General Discussion
Related: Editorials & Other Articles, Issue Forums, Alliance Forums, Region ForumsThis is not a game, people
Look, I know a lot of you are not happy with Obama. Somehow, you expected him to overcome the filibuster rules of the Senate, the rulings of the Supreme Court and the other headwinds pushing against every damned thing he has tried to do. You were disappointed. I get that.
But if any of you think sitting out the election -- or worse, voting GOP -- will make things better for the causes you care about, think again. If the Republicans score an electoral victory in 2012 that matches or exceeds their results in 2010, it could be over for us. We're dealing with radicals willing to tear the country apart to achieve their goals. These are not the Republicans of 20 years ago. This is not the Reagan revolution. These are the people Reagan would have been afraid of -- and Reagan was plenty bad enough.
If Newt Gingrich becomes president and has a Republican-controlled House and Senate to work with, America as we used to know it will be gone and won't come back any time soon. And, oh yes, the chances of going to war with Iran would then rise to 100%.
That's why I am voting for Obama next year and think ALL of you -- and your friends and families -- should do the same.
Thank you for reading.
= new reply since forum marked as read
Highlight:
NoneDon't highlight anything
5 newestHighlight 5 most recent replies
HockeyMom
(14,337 posts)than ANY of the Republican alternatives. His problem right now is that he has a very arrogant, obstinate HOUSE. This is why talking back Congress, especially from the extremist Tea Party, is SO important. A liberal, Dem President with a right wing Congress is a STALMATE, as we have seen.
demtenjeep
(31,997 posts)Obama will win, but we need to get the crazies out of the house!
coalition_unwilling
(14,180 posts)of Newt, Willard or Bachmann.
tawadi
(2,110 posts)I agree with you.
teddy51
(3,491 posts)push comes to shove they will vote for Obama. Lets face it, it would be ludicrous to think that one of those evil fools on the right would do a better job.
MH1
(19,042 posts)Some people need to spread the word, either by old fashioned canvassing OR via their keyboards, that Obama is worthy of being re-elected. That's why some of us 'morally bankrupt and contemptible' Obama supporters - oops, gosh I meant 'defenders' - get frustrated with the lies and bullshit that sometimes get posted. Or the idea that it's sufficient to carp and moan about how 'awful' Obama allegedly is, 'but I'm gonna vote for him in November and that's good enough'.
teddy51
(3,491 posts)i_sometimes
(201 posts)the machine behind him here in Oregon like he did in 08, most progressives have moved on to local issues, keeping the money for local candidates. Obama will win without the machine of course, he has all the support he needs.
Hopefully.
WheelWalker
(9,379 posts)that there is a progressive or any other "machine" at work in Oregon politics. Have I been missing something? Who runs the machine?
i_sometimes
(201 posts)The grassroots volunteers, the groundpounders and door knockers, the supporters who post at our newspaper sites, the stickers, the rallies.
Clear enough?
I and many others have moved on to local issues, feeling its a more productive use of our rather limited resources.
Among my friends, we feel that Obama is a lock anyway so no point in feeding the national machine, keep our money and time right here in Oregon.
ymmv
GoCubsGo
(34,639 posts)They are the bulk of the problem, not the President. I understand why some are ticked off at President Obama. I'm not always thrilled with him, either. But, I'm utterly disgusted with the bulk of Congress, including many of the Democrats. Time to clean house, and that can't be done with usually sensible people sitting out the election.
gateley
(62,683 posts)It pisses me the fuck off -- this is about more than just ME being able to pat myself on the back and bask in self-righteousness.
We need every vote, and even those who swear they won't vote for Obama, need to keep him in the WH, too.
If the Republicans take hold, to paraphrase Ross Perot, that giant sucking sound we hear will be our rights, jobs, whatever standard of living we have left, going down the tubes.
teddy51
(3,491 posts)told VP Gore on Larry King live that they would. Bush/Cheney finished the job with 8 years of total bullshit. We are in deep shit in this country, and we sure as hell do not need a piece of legislation as threatening as the NDAA to end our year, and maybe our country.
gateley
(62,683 posts)in the top spot there would be no attempt to develop new industries here to replace them.
I'm just stunned that it got so much support. I don't understand it. Don't these people know this affects THEIR rights, too?
Romulox
(25,960 posts)
hfojvt
(37,573 posts)it was a Clinton policy. Before that it was a Bush policy opposed by Congressional Democrats.
After Clinton, in typical Clinton fashion, out-republicanned the Republicans, a majority of Democrats STILL voted against it in the House by 102 in favor and 156 against.
A huge majority of Republicans in the House voted for it 132 For and 43 against. http://clerk.house.gov/evs/1993/roll575.xml
It was a Republican policy.
We just happend to have a Repblican President pretending to be a Democrat.
Which is why I wanted so badly to defeat his wife in the 2008 primary. Because I thought Obama would be less of a traitor to Democratic principles.
Wait, I think I hear the theme song to CSI: Miami.
gtar100
(4,192 posts)
bvar22
(39,909 posts)greiner3
(5,214 posts)Is like Rand Paul; he may have a FEW ideas that would fit into a Progressive's list of Xmas stockings. However, just like Rand Paul, Ross
Perot's overall memes, mores and sociopathic tendencies would have rendered the US a mess just as, if not more, than a Newt, or
Michelle, or Rand, or Palin, etc... presidency.
Romulox
(25,960 posts)he can't truly shed the demons of his past. 
bvar22
(39,909 posts)...RAN on a Platform of Free Trade despite those many voices
who warned them and America of the consequences.
You MUST admit that Ross Perot NAILED IT! with regards to deregulating Trade,
even to the amount that American Wages for the Working Class would drop to about $6.00/hr
BEFORE those jobs started returning to America.
We are NOW wittnessing that prediction COME TRUE,
and the Democratic Party is out heralding THAT loss of Wages for the Working Class as these jobs
are beginning to trickle back here at MUCH reduced wages.
I AM a Working Class American!
I do NOT see this as a VICTORY,
and WILL NOT vote for More of the SAME!
You will know them by their WORKS,
not by their excuses.
[font size=5 color=green][center]Solidarity99![/font][font size=2 color=green]
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------[/center]
gateley
(62,683 posts)Romulox
(25,960 posts)and he didn't just sign the thing, he and Al Gore campaigned HARD for it.
Next, Gore, point-man for NAFTA, is the nominee in 2000, and we're still supposed to act as if NAFTA is an aberration? Gore, of course, won't even mention the word NAFTA in public, these days. He's "evolved". 
Finally, the moment President Obama enters office, he makes "free trade" with Korea one of his top "jobs" ( ) priorities.
And the free trade crap is just an aberration? No.
gateley
(62,683 posts)at the helm much more damage would have been done.
That's one of the reasons why I'm not a huge fan of Clinton.
bvar22
(39,909 posts)esoecially to countries with HUGE Human & Labor Rights problems?
Free Trade is GREAT
....for the 1%,
for those of us who have to Work for a Living, not so much.
You will know them by their WORKS,
not by their excuses.
[font size=5 color=green][center]Solidarity99![/font][font size=2 color=green]
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------[/center]
gateley
(62,683 posts)like that. Why would you ask that?
bvar22
(39,909 posts)...where you stated
"That's one of the reasons why I'm not a huge fan of Clinton."
My question follows logically:
Then, "Are you a fan of President Obama's expansion of Free Trade Treaties,"
Being consistent on the Issues, especially those affecting the Working Class, I strongly OPPOSED
both Bill Clinton and President Obama on these treaties.
Of course, to some here,
that just makes me a "Hater" and a "Whiner" and a Complainer"
who "didn't get his pony",
and who didn't "Pay Attention" during the campaign.
gateley
(62,683 posts)How about if I take out the word "huge" -- would that make it better?
JohnnyRingo
(20,426 posts)It was one of his last official acts of his presidency, and it was waiting on Clinton's desk while he and Hillary were still unpacking the dishes. A hostile GOP congress was pointing at it and advising that he get busy scribbling his name apon it.
After it passed Congress, Clinton made many modifications that protected American workers (like the Teamsters) before signing it and caused Republicans to state that "Clinton took the teeth out of a great law".
The pictures are proudly displayed on the GHW Bush presidential website, and I don't think the Bush family would appreciate you stealing their thunder and giving credit to democrats.
This was the initialing ceremony on Oct 7th of 1992 with Canadian PM Brian Mulroney and Mexican president Carlos Salinas de Gortari:
Here Bush signs the bill before handing it down to Congress for a floor vote:
How quickly we forget that a little Texan third party candidate attended a 1992 debate and warned that "NAFTA would cause a great sucking sound" as jobs flowed South. He referred his comment to George Bush.
Romulox
(25,960 posts)JohnnyRingo
(20,426 posts)They came straight from the presidential library website of GHW Bush. He seems quite proud of his accomplishments, and your attempt to rob him and his son of their efforts is shameless.
Do you still think NAFTA was a democratic idea? That's completely unfounded, and I'd like to know where you found information that Democrats initiated it before Clinton even took the oath. You must think it was Clinton's idea, but as you can see that is totally incorrect:
http://www.mackinac.org/2582
As initially conceived and negotiated, NAFTA included no provisions for labor rights. In 1991, President George Bush told the United States Congress:
Mexico's labor standards are comparable to those in the United States, Europe and other industrialized countries. The Mexican Constitution of 1917, as implemented through various pieces of legislation, provides a comprehensive set of rights and standards for workers in all sectors of Mexico. What have been lacking are budgetary resources to permit effective enforcement of the constitution and legislative measures
Continued here:
http://www.hrw.org/reports/2001/nafta/nafta0401-04.htm
Copyright Lubbock Avalanche-Journal 1996
Texas Gov GW Bush NAFTA position blasted by Teamsters
FORT WORTH (AP) - The Teamsters Union has set its sights on Gov. George W. Bush over his support for lifting a moratorium on Mexican freight trucks in Texas and other southwestern states.
At issue is a provision in the North American Free Trade Agreement that allows Mexican trucks to haul goods anywhere in Texas, Arizona, New Mexico and California.
Under NAFTA, the trucks were to be allowed into the region in December 1995 and anywhere in the United States after 2000.
But implementation was delayed a year ago by the Transportation Department amid concerns that the trucks didn't meet safety and weight requirements.
Transportation Department spokesman Bill Schulz said last week that the United States and Mexico are attempting to reach an agreement on the safety issues, but he was unsure when the moratorium might be lifted.
Nonetheless, the Teamsters have renewed their attack on Bush, saying his support for the provision will destroy Texas jobs and endanger highway safety.
"The reason we're targeting George Bush on this is because he is on record as supporting NAFTA,'' Teamsters spokesman Rand Wilson told the Fort Worth Star-Telegram. "And we believe allowing trucks from Mexico in the United States would be a threat to highway safety.''
In half-page advertisements appearing in some Texas newspapers this month, the truckers' union says Mexico's freight trucks are overweight, underinsured and driven by underpaid truckers. The ad includes a photograph of a highway accident with the message "Don't let George W. Bush destroy highway safety and good Texas jobs.''
Link:
http://www.lubbockonline.com/news/120196/bush.htm
April 17 2001
Bush Wants to Expand NAFTA:
In the guise of free trade with Latin and South America, President Bush is preparing to ship more American jobs south of the border in the near future.
Bush is traveling to Quebec this week to promote a plan to create a Western Hemisphere free-trade zone, as well as scheduling meetings earlier with Chile's president, Ricardo Lagos, and with Argentina President Fernando De la Rua on the same subject.
Such a zone would expand NAFTA to include Latin and South America. If Bush has his way, American workers, already reeling from jobs lost to NAFTA, will see more factories close their doors and move south for cheaper labor and to escape the U.S.'s tougher labor laws.
"American workers don't mind competing when the competition is fair," President Ed Hill said, "But the competition must meet the basic standards of worker rights, including freedom of association and the right to bargain."
Romulox
(25,960 posts)Before the negotiations were finalized, Bill Clinton came into office in the U.S. and Kim Campbell in Canada, and before the agreement became law, Jean Chrétien had taken office in Canada.
<snip>
In the U.S., Bush, who had worked to "fast track" the signing prior to the end of his term, ran out of time and had to pass the required ratification and signing into law to incoming president Bill Clinton. Prior to sending it to the United States Senate, Clinton introduced clauses to protect American workers and allay the concerns of many House members. It also required U.S. partners to adhere to environmental practices and regulations similar to its own. With much consideration and emotional discussion, the House of Representatives approved NAFTA on November 17, 1993, by a vote of 234 to 200. The agreement's supporters included 132 Republicans and 102 Democrats. NAFTA passed the Senate 61-38. Senate supporters were 34 Republicans and 27 Democrats. Clinton signed it into law on December 8, 1993; it went into effect on January 1, 1994.[1][2] Clinton while signing the NAFTA bill stated: "...NAFTA means jobs. American jobs, and good-paying American jobs. If I didn't believe that, I wouldn't support this agreement."
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/North_American_Free_Trade_Agreement#Negotiation_and_U.S._ratification[3]
JohnnyRingo
(20,426 posts)"NAFTA was a *DEMOCRATIC* policy, gateley. nt"
Does that sound familiar?
It's an untrue statement, and you've received enough information to discount it, but you keep revising your comments to make a nuanced argument. Each time you make another incorrect statement that had to be revised.
Here is the link to the Bush library photo gallery showing Bush making his dreams come true:
Third row down, 5th and 6th pictures:
http://bushlibrary.tamu.edu/research/gallery.php?id=40
Now stop trying to paint NAFTA as what you call a "*DEMOCRATIC* policy".
bvar22
(39,909 posts)Bill Clinton later ushered in Most Favored Trade Status for Slave Labor Communist China!
WalMart and the 1% THANK Bill Clinton and the DLC Centrist Democrats for this vast influx of Working Class Wealth to their pockets!
My but the little revisionists are busy here today.
You will know them by their WORKS,
not by their excuses.
[font size=5 color=green][center]Solidarity99![/font][font size=2 color=green]
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------[/center]
IthinkThereforeIAM
(3,272 posts)... how many times does "fasttrack legislation", have to be explained? In 1992, Poppy Bush got NAFTA on the fasttrack, meaning it becomes law in 6 months no matter who is president. David Rockefeller was our ad hoc ambassador to Mexico for 4 years or more getting the Mexicans to go with such an agreement. Why? Because Mexico was risking defaulting on the billion dollar loans that Wall Street banks made to them in the previous years. NAFTA was so Mexico could, "get some cash flow and at least pay interest on their loans". The only areas left for Clinton and Gore to negotiate were environmental ones, ie... requiring that the US plants moving to Mexico at least adhere to a minimum of environmental protections.
Saying that NAFTA is all Clinton's fault is way to right wing propaganda to me. Sorry, but I have followed this since the 1980's and every step of the way was put in place by the GOP and Wall Street (see David Rockefeller).
dgibby
(9,474 posts)I never could understand how Clinton could let this atrocity happen. NOW it makes perfect sense.
teddy51
(3,491 posts)Romulox
(25,960 posts) Romulox
(25,960 posts)"Saying that NAFTA is all Clinton's fault is way to right wing propaganda to me."
His signature is right there, at the bottom. What actually happened matters. 
IthinkThereforeIAM
(3,272 posts)... working on NAFTA before anyone out of Arkansas had even heard of Bill Clinton, makes it all Clinton's fault? Sorry, I was alive and cognizant of events that went on concerning NAFTA, ie... I subscribed to US News and World Report and Time magazine, you know, before we had such great places as DU to hip ourselves to the scene... And David Rockefeller/Citibank and his NAFTA ad hoc ambassadorship was in nearly every issue from at least 1988 and on. Google is your friend.
Romulox
(25,960 posts)bvar22
(39,909 posts)and STILL people put their heads in the sand and say,
"Nope. It was the Republicans."
We are in REAL trouble.
Here is another good video:
intersectionality
(106 posts)I really don't know much about legislative branch politics and am looking to learn. You say, "In 1992, Poppy Bush got NAFTA on the fasttrack, meaning it becomes law in 6 months no matter who is president." Can you explain to me why Clinton didn't have to sign the bill before December 1993, or what it wasn't debated in the house and the senate within the 6 month time frame? I know lots of procedural matters have things that delay them, so I am curious what this one might have been.
siligut
(12,272 posts)Cutting off your nose to spite your face, it's crazy.
Romulox
(25,960 posts)would you have argued THAT year?
"Sure, NAFTA will devastate the Rust Belt. But the Republicans would come for the Atlantic coast, too!"
gateley
(62,683 posts)
Jesus, I was just using the phrase - I wasn't referencing NAFTA. So you can rescind your irony alert.
Romulox
(25,960 posts)or historical awareness.
I gave you the benefit of the doubt.
" I wasn't referencing NAFTA."
Um, you don't get to excise your references from their historical context, especially when your choice is so unintentionally bad. History matters, and OH BOY does that phrase have a history with respect to the "vote Democrat or else!" meme.
gateley
(62,683 posts)And, so what?
Romulox
(25,960 posts)gateley
(62,683 posts)who feel qualified to judge others and issue condemnations.
That would be you.
Romulox
(25,960 posts)Or, learn to admit an embarrassing mistake, and move on.
gateley
(62,683 posts)to anything, your Honor.
When I'm wrong, I ALWAYS admit it and apologize if warranted. This isn't one of those times.
Why don't YOU just move on? (I'm eagerly awaiting the Return of Ignore.)
Romulox
(25,960 posts)gateley
(62,683 posts)So essentially I said no, I don't view it as a mistake, but you sure seem to be the judge and jury on this one.
You sure come across as pompous. Or is that my mistake?
Romulox
(25,960 posts)gateley
(62,683 posts)JohnnyRingo
(20,426 posts)Clinton wasn't president yet.
Romulox
(25,960 posts)Perot may have made the comment before Clinton became President, but the subject--NAFTA--remained the same.
Of course, Bill Clinton signed the bill into law, so it bears his signature.
JohnnyRingo
(20,426 posts)That may be a good start.
I don't know why you hate Bill Clinton so much you're willing to overlook the original authors of NAFTA and argue on their behalf. I don't think they're exactly ashamed of it.
Romulox
(25,960 posts)have easily read it on your own.
Romulox
(25,960 posts)sce56
(4,828 posts)I'm so sick and tired of having to choose the lesser of two evils! If some one like Sen. Bernie Sanders were to run I would support him since he is more of a progressive than most democrats now days especially Blue Dog DINO's.
Mister Ed
(6,791 posts)If there were nothing more than the makeup of the Supreme Court at stake, it would be of staggering importance. But, as you say, it's that, plus both houses of congress. Oh, and then there's the small matter of the Office of the Presidency.
The President of the United States is almost certainly the most powerful person on Earth. If anyone sees someone among the Republican candidates whom they think should be made the most powerful person on Earth, well, I'll listen while they make their case.
bvar22
(39,909 posts)Thats not the way the Opologists preach it.
According to them, Obama can't do anything without Joe Lieberman's approval and consent.
You will know them by their WORKS,
not by their excuses.
[font size=5 color=green][center]Solidarity99![/font][font size=2 color=green]
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------[/center]
Response to teddy51 (Reply #3)
Post removed
Luminous Animal
(27,310 posts)(Psst... didn't happen.)
Capn Sunshine
(14,378 posts)with so many people declaring "I'm going to stay home to teach the Democrats a lesson!" on here and many of us arguing against that approach, it was just a reflection of the voter suppression strategy long employed by Rove et al. Whats so insidious about these memes that appear like clockwork every election ("there's no difference between the parties! Why bother?" ) is that they are seized upon so readily by the internet community.
While parts of the left could be blamed for not turning out, NO ONE turns out in off year elections. If you organize a good turnout strategy, like the Tea Party did in an off year election, and couple it with the suppression techniques (sock puppets anyone?) employed in the webosphere you can effect a victory with a minimal percentage of the electorate.
bvar22
(39,909 posts)Please link to a single post where a legitimate DUer (1000 posts) has made the comment YOU put in quotes.
If you are going to post quotes at DU,
you had better be ready to supply links.
There ARE posts where DUers have said that they were going to stay home because they could NOT
in good conscience support BAD, Conservative, Pro-WAR, Anti-Equal Rights, Anti-Working Class policies,
but I can't recall a single one that claimed their decision was "to teach the Democrats a lesson."
If you post that link,
I will apologize.
If you can't find one,
you owe ME an apology.
You will know them by their WORKS,
not by their excuses.
[font size=5 color=green][center]Solidarity99![/font][font size=2 color=green]
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------[/center]
kenfrequed
(7,865 posts)If not for the activism of people like those on DU the great Blue Wave of 2006 wouldn't have occured. President Obama might have had a tougher time getting elected as well.
And Blaming the left for the Tea Party is absurd. Yes, voter enthusiasm on our side was down. Though I do have a secret for you, voter enthusiasm is always down on the off cycles and midterms frequently favor the party out of power.
Now, as to disappointment on the left and any turn out diminishment outside of that margin I think you ought to probably blame the Democrats that continually enabled Republican fillibusters and provided media cover. My first pick of these rat-f#*%s would be Evan Bayh who stabbed the party and the president in the back by forming the Senate Blue Dogs in December of 2008 after the president had won. They basically organized a group that wanted to be the deciders and sit atop the Senate to assure that nothing too progressive got done.
This had the effect of giving the Democrats in congress a lot less to run on and it completely wrecked havoc on unified messaging coming out of the White House.
Blaming leftist activists who vote is either political myopia or outright deception.
tfsoccer
(66 posts)kenfrequed
(7,865 posts)I appreciate that. Oddly I find that neither the hypercritics nor the cheerleaders usually comment when I bring up Evan Bayh.
Personally if it weren't for the blue dogs in the Senate it would have been easier to start running solidly progressive bills into congress and force the Republicans to vote against popular and populist legislation. The tea partiers theyn would have looked ridiculous as they would have been merely standing up for the establishment instead of looking vaugely (and clearly falsely) revolutionary.
no_hypocrisy
(54,140 posts)then consider this: Why do you think he was able to overcome OBL and bring an end to the Iraq occupation? Because the republicans in the House had no constitutional authority to interfere with Obama as far as military operations. He's the Commander In Chief. They only budget for the military. Do you think for a minute that defense manufacturers and military contractors wanted us to leave Iraq anytime soon? Nor do I. If repubicans had their way, Iraq not only wouldn't have ended but it would have incorporated Iran and Syria.
Boehner and Cantor couldn't stop Obama from resolving OBL and Iraq. Almost everything else, Obama's been blocked and sneered at by House and Senate republicans. It isn't him. It's them.
Mister Ed
(6,791 posts)I'd never thought of it before.
coalition_unwilling
(14,180 posts)administration was unable to negotiate a Status of Forces Agreemetn with the Iraqi government. As it is, Obama left Iraq no sooner than Bush proposed to leave. And, if what I have read is correct, Obama wished to stay in Iraq longer but was constrained to leave by the failure to reach a SOFA with the Iraqi government.
That said, please see my post #55 for why I will be voting for Obama, despite my disappointments with his first term.
bvar22
(39,909 posts)
was a status of forces agreement (SOFA) between Iraq and the United States. It established that U.S. combat forces would withdraw from Iraqi cities by June 30, 2009, and all U.S. forces will be completely out of Iraq by December 31, 2011"
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/U.S.%E2%80%93Iraq_Status_of_Forces_Agreement
The Obama Administration petitioned the Iraqi Parliament for an extension on this agreement, and the Iraqi Parliament refused.
THAT is HISTORY.
To credit President Obama with this withdrawal without also crediting the Bush Administration is dishonest.
You will know them by their WORKS,
not by their excuses.
[font size=5 color=green][center]Solidarity99![/font][font size=2 color=green]
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------[/center]
druidity33
(6,862 posts)to extend the Iraqi occupation. If the Iraqi government hadn't refused to extend immunity to American troops, we'd still be there.
treestar
(82,383 posts)Obama always said he was against Iraq.
This is really twisted stuff. Even when something good happens that is supposedly desirable, we get a back-off on giving the President any credit at all. Like repeal of DADT - a very similar reaction there. Which is very telling. If the PL accepted when we get the things we want, it would seem like more legitimate criticism when there is criticism. When there is nothing Obama can do right, it just seems like that criticism is coming from some motive-laden place.
JackRiddler
(24,979 posts)to extend the term of the US occupation in Iraq. SOFA had been negotiated (thanks to Iraqi pressure) prior to Obama's arrival. In the end, the administration fulfilled the terms of a treaty that preceded it, nothing more.
ZombieHorde
(29,047 posts)you want to avoid mischaracterizing their arguments.
"Somehow, you expected him to overcome the filibuster rules of the Senate, the rulings of the Supreme Court and the other headwinds pushing against every damned thing he has tried to do. You were disappointed. I get that."
You don't get it.
sabrina 1
(62,325 posts)It is this kind of wrong thinking that has driven so many people away from the party. It is insulting, it is false, it has been corrected a million times, and yet, it continues to be used. Why, I do not know. If the goal is to persuade people to support this president, there could not be a worse way to do it.
LuckyTheDog
(6,837 posts)But if you care about America, you will vote for him.
I have not mis-characterized anything. I laid out the actual, real-world headwinds that have kept Obama from doing everything the left would have wanted him to do.
LuckyTheDog
(6,837 posts)Miracles? Those were the factors Obama would have had to overcome in order to have met all of the sky-high expectations of some of his detractors. That is a fact.
JEB
(4,748 posts)Gitmo to be closed and a fading memory. I expected war and Wall Street criminals to be held accountable for their actions. I expected that the Bush tax cut would expire. I expected that telecom companies that illegally spied on American Citizens would be held accountable. I also have a long list of HOPES that have not been achieved. Still Obama is the best Republican in the race running to the right of Ike on many issues.
LuckyTheDog
(6,837 posts)... you expected Obama to be able to fight the headwinds better. I had lower expectations. Obama is no Republican. But he is no Eugene Debs, either.
he just doesn't have a pair of comfortable shoes. Yeah those headwinds are powerful...even among Republicans over 50% think the rich deserve to pay more in taxes.
wakemewhenitsover
(1,595 posts)...and had the Senate and the House.
Speaking out about disappointment with Obama is important for liberals, even if only to counter the shouts from the right. That is not the same as not voting for him. I will vote for Obama, even though I believe he is far from liberal. But will I volunteer my time again to help with the campaign because I feel inspired? No.
Meaningful oversight and regulation of the banking industry.
A jobs bill early on before we got into the divided repug/dem mess we are in now.
Health care legislation that doesnt have the ridiculous mandate in it.
on and on......
Doctor_J
(36,392 posts)But the best Repuke in the race, by far
ZombieHorde
(29,047 posts)I wasn't expecting much.
However, I was expecting him to use his mastery of public speaking more fiercely throughout his Presidency, as opposed to mostly around election time.
For example, I don't think he argued for the public option very well after his election, and I don't think he argued against mandates very well after his election either. I think President Obama could have rallied the public behind him and his campaign health-care plan if he tried harder. The Republicans may have still resisted just as much, but they would have turned many people off in the process.
I was expecting this administration to be more transparent than it has been.
I was expecting US troops to leave Iraq closer to his original, 18-month timeline. I was not expecting exactly 18 months, but double seems too far off to me.
His handling of the debt ceiling was embarrassing.
This new detention bill is very worrisome to me. The fact that no one can agree on what the bill actually says should be disturbing to everyone. Rules about indefinite detention should be extremely clear in my opinion.
myrna minx
(22,772 posts)myrna minx
(22,772 posts)work within the radical RW framing. NO republican made him do that. That was his own choice to limit the dialog to their worldview. No magic wand is required to frame your debate from a Democratic perspective.
Douglas Carpenter
(20,226 posts)66 dmhlt
(1,941 posts)LuckyTheDog
(6,837 posts)Old Codger
(4,205 posts)I am also a little disappointed with the result so far but I think he needs the chance to go again,this time with a dem controlled house and senate. That is the only way we can really truly judge the man.
IthinkThereforeIAM
(3,272 posts)... much improvement can be made towards the economy in the second term. People tend to forget that politics is compromise, and if you get 50% of what you originally asked for, consider yourself lucky. The GOP congress critters are scraping the bottom of the proverbial barrel in approval ratings (worse than Democratic party members) because Americans are finally getting past the distractions of UFC and Desperate Housewives et al... and remembering which side their bread is buttered on.
Also, when did Obama have a 60 vote - filibuster proof Democratic majority in the Senate to get the bills passed in the Democratic controlled House put upon his desk? This, "b-b-b-but he had a majority in both houses, why didn't anything get done?", gets tiresome.
Doctor_J
(36,392 posts)There is no way in hell his congressional majorities will be greater in 2013 than they were in 2009. So if that is a requisite for presiding like a Dem, you might as well give up now.
Old Codger
(4,205 posts)A hell of a lot more chance then than he has had for the last couple years, I think the rethugs are going to have their asses handed to them next year and mayb if enough people get behind the effort he will in fact have abetter chance, but if they stay home that won't happen, if they go out and vote it might....might happen is bettr than won't happen.
get the red out
(13,943 posts)Would be hell on Earth.
mike_c
(36,890 posts)...and I, for one, will neither vote for him nor support his candidacy in 2012. Luckily it sounds like one or two real progressives will be running against him.
Note, this is my description of my PERSONAL intent in 2012. I leave that decision to others as well, and do not make any attempt to influence anyone else's vote. I am not urging anyone to do anything, merely describing my own dissatisfaction with Obama.
11 Bravo
(24,271 posts)of families who have since either welcomed home a wounded loved one, or received a nice, flag-wrapped box; I'd like to say ... well, what I'd like to say would probably get me banned.
(And I won't even mention Roberts and Alito.)
mike_c
(36,890 posts)So how did that give us Bush, exactly?
Gore was my last straight out democratic party ticket vote in a national election. Truth is, I was ashamed that I didn't vote for Nader, even though I live in a completely safe state (California). I will never vote for the lesser evil again. Piss off if you don't like it.
on edit-- I just read your post again and note that I missed the part where you blamed me for the Iraq and Afghanistan wars. Piss off, doubly. Complicit democrats, like the ones YOU SUPPORT brought us those crimes against humanity.
Charlemagne
(576 posts)shitty thing for the poster to do. Blame you for the deaths and wars in Iraq and Afghansitan. Wow, dick move.
sabrina 1
(62,325 posts)No one else is responsible for that. Still, people keep covering for them when all five of them should have been removed fro the Court. But with people determined to ignore their crime and blame everyone but them, which I believe was the plan, it is no wonder they got away with it.
I suppose I could use your tactic and say that hundreds of others, like you, made it impossible to impeach those five traitors. But that would be childish.
russspeakeasy
(6,539 posts)Well said.
bobthedrummer
(26,083 posts)RECALL WALKER/KLEEFISCH!!!
MNBrewer
(8,462 posts)The congressional Democrats were falling over themselves to get behind Bush's war.
The Supreme Court gave us Bush.
Katherin Harris gave us Bush.
Electronic voting machines gave us Bush.
Race-based disfranchisement gave us Bush.
Republican operative blocking of recount efforts gave us Bush.
Democrats who voted for Bush gave us Bush.
Republicans who voted for Bush gave us Bush
Independents who voted for Bush gave us Bush.
Other than those pretty important variables, yep you're right on the money. Thanks for blaming the death of loved ones on someone who exercised their rights.
JackRiddler
(24,979 posts)LuckyTheDog
(6,837 posts)
Bolo Boffin
(23,872 posts)You can say that?
Unreal.
Zhade
(28,702 posts)Iraq remains occupied.
mike_c
(36,890 posts)Yeah. What a guy.
frazzled
(18,402 posts)He's accomplished more in his first 3 years than Clinton did in eight. I remember a president (who I still strongly supported) who really disappointed by pro-actively ending welfare payments to the poor in the country and repealing Glass-Steagal, etc. The rest (aside from his first budget deal, which was good), was mostly little nothingburger stuff like school uniform discussions. And I'm sure you recall when he hired Dick Morris on as his chief political advisor. Honestly, even with that I supported him (and defended him during the Lewinsky debacle). Clinton was lucky to be president during a time of relative calm internationally and domestically. And he was really brilliant, if extremely undisciplined. I appreciated his hard work and efforts to solve the I/P issue, even though it failed in the end.
My 86-year-old mother (who was a huge Hillary Clinton supporter in the primaries and had been a Bill Clinton idolizer) told me, a year or two after Obama was elected, that she believed he is the best and smartest president we've had in her memory. That's a pretty long memory and was a very big turnaround for her. I think there are more Democrats who feel this way than not.
djean111
(14,255 posts)This is really nausea-inducing, being asked to not only vote for him, but work for him. I would have thought that billion dollars he will get from the 1% and corporations will do nicely for him.
edited to add - yes, it is not a game, it is sheer theater. Starting with Rick Warren, continuing with the appointments of Geithner et. al., and on and on. Can't cheer-lead about that, sorry.
frazzled
(18,402 posts)I was merely responding to the comment that he was "the lamest president in memory."
Where is this sudden crop of whining (yes, I repeat, whining) over some mythical pressure for you to "work for him" coming from? Nobody has asked you to work for him. I, personally, wouldn't want you to work for him. Just vote. And if you can't do that, just don't vote for some Republican creep or some third-party loser. Okay? That's all. Please don't work for him; you'd be doing the campaign a disservice. If you want to vote for him, fine. If not, fine.
JohnnyRingo
(20,426 posts)Like the majority here, I love "Big Dog", and thought he was probably the best president of a generation, but let's look at some facts;
He caved to corporate interests and allowed NAFTA to see fruition. He bowed to the republicans and "reformed" the welfare system beyond recognition. Clinton "worked with" the Gingrich led House of Representitives to the point of total capitulation on non-discretionary spending cuts.
Clinton also did a lot of good, but if someone were to be as biased against him as they are Obama, it's easy to dismiss those deeds as "not enough". Obama has done at least as much good in his first term as Clinton, but for many amnesia trumps what they feel as betrayal.
In my case, Obama stood up to Romney and house Republicans to salvage my pension from a struggling auto maker. The entire GOP demanded he let GM rot on the vine to drive a stake through the heart of the UAW, but Obama not only stood his ground, his task force used the PBGC to fill the gap left by a depleted pension fund.
Now I read that you intend to cast a protest vote and allow the likes of Mitt Romney to take over because you didn't get what you want from Obama in four short years.
Maybe there's some personal issue you view as "the most important matter facing the country today", but Obama has done a lot of good for a lot of people and he deserves a second term to expand the vision. Keep these images in your mind when you vote next November and don't tell me there's no difference between Obama and a republican:
This is a Democratic president signing the Lilly Ledbetter Act that protects women in the workplace:
This is a Republican president signing a bill that restricts certain abortion procedures:
mike_c
(36,890 posts)...but I'll take responsibility for helping to put him in office. Before 2000 I was damned nearly apolitical, other than being a lifelong democratic party voter, not because I really paid much attention but rather, because I was confident in my liberal values and thought that the democratic party was best aligned with my values.
The Bush years, and all the complicit democrats in congress, opened my eyes. Looking back, I would never have voted for Clinton if I knew then what I know now. His continuance of the aggression against Iraq, which was never a threat to the U.S., was enough to warrant that response, frankly. NAFTA, financial deregulation, welfare reform, the failure of health care reform-- all of those are just icing on the cake of half a million Iraqi children dying so that the big dog could make tough in the middle east. Clinton, more than anyone, set up the trajectory to war in Iraq that Bush exploited later.
The thing is, that since 2000 I've come to understand that NONE of the political leadership in this country actually reflects my values-- in fact, most openly repudiate and mock them. I simply cannot understand why I should support any of them if they don't work in my interest.
JohnnyRingo
(20,426 posts)maybe your destiny is one of the protest vote. The person who consistantly helped Republicans win by voting for Ralph Nader or another third party candidate then complained that said Republican (or Democrat) is destroying the country.
It would be cheap for you to order a dozen bumper stickers that say "I'm voting for the loser" and be set for life.
KrevichNavel
(4 posts)Do your best. whatever the hell that is , but not voting Dem has it's risks, 2 judges on SCOUS, and I don't know about you Mike but I can't afford 4 more years of economic stagnation, or a more polluted country with a rigged. paid off Congress, with a corporate court made stronger by Rethugs.because Obama twisted my shorts, a few times. At least I won't have to drive you to the polls.
roamer65
(37,813 posts)
BOG PERSON
(2,916 posts)
Bryn
(3,621 posts)It's not the same country I grew up in. It won't matter anymore who wins in 2012. America is no longer the country, it's now the Corporate. Middle class is nearly gone. Nearly all jobs are now oversea. Everything, everything, EVERYTHING we buy today is made in CHINA. We're losing our rights.
This is why we have OWS. 99ers will fight and if our congresscritters still won't listen then it will get worse.
"Those who make peaceful revolution impossible will make violent revolution inevitable." ~ John F. Kennedy.
inademv
(791 posts)
Enrique
(27,461 posts)fortunately many people insist on continuing to think for themselves.
LuckyTheDog
(6,837 posts)You think that, somehow, someway, things will be better if Obama loses? If so, please explain.
Skittles
(169,283 posts)you get NOTHING
BOG PERSON
(2,916 posts)it's theatre!
FarLeftFist
(6,161 posts)The country was voting AGAINST McCain and Palin, and the entire republican establishment. Meanwhile, Obama has enjoyed one of the best Presidential performances for a 1st term in 50 years.
Charlemagne
(576 posts)Why anyone voted for Obama did so only because the alternative was so much worse?
Thats like saying you broke your leg to keep your arm from being broken. Either option stinks. Why is it bad that we demand better? Im not ok with that. Why is the only choice Republican and Republican light?
JohnnyRingo
(20,426 posts)They said he was so liberal he was "even to the left of Ted Kennedy".
Apparently there are a lot of Fox News viewers on DU, and they don't know Sean Hannity lies.
I don't recall Obama making a campaign speech where he said "I'm so far to the left I make Lenin look like a Ditto Head", but so many here seem to remember exactly that.
I do remember "Hope & Change" however, and while I think the country has indeed changed direction since the Bush years, I hope he gets another term.
housewolf
(7,252 posts)We need, need, need to take the House back and build a fillibuster-proof majority in the Senate
If we don't, we face 2 more years of what the past year+ have been like - a year of little to no progress and all it on the Repub's terms.
donttazemebro
(14 posts)Obama is the next winner and there will be no one to stand against him.
The law is now on our side.
Hang in there...this next term no one will dare stand in the way of our goals.
unionworks
(3,574 posts)Checkers and Chess, yeah yeah yeah yeah (REM)
TheMadMonk
(6,187 posts)...to actually do something about your problems instead of just bitch about them.
RebelOne
(30,947 posts)Obama is my only choice (that is, unless Hillary runs, then I may give her a shot).
JohnnyRingo
(20,426 posts)If Democrats put up a primary challenger the GOP (led by Fox News) would blare the message that "Democrats admit Obama is a failure and they want the country to give them another chance". They'd proffer that the country needs a leader, not another democratic crap shoot.
It's a damning meme that would be very effective in electing a so called steadfast Republican.
Stuart G
(38,726 posts)Liberal_in_LA
(44,397 posts)
Terra Alta
(5,158 posts)but he has my vote in 2012. And I'm going to encourage as many people as I can to vote for him, as well.
Obama ain't perfect, but the alternative is unthinkable.
lib2DaBone
(8,124 posts)What part of Obama and Wall Street don't you get?
Terra Alta
(5,158 posts)Because that's the only alternative to not voting for Obama. As bad as an Obama administration is to you, a Repuke administration would be ten times worse. Newtie would make Dumbya look like Mother Teresa.
madokie
(51,076 posts)I agree with you 100 percent
unkachuck
(6,295 posts)....sure it's a game....and it's a game people like me have been losing....
jerseyjack
(1,361 posts)LuckyTheDog
(6,837 posts)Might as well just vote for Newt.
JDPriestly
(57,936 posts)Don't get your knickers tied in knots.
We are unhappy with some of his policies. But he has a lot of strengths too.
I like Stuart G's post in which he focuses on Obama's strengths.
If we look at Obama's strengths and weaknesses both, we will be about right. Voters won't be fooled. Trying to just spout the propaganda that Obama is a saint is not going to sit well with voters. We need to be ready to discuss the issues, not just admire our candidate.
I sure wish that the health insurance reforms were kicking in before the 2012 election. That would be good for Obama. That was one of his major achievements, and most Americans won't see the benefits until 2014.
I'm delighted about the end of the war in Iraq, if it is true. I'm still not ready to trust our government with regard to that because I suspect that there are a lot of private contractors in there. We shall see. But at least the announcement is good news.
I think we will be in Afghanistan a long time.
Sherman A1
(38,958 posts)I appreciate your lecture on voting, however I will be able to make up my own mind and frankly I am not terribly impressed with Mr. Obama's record to date.
coalition_unwilling
(14,180 posts)voting for the lesser of two evils is a CIVIC DUTY and this is one of those times.
I say this as one who briefly flirted with the idea of voting third party or sitting out the general election to register my disapproval of Obama's governance.
Then I watched the Repuke debate on Thursday and I was scared straight in a hurry.
If you find yourself still feeling reservations about voting for Obama, I ask only that you watch a Repuke debate before you lock yourself into your position.
It is simply imperative that none of the current crop of Repukes get anywhere near the White House if we wish to maintain this experiment in a democratic republic.
I lived through Reagan and through Bush 1 and 2 and I never felt as scared as I did this past Thursday. I am not speaking lightly.
webDude
(875 posts)...think that any of the guys in the two parties are anything but puppets, we are deluding ourselves. That remark about Iran, if you have been reading, it appears that "we" are already in there, to an extent. As far as Iraq, we "withdrew", yet we have an "embassy" in Bagdad that is larger than the Vatican and has over 16,000 "support staff". Wonder how many have guns? The normal staff at an embassy is about 100-150. Obama is the best figurehead money can buy.
I hope this does not make me an enemy combatant, so then I will find out if that defense bill he did NOT veto really can be used in a non-constitutional way.
By the way, I do not know your intent, but when you say, "This is not a game, people.", it comes off like you are trying to be my Dad, either that, or it is about to be followed with you telling me how stupid I am(go ahead, take the shot, it's easy, haha).
You could do better in trying to win the argument and persuade people.
We dont have troops in-country----there are just "advisers."
Its not a war----it's just a "police action."
Yeah, thats the ticket!
Betty Karlson
(7,231 posts)when can we have a real choice please? Between moderately good and evil and even more evil?
Give us a prognosis, or a date.
hobbit709
(41,694 posts)But I will NOT be a RAH, RAH, RAH cheerleader.
sellitman
(11,738 posts)Zactly how I feel!
lunatica
(53,410 posts)I'm voting for Obama because I refuse to give my voting power to an Idiocrat.
eomer
(3,845 posts)Anytime a party holds a majority in both houses and the Presidency then they can use the budget reconciliation process, which can't be filibustered. During 2009/2010 President Obama and the Democrats had this advantage but rather than use it to enact several important changes Obama chose to play bipartisan BS with the Republicans. Since any fool (and Obama is no fool) could predict that the Republicans would reject those overtures, it seems pretty apparent to me that it was a ploy that Obama used against those of us to his left who were calling for things that his corporate sponsors did not want.
There are some constraints on the types of things that can be done through reconciliation, but definitely they could have raised taxes on the wealthy and cut taxes permanently on the middle class. With some care in crafting it they probably could also have created a healthcare public option and passed a much better stimulus that created jobs directly rather than one that was too small and that gave tax concessions to people who were just sitting on their piles of cash anyway.
The claim that they were blocked by the filibuster is just not true. They had a way around the filibuster. Reconciliation has been used time and again by other Presidents to get around the filibuster. That Obama didn't go this route must mean that he simply didn't want to get those things done.
Faith No More
(238 posts)But don't give me that "well, he did the best he could" crap. If the office of President is so weak, how did George Bush get everything he wanted and more? He might have been the most loathsome, little bastard that ever drew a breath but he accomplished everything he set out to do. Obama has proven time and time again that he is unwilling to stand up to the repugs, even though in many cases, doing so would have assured him victory.
sufrommich
(22,871 posts)Where the object is to write whatever you think will piss off people you don't really know but don't like on the internet.Half the OPs in General Discussion are about making the pretend "other side " on DU mad.
Most of those whining that they'll sit out the election won't, but they'll get lots of attention on DU for saying it.
lumberjack_jeff
(33,224 posts)
Moostache
(10,958 posts)Remember...you better not complain too loudly or too viscerally about being sold out and compromised on EVERY FUCKING IMPORTANT ISSUE!
Remember...we the Democratic Party represent the power elites as well, but we are the lesser of two evils and its a two party system!
Remember...OWS was easily wiped away from the national conversation by a simple middle of the night raid and a few bulldozers, and we can remove YOU just as easily with our shiny new aspirations in the National Defense Authorization Act! Toe the line and shut up while this poker is rammed further up your ass every day....after all, those mean old Republicans would be rougher on you and say meaner things...
Remember...WE OWN THIS MOTHERFUCKER AND YOU ARE GREASY TENANTS THAT MAKE US SICK AND DEADEN THE TASTE OF OUR CHAMPAGNE LIKE A BAD STRAWBERRY!!!
Thank you for your subservience and obedience,
The Ruling 1% Class
---------------------------------------------------------
Sorry, but no sale any more on this line of thinking and sheep-like acceptance of Obama selling out his "principles" for "compromise" EVERY SINGLE TIME A DIFFICULT ISSUE COMES UP. The big, bad Republicans in the house or the supreme court or the senate ALWAYS seem to block him in ways that the little, weak and incompetent Democrats NEVER could against Bush!
The moron from Texas was able to fuck up this country for the next decade plus without so much as raising his voice or breaking a sweat and NOW everyone wants me to believe that Obama - a man of 1000X the intellect and intelligence of Bush and a man of supposed great liberal and progressive conviction - cannot reciprocate in an equal and opposite direction? NO SALE....he does not fight on these issues because they are NOT important to him and they do not bring in money, period, full stop. He does not pursue a more aggressive legislative agenda because he does not WANT to...and he caves on national security apparatus, spying, wiretaps, net neutrality, renditions, indefinite detention, Gitmo, health care, taxes, budgets, pipelines and more simply because he does NOT want to fight those fights....too difficult, too intractable, too fraught with danger or potential failure.
You can't stop the bully by appeasement and letting them have 90% of everything they want every time. Obama may win a second term by default of being the least bad option once again, but there is no way that I intend to just happily sing his praises and pretend its 2008 again on the campaign trail...he made promises and statements that have proven demonstrably false and needs to answer for it and truly convince me that his second term would be anything more than a slow-motion Republican dismantling of the country anyway.
But hey, it only took 3 years - but we DID get out of Iraq FINALLY! Guess that the Republicans would have found a way to convince the Iraqis to not throw us out involuntarily...
Deep13
(39,157 posts)I think people have finally come to realize that power is not in Washington, but on Wall St., Fleet St., and in all the other financial centers of the world. Anyone elected will necessarily be less powerful than super-rich, economic interests. Electoral politics has become a sideshow to the real power structure.
Taverner
(55,476 posts)Accept it, work with it and move on
He doesn't need your money, but he - and all of us for that matter - need you to vote for him
Charlemagne
(576 posts)Because wall street is gonna give him a credit card.
Taverner
(55,476 posts)But - in the grand scheme of things - what's worse in a room full of gasoline? A man who starts shooting matches around and going "yee haw!!!" or the guy who does nothing to solve the problem and just leaves?
hfojvt
(37,573 posts)We thought he could overcome the fillibuster. Ha ha ha ha ha!!
We expected he could overcome all those headwinds from the RWNM.
Silly, silly people we are. We must all be eleven years old or something.
Funny thing is, he didn't need to overcome the fillibuster to end the Bush tax cuts in 2010. They had an expiration date and would have eneded if he did nothing and if the Senate did nothing.
I guess Obama tried to do nothing, but somehow the Republicans and the blue dogs in the Senate stopped him.
Maybe they threatened his family and forced him to create the Catfood Commission as well. And somehow the fillibuster forced Obama to embrace the Catfood Commission's non-report. He tried as hard as he could not to, but the headwinds were too strong.
He also tried, really really tried to PROPOSE and PROMOTE a jobs plan that wasn't based on Republican economics of tax cuts. He tried, but oh those headwinds just forced him to propose a "jobs plan" based on tax cuts, and tax cuts that favor the rich and then to go around making speeches promoting permanent tax cuts for the rich.
Because if that payroll tax cut is ever allow to expire, that's a tax increase for the "middle class". Yep, Republicans just made Obama propose those permanent tax cuts where 26.7% of the tax cut goes to the richest 10% while only 26.1% goes to the poorest 60%. And now every Republican candidate can say "Even Obama agrees - tax cuts create jobs (and economic growth)"
Yes, Obama tried to NOT go around saying "Republicans are right about economics and the budget" but the fillibuster made him do it.
russspeakeasy
(6,539 posts)
tfsoccer
(66 posts)despite the fact that what you say appears to be TRUE!
Charlemagne
(576 posts)Should be its own thread.
treestar
(82,383 posts)Politics is a balancing act. Republicans hold something hostage which involves the stability of the country.
And we have to deal with them because they make up a high percentage of the population.
They aren't going to go away next year, either. Only when they are marginalized as the extreme right that no one pays attention to - then we can act as if they don't exist.
great white snark
(2,646 posts)Reality escapes some DUers.
Not you treestar, you inject much needed realty checks.
Maven
(10,533 posts)SixthSense
(829 posts)... we get a choice of someone who is not already thoroughly compromised and corrupted?
We went from Bush to Clinton to Bush to Obama, yet somehow the shots were being called by Goldman Sachs, Monsanto, Pfizer, GE, Exxon, etc. throughout all of them.
Our capacity to absorb this kind of damage is depleted... we can't do this anymore. We need a non corporatist President and Obama has not, does not, and will not meet this requirement.
just look at this... how do you fix a problem so deep?
Luminous Animal
(27,310 posts)certainot
(9,090 posts)we have to fix the problems that are causing democratic malfunction.
govt is us is supposed to regulate. our reps are supposed to rep us, not corporations. the emphasis has shifted to deregulation because americans have allowed it and continue to allow it.
by ignoring RW talk radio for the last 20 years americans have allowed the corporate think tanks to short circuit the democratic feedback mechanisms - they can yell over truth and common sense whether it takes a week or years.
the right to create through misinformation of large areas of population to create made-to-order well-misinformed constituencies to enable enough senators to block or pass just about anything they want. teabaggerrs are just dittoheads that the kochs gave bus passes and motel rooms to to get them out of the dittohead closet. a black president helped that effort. they have been there for 20 years, the result of the 'left' allowing the right to create it's own radio repetition based reality- and it only worked because the left has no organized opposition to challenge it in real time and continues to analyze in a talk radio vacuum, playing catchup and blaming fox after the alternate reality has already been created and the media and politicians enabled.
until the 'left' stops ignoring what used to be rove's invisible political 2x4 the new republicans will be able to block any major reforms that can fix this.
corkhead
(6,119 posts)My first election and I voted for Anderson. My vote unwittingly helped usher in 30 years of being trickled on by Raygunomics.
Scuba
(53,475 posts)... got a link?
LuckyTheDog
(6,837 posts)They say they will "write in Dennis," vote third party, or merely say they won't vote for Obama and do not explain what they WILL do. Those are all defeatist gestures that will accomplish nothing good.
nadinbrzezinski
(154,021 posts)people posting on this board will vote come 2012. More shocking, they will vote by large majorities for the POTUS.
What many here will not do is give money, walk precincts or anything else.
In classic political science terms, this is not a cadre that has been mobilized.
So telling them that they will sit out the election (a few will do that) or vote third party (I have my doubts anybody will vote GOP in this particular group) is mostly going to fall on deaf ears.
I will use myself as an example. In 2008 I gave money, I wore T Shirts (returned to the WH since, no, not kidding) and I did other things an activated person does in this country. This year... the energy is not there, it's in the streets, but I will give NO MONEY, nor get any shirts, nor walk precincts. All you get, and that is due to the nature of the duopoly in DC, which IS part of the problem... is a damn vote.
There is more, he has plenty of friends in high places that can afford to give him money. My twenty bucks will go to a PROGRESSIVE candidate of my choosing. In fact waiting for THAT CANDIDATE, who happens to be a DU'er, site to go live. He needs that money far more than those in the rarefied field of the presidency.
But this berating makes me even less enthused to vote. Granted I will do so. I need to stay in practice. But voting does not matter, not until a few things change. It is just an exercise like voting for the PRI in Mexico. Yes, we are at that level now. Funny, my first vote was in Mexico for De La Madrid that many years ago... and I feel the same way about voting for Democrats these days. It's something you do because your duty is to vote... not that those in power care a whit about me, or my condition. Words are pretty, and all that hope and change turned out to be just that.
Oh save the list...
hifiguy
(33,688 posts)and consider it recommended by yrs truly.
joeybee12
(56,177 posts)Obama is Repuke lite...better than the options yes, but still awful...
certainot
(9,090 posts)with that citizens united money they can expand that.
someone needs to put up some whistleblower rewards....
tfsoccer
(66 posts)Obama went the high and wise,
and tried his best to comprimise.
When blocked he should have SOSed,
and showed that he had done his best.
The public only saw the end,
They did not see him 'strong defend.
He should have spoken up with heart,
About the GOP's lost heart.
And what about 'his' senators,
Who whimpered, whined, and just deferred,
They should have spoken up with heart!
About the GOP's lost heart!
We need to rally with him folks,
Or like 'Dog says, we'll lose the 'ark.'
Lionessa
(3,894 posts)while we slid into foreclosures that were bogus but backed by and attempted to protect by his administration and bankruptcies because of lack of stimulus even though we desperately need infrastructure and depression and despair as we slid into homelessness and poverty from what we thought was a comfortable liveable life.
THAT WAS/IS NOT A GAME EITHER, though the Pres seems to treat it as such.
Charlemagne
(576 posts)and at least introduce liberal legislation and THEN water it down to beat the filibuster. Instead, he presents the republican plan right off the bat and THEN makes it more draconian when the repugs scream and cry.
mvd
(65,826 posts)I don't feel he has fought for the more progressive things. For example, he'll say he wants a public option and then says it's a trivial part of the equation. Plus, why settle for DLC chiefs of staff and an economic team tied to the problems. The whole compromise attitude drives the country to the right. But the thread is right in many ways, and I gave it a rec. I'd be interested in what Obama can do with a progressive Congress.
liberal N proud
(61,164 posts)
Puzzledtraveller
(5,937 posts)The big chunk in the middle. The folks on the couches watching dances with stars and x factor who either will stay home or vote for a ken doll face like mitt.
Autumn
(48,718 posts)fighting spirit, he seems to be a go along to get along guy. I'm also disappointed in the direction he has chosen to go. That being said , you can bet your ass I'm voting for him. The alternatives are unthinkable.
Charlemagne
(576 posts)maybe you could just vote for the other things on the ballot and a third party/no one for president.
Not that I would advocate such a thing. Just something I heard.
I mean, if your state is solid one way or the other.....leaving it blank or third party is an option.
zipplewrath
(16,698 posts)There are several basic screeds, on a wide variety of subjects and from different sides, which are repeated her every week. This is one of them.
There's also the various "lists" and website references to all the promises kept.
There's the weekly post about running a primary candidate against Obama.
Then there's the weekly post asking exactly who could possibly be a better candidate.
There's the weekly reconcilliation post seeing it from both sides and imploring us all to get together.
Are we running out of things to talk about?
CrispyQ
(40,616 posts)
unrec
Ian David
(69,059 posts)Vinnie From Indy
(10,820 posts)Our corporate overlords have gamed the system. Either party will do just fine for them.
hifiguy
(33,688 posts)but that doesn't mean I won't be holding my nose and feeling shafted once again.
truedelphi
(32,324 posts)On the one hand, those of us who object to Obama selling us out are repeatedly told that the office of the Presidency is the weakest office on earth, and that a citizen cannot possibly expect a President to get anything done unless there is a 90% Democratic majority in Congress.
And on the other hand, we are told that it is really really important to not have a Republican President, because the President holds great power.
Which is it? Please make up your minds. It is not yet 2012, and already my brain is cramping up!
Xicano
(2,812 posts)If we continue to let the 1%'ers buy Washington lock-stock & barrel, not only will there never be "change", but, things will only continue to get worse for the rest of us 99%.
n/t
slay
(7,670 posts)if people want to vote Obama fine - i'm just not sure i can.
FLyellowdog
(4,276 posts)gateley
(62,683 posts)statement Perot made (ONLY to use the "sucking sound" phrase) and this has devolved into spats about NAFTA. Jesus. Can people not keep their focus on your OP? Aggravating.
If I could rec your OP again I would.
Romulox
(25,960 posts) bowens43
(16,064 posts)He didn't. He caved on every important issue. Not once did he stand firm.
Gingrich will not be the nominee. It's going to be Romney and frankly I don't see much difference between Obama and Romney.
slay
(7,670 posts)i really wish Obama had given me a reason TO vote FOR him. i really do. 
wildeyed
(11,243 posts)I think the two party system sucks and is killing this country, but I don't see how sitting out or voting for GOP strikes at the root of the problem. All that will accomplish is a Supreme Court that is so conservative that we won't get anything passed for a decade or more.
Want legit third party candidates? Support same day voter registration in your state. Same day states have a history of electing independents statewide. And support ranked voting (also called instant runoff voting), which would allow you to vote for your dream candidate without throwing your vote away.
Phlem
(6,323 posts)But thank you for doing it.
-p
Akoto
(4,301 posts)deathrind
(1,786 posts)... the truth.
vi5
(13,305 posts)But I still think he sucks as a Democratic president and I'll continue to say so until he stops sucking at being a Democratic president.
I'm voting for Obama but the only reason I'm voting for Obama is because the other guys are insane and more beholden to corporations and the wealthy than Obama is (and Obama is VERY beholden to corporations and the wealthy).
There's much to be blamed on The GOP but the fact is that they've either played Obama like a fiddle, making him a powerless, useless patsy, or they've simply given him cover to do what he wanted to anyway. Either way...it sucks.
And the fact is that in areas where he had power such as his advisers, etc. and the veto pen he's been just as much of a failure and a dissapointment.
silverweb
(16,410 posts)[font color="black" face="Verdana"]Especially with GOP efforts to gerrymander districts in their favor; to make voting difficult and inconvenient for Democratic-leaning districts; to trick or frighten likely Democratic voters regarding time/place and legal restrictions for voting; and to corrupt the voting apparatus itself, the upcoming election could be a very close call.
This is no time for "symbolic" or "protest" votes. We need a clear and decisive margin of victory for Obama and all Democrats.
We need every. single. vote. -- Democratic and independent -- to keep from losing everything to the GOP goal of corporate/authoritarian rule.