"This whole "Teach Obama a Lesson" thing is working so perfectly, isn't it?"

[obamafourmore]

In Wisconsin. In Ohio. In Michigan. In Florida.

All across the country, the True Liberals' efforts to teach Barack Obama a lesson are paying off in spades. Their plan could not have worked out more perfectly. After a year of shouting to the highest heavens about how much they were disappointed in President Obama and the Democrats, after a year promising to withhold their support during the 2010 Midterm campaign and, more importantly, at the ballot box, they got their wish: Democrats stayed home in droves. Huge numbers of Democrats across the country, many of whom had voted for the very first time in 2008, got up and went to the fridge instead of the polls that late Fall Tuesday.

....

Ed Schultz has been on fire on MSNBC these past three weeks, hasn't he? Nothing like pure, unadulterated union-busting by Republicans to get old Ed fired up and ready to go. A let's not pretend Ed didn't have a plan for this all along, right? Remember this from him last fall?


"And I’m announcing today, I’m not going to vote in the midterms. I’m not going to do it. You can say it’s un-American. No, it’s rather revolutionary is what it is. I’m at that point. I’m checking out. I’m checking out of the Democrats because they are proving to me that they don’t know how to handle these big babies over on the right that say no. You know what you do? You get in the driver’s seat, you hit the throttle, and you run over them".



http://www.eclectablog.com/2011/03/this-whole-teach-obama-lesson-thing-is.html#

[pnwmom]

1. Yeah, we're so much better off with the Rethugs now empowered.

:sarcasm:

Reminds me of how much better off we were when our friend Ralph Nader, hero to progressives everywhere, encouraged voters to choose Bush or himself (same thing) over that wimpy, good-for-nothing Al Gore.

[Fearless]

31. People didn't HAVE to vote any way but they way they wanted to.

[pnwmom]

71. Yeah, they wanted to after swallowing Nader's lies. n/t

[Lastactiongyro]

90. Oh so true. After all the Union are still intact..oh wait...

[pnwmom]

94. It's not the Democrats who are attacking the unions.

It's the Rethugs, empowered by all the "progressives" who decided to stay home in 2010 -- on the misguided theory that Democrats and Republicans are the same.

[Name removed]

2. Deleted message

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

[qanda]

3. Yes, people can continue to act like there is no difference between the parties

But they do so at their own peril and the peril. I guess this thread will be continue to be voted down because people don't like the truth.

[yurbud]

34. the less daylight there is between the parties, the harder it's going to be to whip up enthusiasm

[barbiegeek]

132. I see a HUGE Horizon between the parties!

[Zoeisright]

75. Yep. Exactly.

[xchrom]

4. unrec

[Autumn]

5. I don't think the last election had anything to

do with "Teach Obama a Lesson". People wanted change, they haven't seen it so they looked elsewhere for it. And people are gullible enough to believe what they hear.:shrug:

[Armstead]

29. Bingo

[sellitman]

6. Ed is asshole

Always has been, always will be.

You want to find out what this guy is really about? Have an investigative reported get his ex wife to REALLY speak.

I have a friend in Fargo who knows.

[fasttense]

9. I'll take Ed over Limpballs any day. n/t

[Tarheel_Dem]

38. Ding! Ding! Ding! Ed's a fake. How do folks like Schulz, Cenk & Arianna...

go from diehard Repuke to the left of Ralph Nader without taking a breath? It's the $$$$$$$.

[Armstead]

53. The Easy $$$$$ is being a blowhard Conservative.

They are tryiung to make a lkiving and advance professionally like anyone else (even if it is on a larger scale).

But if they were the "phonies" you characterize them as, they could have just followed the Right Wing media path.

I guess anyone who doesn't blindly follow the centrist conservative wisdom is a phony, eh?

And we're losing because.....?

[Wabbajack_]

121. Cenk was a Rethug?

[namahage]

123. Yep.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cenk_Uygur

Uygur was a registered Republican in his youth and a supporter of President Ronald Reagan, as well as a member of the Republican student group at the University of Pennsylvania,<7> and the conservative Federalist Society, describing himself as a "Northeast moderate Republican", and a former hawk, having supported the Gulf War and until 2009, the War in Afghanistan (though he has strongly opposed the Second Iraq War).<8> When covering the 2010 midterm elections on November 2, 2010, Uygur stated that he had previously worked for a time for Republican former New York Congressman Joe DioGuardi, who was defeated by Senator Kirsten Gillibrand that night in his bid for her Senate seat.<9>

[Kalun D]

130. Schulz, Cenk, Arianna are not fakes

the two faced predatory corporatist in the White House?

now that's a fake through and through.

your just pissed at the converts because they tell the truth about the banker bag men in the White House.

[fasttense]

7. You got the wrong lesson for Obama.

The lesson we are currently teaching Mr. Obama is HOW TO FIGHT BACK. That is the lesson he never learned. That is the lesson only we can teach him.

[BklnDem75]

15. That's the lesson you THINK you're teaching

That's the problem. Anyone with an ounce of perception will see the real lesson. When things get tough, we eat our own.

[treestar]

20. How to fight back without support?

No, it teaches the Democrats their leaders wind up powerless without support.

You need to learn a lesson from the Republicans. You can't demand it all in order to give your little bit of support. You'll only get the opposing party in power.

[ThomCat]

25. He started his term with all the support any President could hope for

and he threw it all away.

He could have it all back by showing that he would use it to Help the people he gets it from. But he keeps taking it from poor and middle class people, and using it to help Rich people! That's why he doesn't have sustained support.

You can't rationally blame people for not supporting someone who keeps supporting policies that hurt them, supporting class warfare that hurts them, and then fails to defend them and help them when they need it most.

And after he fails to help them, he can't then claim that he would have helped them if only they had supported him when he needed it.

[rury]

28. He didn't have all the support he needed.

He had too much opposition from conservative Democrats in Congress.
If all Democrats were liberal and stuck together like Republicans do it would be easier to pass progressive legislation that President Obama could sign into law.
This whole notion of "teaching Obama a lesson" is cutting off your nose to spite your face and it is suicidal and idiotic.
Too many voters are fickle, stupid and suffer from amnesia about who fucked up the country.
President Obama and the progressive and moderate Democrats got the car out of the ditch and got things moving in the right direction and then the foolish electorate gave the keys back to the Rethuglikkkans.
It is utter stupidity to push the car back into the ditch because you don't think you were reaching your destination FAST ENOUGH!!

[ThomCat]

42. He started his term with more support, more cheering crowds,

more of an opportunity to have HUGE populist masses backing him up on damned near everything than any other president in modern memory.

All of those crowds from campaign events, every one of those people were a political resource available uniquely to him. If he had been pushing policies and proposals that helped those people, motivated those people, and Most Importantly, Kept those people directly informed and personally involved...

1. Instead of being isolated in a bubble inside the beltway, he would have had his finger on the pulse of real people throughout America

2. He would have been at the head of a Populist Army that would make the Teabaggers look petty and minuscule by comparison, and he's be able to crush the Koch brothers in any head-on political endeavor by matching his group against their's

3. He would have had everyone else in the party coming to him begging him for a nomination, or for support, or for an introduction on a stage with populist crowds so that they could polish their own Populist Credentials.

4. Which means Obama could have been leading the entire party back to the left in real substantive ways, away from the toxic influences the republicans have had as they dragged politics constantly to the right for the past 30 years.

All it would have taken, is accepting that he was leading crowds of real people, and accepting that those people are a real political resource. Don't abandon them after the election as mere voters. Don't say goodbye to them, "We'll see you again at the next election. Oh, and Please give money."

No! Give some power to those people, in ways that even the republicans aren't pretending to do. Truly build a bottom-up representative movement within the part with that crowd of supporters he has showing up at every campaign event.

He had the people. He had the resources. He had the charisma. He certainly had the P.R. teams on hand to manage it all.

But instead he dismissed all the people from the crowds, dismissed even his progressive advisers, in fact Because they were progressive, dismissed everything that even felt like his campaign and brought in all new people. From Goldman Sachs. Some from the Republican Party. Some from Industries. Some were even former Lobbyists. Any pretense of being Progressive went out the window and the chance to use those crowds went with it...out the window.

[rpannier]

104. President Obama and the progressive and moderate Democrats got the car out of the ditch and got...

Maybe he should have considered mentioning that as many times as humanly possible.
That sort of stuff need mentioning over-and-over-and-over again.
Instead we kept hearing how the republikkans could be worked with and they really cared.

[ThomCat]

24. Yet, it is a lesson he keeps ignoring. He keeps doing NOTHING for people

while bending over backwards, twisting in a knot to help wealthy people hurt us! :wtf:

When will he finally start acting like he's OUR president? Not just occasionally in rare fits and starts, but like he really means it!

[rpannier]

8. Maybe the Admin and those in Congress should have thought about their behavior

The coddling of the right, the insistence on cozying up to the insurance industry, their refusal to hold the financial industry fully accountable for their actions, the attempts at bipartisanship for the sake of it when it was obvious the republicans weren't gonna play along.

To find out how real elected representatives do their jobs, read Harry Truman's autobiography. When he was on the Senate Armed Services Committee, he spent his three and four day weekends driving down to military installations to get first hand info on what was going. He knew all the whats and wheres, when they held the hearings he wanted the whys and he had all the facts.
The reps today go home for the weekend and/or attend fundraisers.

As to Wall Street, check out how Congress acted in 1933, '34, etc to see real investigations. They uncovered many sweet deals that the Coolidge Admin got from Chase and the kickbacks others in DC got from Wall Street that lead to the Crash.

Give people reasons to vote for you.
The slogan, "At least we're not as bad as the other side is not much of a slogan."

[BklnDem75]

17. So to teach the Administration a lesson,

many sit out or vote against their interests in elections that have zero to do about the Administration. Brilliant! We sure showed them!

[zalinda]

35. That is such a straw man and you know it.

Exit Poll: Lower Turnout Among Youth and Black Voters

Based on CBS News' preliminary national exit polling, Republicans are poised for significant gains in Congress. The youth vote--18-to-29-year-olds--who helped catapult President Obama into office makes up an estimated 9 percent of voters this year, compared to 18 percent in 2008. About 58 percent of the youth vote favors Democratic candidates.

http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-503544_162-20021551-503544.html

[BklnDem75]

52. The bigger fallacy is comparing turnout...

in presidential elections with turnout in local elections. How does your poll dispute what I said? How does voting out your own reps/senators/governors teach Obama a lesson? How does that get him to lean more left?

[zalinda]

63. That's the strawman

These people didn't turn out because they wanted to teach Obama or the dems a lesson. They didn't turn out because they weren't inspired to vote. In 2008, they turned out in record numbers because they thought Obama knew how bad their lives are, and would help change it. Instead, Obama has heaped tons of money on the rich, and has steadily taken from the poor.

Not as bad as the Republicans, is not cutting it anymore.

zalinda

[BklnDem75]

66. That's an amazing gift you have there.

The ability to speak for all who didn't turnout to vote. Maybe you're just speaking for yourself. You don't even bother to back what you say with actual proof. You keep comparing the turnout of a presidential election to that of midterms, so your premise is just inaccurate. Turnout in 2006, when Democrats swept into power, was 85.7 million. In 2010, the highest in a midterm election, it was 90.7 million. So your 'uninspired' meme falls flat.

[zalinda]

79. And so does your teaching dems and Obama

a lesson meme.

zalinda

[BklnDem75]

96. It's not my meme

I just fight it

[zalinda]

119. You don't fight it, you spread it n/t

[BklnDem75]

124. lol you got it backwards

The meme came from the ones you're defending. Pointing out how stupid that stance was is not spreading it. It's stating fact.

[DirkGently]

89. Exactly so. The fallacy doesn't get any more convincing no matter how it's spun, does it?

[RUMMYisFROSTED]

126. "Not as bad as the Republicans, is not cutting it anymore."

Read it.
Comprehend it.

[Tarheel_Dem]

39. Vote. Don't Vote. It's a choice. But at the end of the day, the people

who thought they were sending a message to this president and Dems in Congress only hurt themselves. One thing's for sure, you'll never see this president on the unemployment line, or worried that his union benefits might be stripped. So you really didn't hurt him at all. Those who stayed home, hurt themselves.

[kjackson227]

67. +1

[CakeGrrl]

70. Exactly. "Punishing" the President is a ridiculous concept.

I've said this several times in the past. President Obama isn't going to be destitute if he's not voted back to the WH. I suppose some just want to deny him the success of re-election if they can't inflict any more damage any other way.

Not a good way to be.

[Tarheel_Dem]

72. Exactly. And now "progressives" are screaming for Obama to save these

people from themselves? They did this. They voted for these jerks, either by commission or omission. However you slice it, people either voted for Repubs, or they stayed home, and they're now calling on the president to save us from the horrendous choices they made? WTF? :shrug:

[dionysus]

103. more FACTS? facts are.. facts are... fighting woids..... PUT UP YER DUKES!1!11!

:hi:

[kjackson227]

134. Truer words have never been spoken...

I remember when President Obama pleaded with everyone before the elections to get out the vote so that he could have people in place that he could work with. Didn't happen, so now he's supposed to drop everything and make a visit just for appearance??? Obama supporters and even the unions already know whose side he's on.

[Teaser]

48. Feh

Yes, the Admin and congress coulda done a more progressive job on a lot of things.

Stipulated. However, when one makes a decision, one doesn't predicate it on what someone else should have done.

One weighs the consequences of one's decision given the facts on the ground. And the facts on the ground were clear in November: if Dem's didn't come out in force, people were going to get hurt.

And now they have been.

[rpannier]

100. Very true

But you have to give people a reason to vote for you.
The idea that you should vote for me because I sit at Satan's left hand instead of his right so therefore I'm not as repugnant is pretty pathetic.

The biggest problem last November (and it's been a problem for the last two decades) is that the Dems (Admin included) seem to always be playing response politics. And their response is always too late and too weak.
When the Tea Party was on TV 24-7 the Dems just sort of let it run. They never countered the idiocy with any veracity.
Hell, you had people like Bobby Bright agreeing with what they said and using as part of his campaign, "I won't vote for Nancy Pelosi as Speaker.'

People got hurt are getting hurt, yes they are. And the Dems in Congress, the Administration and the state houses share much of that blame. The one's in DC especially, because they looked inept with 60 votes in the Senate, and they didn't make the case for what they had accomplished.

[Pholus]

10. So the 15%'ers are to blame. We must be the most powerful group in intertube history!

I guess you have no confidence in the President's record and ability to stand on his merits?

Look obamafourmore, here's the thing. I support the president. I know that it bothers a few DU commissars that I have lots of gripes about some of the small details (you know, accountability on Wall Street, continuation of the violations of civil liberties in the name of another "war on a concept," the tax cut cave, the impending whomping that social security is going to take because the tax cut bankrupted us) but he's done a lot of things right. Up until last night I was confident that I would donate and vote for him again, because he is better than the alternative. I do NOT, however, want him taking that support for granted and with every condescending comment made about the "Professional Left" he (and you) indicate that is exactly what is going on. So I've been a bit conflicted about all this.

The good news is that we have reached the moment where I can decide where my support lies despite my split opinion on his performance.

My father was as blue collar as they come. Not union, but completely on their side to their core. Stories about bad bosses and good bosses were part of the family lore. He always said that his hands were the only thing he had to sell and so he needed to make sure he got the right price for them. Gov. Walker has shown that he is on the opposite side, the side that thinks they own their workers. The side that likes child labor and 7 day work weeks if it means that the owner class gets large paychecks.

While campaigning, our president made a pledge that he would join AS PRESIDENT those workers who lost collective bargaining rights on the picket line. This is his moment for me. Is he going to step up, or are you going to have to make even more excuses for him? It's now become VERY simple.

Any thoughts about what the speech today will say?

Edit: My father could "see" his hands, but was more interested in his ability to "sell" them. Oooops ;)

[WolfoftheWild]

84. 15% is definitely enough to give Repukes close elections.

[Pholus]

98. But aren't all these rightward moves are supposed to bring in droves of independents,

making the 15% completely marginal and irrelevant and ushering in a grand unified centrist era of bipartisanship for all?

The OP's subtext makes it sound like perhaps the current policies are bringing in less independents than it is driving away people in the base?

Don't worry. It's all a part of the N-dimensional chess game.

[Keith Bee]

11. Jesus!

You can actually start a thread without racking up 1,000+ replies???

[Deep13]

12. I don't think it was anything so deliberate.

They stayed home because of how they felt, not because it was part of any kind of thought-out plan to reprimand the POTUS.

[Meshuga]

13. Yes, Ed was wrong

Since it is unfortunate that we must go out to vote (and volunteer) for the "too willing to compromise" candidates who will OFTEN ask "how high?" when Republicans tell them to jump so crazy Republicans won't win the elections and just speed up the process of making things much worse for working people. Disapointed voters should just let the context of "hope" and "change" from the 2008 elections go already and just clinch to "hoping that corporate America won't hurt us as badly" or "changing things so the corporate attack on the middle class slows down a bit."

[PATRICK]

14. How many times

have democratic "leaders" said it was up to the people to push them to do the right thing. Well ALL of these consequences seem evidence of just that from the passive refusal to support lukewarm and ill-defended policies to many media repressed demonstrations- even recall action.

Well, if you didn't think that that rationalized cowardice was bs, it is more and more clear evident that the WH is part of the repression, part of the "new" agenda. That was actually iterated in the presidential campaign. Simpering praise for the fraud Reagan, glad handing the once and future dynasty of quintessential American evil(Jeb), preserving like a worshipful caretaker all the illegalities and depredations of fraudulently selected war criminals, saving stern leadership for suppressing the party's strength... We can't even get back to the higher sense of politics and responsible governance of Nixon, as cynical and horrific as that was at the time.

I am considering switching to the Working Family Party which is a local solution we should have nationally. No there is not a rival slate, but the MODERATE message sent to candidates is much clearer and legitimacy to go on a blue dog rampage against democracy and unions is overtly weakened. For over four decades I have voted yellow dog Democrat since the GOP no matter the quality of individual persons of integrity was a clear and proven threat to everything just and good.

Giving up the ability to participate in primaries is not much given how the party is controlled. Nor is the message sent about what exactly we expect from candidates by voting or even not voting. I doubt the WH gives a crap about potential vote lost in NY. They can afford to push hundreds of thousands of working class faces in the mud and in regards to teachers seem to allow as a matter of arrogant policy. It is clear that a grass roots effort to reform the party or allow Democratic participation of quality candidates is being diverted or suppressed by money and machine- a machine that is as entrenched as it is politically gutted.

[obamafourmore]

16. In two years

President Obama moved the Liberal ball forward more than anyone did in 40 years. He begun taking the cur out of the ditch. People didn't have patience, they were out to "punish" him for not being the magician they voted for.

Well, congrats. It worked.

[dennis4868]

19. probably the smartest DU post of all time....

Many people here think they can get a more progressive dem in the WH than Obama...impossible in this day and time....many on the left think Obama has the power to DO WHATEVER THE FUCK HE WANTS TO DO without having to deal with congress (where many there want Obama and the country to fail for political gain). Obama has done a hell of alot to move the progressive ball (www.whatthefuckhasobamadonesofar.com) in just 2 1/2 years....the problem is that many on the left want everything perfect by yesterday.....that's not reality....what I love about Obama is that he is truly the only adult in the room, has a long term plan, and puts the country first over anything else.

[treestar]

21. Exactly, they expect a progressive President to do it all

regardless of the composition of the house and Senate. They expect this through sheer force of personality - which is scary when you think about it.

They don't want to start at the bottom with local elections and work their way up - the right has been willing to do that and explains how they get more of what they want - not that their Presidents are so all powerful and mesmerizing, but that they've built the structure from the bottom, rather than just relying on the top leader.

Kucinich himself could be President, but without the underlying structure of support, he would get no where.

[Tarheel_Dem]

40. Not to mention a conservative majority on the USSC that opened the floodgates...

to unlimited corporate campaign spending. ODS has gripped the progressive community, and objectivity has flown the coop.

[Armstead]

61. And which party chose to allow the GOP to install those SC Justices without a fight?

Speaking of short-term memory loss, remember how many (not all) Congressional Democrats chose to "keep our powder dry" when Alito and Roberts were being vetted -- Despite the requests from the "professional left" that they at least try to slow those freight train?

[BklnDem75]

110. Remember that ruling from Justice Harriet Miers?

I don't either. Short term memory indeed.

[last_texas_dem]

116. IIRC, Miers being pulled from consideration

was a product of * fearing the wrath of the right-wing base, and had little to nothing to do with liberal opposition.

[Armstead]

32. No,That is repeating erroneous conventional wisdom that is defeatist

"Ohhhhhhh, the country is not ready for Democrats who are actually progressive and liberal. oooooooooooo...We can't do anything."

If the Reagan campaign had thought that way, he would have run as a timid moderate.

That Democratic conventional wisdom is nothing but a defeatist excuse for inaction and useless timid acquiescence.

It also ignores the fact that many liberal and progressive politicians do win, year after year. Bernie Sanders,Tom Harkin, Jan Schiakovski and others have kept on winning. And someone like Sanders (although not a Democrat) gets the votes and support of many moderate and conservative Vermonters because he is so clear and sell the case for progressive politics.

[WolfoftheWild]

87. I must question your sanity if you think Bernie Sanders has a shot in hell of ever being President

[rpannier]

101. And he never said that

He said they win consistantly
And he is correct about Reagan
Many said he couldn't/wouldm't get most of what he got passed the way he wanted it and he did.
He staked out a position and fought for it and as such, while he may have only got 60% of what he wanted he got structural change

Even Obama admitted the Health Care Bill only papered over the problem when he was interviewed by Jon Stewart.

[Armstead]

102. He doesn't because of the attitude of defeatists like you

Bernie is a talented politician. Anyone who is an avowed socialist and still manages to get overwherlming percentages of the vote in election after election must be doing something right.

And no, it is not just because Vermont is full of hippies. IUt is a state with plenty of guyn-toting rednecks, businesspeople and others who do not fall into that stereotype.

He wins both because he has a clear message, and because people realize thgat he is fighting for their interests. (Plus he takes care of constituents.)

Perhaps he is too "different" and not slick enough for presidential politics. But his ability to cut across ideological ought to be a lesson for Democrats that standing up for working people in a very real sense is not an automatic dis-qualifier for electoral success.

[WolfoftheWild]

88. dupe

[Whisp]

109. this massive Ship of Greed has been sailing for eternity

History is packed full of the the few that lead the many more... into a ditch.

If anyone believed that one President, in a couple of years, could change the course of all of history of how the powerful behind the scenes use us all for their benefit and profit, well, ... *cough.

But shucks, Obama should have been able to do it, man! and without support and help, just demanding it be done faster!

Ed Shultz can kiss my ass after a good dump and before I wipe it.

[truebrit71]

128. Complete, unadulterated, utter, bullshit...

The reason people didn't go to the polls (ie punish him) is because when the Dems had Congress AND the WH he DIDN'T push the liberal ball forward..but instead capitulated, negotiated and 'bi-partisaned' their way into dreadful, half-hearted, and gutless legislation...

[LWolf]

18. America doesn't want to acknowledge

that you can't teach those who don't want to learn.

[CrossChris]

22. Maybe it was the Obama supporters from '08 who stayed home b/c he wasn't on the ballot.

We can speculate all day, but this seems divisive.

[brentspeak]

23. Obama is praying that a general strike isn't called in Wisconsin

If so, he will not be able to run away from his campaign promise to "put on a comfortable pair of walking shoes".

Obama needs Wisconsin for reelection, no way around it.

[Bonobo]

26. Indeed, he has not learned the lesson yet.

In such cases, and with all reluctant students, the lesson must be applied with more force.

[Historic NY]

27. Certainly is, the car went over the cliff.

:hide:

[flamingdem]

30. Ouch. I didn't know Ed said that, fail!

What was he thinking??

[certainot]

33. many young and new voters didn't return because they were naive

and even lazy sacks of shit for thinking a black man could walk into a rich white mans house kick ass, or even do half of what he got done, essentially obstructed by a few senators and a collapsing economy.

bush had 8 years to fuck up govt and plant moles like never before. that and the fact the left collectively leaves the right's most important weapon alone and sticks its fingers in its ears while the limbaughs and hannitys take scripted and free pot shots at obama and all dem reps all day from 1000 radio stations means that they aren't getting their reps backs in the first place and then to whine and not vote on top of that is why we still have this disaster as bad as it is.

fuck you very much all you lazy whiny non voters, except the proven uncompromisers and the ones who are so principled they live in a cave on a mountain top.

[yurbud]

36. in 2000, it was ''blame Nader,'' now corporate Dems have expanded it to blame everyone to the left

of--what, Ben Nelson? Evan Bayh or some other corporate toadying piece of shit?

[Armstead]

65. You got it

[ljm2002]

37. This whole "Screw the base" thing is working so perfectly, isn't it?

You can try and put it on Ed Schultz, or on DU members who talk about not voting. For the record, I did vote and I voted for Democrats. However, when your leaders do absolutely nothing to rally the base, and compromise on basic principles, and give away the store before negotiations begin, and bad-mouth the most enthusiastic part of their voting base, it is not surprising that turnout is low.

Ed Schultz is a big name to us; however, the vast majority of the population doesn't know who he is. Those of us who post on DU are not very influential when you get right down to it, at least not in our role as DU contributors. So when someone here says they won't vote, it really has little effect overall.

What if President Obama had listened to Ed Schultz, Kucinich, Howard Dean, and other representatives of the more left-leaning side of the party? What if he had fought -- yes, FOUGHT -- for the public option? What if he had INSISTED that the single-payer viewpoint be heard? What if he had hired some folks who are FOR regulating the financial sector, rather than against it? What if he had instituted a WPA-like program, or created a stimulus that hired more people rather than giving a small tax break to everyone (and that most people DON'T EVEN KNOW they got because of ineffective messaging)?

Look: I don't expect any president to just implement all the progressive policies desired by the more left-wing among us. Not gonna happen. Presidents have their own priorities and they do need to govern, which entails some give and take. However, I did expect that a president who took over during such a crisis as we had in 2008, would use that crisis to push forward progressive policies. I did expect that he would push for programs that incentivized hiring, rather than incentivizing more financial greed. Instead, we got a president who paid lip service, then let us down time and time again when push came to shove. He never really pursued progressive policies, but instead made back room deals and then told us it was the best he could do. He promised change, then gave us the same ol' same ol'. Got people's hopes up, then did not stick to his guns (if, indeed, he ever really intended to do so, is another question). THAT is what quelled voter enthusiasm, not Ed Schultz saying out loud what many were thinking.

If you want more people to vote, you must keep an enthused base of activists who will campaign and will get out the vote. Having compromised on nearly everything, the activist base was demoralized, and they did not work as hard in the midterms to get out the vote. While it's true that midterms always have lower votes, it would have helped immensely if the party could have retained the enthusiasm that put Obama over the top in 2008. Didn't happen, and that is not a surprise to anyone who was paying attention.

BTW, the silence on the current union-busting will demoralize the last remaining base that did help in the midterms. Not to mention Obama's enthusiastic embrace of so-called school reform, which is really a front to squash teachers' unions and further weaken public schools. So that does not bode well for the next election IMO.

[whatchamacallit]

41. +1 n/t

[Tarheel_Dem]

43. "What if President Obama had listened to Ed Schultz, Kucinich, Howard Dean,"

Umm, because America didn't elect any of these folks for POTUS. How do you know he didn't listen to these guys?

"So that does not bode well for the next election IMO." You speak as if Obama's life will end if he's not re-elected. Trust me, it won't. He'll go on to write books, and establish a global foundation and be loved and cherished around the globe.

"the silence on the current union-busting will demoralize"...a favorite term we came to know from the professional left who did everything in their power to suppress the vote in the midterms. I don't think people will be as complacent in '12, because the president will actually be on the ballot.

Is it "silence" just because this president doesn't get all red in the face? He's not Dennis Kucinich, and thank God/Goddess for that.

[Hawkowl]

45. I don't give a shit about post presidential Obama

In fact I think he knows he has it made in the shade, and consequently has no problem rolling over and selling us out for peanuts to the rethuglicans.

He blew the perfect opportunity to bury the Republican party and instead--- chooses to fuck over his "own" party. High Five! Makes me puke.

[Tarheel_Dem]

46. Well, nearly 90% of us (Democrats) disagree with you. Hopefully,

Nader or Kooch can step into the breach in '12. :rofl:

[Armstead]

58. You love those false choices don't you?

How about as another alternative an Obama who actually governs on the stances he campaigned on?

"Change You can Believe In" does not mean hiring the same Schmucky Oligarchs who laid the groundwork for the current economic mess in the 90's.

[ljm2002]

51. Good grief...

...did you miss the part where I said that I do not expect the President to do everything that the more left-leaning among us would want?

Yes you can only elect one person President, and that person will never please everybody. To your question, how do I know he didn't listen to these guys? Well I thought I made it pretty clear how I know: 1 - he did not fight for a public option, in fact he dealt it away in a backroom deal; and he did not press to allow the single payer option be heard at all; 2 - he hired the very architects of the financial calamity to fix it, and his Justice Department has not managed to find even one financial executive criminally responsible, in spite of the massive and documented frauds that occurred; 3 - he compromised away an effective stimulus by making half of it be tax cuts -- and although he did make sure that 90+% of the population got cuts, they were a measly $250 on average, AND most people don't even know they got them, AND that is not the most stimulative way to spend government money; 4 - he had his hack Gibbs go out there and talk about the "professional left", a phrase which I see you have taken up as well.

Where did I say Obama's life will end if he is not re-elected? I was commenting on the political landscape. Of course he will continue to have a successful life, and I do not begrudge that at all. However, I do care about policies, and his policies have not been progressive by and large. Yes I'm happy about DADT, but that is a single social issue that directly affects only those in the military. What about the lost jobs? What about the ongoing destruction of the middle class? What about the union-busting that has only increased under him -- and his active support of school "reform" that is really all about union-busting and weakening public schools?

The so-called "professional left" did not do everything in their power to suppress the vote, they merely pointed out its inevitability. I am sure we will never agree on that, but I must ask you: just how influential do you think the "professional left" is? Obviously the President does not listen to them; obviously you do not listen to them; obviously the M$M does not listen to them nor give them a voice. Please explain the mechanism by which they "suppressed the vote"? Unless you mean they did not work as hard as they did in 2008 to get out the vote -- if that is what you meant, then you are making my case for me.

Finally, you're the only one who said anything about the President getting all red in the face. Seems to me there is a continuum from "saying nothing" to "getting all red in the face". The President is at the far end of that continuum, i.e. "saying nothing". I guess I hit a nerve, to get such an absurdly over the top response.

[Tarheel_Dem]

54. You definitely know from "over-the-top".

"saying nothing" isn't "over-the-top"? How can you, in good conscience, make such a false statement? Seems that DU's activists are so anxious to lay the blame for the current state of things at the feet of the WH, and not the actual voters, themselves.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=433x625241

Every state that's now experiencing aggressive union busting voted overwhelmingly for the Repubs in the last election, and they now have to live with the consequences. I don't feel sorry for them. "You snooze, you lose". If they thought they were "disappointed" before the midterms, stripping workers' rights is only the beginning.

As far as all the other nonsensical claims in your post, I'll leave that to you & your own truth meter. :eyes:

[Armstead]

59. Let them eat cake, eh?

It would be a refreshing change if you actually responded to the specific points in his/her post, instead of just slinging generalized crap.

Why is it a good thing for a candidate who campaigned against the status quo to turn to the same status-quo Wall St. insiders to guide his economic policies?

Do you not see the disconnect?

[ljm2002]

62. Well once again...

...if you're going to blame the voters, then you might want to look at why they vote the way they do.

Look, we all know that American voters have been subjected to a barrage of lies for the last 40 years at least. We are victims of the most effective propaganda machine, ever. It is especially effective because people can point to the media and say "Well it's not government-controlled, so how can you call it propaganda?". So that is one reason why, when people get angry, they will vote out those in power, thinking they will get something different.

I am as appalled as you are at the level of ignorance it takes to do that. But that ignorance has been carefully nurtured by the vast right wing echo chamber, including Rush Limbaugh, Glenn Beck, Sean Hannity, and on and on ad nauseum.

As far as why these ignorant voters were able to carry the day, that would be an issue of voter enthusiasm. As in, if you are successful in getting out the vote, Democrats win. Oddly enough, in order to be successful in getting out the vote, you need to be able to create some enthusiasm. Apart from all of the other issues out there, I'd place bets that the main driver is jobs, or rather, lack of same. Had there been a better economic recovery, had there been jobs, had the captains of industry and finance decided to use their record gains to hire people rather than just sitting on the money, then things would have gone differently. I know that is not under President Obama's direct control, and much of that was done precisely to weaken his position. But none of this is news, it's how they play. The real question, how does our President play? From what I have seen, while President Obama is an admirable man in many ways, and is better by miles than any Republican out there -- nevertheless, how he plays is Senatorial and collegial, which is simply not effective in the current situation.

I just think that Obama's style, which is very appealing, is wrong for the times we are in. I also think his tendency to run to the center, as the center moves farther and farther right, is wrong for any time. Sorry if that upsets you, my comments are not intended to be disparaging, it's just how I see it.

[Armstead]

64. You are making too much sense

It would be refreshing to see an equally well-thought out response

[Tarheel_Dem]

69. Again, your "opinion" isn't shared by Democrats, or even liberals.

Near 90% approval among liberals belies your assertions. There are those on the left who might be Greens, or Naderites, and some are even fans of Ron Paul, but they are not the Democratic Party. Independents have begun to come back to Pres. Obama, and that's because he isn't viewed as "extreme". Say what you will, but this president never ran as a flaming liberal, he was always center-left.

Obama's "style", as you put it, is very much what is needed for these times. IMHO.

[ljm2002]

73. It's my opinion, not my "opinion"...

...unless you are trying to tell me that what I have posted is not what I really think.

About those 90% approval ratings: whatever his personal popularity may be polling at, that didn't stop the Democrats from being decimated in the midterms, did it?

You seem to think this is about President Obama's re-election. Whereas I think it's about issues, and about voter enthusiasm. It's easy enough to respond yes or no to a poll when they call you on a phone; voting, on the other hand, requires actually making some effort. It helps when there is an army of enthusiastic supporters who will call people, goad them a bit to get out there and vote, drive them to the polls, etc.

I never said that President Obama ran as a flaming liberal, nor did I expect him to be one (though I would have loved it if he did govern from that direction, of course). I did expect him to live up to his campaign rhetoric more than he has. Again, I recognize no politician can live up to 100% of what they campaign on, it doesn't work that way. But candidate Obama and president Obama are more different than I for one expected.

Obama's style (not "style") is most definitely attractive; unfortunately, it is wrong for the times. It would have been needed IF and ONLY IF, by using his collegial style he were able to make the other side adopt it as well. Not a f***in' chance. The bullies see it as appeasement, and they are reacting by intensifying their bully tactics.

You want to make it about Obama's re-election and his popularity, have at it. I see the decimation of the middle class, the widening of the income and wealth gap to unprecedented levels, our jobs and livelihoods being eroded, and I think this is not a time to govern from the so-called "center" (yes "center", not center, since in fact it is very right of center). By the way, polls show that a majority of Americans hold left or center-left positions on a variety of issues, including who should be taxed to lessen the deficit, and whether the military rather than social programs should be cut to curb spending -- yet that does not make Obama espouse those positions. But I bet you already knew that.

[Tarheel_Dem]

77. Hey, if you think the American people will go for anyone more leftist than Obama,

go for it. It would be a waste of time, but take your shot. I'm not personally invested in the president's reelection, but you can't gripe on the one hand that he's "not progressive enough", and then hand him a Republican Congress, Republican led state houses & governor's mansions across the country, and expect to move him further left? I honestly don't see the logic in this argument.

I know there are third party advocates here who see this as an opportunity, but we saw that movie in 2000, and wound up in two wars as a result of "ideological purity". Most left leaning folks don't even want to go there again. But you do what you feel you have to, and I'll do the same. :hi:

[ljm2002]

78. Again, for me, this is NOT about Obama's re-election...

...perhaps that is why we seem to be talking past one another.

Also, again, when polls are taken on the issues, the public is to the left of Obama, much less of the Republicans.

Now surely he would have an uphill battle letting the public know the reality of their own opinions, since there are entire media empires dedicated to telling them that they are "center-right" when that is simply not true. On the other hand, he does have the Presidential bully pulpit, and IMO fails to use it effectively.

Oh well, have a nice day, bless your heart. :-)

[Tarheel_Dem]

80. "Effective" is in the eye of the beholder. I still say that 90% of us disagree with you.

The internet dwellers don't represent the Democratic Party. :hi:

[ljm2002]

83. You keep citing that 90% figure...

...which represents self-described liberals and whether in general they approve of the job that Obama is doing.

Since the majority of Americans actually are FOR taxing the rich more, and FOR cutting the military more, and FOR getting out of Iraq and Afghanistan -- and by the way, this is the population in general, not just liberals -- I believe that your proclamation that this 90% disagrees with me is simplistic at best and most likely flat-out wrong. I note that you have failed to specify any particular point(s) they supposedly disagree with...

By the way, I also must repeat: that wonderful magical 90% approval rating among Democrats did not translate into voter enthusiasm in the midterms, did it?

Finally: spare me the BS name-calling. "The internet dwellers". That is rich, considering that both of us are engaging in this discussion on the same Internet discussion board. I, like you, dwell in the physical world and spend some time on DU. Unlike you, I have no need to put down a fellow DUer for participating in a discussion with me on DU. That's just weird.

[ReggieVeggie]

85. Obama is not "leftist"

[Tarheel_Dem]

86. Let's put it this way, he's as "left" as this country's going to go. Mmmmkay? (nt)

[ReggieVeggie]

97. then this country is totally screwed

it's only been the left instinct that's brought any pogress in human history...if the best leftist we can expect is a right-of-centrist, then we might as well give up the ghost

[Tarheel_Dem]

99. We can't even get Democrats to agree on the issues. For instance, I disagree

that this president is right-of-center, but then I'm not a fan of Kooch or Nader, so I might not be objective. The American left can't agree on the day of the week, so we'll never agree on a leader for the Democratic Party.

I realize there are self identified socialists on this site, but I can't think of a group with whom I disagree more, and I'm willing to bet that I'm in the majority.

[Armstead]

57. Exactly...There is a difference between compromise and selling out/giving up

[Pisces]

44. I guess the right people are learning their lesson and will vote in 2012!!

[Teaser]

47. this oughta be fun to watch

.

[young but wise]

49. Wow, awesome rant.

[AtomicKitten]

50. Genius I tells ya. Derp.

[Armstead]

55. ....Or the whole "Tell the base to go to hell, they don't matter" might be a factor

Likewise the the whole "Avoid the real issues and don't really challenge GOP CONservative message" that failed to win over swing voters.

Yeah, let's keep blaming those Awful Liberal Hippies, instead of doing any real self-examination.

[tekisui]

56. No it's not, he still hasn't learned.

[BklnDem75]

60. Exactly

In 2012, pushing the country left is going to mean moving back to 2010. Winning!!

[kjackson227]

68. Any voter who is silly enough to allow ANY radio or television...

personality persuade them not to vote... quite frankly, is an idiot. And, btw, some people here on DU were contemplating and saying the very same thing, so Ed wasn't alone in this miscalculation. Politicians like Walker winning elections is exactly what happens when we make asinine decisions not to vote because our issue wasn't addressed the EXACT way we wanted it to be addressed. So, when someone tells you not to cut off your noses to spite your faces... LISTEN.

[Liberal_Stalwart71]

74. Randi Rhodes made an EXCELLENT point...

People wanted to "force" Obama to move to the left by doing what? Allowing more crazy-ass Republicans to come in and take over the House and nearly the Senate? It makes absolutely no fucking sense!

As for the cowards in the Democratic Party, remember that most of you supported Dean's 50 state strategy. That strategy brought us more Blue Dog and DLC Democrats. Yes, I love Howard Dean, and realistically speaking, there simply aren't enough quality liberal Democrats in these swing states; therefore, we are stuck with a lot of these Blue Dogs.

But people like to blame everything on Obama. Some of that blame needs to be on the 50 State Strategy that gave us Blue Dogs/DLCers as well...

[AtomicKitten]

92. I'm a big fan.

I agree with her analysis. Thanks for posting this. :hi:

[Kalun D]

131. Bullship

the DNC/DLC supported by the two faced predatory corporatist in the White House brought us more Blue Dogs. Howard Dean had nothing to do with that.

Randi Rhodes is off the deep end with her Obama apologist crap.

[mistertrickster]

76. Obama's top ten campaign lies:

I will

10. Close the Prison at Guantanamo Bay.

9. Toughen the laws to stop revolving door between gov't and lobbyists.

8. End no-bid contracts for military contractors.

7. Forbid companies in bankruptcy from giving bonuses to top management.

6. Allow judges to re-negotiate bank terms for homeowners when their houses go into foreclosure.

5. Increase capital gains and dividend taxes for the rich.

4. Repeal Bush tax cuts for the rich.

3. Allow re-importation of prescription drugs.

2. Walk with picketers when collective bargaining rights are at risk.

1. Sign no health care bill that does not have a public option.

Plus an extra: Passing the union "card check" law will be my top priority.

[TheKentuckian]

81. I was a reelect them out of spite type kat but the ineptitude and political malpractice

made for too high a hill to drag the corpse of our party.

We did well locally though, probably because those folks had the courage and convictions to actually run as Democrats.

[WolfoftheWild]

82. In the end, the lesson was actually for the non-Voters.

If you don't vote, you might as well have voted for your worst enemy.

[DirkGently]

91. Wow. Now Obama's level of success depends on Ed Schulz ? That's some fancy blame shiftin.'

[creon]

93. Consequences

Life does tend to deliver them. People should have known what the GOP was going to do.

It is as much apathy - all politicians are alike and so on - as it is anger with Congress and WH.

Well, there is another election in 2012.

Get organized. Recruit competent and intelligent progressive candidates to run for office. Perhaps, do that yourself.

Work to get them elected. Get out the vote. Only about half the eligible voters actually vote.

The 2010 campaign was poorly run, with no message worthy of the name. 2012 needs to be much different.

No need to worry much about Obama. He, and his staff, will handle that.

The key is Congress: passing progressive legislation requires a progressive majority. Obama will sign such bills into law.


Live and learn: there is an election in 2012.

[creon]

95. Congress

It is Congress - especially the Senate - that did not pass progressive legislation.
get progressives elected to the HoR and Senate. The, you will get progressive laws passed. Not before.

[JoeyT]

105. Meh.

If we didn't have republicans busting unions he'd be busily busting teachers unions and we'd have people on here telling us why it's the bestest thing ever.

It's silly to punish other Ds for Obama being so full of fail.

But I can see that y'all are positively giddy at the thought of the Rs doing their absolute worst. No matter how much damage it does to the country or the working class, as long as you can use it as fodder to claim Obama is the best president EVAR and anyone that thinks he isn't clearly wants Palin for president, then all is right with the world.

So morally, what's the difference between being happy the Rs are attacking the middle class because you hate unions and being happy they're doing it because you think it might make your favorite politician look good? Sure one makes you more petty than the other, but I'm speaking from a strictly moral standpoint.

[jeanpalmer]

106. We're not trying to teach a lesson

We're trying to elect leaders who will stand with us and not for the rich and the corporations. If we have to teach someone a lesson, we've lost. It's important to have leaders who will stand up for working people, who will make the arguments, who will take the fight to the public, instead of compromise us away. You can't teach that.

[Bonobo]

107. So, even in theory, if you always vote Dem no matter what they do...

What exactly is this mysterious mechanism by which you feel that you will have some influence over that person's actions?

In other words, why would the recipients of your unquestioning vote have ANY reason at all to be feel pressured to have to WORK for your vote?

[Union Scribe]

108. Laughably stupid. Is this your idea of solidarity?

Wasn't that the topic of your last sermon, not blaming Dems? Now you're...blaming Dems.

[Name removed]

111. Deleted message

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

[FrenchieCat]

112. OP is posting someone else's writing, not his own opinion,

and according to DU admin, that's acceptable, no matter what is said in the OP.....
which is why some of the most prolific anti-Obama posters here get away with
their negative Obama attacking OPs on a daily basis.

[ClassWarrior]

113. Why is s/he posting it then, if it's not his/her opinion?

:crazy:

NGU.

[FrenchieCat]

114. Because they have that right......

the only other option would be for them to be forced
to shut the fuck up....and I'm sure you are against that, right?

[last_texas_dem]

115. The Repug surge in '10 was the product of the liberal base

staying home? I could've sworn it was the product of weak Dems staying home and Indies voting Repug. Where is the evidence that it was strong libs not voting that swung the '10 elections?

[FrenchieCat]

120. See Wisconsin stats for a starter.....

http://webcache.googleusercontent.com/search?q=cache:NUQYo-ed65wJ:faithfulprogressive.blogspot.com/2011/02/how-scott-walker-won-low-voter-turnout.html+Feb+8,+2011+...+2010:+Scott+Walker+wins+by+115+votes.+Turnout+is+only+58.51,+...+Wisconsin+Election+Results:+Obama+Wins+31+Bush+Counties%3B+Student+Vote+K&cd=3&hl=en&ct=clnk&gl=us&source=www.google.com

Despite push to vote early, few doing it in WisconsinBy ASSOCIATED PRESS Thursday, October 21, 2010 - 9:23 a.m.
http://gazettextra.com/weblogs/latest-news/2010/oct/21/despite-push-vote-early-few-doing-it-wisconsin/


CNN reported in its exit poll that seniors over 65 made up 24% of the electorate in 2010. They made up 16% in 2008. This time, they voted 59% GOP. Last time, they voted 53%.

By contrast, voters under 29 still supported Democrats but didn’t show up in the same numbers as in 2008.
http://news.firedoglake.com/2010/11/03/the-youth-vote-still-pro-democratic-turnout-average-for-a-midterm-election/

[Mikeystyle]

117. Bingo

Obama was able to push through a lot of is agenda, but it wasn't "pure" enough for some. I'm not happy with everything he has done and thought healthcare reform should've been stronger----but keep in mind we elected him president, not dictator, and the GOP filibustered nearly everything.

Congratulations to all of those who stayed home in November, you'll now get less of what you want with the Republicans having a stronger hand nationally----and especially with the states doing redistricting because of the census.

There's no way to get all of what you want in politics, and holding out for that is about as productive as holding your breath.

[fishwax]

118. so how is this the result of the efforts of "true liberals" again? Conservatives were motivated and

showed up. You can blame that on "true liberals" if you want, but it doesn't make much sense. In Wisconsin, for instance, liberals voted in close to the same numbers as 2006 (slightly lower), moderates in close to the same numbers (again, slightly lower, in about the same proportion), and conservatives much higher.

[Donald Ian Rankin]

122. Or, if you prefer "This whole "Electing Obama" thing is working out so well".

The one makes as much sense as the other.

[StarsInHerHair]

125. NOT AS MUCH AS BASHING THOSE WHO DIDNT VOTE, gee you're post

is SO cheery!

[Mimosa]

127. Traditionally ppl don't come out to vote in big numbers in midterms & they don't watch MNBC

I was a poll watcher, both 2008 and 2010 elections. The youth vote and the black and latino voters who crowded the polling places in long lines for the days before and on Super Tuesday 2008 just didn't show up. They probably didn't think congressional and gubernatorial elections were important. There wasn't enough Democratic Party TV and radio advertising support to counter the traditional malaise.

[Kalun D]

129. We Voted the Dems Into Power

they didn't do ship with that power. Especially the blue dogs, note that they took the biggest losses.

Note how much the dems got done in the last 2 weeks of the session. So they could have done something all along.

Seriously Obama isn't doing crap for the working class and the constitution. There's really not that much difference between him and the bush boy.

But people aren't hurting enough to notice. They don't feel the pain. Maybe we do need more blatant destruction from the repugs before we all wake up. Because the destruction from the two faced predatory corporatists in the White House is more covert/long term and goes unnoticed in the short term.

[mstinamotorcity]

133. This is not how all

voters in those states feel. the same people I got to vote for President I had vote in the mid-terms. so no, I did not get what I wanted.