People are threatening not to vote for Obama because he hasn't done as much as they want.

[LoZoccolo]

Why hasn't he gotten done as much as they want? Because he started in the hole.

Why did he start in the hole? Because there was eight years of a Republican president.

Why was there eight years of a Republican president?

[Name removed]

1. Deleted message

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

[HipChick]

2. I was supposed to have my pony in the first 90days....

[Erose999]

243. He told us we'd get a pony, but he didn't tell us he'd be giving it to us in the form of glue.

[LoZoccolo]

3. In other words...

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MAfCQ-t7xY0

[mmonk]

4. I was thinking of not voting for him for the things he is doing.

I'm not a conservative.

[JackRiddler]

131. Correct. It's not the speed, it's the direction.

[jtown1123]

263. Thank you. It's not that he hasn't done enough. I am apalled at what he has done and terrified

for what he will do. He doesn't care about Social Security, Medicare, or the middle class. He freezed federal pay in a cynical and awful move, which will hurt the middle class, and is not coming out swinging against tax cuts for millionaires. Oh yeah, and the financial reform bill was an effin joke.

[BzaDem]

5. Huge K & R. The incoherence in their arguments knows no bounds. n/t

[Name removed]

9. Deleted message

Sub-thread removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Bluebear]

6. Obama inherited the Catfood Commission did he?

[LoZoccolo]

12. I reject the premise of your question.

There is no such thing as the "Catfood Commission".

[Name removed]

7. Deleted message

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

[Bluebear]

8. At least he didn't pull out the Palin Pony.

:crazy:

[Name removed]

13. Deleted message

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

[Name removed]

25. Deleted message

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

[PVnRT]

222. Bullshit

[Name removed]

10. Deleted message

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

[Name removed]

15. Deleted sub-thread

Sub-thread removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[leftstreet]

17. I thought we were supposed to be bipartisan...embrace the Republicans

work with them

I'm so confused

:cry:

[coti]

29. You argue against the POSSIBILITY of political success EVERY DAY. Does that make you a

Republican-policy enabler?

[BzaDem]

32. Making true statements about political probabilities does not enable Republicans by definition.

VOTING is what enables or disables Republican candidates. Not frank discussion.

I always vote for the most viable progressive candidate on the ballot. That's more than can be said for a lot of people here.

[MNBrewer]

53. it's not possible to make a true statement about political probabilities

One can only state one's OPINIONS about political probabilities. Politics is not physics.

[BzaDem]

58. Even if you consider them opinions, VOTES are what enable or disable Republican candidates.

My vote is to the most viable progressive candidate. Each and every time. Others want to vote in a way that enables Republican victories.

[MNBrewer]

79. in your opinion

[BzaDem]

89. Wait ... you are now saying that votes don't affect elections? n/t

[MNBrewer]

99. No, I'm saying

"My vote is to the most viable progressive candidate." - IN YOUR OPINION

"Others want to vote in a way that enables Republican victories." - IN YOUR OPINION

[BzaDem]

104. No, that is not an opinion.

If you think that Nader had a chance of winning the United States presidential election, you are factually incorrect. That is not an opinion.

[MNBrewer]

112. It's a fact that he didn't win

It's not a fact that he had no chance of winning. That is an opinion.

[BzaDem]

122. "It's not a fact that he had no chance of winning."

:rofl:

[MNBrewer]

123. You do not have a very good grasp of the concept of "fact"

[BzaDem]

130. Pot, meet kettle.

It is quite hilarious to actually hear you tell OTHER people that they don't have a very good grasp of concepts.

[MNBrewer]

140. Perhaps to you it is.

How is Nader not being a viable candidate a fact?

Fact
–noun
1.
something that actually exists; reality; truth
2.
something known to exist or to have happened
3.
a truth known by actual experience or observation; something known to be true
4.
something said to be true or supposed to have happened

[BzaDem]

143. "a truth known by actual experience or observation; something known to be true"

ding ding ding

[MNBrewer]

155. Please fill us in on the observations

[BzaDem]

159. Is the existance of gravity a fact to you?

I want to make sure I'm speaking the same language with you. Most people would consider the existence of gravity to be a fact (though you sound like you are about to say that "oh, we have no IDEA that massive bodies will attract each other tomorrow just because they did yesterday.")

[MNBrewer]

163. so in other words, you have nothing.

[BzaDem]

167. Do you have an answer to my question? Do you accept the existance of gravity as a fact?

My answer to your question depends on your answer to my question.

[coti]

185. You're dead wrong and don't understand the meaning of the word "fact."

You said, "If you think that Nader had a chance of winning the United States presidential election, you are factually incorrect."

Nader certainly did have a chance of winning the 2000 Presidential election. Maybe not a good one, but people could have voted him in, if they had the inclination to. There was nothing insurmountable that prevented them from physically voting for him, or from having said inclination. It was possible, therefore he had a chance.

That makes your statement an opinion.

[BzaDem]

186. Do you think the existance of gravity is a fact?

Maybe someone will answer my question.

[coti]

187. A posteriori, by incredibly strong inductive reasoning, yes.

A priori? Absolutely not.

[BzaDem]

189. A posteriori, by incredibly strong inductive reasoning,

Nader had no chance of winning a set of states whose electoral votes add to 270.

[coti]

191. No, your inductive reasoning, whatever it is, doesn't even come CLOSE to the law of gravity's, with

the evidence it is based on.

You're not even in the same ballpark with regard to strength.

Exhibit A is that you will find people on this board who will readily state that Nader has "a chance" of winning a Presidential election, but you won't find one person in their right mind who, considering all of the evidence for gravity's existence, would say that if you let go of a bowling ball above the floor with nothing under it, it has "a chance" of not falling- cuz it doesn't.

[BzaDem]

193. So you admit that the difference between us is simply a matter of degree in the amount of Bayesian

uncertainty we tolerate?

[coti]

207. Well, no, I wouldn't say that I tolerate much uncertainty when it comes to the word "fact."

I think you picked a bad example for illustrating the point, though.

Take the proposition that "The Sun will rise on the east coast of the United States within four hours." Would you call that a fact? I bet you would.

Though it is based on very, very strong inductive reasoning, I wouldn't. It's a predictive opinion.

The difference between the "Sun rising" proposition and the idea that something drops toward the ground when you let go of it is that the rising effect is a product of the relative placement of the Sun and the Earth, and the Earth's rotation, which are circumstantial ("contingent" in Western philosophy). Their placement and the Earth's rotation could both, quite conceivably, be disrupted by some cellestial event before the Sun did indeed rise.

Is that likely? No, not even close. The chances of that happening have got to be millions upon millions to one. But it's non-zero. I.E., it's not a "fact" that the Sun WILL rise tomorrow- it won't be a fact until it's actually been observed.

However, the possibility of gravity not working can (and should) be argued to be zero, as the strength of the law's inductive evidence leads to the inference that there is an immutable property of physics at work when gravity is observed. Though it is not an a priori proposition, the evidence for it is so strong that it can't be argued as not holding true for future application (under the same conditions in which it has been observed in the past).

In other words, while the Sun rising may not be, gravity is a fact.


But the strength of your reasoning (again, whatever it is), won't come close to the strength of either of these propositions. It will be based on psychology, sociology, and political "science," nothing with the reliability of physics.

[BzaDem]

214. But of course all our observations could be wrong and only coincidentally match "gravity."

It seems that the difference between what I would consider a fact and what you would consider a fact amounts to differences in tolerance for Bayesian uncertainty, and a special, privileged case (for you) for physics. In either case, it is still using past data to come up with a model to predict future data, and we are merely talking about the number of 0s in the (Bayesian) probability that our model is totally off.

Though regardless of our disagreement over this particular question, I hope this discussion has at least made clear that the difference in what we determine to be factual does not matter to the original argument in question (about Nader).

[coti]

216. For all practical purposes, our observations about gravity are not wrong.

It's "there" as much as anything is, regardless of "evil demon" or "dreaming" arguments.


My point is that the Sun rising tomorrow isn't a fact, and the likelihood of that NOT happening is MUCH less than Nader being elected President, so your statement that people who say he has "a chance" of being elected are "factually incorrect" is, itself, incorrect.

[MNBrewer]

225. It's just a theory

:sarcasm:

[Ken Burch]

95. Gore wasn't a "viable progressive candidate"

He was slightly different, but he ran as if it was a disgrace to be progressive.

Gore would have won if he'd run like he sounded in the movie.

Please stop insisting that progressives are obligated to settle for whatever crumbs this party throws at them.

It's the party that needs to change. You can't just demand obedience and loyalty from progressives without demanding change FROM the party. And as far as I know, you never try to push the party in a progressive direction on anything.

[BzaDem]

109. I said the MOST progressive (in terms of degree).

"Please stop insisting that progressives are obligated to settle for whatever crumbs this party throws at them."

Again, they do NOT have to settle. They ABSOLUTELY have the right to enable Republican candidates in election after election. They could enable 40 years of Republican rule if they wanted to. Or 80 years. But they don't have the right to deny what they are doing, and then still expect to be taken seriously.

"It's the party that needs to change."

The people that need to change are the people who can't accept the fact that they LOST the primary.

[Ken Burch]

115. The tone you're taking is the tone that loses elections for this party.

You can't just demand blind loyalty from people like that.

And repeating the phrase "enable Republican candidates" doesn't actually mean anything. It's just a meme the DLC came up with.

A courageous and progressive party wouldn't have the problem this thread is dealing with. And such a party would have won in 1992, 1996 AND 2000. There never needed to be the collective ass-kicking that our party's leaders administered to progressives for that whole decade.

[BzaDem]

154. "And repeating the phrase "enable Republican candidates" doesn't actually mean anything"

It actually has a very well defined meaning.

Without your vote, the D-R margin of victory is X.

You have the choice to make that margin X+1 or leave it as X.

The latter choice is enabling a Republican victory, because elections are decided based on the D-R margin (and nothing else). You had two choices for the D-R margin, and you chose the LOWER one. That is BY DEFINITION enabling a Republican victory.

[Marr]

179. I believe it was you that told me just last evening that

Republicans can "dictate terms" on legislation. No suggestion for playing a long game and letting the GOP kill itself slowly with continued denials of things people generally want-- no broader strategy-- just 'they refuse to compromise en masse, so we must completely capitulate, issue by issue'.

And you're accusing other people of enabling Republican candidates?

[BzaDem]

180. I said the 60th vote (whoever that is) can dictate terms if that 60th vote has no interest in

passing the legislation.

And that is entirely accurate. Acknowledging the obvious truth is not enabling Republican candidates. Enabling or disabling of candidates only happens in the voting booth.

[boston bean]

223. The president has a veto pen and the threat of a veto. nt

[BzaDem]

265. You actually can't get middle class tax cuts using a veto pen. High school civics. n/t

[Winterblues]

238. Pretty Naive if you ask me

Money is what enables Republicans lots of money......They know which side their bread is buttered on and they support that side one hundred percent.. Democrats haven't a clue...

[RainDog]

135. Take responsibility for the Democratic party's failure to deal with their conservadems

because if you look at the population of the United States, not the electoral college population, America is far, far more liberal than its representation.

which is, again, why the electoral college is horrible for this nation. we need election reform - we need to get rid of Roberts' cyborg corporate personhood, we need campaign finance reform and we need instant run-offs so that people can vote for their actual choice and not some "lesser of two evils bullshit." That's yet another way to depress voter turnout and to make Americans realize that their vote doesn't matter more often than not.

Another way your vote doesn't matter more often than not? MILLIONS of people called their reps in both houses before the run up to the invasion of Iraq - they marched in the streets - and no one in DC gave a fuck b/c they had to kowtow to the war liars for fear of the propaganda machines labeling them soft on terror. The propaganda is so thick in the American media I stopped watching tv long ago and got my news from the UK, etc. during the Bush years and found out about events LONG before they were EVER acknowledged in the U.S. THAT was a real eye opener. How can Americans make informed decisions when the American media is the equivalent of some Prada™ Pravda?

Obama gave the left all sorts of dog whistles during his campaign. He talked about honoring the Constitution - which, give me a fucking break, was a liberal dog whistle about FISA and torture and the problems of the Bush campaign. He talked about making college affordable - not putting public schools into the hands of corporations.

He ran as a Democrat - and Democrats traditionally support the separation of church and state, not vouchers for fucking fundie bullshit. Democrats support choice for women, not health care that makes women second-class citizens because of the assholes who want to punish women if they need emergency reproductive services.

Obama talked about honoring science, not myth - well, it's a fucking myth to claim that someone can pray the gay away. Yet what does Obama do from the git-go? He puts some low down dirty piece of religious filth on the inaugural stage with him - an asshole who supported the church leader calling for EXECUTION OF GAYS in Africa - and another charlatan who sells "gay-away pray" like some door-to-door shit slinger.

Health care reform - he gave away the store before the door even opened.

He had a HUGE mandate from the American people. He could've used that to twist the arms of the conservadems to take one for the team in order to pass historic legislation that actually improved the lives of people rather than burdened them with more obligation to a WORTHLESS industry - health insurance.

But, of course, to be a player in DC, you can't care about what is in the best interests of the majority of the American people. Politicians talk the talk to get elected and walk away from the voter once they walk through the doors of the White House.

And THAT'S the problem. These are bad times and we need solutions that spread the pain - not the same old conservative corporate bullshit that we have had for more than 30 years.

But DC is too insulated to get that. But the people who vote get it every single day of their lives.

Banks run like casinos and go broke? No problem, bail out those fuckers. No consequence. No consequence for the bad legislation that let it happen in the first place.

But let a mother lose her job and so fucking what. Whose palm can she grease? Maybe her own - tsk tsk. You know, prostitution, drugs and gambling are crimes -- when it's not the elite engaging in them.

And in the meantime, while people are wondering if their loved ones are going to lose their homes - maybe their lives from being beaten down by the conservative fuck you attitude of the powerful in this nation - maybe the fucking Democratic party might want to ask itself if the ire of the American people has some basis in reality.

[Segami]

231. +1 n/t

[LoZoccolo]

14. What's wrong with it? n/t

[Forkboy]

16. Nothing. It's cute, and we love you for it!

[Bluebear]

21. Adorable!

:silly:

[saracat]

19. Seriously. You actually made me laugh! Spot on Forkboy!

[ibegurpard]

11. he's digging the hole deeper

[Barack_America]

18. Yeah, how dare people expect results in return for their work, votes and money?

I mean, Obama still talks about getting some of this stuff done some day...maybe...if the Republicans agree and all.

The nerve of some people, really!

[saracat]

23. Perhaps someday when the reach across the aisle results in being completely across it!

[Canuckistanian]

20. Slow night?

Looking for excitement?

[LoZoccolo]

22. Maybe one of you will actually stay on topic. n/t

[Name removed]

31. Deleted message

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

[leftstreet]

Link to proof Obama is actually running in 2012?

I'll wait

:popcorn:

[Ken Burch]

24. There was a Republican president because our 2000 campaign was lame

Please give the third-party bashing a rest. There's no longer any justification for it.

[LoZoccolo]

26. The third party lied, and the same lies are being told today.

It's completely relevant to the current situation, and this post is meant to demonstrate that.

[BzaDem]

27. "There's no longer any justification for it."

:rofl:

Yeah, there's no more justification for pointing out what allowed Bush to dig the hole we are in. Riiiiiiiight.

[Ken Burch]

35. What allowed Bush to do that was that Gore ran a terrible campaign and blurred the differences

That's why it happened.

The lesson was that centrism and a policy of subservience to corporate power=defeat.

A PROGRESSIVE Dem would have cleaned Dubya's clock.

Stop demanding repentance when none is needed.

[LoZoccolo]

36. Everybody is responsible for their own vote. n/t

[BzaDem]

37. If Nader dropped out, Gore would have won. That's ALL there is to it -- all this post-rational

justification absolution crap is not persuasive.

[Forkboy]

40. I know, huh? The fucking nerve of people practicing democracy!

Fuckers!

[BzaDem]

43. Oh, he had the absolute right to enable Bush's win. That doesn't mean it was a good idea. n/t

[Name removed]

54. Deleted message

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

[BzaDem]

62. You act as if anyone has ever said that Nader didn't have the legal right to run.

This isn't the first time you've changed the subject to that though (despite no one claiming otherwise).

[Forkboy]

85. Yes, I changed the topic from Nader to...Nader.

:eyes:

[BzaDem]

91. No, you changed the topic to the legal right of Nader to run, as if anyone disputed it.

You have done it before too.

[Forkboy]

113. No, it's not about what's legal, it's about what we're all told we can do.

It's about respecting the right of anyone to run for office, even when we don't agree with them. It's about not thinking they're to blame for all the world's ills (letting Bush and Cheney off the hook by doing so). It's about realizing that nader did nothing wrong by running, and that the real blame goes to the SCOTUS.

This isn't rocket surgery, and even you should be able to keep up.

[BzaDem]

117. No one is denying Nader's right to run for office.

People are denying the WISDOM of Nader running for office, not his RIGHT to run for office.

And people are pointing out that just because some in-denial Nader voters don't think they enabled Bush's victory doesn't mean they actually didn't enable Bush's victory.

[Forkboy]

120. How do you feel about the Dems in Florida who voted for Bush?

Did they enable anything?

[Ken Burch]

124. Or, for that matter, the refusal of the National Democrats to EVER fight

for the tens of thousands of black voters in Florida who were denied their right to vote due to a racist voter roll purge?

Why does NONE of that matter as much as Nader to these people?

[Forkboy]

129. Because, like Osama, they need an easy scapegoat that doesn't require looking at themselves.

If I've learned one thing being a Democrat for 25 years, it's that we hate to look at ourselves in any kind of critical light. We're righteous, and never fuck up. Anyone who doesn't kiss our ass must be stupid or blind.

[BzaDem]

132. I'm fine with blaming all of them. All the dems who voted for Bush, all the SCOTUS justices...

AND Nader.

You are the only one trying to make an obvious cause free from blame. Not me.

[Forkboy]

144. I didn't vote for Nader, and wish he hadn't run when he did.

But what he did was the only democratic thing to happen in that 2000 election.

You are the only one trying to make an obvious cause free from blame.

Then, since you're so willing to share the blame, let's discuss the split in the Dem party that started around '93 that led to a Nader run in the first place. I share some blame in not taking the split seriously at the time and mocking those who strayed from the Dems. After 2000 I learned that was the wrong approach and that we Dems need to offer something better than what they perceive to be the alternative choice, not mock them. It's now coming up on 2011 and you're still using those same tactics that failed us so miserably a decade ago. Will you accept any blame for the obvious failure of that approach, or just point fingers at everyone but yourself?

[BzaDem]

151. Oh, I wish we were much more progressive.

But the way to get more progressive policies is to first move the people of the country in a progressive direction (which changes which policies/candidates are viable), and then to elect those candidates in a primary.

It is NOT to splinter the Democratic vote and allow Republicans to win, under any circumstances, ever (assuming we had a legal primary).

If we had instant runoff voting, single transferable voting, proportional representation, or any other such system, I would have absolutely NO problem with people voting for Nader.

[Forkboy]

160. As much as I like your answer here, it doesn't really answer my question.

To wit: Do you feel that your approach, which I watched fail us first hand in 2000, is the best one to deal with this divide in our party? Do you feel that the people on the Left that you mock will be excited to see your point of view and vote for our party, or do you see human nature being what it is and watching those people drift away, hurting us all?

Now, that's not to say that the left is always correct in their criticisms, and that they are free of criticism themselves. Often they are not correct, and often criticism is deserved. But we have a choice: Appeal to the Left or appeal to the Right. Which would you rather see us do as a Party? And which one are you willing to do? Or do you want to appeal to neither, and take our chances on winning simply on Dem votes alone, with no help from anyone else at all?

[BzaDem]

166. In my view, people are responsible for their own vote.

When TARP failed the first time after Nancy Pelosi's "mocking" scared off a few dozen Republicans from voting for the bill, Barney Frank said (in immitation):

"Somebody hurt my feelings so I will punish the country."

That is how I feel about voting. If what I said hurts someone's feelings so they decide to go punish the country, I would blame them. If I somehow forced them to vote for Nader, I would blame myself, but I didn't do that. They had the right to vote for whoever they wanted to in the voting booth, and they made their choice.

"Appeal to the Left or appeal to the Right. Which would you rather see us do as a Party?"

There are two separate topics in terms of appealing: campaigning and governing.

Campaigning has nothing to do with governing. I want the most progressive candidate that can win, REGARDLESS of what he says in the campaign. If he has to pretend to be all moderate to win over the middle, that's fine with me, as long as it's the most progressive candidate that can win (and his ACTIONS back that up). I don't care at all about the rhetoric -- I care about the actions.

As far as governing is concerned, I generally want the most progressive piece of legislation that can pass Congress. Now this doesn't entirely answer your question, because I feel that the three big bills Obama passed are the most progressive legislative agenda that has passed in decades, while others think they are right-wing bills. But assuming for the sake of argument that my definition of progressive is consistent with yours, I want the most progressive bills that can pass. I for the most part would not support watering down a piece of legislation just to appeal to the middle for campaign purposes. Talking to the middle for campaign rhetoric purposes? That's fine. But not actually watering down legislation.

Now that we have divided government, I do not care how much or how little Obama tries to act moderate, because none of it affects actual legislation. It is just a campaign game at this point (until we retake Congress).

[Ken Burch]

183. If he acts "moderate"(which is the same as acting conservative)he won't be ABLE to be progressive

If we get Congress back.

Nobody actually gets away with the "run center, govern left" thing.

And the only way we can really change the dynamic in this country is for our party to UNASHAMEDLY run on progressive principles and defend them on the stump with pride and conviction. It never gains us votes for our candidates to act like it's shameful to NOT be conservative. Parties that campaign as if their core values are a disgrace don't ever do well.

And we don't HAVE to assume that the "this is a center-right country" meme is actually true. In fact, it hurts us when they do, because it makes too many people who would otherwise vote for us feel left out in the cold.

[MNBrewer]

226. You're defending TARP?

[Ken Burch]

266. Is it POSSIBLE to "move the country in a progressive direction"

while demanding that people vote for not-particularly-progressive candidates?

And btw, you can't assume that you're the only one who advocates primary challenges. A lot of us do that.

It's Rahm and the White House that badgered a lot of people into abandoning the "primary challenge" strategy this year, and in every place where it was abandoned, the result was a Republican gain.

You need a plan for building support for progressive politics that DOESN'T require people to "know their place" and settle exclusively for what the party gives them.

Are you willing to work for electoral reform?

[BzaDem]

267. Oh, I don't know if it necessarily is on every issue.

That's the thing. Some people start from the assumption that it always is possible to move the country in a progressive direction on every issue, even when that is obviously false on certain issues. That leads them to think that there must be a way to do so (even when there isn't), which in turn leads them to enable Republicans (who laugh about this all the way to the bank). '

For example, there will never be a President that will prosecute Bush. Never. Not a chance at any point ever. Yet some people still act surprised when Obama isn't prosecuting Bush, and say they won't support a President who won't commit to prosecuting Bush in the future. Well that just means that Republicans will be thanking them after every election from allowing them to be inaugurated.

"You need a plan for building support for progressive politics that DOESN'T require people to "know their place" and settle exclusively for what the party gives them."

Why do you assume such a plan exists? Why do you assume that there IS such a plan that results in ANY progressive policies, if people don't settle for the duly elected nominee of the party? You tell me I need such a plan, but that analysis is suffering from the same flaw I mention above. You ASSUME the existence of the plan, even though it doesn't exist.

"Are you willing to work for electoral reform?"

Sure! I would be completely fine with people voting for Nader if we had an IVR/STV/proportional representation system/some other such system. The problem is that it essentially requires a change in the Constitution. Until that happens, I will not support people whose actions allow Republicans to win.

[Ken Burch]

269. Actually, you don't need constitutional amendments to bring in electoral reform

(Unless you're specifically talking about the Electoral College, but you could even reform that, if not abolish it, by getting states to pass legislation distributing their electoral votes proportionately. It's not a Constitutional requirement that Electoral College votes be distributed on a "winner-take-all" basis in every state. Look at Nebraska, where Obama took one of the states Electoral votes. The same thing exists in Maine.)

Instant Runoff Voting can be done on a local, state, or federal level. So can other forms of proportional representation.

A Democratic platform commitment to bring in electoral reform would do a lot to bring in people as Democratic voters who currently feel like they're voiceless within the system. So would a commitment to bring in a campaign spending limit law as soon as we retake Congress. We need to challenge money politics AND the corporate-orchestrated rightward march of the political spectrum.

Obviously, you can't get advancement on every single issue, but that's not the point(and it's not cool to mock people for expecting Bush to be prosecuted when the Obama campaign did at least strongly imply that it would consider it). What you can get is a change in the political culture in which activists and rank and file voters(especially the poor, the Rainbow, and labor) are treated as being just as important as Beltway insiders or big donors. We should ALL work for that particular change, since nothing good comes from privileging the latter two groups at the expense of the former two.

Nobody's demanding Utopia. Just a clear sense that the admin is really on OUR side rather than Wall Street and the Pentagon's side. That's not asking too much.

Finally, Nader's in his mid-seventies now. In all likelihood, he's never gonna run again. Can you at least demonize somebody else, if for no other reason than to break up the monotony?

[BzaDem]

272. "In all likelihood, he's never gonna run again."

That's what people said in 2004 and 2008. I'll believe it when I see it.

"Unless you're specifically talking about the Electoral College"

Electoral college is key. In the electoral college, even if a third party candidate comes in first place with 269 electoral votes (with the D and the R getting around 100ish each), the vote goes to the House (with each state getting one vote), and the R wins.

"Instant Runoff Voting can be done on a local, state, or federal level."

It cannot be done at the federal level for Presidential elections, since the Constitution gives plenary authority to state legislatures to determine how to select presidential electors. (They don't even need to have elections.)

So it has to be done at the state level. I would be happy if the state parties take on that issue, but that has nothing to do with the federal party (at the Presidential level or any other level). That is a separate, parallel track.

"What you can get is a change in the political culture in which activists and rank and file voters(especially the poor, the Rainbow, and labor) are treated as being just as important as Beltway insiders or big donors."

We have a primary process, where the groups you mention are ESSENTIAL to get the nomination. No one can win the nomination without those groups.

The truth is, we had an open primary. We had candidates as far left as Kucinich. We had a primary system that is incredibly tilted towards the most politically active in the party (caucuses), which gives a huge amount of power to the base. All the candidates competed for labor votes, LGBT votes, and the votes of the poor. Obama (who emphasized bipartisanship at every event, emphasized his wish to escalate in Afghanistan, emphasized his interest to look "forward, not backward," etc) won the primary.

At that point, if the party doesn't unite behind the candidate backed by a majority of the party, the Republicans win. Always, without exception. This means the only way to advance progressive policy is if the party ALWAYS unites behind the winner. This is true when the winner is moderate, and it is true when the winner is liberal.

[Ken Burch]

273. I stand corrected on the federal aspect of electoral reform

(although, as I said, you could still have a state-by-state push to distribute electoral votes proportionally).

If the party committed to pushing for electoral reform, it would do a lot to address the third-party "splitter" issue. Frankly, I think it would be good for THIS party for there to be more minor parties. In the 1930's, the best policies FDR brought in were authored by minor parties to FDR's left(mainly the Socialist Party of Norman Thomas, but also the American Labor Party in New York and other local groupings, as well as the minor-party-influenced Democratic-Farmer-Labor Party of Minnesota). In the sixties, the Civil Rights Movement, although it didn't function as a separate party, played an equivalent role(and without it and those who raised the issue of poverty from outside, the Kennedy-Johnson years would have been forgettable and irrelevant in terms of policy).
It's better for this party when there's ferment inside AND outside.

And one thing that doesn't set right with a lot of people is that those who push for "uniting behind the candidate", especially the DLC, were the ones who REFUSED to unite behind past progressive Democratic nominees. They refused to back McGovern. They refused to back Mondale(and he wasn't even all THAT liberal). They refused to back Dukakis(and he was even LESS liberal). They didn't do a damn thing to help Kerry(and he caved to them on every issue). Many of the founders of the DLC were direct political heirs of the notorious "Democrats For Nixon" and the "Reagan Democrats", and the party was told that it had to not only appeal to that crowd, but to SURRENDER to it. This is what led to the nightmare of the Nineties, when we had a "Democratic" president who treated working people(labor), the poor(especially poor women) and progressive activists as nuisances at best and enemies to be crushed at worst.

Part of the unity that we need to be achieved needs to include an apology for ever caving in to the DLC, whose agenda was basically an economic form of white male supremacy by other means.

[Ken Burch]

133. Right

(But I think you meant "Obama".)

[Forkboy]

149. No, I meant Osama Bin Laden.

He's the boogeyman used to justify anything at all in the name of security. He's a scapegoat for all we've done in the last 10 years, the evil shadowy figure we point to whenever we need some new "security". It's a scapegoat for our own laziness and indifference as a nation.

[Ken Burch]

161. Oh...sorry.

n/t.

[LoZoccolo]

56. I'm practicing democracy by posting this thread. n/t

[Forkboy]

59. LOL...you're practicing something.

[Name removed]

94. Deleted message

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

[Name removed]

108. Deleted message

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

[LoZoccolo]

118. I said it was a hypothetical situation, didn't I?

It says it right there.

Besides, why would I pull Skinner into this? It's not his job to police what people do on other message boards. And I'm not too concerned about it anyways; I think it's pathetic more than anything. But I could see where the GLBTIQ DUers might be offended that whoever did do it used them to troll conservatives. Likewise, if you want to think that I did it myself I suppose I can't stop you. It doesn't affect what I think because I already know the truth about that.

[Forkboy]

121. Yeah, you were just throwing it out there.

:rofl:

[LoZoccolo]

148. Why wouldn't I?

People go around saying that I troll (and as you've brought up more than once, I do not disown that), but I think I've made some points in doing so. One of my opponents, however, did something that seems to have no point other than to try to get me kicked off of DU (or maybe not, because it was such an unskillful attempt). I can't see how someone would think that was more mature than even my food stamp polls.

[Forkboy]

152. I can't see how you can think your posts are much more mature than that which you're decrying.

Is this really your argument? The "Yeah, my posts are immature, but that attempt to get me banned was REALLY immature!" approach?

[LoZoccolo]

162. I think it shows hypocrisy on the part of whoever did it.

That's usually how the argument looks when you are accusing someone of hypocrisy.

[Ken Burch]

126. er....what the hell...?

does that have ANYTHING to do with that thread?

And do you have ANY proof that anyone here did that?

[LoZoccolo]

157. What proof wouldn't just be dismissed by whoever wanted to dismiss it?

If I had a log of a web server that hosted a picture in my signature where the time stamps of the requests for the picture roughly corresponded to those on a thread where I was having a back-and-forth conversation with the accused, and an email from the conservative site that said that the fake LoZoccolo had a certain IP that matched, someone would just accuse me of forging the log or the email or both. There's really no way to prove it that would be acceptable to someone who didn't want to believe it, but that doesn't matter because I wasn't really trying to convince anybody else of it anyways, nor would I think it really mattered if someone else knew.

[Ken Burch]

258. You're not only getting WAY off-thread here, it was YOUR thread to start with

(btw, this is the first I ever heard of the actions you're describing, so whatever you may think of me, I hope you don't think I had any involvement in that.)

Whoever the hell DID do that shouldn't have, but why are you bringing it up here?

[MNBrewer]

61. If Gore had chosen a Democrat as VP, he would have won.

That's all there is to it.

[mmonk]

63. If the Supreme Court had bowed out, Gore would have won.

[BzaDem]

70. So the result is the fault of the Supreme Court... AND Nader.

You are the one that wants to exempt Nader but blame all the other factors.

[mmonk]

73. Your words, not mine.

[socialist_n_TN]

278. How can you say that? If Nader had dropped out.............

in '00 those people might not have voted AT ALL which would have not changed the election AT ALL.

That's what happens if you're not given a REAL alternative. If you're a REAL leftist and not a "relativistic" one and the choice is between Reagan and Reagan Lite, you're likely to think that you might as well stay home. I've voted every election for 40 years and of course voted Dem. But if I faced a choice between those two candidates, I'd probably not vote. Personally, in '00 I didn't feel that Gore was Reagan Lite. I can't guarantee anything though in the future.

Notice I say nothing about the actualities of the '00 situation. However, I think that it would be at least EQUALLY likely that Nader voters would have stayed home. IF you're going to vote for a third party, you've probably ALREADY given up on BOTH parties. Which means that Nader didn't change the dynamic of that election at all.

[LoZoccolo]

44. And why is Gore responsible for not exciting people enough, but Nader is not responsible for LYING?

And people aren't responsible for continuing to spread the lie?

[Ken Burch]

49. It's enough to blame Nader as an individual.

n/t.

[MNBrewer]

100. what lie?

[LoZoccolo]

106. That there was little difference between Gore and Bush*. n/t

[MNBrewer]

110. and what were the differences, again?

Not differences now... differences THEN. In 2000.

[LoZoccolo]

125. Bush* didn't believe in global warming; Al Gore was the first person to bring the issue to congress.

Al Gore also would not have nominated conservative supreme court justices who eventually paved the way for corporations to run crazy political ads.

[MNBrewer]

136. Ok, so ONE difference, then.

Gore = Global warming is real, Bush = Global warming is not real. Got it. Good one!

The supposition that any SCOTUS justices nominated by Gore would have upheld the law keeping corporate money out of politics is just that, a supposition, and not, in fact, a difference between the two candidates.

[BzaDem]

141. Actually, all the liberals on the court voted to keep money out of politics. Including Clinton's two

appointees.

When your arguments rely on the possibility of Nader actually winning or a Gore Supreme Court appointment voting for Citizens United, it's probably time to stop drinking for the night.

[MNBrewer]

147. My arguments don't require that at all

You're obviously blinded by the thousand white hot suns that fuel your hatred of Ralph Nader. You can see nothing else, and nothing else matters. You're in love with some alternate timeline in which Nader is never born and because of that, Al Gore goes on to be elected in a landslide, ushering in an era of peace, prosperity and intergalactic harmony.

But it didn't happen that way (hint: it's not a "fact").

[BzaDem]

168. I never said Al Gore was actually inaugurated as President.

:rofl:

I simply said that if Ralph Nader dropped out, we would not have had the Citizens United decision (among other things).

For you to say otherwise, you would have to accept one of two propositions:

a) That Nader had a non-zero probability of winning the Presidential Election
b) That Gore had a non-zero probability of appointing people that would have voted for Citizens United.

[MNBrewer]

230. Show your work.

[KILL THE WISE ONE]

28. i will support a primary challenger

[Ken Burch]

30. You can't just keep starting threads like this until everyone who voted for Nader has repented

or been purged.

And there's no reason anymore for you to keep picking at that sore.

[BzaDem]

33. I think he can do whatever he damn well pleases. His post does not violate the rules.

[Ken Burch]

38. Because he tears DU apart everytime he stirs this shit.

He's still demanding a purge and it's still not appropriate.

What matters is where we go from here, not what happened ten years ago.

LoZo needs to stop this destructive shit.

[BzaDem]

41. How is the fact that people have a hard time accepting the truth HIS problem?

[Ken Burch]

47. What happened in 2000 is a dead issue. There's no reason to dredge it up again.

No one needs to be punished for it now.

[LoZoccolo]

50. Not if people are repeating the mistake. n/t

[Ken Burch]

57. You can't just say "progressives are OBLIGATED to vote Democratic even if the party disses them".

Gore lost in 2000 because he was just barely not Bush.

He lost because he was DLC.

If he'd run as a progressive he would have won.

And 2000 came at the end of eight years in which a Democratic president had continually kicked progressives in the sensitive areas and gloated about it.

Why can't you accept that 2000 happened because THIS party's leaders MADE it happen?

And why don't you get it that it's up to the party to REACH OUT to those who've felt betrayed, rather than just to badger them like this?

You can't say that progressives owe the party unconditional loyalty but the party owes them NOTHING.

[LoZoccolo]

65. I can't, because they are not obligated. That's right.

But can I point out that I have a pretty good example of how it's counterproductive to the aims of people who want more progress?

Please?

[Ken Burch]

71. What you SHOULD be doing is working to get the party to act in such a way

that progressive don't feel that they have no choice but to do what some of them did in 2000.

We need to end every remaining shred of what the DLC did to this party.

We need to stop being a party of ceo's and defense contractors.

We need to restore internal democracy and allow REAL debate at the convention.

We need to run the party from below, not from the Beltway types who want the Dems to be more like the GOP than not(and they were much more alike than not in the Nineties and in 2000).

It's the party that needs to change.

Baiting people over 2000 can't make THAT happen.

[BzaDem]

75. "Baiting people over 2000 can't make THAT happen."

No, but reality can get Nader's voters to abandon Nader in 2004 to vote for a pro-war Democrat. Reality has a way of doing that. Denial can (usually) only last for so long.

[Ken Burch]

87. You can't seriously argue that the party's conservativism played no role in the lost votes to Nader

You make it sound like the Nader voters OWED it to everyone to settle for Kerry. They did it as a favor.

The party owed it to them to move left after that.

Centrism doesn't work.

And Kerry didn't gain ANY votes by running as a hawk on Iraq. Virtually everyone who backed him wanted the war stopped by then. It was stupid for the party to run a "we can do it better" campaign when the war could never be won.

[BzaDem]

93. "You make it sound like the Nader voters OWED it to everyone to settle for Kerry."

Well they don't technically owe anyone. If they support Republican policies, they absolutely have the right to enable Republican candidates.

But they shouldn't pretend to be the slightest bit progressive if they enable Republican candidates. Why should anyone distinguish between people who enable Republican candidates from the right and people who enable Republican candidates from the "left?"

[Ken Burch]

98. Beating the Republican candidate isn't all that matters.

And sometimes, it's meaningless(as it was in 1992 and 1996).

It CAN'T be progressive to vote for bland centrists. And there has to be a limit to demanding that people settle for the "lesser evil".

Why is it that all you have to say to progressives is "shut up and know your place"?

[BzaDem]

114. "And there has to be a limit to demanding that people settle for the "lesser evil"."

If I were to say "there has to be a limit to the force of gravity," does that all of a sudden mean there is a limit to the force of gravity?

Not voting for the lesser of two evils is enabling the greater of two evils. People absolutely have the right to enable the greater of two evils each and every time they vote, but they shouldn't expect to be distinguished from people on the right who enable the same candidates.

[Ken Burch]

119. Stop repeating the word "enable".

And stop acting like progressives are obligated to surrender(which is what voting for non-progressives always means).

If we'd nominated a non-DLC Dem in 2000, we'd have won. Bush only made it close enough to steal then then and in 2004 because the party ran campaigns that were totally cowardly and deferential.

Why do you put it all on progressives and NEVER on the decisions our party makes that drives those people away?

Why can't you just admit we were too far to the right in the Nineties and in 2000?

[BzaDem]

127. I know you would like me to stop repeating the truth, but I am not going to do it.

"And stop acting like progressives are obligated to surrender"

They are not obligated to surrender. They absolutely have the right to enable Bush if they want to. We already went over this.

"Why can't you just admit we were too far to the right in the Nineties and in 2000?"

Oh, of course we were to the right of where I would have preferred. That doesn't mean I'm about to help make the country travel exponentially further right because of it. Part of being an adult is making choices you don't like. That does not mean avoiding choices, or making up fantasy choices out of thin air from cognitive dissonance. That means actually making choices, even when all actual options are not to your liking.

Your vote only matters as to whether it enables the R or the D. Voting for the D enables the D. Not voting for the D enables the R. That is as true as the Earth is round. The truth doesn't cease to be the truth just because it makes you feel uncomfortable.

[Erose999]

253. A vote for Obama is a vote for the Right as well though, as he's all for tax cuts for billionaires,

prolonging the wars, keeping GITMO open, cutting "entitlement" services (SS, unemployment, etc), continuing discrimination of GLBT folks, etc etc.

I really fail to see a distinct difference between Obama and the past few GOP/DLC INC. predecessors. We've been on a downhill slide as far as our civil liberties and our social safety net since Reagan.

[mmonk]

221. +1000

[MNBrewer]

128. Want to know what REALLY enables Republicans once they're elected?

The Democrats that have been elected.

[BzaDem]

137. Yeah, except they wouldn't have been elected in the first place if it weren't for people who voted

for Nader and claimed to be "progressive."

[MNBrewer]

142. None of them? No Republican would have been elected...

Nader ran for every single seat in congress for the last 10 years? Nader ran for Governor in all 50 states? Ran for every legislative seat in every state?

And is responsible for EVERY SINGLE REPUBLICAN VICTORY IN THE LAST TEN YEARS?

[BzaDem]

145. Ironically, not only did Nader enable Bush and Cheney

but through his Supreme Court appointments (and notwithstanding your ridiculous theories), his enabling of corporate election funding for a GENERATION or more will probably continue to enable Republican candidates long after I'm dead.

[MNBrewer]

153. I'm not the one spinning out Supreme court theories, you are

When the supine Democrats bent over BACKWARD to hand Bush and Cheney their war excuse, and the PATRIOT Act, etc., etc, etc. Where were you THEN? Blaming Nader? Probably.

News Flash: Ralph Nader didn't vote to authorize the war in Iraq. Nor did he vote for the PATRIOT Act. Nor did he decide NOT to prosecute the criminals in the Bush administration (yes *yawn* I know... there would have been no criminal bush administration had there been no Nader :sarcasm: )

It was Republicans HAND IN HAND with Democrats that did ALL of that.

[BzaDem]

169. "Ralph Nader didn't vote to authorize the war in Iraq."

There wouldn't have BEEN a vote on the authorization of war in Iraq if Nader dropped out.

[MNBrewer]

229. Is that a "fact"?

So Nader is responsible for ALLLLL those Democrats voting to let Bush go to war?

RIIIIIIGHT

[Ken Burch]

274. I don't remember Nader making Supreme Court appointees

Besides, the Republican Senate wouldn't have allowed Gore to appoint progressive or even moderate Supreme Court justices. They'd have made HIM send in the Scalias and the Robertses.

[RainDog]

165. So, it's only people who voted who are responsible for that election?

what about all the people who didn't bother to vote - who don't come here and fight about this issue? they're blameless?

why don't you go to their houses and give them some shit and see how much they want to vote for the person whom you tell them they MUST vote for?

The reason you don't do it is because you are choosing to blame voters who made a choice you don't like. How do you know that those Nader voters would have bothered to vote if not for Nader? You don't.

Why don't you get so pissy with non-voters, tho, honestly.

Go out there and get the non voters to show up and then you wouldn't have to worry about trying to relive the past (in more ways than one... telling someone they have to vote for a Democrat even if they don't like the choice is a really, really dumb way to try to create a voting bloc... like I said... go try it door-to-door and see if some guy doesn't pop you one in the mouth for telling him he has to do as you say, like it or not.

I know quite a few of those who didn't and don't bother to vote. I have talked to them about why it matters. I have practically begged them to vote - if not for themselves, then for others. And you know what? They DON'T THINK IT MATTERS who they vote for.

So, honestly, you are sitting there trying to berate people who are far more engaged, who have far more interest in political processes - and alienating them. You are contributing to more disaffection by telling people they have to vote against their conscience.

Rather than alienating possible voters, you should spend your time on those who don't vote - and, again, let me know how yelling at them or blaming them for their views works out for the Democratic party vote.

[BzaDem]

170. Oh sure -- let me rephrase. People's voting/non-voting decisions are responsible for the election.

"The reason you don't do it is because you are choosing to blame voters who made a choice you don't like."

That's exactly what I'm doing. They made a choice to enable Bush, and I did not like that choice. So I am blaming them.

"You are contributing to more disaffection by telling people they have to vote against their conscience."

It is not my problem if they are uncomfortable with me pointing out the obvious fact that "voting for their conscience" is voting to enable a Republican candidate.

[RainDog]

174. you know... you make me want to not vote

I have voted in every election since I was of age.

but your bullheaded bullshit makes me think that, if you represent the democratic party, it is far, far too fucked up to ever figure out how to win votes.

your propaganda technique is lame.

I would almost wonder if it's not a way to depress liberal voter turnout because it is so incredibly tone deaf.

so, like I said - you should go try that door-to-door. you would deserve to get popped in the mouth, imo... by the democratic party for being a liability to them with your pigheaded insistence that blaming others for the problems of the democratic party is a way to encourage votes.

iow, blame all you want. all you do is make people view the democratic party as useless as your blame game.

you remind me of an alcoholic I used to know. it was never his fault when he alienated others by his actions. it was always someone else's fault because they didn't let him do whatever he wanted and then apologize after the fact and then let him do the same thing again.

THAT'S what enabling is - when people feel they are coerced to act in a certain way in order to allow destructive behavior to continue.

[BzaDem]

176. As Barney Frank said (of Republicans): "Somebody hurt my feelings so I will punish the country."

So let me get this straight. You were originally going to vote for the Democrat. But now, you are going to vote to enable Republican victories and punish the country -- because of ME?

:nopity: :nopity: :nopity:

Cry me a river. You act like this is a soap opera. As I have said multiple times, you are free to enable Republican victories as much as you please. Just don't expect to be taken seriously if you complain about anything the Republicans you enable do.

[RainDog]

177. no. that's not what I said.

but you seem to have comprehension problems - in more ways than one.

I said you are a liability to the democratic party because your talking points are pigheaded bullshit.

I hope that's clear.

If it's not, allow me to repeat myself: your propaganda is imbecilic. infantile. you are not worth anyone's time or attention.

and now I'm done with your pseudo-alcoholic berating.

fuck off and have a great rest of your life.

[BzaDem]

178. You said that I make you want to not vote. n/t

[LoZoccolo]

78. Around 90% of the 2000 Nader voters did not repeat their mistake in 2004.

This is apparent from the electon results. So it is not inevitable that they won't change their minds.

[Ken Burch]

210. We were damn lucky they did. They did it in spite of the contempt the party showed them

And mainly they came back because of Dennis Kucinich, a guy people like YOU treat with absolute contempt even though he's done NOTHING to deserve mockery and disrespect from you. He was a candidate who actually STOOD for something, and you guys shat on him day after day.

The return of the Nader voters in 2004 doesn't VINDICATE the party's refusal to make any efforts to reach out to them, or to actually include their issues in the campaign. 2004, instead, showed the utter futility of the "tack to the center" approach.

If Kerry had run as an all-out opponent of the Iraq War, he'd have won solidly. There were almost no prowar Democratic voters that year, and there were a lot of antiwar, anti-Patriot Act voters we COULD have won who stayed home.

Learn from that.

You can't just act like it's the DUTY of progressives to settle for whoever the party nominates. There are times when the party has been too far right, and the Nineties through 2000 was one of those times. Letting the DLC take over didn't help us at all.

[LoZoccolo]

74. And "just barely not Bush*" is ridiculous.

Iraq
Katrina
Supreme Court justices
response to the threat of 9/11

Oh, and did I mention that the world's most recognized global warming activist was running against someone who didn't even believe in it? Did you know that an estimated 160,000 people die every year due to the effects of global warming? And that figure is maybe five years old?

[Ken Burch]

90. Al Gore wasn't a serious environmentalist in 2000.

He said nothing about the issue during the campaign.

Nobody ever does good things on issues they stayed silent about while running.

[LoZoccolo]

102. WHAT?!

He was talking about global warming in the SEVENTIES. He was the first person to bring the topic to congress!

This is what I'm talking about, this disregard for the hard facts inherent in all this hyperbole when people are trying to convince each other to vote against Democrats.

[BzaDem]

138. OJFC.

[Caretha]

228. I agree "just barely not Bush" is ridiculous

Extending and expanding the war in Afghanistan
BP Oil Spill
The Budget Deficit Commission, ie, Simpson & Bowles
response to terrorism, ie TSA Airport security theater - illegal backscatter xray & invasive patdowns

Oh, and did I mention "no looking back only forward", so therefore we cannot prosecute the criminals in the previous administration for all the nefarious deeds and crimes you just mentioned?

Unfortunatley many of the Democrats in Congress were/are inablers to those crimes, The Patriot Act, warrantless wiretaps, retro legalizing those said crimes, voting for and helping Republicans install lying Supreme Court Justices on and on ad nausem. Any Democratic Congressman/Congresswoman who fail to tow the DLC agenda is marginalized and given the ol' heave ho by the center/right & rightwing portion of the Democratic party. Maybe this is why so many in the Democratic party are having a tough time seeing the difference between the two and are supporting third party candidates, ya think?

[hfojvt]

105. oh good grief

In the first place, Gore did run as a progressive. My own impression, which may have been wrong, was that we were getting somebody to the left of Clinton. I was actually looking forward to the end of Big Dawg triangulating.

In the second place, the further left Gore runs and the more moderate voters he would lose, especially since the M$M was painting Bush as a harmless moderate himself. In the 2000 elections 221 Republicans won house seats and only 212 Democrats won. Do you think all those voters in those Congressional districts voted for Republican to represent them in the House because they are so liberal? That all those Republican voters would just love a really progressive Democrat?

It is not gonna be a pretty two years though. I don't see how Obama is gonna accomplish anything progressive with a Republican House. Not unless a few Republican Congresspeople suddenly develop a conscience, and I don't hold out a lot of hope for that.

[BzaDem]

52. Tell that to the people here who want to enable ANOTHER Republican victory in 2012. n/t

[MNBrewer]

84. please point out just ONE person here who wants to do that

or, stop hyperventilating and tone it down. GEEZ

[BzaDem]

139. Sure.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=389&topic_id=9665415&mesg_id=9665415

The title says "You’ve lost my vote."

[MNBrewer]

158. nothing in that post says

"I want to enable ANOTHER Republican victory in 2012"

[BzaDem]

171. They want to vote in such a way that will enable a Republican victory.

If they are ignorant of the fact that voting in the way they want to vote will enable a Republican victory, that is not my problem. That is theirs.

[MNBrewer]

224. what difference does it make?

[NorthCarolina]

233. No Dem is working harder to elect Republicans than Obama. nt

[Ken Burch]

211. It's simplistic bullshit.

The truth is the party did everything it could in the Nineties to provoke the growth of the Green Party. The DLC gloated about driving huge numbers of progressives out of the party and leaving the ones who stayed totally out in the cold. So did Clinton. SO DID GORE. Internal democracy was basically abolished and ordinary Dems had no say in the platform in those years. We were all told to just obey the DLC blindly and given the absurd claim that it was all the liberals' and leftists' fault that the party had done badly in '80, '84, and '88. Fact is, it wasn't and those on the party's left NEVER deserved the hosing the DLC gave them.

You can't keep kicking people in the teeth and expect them to stay with you.

There was never any justification for the marginalization of progressives, environmentalists people of color, the labor movement and the poor in the Clinton-Gore era. Nor was there a justification for the elevation of ceo's and defense contractors to dominance within the party.

Every time you repeat that infantile mantra about "enabling Republicans" you make it clear that you've learned nothing from the history of what this party did to people who actually WANT social change and a better world.

[LoZoccolo]

60. Please link to the post where I demand a purge.

I'm not seeing it.

[LoZoccolo]

34. Why would I do that? n/t

[Forkboy]

48. Because you admittedly use "troll-like tactics".

[LoZoccolo]

51. What would I get out of a purge of 2000 Nader voters?

Especially if something like 90% of them did not repeat their mistake in 2004 as was apparent from a comparison of the election results?

[Forkboy]

64. An erection?

[ibegurpard]

68. lfmao!!

[MannyGoldstein]

39. And why did Obama appoint the "Deficit Commission"

designed with the goal of attacking working Americans?

Come on. Open your eyes.

[obxhead]

42. It's not a threat. It's not even a promise.

I may refuse to vote for Obama because I do not see him as fit for the job.

It's not a popularity contest. The argument could be made that it's one of the most important jobs on this planet.

As for your final question, we had 8 years of Bush because of the courts not because people did not vote for Gore.

[BzaDem]

45. ... and it wouldn't have been before the courts if Nader dropped out. n/t

[obxhead]

55. Blaming Nader for the failing of the courts and FL machines

is pointless as well.

If it makes you feel better to think so.... :eyes:

[BzaDem]

66. I think people are blaming Nader for allowing the margin to be sufficiently close that the

courts and FL machines turned out to matter. Not for the actual failure of courts and voting machines.

[obxhead]

81. You might as well blame chem trails in my opinion. nt

[cherokeeprogressive]

46. I was waiting for "Is a shit statement".

Silly me.

[Bluebear]

67. FTW!

[RainDog]

69. There was 8 years of a republican president b/c the Supreme Court gave the election to Bush

there was a republican president b/c Gore choose fucking Lieberman as his running mate, who was detested as much back then as he is now among the loyal democratic base.

there was a republican president b/c Clinton screwed over the working class with NAFTA and the poor with welfare reform and people had had ENOUGH of the damn DLC and the lack of real choice in elections and couldn't bring themselves to vote for a party that would put that asshole Lieberman on the ticket - and at the time - Tipper Gore was fussing about "rock n roll" - a sure way to depress voter turnout among the young.

so, if you want to put this all at the feet of people who voted for Nader, you're part of the freaking problem.

[BzaDem]

72. So you would admit that it is SOMEWHAT at the feet of people who voted for Nader? Or are they

free from blame, because they have a "get out of blame free" card that the other factors you mention don't have?

[MNBrewer]

88. well, yes, they are free from blame

[BzaDem]

103. I guess denial is long-lasting. n/t

[MNBrewer]

107. Based on your commentary, it sure seems to be.

[BzaDem]

111. If you are referring to your denial about my commentary, you are indeed correct. n/t

[MNBrewer]

116. 1. I'm not

2. QED

[RainDog]

92. People have ONE WAY to speak to their govt that actually counts

and that is through their votes.

and some people had simply had enough.

I offered to vote swap with those people - I understood their position and knew my vote wouldn't count b/c of the electoral college (which is another reason people don't think it matters if they even vote sometimes, fwiw - the electoral college is an antiquated system that depresses voter turnout and interest in elections.)

So, you want to blame people who voted for Nader when voting for Nader allowed them to get him to the point of matching funds? they had an actual reason to vote for him beyond a protest vote, you know. So, no, I don't blame them for voting for the candidate they wanted to see in office.

If Democrats want to appeal to people to the left of the DLC, they should take that into consideration. They don't and they don't get their votes. Pretty simple.

[BzaDem]

101. "They don't and they don't get their votes."

That's fine. If people want to enable Republican candidates, they have the perfect right to. I never said otherwise.

And I don't have a problem with people who "vote swap" to prevent their vote from enabling a Republican candidate.

But if people in any potentially decisive state were willing to flush the country down the toilet so Nader could get matching funds, they shouldn't pretend to be progressive in any way (and they shouldn't expect to be taken seriously if they ever complain about any of Bush's actions).

[RainDog]

146. It's not your fucking choice to make for anyone

As I said, and as you ignored - there was a reason to vote for Nader in order to build a political movement. With 5% of the vote he would get funds.

You don't like that that's the way the system works? That's not the fault of the voters who wanted to build something different.

They weren't throwing their vote away. They were saying they had HAD ENOUGH.

But, of course, the joke with this ridiculous blame game is that Gore won Florida, as the NY Times noted - long after it actually mattered.

So, you are blaming the Nader voters for SOMETHING THAT DIDN'T EVEN HAPPEN.

The problem, again, is the corrupt DC political culture - a Supreme Court 5 that used their position to deny the American voter their right to an election.

THAT'S who you should bitch about and to. Vincent Bugliosi had started an online movement to impeach the Supreme Court 5. People were mad as hell and wanted to do something about the stolen election.

And you know what stopped it? 9-11.

That's the only thing that saved Bush's ass for a second term and the only thing that saved the Supreme Court 5 from years of voter wrath.

You have your head screwed on backassward to blame Nader voters.

[BzaDem]

172. WHERE did I say that it was my choice to make for everyone? I acknowledged MULTIPLE TIMES

that they absolutely had the right to enable Bush's victory.

I'm questioning the wisdom of that idea, not the legal right to do it.

[RainDog]

175. I've never really tried to talk to you on this forum.

and now I know why.

it's worthless. you have nothing worthwhile to say - you sound like Glenn Beck on a bad day.

[Ken Burch]

164. IT's not as simple as "enable Republican candidates"

Please stop repeating a bullshit meme.

[BzaDem]

173. It is that simple, notwithstanding your denial. n/t

[Ken Burch]

181. What enables Republicans is Democrats who run futile "tack to the center"

(I.E., be just barely not-Republican)campaigns.

What enables Republicans is blurring the differences.

What enables Republicans is the refusal to talk about corporate power and class

What enables Republicans is Democratic leaders who, after the election, let Republicans control the debate and let them set the limits of the spectrum.

Those are what enable Republicans.

It's the PARTY's fault people are threatening to abstain or vote third-party, it's the party that has to change(or be made to change by those of us who actually want this party to win AND to stand for something).

Your "shut up and take what you're given" approach can't ever make that happen.

Nor can your "bash the left" strategy.

[BzaDem]

182. What enables Republicans to hold office is the voters who enable them. Not anything else. n/t

[Ken Burch]

184. What enables them is Democrats who campaign as if it's a disgrace to be progressive

If all our candidates proudly and with personal conviction defended our core values, the voters(even the "independents") would see that as leadership and reward them for it.

It doesn't WORK for our candidates to run as if the Right has won the argument. IF you act like that during the campaign, it FORCES you to govern like that. And that dooms you, if you're a Democratic president. If it doesn't doom you to defeat(as it did Carter in 1980, Mondale, Dukakis and Kerry)it dooms you to irrelevance AFTER you've won or especially AFTER you've lost Congress(as it did with Clinton in 1994).

We can win as a conviction party. We just need candidates with guts.

[MNBrewer]

235. It is not that simple, notwithstanding your assertion.

[katandmoon]

76. It's really too late now to blame it all on Bush.

[La Lioness Priyanka]

77. at the end of the day most democrats will vote for the democratic candidate

in the mean while people have the right and possibly the need to express frustration and anger

deal with it.

[LoZoccolo]

80. So too do I have the right to express frustration and anger at them.

Deal with it.

[ibegurpard]

82. deal with the mockery

[LoZoccolo]

96. I generally don't alert on personal attacks aside from those that accuse me of being

a Republican or conservative.

[La Lioness Priyanka]

83. ok.

[Name removed]

86. Deleted message

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

[asdjrocky]

97. As much?

I love it. Thank you for clearing the whole thing up for me. Bush is why we don't have a public option, gitmo is still open, wars are still raging, and I can't get a fucking job?

[iamtechus]

134. Obama and GOPers Worked Together to Kill Bush Torture Probe

http://motherjones.com/politics/2010/12/wikileaks-cable-obama-quashed-torture-investigation

[fishwax]

150. there was eight years of a republcan present b/c of a stolen election

[flvegan]

156. Oasis rejoices!

[akbacchus_BC]

188. Lo, what is your purpose on here?

[Greyhound]

192. To remind us why we have no reason to bother. n/t

[akbacchus_BC]

194. Then you are giving up!

[Greyhound]

202. I gave up on Obama long ago.

From his first day in office, his appointments were a clear signal that he had no intention whatsoever of helping us 'little people'. The actions he took in 'addressing the financial collapse' were the next signal, and so on.

I also never lost sight of the fact that the Democratic Congress we elected in 2006 did nothing to oppose the mass murder and wholesale looting for the two years they were in before him.

[QC]

234. To foment as much discord and division as possible. n/t

[LoZoccolo]

237. I generally side with Obama and the Democrats, and so do 80% or more of liberals.

If anyone's sowing discord and division it's the remainder.

[LoZoccolo]

236. To promote strategic thinking and encorage people to participate in real-life politics. n/t

[Greyhound]

190. More like what he did do was the opposite of what we wanted.

Trillions for the rich, fuck all for the rest of us.

[akbacchus_BC]

195. Rome was not built in a day and this President inherited 8 years of

mismanagement, collusion, etc. and you expect him to fix it in two years. Even though some Dems will not support him in the House and Senate!

[Greyhound]

198. I expect him to move in the right direction, not continue the mismanagement, collusion, and theft.

The Roman Empire lasted 1,000 years because they made life better for the Romans and the common people of the territories they conquered. They built roads and aqueducts, brought safety, peace, and prosperity in exchange for their tribute.

[akbacchus_BC]

200. He is trying to move in the right direction but even people in his own

party are voting against him. Not one republican voted for health care reform. And you still blaming President Obama. Sorry, he lost even when he won! Who is is barking dog, no one. Even Bush had a barking dog, President Obama, nada!

[Lydia Leftcoast]

279. Expanding the war in Afghanistan is "trying to move in the right direction"?

A National Guard unit from Minnesota is leaving for IRAQ. Sending more troops to Iraq (even for "support") is moving in the right direction?

Appointing Republicans and mostly conservative Democrats (including KNOWN advocates of dismantling Social Security) is "trying to move in the right direction"?

Reinforcing the hold of the private insurance companies on our health care non-system (without even using single payer as a bargaining chip, indeed, outright DISSING the advocates of single payer and caving on the public option, which was POPULAR) is moving in the right direction?

Even THINKING about extending the Bush tax cuts is moving in the right direction?

A new "free" trade agreement with South Korea is moving in the right direction?

Gee, if those are "the right direction," I'd hate to see what you think of as "the wrong direction."

[JoseGaspar]

196. Well, since zero is less than any, you are right...

1. He didn't "restore the rule of law" - He promised to do it. He didn't. He lied. He did not prosecute war criminals who openly admitted their guilt. He didn't prosecute economic criminals who helped cause the 2008 Great Recession (even the Republicans helped indict over 1000 people during the Savings and Loan Scandal of the 1980s and 1990s).

2. He didn't end the wars - He promised to end one. He isn't doing it any faster than Bush promised, and Gates is weasel fucking around on even that deadline while combat units are "relabeled". He promised to escalate the other war and he did. I don't give a fuck if he did as he promised. He escalated Bush's war and he's still escalating.

3. He put out a Stimulus which was much too small and half of which was mostly useless pandering tax cuts and then sat on his hands for the rest of the last two years while millions were foreclosed and tens of millions were unemployed, hoping for "recovery" and doing little else. The whole time, he talked shit about the New Deal and FDR while doing less than Hoover (yes... less than Hoover. Not even an NRA equivalent because that wouldn't be "shovel ready").

4. He enabled cutting Social Security and other social programs, created zombie banks, and resurrected the right-wing from their death spiral - yes, they hated him from the beginning but his unique "style" and unwillingness to fight or take sides with those crushed by this "downturn" turned hatred into political power.

5. He is a privatizing, open neo-liberal (not a "conservative"), with fantastic notions about history and politics, who will set many people back decades.

All this he did on his own hook.

Except for that, he was entirely a victim of Nader or gamma rays or whatever else you want to make up.

[akbacchus_BC]

197. Why don't you try and take over the Presidency of the US, then you

will know it is not that simple!

[BzaDem]

201. But then he wouldn't be able to complain about things that aren't the President's fault!

[akbacchus_BC]

205. I have to agree with you. This President really squandered his

political gains when he got elected. Who knows why he blew his base with the people he asked to speak at his inauguration, that should have been an eye opener!

[JoseGaspar]

239. Any "response" which begins with...

..."Then, why don't you", is an instant admission of a content-less answer by way of ad hominem. Why don't I leave the country if I am so critical, etc...

The "Che" avatar is a nice touch, but it's been done before.

[BzaDem]

199. He actually promised to look forward, not backward (at least 5 times) whenever asked about it.

He did promise to end one war, and he is doing it.

He passed the largest Stimulus bill that could pass the Senate. You would ONLY be happy if he got absolutely nothing.

He did not cut Social Security or other social programs (I love how you say he "enabled," since you know you can't say he did.)

"who will set many people back decades"

There were liberals who said the same about FDR's agenda at the time. There are ALWAYS people who will never be satisfied, with every President from both parties. This is NOTHING new.

[akbacchus_BC]

203. Please do not get me wrong, I never thought President Obama would

escalate the invasion of Afghanistan and I was happy to hear that the US would pull out of Iraq! Guess someone is misleading him and he still on full scale with Afghanistan and Iraq and even with Pakistan. I never implied that I agreed with all his policies, he is losing credibility and he needs to redress that. Who elected America to police the world?

[BzaDem]

206. My reply was to JoseGaspar.

But Obama did promise in the campaign multiple times to escalate in Afghanistan. (Not that I agree with it.)

[akbacchus_BC]

208. Yes he did but for what reason? To make more enemies! That was

not a wise move. He cannot even close Gitmo and rendition of prisoners is still rampant! Go President Obama!

[BzaDem]

215. You are correct that he didn't close Gitmo. But he certainly tried.

He wouldn't have gotten 10 votes in the Senate to close Gitmo. Despite this, he tried for a whole year.

[JoseGaspar]

241. I am not shocked that you find an equivilance between...

... empty platitudes about where one looks and enforcing the law... especially when it involves war crimes and a recession on the scale of 2008. In any case, if he had meant that phrasing, he would have let the prisoners out of Gitmo, shook their hands on their way out the door and said, "well... let's let bygones be bygones."

That was as unlikely as your qualifying premise.

The rest of your points don't exist. You made them up.

Your arguments are degenerating, but at least you dropped the cartoons.

[elocs]

204. What, no poll? How disappointing. n/t

[akbacchus_BC]

209. What Poll? Most of us would get banned if we voted in a Poll! Only a matter

of time for us!

[JDPriestly]

212. The Wikileaks show that he did not do the politically necessary things

to get out of the hole. If he is still in the hole, it is because he didn't clean the hole out.

Our economy and our government were like a backed-up drain when Obama took over. Instead of trying to clean the drain, Obama just tried to pour more liquid down it. You have to unstop the drain before you can pour anything down it. Takes courage to call a plumber. Thus far, Obama has not had that courage.

In our personal lives, in our public lives, we have to clean house every once in a while.

We are now, finally, with the Wikileaks and Fed reports, at a point where we are looking down the drain. Hopefully, our next step will be to clean the drain.

Call a plumber.

I think that we at the grass-roots of the Democratic Party need to do to our party what the Teabaggers unsuccessfully tried to do to theirs -- get new leadership and reform the party.

[akbacchus_BC]

213. Best response ever. Do you think Obama would heed your solution?

No, he still working on that bipartisan stick! He is educated, politically inclined and he still with this bipartisan shit! That is where he lost me!

[BzaDem]

217. Have you ever considered that most of the bipartisan "stick" is simply theatrics to try to win over

the middle, which any Democrat would have to do to win in 2012? The three big bills of his presidency passed with exactly the number of votes required, and not a single vote more.

Why are you pissed off over theatrics?

[akbacchus_BC]

218. Sorry, I have no idea. Guess politics is not for the weak minded!

[Imagevision]

219. The Presidency of the US, is now being run by the Bilderburg group which

Obama, Bill Clinton, Cheney, & Bush are members of to name just a few - In 1985 Newsweek had a cover story on why the Republicans want to eliminate the middle class which I hadn't a clue as to why, but enter the New World Order, Reover from this "recession"? Now they want to take away benefits from those retiring because SS.has too many entitlements that this government states it can't afford no longer.

[Imagevision]

220. Obama's move will be tax cuts for the rich and SS. benefits removed from retiree's

[meow mix]

227. im done listening to excuses

he's a failure and im done with him as well. wish it hadnt gone this way.

[LoZoccolo]

252. See #251. n/t

[ScreamingMeemie]

232. I am not "threatening" to do anything.

I have made up my mind to write letters, beg if I have to, for a truly Democratic option in a 2012 election primary. The letter "D" is just not going to do it for me anymore. There has to be substance, integrity, and actual work behind it.

[ecstatic]

240. Because the same voters who are against Obama now probably

voted for Nader (or didn't vote at all) in 2000. :crazy:

What's the definition of insanity?

[treestar]

242. True it feeds on itself and is a circle that helps only Republicans

This is why they get so much of what they want and can be so persuasive.

[WinkyDink]

244. You have A point, but not the ENTIRE point.

[LoZoccolo]

249. And then Hemingway punched me in the mouth. n/t

[Bluenorthwest]

245. Just a word from out west, where all our Democrats won.

I was born into a Democratic family. I vote for Democrats. I have always lived in liberal areas, and I work in the arts and media. At election times, espcially in 2000 and in 08, one of the things I can do is bring in the Greens and others who are on the left and are not Democrats. These voters have various reasons for being outside the Democratic Party. And I get their votes. I got tons of those votes for Al Gore, right out of Nader's hands, and I kind of like Ralph mostly. He was not going to win. Lieberman was a drag to the ticket. But still I got those voters to vote for Al. Lots of them. Infulencial people in some cases. One who became a passionate Obama backer, early on, without any prompting from me. They see me as conservative, mainstreamish. And I get their votes.
During the 08 Primary, the Obamas had some ice crean here in town, and there was a guy in a Green Party Tee Shrit. Michelle saw that shirt and grinned and walked right over. I'd wager Mrs Obama got that vote. She seemed to know how it is done. Green Dog Democrats.
Lots of voters who are not Democratic constants helped elect the President. Loads of them, including key early supporters, came from the more liberal side of things. Those votes are vital.
This thread and the voice of support within it, in my opinion, is harmful to the process of electing Democrats, not helpful.

[LoZoccolo]

250. That's interesting because in 2004 I saw somebody with a Nader/Camejo shirt and I said

"dooga dooga dooga dooga".

[Ken Burch]

257. And that person NEVER knew why you did that, didn't switch to Kerry, and all you succeeded in doing

was making that person think you were completely unhinged.

There's no reason for you to ever have bragged about the "dooga dooga dooga" incident. It was not only failed politics, it was EMBARASSING failed politics.

[crazyjoe]

246. I wouldn't vote for Obama again, he has single handedly killed the democratic party

[meow mix]

247. (Your vote: -1)

we still have a republican president

[montanto]

248. I've been flexible, I've been patient, I've been willing to wait,

I've felt screwed, cheated, ignored, and even stepped on. I am aware of the things you mention. Break point for me will be extension of taxes breaks to the super rich: that's my line in the sand. Extend tax cuts to the super rich = game over for me. Call me whatever you like at that point.

[LoZoccolo]

251. A lot of people are talking about their feelings without explaining

how their actions will get them what they want. You people almost make my argument for me, that you are not thinking of the consequences of your actions and don't even see that what you are doing now is reponsible for where we are now.

[montanto]

256. ok

[Ken Burch]

259. Rather than bash those people and dredge up ancient history

Why don't you, just for once, do something POSITIVE and try to help us all come up with a strategy to get out of the situation we're in now?

And why don't you actually start a thread here pushing the party to make the kinds of changes that would actually ENCOURAGE the 2010 abstainers and those threatening abstention in 2012 to come back?

Is it asking too much to try to give people something to vote FOR, rather than just against?

It's not as if we have no alternative to "lesser-evil" politics, and it's not as if "lesser-evil" politics ever leads to progressive victories.

[LoZoccolo]

260. Because that would simply prolong the problem.

I'm trying to promote effectiveness, not satisfy people's immediate emotional needs. I'm trying to get people to think about whether or not the things that they are doing will get them what they want. To demonstrate that, I am citing a historical example, which I feel is more compelling than making an assertion without one.

[Ken Burch]

262. Coming up with a positive strategy for the next election would PROLONG the problem?

And I'm talking about winning, not "people's immediate emotional needs".

You're making no sense at all.

Face it, bashing doesn't work.

Changing the party WOULD work.

[Ken Burch]

264. You see, the weird thing is, I AGREE with you that people shouldn't have abstained this time

And shouldn't do that in 2012.

We disagree on how to change that for the 2012.

You think you can shame them into giving in(which is impossible).

I KNOW that the answer lies in listening to what MADE them abstain and work like hell to change it.

There's no reason to assume that the party HAS to stay just as it is now when we get to 2012.

It can go back to the grassroots approach of 2008(you know, the last campaign that WORKED)

It can work to make people believe that their vote matters.

That's what we and this party HAVE to do.

Bashing people can't lead us to victory.

Nor can dredging up shit from ten years ago.

[LynneSin]

254. Almost as good as one of your pro-Oasis threads in the lounge

:pals:

[LoZoccolo]

261. Thank you!

Sometimes when my threads get zero recommends or less, I feel a little like Noel Gallagher in Toronto.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CX5JBsKih0c

I thank you and the others who step into Liam's shoes, ready to defend me when I've been ambushed like so.

:pals:

[apocalypsehow]

255. Kick, Rec. n/t.

[Lisa0825]

268. I was too late to rec this.

This place has become unhinged.

[Steely_Dan]

270. You Just Don't Get It

It has little to do with "how much" he has accomplished....it is the direction he is taking the country.

-P

[babsbunny]

271. I will not vote for him because he is Bush all over again

Pretty tricky Obama.

[Bunny]

275. These exquisitely nuanced, well-reasoned, and superbly articulated OPs

are the main reason I keep returning to DU.

[beforeyoureyes]

276. People are not going to vote for Obama because...

Of the expansion of the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan....

Illegal spying

Torture

Rendition

Refusal to uphold his constitutional duty and protect the country against ALL enemies foreign and DOMESTIC, by failure to investigate and prosecute Bush/Cheney war crimes

Sell out deals to big pharm and health insurance companies

the repeal of the 30 year mortatorium on off shore oil drilling

Appointing criminals who created the banking crisis to cabinet level positions within the administration

Selling out women's reproductive rights and signing an executive order to protect the discriminatory Hyde amendment which bans low income women from using their medicaid for abortion services

The abject failure on leading the BP oil spill crisis

And, about a zillion other logical and objective reasons that have NOTHING to do with wanting the impossible or wanting a pony. People wanted him to TRY. To fight...To lead..And, above all, to STOP and not EXPAND Bush policies.

People who aren't represented by this President are getting mighty tired of being accused of whining.

[derby378]

280. +1,000

Obama may be the best Republican President we've seen since Eisenhower, but the problem is that the American people wanted a Democratic President.

[Lydia Leftcoast]

277. We wanted him to START filling in the hole

Instead he let the Republicans keep digging.