General Discussion

Jim Lane

(11,175 posts)

88. I dispute your implicit assumption that appointments are irrelevant.

Mon Jul 22, 2013, 11:23 PM

Jul 2013

Yes, many of us criticized the appointments of Geithner and the like. We thought that Obama's decisions in the pre-Inauguration period portended an administration whose policies would be too corporate-friendly. That prediction turned out to be completely correct.

If you're saying that it's somehow unfair to criticize a President-Elect for appointments, it's fair to ask whether you applied that standard to Bush. If DU had started before January 20, 2001, I'm sure that plenty of people would have been criticizing the appointments of Rumsfeld and so on, without waiting to see actual policies.

More generally, we can take it as given that anyone who could actually get elected will face criticism from the right and from the left. There are some people to the left of Bernie Sanders and others to the right of Jim DeMint. I don't buy the thesis that the prospect of such criticism is a major factor as politicians decide whether to run for office.

Edit history

Please sign in to view edit histories.

Recommendations

0 members have recommended this reply (displayed in chronological order):

101 replies

= new reply since forum marked as read

Highlight:

Why can't we elect Bernie Sanders and Elizabeth Warren to the whitehouse in '16? [View all] madokie Jul 2013 OP

Because the people who really do pick the candidates do not want them. djean111 Jul 2013 #1

And no doubt 2016 will be even worse newfie11 Jul 2013 #2

pretty much. cali Jul 2013 #6

Exactly. They rob us of real choices BEFORE the election. stillwaiting Jul 2013 #16

"those with massive amounts of money get to choose who gets to run" That is how they do it. L0oniX Jul 2013 #57

And those who DO get to run.... Gumboot Jul 2013 #61

Well it's a jobs thing... their jobs ...not jobs for the little people who vote. L0oniX Jul 2013 #63

Yup. Those nominations have been bought & paid for already. Divernan Jul 2013 #39

Nailed it. nt woo me with science Jul 2013 #70

Yep. Obama got same % from small donors in 2008 as Bush in 2004 joshcryer Jul 2013 #96

I think it's worth giving it a try. LuvNewcastle Jul 2013 #3

Seven corporations own our media, that's why. HughBeaumont Jul 2013 #4

I'm pretty sure we can, but we'd need to be organized. nt bemildred Jul 2013 #5

We do need to get organized. We need to pick new people to run that will pledge to fight Dustlawyer Jul 2013 #71

We need people who have not been bought, who care about something besides money. nt bemildred Jul 2013 #72

2 New Englanders, both perceived as "liberal" would not win, that is why. nt MADem Jul 2013 #7

Warren is an Oklahoman who has resided in New England just since the 90's also a former Republican Bluenorthwest Jul 2013 #36

Warren would not win Okahoma, and she would be portrayed as a "Haavid Perfesser" and denigrated MADem Jul 2013 #83

Bernie can't decide what party he would run with and Elizabeth reminds everybody of the school CK_John Jul 2013 #8

In comtemporary politics, sulphurdunn Jul 2013 #11

Bernie was electe to his second term in the Senate with 71% of the vote. He needs a Party? Bluenorthwest Jul 2013 #40

Well said! nt Enthusiast Jul 2013 #98

Really? Can you point to someone who HAS shown some 'leadership' so we can evaluate sabrina 1 Jul 2013 #47

+1 Tarheel_Dem Jul 2013 #77

You forgot the sarcasm thingie.......nt Enthusiast Jul 2013 #99

No Bucks...No Buck Rogers... KharmaTrain Jul 2013 #9

I never heard of Obama until he was picked to run for president. djean111 Jul 2013 #12

That is part of the reason he was chosen. LuvNewcastle Jul 2013 #20

Obama did not vote against the Iraq War, he was not in the Senate for the vote Bluenorthwest Jul 2013 #44

He Was Known In Iowa... KharmaTrain Jul 2013 #23

I guess the problem for me there is that Obama was bankrolled, he didn't do this on his own, djean111 Jul 2013 #26

Life Ain't Fair... KharmaTrain Jul 2013 #34

this would be a much bigger challenge to established power than McGovern in 72 Douglas Carpenter Jul 2013 #10

Unless we can elect two "people first" candidates dotymed Jul 2013 #13

I think "whining" means that they are insubordinate to established entrenched capitalist power Douglas Carpenter Jul 2013 #18

If they run, I'll donate. It may be our last chance to save what we remember of the USA. byeya Jul 2013 #14

Voter suppression, a corprat-controlled media that would be against them from the outset.... Triana Jul 2013 #15

Ralph Nader would say they were too far right, run, and throw the election to the GOP again. nt onehandle Jul 2013 #17

You really think that? Nader is 79 today, he'll be 81 next election. Your scray monster is an old Bluenorthwest Jul 2013 #48

Hardly. Ralph would love a Liz/Bernie or Bernie/Liz ticket. . limpyhobbler Jul 2013 #59

Because they are both doing good jobs where they are now, is a good reason to leave them where they RC Jul 2013 #19

+1000 djean111 Jul 2013 #22

We should, it's a dire emergency G_j Jul 2013 #21

We should do a Write-in campaign cprise Jul 2013 #25

This is exactly where I'm coming from madokie Jul 2013 #27

I don't see a choice, we either elect someone G_j Jul 2013 #30

I'd consider voting for them davidpdx Jul 2013 #24

WE CAN! bluedeathray Jul 2013 #28

That is the spirit we need madokie Jul 2013 #29

Because the powers that be don't want to see any real change davidn3600 Jul 2013 #31

All the more reason to do this madokie Jul 2013 #33

Because it would take $$$ n2doc Jul 2013 #32

No problem. They're more useful as Senators. malthaussen Jul 2013 #35

i say this everytime i see a waren2016 here - put warren as potus so she can be neutered by the gop leftyohiolib Jul 2013 #37

That philosophy sure didn't get applied to Obama. djean111 Jul 2013 #43

no but wanted to see the 1st a.a. potus leftyohiolib Jul 2013 #74

So did you say that about Obama? Or Clinton? Biden? Edwards? Almost all the 08 pimary candidates Bluenorthwest Jul 2013 #49

no i didnt say that about any of them and e.warren is more useful as senator leftyohiolib Jul 2013 #73

1000%+. That is a choice I would enthusiastically support! on point Jul 2013 #38

Because they are not electable in a general election, that's why. Beacool Jul 2013 #41

There are quite a few reasons "we" can't onenote Jul 2013 #42

heres why rdking647 Jul 2013 #45

Bernie in not only an Independent, he is the only Independent elected to the Senate Bluenorthwest Jul 2013 #51

Last I heard Angus King of Maine was another Independent elected to the senate.... Rowdyboy Jul 2013 #58

You seem to think that "independents" LWolf Jul 2013 #65

Warren/Sanders xtraxritical Jul 2013 #46

It is up to the people who vote in the primaries treestar Jul 2013 #50

Because they won't run? LuckyTheDog Jul 2013 #52

Why not indeed? They can throw their hats in the ring and make their cases. Nye Bevan Jul 2013 #53

Both 'are' smart persons working for the people who elected them randr Jul 2013 #54

Because Goldman Sachs doesn't approve of them. n/t L0oniX Jul 2013 #55

Morgan Stanley... xtraxritical Jul 2013 #56

Goldman Sachs picked Obama over Romney in 2012? (nt) Nye Bevan Jul 2013 #60

Obama is a member in the House? ...and owns the media? ...only got campaign money from the little L0oniX Jul 2013 #62

Because too many people have bought the lie Bonobo Jul 2013 #64

At least a few of us hasn't bought that lie madokie Jul 2013 #66

Why do people imagine Sanders or Warren would not be subject to the same political realities ... Recursion Jul 2013 #67

Because most of the population will think they are too left wing and not vote for them. Donald Ian Rankin Jul 2013 #68

Because as soon as they don't put Bush in jail, Free Bradley Manning Day 1, Allow Snowden uponit7771 Jul 2013 #69

Your insinuations against Obama's critics are false. Jim Lane Jul 2013 #76

No, their insinuations are right on. If a Democrat compromises on anything, the attacks start. stevenleser Jul 2013 #85

I dispute your implicit assumption that appointments are irrelevant. Jim Lane Jul 2013 #88

Thank you for proving my point and proving the point of the other poster. nt stevenleser Jul 2013 #89

RIGHT ON TIME!! Thank you for establishing my argument. There's no WAY I would want a job where... uponit7771 Jul 2013 #95

No, they started before that. JoeyT Jul 2013 #93

You are mistaken about two things. Timeline and who "They" are stevenleser Jul 2013 #101

It turned out that concern about the cabinet appointments was fully justified, steven. Ken Burch Jul 2013 #97

No, it didn't. A President is going to govern like they are going to govern. Cabinet members don't stevenleser Jul 2013 #100

The minute they have to make a deal, they'll be personna non grata, and I'll bet that's why Bernie.. Tarheel_Dem Jul 2013 #79

Yes, haven't they learned? treestar Jul 2013 #87

First, are you going to get either of them to run? CakeGrrl Jul 2013 #75

Liberals seem to confuse what goes on "Underground", with what actually goes on above ground. Tarheel_Dem Jul 2013 #78

Bernie doesn't want to and he's not a Democrat anyway. He runs as an Independent so Cleita Jul 2013 #80

because they won't get enough votes to win and are unelectable nationally scheming daemons Jul 2013 #81

Apparently, because the ownership class says no and their upperclass footpads say no TheKentuckian Jul 2013 #82

They'd make quite a sight NoPasaran Jul 2013 #84

And the Puritopians OilemFirchen Jul 2013 #86

I'm in! eom. wildbilln864 Jul 2013 #90

A Massachusetts/Vermont ticket? Yeah, right. n/t pnwmom Jul 2013 #91

Just for shits and giggles. OilemFirchen Jul 2013 #92

It wouldn't be easy. It might not even work the first time around, but just like they couldn't stop liberal_at_heart Jul 2013 #94