny.
I posted above that I would love to see a side-by-side comparison of some of the posts about policies like these that elicited swift pizza deliveries on DU during the Bush administration, and some of the arguments that we see here every day now on DU. I think it would make for some very interesting comparisons.
This isn't about saying that a Republican would be better. Any Republican would be worse, and that is exactly how we are convinced to accept and keep quiet about what is happening to us. Election season is the time to make our voices heard. There is no other time when a candidate will be more receptive to feedback from voters.
Imagine if a Republican were President
http://www.democraticunderground.com/1002430636
maximusveritas
(2,915 posts)They help to balance the attacks from the right calling him a radical socialist and place him closer to the center where he belongs. Unlike Romney, who gets criticism from everyone for being a flip flopper, Obama gets criticism for being too conciliatory and willing to bargain to get things done. There's little doubt that Obama looks much better from this. So keep these articles coming.
alp227
(33,282 posts)
joshcryer
(62,536 posts)It's making the independents like him more.
me b zola
(19,053 posts)I am now reading the part about Bolivia, and the election of President Paz Estenssoro whom in the past had worked on behalf of the people and who had campaigned to do more of the same. Once he got in, though, it was all back room deals to subvert the will of the people to privatize their nationalized industry and resources.
A kinder face of brutality. All I could think of was Bill Clinton and Pres Obama.
woo me with science
(32,139 posts)Glad you mentioned it here.
pasto76
(1,589 posts)btw, SS and medicare are NOT a 'liberal" thing, they are a democratic thing. Whats the difference these days? well, it seems a liberal wants our Democratic President to act like the tea party they espouse to hate so much.
The people of their districts elected the tea partiers and other republicans and/or conservatives. Its reality. President Obama MUST work with them, or he can stonewall everything.....and become just as bad as they are!!!!!!
Maybe instead of the liberals screaming so much about how non-liberal President Obama is (btw he never campaigned as a liberal), maybe you can find another outlet for that energy and help get more democrats, or liberals if you prefer, into Congress, so we can actually get some shit done! Tea partiers and republicans will always be part of that reality unless we DO MORE TO GET THEM REPLACED.
in laymans terms these days: a Democrat is -mostly- happy with The Presidents performance. Is happy as a pig in shit that he is President and not McCain, and pretty much opposes everything the modern republican party has become and embraced.
A liberal isnt happy with anyone, and apparently, cant even see that what most of them are screaming for is simply the left wing version of a tea partier. Is that really who you want to become?
tomp
(9,512 posts)...between stonewalling good things and stonewalling bad things. sometimes one just has to say "no" to reactionary bullshit. neither obama nor the democratic party are very good at this, and the people lose every time.
jaysunb
(11,856 posts)[URL=
/][IMG]
[/IMG][/URL]
Response to Better Believe It (Original post)
Herlong This message was self-deleted by its author.
Zax2me
(2,515 posts)governed as a CONSERVATIVE?!
Yea, that is what he has been for going on four years.
Please.
cali
(114,904 posts)fraction of a brain.
If you think Obama has governed like a conservative, my dear, try Mitty on for size. Oh and thanks BBI for not giving a fuck about those of us in poverty.
Better Believe It
(18,630 posts)for an increase in the minimum wage or massive WPA type jobs programs?
Not that I'm aware of.
I support both of those programs so don't blame me for poverty and government/corporate attacks on our living standards.
I'm not the President nor am I a member of Congress.
You might demand that President Obama propose concrete actions to improve your economic situation rather than blame me for your terrible situation.
I don't think the latest deregulation of Wall Street under a so-called "Jobs Act" will improve your life or the lives of other working people at all.
stillwaiting
(3,795 posts)I anticipate being in the streets both before and after I vote for Obama in November.
The people of this country MUST know that Obama is not a progressive nor much of a liberal (much less a socialist) on many of the policies he has actively pushed during his first term.
A Republican in the White House will destroy this country MUCH, MUCH faster. The current Democratic Party enables Republican judiciary picks and we simply can not afford for more right wing fascist judges to be stacked deep in our nation's courts.
We simply must raise the consciousness of our country so that we can elect a true progressive in '16. Difficult conversations will need to be had, and we will need to be okay with ruffling the feathers of those around us. It's too important to not do it.
Autumn
(48,962 posts)What do we do now? We vote for Obama in 2012 and we work on 2016. Nothing else we can do.
great white snark
(2,646 posts)Democrats will not be swayed by voter suppressive articles like this.
Autumn
(48,962 posts)done those things. God I can't fucking believe you people think that posting an article pointing out some things Obama has done in his first term is suppressing votes. If that's voter suppression then Obama is the one suppressing votes.
Egalitarian Thug
(12,448 posts)Marley01
(9 posts)Obama had a majority for the first two years. Only thing that come out of those two years was a watered down healthcare legislation. FDR did have a majority but the government almost was overthrown-business plot of 1934. I want someone to challenge the Republicans. Obama wants political peace and yet is not afraid to get us involved in more wars(Iran, Libya and what's next). Micheal Moore said on Countdown that maybe the Republicans may have their man. Maybe they do. Why in the world are they (republicans) saying things when if they wanted Obama out they could unite. Koch brothers against Obama but Obama against Keystone pipeline, once was now not. Lower section approved by Obama. I could go on but get what you but never less.
spanone
(141,609 posts)
mmonk
(52,589 posts)corporate power now in American politics. The battle is at the street and organizing level once again in our history. We cannot fail to act. It will take everyone involved.
usregimechange
(18,595 posts)otherwise
Arctic Dave
(13,812 posts)Obvious responses from the obvious posters.
fascisthunter
(29,381 posts)fuck that... 'm a den and will not cede to the corporatists within it. Fuck you right wingers.
FreeBC
(403 posts)And we've given him sh*t.
fascisthunter
(29,381 posts)thanks
Better Believe It
(18,630 posts)I wonder if 435 Democrats in the House and 100 in the Senate would be adequate.
Kaleva
(40,365 posts)Liberals in Congress, especially the Senate, have been in the minority for quite awhile.
jeff47
(26,549 posts)Because there were a lot of Blue Dog morons in Congress.
The only good thing about the 2010 election was the devastation of the Blue Dog moron caucus.
bvar22
(39,909 posts)SEE:
*White House support for Blanche Lincoln, Arkansas Democratic Primary, 2010
*White House support for Republican Arlen Specter, Pennsylvania Democratic Primary, 2010
*The White House has fought to KEEP Blue Dogs and conservatives in important seats in our Congress,
and endorses their appointment to positions of power in the Congress and the Executive Branch appointments.
*There were enough other Democratic Primaries where Blue Dogs garnered Party funds and White House endorsements when they were being challenged by legitimate Progressive challengers in other states in 2010 to chart a trend.
The Pro-LABOR activists will not gorget the White House's betrayal in Arkansas, 2010.
The conservative performance of the Obama Administration was NOT "all Joe Lieberman's fault."
jeff47
(26,549 posts)The WH made the guess that Blanche and Arlen would perform better than their primary opponents. We don't know if they were wrong. I remember polling showing the primary opponents doing worse against the Republican than the blue dog in those two races, but I don't remember the details.
But those races were in 2010. The parent poster was complaining about not enough progressive legislation in 2009-2010. Backing Arlen and Blanche is irrelevant for that complaint.
As for the cabinet, did you forget just how long it took us to get an Energy Secretary? How long do you think the Republicans would filibuster a "true progressive"?
It's not "all Joe Lieberman's fault" because there's a lot more blue dogs and Republicans in addition to Joe.
bvar22
(39,909 posts)The challenger to Blanche Lincoln, pro-Health Care/Pro-LABOR Lt Gov Bill Halter was polling better than Blanche in some polls.
Adding insult to injury, a White House "Spokesperson" taunted and ridiculed Organized LABOR for "wasting $10 Million Dollars" s by supporting a Pro-UNION challenger in the Primary.
The White House's decision suppressed voter turnout in the general election,
and forever alienated the hardest working element of the Democratic Party, the grass roots activists.
Wasn't this supposed to be the "change" administration?
LOL.
woo me with science
(32,139 posts)Doctor_J
(36,392 posts)Hippo_Tron
(25,453 posts)It's a group of individuals that prizes their power to block things over being able to pass legislation.
Pretty much every other western democracy has made it so that their upper house doesn't have a veto over the lower house's passage of a bill. It's another thing where this country is way behind the times.
However, I'm not going to lie. With the way house districts are gerrymandered in this country, and the crazy shit the GOP tries to pass while they are in power, I am sometimes grateful for that check on the majority. Remember, the filibuster was the only thing standing in the way of the Republicans privatizing social security in 2005.
joshcryer
(62,536 posts)
NashvilleLefty
(811 posts)is just plain stupid.
Here's the truth. If you wanted to make a difference, you had plenty of time. Time has now run out.
You had plenty of time to make your case against Obama. You failed. You could not give us a viable alternative.
So now it's Obama vs. mittens. You can rail against that all you want, but the bottom line is that you have created that choice because you failed to create a viable alternative.
If you want to vote against the lesser of two evils, that means that you are voting FOR the greater of two evils.
Justify it any way that makes you feel better about yourself - but the bottom line now is that you have two choices. You may not like either of them, but there are only two.
TWO.
If you don't want to vote for Obama, then at this point you support the Conservative
AND YOU are my enemy.
I am not so close-minded in my personal life. But this is different. I am a Progressive, which means that I am an Idealist who is also a Pragmatist. Idealism without Pragmatism is just Fantasy.
Kablooie
(19,107 posts)Flo for VP?
Crunchy Frog
(28,280 posts)I'm fairly sure I'd take Barry Goldwater over anyone running right now.
Dilldoe
(22 posts)and be disappointed for another 4 years.
That is all we can do.
Even if more Democrats get elected to the house and senate there will be just enough Dems who will vote with the GOP or water down any liberal or progressive legislation to make anything that passes pretty much meaningless.
IMHO the "big tent' is a big problem, the Democratic party can no longer afford to to be so inclusive, they need to make a decision does the party want to represent the "people' or corporations. Right now corporations are winning.
secondwind
(16,903 posts)under extremely oppressive situations. He is a pragmatist, above all.
polmaven
(9,463 posts)Sometimes I reall miss the UnRec button. 
Response to Better Believe It (Original post)
Post removed
DCBob
(24,689 posts)Its obvious President Obama is not a conservative nor a hard liberal. Many from the opposite ends want to tag him with those labels but neither is correct.. far from it. They are just spewing hype trying to get attention.
Its absurd and frustrating to keep hearing these kind of comments. I really wish those who claim to be on our side would at least keep it real otherwise its just pathetic nonsense and serves no purpose other than to create turmoil and division.
newspeak
(4,847 posts)the "liberal" media has helped in pushing the whole political spectrum to the right. Coming from a mostly democratic family, I've held those beliefs of the, I guess, old democratic platform. I guess believing in labor rights, not privatizing the shite out of government, not selling our resources to the highest global corporate bidder, not allowing big energy to pollute american cities water supplies, not cutting medicare, medicaid, SS is now "hard" left.
And yet, we on the "hard" left care what happens to the people in this country and the deteriorating infrastructure.
If anyone cared to read his book, you'd know obama had admiration for reagan, not so much FDR. From the beginning, he was not a progressive. However, after eight years of little boots feeding his war profiteering friends, perpetual war, giving tax giveaways to his already filthy rich friends at our expense; many people in this country felt like the long nightmare was over.
I will vote for obama, because that's the only choice I have. However, I have no illusions about how monied interests trumps the voice of the people.
And, people need to read the "shock doctrine." Because now, it's our turn. global corporations have no fealty to country, anywhere and everywhere they can make a buck and obtain the power, they'll do it.
DCBob
(24,689 posts)Zalatix
(8,994 posts)We don't try to primary Obama.
We don't vote Republican.
We don't stay home.
treestar
(82,383 posts)Yavin4
(37,182 posts)If he were any more Progressive, then he would have been primaried by Evan Bayh or some other conservative Dem.
Better Believe It
(18,630 posts)jeff47
(26,549 posts)Yavin4
(37,182 posts)Esp. given his wife's ties to big Pharma.
Better Believe It
(18,630 posts)Once again .... Bayh supported and voted for the "Insurance Industry and Big Pharma Protection Act"!
Case Closed.
showmethejedi
(20 posts)So lets go over this quickly because it seems someone is misunderstanding the subtleties of American politics. Obama needed to get reelected and cannot due so on the merit of progressive achievements alone. Although we can all agree legislation aimed at populist benefit is what is best for the country, some of our more ignorant and misinformed counterparts will vehemently disagree. As it has been stated that the president hasnt used his powers but the president's power is rooted in what Congress will allow. Obaba didnt lose the midterms, the conservative push to "get government hands off their medicare " won those elections. I will be more disappointed in my president when he wins a second term and continues to pander and pussyfoot around fighting for what his supporters actually will support. Whether you like it or not pur president has accomplished more in four years with one of the more obstructive legislatures than bush ( a neocon assclown) did in the full eight. Now please stop with the anal ostriching and go support the man america needs for four more years. Rmoney will throw my grandma and yours under the bus and i wont stand for it.
pansypoo53219
(23,034 posts)yesterday she said obama has been too LEFT for her. i'd said he was in the middle. cause the left wants more ponies.
Response to Better Believe It (Original post)
Post removed
ProSense
(116,464 posts)good post that's well worth the read: http://www.democraticunderground.com/1002531530
saras
(6,670 posts)Nearly everyone on DU celebrates when we read of a mayor, or state representative, or any other local politician, make a stand for integrity in any form.
So elect a hell of a lot more of them. What happens to the local police state if the local government won't take military surplus from the feds? They just say "nope. we don't need that stuff."
ElboRuum
(4,717 posts)Big one.
May I simply offer that such characterizations diminish the credibility of the one who offers such characterizations.
Typical NYC Lib
(182 posts)Adjunct to Murphy's Law: "As bad as things have gotten, never forget they can always get worse."
Poll_Blind
(23,864 posts)
PB
Better Believe It
(18,630 posts)Don't think for yourself, let others tell you what to think and when to think it.
Bobbie Jo
(14,344 posts)Off the flippin chart. Did you actually type that with a straight face. WTF?
Doctor_J
(36,392 posts)After the election, what is most likely is that Obama will return to his vision of himself as someone standing above politics, capable of making a “Grand Bargain” with Republicans, as a serious deficit hawk, as someone willing to put Medicare, Medicaid and Social Security on the chopping block before he demands more sacrifices from the rich and well-connected.
I see a lot of Kool-Aid drinkers who seem to believe that the president is just acting like a Repuke to get re-elected, then will veer to the left once he doesn't have to win votes. Seriously, have you been asleep for 3 years? The man is a Reaganite through & through. If he wants some Democrat bona fides, you better get them on the record now.
ProSense
(116,464 posts)After the election, what is most likely is that Obama will return to his vision of himself as someone standing above politics, capable of making a “Grand Bargain” with Republicans, as a serious deficit hawk, as someone willing to put Medicare, Medicaid and Social Security on the chopping block before he demands more sacrifices from the rich and well-connected.
I see a lot of Kool-Aid drinkers who seem to believe that the president is just acting like a Repuke to get re-elected, then will veer to the left once he doesn't have to win votes. Seriously, have you been asleep for 3 years? The man is a Reaganite through & through. If he wants some Democrat bona fides, you better get them on the record now.
...is your comment condescending and rude, it makes no fucking sense.
Daniel537
(1,560 posts)blame the voters of Connecticut for re-electing Lieberman, the voters of Nebraska for Nelson, Louisiana for Landrieu etc... etc.... because that's where single-payer/public option died. Truth be told, we never really had those 60 votes that we needed.
Doctor_J
(36,392 posts)as has been explained more than 1000 times.
ProSense
(116,464 posts)"We didn't need 60 votes as has been explained more than 1000 times."
...absolute nonsense, no matter how often it's repeated.
Here's one you should watch: http://www.democraticunderground.com/1002490841
It basically states that the bill's passage depended on getting the votes of Democratic Senators who sided with the insurance companies. Information from the clip:
They killed the public option to appease Lieberman and others (not mentioned is that Blanche Lincoln voted against both versions of the public option in committee).
They lowered proposed taxes for medical device makers to appease Evan Bayh.
They expanded Medicaid to appease Ben Nelson.
What's fascinating is that those three Democratic Senators (and others) voted to pass the Senate bill after the public option was dropped.
Then once Democrats lost the 60th vote, they still had to rely on reconciliation to pass the Conference Report. Three Democrats bailed: Blanche Lincoln, Mark Pryor and, surprise, Ben Nelson.
The fact is that if Lieberman, Lincoln, Landrieu, Nelson, Pryor and others had supported a public option, it would be in the bill today.
There were only 30 Senators publicly pushing for a strong public option, and another 14 who wanted the weaker version.
http://www.democraticunderground.com/1002485467
That's 16 short of the 60 votes required to pass the bill.
Lydia Leftcoast
(48,223 posts)from a position of strength, starting by proposing single-payer, talking it up everywhere, getting sympathetic Congresscritters to promote it in their home districts, publicly meeting with single-payer advocates (and shutting out the accursed insurance companies completely--why was it EEEVIL for Cheney to hold closed-door meetings with the energy companies and DOUBLE-PLUS GOOD for Obama to hold closed-door meetings with the insurance vultures?), twisting the arms of the DINOs, and using his bully pulpit to explain the proposal in simple terms, he would have looked better and made it harder for the right-wing to spin the situation.
One reason the right-wing could lie as they did was that there was almost no information about what the proposal actually contained. HR 676 was short and easy to understand. I had to search diligently online to find an executive summary of the Obama proposal, and I finally found one by the Kaiser Foundation.
The nation's rightest were told that we would be getting Soviet-style medicine, while many Democrats I talked to believed that Obama was working on single-payer precisely because of the right-wing lies about Canada and the UK.
Would we have gotten single-payer through a bolder and more open strategy?
Of course not.
But I'd be willing to bet that the compromise position would have been a public option.
ProSense
(116,464 posts)...the 16 Senators who didn't support the public option would have rallied around Obama had he reversed his campaign promise opting to push for single payer instead of a public option.
Speaking of something "explained to you a thousand times," here's one:
http://www.democraticunderground.com/1002482243
bvar22
(39,909 posts)You must have been busy, and overlooked them, so I thought I would help you out by re-posting them:
*negotiated from a position of strength,
*starting by proposing single-payer,
*talking it up everywhere,
*getting sympathetic Congresscritters to promote it in their home districts,
*publicly meeting with single-payer advocates (and shutting out the accursed insurance companies completely--why was it EEEVIL for Cheney to hold closed-door meetings with the energy companies and DOUBLE-PLUS GOOD for Obama to hold closed-door meetings with the insurance vultures?),
*twisting the arms of the DINOs,
(SEE: FDR, HST, LBJ)
*and using his bully pulpit to explain the proposal in simple terms,
.....he would have looked better and made it harder for the right-wing to spin the situation."
---Lydia Leftcoast, post 313
I agree with all of these,
and the Health Care "reform" debacle would appear to be Failure by Design to any educated/ long term Washington observer.
They learned NOTHING form Clinton's Comprehensive Reform Failure.
(or did they learn everything)?
It is simple to attack a 2200+ page bill as "Big Government Takeover",
especially when nobody from the Dem Leadership shows up to defend it.
You will know them by their WORKS,
not by their excuses.
[font size=5 color=green]Solidarity99![/font][font size=2 color=green]
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------[/center]
Daniel537
(1,560 posts)would have gone along with single-payer if Obama had just twisted his arm? Sure i would have liked to have seen Obama press harder for single-payer, but in the end it would have all led to the same place. 50-somethin' votes, at most.
Lydia Leftcoast
(48,223 posts)would have then been the compromise position.
By taking even the public option off the table without fighting for it, Obama caved for the "Senator from Aetna."
Daniel537
(1,560 posts)If the choice had been Public Option, or nothing, he would have gone with nothing. No way he was going to undermine the private health insurance monopoly based out of CT. The guy was/is beholden to them.
Lydia Leftcoast
(48,223 posts)and the other corrupt lackeys of the insurance industry for the failure of the public option.
Daniel537
(1,560 posts)Of course if the Public Option had failed because of Lieberman's one vote he should have publicly blamed him, but we were talking about what could actually pass the Senate, and the Public Option unfortunately wasn't it. Also important to note the fact that we haven't even mentioned Landrieu, Lincoln, Baucus, Nelson and all the other arm-twisting that would have had to go on. No guarantee's there either.
Lydia Leftcoast
(48,223 posts)if they didn't want to be slaves to the insurance companies. they should pressure their Senators.
ProSense
(116,464 posts)"Your response failed to adress these specific points."
...I did address the entire comment, and your response amounts to say anthing while fantasizing.
Lydia Leftcoast
(48,223 posts)I SAID that single-payer would NOT have been the outcome.
But a public option would have been the "middle ground" if Obama's initial position had been single payer. He would have still looked "conciliatory" and "meeting the Republicans halfway."
And you still have not explained why is was universally condemned on DU when Cheney met in closed-door sessions with the energy companies but it was OK for Obama to meet in closed-door sessions with the insurance companies.
ProSense
(116,464 posts)"I SAID that single-payer would NOT have been the outcome. "
...I understood your post quite well. I don't think you understood the implication of what I stated:
the 16 Senators who didn't support the public option would have rallied around Obama had he reversed his campaign promise opting to push for single payer instead of a public option.
It strikes me that some people are being naive or willfully ignorant when it comes to members of Congress who are entrenched in their positions. There is hardball and then there is alienation. Remember when Clinton tried to force his health care bill onto Congress?
People like to scream that Lieberman is a ****, but some still believe he's going to be less of one when confronted.
Tell me how far left Obama should start to win over Ben Nelson.
Ludicrous.
Lydia Leftcoast
(48,223 posts)I'm old enough to remember that, even if you aren't.
He did precisely the things that you seem to think are impossible.
bvar22
(39,909 posts)...because I've been around long enough to know better.
I have SEEN what the Power of the White House and The4 Leader of the Democratic Party can do,
especially WHEN the White House has a popular MANDATE for CHANGE,
AND and Army Standing in the Streets.
[font size=5]Obama's Army, Jan. 21, 2009[/font]
[font size=5]"Oh, What could have been."[/font]
President Obama could have called on his ARMY to make things "uncomfortable in Connecticut".
He didn't.
Instead, he chose to pamper & Pander to Lieberman.
As head of the Democratic Party, President Obama could have targeted funding for every single program in Connecticut,
and GONE there himself to make SURE Connecticut knew WHY.
Obama is not shy about going to the home state of a Progressive and insult him in public for not supporting his agenda.
Why so gentle on the Blue Dogs?...
..even to the point of CAMPAIGNING for them in Democratic Primaries 2010, and throwing party support & funds behind the same assholes that you blame for derailing Health Care.
Other President have successfully used this power.
Read Up on "The Johnson Treatment".
http://thejohnsonpost.blogspot.com/2009/08/johnson-treatment.html
http://thejohnsonpost.blogspot.com/2009/08/johnson-treatment.html
http://www.commondreams.org/view/2010/07/17
The more logical explanation is that Lieberman took one for Team DLC.
He had nothing to lose,
and was well rewarded by the Dem Leadership for playing his assigned role of Judas in the Kabuki Theater.
People addicted to professional sports can spot when a player has been bought off.
They just don't play with the same intensity, skill, and passion.
Those who were watching KNOW that Obama NEVER really fought for the Public Option.
You will know them by their WORKS,
not by their excuses.
[font size=5 color=green]Solidarity99![/font][font size=2 color=green]
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------[/center]
woo me with science
(32,139 posts)Obama's behavior during this corporate giveaway was entirely consistent with his behavior and priorities during the rest of his administration. The corporate mandate was the goal all along, and it was a bipartisan achievement reached through collusion by the corporatists in both parties. Of course he didn't try to sell the public option. We were all there watching, for pete's sake.
It's time to be honest, because you can't fix a problem if you refuse to acknowledge it. The notion that Obama ever wanted a public option is utter fantasy and completely at odds with his behavior on this issue *and* his track record on corporate issues during this Presidency.
Better Believe It
(18,630 posts)And that's the truth.