Why are people attacking Obama lately from the left?

[Harmony Blue]

this perplexes me deeply given that elections are around the corner....

[Tierra_y_Libertad]

1. It is the responsibility of the people in a democracy to hold public servants accountable.

Even Democrats. Even popular presidents. Even in election season.

[darkangel218]

2. +1

[Scuba]

13. + another

[tech3149]

21. Amen!

I knew during the primaries that Obama was no silver bullet savior from statements in his books. His cabinet appointments only made that more obvious. As far as foreign policy, I think all that as well as an aggressive military are a function of "deep state" that persists no matter who is in office.

[hifiguy]

34. This.

And flippant remarks about torture, while excusing the torturers as "patriots" tend to get those of us on the left a little pissed off.

[War Horse]

79. I've missed that one

I know that several RWNJS are pissed at Obama for him admitting that the U.S. tortured people (duh). And that then said RWNJs have gone from 'see, torture works' to 'oops, did I say we tortured people?'

I've been buried in deadlines recently. I'm also Norwegian, so that freaking big forest fire in Sweden has been the first thing I've checked on on those rare occasions that I've been able to follow the news

[muriel_volestrangler]

116. Try these:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/10025349092
http://www.democraticunderground.com/10025339047
http://www.democraticunderground.com/10025333079
or this:
http://www.esquire.com/blogs/politics/The_Presidents_Worst_Moment

[historylovr]

36. Another.

[840high]

54. Amen.

[KittyWampus]

82. yeah, posting stuff like calling him a "piece of shit used car salesman" is really holding Obama

accountable.

[Tierra_y_Libertad]

85. And...?

Do you consider the peoples responsibility to hold Obama accountable is limited to calling him names?

[cui bono]

94. That was one post. Are you basing your entire argument on that one post???

[hobbit709]

102. Seems to be that poster's response every time

[Marrah_G]

106. ^this

[warrant46]

108. Especially when he is about to start another Surge in Iraq-Nam

The Chimp and Cheney would be proud

[darkangel218]

111. Do you think he will?

I seriously doubt it.

But you never know

[warrant46]

113. I hope I'm wrong

[99Forever]

144. Absolutely.

And keep holding them responsible, always.

[whatchamacallit]

3. Maybe because Obama isn't left

More like center-right

[PowerToThePeople]

4. policy over party

A Will Rogers' quote comes to mind.

[conservaphobe]

5. “Every reform movement has a lunatic fringe.”

Theodore Roosevelt

[Cali_Democrat]

8. Yup

Although I think the lunatic fringe on the right is more numerous, the left certainly has its crazies.

Obama calling people "folks" can apparently set them off.

[RobertEarl]

38. Examples?

You have made a pretty serious accusation claiming the "left' has crazies like the RW. Can you post a few examples of those persons whom you are claiming to know?

[Marr]

66. An incredibly dishonest characterization. /nt

[War Horse]

75. The lunatic Right inhabits High Office

The lunatic Left certainly exists, but are thankfully limited to internet fora and Twitter, for the most part

[whatchamacallit]

76. Bullshit

It's his absolution of torture and torturers that sets people off. "Folks" just made it more sad. But then you knew that.

[warrant46]

114. +1

[cheapdate]

143. Yes, the left has crazies too.

We believe they're crazy in a good way, or at least a better way than the right wing.

Our crazies are still on outside looking in. The right-wing crazies have taken over the asylum. Big difference. Good for them and their ideas. Bad for us.

I think part of the problem is that our crazies have this self-defeating aversion to electoral politics.

[abakan]

163. I don't think calling people tortured in our name, folks, is the problem.

It is the laissez-faire attitude he delivered the statement with. What he said and the way he said it is as evil as the people who performed the torture in my book.

[marmar]

19. So people criticizing some of the administration's policies are now the "lunatic fringe"?

Dios mio.

[LondonReign2]

45. They believe anything to the left of

a "1980s Republican" is the lunatic fringe.

[Marr]

67. A President who openly describes himself as being like Reagan, no less.

To hear Third Way types and party sycophants tell it, anyone to the left of Ronald Reagan is the "party fringe".

[Hekate]

77. You know, he never did that.Ever. Reagan was a "consequential" president even if you hate him,& I do

Take a long look. Was Reagan consequential? Yes, he was. We are still living with the miserable results.

Now, to say that you yourself (meaning in this instance, Obama) want to be "consequential" but within the policies you have set forth for yourself, like universal health care (not single payer, another thing he never promised) and getting out of Afghanistan and Iraq with all deliberate speed -- if you say you want to be "consequential", does that mean you want to be "like Reagan, no less"?

Seriously, how can anyone believe that?

"Consequential" means creating lasting results. It doesn't dictate which results. You have to tell people which results you are aiming for -- and Obama did.

[Marr]

92. My mistake, I apologize. He compared himself to "moderate Republicans" of the Reagan era.

http://fusion.net/leadership/story/obama-considered-moderate-republican-1980s-12240

"...if I had set the same policies that I had back in the 1980s, I would be considered a moderate Republican."

[KittyWampus]

83. ironic- you have the NERVE to talk about "dishonesty" and yet post a blatant falsehood

like this.

[sabrina 1]

61. Who is the lunatic fringe in which reform movement? Here, let me help with a few facts before

you answer.

Torture was popular, still is among the lunatic fringes that supported Cheney/Bush.

On the left, being that the left is generally more informed on the rule of law and the Constitutional Rights of Americans, not to mention the oaths of office taken by our elected officials, and of course CIVIL RIGHTS.

We never expected the Lunatic Fringe that supported torture and illegal wars to care much about Civil Rights or the Geneva Conventions. So, we on the Left were outspoken against that LUNATIC FRINGE.

Bush/Cheney was a 'reform movement'? They sure had a lunatic fringe, a rabid lunatic fringe, but I don't recall what they were trying to reform, well not in a good way.

Was that who you meant?

[Marrah_G]

107. Count me as a proud member of the "lunitic fringe"

I don't suddenly change my position on issues just because someone has a (D) next to their name.

[cui bono]

155. And the Dem's lunatic fringe is on the right end of the spectrum.

Sadly, it's not so fringy anymore and getting more and more lunatic every day.

[Cali_Democrat]

6. Here's why...

http://www.democraticunderground.com/10025335422

The article is abut Hillary, but in can be applied to Obama and the 2014 mid term elections.

These same folks are trolling from the left.

[betterdemsonly]

149. He is committing us to another Iraq war for God's sake

He is trolling himself.

[Cali_Democrat]

150. ^^^good example^^^

[el_bryanto]

7. Lately?

They've been doing it since he didn't prosecute Bush Administration officials after taking office.

Bryant

[SidDithers]

9. Because at DU, they're not allowed to attack him from the right...

Well, it used to be that attacks from the right weren't allowed. These days, it's any port in a storm for some posters.

Sid

[MohRokTah]

18. ^^^ This right here. eom

[hifiguy]

35. Your sigline's bagger banner sums up the right wing troglodytes

Last edited Thu Aug 7, 2014, 02:42 PM - Edit history (1)

better than anything else ever.

I am NOT talking about you, Trog.

[leftstreet]

11. Because we're "fucking ret#^ds" and "sanctimonious folks"

The better question: Why do business class Democratic politicians keep attacking the base?

[Scuba]

15. + Eighty Gazillion

[whatchamacallit]

20. +1

[beerandjesus]

25. +1

[conservaphobe]

28. +1 for self-awareness. nt

[840high]

57. ...

[laundry_queen]

126. Bingo. nt

[liberal N proud]

12. Obama's Presidency has to be one of the most attacked US Presidencies in history

Right - Left it does not seem to matter.

[leftstreet]

16. His was the most left-leaning campaign in recent history

He was bound to be attacked from the Right for his promises of 'socialism,' and bound to be attacked from the Left when he didn't deliver same

[cui bono]

110. He was probably the one that people most relied upon to set things straight after BushCo.

Look at all the people who showed up at his inauguration. There was such a wave of enthusiasm. He got elected at a time when the nation was ready for real change, ready to wash ourselves from the stink of the past eight years, ready to get things back in order, yet he did none of that. He didn't catch the wave of support. Rather than fight for the people he installed Wall Street in the White House.

He really blew his opportunity to get this country back on the right track, and now he is calling war criminals "patriots" and once again calling the people "sanctimonious".

The right always attacks for no reason. Look at what they did to Clinton. Hilary was right when she called it a "vast right wing conspiracy". They've gotten more vicious, but that's what they always do.

The left is critical because we are so disappointed that he is basically a moderate Republican and is governing as such. What a waste of an opportunity. He just threw it all away and now it's same old, same old. He appoints from the same pool of people that BushCo did, he continues and enhances BushCo's policies, he never replaced US Attorneys when he came into office as every president always does. He doesn't even try to make it look like he cares about the left, let alone belongs to it. He and his admin spit in our faces continuously.

As they say, the GOP embraces their base. The Dems despise theirs.

[Mojorabbit]

158. That really is the saddest part. That he threw it all away.

We could have accomplished so much.

[Orsino]

14. Because there's so much room on that side...

...and valid concerns there, as opposed to the bogus right-wing attacks.

[jberryhill]

17. Because it is Wednesday

[NCTraveler]

22. Two main reasons.

1) An overwhelming majority of criticism, also known around these parts as "attacks", are being done from people who are simply to the left of him politically. Really is that simple. He is a pragmatic centrist and it isn't all that surprising to see that most of the people here are to the left of him. I don't really see this as a "lately" kind of thing. The left have had issues from before his first inauguration. Some of their criticism has resulted in positive moves from the White House, in my opinion.

2) Trolling from the right would not make sense on this site therefore trolls work from the left side of the equation. This is a very small group and du does a great job of hunting them down and kicking them out. That is why there are so few of them that fall into this category.

None of it has to do with elections around the corner and often those criticizing from the left are the most important members of our party.

[ZombieHorde]

40. Those are my thoughts as well. nt

[Johonny]

23. It is an opinion board and you can hide a thread

I don't always agree with Obama attacks but if you want a policy changed should you say nothing and hope it works out or state "Hey I think this is wrong."

I think people worried Obama is too nice on his opponents are silly but people that think the USA should make a stronger stance against things like torture... if you stay silent then were does that get you?

From universal health care to closing GITMO and prosecuting torture I see no reason for the left to send out reminders that we still want those done. All polls show the left likes Obama but at the same time they aren't going to stay silent. They never have on this board. Why would they it is what the board is about. Promoting liberal ideas to potential Democratic voters and the people they vote for.

[Laelth]

31. +1. n/t

-Laelth

[WilliamPitt]

24. Because it's our solemn responsibility.

Period.

End of file.

[AuntPatsy]

26. He's not running....

[MineralMan]

27. Lately? That started in November, 2008, right

after the election. It never stopped.

[Bluenorthwest]

80. Of course at that time, he constantly restated his opposition to equality for LGBT people

while spouting off about how 'Sanctified' all straight marriages are, talking about God, telling us hate preachers represent America, that sort of thing. So those who were not critical of those things were on the wrong side of history. There are many people on DU who at that time were also opposed to marriage equality and many more who claimed they were for it, but felt it was impossible and called it 'wanting a pony'. Almost all of those former opponents and naysayers flipped their coins the very day Obama 'evolved' and now they fly rainbow flag avatars and pretend they did not formerly attack gay people on right wing sites or cite the Bible to support their bigotry.

Standing up for my own damn rights defined me as an Obama critic on DU, and I am always proud to stand up for my own damn rights so I don't give a shit that it bugs the moderate centrists. They were as always, wrong and in the way.

[countryjake]

84. +1

[laundry_queen]

128. +1 nt

[zappaman]

29. Only the "real Democrats" are.

[Laelth]

30. I think there is zero chance that Barack Obama can win a third term.

Since 2009, I have applauded him when I thought he did well and criticized him when I thought he did poorly.

This is no great shock, is it?

-Laelth

[Zorra]

32. A more realistic question is, "Why did Obama attack us from the right?" nt

[ZombieHorde]

41. Ha! nt

[grasswire]

55. WOW!

Excellent!

[tridim]

56. No, that is not realistic in actual reality.

Maybe it is over at FDL.

[countryjake]

86. Brava!

and right on!

[unblock]

33. because republicans know that the president gets blamed for what congress doesn't do.

[CJCRANE]

37. Because he's too right wing on some issues.

[maxrandb]

39. I think you hit the nail on the head

"Elections are right around the corner".

Seems that it's almost as if there is an effort to water-down the progressive and liberal vote.

We wanted President Obama to do some things, and the tools we gave him were John Boehner and a bunch of crazy-ass "neo-Sons of the Confederacy".

"Waaaaah! Why don't you prosecute Cheney for War Crimes...here's fucking Darrell Issa as Oversight Committee Chair to help you!"

"Waaaaah! Why can't we get a living wage....here's fucking Paul Ryan as Budget Committee Chair to help you!"

"Waaaaah! Why can't we get our infrastructure repaired....here's fucking Hal Rogers to Chair the Appropriations Committee for you!"

Don't fall for this shit. Folks act as if the President can just wave a magic wand and make shit happen.

Attacking Obama from the left is about one thing...and one thing only...ensuring repukes gain power.

I'm not saying we can't question this President, but it's like giving a ditch-digger a spoon and complaining that the hole's not deep enough.

Want to change the course of government? Get the fuck off the President's back and go out and defeat some insane-ass republicans!

[Comrade Grumpy]

43. I have to call bullshit on this:

"Attacking Obama from the left is about one thing...and one thing only...ensuring repukes gain power."

You seem to assume no one has any core beliefs that they will fight for and that the only thing that matters is that a "D" wins.

It's also bizarre to assume that people would attack from the left to help the right.

Yours is basically an argument for critics to shut up.

Still, I agree that he is hampered by Republican control of the House. And DU seems very little interested in the forthcoming congressional elections.

[questionseverything]

73. the executive office handles enforcing the law

reps controlling the house does not change that

[Comrade Grumpy]

42. Because he's too far to the right?

[LondonReign2]

44. Why are center right self-reported Democrats supporting Obama lately?

[regnaD kciN]

46. Same thing happened in 2010…

…and we all saw the results then.



For some strange reason, just before mid-term elections, we always seem to get a lot of posts about how it is the duty of progressives to "protest" a laundry-list of alleged Presidential shortcomings by staying home on Election Day while our opponents flock to the polls. It is said that, by (not) doing so, we'll be "sending a message" that they need to move to the left. Look at the past four years, since Bohner's crew took over the House, to see how that worked out for us.

[stevenleser]

47. Said it before I'll say it again. If the end product of your "left" activism is to elect Republicans

your "left" activism isn't so left.

You can claim you hold all the supposedly wonderful positions you want.

This is a lesson everyone claiming a slice of the left spectrum should have learned from the 1933 German election. Beating your chest and claiming your version of leftism is the right one is just plain dumb if it splits the left to the point that far right wing ideologues take over.

[LondonReign2]

48. If we just all agree to keep moving

further and further to the right, then the right can't take over! Brilliant!

[stevenleser]

58. Except you have no proof for this trite assertion. Nice try though! nt

[LondonReign2]

87. You seem confused

What assertion did I make? I merely stated the logical result of your strategy. Or are you trying to suggest the Democratic party hasn't moved to the right?

[stevenleser]

119. Nope, I'm not confused. nt

[Electric Monk]

125. Your recent appearancences on FOX could indicate that the contrary might be true. nt

[TheKentuckian]

131. Observation over the past 20 - 30 years will back the poster to the hilt.

The TeaPubliKlans are batshit crazy radical regressives and Democrats have become a corporate conservative party, essentially Reaganites without the southern strategy which is a far cry from neo Birchers for sure but nothing I can stomach to support, I had all the chance in the world to vote for Poppy and Dole and found it better to decline and actually work against them as well.

Except, it is actually even worse than that because we have quickly become more terrible on civil liberties, surveillance and clandestine operations, and primary public education while lapping up the stupid and failed "conservative economics" and general neoconartistry.

Better than the TeaPubliKlans won't cut it because that is the same shitty recipe that got us here in the first place, it is fucking crazy no matter how much crazier the circus barkers on the radical right are.

[stevenleser]

132. That is not proof. that is your opinion. nt

[cui bono]

142. It's Obama's opinion as well since he said his policies are akin to those of moderate Republicans

of the 80s.

[LondonReign2]

147. Holy fuck

The best argument you have is "no it's not"? LOL

[cui bono]

129. You're right about moving to the right. I don't understand how people who think they are

Dems are so okay with moderate Republican rule from their own party.

[stevenleser]

134. Again, you confuse opinion with fact. nt

[cui bono]

136. Again, you provide no refutation. n/t

[stevenleser]

137. I already provided facts you acknowledged as fact. nt

[cui bono]

140. That has nothing to do with anything. So you listed a few facts? You ignore the rest of the exchange

completely after that.

All that shows is that I'm willing to accept reality while you are simply playing some sort of game here, trying desperately to be right about something rather than having a discussion.

[riqster]

53. Yep. Positive motivations matter little if they result in a negative reality.

[cui bono]

117. And what has been the result of electing Dems no matter how moderate and close to Republicans

they are?

We see it in POTUS. He now calls torturers "patriots".

So all we get by going along to get along is moving farther and farther rightward on the political spectrum. We are essentially given two choices, neither of which is left any more. We get to choose between center and right. And that center is shifting to right of center every day.

And now that the right is so extreme and the Dems are so center and watered down, Republicans are starting to leave and join the Dem Party. Sadly, that's not a good thing. It only shows that the Dem Party is too far right when moderate Republicans feel at home in it.

I don't see any of this changing until we get money out of politics and campaigns especially. We also need a viable third party to take up the left end of the spectrum which has been abandoned. Until then it's just voting for "not so great" instead of "terrible". I want to vote to win, not vote not to lose.

[stevenleser]

118. A better economy? Health Care Reform? Lilly Ledbetter? Gays serving openly in the military?

The beginnings of the dismantling of DOMA?

All sounds pretty good to me.

[cui bono]

123. Calling torturers "patriots"? Drone strikes killing innocent people?

Pushing to legalize illegal spying on Americans citizens?

Putting Wall Street in the WH?

Calling the left "sanctimonious" on more than one occasion?

Shutting out single-payer advocates from the health insurance debate while inviting insurance companies to the table (in secret even, denying it to the public until they could no longer)?

Not trying to regulate Wall Street in any substantial manner?

Giving the GOP what they want before negotiations start?

Appointing from the same pool of people that BushCo did?

Not replacing US Attorneys as every other president does?

Not replacing countless other Bush appointed positions when it's the norm for presidents to appoint their own picks?


You are settling. Believe me, it could be soooooo much better if Dems would unite and get behind the left. Better for the people that is. Allowing Third Way and DLCers run our party has ruined it. Being happy with so little illustrates beautifully how far right the party has moved.

[stevenleser]

124. Mischaracterizations and distortions. Pretty much what I expected.

I listed items that are not in dispute. Those items are done and they are real.

[cui bono]

127. As did I list items that are not in dispute.

If they are in dispute it is only because people are denying facts.

I never said your list was not done. I said you are settling for so little when we could have so much more but for the fact that centrists such as you seem to be keep berating us for standing up for what the party used to stand for. If we had a strong left in our leadership the country would rally behind us so hard the GOP wouldn't get the presidency or congressional control until they moved to the center. Just look at the reception Elizabeth Warren gets. That is the proof right there.

You are playing not to lose. I want to play to win. The only way to do that is to be able to vote for what you really want, not what you are willing to settle for.

[stevenleser]

130. I dispute them as do many others. So my items are not in dispute, yours are.

I use facts, you use ideological opinions.

Ideological opinions do not trump facts.

[cui bono]

133. Go ahead and dispute then. I don't see you refuting anything. What about the rest of it?

Forget about the questions I listed. What do you think about the rest of it? Or did you not really want to try to discuss anything?

[stevenleser]

135. Once you have acknowledged that I wrote facts and you wrote opinion, its over.

And you have, and it is.

[cui bono]

138. I have not done that. And you have now proven that you are simply trying to twist the discussion

yet again as you were attempting to do in my OP.

I used to think you were one of the sane ones on here. No longer. Just another game player interested only in defending the indefensible rather than having an honest discussion.

[stevenleser]

139. You have. It's over. nt

[cui bono]

141. It was over when you failed to even try to have a discussion.

Wow.

[LondonReign2]

148. Wow

Foxy Steve doesn't seem to have much of a grasp.

[Jamaal510]

49. There have always been

detractors here since Day 1 of his presidency. But what I want to know is why many of them are ignoring (or not noticing) the obstruction from Republicans in Congress (even though they're the main reason why we can't have a jobs bill or a higher min. wage).

[pampango]

50. Folks attacked FDR from the left, too. I doubt Obama is surprised. n/t

[riqster]

51. "Lately"?

[Iggo]

52. Define "attacking."

[Autumn]

59. He attacks the left from the center? The problem isn't the word "folks"

the problem is the words "patriots" and the ones he calls "patriots" and the ones he refers to as "sanctimonious".

[AgingAmerican]

60. Right wing actions and statements

Hurt Democratic candidates.

Obama isn't up for reelection.

[OutNow]

62. Some issues are more important than the current office holder

For example: I've been opposed to military trials, killing American citizens without trial and conviction for a crime, the CIA conducting operations within the borders of the US, the widespread violation of habeas corpus, the continued spying and harassment of anti-war groups, and the expanding use of material support of terrorists to criminalize opposition to US foreign policy.

I belong to, and support, several civil liberties groups that work on these and similar issues. The work continues as long as necessary. It doesn't matter who holds the office. As long as there continues to be gross violations of civil and human rights I will continue to oppose those who are in charge of these policies.

If you perceive the work of those people and groups who support civil liberties to be attacking Obama from the left so be it.

[daleanime]

63. Huh, because there's tons of room on that side?

Was this a trick question?

[Rex]

64. Why do people make threads to divide up the party

given that elections are around the corner?

[BainsBane]

65. Do you ever read any threads on DU?

[JoePhilly]

68. The attacks are structured to impact turnout.

The attacks from the right are framed to anger the moderate right and get them to vote.

Those from the left are framed to demotivate moderate Dems so they stay home.

Pick up a small % on each side of that, suppress some votes to get a couple more %, GOP has a shot of winning some elections they should lose.

The effects need not be large to make this strategy work, and the media helps enable it.

DU just gets sucked in and plays it's part.

[BuelahWitch]

69. Already getting ready to blame "the left" if Congressional seats are lost, are we?

Yet there were a myriad of reasons why we lost the House in 2010, which had little or nothing to do with "the left," here are four:

1. Piss poor GOTV efforts by the Democrats after the 50 state strategy was abandoned.

2. Gerrymandering

3. Democratic party failing to nurture the new, young voters who signed on in 2008

4. Koch money behind people like Sam Brownback and Scott Walker

I'm sure many on "the left" are like me, they feel it is in their best interest to go and vote for their Congressperson, Senator or Governor. We've lived with these nutballs now for four years, and are going to do our best to oust them.

But by all means, get the gloves ready for the hippie-punching, because that's so much easier than critical thinking.

[Phlem]

70. You know what's interesting, in my precinct,

A bunch of Republicans decided they couldn't stand the direction the GOP was going and switched to Dems. The problem with that is they will be Democrats that vote like Republicans. Which has been happening in our party for quite some time. With a centrist as our POTUS the party has moved squarely to the right.

It's the left that are throwing up warning signs. Plus he asked us to hold his feet to the fire.

What would you expect?

Why is Warren and Sanders so popular?

[JackRiddler]

71. "Attacking Obama from the left"

Translation: To accurately describe the policies of the present U.S. administration.

[Douglas Carpenter]

72. So right! It is the duty of the Party cadre to accept the decisions made by the leader and to

support those decisions and translate their meaning to the proletariat. For the Party is the vanguard of the proletariat and the leader is the organized voice of the party which is the organized voice of the masses. The people must speak freely and the reactionaries must be silenced. In this case the one schooled in the science of the dialectic clearly recognizes that if the organized will of people - the Party guided by the organized voice of the Party - the leader - has made a decision for example to reduce benefits - It is the People guided by their vanguard and the Party lead by the voice of the masses - the leader - who have decided to reduce benefits. Those who oppose this decisions of the people as defined by the vanguard of the proletariat through the voice of the leader can only be described as enemies of the people. I congratulate you for your excellent post.

[Ikonoklast]

74. The same people will attack the next Democrat elected president, bet all you own on that happening.

It will matter not who that person is, those that take issue with Democrats will find a reason to do so.

[Peacetrain]

78. Take this one to the bank

[Bluenorthwest]

81. Of course many people have been critical of Obama because he was wrong and we were right

A good example being marriage equality. I am not pleased to see smug straight folks claim that LGBT Democrats who stood up for our own rights were being critical just to be critical of a Democrat we elected. It is really not cool to do that.
Those who did not stand with us and criticize his anti gay words and actions were morally absent and in the wrong. That's all there is to it.

[LondonReign2]

88. If the next Democratic president follows the same policies that would be logical, no?

[Ikonoklast]

89. The next Democrat elected to that office could walk on water, feed the hungry, and cure the sick.

The same people currently excoriating Democrats on this site will continue to do so.

[LondonReign2]

90. When Democrats act like Republicans they will continue to be criticized

[Ikonoklast]

96. When those self-appointed judges tell others they aren't "Real Democrats", they can take a leap.

Because they act just like the purists on the other side.

[LondonReign2]

98. You'll have to take that up with

the President who described his economic policies as "mainstream 1980's Republican".

[cui bono]

115. When Dems are enacting and continuing Republican policies they are no longer "Real Democrats".

Or have you forgotten what the party used to stand for and fight for?

Some of us refuse to throw away our principles and play a team sport. This country is far too important to do that. When a politician, be they Republican or Democrat does something that goes against our principles - and what used to be the Dem Party principles - we have a duty to criticize it. That's how democracy works, that's the only way it works.

When Obama acts like a moderate Republican, he and those who defend him on it are going to get called out as not being real democrats. It's very simple. If you don't like it perhaps you'd be better suited living in a country where a dictator or king rules and there is no criticism allowed.

Or if you think Obama is acting like a real democrat then provide the proof of that. I have a lot of proof that he is acting like a moderate Republican at best. He says that about himself. But you go ahead and disagree with him.

Enough of the Third Way DLC bullshit. Time for a real lefty to take this country by the horns and set things straight. Someone who calls torturers "patriots" is clearly not up for the job. But we already saw that that was the case. Several times over.

[betterdemsonly]

160. We can never get enough of the neocons

Thank group/gang jury moderation on Du and Dkos for that one.

[woo me with science]

166. Hear, hear. nt

[cui bono]

112. What basis do you have for saying that?

[cui bono]

154. So you have no basis for saying that. Thought so.

[cui bono]

95. If the next Dem president also acts like a Republican and condones their war crimes, then yes.

You can bet I will criticize.

Not sure why you all call it attacking when it is well reasoned and thought out criticism.

Liberals are tired of this Third Way/DLC crap that allows the leader of the Dem Party to administer republican policy and appoint republicans to high positions and put Wall Street in the White House. Some of us don't abandon our principles just because "our team" is in the WH. Some of us actually care about what policies are being enacted.

If we were happy with Republican lite I guess we wouldn't criticize.

[sadoldgirl]

91. Anyone, who would claim

that a D loss in 2014 is due to DUers, must take this forum far too seriously. To me this attitude is silly.

I f we agreed all on any- and everything we would not come to a debating forum.

I am participating here to learn of other views and experiences, and, yes to give my leftist opinion. I have learned quite a bit, and learned to respect people, who don't necessarily follow the party line. They seem to me to think without blinders.

Lastly, I don't want to be like a repug, to attack only the other. There are multiple answers to many questions. The democrats on this forum have every right to criticize not only the Repugs, but the policies of the people in power.

[cui bono]

93. No one is attacking him. People are criticizing him for saying and doing outrageous things.

It is our duty as citizens of this democracy to speak out against the atrocities of our govt. no matter who does it. Our country has a constitution that our elected officials have sworn to uphold, and when they refuse to do just that it is the duty of its citizens to call that out in an attempt to keep our constitution intact.

The sign of a healthy democracy is dissent. If we are not allowed to dissent just because our team is in the WH then what good is our democracy? If that is the case then we are simply electing dictators or kings. That is exactly what our founding fathers fought against and wished to avoid.

Not sure why you are so perplexed.

[krawhitham]

97. lately?

Since it always ramps up around election season, my guess is too many right wingers have infested DU

[Yo_Mama_Been_Loggin]

99. This ^ ^ ^

[Garthem]

100. DSDS

Democratic Self-Destruction Syndrome

[R. Daneel Olivaw]

101. Obama is not running, but people are still

pissed at him.

[Erich Bloodaxe BSN]

104. There ya have it.

He won't ever be running again, so whether or not people 'are attacking him' has nothing to do with elections, and everything to do with whatever he's up to 'lately'. (Or on an ongoing basis.)

Like supporting Brennan after the CIA was spying on the very people supposedly providing oversight of the agency.

[JaneyVee]

103. Nihilism.

[Puzzledtraveller]

121. You may be right.

[Marrah_G]

105. Because they care about issues more then the party/administration line.

[HooptieWagon]

109. Because we're sanctimonious torture-opposers....

... who think the President shouldn't be protecting criminals, be they from the Pentagon or Wall St.

[Puzzledtraveller]

120. They have become unhinged and the door is off the frame and laying on the floor.

Because they have all the answeres and are always right, they know more than the POTUS does.

[cui bono]

156. Why do you say "unhinged"? Show me posts that illustrate thta please.

[Demit]

122. Do you follow current events at all?

Ever heard of a thing called "torture," that Americans did, who Obama called real patriots for doing?

It was actually deeply disgusting, elections notwithstanding. Besides, Obama's not running.

[Number23]

145. Oh my God... the responses in this thread.

Some of these folks have simply got to be pulling our chains.

[cui bono]

161. omg... I know!

How could anyone who purports to be a Dem be surprised at criticism leveled at a self-proclaimed moderate Republican policy enacter?

[Number23]

165. Was that directed to me or to the imaginary rodent in your pocket?

I didn't even specify WHICH comments were ridiculous and yet here you are.

Not that this surprises anyone. Certain folks are just drawn like flies to honey to automatically support anything stupid. Judging by how nonsensical and pointless your comment was, you really should have just saved yourself the trouble.

[gwheezie]

146. I never thought he was a liberal

And I was positive he would never support making the previous administration accountable I can't think of a president who has.
He was not my 1st choice but I worked in my small way to get him elected twice because I actually think he has done better than I expected. He's not going to prosecute anyone for torture did anyone think he was?
Our next president isn't going to be a liberal either. The only person who acts like they might challenge Hillary is Bernie I'm not sure Warren is anymore liberal than Obama or Hillary. If there is a president Warren does anyone think she is going to go after Obama for war crimes or violating the rights if citizens? Who do you think is going to be elected president? Who did you think Obama was?
I think we certainly should be critical of Obama but I'm just kinda surprised some of you are surprised. I think on some issues he's been more liberal than prior presidents in other ways he is right center. I think one event that could push him more left is if he gets a dem house and 60 dem senators. But keep in mind the brief time he did have that dems didn't back him up. Pelosi said they weren't going to go after bush and Cheney. Obama isn't a king. He can't run the country alone. Someone tell me how he was going to close gitmo or arrest the CIA by himself.

[betterdemsonly]

151. He is getting us into Iraq again, endorsing torture, and acting like Bush

so the fact that you are surprised just proves you're a silly personality cultists.

[daligirl519]

152. You can't take this site too seriously. . .

The Obama hate has become parody at this point. Also, remember that this site is not in any way representative of the real world.

[cui bono]

157. Must we really say this again?

No one on here "hates" Obama.

Please show me at least one post that illustrates that if you are going to make such a claim.

[RadicalGeek]

153. Hasn't met expectations

Perhaps, I think that many on the left set unrealistic expectations for Obama.
A congressional right-wing committed to obstruction doesn't make things any easier.

Alas, when we stay home like we did in 2010, we see the results.

[betterdemsonly]

159. The only expectations he hasn't dissappointed

are of people who elected him for not being Bush, and people who thought democrats were too mean to republicans.

[Tsiyu]

162. Because he is the President?

Because he has a responsibility to the people who elected him.

But we lefties are only considered at election time, when our votes are needed. The rest of the time, our concerns and problems do not concern mainstream Democrats one bit.

These "attacks" are the same complaints as always, but now you take note because ELECTION.

[polynomial]

164. I am so scared Republicans will win

Likely what Will Rodgers would say many years ago…

I am so afraid of Republicans in any office and don’t care if it a Republican running the garbage department.

I’d vote for a Democratic candidate even if he or she was a blind monkey.

Wild as it sounds.

Be thankful we're not getting all the Republican government we're paying for.


These days you don’t need to be a comedian. Just watch the government and report the facts.

The only difference between death and taxes is a filibuster by the Republican Congress.

Everything is changing. People are taking their comedians seriously and the politicians as a joke…