I'm a proud, unapologetic liberal and I stand with the president!

[Liberal_Stalwart71]

Don't broad brush ALL liberals. We vary like the colors of the rainbow.

[OregonBlue]

1. I'm also a proud liberal and a Progressive Dem and I stand with the president.

[wolfgirl]

2. Count me in...as well

as my hubby and both of my grown sons (1 in the Navy, the other an AF vet)!

[liberal N proud]

3. Same here

[bluescribbler]

4. Me too.

A journey of a thousand miles...

[SDuderstadt]

5. I'm there...n/t

[OKNancy]

6. Same here. I understand the art of politics...

it's sometimes ugly and sometimes beautiful. I've learned to be pragmatic since I live in knuckle-drag USA

[hfojvt]

7. I remember when Bush was President

and we used to scratch our heads at his supporters and say "Even if Bush was caught screwing a goat on the whitehouse lawn those fools would still support him."

Sorry, but I am not that devoted. This camel's back is now officially broken, and with a Republican-controlled House, I do not see any way he can redeem himself in my eyes.

Assuming, of course, he was even motivated to try.

And I am pretty sure he's not.

[Liberal_Stalwart71]

10. If the other conditions didn't exist--in other words--if we didn't have a

disgusting minority party that was doing any and everything it could to destroy the president, and the president was just spineless and didn't show leadership, then yes, I'm with you.

If we weren't faced with seemingly insurmountable challenges--economic and otherwise--and the president was otherwise ineffective, then yes, I am with you.

If the president wasn't subjected to the most disgusting display of hatred and vitrol--none like I've ever witness before in my life, then yes, I am with you.

But, I'm sorry. I can't be with you now given these circumstances. I am not happy with all his decisions, and I think he has a piss-poor communications team. I think he has made a number of silly mistakes. However, my position holds.

I stand by the president.

[aquart]

16. So you're saying you have no choice.

[Liberal_Stalwart71]

20. I absolutely do. I can choose to stand by the president because despite

his mistakes, he has accomplished much and has actually achieved more than most presidents have in two terms. This, despite a recalcitrant Congress and a despicable Republican Party that is deliberately trying to sink his presidency, even if it means destroying the country.

Or...

I can sulk, take my ball and go home upset that I didn't get everything I wanted, when I wanted it.

Admittedly, I fell into the latter camp. I had vowed not to support the Democrats and to register as an Independent. I had vowed not to vote for Obama in 2012.

But upon reflection, a painful process, I came to the conclusion that I really do support the president and I have confidence in him and most of his decisions. Not all. But most.

[pmorlan1]

45. Can you be more specific?

You said the President accomplished much and has actually achieved more than most presidents in two terms. Can you be more specific? What is that the President has done that you support?

[Liberal_Stalwart71]

49. Go here...

Too much to list here, but several just off the top of my head:

1. Equal pay for women
2. Expansion of stem cell research
3. Appointed two women on the Supreme Court
4. Credit card bill of rights
5. Stopped recission of health care insurance benefits (no longer can be denied insurance for preexisting condition)
6. Tax credits for college-aged students
7. That $8,000 first time homeowners credit help me put a downpayment on my home, thus spurring the economy
8. Saving the *AMERICAN* car industry, thereby preserving jobs
9. I supported the stimulus though it could have been bigger

And actually, I like the fact that the U.S. House of Representations, under Pelosi, passed over 400 pieces of legislation, most of which was STOPPED BY THE REPUBLICANS IN THE SENATE!!!!!!

I think this is a pretty good list here:

http://whatthefuckhasobamadonesofar.com/

[ZombieHorde]

104. I think this post is invisible to some. nt

[nevergiveup]

17. Well said

I too stand by the president.

[hfojvt]

18. there's one major problem with that

We had Republicans backed into a corner and could have pressed that advantage, but instead of trying for a knock-out punch, Obama decided to hit himself (and my party) in the groin instead. I cannot blame the opposition for his abject capitulation.

[Liberal_Stalwart71]

19. Please. The Democrats should have had enough balls to stand firm and hold

the vote on taxes BEFORE the election. Obama wanted the vote. Pelosi wanted the vote. But Harry Reid and Steny Hoyer didn't want the vote.

Over in the Senate, Harry Reid should have made the Republicans stay and work. If they threatened to filibuster, he should have exposed them.

The president can't do everything by himself. Could he have used the "bully pulpit" more? Sure. Could he have put together a much better communications team? Sure!

But to blame everythiing on Obama for what did and didn't happen?

That's just foolish and unreasonable.

[hfojvt]

40. I am not blaming everything on Obama

What I am blaming on Obama is the bullshit compromise that he came up with and starting pushing.

If Senators in close races didn't want the vote held before the election, then I trust their judgement.

Before this deal was made I begged with Obama and demanded that he stand and fight it was Obama, who CHOSE to not fight, and for that I have no respect for him. It was the wrong thing to do, it was the cowardly thing to do, and it was a betrayal that I cannot blame on Republicans.

[Liberal_Stalwart71]

44. Again, both Pelosi and Obama wanted to hold this vote BEFORE the election.

It was Harry Reid and Steny Hoyer who refused to do so. What does that have to do with Obama? Please do tell me because I certainly didn't know that Articles I and II of the U.S. Constitution were rewritten to give the president unlimited authority over the parliamentary procedures of Congress.

The bottom line is that this tax compromise was probably the best that we could get under the circumstances and with the Republicans. If this economy was doing well. If there weren't people suffering, on their last dime, or don't even know where their next meal is coming from. Only then would I support a repeal of the Bush tax cuts.

In theory, there should be NO tax cuts when the economy is faltering and/or we're embroiled in wars and other major conflicts. However, I cannot support the proposition that because we wanted our ideology to win out and because we wanted to prove the Republicans wrong, we have to do it by allowing millions of Americans to go without help. I'm sorry. I simply cannot go down that road with you. I can't because I have family members and friends who are hurting. I can't because I live in Washington, D.C., a city that is plagued by crime, poverty, unemployment, and dispair. I can't because I work for a federal government agency that is dedicated to helping the poor. I can't do that just to prove that the liberal economic philosophy is right. Not this time.

We all know that Friedman, "trickle down" economics has been an abysmal failure. And we can make that case easily. But, this is not the time to be scoring political points. This country is in dire straits. And I can't support people not having access to government assistance just because I want to prove the Republicans politically wrong.

I stand by the president.

[hfojvt]

52. who needs to score political points

All Obama had to do was goto the press every day and say "taxes are gonna go up, if Republicans don't pass my bill" where "my bill" is the one where only the tax cuts for people making less than $200,000 are kept.

I think there is a very good chance they would cave before they let that happen. AND even if they don't, well there are worse things that can happen. One of those worse things, is rolling over before them and putting Democrats name on an odioux tax measure.

We can make that case easily? When is Obama gonna start, because he made the opposite case in his last SOTU.

BTW, the poor we will always have with us. Bush tried to use the poor and unemployed to pass his bullshit tax cut in the first place. It is insulting to use needy people as an excuse to give tons of money to the rich. Absolutely disgusting.

[Liberal_Stalwart71]

58. I hear what you're saying, but remember the health care debate?

Remember when Obama televised two gatherings with the Republicans and essentially beat the shit out of them? Did he get any traction on that? No, the town hall meetings became louder and more hate-filled. The Insurance Industry Alliance pumped more money into the teabagger sham--which really was only a very small contingent of the population. And the Corporate Media NEVER took Republicans to task for their lies. They never corrected Republicans' lie about "death panels" and socialism rhetoric. They never held Republicans responsible for outright lying about what's in the legislation and support for the public option. And Republicans were never held accountable for turning on their own ideas and policies (the mandate was theirs!).

And most Americans don't even know that while the Republicans were on t.v. lambasting the stimulus, not only did they go back home bragging about job creation from the stimulus, Americans themselves received a tax cut from that same stimulus package.

Please do not misunderstand me. I am not suggesting that no one criticize the president. I am not suggesting that he has made all the right decisions. And I am certainly not suggesting that he could not have done more.

What I AM suggesting is that we be a bit more rational about the realities of the political environment that we unfortunately find ourselves in.

And again, for myself, I cannot stand by and stomach people losing access to government help--it's what I do--just to prove a political point. Or, just to have futile fights with Republicans all day long, only to meet the inevitable conclusion that we either make this non-perfect compromise, or we don't get anything.

The president could have talked until he was blue in the face. He could have traveled from city to city telling Republicans about themselves. I am 100% convinced, however, that even if he did that: (1) would the Corporate Media cover these visits?; (2) would the president's action change the outcome? No. The Republicans made it clear that nothing matters to them outside of these tax cuts; (3) could we have gotten a better compromise? Stand alone unemployment benefits bill was defeated. Stabenow's "99er" bill was blocked. The START Treaty ratification wasn't going to happen. The repeal of DADT that so many DUers were bitching about wouldn't get done. Help for the 911 Reponders had already been blocked as well.

And yet, no one is coming up with any reasonable alternative solution for what more Obama could have done, other than travel around the country giving speeches about how evil the Republicans are.

[TheKentuckian]

80. What you fail to really internalize is the fight with the Republicans isn't about points

This is about the structure, support, and opportunity for 300 million people and big implications for billions more.

Executing their absurd policies is why everything is a fucking mess, continuing them prolongs and deepens our suffering. Our solution does not rationally respond to the crisis and puts more fuel on the fire that is consuming the village.

Accepting a bad deal now reduces a good one of consequence in the foreseeable future. While I see your reasoning it doesn't change the cost to benefit ratio that determines if a proposal is a good use of limited resources.

New carpet can go to waste in light of an issue with the roof being ignored.

[Liberal_Stalwart71]

86. No, I fully understand what they are doing. I'm asking someone

to identify viable solutions for dealing with them. What would you have done?

Here's Tom Harkin's description of what Democrats have had to endure in the Senate with these Repukes. After reading, tell me how you think the Democrats should have dealt with them:

"We have more than one, several senators whose stated goal is to stop everything," said the Iowa Democrat. "They are not interested in working, even within their own party, to advance things. They just simply want to stop it. To wit, my friend Jim DeMint's statement, a few months ago, that his main goal in the next congress is total gridlock. Total gridlock. How do you deal, I ask you, in the 21st century, with all the problems confronting us internationally, national security, health, education, all of the things we need to do, how do you do that when you have these archaic rules of the filibuster and then you have these few senators who don't want to do anything. I mean, they simply want to stop everything."

Now, tell me what Obama was supposed to do when we have the following proposals still being decided on:

1. DADT Repeal
2. START Treaty ratification
3. Aid to 911 Responders
4. Defense Reauthorization Bill
5. Voting on raising the debt limit
6. ...and obviously the Omnibus Spending Bill that must be passed in order to keep the government running, e.g., social security checks, etc.

They have told the Democrats to their faces that EVERYTHING stops. EVERYTHING!

Again, how do you deal with these people, who no matter what you say or do, will stop everything, regardless of what it is or how not passing these bills will impact the economy?

Give me a better solution...

[hfojvt]

97. because we had them by the short hairs

we didn't have to pass anything. They did. If they fail to pass something, then the tax cuts expire - and it is clearly their fault.

As for DADT, I believe that has been beaten to death already. Obama could have gotten that done years ago. He is, after all, Commander in Chief of the armed forces.

as for #5 - well, if the tax cuts had expired for the rich (or everyone) then maybe the debt ceiling would be postponed. Nothing in THIS deal makes passage of #6 any easier.

[Liberal_Stalwart71]

102. Obama can't repeal DADT. That's Congress's job! And Obama couldn't do anything "years ago."

The man hasn't been in office even two years yet.

You say that "we didn't have to pass anything," which is utterly ridiculous. It is ridiculous because a brand new Congress is coming to town and they have vowed to stop everything. They promise to block every nominee, every piece of legislation.

What you are suggesting makes no sense. Do nothing? Do nothing and then what? How do you expect for Obama or anyone to govern "doing nothing?"

[hfojvt]

106. Doing nothing on the tax issue.

Are you saying that now that Obama has caved on the tax issue that the New Republicans are gonna be all cooperative on everything?
That will sure be nice to see.

and two years is still yearS.

I know that I have read it here that Obama could end this on his own "He could end investigations and terminations right now. He could stop this nonsense about a study right now.

He won't. But he's willing to have a meeting." http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=221x159374

[hfojvt]

82. "nothing matters to them outside of these tax cuts"

Meaning we had them over a barrel, because if they don't meet OUR demands, then the tax cuts expire. They would make a deal before they let that happen. Of course, they didn't have to because we telegraphed a surrender at least a month ago.

It seems to me that there is a lot of good that could have been accomplished by travelling around the country telling the people that Republicans are serving the top 2% instead of the mass of voters. I spent about $4,000 of my own money trying to do that this spring.

Would it have failed? Perhaps. But it was worth trying, if anything is worth trying.

What happened instead? The President ALSO chose to serve the top 2% instead of fighting for the rest of us. As far as I am concerned, he no longer has any credibility to give a pretty speech saying that he is gonna serve us. That he offers either hope or change. "yes we can" became "no, I won't even try". What is he gonna campaign on in 2012? The theme song of the crows "you can't win, you can't break even, and you can't quit the game."

Your post is all about how "no we can't" and this crap was the best we could do. Well that best is not good enough as far as I am concerned and I think Obama also gets an F- for effort.

[Liberal_Stalwart71]

88. GIVE ME A SOLUTION!! All you guys are doing is saying the same shit

What's the solution? What would YOU have done differently?

[hfojvt]

95. How many times do I have to say it?

What would I have done differently? I would have fought. I would have fought like it matters. I would have fought like I cared. When people asked me if we could win the fight, I would tell them



wait for it






hell yes we can!!


I would have a better message than "no we can't" or "no, I won't even try". Let's not be cynical and say it cannot be done because Washington is designed to resist change. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=47MKGOPP4Zo

[Liberal_Stalwart71]

99. Fight, fight, fight. Then what? The Republicans said that they would stop

EVERYTHING!! And Americans don't hold Republicans accountable. Hell, the Democrats didn't get out and vote. So when we get these damned Republicans in the Senate and House and they block EVERYTHING, what would you have the Democrats/Obama do?

You keep saying fight, but I don't know what that means in terms of GOVERNING!

And what's amazing to me is that if Republicans stop everything, including DADT repeat, START Treaty, Omnibus Bill, guess who gets blamed? The Democrats! Obama! The average American does not understand Senate parliamentary rules. All they know is that nothing gets done. All they see is GRIDLOCK. This is Politics 101. You don't need a Ph.D. to understand that when the economy is shit and people are not being taken care of, the party in power gets blamed. No one is going to look at Republicans and what they've done. It didn't work in 2010 and it work now. We couldn't convince the American people that Republicans blocked everything in the Senate because most people don't understand that it only takes ONE person to stop legislation in the chamber.

Further, you say fight, but how long? There's only a few weeks left. We spend weeks and weeks fighting and they STILL block or stall. The next Congress will be worse because we'll have MORE Republicans. We had to get the most possible NOW. We can't keep delaying by fighting because there are also many other important pieces of legislation that must get done.

So again, I ask: What's the alternative solution? And please don't say fight. What is a viable solution that could actually work to get things done?

[hfojvt]

105. first of all, I am only talking about one fucking issue

that's all the odious compromise deals with. It does not ensure the passage of any other bill. Are you missing that a fillibuster would be news? If they were forced to actually fillibuster, then we could actually report it. This is Day 8 of the Republican fillibuster. Hell yes, even the M$M is gonna report that. And after January 1st - taxes go up - because of THEM.

And people were not that mad about the gridlock in 2010. They were more angry about what passed. They hated the Carbon Tax, they hated Obamacare and they (foolishly in my opinion) hated TARP and the stimulus.

BTW if all that other excrement is so important, then why wasn't that voted on before the election? Myself, I am not that concerned about either START nor DADT. The first one I do not know that much about either for good or bad, and the second one I don't believe has nearly as much impact on society as the effect of another $350 billion transfered to the upper class does/will.

If Republicans are gonna fight so hard for the top 2% then shouldn't somebody fight for the bottom 98%?

The Omnibus bill? Last time Republicans shut down the government it gave us Newt Gingrich's head on a silver platter. It seems to me that winning the tax cut fight would make the rest of the GOVERNING that much easier. Giving in to them now is more likely to embolden them.

[Liberal_Stalwart71]

107. But that one fucking issue has the potential to destroy everything else that needs to get done.

So Obama and the Democrats are blocked in.

For me, nothing else matters right now than for folks to get help and other things get done!

I just don't know what else you or anyone else expect for them to do. Honestly, I don't.

I'm done with this conversation.

We're going to have to agree to disagree and see what happens.

I hope to God that you're wrong and I'm right.

For me, the bottom line is that the Democrats should have moved on this tax cut bill BEFORE the election. I passionately believe that we may have saved some seats. Now that's not the case.

No matter what you or anyone else says, the reality is that we'll have MORE Republicans. Even if you "do nothing" and wait and try to get something better next year, I am not convinced that the additional Republicans will do anything. And guess who will get blamed? You got it. Democrats and Obama.

Look, this Republican strategy has worked now for two years. The average American simply doesn't know about what happens in the Senate and the fact that ONE senator can stop legislation from moving forward. That is the reality. I wish it weren't.

But again, I hope that you're wrong and I'm right.

For now, I'm simply unwilling to allow people to go hungry at this point just so the wealthy don't get their tax cuts.

We'll agree to disagree on this and call it day.

[shanti]

84. you think

that the vitriol being shown to obama is WORSE than what was shown to bushit and the dick? really? i would beg to differ!

(typo)

[TroglodyteScholar]

24. +1 n/t

[theoldman]

8. No one is right all of the time.

Obama has done a lot of good things but when he screws up I think his supporters should let him know.

[Liberal_Stalwart71]

11. Exactly. But that's not the point of this thread. Can one be highly critical of the

president, be angry with him, and even find disgust with his decisions and yet still support him? Yes, I think one can!

Why is it that saying that I stand by the president = I'm not critical of his decisions?

That's a silly assumption that has been leveled at many Obama supporters no matter what they do.

Again, I may not agree with or like all of the president's decisions. And often, they may piss me off.

But I still support and stand by him.

[madamesilverspurs]

9. I remember when Bush was President

and we joined together to choose a successor who wouldn't embarrass the nation every single day. And we did.

I, too, stand proudly with President Obama.

-

[noamnety]

12. You stand with him on which issue? (nt)

[Liberal_Stalwart71]

31. His judgment on the tax cut compromise. I think it's better than most of us

realize the more I look at it. Some shitty stuff in there, but good stuff. I'm sorry that so many people are disaffected by it, but we got more than we ever could have gotten, especially after this Congress session ends. Republicans get in, we get NADA and more Americans suffer? That's just unacceptable! Period.

[defendandprotect]

34. It's just one more back room deal with GOP/corporates .... is that what you want?

[Liberal_Stalwart71]

38. Tell me what you think Obama should have done. Tell me how he could have changed the outcome.

Especially in the Congress. Enlighten me.

Yes, he could have used the press more. Ahh...yes, the press. That same press that loves him so much, so much that they twist every word, every inflection. That same press who doesn't hold the Republican Party accountable for anything they say or do. The same press that is corporate owned and operated. That same press that doesn't fact check and refuses to abide by journalistic integrity. That press? No thanks.

[defendandprotect]

110. Obama could have changed this outcome two years ago by NOT making

repeated deals with the GOP/corporates which strengthened them --

by NOT selecting a team which created the corporate deregulation/financial crisis --

and which profited from it --

and which then refused to sufficiently respond to it -- !!

The GOP was in collapse in '08 -- Obama breathed new life into their party --

Either Obama is fighting right wing corporatism with us -- or he is part of it -- which is it?


Now - having traded off his own mandate -- with fewer options --

Democrats should continue to push both tax cuts for middle class -- and

unemployment benefits for ALL those still unemployed -- in direct up and down votes.


The deal made on Social Security, as well, is the beginning of a very destructive attack on

the funding of Social Security -- a long time agenda of the GOP.


You might also ask, what could Clinton have done other than help pass trade agreements --

-- and 60 years of Welfare Guarantees were overturned? Not to mention Clinton's "team"

providing an earlier screwing up of universal health care -- Oops!



:eyes:

[Liberal_Stalwart71]

50. For more, see post #49. n/t

[polmaven]

13. I am with you.

:thumbsup:

[Name removed]

15. Deleted message

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

[Name removed]

14. Deleted message

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

[NuclearDem]

21. I'm a proud unapologetic liberal...

And I'll stand with the President as soon as he stops ignoring me and blaming me when things go wrong.

[Liberal_Stalwart71]

25. He's blaming you for not holding the Republicans accountable for what they are trying to achieve.

They told you loud and clear, too: they want to destroy this president and the Democratic Party. They don't care what tactics are required to achieve this objective. They don't care who they hurt. They don't even care if they put this country's national security at risk.

Whatever it takes to destroy him, that's what they'll do.

So, yes, he's made quite a few mistakes, but his accomplishments far outweigh his mistakes, in my view.

I stand with him.

[bigwillq]

37. Maybe the DEMs could start

by holding repukes accountable. We voted for the DEMs to do that as part of their duties. I, for one, feel DEMs in general have failed in that respect.

[Liberal_Stalwart71]

42. Exactly. Another point well made. Look, we can cry all day until the cows come home,

it stil doesn't change the reality of how we got here.

The bottom line is that not enough of us voted in the midterm. Not enough of us work at the grassroots level to elect Democrats with a backbone. And not enough of us are going out there NOW and working to put MORE progressive candidates on the ground. The work begins NOW.

So, we can sit here and blame one man all day long, all we want. But the bottom line is that we are dealing with a broken government whereby 42 people are determining this nation's economic and social future. FORTY-TWO FUCKING PEOPLE. But not only them, we have some traitors in the Democratic Party in Congress. While we got rid of many of them in 2010, we didn't do enough. Not enough Democrats showed up at the polls. And what we got were MORE Republicans.

So, are we going to deal with this political reality; or, are we simply going to scapegoat one man? We are totally doing the wingnuts a favor.

[bigwillq]

43. I don't think much will change

unless the two-party system is abolished.

[Liberal_Stalwart71]

51. That, too, but it won't happen. So we might as well deal with the realities

that we face. And while we're dealing with those realities, work like hell to run more progressives at the local levels.

[Doctor_J]

64. What the fuck are you talking about?

He's blaming you for not holding the Republicans accountable for what they are trying to achieve.

What are you talking about?

unrec'ing this ridiculous vanity thread.

[Liberal_Stalwart71]

69. Take a chill pill afterwards! n/t

[dflprincess]

92. And that's why he cuts back room deals with Republicans

and cuts the Congressional Democrats out of the negotiations because we didn't hold Republicans responsible. Just how are we suppose to do that? We're not the ones with the bully pulpit or direct access to Republican leadership he is.

I'm a liberal and the president lost me for good when he put Social Security at risk.

[treestar]

27. He blamed you?

I rather imagine most of us could not get his attention.

[Liberal_Stalwart71]

33. That was a "YOU" in the general sense. Not me, personally. I think his anger

was leveled at those on our side who shoot daggers at him and not where they are supposed to hit: The Republicans. Being angry at him because some may think he didn't fight hard enough is one thing. But, not directing that anger at the despicable things that the Republicans are doing? Well, I would be angry, too!

Imagine 8 years of being told that Democrats are unpatriotic. After 911, we didn't support the troops. We didn't support those who bravely risked their lives at Ground Zero. And now to have the Republicans block health care assistance for 911 responders, in addition to not voting for the Defense Reauhtorization Bill or ratifying the START Treaty. Then, we turn around and rather than hitting them back in the face, we go after the president because he can't control what the Republicans do in Congress? That's just amazing, and if I were him, I'd be angry, too!

[TheKentuckian]

108. Oh get off the soapbox. The President doesn't hold Republicans or their fucked up

philosophies accountable, ever.

He is the one that personally resurrected the fuckers and let's them get away with absurd bullshit.

This guy proved worthless the first time they tried that party of no crap on a defense authorization bill and he failed to go on TV from the Oval Office and call them every form of traitor under the sun like the old bastard Regan would have done back in the day if Democrats had "endangered the troops putting their lives on the line for US" and when he failed to do the exact same thing for the 9/11 first responders.

That's how you use the bully pulpit, to highlight stupid and unpopular votes and enlist the ire of the public.
Instead of leveraging his extreme popularity and the Republicans willful destruction of their brand, compromise and respecting their fucked up point of view.

No effort was made to indict their policies in the court of public opinion instead credence has been given to them the whole way.

Their lies were never punished and only softly replied to after letting them stand for long periods.

They were not forced into ideologically and perception based tough votes, early and often.

He and leadership are blamed because their namby pamby strategy predictably led us to this pass and now they want to cry because they put them fucking selves into check and have no hand with the TeaPubliKlans now and wonder why the bullies are rolling them.

This is the fruit of their ignorant and damn near traitorous devotion to bipartisanship and post partisanship like the opposition is in any fashion up for such business or that such isn't a violation of our system. If the parties are the same then we don't have democracy.

The entire handling has been stupid and I'm not going to grade on a curve that accounts for folly that I have pleaded against.

The purpose of giving the rope was to make sure it broke their necks when they pulled not to actually demonstrate trust and partnership in common purpose.

The actions of the Republicans has been very predictable, they have behaved as they promised but never have we accepted that getting them in hand and discrediting their failed policies is critical to actually serving the people and now they are fearless and smell blood.

There is no fear in them, they know that no matter how far they go, even to the point of high crimes comes without reprisals.

We have failed to be ruthless and I don't cut slack for that.

[walldude]

22. I apologize on behalf of all the "loser liberals" .

I apologize that you got caught up in the broad brush naming of anyone who doesn't agree with the President or your position. I know it must be a terrible hardship for you to be associated with people like me.

[Liberal_Stalwart71]

30. Naw, son. Just don't include me in your group of people who don't support

the president, that's all. We all don't think and act the same. We aren't teabaggers.

And you're only a "loser liberal" if you believe that. I don't. Indeed, I am very happy. Why? We got rid of most of the Blue Dogs in the House, so I'm satisfied.

That doesn't mean I won't fight and hold the president accountable when I disagree. However, I'm just not going down that road of NOT supporting him or threatening not to vote, or going Third Party, or any of that nonsense.

If that's what you want to do, then good luck and congratulations.

I'm merely asking that people respect others' positions and stop suggesting that "liberals do this," and "liberals do that," and "liberals think this," and "liberals think that."

I am my own person. I think my own thoughts.

[leftstreet]

23. President of what?

[MadHound]

26. I'm happy for you, which do you want,

A medal or a chest to pin it on?

[Liberal_Stalwart71]

28. As a lady, I have plenty of "chest," trust me, but I'll take that medal you're offering.

:)

[elocs]

29. The broad brush is DU's most popular and often used tool.

We loooove the broad brush here. :bounce:

[Toucano]

32. Let me tell you what you can do with your rainbow.

Naw, just teasing.

[rug]

35. Including the wars?

[Liberal_Stalwart71]

60. Did you vote for Obama? If you did and now are angry that he's in Afghanistan

then you weren't paying attention during the primaries or the general.

He clearly stated many times that he was sending troops to Afghanistan.

I don't like it. I think we don't belong there. And I believe that we are failing everyday.

So, no. I don't support the wars. They are not included in the list of things that I provided upthread.

[rug]

103. He also said he opposed "dumb wars".

I was outside West Point last December 1 when he put his name on this war. Did you vote for that?

[theophilus]

36. I don't think the term "liberal" means what you think it means. What

tax rate do you think should be on the top 5 percent? What do you think about Social Security and Medicare? Should those entitlements be cut? What do you think about the Estate Tax? What do you think about unions? Let's hear your definition of Liberal, if you could.....

[Mortos]

41. I stand with you and our President

Love, love, love that man. The more some people attack him and try to beat him down, the more I am gonna support him.

[Liberal_Stalwart71]

47. What are you talking about? I never gave a definition of liberal.

But since you asked, here's what I believe a liberal is:

1. Someone who supports the idea that government is responsible to see to general well being of its citizens.

2. Someone who believes that we entered into a "social contract" with government in exchange of protection of civil rights and liberties.

3. Government is there to help those who cannot otherwise help themselves; in other words, provide a safety net (e.g., Medicare, Medicaid, unemployment insurance) for those who cannot provide.

4. Government's job is to correct the market where it has failed to respond to consumer demand.

5. Government's job is to regulate the market when it attempts to fleece the American consumer or monopolize an industry.

6. Government's job is to provide for defense.

7. Government has an obligation to regulate gas and oil industries so that they do not inflate prices on the American people or damage the environment.

8. Government is also primarily involved in providing funding for infrastructure improvements (roads, bridges, streets, etc.).

These are just some of the things that I believe liberals stand for. But pay special attention to #3. If the Republicans had their way, they would exploit government to destroy the safety net. Think about it. Had we not made a deal with them, there would be NO social safety net. No unemployment insurance benefits. No Earned Income Tax Credits. Nothing!

And take it from someone who works in the federal government, if the Republicans had their way, there would be NO government, meaning no social security checks, no federal school loans or pell grants, no Veterans health insurance. Nothing!

Don't people understand that we would not have gotten anything? Why would we allow that to happen? How could we sleep at night knowing that the Democrats allowed the tax cuts to expire, thereby clearing the path for Republicans to vote down unemployment insurance?

That's just crazy!

[theophilus]

61. Well, I agree you are standing there, but I don't see the President with you. n/t

[Liberal_Stalwart71]

62. He may not be standing with ME, but he's standing with the unemployed

and those who rely on the Earned Income Tax Credit.

I'll be o.k. Thankfully I have a steady job and food on the table.

I'm concerned about those who are going without. At Christmas, no less.

So, you think the president isn't standing with me. Well, you may be right.

But I think he's doing right by the vast majority of those who are hanging by a thread.

ETA: Back to the subject. You had nothing to say about my list describing what a liberal is. Instead, you take jabs at me. It's all good, though. When it's all said and done, we're on the same team.

[theophilus]

65. Actually, he's giving away the store and all these folks are going to

suffer because of his inaction. We need Progressive fixes for our problems. Not this.

[Liberal_Stalwart71]

68. What inaction?! Please explain...

[apocalypsehow]

39. Kick, Rec. n/t.

[mcar]

46. Lifelong liberal here and I stand with the President

Thank you for this.

[Name removed]

48. Deleted message

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

[Name removed]

53. Deleted message

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

[myrna minx]

54. What the hell is this? You appear to be a sock and calling someone out.

:shrug:

[Scurrilous]

55. K & R

:thumbsup:

[EndElectoral]

56. For me it comes down to party loyalty vs personal principles...Principles win.

[Liberal_Stalwart71]

59. In this instance, neither party loyalty nor ideological principles matter.

Only pragmatic, realistic and rational approaches to this problem.

We have to stop being so emotional and passionate for just a moment to consider the reality of this problem.

Rachel Maddow did that last night. She, once again, listed all the accomplishments of the Democrats, particularly in the House but the Senate, too.

Then, she recounted all the times the Republicans invoked cloture/the filibuster.

I think she came to the realization that while she is disappointed in this deal, it is actually the Republicans--along with a handful of Democrats--who are making it very difficult to govern effectively.

And again, no one has come in this thread and provided a viable, alternative solution to the conundrum that Obama and the Democrats faced.

The only solution that I'm hearing is "fighter harder." That's not a viable option when dealing with these Republicans who are operating as if they have nothing to lose.

[EndElectoral]

75. I don't see adding 800 billion to the debt a solution with the primary benefits going to rich folks

I don't consider this realistic or rational. To say that the middle class wouldn't get their tax cuts, or the unemployed will not get their extension is disturbing, BUT one has to balance what the rest means. A severe loss of revenue to pay for anything without incurring more borrowing and punching a real hole into the shoring up of social security.

To me, this was the watershed moment for Obama and he dropped the ball. It is very possible his major accomplishment thus far, the health care plan, will be overturned by the supreme court. If he loses that, AND allows the Bush tax cuts for the rich to be labeled the Obama tax cuts for the rich along with expanding the estate tax window...well, I'm sorry I have to get emotional and passionate about that because it speaks to the real problem.

I';ve been quiet and listened rationally and quietly, but at some point a person has to stand up and say no more of this. This is not moving the country in a way I'm willing to support this man on. And of course the Republicans have been horrendous with the cloture, but you'd have to be a fool to beleive they'd be otherwise. There goal is to simply stymie Obama at every turn and make him appear weak. They can easily say "we won't compromise" and "our major goal is to simply make sure Obama" loses in 2012. Everyone knows what they'll do.

The solution lies with Harry Reid, and he blew it. He should have used the nuclear option, and they should have repealed the Bush tax cuts immediately. Now, Obama seems like a guy on the ropes holding on trying to make it through the round, rather than the President of the United States. We still have the Executive and the Senate which are still Democratic, but it feels like the Republicans are driving the agenda.

[Liberal_Stalwart71]

76. I hear you! And thanks for not bashing me. However...

it's so easy for us to sit here and pass judgement without fully realizing that people are seriously hurting. I still don't see any viable alternative for the president. And I do agree that Reid is useless, but I'm praying that there is a greater plan and things will get better in the long run. I simply do not believe that Obama or the majority of Democrats aren't trying to do what's right for the American people.

[Number23]

57. I proudly stand with him too. I support this president.

Though I'm not a liberal. I am Dem leaning independent and have been for about 8 years.

Happy to rec.

[Scurrilous]

73. ...

:thumbsup:

[Dappleganger]

63. Here...

[Liberal_Stalwart71]

71. Why, thank you! I love cookies, though my hips don't... n/t

[ChimpersMcSmirkers]

66. Unpure liberal here.

[MineralMan]

67. I'm with you. Recommended.

[StreetKnowledge]

70. My Response

"I'm a proud, unapologetic liberal and I stand with the president!"

And if you think he thinks of you as anything more than a giant sucker, you're kidding only yourself. I'm a proud, unapologetic liberal, too.

And I want him to resign.

What's that tell you?

And as an FYI - I am not a freeper or any troll or right-winger of the sort. The simple reality is that Obama has become a vast failure, and the best he can do for us now is let us try to rebuild the party now, after he's infuriated the party base and handed his agenda to the GOP.

[Liberal_Stalwart71]

74. You said your peace and I thank you. But you failed to change

my mind and you don't get it...

I don't care what the president thinks of me. All I care about is that he is making an attempt to reach the right decisions. Some of them I may agree with, others I may vehemently oppose.

[BlueDemKev]

72. I stand with the president

Even if I want to turn and kick him sometimes. Although I'm not happy with his recent "deal" with McConnell & Co. about extending all of the Bush tax cuts which will inflate the federal debt even more, I will still take him over ANY Teapublican.

By the way, here's some GOOD news (for a change)....

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/40687410/ns/politics-more_politics

[WiffenPoof]

77. I'm A Very Proud Dem...

...and while I support the President, I am NOT happy with his lack of leadership and inability (or unwillingness) to fight for Dem causes.

I respect your position, I just don't see it in the same light.

-PLA

[Liberal_Stalwart71]

79. Thanks for being pleasant. I resoect your opinion too!

[Marr]

78. I don't support politicians-- I support ideals. And Obama

has demonstrated repeatedly that he does not share mine.

He's gone out of his way to endorse the top-down economic view usually associated with the right-wing.

[Liberal_Stalwart71]

81. Point well made. I can see and appreciate it. n/t

[scarletwoman]

83. So tell me, what do you think "liberal" means?

I've been on DU for over 9 years, and I've seen kinds of people with wildly varying political opinions proclaim themselves "liberal".

Words are supposed to have meanings. When someone uses the word "liberal", I want to know what they specifically mean by that -- because I'm quite sure there's no universally agreed-upon meaning for that word.

For example, there are plenty of people who are "liberal" on social issues -- gay marriage, abortion rights, legalization of marijuana, and such -- who are not the least bit leftist in their economic philosophy.

And as far as economics goes, there's the whole neoliberal philosophy of imperial/corporatist interventionalism in other countries' economies -- ala the World Bank and the IMF.

What, exactly, makes you a "liberal"? Are you for progressive taxation? Are you for protecting the New Deal? Are you for protecting the Commons against the ravages of private exploitation? Are you for an end to resource wars and occupations? Are you for the right of workers to organize into unions?

If so, why would you support Obama? Someone who has proven himself to be either at best ineffectually supportive, and at worst directly oppositional to most of the above?

sw

[Liberal_Stalwart71]

89. See post #47. Liberal on ALL dimensions. ;) n/t

[Number23]

90. Gotta love the snide condescension, don't you?

"There is no FREAKING way that you can be a liberal if you're not pissed at EVERY SINGLE THING this president has done, man! No FREAKING way!!one!" :eyes:
I've seen two or three people come at you this way. Serious props for not losing your cool.

And the truly humorous (if not mildly pitiful) bit is that some of these same folks will be the FIRST ones trying to accuse the president's supporters of "groupthink." You just gotta :rofl: at the complete and utter lack of self-awareness.

[Liberal_Stalwart71]

93. They question my liberal beliefs but then when I enumerate them,

they bash me because they can't take issue with what I've listed.

It's a classic case of cognitive dissonance. If you support Obama, you're an "Obamabot." You can't criticize the president on numerous issues because you disagree with them AND still support the president. To them, that's mutually exclusive.

We'll wait and see if more business gets done. I'm trying to be optimistic.

[Number23]

96. "It's a classic case of cognitive dissonance."

That and much, MUCH more. :)

[scarletwoman]

94. So, may I assume you're on board with destroying Social Security?

Because a "one year" payroll tax holiday is NOT going to reversed in one year under a Republican-controlled House and a weakened Dem majority in the Senate.

And by 2012, after two years of Republicans insisting that NO taxes be "raised" EVER!!!, Social Security funding will be seriously damaged. And along will come the "solution" -- private accounts -- and the many decades-long push from the Right to end Social Security will be well on its way to fulfillment.

ROFL all you want. I hope you'll be laughing all the way to your Wall Street controlled retirement account -- Oops! Nothing there!

[Liberal_Stalwart71]

101. I'm not laughing. And I'm not falling for the fear mongering shit.

Republicans are going to do what they are going to do. That's the price we paid for not showing up to the polls. So now there are MORE Republicans, and I have yet to hear any solution that makes sense in terms of pushing legislation through and actually governing.

[Maru Kitteh]

85. Put me on the list too. This liberal stands with the President.

[LoZoccolo]

87. Recommended! n/t

[whatchamacallit]

91. I'm a proud, unapologetic liberal and the president is not!

"Next!"

[Aristus]

98. I've said it before and I'll say it again: I'm stickin'!

If John McCain dies any time in the next two years, I'll be looking around for all of the anti-Obama liberals to see if they really would have been happier with President Palin...

:hurts:

[JoseGaspar]

100. crock...

... n/t

[UTUSN]

109. K&R and agree, but still at zero. n/t

[Scurrilous]

111. Kick

:kick: