If Liberals Want Obama to be More Liberal, Then Give Him a Liberal Congress

[Yavin4]

Demading that Obama be more Liberal while one chamber of the Congress is controlled by the Republicans and the other chamber barely has a Democratic majority, and not even a Liberal one, is absurd.

House Republicans have no fear of Obama nor Democrats nor the media nor even the people. They only fear their small constituencies in their individual districts.

So, instead of constantly grousing about Obama, go into these Republican congressional districts and flip them from red to blue.

[patrice]

1. Well said!

[riqster]

2. Damn skippy! K & R

[Pisces]

3. Some just like to complain about the President. He isn't using his magic wand enough.

[HawkeyeLibkid]

83. If he tried he would

Be called a Dictator and that wouldn't Bode well.

[onehandle]

4. Even with President Obama's coattails, we couldn't secure a Democratic House.

Between gerrymandering and lazy downticket voters, we couldn't swing it.

Even though more voted for House Democrats than Republicans.

Little chance of retaking the House in 2014.

[frylock]

5. how about the establishment actually supports liberal candidates for a change?

you can't vote for something that the dem establishment isn't going to promote or support.

[1StrongBlackMan]

11. The democratic establishment ...

will support whatever local candidate that has a shoot at winning. It's ground up, not top down.

[frylock]

43. even if that candidate is a "moderate" republican..

in short; sit down and shut the fuck up, hippy. and while you're at it, send us money and just cast your damn vote.

[1StrongBlackMan]

46. Or a Dennis Kucinch ...

or an Elizabeth Warren. Neither, DK or EW were the "establishment" candidate; but both proved early in their primaries the could win the general election ... the key being a candidate that can win.

BTW, for his last 6 terms, that the last the evil sell-out Democratic establishment supported DK over significantly more "establishment" Democrats and ALL moderate republicans.

So yes, I'm going to say it: sit down and shut the fuck up with that "they won't let us" B.S. And you are not a "hippy", with that whinny B.S.

[Historic NY]

6. In order for that to happen they must work at home first....

to wipe out the effects of gerrymandering by outvoting the Pukes, in every election every time.

[SheilaT]

7. What I find so frustrating about statements like this

is that I only have one vote. Well, one vote each for the President, a Representative, and a Senator (only in 2 out of 3 election years). I do my best, but I can't control what other voters, especially voters in the so-called Red States collectively do.

The problem isn't with us liberals, but with those who listen to Fox News, or who call themselves "christians" and see a war on themselves everywhere, or those who are bamboozled by tales of Welfare Queens and how gay marriage is going to destroy this country. It's the ignorance of far too many out there, and that ignorance is getting worse, thanks to the constant attacks on our schools, the dumbing down of curriculum everywhere. It's the belief that our world is so fantastically dangerous that everyone needs multiple assault weapons. I could go on, but you all know what I mean.

[Yavin4]

15. If You're Frustrated...

Imagine how labor union organizers felt in the 1920s and 1930s. Imagine how Civil Rights organizers during the height of Jim Crow in the South. Imagine how women felt when they didn't have the vote.

Those movements got over their "frustrations" and made a difference.

[SheilaT]

20. So the answer is that I register multiple times and vote more than once?

It's not my personal fault if others stay home and don't vote. It's not my personal fault that there are ignoramuses out there who have no clue that to vote Republican is to vote against their own self-interest. I try to explain to those people when I can, but it seems hopeless.

On a different note, it's astonishing to me how often very liberal/progressive Democrats happily shop at WalMart. I actually turned down a gift card to WalMart from my boss a while back, explaining that I never shop there, although I did not state my political reasons for that, since it felt inappropriate to do so.

[1StrongBlackMan]

47. No ...

the answer is ... Vote democratic in every contest; vote your conscience in the primary, vote the party in the general. Then, explain to everyone you know ... across the country, to do likewise.

[riqster]

58. No, the answer is to organize, evangelize and GOTV

Denny Kooch only had one vote. Obama has only one vote. The Rude Pundit has only one vote.

These people use their talents to help get out the vote for our people. The only way a non-Reep can win is with massive turnout.

Raise your voice and mobilize anyone and everyone you can. And that goes for all of us.

[SheilaT]

74. I do vote. Every single election.

So please do not tell me it's my fault we don't have a liberal Congress. It's not. I do as much as I can.

[HawkeyeLibkid]

82. You are missing the boat

And it's long gone... If everyone pledges to help in a district, it will make a difference. We can beat the Republicans easily if everyone does a small part. You have to work to GOTV. If doing all you can is voting, then don't complain about not having a liberal house. Sorry to be brunt.

[HawkeyeLibkid]

81. I agree, but...

The best way to make a difference is volunteer your efforts within a campaign, work to educate those who are willing to listen. You CAN make a difference.

[BlueCaliDem]

8. Very well said and a perfect reminder!

President Obama has always said that change comes from the bottom up, not from the top down. This is what he meant.

[MotherPetrie]

9. My state has two liberal Dem senators and my own rep is a lib Dem

I'm not going to move so I can vote somewhere else. If Obama didn't think the liberal positions he CAMPAIGNED on to get ELECTED for, and DID get elected for, aren't worth fighting for instead of rolling over on now that he's been reelected, don't fucking blame everyone else but HIM.

[Yavin4]

13. That's Not Enough

Blaming Obama absolves you from doing any work whatsoever for the cause. You have to do more. You can donate money. Phone bank. Whatever. Reach out.

[MotherPetrie]

19. Naw. Tried that before this election. After election got Chained CPI offer.

OurPOTUS betrayed me so fast it made my head spin. I'm done thinking I make the slightest difference.

[1StrongBlackMan]

48. Why don't I believe you? ...

not that whether I believe you, or not matters. But I don't believe you did any of that "before this election."

[Dyedinthewoolliberal]

57. You may not make a difference but

if you don't TRY to do something, you become part of the problem as opposed to being part of the solution.

[1StrongBlackMan]

10. Yup ...

Note to my "Progressive" Brethen:

Your efforts to "hold President Obama's feet to the fire", your internet board criticisms of President Obama, your resources would be far better spent, actually electing progressives to the House and Senate.

[grahamhgreen]

23. We just did. Huge progressive victory. Appreciate the pay back now.

[frylock]

44. word up

[1StrongBlackMan]

45. So President Obama ...

is a progressive now? Just a couple of days ago, he was a republican.

[grahamhgreen]

64. You tell me. But we elected Grayson and Warren and a slew of Progressives,

the Progressive caucus is the largest caucus in the House!

[1StrongBlackMan]

68. Actually ...

the gop is the largest caucus in the House.

[grahamhgreen]

75. I mean beside R's & D's....

But maybe it's not, from 2009:



But we certainly are up there!

[maxsolomon]

12. He won't be president in 2022.

The key is to flip the state houses in the gerrymandered states. EIGHT YEARS FROM NOW. Until then, it's going to be very very hard to kick those fucks out.

But you knew that, didn't you?

[Yavin4]

14. The Key Is To Get More Progressives Elected As Soon As Possible.

Gerrymandered districts is just an excuse for not doing anything. It's easier to not put in the extra effort. It's easier to blame Obama than it is to actually do anything that's difficult to do.

[maxsolomon]

17. As a previous poster noted

when you live in a city that is 100% blue and to the left of Obama and a state that is 70-80% blue, there's a limit to what you can do in bass ackwards places like WY, OK, AZ or KY.

You know as well as I that Gerrymandered districts are a fact. For instance, prying Boner out of his would take a nuclear bomb - no one even ran against him this time. 2010 is a gift that will keep on giving for this entire misbegotten decade.

No "progressives" are getting elected before 11/2014, regardless.

[Yavin4]

22. So, In the End, Obama Has Half the Congress Controlled by Radical Right Wing Republicans

Now, tell me how he's going to get more Liberal legislation passed? How?

[1StrongBlackMan]

49. when you live in a city that is 100% blue ...

... and to the left of Obama and a state that is 70-80% blue, there's a limit to what you can do in bass ackwards places like WY, OK, AZ or KY.

You can still phonebank and donate money and call family and friends ...

[progressoid]

16. That's kind of like saying, "I want you to be smaller so I bought your these little shoes"

"hope they fit"

[forestpath]

18. +1 too funny and true

[historylovr]

38. Exactly. nt

[Skittles]

76. CORRECT; THANK YOU

[grahamhgreen]

21. Uh, HE WASN'T LIBERAL WHEN HE HAD the Congress!

Besides, the gerrymandering is killing us.

[Yavin4]

25. He Never HAD A LIBERAL Congress

The Dems that were in the majority WERE NOT LIBERALS. Besides, he did get several progressive items passed during that time. The fact that you left it out shows that you are not well informed.

[PoliticalBiker]

24. Difficult to do...

... with all the gerrymandered districts.
Republicons are over-the-top on cheating to win seats.
Have you seen some of the gerrymandered districts to get republicons elected?
There was a post here a little while back that had some of the most ridiculously shaped districts I've ever seen. All to get republicons elected.
That practice must be halted in order for democracy to function properly.

[Yavin4]

26. Okay. Then How Can Obama Get More Liberal Legislation Passed?

How?

[1StrongBlackMan]

50. I love how ...

you've asked that question, no less than 15 times, across the site, and not one of these folks have provided a response other than, "He just should." I, for one, just wish one of these posters would just give President Obama the wand that they must possess, so that he can grant their fantasies.

[Liberal_Stalwart71]

62. I've asked this question many times over the last 4 years

...and no one addresses it. All I get is how Obama didn't do this and Obama didn't do that and Obama is worse than Bush and so on...

No solutions. No pro action. No blame directed at Republicans or conservative Democrats. Just complaining and bashing this president.

[1StrongBlackMan]

69. Yep ...

That's the default setting ... BBNS (B!tch But No Solution).

[Jim Lane]

27. If Obama wants Congress to be more liberal, then he should aggressively promote liberalism.

I agree with your post as far as it goes, but it's misleading to denounce the obstructionist Congress without assessing Obama's role in getting us the Congress we have.

First, Obama has a poor record of supporting downticket candidates. Obviously, his well-oiled GOTV apparatus, designed to promote his own re-election, also drew voters who were more likely to support other Democrats -- but that's not enough. He could and should have done more joint rallies, more use of his bully pulpit to call out specific vulnerable Republicans by name and go negative on them, etc.

That brings me to my second point: the larger use of the bully pulpit. Obama could and should have been giving speeches on national television explaining why, to address our current economic crisis, we need more deficit spending, not less. He would then follow that up with references to specific bills that were being obstructed and, again, include negative (even harshly negative) attacks on the Republicans who were obstructing them. Instead, he has publicly embraced the right-wing idea that, in tough times, government must tighten its belt. That played right into the hands of downticket Republicans who were campaigning on an austerity platform. Obama hasn't forcefully made the case that we actually have an economic crisis.

One could make a case for the comparatively nonconfrontational approach with which Obama began his administration. In January 2009, there was arguably a possibility that the Republicans, recognizing that "elections have consequences" (as they loved to say when elections went their way), would meet him at least halfway, and bipartisanship would succeed. At some point, though -- a point well before the 2010 midterms -- it should have been obvious that that approach was a failure. By, at the latest, the spring of 2010, Obama should have taken the gloves off. He should have proposed a major second-round stimulus package, even if it had no chance of success because of Republican opposition, and then laid into the Republicans for that very opposition.

If Obama had pressed for thoroughly progressive positions (e.g., standing firm on a public option, at least, though single payer would have been better), and then put major effort in 2010 into campaigning against the "do-nothing" Congress, I think there's a real chance that the Republicans would have lost seats rather than gaining them. That's what happened in the 1934 midterms, when a Democratic President took a bolder course. Granted, Obama faced problems that Roosevelt didn't, and he might not have succeeded, but he could and should have tried.

[bahrbearian]

28. Your right, Unions , Environmentalist and People that are anti-MIC just have to hold their noses.

[Vinnie From Indy]

29. Hey now! Please do not inject nuance and depth into a perfectly good rant

It mucks everything up and might cause a few headaches among the amen choir!

Cheers!

[elleng]

30. YES!

[Bluenorthwest]

31. Obama could help flip those districts by advocating liberal positions. The Republican House does

not control his words, nor the form his message takes.

[Jeff In Milwaukee]

32. And might I recommend....

If you live in a district where a Democrat has not a chance in hell of winning (I live in Waukesha County, where no Democrat ever cracks 40% in the popular vote), you might consider supporting the "sane" Republican in the Republican primary -- if you're allowed to vote in the other party's primary. That way if there's going to be a Republican anyway, at least it will be a moderate.

[LynneSin]

35. I'd take a chance on the opposite

Because if the person in question is bat-shit crazy they might tank their race in the general election and give the democrats a win. But it is risky.

[Jeff In Milwaukee]

40. That's true...

I know that in my district, you could put a bucket of runny manure on the ticket, and as long as it has (-R) behind the name, it's going to win. In anything like a swing district, I wouldn't go there.

[Bluenorthwest]

36. Wow. Advocating against voting Democratic AND for the Republican candidate?

Wow. Why not get yourself a Conservadem and promote that as the best alternative? Or, use the prognosticated knowledge that you 'can't win' as a liberating aspect, and make use of the campaign as a messaging tool, a groundwork for the next round, a way to weaken the Republican who you seem so very sure is destined to the Hill?

[LynneSin]

37. He's talking about primaries only

I kinda know what he's implying - he's in a solidly red district so if it's an open primary why not help out the more moderate republican. He'd still vote democrat in November but at least if the dem loses he doesn't have an idiot as his representative

[Bluenorthwest]

39. I can understand that in primaries, but I'd have a very hard time doing it....

Very. The whole idea that some of them are 'more moderate' is not really something I believe. Take the current bluster by Christie and King, it is just a way to provide cover for the way their Party really is. They have to sound like they care about NY and NJ, that's their role. But their actions have always been and continue to be exactly like the very 'less moderate' Republicans they are shedding tears about for the cameras. Had that storm hit CA or Oregon, those two would be joining the House Republicans in making delays and complaining about funding. They sure would not be out there sweating theatrics for the camera about it.

[Jeff In Milwaukee]

41. I hear you...

And let me repeat that I'm only talking about a primary and only in a district where there's no chance of a Democratic win. In my district, Jim Sensenbrenner has never had anything but token oppostion (sometime running unopposed). If there's a more moderate Republican out there, I would support him/her against our incumbent cement-head.

The upside is that you replace a nut-bar with someone who will vote responsibly.

[Bluenorthwest]

59. I get it, in a way. I've never lived as an adult in a no chance for democrats zone, if I moved to on

I'd need lessons from those of you who have experience, perhaps some dietary supplements, lots of reading materials. A hard core coaching regime. I'd have no idea what to do on my own. Thanks for the information, I wonder a lot about what it must be like, and if there is anything that can be done to make those no chance districts less certain for the Republicans.

[Jeff In Milwaukee]

60. Sigh...

It sucks, really. I lived in Cincinnati for fifteen years, being represented by Steve Chabot, then moved to Wisconsin where I have Jim Sensenbrenner. My Representative in Congress has been a horse's ass so long I don't remember what it's like otherwise. I need to move.

[KarenJaye]

33. politics

So, instead of constantly grousing about Obama, go into these Republican congressional districts and flip them from red to blue.

[LynneSin]

34. Good luck with that. Too many states are badly gerrymandered

Any hopes of winning back the house will happen if we can pick up some State COngress/Governor races in 2020, which will be the next group that decides congressional districts.

I know in Pennsylvania more people voted to have a democrat represent them in the house than a republican but in 2011 the GOP controlled state house along with the GOP governor made sure that the republicans would win a slew of districts thanks to gerrymandering.

[Rosa Luxemburg]

70. Good point

[kerry-is-my-prez]

42. And give him a more liberal populace to push our representatives and to vote for decent ones.

[samsingh]

51. we're trying

but we don't have the individual power to balance the jerrymandering repugs have done to steal the house. Democrats got more votes in the house than repugs, but less seats.

Obama can help us by protecting Social Security, ensuring that all votes are cast and counted. and to listen to the people in some States that have legalized weed. This is last one is a powerful issue for many voters who supported Obama.

[Cleita]

52. So how about his cabinet? Doesn't he get to appoint them?

Then why so many DLCers and moderate Republicans there?

[forestpath]

66. Excellent point.

[southernyankeebelle]

53. Well great idea. But when you do flip it to blue you get a blue dog dem. I know in

my district that is what you will get. We had a blue dog before and a tea bagger. Guess who won? The tea bagger. All good but you got to work with what you got.

[leveymg]

54. Foreign policy is the President's purview, and that's where he's been most conservative, IMHO.

But, I say that with reservations. I'm not sure the old liberal-conservative dichotomy really still works well anymore, even as a descriptor. I am encouraged that Kerry has been nominated to replace Hillary, who events in the Mideast are showing didn't pursue very sound policies.

[dkf]

55. Or maybe the secret is to run conservative Dems in conservative districts.

A conservative Democrat is a Democrat who can vote for a Democratic Speaker of the House.

[Doctor_J]

72. we tried that in 2009-2010

then the apologists' line was, "but they're Blue Dogs so they won't vote for liberal laws". The excuses get recycled, but the fact remains that Obama is a conservative who would like to cut SS, privatize the public schools, and see unions further weakened.

[Dyedinthewoolliberal]

56. Really, you have hit the nail on the head.

As I recall, lo those many years ago in high school civics, Congress passes laws and the President enforces them.
More liberal laws? Responsibility of the Congress.

[craigmatic]

61. We won the house by twice as many votes as they did to retain it.

[bowens43]

63. Obama is not a liberal and neverwill be.

He had 2 years with design in control. He still did everything he could to show us he isn't a liberal.

[BlueDemKev]

65. Aren't these complainers...

...the exact same group of liberals who STAYED HOME and DIDN'T VOTE in the 2010 midterms???

When Democrats vote, Democrats WIN.
When Democrats stay home, Democrats LOSE (and lose BIG).

Every Election, Every Time....VOTE.

[Hippo_Tron]

67. There's a difference between leading and following, but I've always felt that way about Obama

Obama hasn't disappointed me too much because I didn't see him promising to take progressive stands. I saw him as a politician who wanted to get 50%+1, but also wanted to encourage people to make it so that his 50%+1 would come from younger and more progressive voters.

With Obama there was seemed to be an implicit social contract. He never promised the under 30 demographic gay marriage, drug reform, and all of those other things that we're in favor of that our older counterparts tend not to be. What he did imply was, "If you want these things, start voting in the numbers that your older counterparts do. As soon as you start doing that, it will be politically safe for me to support them and so I will."

Not really a leader, but a follower who prefers to follow on the left. The problem is that it's the center-right that's giving him 50%+1 and that seems to be who he's following.

[Doctor_J]

71. I am getting pretty sick of hearing this

But your subject line is sure to get plenty of rec's, which I suppose was the point.

the president is governing in a Republican way because he is, by his own admission, a republican. He offered two different cuts to SS benefits. In 2009-2010 he had huge congressional majorities, and chose to listen to Geithner and the DINOs instead of Sanders, Grayson, and the liberals.

This line is particularly dumb:

go into these Republican congressional districts and flip them from red to blue.

Duhhhhokay. Why didn't I think of that?

[donheld]

73. In 2010 why did Obama campaign for Blanche Lincoln?

[Kablooie]

77. If you know a way to un-gerrymander a bunch of districts, go do it for god's sake!

[JDPriestly]

78. Working on it. Thanks.

You are absolutely right.

And we can't elect Democrats to Congress in gerrymandered Republican districts unless Democrats run in those districts.

[Deep13]

79. Give us fair elections,...

...without suppression and without gerrymandered districts, and we will.

[librechik]

80. ok, but gerrymandering! we already out-voted them by a milion and a half

and still got a repub house. We're out of luck til 2020, assuming we get a chance from state to state then.

I have to give up on this shit someday. I'm going to be dead before we get change. I'm 60. And I live in a Dem state, so it's not even up to me.