Big Ed: If Obama goes down this road of compromise he's DONE!!! in 2012

[bigdarryl]

I agree 110%

[bushisanidiot]

1. Ed is an IDIOT. He needs to support the president instead of railling against

him like he's done all year. He's part of the reason why we lost. He should be pointing out all the GOOD stuff the President and the democrats have accomplished instead of bashing him along with Fox "news"!!!!

[krawhitham]

4. I agree 110%

[monmouth]

12. So do I. n/t

[flpoljunkie]

47. Ed's always in high dudgeon. It makes listening to him rail tiresome.

[young but wise]

6. Exactly.

Why should the average voter support a President when his own base say he suck, and haven't accomplished anything.

[jaxx]

9. Because if they don't we get election results like yesterday.

We have got to stick together. If his own base can find a way to support him, it would be helpful.

[Exilednight]

60. If he could find a way to support his base, it would be helpful. n/t

[SusanaMontana41]

86. Thank you. n/t

[laughingliberal]

77. What's that old saying? Something about backs and scratching? nt

[dflprincess]

63. Why should the average voter support a president who is willing

to sell them out to insurance companies and pharma?

[Bullet1987]

7. This is a seriously flawed argument...the White House did everything they could

to blow off Progressives...and were shocked when they realized they didn't want to vote for their lame asses.

[JoePhilly]

33. Wrong ...

Some "progressives" lost site of the forest for the trees.

This country is DEEPLY divided. If you don't see that, you are BLIND.

Some "progressives" have the attention span of the average fruit fly.

The GOP spent the last 30 years trying to over turn Roe V Wade ... did they give up, hell no.

We don't get a public option in 18 months, and we retreat to the fainting couch.

There is a reason the right calls us wimps, and this is it.

[Doremus]

55. It's not the fact that we didn't get what we wanted.

"We don't get a public option in 18 months, and we retreat to the fainting couch."

It isn't that we didn't get what we wanted. It's that those negotiating on our behalf removed certain items from the table before negotiations even began, not only with health care reform but with many other important issues. Why???

Yes, the many "whys" of this so-called Democratic presidency.... not the least of which pertains to the man who infamously uttered "Social Security is like a milk cow with 310 million tits" and what in sam hill a Democratic president is thinking when appointing said repuke to co-chair of said commission. Why indeed.

[laughingliberal]

80. All of the above and

why was Romer's proposal for a $1.2 trillion stimulus never presented?

[Leopolds Ghost]

66. BS. The "public option" was smokescreen from the start -- and anyone who thinks otherwise is a fool.

[jgraz]

81. One problem: progressives actually DID turn out for Democrats in this election

It was the swing vote, the youth vote and the casual independents who stayed home.

Otherwise, i agree with your sentiment. But, in the end, the Left came through with their money, time and votes. It just wasn't enough to counteract the failed political strategy of this White House.

[treestar]

17. So true. When we don't support our own candidate, how do we

expect to gain votes from others?

None of the pundits are on our side. It's obvious trashing the politicians is better for their ratings.

[KoKo]

52. Why is Ed Schultz compelled to "support the President?"

You are saying he doesn't have any right to criticize or offer an opinion? Ed has close ties to American Unions. Shouldn't they and He have a voice or an opinion?

Where do you get these "Lock Step/Doctrinaire Ideas" when you live in a supposed Democracy?

STFU is what you say to Ed. I'd think you'd reserve that for Limbaugh and MSM's Crowing Chorus of Lies against Obama and not Ed Schultz.

[Name removed]

65. Deleted message

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

[Leopolds Ghost]

67. Why should Ed support a President whose team lost the ENTIRE UPPER MIDWEST where Ed lives?

Minus only Western Minnesota where Ed lives, IIRC...

Ed spent a long time campaigning for those candidates IIRC.

[Name removed]

2. Deleted message

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

[Recursion]

3. Just like Clinton was roundly defeated in 96 after going to the right... NT

[Meshuga]

23. Let's be fair

Clinton didn't have to deal with the crisis that we have now. In other words, Clinton in 1996 is apples and Obama in 2012 is oranges.

[Recursion]

26. I'll definitely grant that

In a way he could afford to run to the right because we were still living off of the peace dividend from the end of the cold war.

[Leopolds Ghost]

73. And what did the public get out of that? A permanent political swing to the right.

Is Clinton winning in 96 more important than that?

[Recursion]

88. Certainly it was better than where Dole would have taken us

So, yes, it was very important.

[socialshockwave]

5. If Obama compromises,

then it will show the base that he does not want to represent their interests. To me, Obama's already compromised too much on the health care bill.

Ed's right. if he compromises with Boner, it will show the country he does not want to try to push his own agenda, and is instead a tool of the Republicrats. He needs to stand up, stand Left, and prepare to buy a crap-load of black ink pens.

[speppin]

30. Obama signaled he was ready to compromise in his news

conference today. We are goners!!

[suzie]

45. It'll show African Americans that he does not represent their interests? Really?

[Leopolds Ghost]

72. Obama's "people" do not regard African-Americans as his base. Come to DC sometime.

Mayor Fenty and his Schools Reform advocate got sacked by the Black base who came out in force against the "we support progressives, not New Deal blacks and the poor" rhetoric of DC's white majority City Council, who represent the wealthy interests. Expect Obama to offer Fenty and Rhee high-level jobs in the Administration.

[suzie]

92. I don't regard African Americans as Obama's base either. I do regard them as

the base of the Democratic Party, who have loyally supported white Democratic candidates in election after election.

[book_worm]

8. I'm not sure that moving to the left will bring independents back

and they are the reason for the massive losses, but on the other hand Obama can't just hand things over to the Republicans. He has to draw the line many times and also use the veto pen.

[niceypoo]

11. Alienate your base at your own peril

The election was a direct reflection of the administrations cowardice in the face of republicans.

[Meshuga]

22. I agree,

And You win elections in the US (given our system) by energizing your base. The Republicans got that to an art. We try to compromise with the other side and get burned. The secret to winning is getting the people who will likely agree with your policies to vote and not to make them think that you are blending with the other side.

[JoePhilly]

34. Why would any politician court a group who won't support them ...

unless the get everything now??

The right wing hasn't over turned Roe V Wade ... are they staying home? Apparently not.

[suzie]

46. Obama alienated African Americans? Really?

[Name removed]

87. Deleted message

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

[niceypoo]

10. I agree completely

Compromise everything to the sociopaths for zero return. Throw the whole left under the bus while lurching rightward. WTF were you thinking?

[FrenchieCat]

13. I think we fucking suck at political analysis.......

I think progressives know what they want,
but have no clue how to get there politically....
we only opine on shit that doesn't make sense,
like attacking the President daily,
and then blaming him for a Republican congress in 2010.

We truly suck.

[bvar22]

15. Speak for yourself.

Blaming the voters provides NO solution.
Examining HOW and WHY the Party Leadership FAILED to motivate the voters can lead to a solution.

Yesterday was the direct results of a lack of leadership.

[treestar]

19. How illogical

"blaming" the voters? The voters are the ones who pick their representatives. By voting. Are you saying they can't control themselves in the face of a good message?

[bvar22]

21. The job of LEADERSHIP is to motivate the troops.

Hence, the results yesterday is a failure of LEADERSHIP.

If LEADERSHIP has the insight and fortitude to assess WHERE and HOW they failed,
they can make corrections.
Simply blaming the voters does NOT provide ANY avenue for correction.

You can NOT get any more logical, sensible, pragmatic, or grown-up than that.


"Doing the same thing over and over expecting different results is the definition of insanity."

[laugle]

44. Your analysis

is correct and constructive!

[Peacetrain]

27. Amen and amen

[Top Cat]

59. I agree... Sometimes I feel like we on DU are the Presidents worst enemy

(some of us) nothing he does is good enough.

[EndElectoral]

14. Obama has done nothing but compromise. I think Ed is saying what did it get you?

[eleny]

18. That's how I interpreted it, too

[CTLawGuy]

20. you are required to compromise in order to govern

that is how our government was designed to work.

the alternative is to accomplish nothing, ever.

[KoKo]

24. George Bush II didn't compromise. But, he didn't trash his own party

to achieve what he did. He just trashed Democrats.
:shrug:

[CTLawGuy]

28. not true

he accepted temporary tax cuts as opposed to permanent tax cuts, for example. It helped him that 9/11 happened and that a lot of dems were blue dogs.

conservatives work with a larger base than liberals do.

[KoKo]

48. Not True...but convienient for you to say Bush Compromised

when he was FORCED TO... but that there were few times when Dems forced him with SPINE!

[CTLawGuy]

89. and obama

WASN'T forced to?????? do you know that these bills passed with almost no margin for error?

[frylock]

25. it's not compromise when one side gives in time and again

[cascadiance]

39. Yup, there's a difference between REAL compromise and acquiescence

... which is the only way the Republicans would vote with Democrats... This should have been obvious after the first month or so he was in office, but Rahm certainly wasn't going to allow a different strategy at this point.

[KoKo]

49. There's a Bigger Picture....Try to do the Right Thing for American People

and Neither Bush nor our Dems at that time were engaged with that. After all ...most of our Dems are funded by Corporatists, also. They depend on that money because most of America doesn't have enought money to fund their ads in the MSM that they need to win.

[Leopolds Ghost]

76. Too many people don't know what compromise means. They've never lived in a free society

Where people are allowed to make transactions of that sort.

People who grew up after Reagan -- the millenial generation -- are statistically highly authoritarian as a group and believe in saying stuff like "if you don't think like everyone else then you get what's coming to you." That sort of "grey flannel suit" thinking is what allows them to conform and adapt to any amount of Fascism, just like the Germans and Japanese did.

They assume compromise means "make concessions to prove that you are reasonable and responsible, thereby distinguishing yourself by implication from the untouchable left, as an acceptable negotiating partner."

[fifthoffive]

37. Absolutely.

Obama governed from the center, and the center abandoned him for the right. The left of the Democratic Party came out and voted for the Democrats. It's not the fault of the Democratic left that the mushy center wass swayed by the repetitive BS slogans dished out by Republicans and hyped by the MSM.

[CTLawGuy]

16. i am sick of these cable news people

why don't you guys run for office if you have all the answers?

[KoKo]

53. Ed Shultz started off as a Progressive Radio Host. We had almost none

way back in the day. When "Air America" was on for awhile we finally had Progressive Media..then they Crashed and Ed Schulz, Tom Hartmann, Mike Mallowy and some local media were the only ones still standing.

Ed Schultz has been the fairest Host I've ever listened to. He's had opposing views from Senators and Congresspersons on his show and was having our Congresscritters on way back giving them a chance to talk about their policies and where they stood on issues. That was back in the good old days. But, with his show on GE/MSNBC he still gives time for opposing views and is more inclusive of all views on his show than anyone else on the CABLES.

You don't know what the hell you are talking about...because you've obviously never listened to his radio show more than once through the years and only get his MSNBC show when you surf through looking for CNN or Faux news.

[Leopolds Ghost]

68. These people only get cable. They don't read newspapers or remember AAR.

That's why anything not obsessed about on cable doesn't get discussed on the Internet (i.e. here). It's how the media control opinions of the masses.

[CTLawGuy]

90. he bashes the president to make money for his

corporate masters, or is GE not a corporation?

[CBR]

29. Big Ed is a complete fucking dumbass. nt

[speppin]

31. What an insightful comment to add to the discussion (NOT).

[Name removed]

32. Deleted message

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

[speppin]

41. Name calling never adds to a good discussion. Simple as that.

[CBR]

43. When it is appropriate, it is appropriate. He is acting like a

fucking dumbass.

[KoKo]

50. Go over to Faux or listen to Limbaugh or his Clones then if you don't like Ed Schultz!

Instead you post here and whine about liberal voices? You do realize you are on a Democratic Site, don't you... OOps... I guess not.

[KoKo]

54. Someone once told me that "Trolling" is very effective and increases the wealth of the Troll

in ways we could never imagine.

Something to think about here as we read this thread.

[LeftyAndProud60]

35. Anyone else notice O'donnell was mocking Ed to his face and Ed seemed not to know it?

Ed was one of the biggest voices calling for Lincoln to be challenged by a progressive.

[ProSense]

36. Is Ed's comment

based on the President's press conference?

[laughingliberal]

69. LBL/DF. nt

[Phx_Dem]

38. FUCK OFF Big Ed. Don't start throwing out threats, as if you control anything.

The constant progressive whining is what helped to create the impression that the Democrats were a bunch of weak losers so go fuck yourself.

[Leopolds Ghost]

70. Leave the party if you don't like progressives. Or better yet,

Real liberals (not "progressives" in the sense of yuppie single-issue liberals) should have their own party either way.

And if that doesn't work because "We're a two party system" then you're really just saying America is not a democracy and its people are hostile to democracy.

[joeprogressive]

40. Ed is right. Obama has to hit hard with a progressive agenda.

n/t

[Drunken Irishman]

42. Yes! Good work, Ed!

Is he dumb? Or does he not get it?

We don't control the House anymore. Republicans do. Unless he wants Pres. Obama to do ABSOLUTELY NOTHING, there will have to be some compromise. It's the only way anything will get done in Washington. Republicans are BANKING on Obama not doing anything because it will set up an easy narrative in the 2012 campaign.

Where does Ed expect Obama to get the votes to pass progressive agendas?

:eyes:

[Bennyboy]

51. I agree. he should have never even tried...

They are the obstructionists.

[vaberella]

56. I think you might be done for today. Because it's utter nonsense. n/t

[DimplesinMI]

57. What exactly is the first or last piece of Legislation Ed Schultz's has Drafted

NONE...NANA...ZERO. Until that point, all he is doing is the following:

Calling the game plays from the sideline but, will not get off his backside to stand up and COACH the darn team....

I stand by Ed on the unemployment issue and extending it but, heck the PRESIDENT TODAY stated the same darn thing. In fact, President Obama said a lot of things if Ed took the time to actually listen (instead of getting ratings for his show and stirring up BS)

http://www.reachoutjobsearch.com/2010/11/after-election-2010-president-obama-has.html

Too many Chiefs and not enough Indians IHMO :think:

[zulchzulu]

58. Big Ed is a civics-challenged jock who should give it up n/t

[Name removed]

75. Deleted message

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

[firedupdem]

61. I hope Ed's ass is done as well. Sick of his big fat mouth. n/t

[Name removed]

62. Deleted message

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

[Hekate]

79. False equivalency to say Obama "bashed" both sides equally. I never heard him "apologize" for his...

... his progressive initiatives. He was justifiably proud when they finally passed -- had photo ops for the signings and everything.

Up to you to explain why you think he "fellated" the Repubs.

Kind of an interesting subject line you use. Welcome to DU.

>>> it wasn't so much him taking things off the table, it was the way obama seemed to be apologizing for every progressiving initiating. Its like he was following a template in which you bashed republicans and then bash progressives so as to maintain the illusion of centrism....
while in theory this may work, the fact they didn't realize early on that no matter how much he fellated republicans they would still paint him as a marxist, socialist, kenyan and illegitimate as president.... <<<<

[donheld]

64. Ed MUST Support the president who refuses to support

anybody but the Blue Dogs and Republicans. That's precious.

[laughingliberal]

71. K&R for standing for the guys who shower after work.

The suits and their enablers can bite me.

[Leopolds Ghost]

74. Speaking of which, Is Ed still on the radio since AAR shut down? DC no longer has progressive talk

Of any sort.

[laughingliberal]

78. Yes, he is. :)

[Name removed]

82. Deleted message

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

[Raine]

83. Totally agree with Ed. nt

:thumbsup:

[Greyhound]

84. I think his 2012 chances will be determined by who the republiks put up.

They might dig up some indicted airhead that is so obviously insane that he gets another "better than the alternative term".

[craigmatic]

85. Actually if he compromises he'll do fine in 2012 but the dems in the house will suffer.

[niceypoo]

93. He will win in 2012

But your right, if he keeps capitulating to the right the senate will be eviscerated.

[denimgirly]

91. Obama is still my choice for 2012 despite being a disaster

I just cant accept Hilary as a potential choice...the more i read the more she would be worse. Yes she would be stronger but she reads more like a republican...selling out will be a open strategy.

So unless real progressives like Feingold, Grayson etc is an option i will hold my nose and say Obama is my choice.

[DemocraticPilgrim]

94. He's far from done and we have to start championing him instead of riding our own defeat it's not..

the smartest move. It's NOT SPORT it's a system that demands compromise whether we like it or not. Treating it like sport has been the bigget downfall of the whole system. We take a licking and keep ticking, but that doesn't happen by demoralizng the President. We have to fight the issue battles but getting personal what does that do???