Question for those who do not plan to support Obama in 2012

[apples and oranges]

A lot of republicans and Lieberman are calling for us to invade more countries like Yemen, Iran, and Syria.

If a republican wins the presidency in 2012 and then goes to war with even more countries in the middle east, will you feel guilty or have any regrets?

[liberal_at_heart]

1. Do you feel guilty that Obama just bombed Yemen?

[tblue]

3. Oomph! Gut punch.

Did he bomb Yemen? I guess I'm not up on the latest poop.

[StarfarerBill]

13. Cruise missile attack.

http://www.examiner.com/x-31244-Louisville-Public-Policy-Examiner~y2009m12d20-Obama-Nobel-peace-prize-in-hand-bombs-Yemen-with-cruise-missiles

[timeforpeace]

17. Pwned! Yemen, Pakistan, Afghanistan.

[stray cat]

36. I sure hope he missed all the terrorists - I worry so much for them...

:sarcasm:

[Thickasabrick]

38. Burn!!! nt

[apples and oranges]

56. Not defending, but wasn't that done because of the increased

presence of Al Queada in Yemen? I don't support war but isn't it intellectually dishonest to equate what the Obama admin has done to what neocons want? Neocons have a philosophy that basically consists of shutting down Islam, getting all the oil,and then turning those places into democracies. I think the Obama admin is simply trying to rid certain countries of Al Queada. While it does all lead to the same end: war, I think the scope of a democratic admin's war will always remain far smaller than the scope of a repub admin's war. It appears that a dem president will focus on actual threats to us and not start full scale wars all over the globe just because. In the end, it's your choice, but I just want to see how everyone feels about this.

[OneTenthofOnePercent]

2. Thus far, war escalation seems independent of political party. n/t

[jonnyblitz]

4. yeah, we best vote for those non-war escalating DEMS like

Obama. :sarcasm:

[MissDeeds]

10. +1 n/t

[apples and oranges]

15. That will be the rationalization when we go to war with the entire Middle East?

That Obama or another Dem would have done the same thing?

[timeforpeace]

19. Do you read the news or watch the news? What do you think has been happening?

[tblue]

20. Or that it was better than being called a wuss.

That is the DUMBEST reason for war in the universe!

[laughingliberal]

23. We may see the war opening more fronts before 2012. nt

[liberal_at_heart]

24. just how many pages from the republican rule book are you guys going to pull?

First if we don't support the healchare bill, we don't care about the uninsured. Then if we don't support Obama, we will be responsible for invading other countries. Sorry. Those fear mongering tactics and guilt trips didn't work on me when the republicans used them and it doesn't work when the democrats use them either.

[timeforpeace]

55. +1

[tblue]

5. How do we reckon this? Count bodies?

I have no plans to NOT support Obama. He's gonna get the nomination and he'll probably win reelection. But I don't own the wars he wages or escalates. I vote as anti-war as possible given very, very limited choices.

[Enrique]

6. I regretted voting for Nader

but I don't think people are talking about going third party. People are talking about a primary challenge. And it's just talk, no one is running against Obama, or even criticizing him very strongly.

[liberal_at_heart]

11. I have voted for democrat right down the party line in every election for 14 yrs now

But they don't represent my views anymore. They are too far to the right and they have accepted too much money from the corporate lobbyists. I will vote democrat when there is a progressive democrat to vote for. But this time if there isn't a progressive to vote for I will vote third party. And even the progressives will have to work hard for my vote because I want to start hearing about campaign finance reform.

[laughingliberal]

25. 36 years, here. Some serious rethinking going on, now. nt

[mitchtv]

69. 36 years here too

exception: wrote in Gene MacCarthy, I have no qualms about another write in if necessary

[tblue]

26. Good for you!

On this site, people sometimes go ballistic over talk like that. They'll call you a Palin Supporter or an Ideologue or Unrealistic or a DK lover. Whatever.... Let 'em!

I have yet to ever vote 3rd party, and I have no plans to at this time. But for the first time ever, I'm starting to ask myself why not.

Welcome to DU! :hi: It's hard walking that PC tightrope here sometimes, but I love this Looney Bin anyway!

[diamidue]

39. They don't represent me either.

However I don't expect to see a progressive Democrat even getting close to winning any elections anytime soon.

But if they somehow miraculously did, I wouldn't expect to see them live long enough to make any progressive changes.

The whole system seems rigged.

[TexasProgresive]

30. A strong primary challenge guarantees a R'puke win.

Just saying.

When did a sitting president face strong opposition in the primary and win the general or if the opponent wins the nomination that they won the general?

[Le Taz Hot]

72. The only option on this board

is to talk about a primary challenge. Talk of third party is going on everywhere and I'm hearing it from both sides -- just not here.

[xchrom]

7. Right -- cause god knows the lesser of two

Isn't what? Still evil.

Maybe more pain will you all who your
real allies are and who need to negotiate
with.

[NYC_SKP]

8. I think it's been well established that anyone who doesn't plan to vote for him is unwelcome here.

They may not all realize it fully, because they have an attention span and/or comprehension deficit, or maybe anger issues, but it is clear that to not support Obama in 2012 is to not support the fundamental mission of Democratic Underground.

:patriot:

[Xithras]

28. The fundamental mission of Democratic Underground is not blind party obedience.

DU exists to promote PROGRESSIVE and LIBERAL political perspectives though Democratic Party channels. I've been here practically since day one, and it has NEVER required blind obedience to any doctrine, individual, or political position. It has also NEVER required members to support politicians who work against progressive ideals, even if they happen to be in our party. The rules simply state that you can't USE THIS BOARD to actively campaign against Democrats. You CAN, however, refute the public fellating of rightwing Democrats so long as your refutations are factual. Political cheerleading should ALWAYS be shot down when it's undeserved.

And before you disagree with me:

Democratic Underground (DU) was founded on Inauguration Day, January 20, 2001, to protest the illegitimate presidency of George W. Bush and to provide a resource for the exchange and dissemination of liberal and progressive ideas. Since then, DU has become one of the premier left-wing websites on the Internet, publishing original content six days a week, and hosting one of the Web's most active left-wing discussion boards.

We welcome Democrats of all stripes, along with other progressives who will work with us to achieve our shared goals. While the vast majority of our visitors are Democrats, this web site is not affiliated with the Democratic Party, nor do we claim to speak for the party as a whole.

From Skinners mouth to your ears. Our "shared goals" are the promotion of progressive and liberal political positions, and not the blind promotion of a political party irregardless of their continued war mongering and economic rape of the lower classes.

Obama has a few years left to EARN the support of the political left, something that he's failed at fairly miserably so far. If he cannot do so, it will be the mission of DU to support a primary challenge to unseat him and replace him with a more palatable progressive candidate.

[tblue]

31. I don't know if everyone got the memo.

Thank you though, my sweet! You just made me very happy. The boundaries of what's PC around here have **felt** awfully narrow of late.

[NYC_SKP]

32. The reality is that we cannot afford another Republican administration. nt.

[Thickasabrick]

42. Then my suggestion would be for the current administration to get

a clue.

[Xithras]

47. You're right, which is why it's so important for the Democratic Party to differentiate itself.

If the current crop of Democratic politicans insists on promoting the same failed pro-corporatist, pro-war, anti-populist positions the Republicans, then what's the real difference? The Democratic party has fairly clearly identified itself as anti-Union these past couple of months, has shown a willingness to not only embrace Republican wars, but to EXPAND them, and has quite bluntly stated their unwillingness to engage in economic policies that benefit the American people if those policies harm their corporate paymasters.

Our job is to support progressive and liberal ideals, and not to blindly follow faux-Democrats who vote Rethuglican but insist on your support because they wear the White Hat's.

We cannot afford another pro war, anti-populist administration run by ANY party. What we NEED is a progressive revolution. Because I don't see that happening, I'll settle for gutpunching the party leadership to remind them that they can't simply ignore the will of the people. If that means we lose a few seats, so be it. It's their choice, not ours.

[liberal_at_heart]

49. +1

[laughingliberal]

51. +++1000

[sabrina 1]

64. I agree, so could you please send that message

to the WH and to the leadership of the Democratic Party?

[RetroLounge]

74. We already have one

RL

[laughingliberal]

40. Thank you so much for that! nt

[mochajava666]

73. That. Was. AWESOME!!!

People seem to want to turn DU into an Obama, love him or leave him site. As an Obama supporter and volunteer, I have been sickened by the corporatist and militaristic policies that he supports. When Obama is not progressive, he deserves and needs to be criticized.

I remember Republicans carrying water for W even though they were libertarians, or believed in a secular government. Those groups looked stupid defending a guy in spite of their principles (which they declared as sacred).

I would hope we could learn from their example, but maybe blind hero worship is easier on the brain.

[tblue]

29. Oh yeah.

That's the ticket to becoming persona non grata at DU.

BTW, I have no plans to NOT support Obama, but I am getting weary of the PC & Thought Nazis telling people how they should feel. As if our values are up for negotiation.

[NYC_SKP]

37. I'm not preaching, I'm just describing the situation regarding the 2012 primaries.

And what has been written by administrators and a few members held in high regard.

Unless Obama really goes off track and/or someone REALLY viable presents him or her self, we will be duty called to at least vote for him.

:patriot:

[laughingliberal]

41. It's a long way off. He has time to earn the trust of the left and he has time to go further right

Will be a while before we know if any primary challenges emerge. I am sure any who may be considering a challenge from the left are, also, taking the approach to see what he does between now and then

[Thickasabrick]

44. I don't think you will have a problem with Dems voting for Pukes. The

problem will be with Dems staying home.

[tblue]

57. Oh no.

I did not think you were preaching. No not at all. I'm just saying some people like to stomp all over people who don't echo the party line on this site, sometimes. You keep it up, sweetie. I agree with you totally.

[BeHereNow]

9. Haven't you noticed? It doesn't matter who is elected.

The wheel keeps turning in exactly the direction decided
by the people in power. The president, dem or rep simply obeys
the ptb.

BHN

[Fire1]

16. Pretty much. n/t

[The Gunslinger]

12. My biggest worry in 2012 will be how to pay for my family's healthcare.

[femmocrat]

14. Those republicans who are calling for invasions should be the first to enlist.

I think the entire scenario is highly unlikely anyhow.

[sabrina 1]

18. Didn't we just invade Yemen?

And aren't we expanding the war in Afghanistan and as far as I know, we are operating in Pakistan also, and who knows where else?

Not sure that anything we can do will stop the war machine no matter who's in the WH. The Republicans just like to wave the flag more when they do it.

[timeforpeace]

21. Obama ordered cruise missle strikes, OP must have missed that. No ground troops yet.

[cornermouse]

33. I think there's also been talk about attacking Iran as well.

[apples and oranges]

34. Is his admin following a pre-emptive doctrine or a reactive doctrine

I think the answer to that question makes all the difference.

[cornermouse]

50. Try this on for size.

I don't see Yemen as "reactive" or "pre-emptive". I see it as military adventurism and I have to wonder if the attack on Yemen is a signal that the Pentagon is firmly in control of the White House because at this point, I seem to have a choice between seeing Obama as a weak person who takes the easy way out or as a person who has been hopelessly compromised, maybe even corrupted by the system.

[timeforpeace]

53. Would it also make a difference to you when you say "republicans and Lieberman want us to invade

blah blah blah"? Not only is that assertion incorrect, but assuming it was correct, wouldn't your insistence on what makes a difference apply to them also? Yes, rationally it would. But in any case your original assertion is incorrect and the truth is that Obama is doing the very things you accuse republicans (the party OUT of power) and Lieberman of doing. Deal with that reality if you are so concerned about the invasions of other countries.

[sabrina 1]

67. Well, it definitely makes a difference to the loved ones of those

who die in these strikes. Bush used this technique also. It's called assassination, something I thought was against International law. We are not involved in a war with Yemen as far as I know, so when the US sends in operatives to 'kill' people, they usually kill an awful lot of innocent people and more often than not, as in Bush's case, don't even kill the terrorists. The problem with this is, how do we know these people are guilty of anything?

I know Bush made himself a king and ignored International Law and our own Domestic laws, claiming that he had the authority to do so. But in this country and we also are obligated to follow International law, as we signed treaties which are now part of our Constitution, ordering the assassination of anyone without a trial, is illegal, not to mention how immoral it is. This is not a battlefield where the US is fighting a declared war.

There were two airstrikes, ordered by Obama. 28 children and dozens of others were killed in those strikes.

We are told that 'Al Queda' has gained a stronghold there. We were told a lot of stories by the Bush administration. Usually by unnamed 'US Officials'. I didn't support these kinds of deadly attacks on populations when Bush did it, is there anything different about the tragedy of all those dead children now that Obama is doing it?

He has adapted the Bush Doctrine seamlessly it seems to me. Our Constitution requires that Congress be informed when this country goes to war. Congress has the power to fund and defund wars. Did Obama even inform them?

I don't take the word of anonymous US Officials that this was a necessary action to take.

What is most sad about this, is that when Bush started down this path, on almost every progressive board I was on, not one person approved of political assassinations. They just knew it was wrong. Bush has apparently softened people up because now, progressives are actually looking for a way to justify what to me, remains indefensible. As someone who lived through the rise of the Third Reich said, the German people didn't go along with the crimes of their government right away. It happened 'incrimentally' until they realized it was too late to stop it. Seems to me that's what's happening here.

RIP little children of Yemen ~ and all the others our war machine has killed. :cry:

[laughingliberal]

22. I fully expect we'll go to war with more countries before 2012

I'll have to see who pops up in the primary before I know if there's an alternative but I don't think it's going to make a big difference in the endless war world.

[Mugweed]

27. I will support Democrats

even as they appear to be morphing into republicans. I'm hoping that this is a temporary thing. Odd how optimism seems a lot like schizophrenia.

At the moment, it appears we will continue to war ourselves into a 3rd-world nation regardless of the political party in charge.

[mstinamotorcity]

35. What do you want

If you get a republican you will just go back to the way things were. But with any good administration it is usually the second term when you feel the difference in leadership.Except in the case of Dubya we started feeling his less than six months in office.We damn sure was broke and on our way to one of the worst eight years on record.So go to your third parties,don't vote,kiss a frog but don't complain when we have to start all over again. I guess some of us didn't get enough of a hard time during the Dubya/Shooter era.Wait until they try and shove Hailey Barbor down your throat for President. I smell it coming.

[liberal_at_heart]

43. Obama was the one who wanted to take on healthcare in his first term

He knew it would be sink or swim which is why he is willing to pass whatever healthcare legislation the insurance companies and republicans tell him to pass. He needs that win bad and so do all the rest of the democrats in Congress. Well they better hope that "win" gets them alot of votes because it will most certainly lose them some votes.

[mstinamotorcity]

54. Yes he did

but it was not like he did not say that he would take on health care. We knew this going in.And speaking of the health care the bill is still not ready so lets just wait and see on that one.Can't believe every pundit who comes on television and says this is in the bill and that is in the bill and the bill is not finished yet.And insurance companies as it stands are going to reap some of this benefit. But for thirty one million americans who may get healthcare out this deal i am willing to start with that.

[laughingliberal]

46. What I don't want is for him to govern from the right for the next 3 years and then promise to do

better if reelected. Humiliating the left was not our idea. Who's responsible if the left leaves him? We didn't just wake up one day and decide we didn't like the tie he wore.

[mstinamotorcity]

58. No but with as much as i

despise the right,i have to give it up to them about hanging together. They have said no since day one and has not changed their positon one hair. But our own democratic party it seems we can't keep it together for a couple of years. There are some things that the President just cannot do by waving a magic wand. And there are some things that we cannot see because we are not the President. So even though all of the things that i wanted yesterday as well as eight years ago and counting,i am willing to hang in there with him to help reach the goal of a productive America. Don't forget greed and corruption was there before he was,will be there when he leaves. But i think we have a better chance with him than we have had in a long time.IMHO

[laughingliberal]

61. If keeping it together means I'm supposed to pretend the corporofascist

right wing crap coming out of this administration is dandy with me, thank you very much, I'm not on board. I'm old. I'm tired. I'm a veteran of the civil rights battles of the sixties and I'm goddamned if, at this age, after I've lost everything as the result of this supply side crap I'm going to sit here and watch a party I have supported for 40 damned years act like Republicans and pretend they aren't going against everything I ever thought they stood for.

Rahm has made it abundantly clear the left doesn't matter, the base is a myth and he feels it actually furthers his purpose to piss us off. Well, good. Then I guess he's getting what he wants. If the president decides, at some point, we matter more than that Igagni whore, Billy Tauzin, and the robber barons of Wall Street he has ample time to demonstrate that between now and 2012.

[mstinamotorcity]

65. No i am saying this

we are not in the White House. We have an elected representative who has been given a hot mess of a country. There are some things that i don't agree with all the time. But i know that in order for some things to get done it takes legislation. There are quite a few Senators and Congressmen who have been in office for quite some time.They are the keys to corporate money controlling the Hill.Our President has this to deal with too. Now you can blame him for some things but you can not blame him for a senate and congress that is bought and paid for.When you start laying blame it can start with those of us that elected these froot loops in the first place.I know it might sound bad but i am kind of glad that there is a lot of opposition because it gave the American people the opportunity to see those ridiculous froot loops in action. Do you realize that some of these people never knew who their congressmen or senators were? Look you may have gotten a little pissed off but you know you can't go back to way things were.And when you really get pissed off just think about Dubya/Shooter,. then you can just go back to being mad;-)

[laughingliberal]

68. I hope to see more progressive policy from the President before it's over.

I am not happy about all these Blue Cross Dogs sitting in the Senate and House, either. But, I very strongly feel it was President Obama's team who killed the chance at the public option. I trust Russ Feingold and he said there was no sense in everyone getting all bent out of shape over Lieberman, that he believed this is the bill the President wanted all along. I believe he cut that deal with Igagni and Tauzin before the first word was written in the House or the Senate. It is the only thing that makes sense of his aloofness while the madmen took over the debate. He praised the work of Baucus' gang of six assholes, even praising Grassley-even after Grassley expressly said he would not vote for any bill no matter what. Never one word of encouragement for the work of any of the 3 House committees that voted their bills out. Not one word of praise for the Senate HELP committee that passed the bill Teddy would have wanted. We have had reports all along that Ignagni was confident the President would fulfill his promises to the industry. Smirking, smug confidence she had him in her pocket. Well, forgive me I think his promises to the American people should have figured into this. Even now, I get word the President favors the tax on the 'cadillac plan' tax, which is a killer for our working class. Even now, after every shred of progressive reform is gone, he favors the most regressive part of either of the bills. I am angry. I have watched the decimation of the health care industry since I graduated from nursing school in 1982. I have lived with the stagnating/declining wages of the working/middle class my entire working life. I have seen the poor become destitute. I have seen the working class become the poor. I have seen the middle class slip down to working class and we are about to pass a sham of a health care reform bill that ensures downward mobility for all but the wealthiest as far as the eye can see. Yeah, there may be better policies in place but the things that have made my generation the first to do worse than our parents and that ensure our children will do worse than us have not changed and, in fact, are ramping up more under his watch. Most of the obstructionist Democrats are Rahm recruits. If the president favored any liberal ideas I don't think the offensive, insulting Rahm Emanuel would be CofS. No, I won't ever vote for a Republican or a 3rd party but, I swear, there are days I hope I don't live til the next presidential election because the thought of having to pull that lever for a Democrat who is selling us out like this is reprehensible to me.

[mstinamotorcity]

71. I understand your frustration

that is why i am here to make sure that are anger over some issues don't tear away at the big picture.Look,to be progressive it takes some of us to think and act that way.We still have a lot of people who just got up on all the tom foolery that goes on in D.C.Do you think that without people like you sounding the bell that some of us would ever know what was going on? For years the people of America have been told what they want to hear as opposed to the truth. But once we started coming together the truth started coming out. We know that corruption runs deep in D.C. and it is up to us to keep the pressure on.I think that we need to do what it is we can do under this administration in order to secure our children's basic rights.And its not like Rahm isn't getting his share of e-mails too. Don't forget to send yours.We are a team.And we will prevail.Don't give up yet we are only eleven months in.Our work is just beginning.So take a deep breath,cuss,call those trolls every name in the book,get a dart board and paste Rahm's picture on the bull's eye and practice hitting his nose,and lets figure out how to make lemonade out of some of these lemons.Got your back.

[SkyDaddy7]

45. I appreciate your post!

Folks have taken on a Tea bagger like mentality so you can't expect to many rational responses to your post. Its ideology or nothing for many here on DU!

Folks think Obama has a magic wand that he should have used by now to solve everything! After 20-30 years of Republican rule it will take baby steps to turn this country around.

I for one am very happy we have a President that is taking a very pragmatic approach to the very complicated and serious problems not only here in America but around the world.

[Tierra_y_Libertad]

48. I'll vote for the most progressive, anti-war, candidate on the ballot. And, I won't regret it.

I don't vote for war, or those who make war...no matter who they are.

[Stinky The Clown]

52. Hey Socko .... Sluggo ..... Skippy ..... whoever you are .......

How many people do you think you're talking about?

[NMMNG]

59. Such a pity I can only unrec this bullshit once.

[jgraz]

62. No worries. I gave it another one.

[AngryOldDem]

60. Nope.

Because shit will happen, whether I vote for it or not.

[jgraz]

63. If Obama loses in 2012, it won't be because I didn't vote for him.

It will be because he lost the support of millions of people with his lurch to the corporate right.

[Obamanaut]

66. How do you feel about the additional thousands of troops going

into Afghanistan. How Nobel Peacely is that?

Bringing a few thousand, if not all, home would be better.

[Iggo]

70. I'll vote for whoever the Dem candidate is.

You want it to be Obama? You better start bustin' ass.