Just a reminder...if we get stomped this fall, it will be the CENTRISTS' fault

[Ken Burch]

Every thing that has gone wrong or cost us popularity has been the result of a centrist policy choice or centrist political strategy.

Mid term elections can ONLY be won if the base is respected and energized.

But just as it did in the early 90's, the Democratic administration that progressives and the base elected has done everything it could to antagonize and disrespect those groups.

It's up to the administration and the Congressional leadership to change this.

It's up to THEM to reach out to us.

It's up to THEM to give people something to vote FOR...not just warn us of what to vote against.

The "independents" were never demanding that the administration treat the base and the activists as red-headed stepchildren.

The only ones who did demand this were our enemies in the media and the other party. And they demanded it because they KNEW it would destroy things for us.

Our leaders have GOT to stop listening to those who only want to weaken us. To those who only want to reduce us to the pitiful post-1994 political situation(a situation in which it ended up being meaningless that the president claimed to be a "Democrat").
Because the people the administration HAS been listening to our the people who have no other wish than to destroy us, as they did in the Nineties.

Please listen, Mr. President.
Please learn.

Centrism is failure.
Centrism is defeat.
Centrism is ruin.

The path to victory is the path of passion, courage, and justice. Be strong enough to walk that path.

[upi402]

1. Yellow stripes and dead armadilos

Hey! Lookit what I found in the middle of the road! :wow:

[Maru Kitteh]

2. That's just what Sarah said, you betcha!

[Hardrada]

4. Jim Hightower said that and wisely so.

[upi402]

17. A great man!

:patriot:

[mod mom]

134. I always wished the Democratic Party would embrace Hightower as he would speak to an entire

population who sees us as "libruls." He has such a way with words.

[Ken Burch]

151. If we'd nominated Hightower for the presidency in 1988, he'd have kicked Bush Sr's carpetbagger ass

And Dubya would never have been anything but a rich drunk chugging his family's fortune away.

[mod mom]

200. The Dems don't elevate populists they prefer the status quo of corporatists.

and I don't care if some are offended with the over use of the term corporatist. If the shoe fits....they sure ain't working for the betterment of society.

[ChiciB1]

120. Used To Live In Texas BEFORE Hightower Became So Well Known...

but the guy is GREAT!! My views dove tail nicely with his! And yes, CENTRISTS have cost Democrats a great deal, however MSM wants MOST people to think it's "leftists" who are doing this!

If being left of Raa-UUUMMM is being a "leftist" than I ARE ONE!! Actually, I ARE a SOCIALIST too according to them!!

I wear the tag PROUDLY!! Our Democratic Party, and sadly LEADERSHIP in the WH has left me scratching my head... most of the time!!!

:headbang:

[JHB]

171. That's my new line...: I'm not a socialist, I'm just called one on TV"

n/t

[Ken Burch]

218. There's actually a song that's called "You Ain't Done Nothin'(If You Ain't Been Called A'Red')

(by Faith Petric)

When I was just a little thing
I used to love parades.
With banners, bands, red balloons,
and maybe lemonade.
When I came home one May Day,
my neighbour's father said,
"Them marchers is all commies.
Tell me kid, are you a Red?"

Well I didn't know just what he meant-
my hair back then was brown.
Our house was plain red brick-
like most others in the town.
So I went and asked my momma
why our neighbour called me red.
My mummy took me on her knee
and this is what she said,

"Well ya ain't done nothing
if ya ain't been called a Red.
If you marched or agitated,
then you're bound to hear it said.
So you might as well ignore it
or love the word instead.
Cuz ya ain't been doing nothing
if ya ain't been called a Red."

When I was growing up,
had my troubles I suppose.
When someone took exception
to my face or to my clothes.
Or tried to cheat me on the job
or hit me on the head.
When I organized to fight back,
why the stinkers called me Red

But ya ain't done nothing
if ya ain't been called a Red
if you marched or agitated,
then you're bound to hear it said.
So you might as well ignore it
or love the word instead.
Cuz ya ain't been doing nothing
if ya ain't been called a Red.

When I was living on my own,
one apartment that I had.
Had a lousy rotten landlord
Let me tell you he was bad.
But when he tried to throw me out,
I rubbed my hands and said,
"You haven't seen a struggle
if you haven't fought a Red!"

And ya ain't done nothing
if ya ain't been called a Red.
If you marched or agitated,
then you're bound to hear it said.
So you might as well ignore it
or love the word instead.
Cuz ya ain't been doing nothing
if ya ain't been called a Red.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mFp-w4pmrFU

[emsimon33]

145. Ah, you said it all!

[JI7]

3. it sounds like you want to lose

[Hardrada]

6. Face reality, old chap.

[Ken Burch]

8. No, I want to avoid losing.

The only way to do that is for the admin to admit it's been wrong to distance itself from the base and let the Obama political movement atrophy(as OFA has since becoming a shriveled arm of the DNC).

The way to win is to reach out again and bring the hope again.

[Donnachaidh]

101. do you Really think the base is going to believe - after all the backpedaling that's been done?

I'm not trying to be snarky, but the health insurance protection bill has really REALLY turned people away from this administration (at least where I live). I think it's going to tak emore than an *I'm sorry, I was wrong* speech to turn things around.

These people feel used and BURNED. And rightly so. They were abused enough by Dim Son and his group. The sting is doubly harsh when you really cared and really THOUGHT you'd be putting someone in office that promised so much. And then tossed it aside.

[tavalon]

44. I want to win

That said, it's beginning to look like even if the Democrats win, I lose. My party has left me in the dust and called me a fucking retard, to boot.

[Tesha]

51. That was really the moment, wasn't it?

I've disliked the DLC since, well, *EVER*, but I was willing
to tolerate the DLC Blue Dogs on the theory that they at
least helped us achieve a majority in both houses. But when
Rahm said that, it simply confirmed everything I always
figured they thought about us on the left as simply being
willing fools who'd help them get elected, no matter how
much they pissed on us afterwards.

Tesha

[tavalon]

55. I'd like to claim that it was that moment

but the moment I first started doubting was when Rahm was chosen to be Chief of Staff. I've suffered the death of a thousand cuts since. The only thing about that comment that stunned me was the hubris. I knew they didn't care about my point of view but I didn't expect them to be so damned blatant. It reminded me of the way we were discounted and ridiculed during the Bush maladministration. I just didn't expect it to be so blatant from "my" team. Did I mention how blatant it was?

[GinaMaria]

150. yep, no turning back from that moment

Yet, we should be grateful for it. It shattered the last remnants of denial.

[LWolf]

88. I did lose when the centrists were installed in the WH. nt

[BzaDem]

5. There are plenty of midterms where we won without an energized base

Such as 1998, where we did pretty well (despite Clinton/Welfare Reform/etc).

On the other hand, I don't know of a single midterm election that either side won when Independents were voting for the other party by a thirty point margin.

This is not to say that centrist policies are a good thing. It is, however, to say that you are wrong. As you usually are with your abstract absolutist statements.

[Hardrada]

7. Centrist policies are illogical when there is no apparent center.

[rucky]

75. It's unique to the beltway.

You don't see the republicans budging. Every "move to the center" is a move to the right by a dem.

You don't please left-leaning voters who are disgusted with both parties with bipartisanship. It's a major miscalculation, or they simply want the right to win.

[Ken Burch]

9. We were still in a minority after the 1998 midterms.

We gained a handful of seats because the GOP disgusted the voters with its arrogance.

And if the independents are voting for the other party by a thirty point margin now, it means we can't get them back anyway(and proves that dissing the base doesn't keep independents on our side).

The independents want to see leadership. They're not demanding that Obama keep the base out in the cold. Independents are not rabidly anti-left like the teabaggers are. They just want to see common-sense cases for the ideas they're asked to support. These cases can be made WITHOUT acting like the base is the enemy or doesn't matter.

[BzaDem]

12. I think your biggest problem is that you think that the base is somehow being left out "in the cold"

I've seen some people here that claim that not prosecuting Bush/Cheney is somehow pissing on the base. Even though Obama essentially campaigned on not prosecuting Bush/Cheney, and that no president that will ever be popularly elected is ever going to even consider doing this.

I've seen some people here claim that not calling for Single Payer is somehow pissing on the base. Even though Obama not only didn't support Single Payer -- he actually campaigned AGAINST Single Payer in television ads. (Not to mention that such a plan wouldn't even get 25% of either house to vote for it.) In fact, the public option wasn't even CONCEIVED of until 2006.

Others think that not getting EFCA enacted is pissing on the base. Even though we never had 60 votes for that before Scott Brown's election, let alone now.

The list goes on and on. The general problem is your unrealistic expectations. Progressives currently have a minority in both houses of Congress. You aren't going to get much of the progressive agenda enacted when progressives are still a minority in not just one but both houses.

[MannyGoldstein]

16. Calling Your Base's Actions "Fucking Retarded" Is Being Left In The Cold

Or worse, actually.

Denying that you ever ran on a public option is mooning your base. As is bailing out Wall Street with zero new regulation (while doing squat for the other 99% of us in need), continuing endless extrajudicial imprisonment and extrajudicial torture, warrantless wiretapping, and so forth.

[BzaDem]

23. While those terms should never be used, whether the general idea is true depends on the actions.

For example, if some people want to kill HCR because we couldn't get a public option, that would indeed be incredibly stupid and someone who pointed that out (using appropriate language) wouldn't be wrong.

And I don't think any Democrat ever said that Obama didn't run on a public option. I certainly didn't say that. I said that he didn't promise one, because no President can make any promises when it comes to enacting legislation.

Obama certainly didn't promise that he wouldn't try to enact HCR if he couldn't get a public option through.

[MannyGoldstein]

25. Obama Himself Said He Never Ran On A Public Option

It's a matter of public record.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cET2OSbtj0g

[tavalon]

47. So word parsing is your gig, then?

It depends on what the definition of "is" is.

[Jakes Progress]

157. For example, people who think that health care

is a game with a scorecard are the reason we will lose. Political hacks like Rahm who call people who want the right thing names with that give away his biases are the reason we will lose. Just because the village calls it HCR doesn't make it so. It will have little affect on health care. It will make insurance companies richer. A very small number of people with money may get a little better insurance coverage, but for the most part what is coming out is just a way to say we won, won by some set of notches or checks on a scorecard. The people are losing. Most people know it.

If we stand a chance of winning it will be because the progressive side of the party pushed and bitched and called and yelled until the craven side of the party actually did something they should. When people see the party actually serving the public instead of their campaign coffers, we will stand a chance. The enablers will only whine us into minority status.....again.

[Enthusiast]

174. Yes, expecting reasonable

Wall Street regulation is not some wild eyed liberal idea. See this "person" is just making a smoke screen to give corporate centered behavior cover.

[Tesha]

56. Cute strawman.

But what *THIS* particular member of the base expected was simply
the stuff Obama promised during the campaign:

o A rapid end to the Iraq war

o A restoration of our Fourth Amendment rights

o A stimulus package aimed at the average citizen

o Banking reform

o The rapid invalidation of DADT

o Health *CARE* reform

Has *ANY* of that happened yet?

Tesha

[JTFrog]

59. +1

[Spazito]

95. Well said! n/t

[bkozumplik]

149. so many things wrong with one post..

"I've seen some people here that claim that not prosecuting Bush/Cheney is somehow pissing on the base."
what? yea. it is.
" Even though Obama essentially campaigned on not prosecuting Bush/Cheney,"
what???? are you high? He had Rahm finally take a position on that after he was elected. Before that he just avoided and evaded. Your comment is utterly false.

"I've seen some people here claim that not calling for Single Payer is somehow pissing on the base.
what?? yeah it is.
"Even though Obama not only didn't support Single Payer -- he actually campaigned AGAINST Single Payer in television ads. (Not to mention that such a plan wouldn't even get 25% of either house to vote for it.) In fact, the public option wasn't even CONCEIVED of until 2006."
um no, you're wrong again, he has frequently said that we should have single payer, before he was elected. When he met with pharma, then suddenly he stopped mentioning it. Your comment is false.

"Others think that not getting EFCA enacted is pissing on the base. Even though we never had 60 votes for that before Scott Brown's election, let alone now."
EFCA isnt a big issue in the public arena. How about the war, want to take that one on?

"The list goes on and on. "
The fist thing you've said that wasnt wrong!

"The general problem is your unrealistic expectations. Progressives currently have a minority in both houses of Congress. You aren't going to get much of the progressive agenda enacted when progressives are still a minority in not just one but both houses."
The progressives are a wing of the Democratic party, whether you like it or not. Your comment once again, makes little to no sense.

[rhett o rick]

162. If expecting to get the fascist policies of Idiot-Bush reversed, then I am guilty

of "unrealistic expectations". Pres Obama hasnt done anything to undo the Bush-Cabal DOJ. That's something he could do without the Republicans. Nothing to undo the Patriot Act, domestic spying, rendition, treating prisoners as "enemy combatants", undoing the MCA, etc. Just because he didnt campaign on them doesnt make it ok to let them go.

If wanting the president to act like he was trying to help the middle class instead of wall street, then again, I am guilty of "unrealistic expectations".

It must be nice to be a centrist and not have any expectations.

[Enthusiast]

173. Nice little chunk

of MISINFORMATION. I don't even know where to start.

"I've seen some people here that claim that not prosecuting Bush/Cheney is somehow pissing on the base." No, it's pissing on the constitution. It doesn't matter whether Obama campaigned on prosecuting Bush and Cheney or not. Not investigating them and prosecuting them is in violation of Obama's oath of office. He is sworn to uphold the constitution of the United States. This is not some progressive ideal. Saying it is is nothing but a smoke screen and cover for Bush.

We did not expect to hear Obama "calling out for Single Payer". We did expect that information on single payer would not be censored. Besides, I watched a You Tube Obama clip yesterday where he said single payer was THE single best approach. Also, left up to the American people single payer is very popular. So, single payer is not some wild 'progressive' ideal.

It isn't a progressive agenda.

Including a public option in HCR would increase its popularity and make it more cost effective. That is a fact. You on the other hand are misleading us. Why are you doing this?

[tavalon]

46. So, I wonder who wins when we are all disgusted with all of them

I'm angry, damn angry and I'm not alone. Not by a longshot.

[ChiciB1]

124. Noooooooooo, NOT BY A LONG SHOT! More Are Joining Everyday!

And this is a sad commentary on an administration that so many felt was going to FIGHT for "we the people!" I freely admit that I NEVER felt with ALL that was passed on from the past administration was going to get done RIGHT AWAY, I did at least think we elected someone to be on our side!

Instead I've seen far too much pandering to Big Pharma, Big Insurance and heavens knows BIG CORPORATIONS!! Many people would be willing to cut some slack on other issues IF it wasn't so very obvious that the above mentioned have gotten the BIGGER slice of the PIE, or maybe almost ALL of the PIE!

So many issues that Obama campaigned on have simply gone by the wayside, and it doesn't seem that the WH NOR most Democrats are working for us! I agree it's hard to pass legislation without the Congress Critters, and they have let us down more than I had ever imagined. HOWEVER, had Obama taken the Bull By The Horns instead of trying to placate his opposition, I doubt so many would be angered! As it is, many of us wonder just where the Hell he stands most of the time!

Too many speeches, not enough ACTION, that's what has gotten under the skin of so many of us! It's hard NOT to see that many Democrats have decided to become Independents because the Democrats look so very weak!

A little spine please, a little strength, show some FIGHT! That's what I'm NOT seeing!!
:grr:

[MannyGoldstein]

13. Have You Forgotten Scott Brown So Quickly?

The voters of my bluest-in-the-country commonwealth put a teabagger in the Senate - that's how pissed we are.

If Mass can put a teabagger in office, what are you thinking will happen nationwide? That we'll do pretty well? I'm guessing not.

[BzaDem]

15. You prove my point exactly.

Brown won because Independents swung toward him by close to 30 points. If in the bluest state in the country (where the D-R advantage is so huge), a Democrat can STILL lose because of Independents, there is a big problem.

[Ken Burch]

20. Independents swung because our candidate was a centrist who didn't try hard

It's not like we'd have held that seat with a candidate who was FURTHER right.

And the base was de-energized by the tactics of the administration. if the base had been stoked, we'd have taken that seat.

Independents can't be assumed to be to the right of the base.

[BzaDem]

32. Actually, yes they can.

The assumption that independents (by and large) are further right than the base is one of the safest assumptions you can make. It is easily empirically testable. On issue after issue, most independents poll further to the right than Democrats do (and CERTAINLY further to the right than the base). This is not to say every single independent is further to the right. There are always going to be some Nader crazies. But averaged together, very few people would dispute that independents are indeed further to the right than the base of the Democratic party.

[boston bean]

37. Problem is that lefties are not asking for obama to be a commie.

We are asking him to be a populist.

Which I know can win votes from indies and repubs and liberals.

But for some strange reason, no one is doing that. Obama is not using the bully pulpit for that. He is allowing the enemy to use lefties as the common enemy. Ask yourself why???

Is it because the politicians serve a different master, not the people, possibly corporations???

[tavalon]

48. Yep

Give us even a token FDR like behavior and we will be back on the Change bus so fast................

Keep on giving us Big Dog Redux and they will be able to take my middle finger to the bank. I am done with being a reliable voter. Give me something or you will get nothing from me. I volunteered for the Obama campaign and I get called "fucking retarded"? I don't think so. And I'm not alone. As you know.

[rhett o rick]

163. Is it untra lefty to expect decent, health care for Americans. Do centrists not

agree this is a reasonable expectation?

[Enthusiast]

179. This is no accident.

It can't be.

This is no longer The United States of America. That much is clear.

[dana_b]

78. wow

so the independents who lean right are treated with respect but those of us who are on the left are "Nader crazies". This is one of the reasons that I left the Democratic party. Attitudes like that stink.

[BzaDem]

96. It depends on who they vote for.

If they are left-Independents but consistently vote Democratic, then I wouldn't call them crazy (though I don't think a large portion of independents consistently vote for any party). Though if they actually vote for 3rd party candidates at the expense of Democrats, then I do indeed call them that, because that is what they are. They are people who live on a desert island who missed the fact that we live in a two-party, lesser-of-two-evils system, and that nothing they do is ever going to change that. They have the right to vote for whomever they want to, but I have the right to call them what they are.

[dana_b]

111. with attitudes like that, you're right

nothing will ever change.

Of course you have the right to call people like me crazy. I say people who vote for the lesser of two evils on a consistent basis are the crazy, go-with-the-flow and never put their necks on the line idiots. You get what you consistently vote for. Cest la vie!

[Enthusiast]

181. Yeah, when 70% of the

American people favor the public option that is some kind of crazy idea.

When the American people overwhelmingly want Wall Street regulated why would we listen to 20% of the people that are vociferously anti-regulation?

See, what you are selling, we ain't buying it. We hear the same shit every Sunday morning from the GOP talking heads.

[Raineyb]

153. So are the politicians.

But that doesn't stop them from trying to sound more leftist when they want something. All people are doing is asking them to ACT on their rhetoric. That rightward swing they take after being elected to appeal to people who are as fickle as the wind is a great way to LOSE. Which is what they'll do if they keep pissing on the base the way they have been.

And people will actually vote for someone who will stand up for what they believe rather than someone who changes depending on what pair of socks they happen to be wearing that day.

[Enthusiast]

178. You are completely wrong.

Hey, if we need to move more to the right what is the point of even having a Democratic Party? We can all just save time by voting Republican.

[muffin1]

195. Obama won a huge chunk of the independent voters in 2008.

Soooo, after the election, the independent voters decided they DIDN'T want what Obama had promised after all? No, they are running away because Obama is not even trying to deliver on those promises. He and the dems in Congress look like lilly-livered weaklings who want EVERYONE to like them. Why in the hell they are courting the likes of Chuck Grassley, Olympia Snowe, Joe Lieberman, and the rest of the repubs is beyond me. It is getting them NOWHERE, and in the end, NO ONE will like them. When the blood-bath occurs, it will laid firmly at the feet of Obama and his friend Rahm.

[Tesha]

58. You would do better to study which members of the Democratic Coalition didn't bother to show up...

...at all. You'll find that African Americans, Latinos, and other groups that
Obama depended upon in 2008 didn't bother to vote in 2010. And if they
had, Coakley would still have won, even without the people in the muddled
middle who go whichever way the wind (or at least the hot air) is blowing.

Tesha

[Moochy]

69. Right its those damned voters and their dislike for the candidates!

[BzaDem]

97. And that happens in every midterm election.

African Americans, Latinos, and other groups Obama depended on consistently make up a lower proportion of the electorate in midterm elections. That is not new.

[Tesha]

105. But with Obama, there *WAS* a chance we could have affected that.

But you're right; rather than ask why, let's just accept that a
significant portion of our electorate can't be bothered to show
up for our crappy candidates. And now we can add women,
gays, union members, and progressives to the no shows!

Tesha

[Ken Burch]

125. And then blame them for "quitting"

When is this party gonna get it that the loyalty has to be mutual?

That you have to show those voters that their votes MATTERED, and do so over and over again.

The groups that don't show up in midterms are fighting decades of relentless inner despair every time they DO decide to vote. They're trying to work through generations of betrayal and contempt.

Why not admit that the contempt and betrayal were wrong?

Why not admit that those voters should NEVER have been treated as if they were less important than those precious, fussy "independents"?

Why not finally treat ALL our supporters with equal respect and regard?

Is this asking too much?

[Ken Burch]

123. Neither is the refusal to learn from it.

The decline in the votes from those groups in the midterms PROVES that "moving to the center" doesn't work politically. When are people like you finally gonna put that together?

It's time to admit that this party OWES all its supporters equal respect.

[girl gone mad]

115. THe Independents were voting against Obama's crap health reform..

against the bailouts, and against the DLC corporist infection in the Democratic party. I called that one weeks before it happened and said exactly why it would happen and all of Rahm's little minions came out to tell me how wrong I was, that Coakley was just the kind of moderate candidate we needed and Brown was a loony radical who would be rejected by the voters.

Sorry, but we lost in Mass precisely because of failed "centrist" policies, stupid "centrist" plans and a candidate clearly bought and paid for by corporate interests.

[cali]

19. the abridged edition.

sorry, the election of Brown was due at least as much to the failures of Coakely and the campaigns run by the two candidates. there's certainly some truth is the observation that people are pissed but that's not the whole story in MA.

[MannyGoldstein]

22. It's Most of the Story

The Democratic base took our ball and went home. I pulled the lever for Coakley, but knew she'd just turn around and sodomize me as most Democrats are doing. Most other Dems I know just didn't pull the lever.

The good news is that Brown caused Obama to get off his ass and actually make some squeaking noises about a wee bit of health care reform.

[Enthusiast]

182. Squeaking noises is about it. nt

[tavalon]

45. Oh, goodie. I love the despite voting

I actually worked for the Kerry (read that as the ABB campaign). I hate the compromise vote but I've done it over and over and over. And you do know what they say about insanity, right? I think Obama and his Rahminator may have finally killed the compromise beast in me. Stabbed it right in the heart, they did. I'm starting to sound like Nader. Nader!!! Fuck!

[BzaDem]

53. I really doubt the "beast" is dead.

Because after all, while some might not be thrilled about the current HCR, it is better than gutting all state regulation on health insurance (the Republican plan). Likewise, while the current cap-and-trade bill might not please Kucinich and his acolytes, it is probably better than the Republican plan of moving in the opposite direction by gutting environmental regulations across the board.

There are a few who don't see this prior to the election (see Nader voters in 2000), but almost all of them see it shortly after the election in time for the following election (see Nader's share of the vote decreasing by 90% in 2004). Reality hitting you smack in the head can do that.

[tavalon]

57. I fucking hate that you are right

I can't begin to relay how much I hate it. The Democrats called me a fucking retard (that is just my shorthand for the myriad of ways they have betrayed me, the liberal voter) and yet, they aren't as batshit insane as the Republicans. So, I get to vote for "not quite as insane". It burns to my very soul. I've been in the game for 29 years and this one finally hurt me. I made it through Raygun and Bush the stupider but it's this one, the Changey guy, who finally broke my heart and my spirit.

[sendero]

67. One of you usual straw men..

.. the Repub proposal is not on the table and isn't going to be on the table.

[BzaDem]

98. Really? It will be on the table as soon as Republicans have control of government.`

Voting against Democrats has consequences FAR worse than the consequences of having Democrats in power. Real consequences. Most liberals are intelligent and forsee these consequences in advance of the election, and proceed to vote Democratic. A few are not so intelligent, and they do not forsee these consequences until after the Republicans get elected (Nader voters in 2000). But eventually they will see the consequences and go back to voting Democratic (after much damage has been done). This is why Nader's vote share dropped by 90% after 2000.

[stillwaiting]

192. It will be on the table 15 years from now when the the Dems regain a supermajority.

They'll successfully push for its passage and Republicans will be firmly "against" it. ALL Republicans.

Of course, they'll have moved on to something much more crazy by then which will THEN become the bigger evil.

Push to the right, push to the right, PUSH to the right.

[Ken Burch]

126. There's a limit to how many times you get to play the "lesser evil" card

Haven't progressives had to support ENOUGH non-progressive Dems to suit you yet?

Haven't we been punished enough YET for McGovern?(and really, McGovern's loss wasn't the left's fault-it was the fault of the Democratic establishment hacks who submarined their own party's presidential ticket just because the insurgents dared to beat them fair and square for the nomination)? Besides, we all know a "moderate" would've lost to Nixon in a blowout too, and that it wouldn't have been worth electing a Dem who supported Nixon's foreign policy like Scoop Jackson did.

Why do you have so much contempt for progressive Dems anyway? We actually aren't to blame for any of the party's past problems?

[Tesha]

54. We'll know on Wednesday, November 3rd, won't we?

If things stay on the course they're presently on, I'm predicting a
bloodbath of record (or certainly at least '94-sized) proportions.

Tesha

[glitch]

84. BIG mistake to assume Independents are Centrists. nt

[Bjorn Against]

109. I consider myself an independent because I am tired of Democrats bowing to corporate interests

I am an independent because the Democratic Party is too far to the right for my tastes. You are correct, it is a big mistake to assume independents are "centrists". I may not be in the majority of independents, but I do know the majority of independents are not die-hard DLC supporters, in fact I would argue that the majority of independents are apathetic.

[sabrina 1]

133. What is 'Centrism'? It's like 'pragmatism', a word meant

to weasel out of showing your true colors. It's neither one thing or the other, although I suspect that the 'centrists' like Rahm have a clear agenda and it isn't ours. They are becoming bolder about revealing it lately. But the word was used to hide behind because if Obama had ever told his supporters before the election, that his cabinet would include such luminaries as Rahm and Geithner et al, he would never have won. That would have been too much of a clue as to what we could expect.

Calling himself a centrist prepared for the inevitable reaction once these revelations came to pass. All they have to do now is claim 'that you should listened more carefully. Why are you surprised, Obama never said this or that or whatever. Iow, it's a deceptive word.

You either stand for something or you don't. And if what you stand for is too shameful to be able to be clear about it, then you stand for nothing.

I know what I stand for and I thought the Democratic Party stood for the same principles. NOT expansion of war or a pass for war criminals. Not for a Republican Healthcare Bill that basically gives nothing to the people who voted for them. It's a bailout for the Insurance Cos. And NOT for bailing out Wall St. crooks while ignoring the people's needs. And definitely not for the vile MCA which violated the very basic principles of this democracy. And NOT for Bush's disastrous Education System, now completey adapted and enhanced by this administration.

I'm sure we'll get a few crumbs when it comes near election time. Most likely they are saving issues like the ones that should have been easy, such as DADT. That should have happened already. Why hasn't it?

So, they can keep their centrism. I want to see courageous people who first of all believe in a just and moral society, not hiding behind weasel words, but up front fighting for what is right. What we are seeing is a a two party system where both parties believe in a corporate run state, one plays the 'good cop' and the other happily plays 'bad cop'. But it isn't working so well anymore. Maybe it's too late to 'change' anything the power they have is so entrenched now. But it's definitely worth trying, imo.

[rpannier]

169. The problem with the term pragmatism (as it is used in the media) is that it is not a political ideo

logy

If you listen to the idiots at CNN you'd think that pragmatism is some sort of centrist, middle-of-the-road, something for everyone ideology


Pragmatism is not that.

If DUMB-ya wants to invade Iran, Syria, Lebanon, Venezuela and Bolivia but he can only get funding for invading 1 of those countries and he gets to bomb two others and he agrees then he's being pragmatic.
If I want single payer, but I agree to Medicare for all (or the public option) then I'm being pragmatic.

If I wanted to nationalize all the banks, oil companies and mining companies and all I can get Congress to agree to is Nationalizing the banks and I agree I am being pragmatic. But, that hardly means I'm in the center. I am still on the left.

[Enthusiast]

183. Thanks for that, sabrina 1. nt

[DCBob]

10. When you voted for Barack Obama you voted for a centrist approach to politics..

Surely you have not forgotten his famous line.. "There are no red states or blue states, just the United States".. which he included in almost every speech during the campaign.

[MannyGoldstein]

11. Obama Promised A Public Option And No Mandates

He promised to end DADT.

He promised to restore the rule of law.

We were lied to.

Howard Dean also says, essentially, there are no blue and red states - hence the very successful 50-state strategy.

[BzaDem]

14. Very misleading.

Obama did not promise a public option. He did support such an option in the campaign, but he couldn't promise one, because Obama is not a dictator and he cannot enact legislation by fiat.

Obama was indeed against mandates, but he later realized he was wrong and admitted as such. Because anyone who thinks that we can have any healthcare system that prohibits discrimination against sick people without a mandate is simply wrong. (As wrong as someone who claims 2 + 2 = 5.)

He supported ending DADT, and he is currently working with Congress to do so.

He specifically campaigned on not looking backwards (i.e. not prosecuting Bush/Cheney).

[MannyGoldstein]

18. Obama Promised. He Never Tried - In Fact, He Worked Against Them

He didn't say he'd try for a public option. He said that the bill he signed would have it. This is a lie. Now he says that he never campaigned on a public option. This is an even bigger lie.

He said that DADT was the first thing he'd get rid of. He lied. He played games with it until Scott Brown won a senate seat and he needed to toss a bone to actual Democrats.

He campaigned on not bringing war criminals to trial? Got a link?

He campaigned on ending warrantless wiretapping and other extrajudicial fun. That was a lie.

He campaigned on helping the middle class, but he's done squat. But when bankers say "jump". he says "how high?".

[Name removed]

27. Deleted message

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

[ima_sinnic]

26. he said any bill he signed must have a public option

that to me is a "promise."

he lied.

[BzaDem]

28. Please provide a link to such a statement befiore the election.

Put up or shut up.

[Ken Burch]

33. It was in the freaking State of the Union address

The whole country saw it.

[ima_sinnic]

41. oh, but that doesn't count because it wasn't "before the election"

somehow, promises made after one is elected "don't count."
I guess because, then, the gullible rubes have already been taken to the cleaners so the already elected charlatan can make even more meaningless statements to make them feel all good inside--and keep those contributions coming.

[BzaDem]

42. Which by definition is after the election.

So even if what you are saying is true, you clearly didn't base your vote for him on that (since it came after the election). So he didn't "betray you."

Though I remember watching the state of the union very carefully and I distinctly remember him not saying that he would veto a bill without a public option. I remember him getting attacked by progressives for refusing to say that.

[Ken Burch]

127. Why are you so obsessed with the idea that the public option doesn't matter?

Without it, it's a conservative Republican bill. Nothing that forces people to buy overpriced policies from Big Forma can be called "reform".

It's only reform when those on the bottom actually GAIN ground.

[MannyGoldstein]

72. See Post #25

[Bjorn Against]

90. Here you go...

Listen to the excerpt from his speech to Planned Parenthood in July of 2007 when he was starting his Presidential campaign, he explicitly said he was going to set up a public health insurance plan including reproductive services.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cET2OSbtj0g

[BzaDem]

99. I see NOTHING in there that said he would veto HCR if every one of his wishes weren't met.

In fact, I don't see anything in there that says he would veto HCR if even one of his wishes weren't met. Try again.

[Bjorn Against]

102. I see NOTHING in this thread where anyone suggested he said that

Nobody ever claimed that he said before the election that he would veto any bill that did not contain every single one of his wishes, that is your strawman argument. The fact however is that Obama is not even trying to get a public option anymore. He campaigned on the public option but then after getting elected he lied and said he did not campaign on it.

[DCBob]

21. Well that's your interpretation of what he "promised"... regardless he's still a centrist...

and will likely remain a centrist throughout his Presidency. His favorite book is still "Team of Rivals".

[MannyGoldstein]

24. No, It's Clear Fact Supported By Dozens of YouTube Videos

Thanks to the Internet, flagrant lying is tougher for Obama than it was for Clinton.

[BzaDem]

29. ...of which you have yet to provide one.

You cannot find a youtube video where Obama promised that he would veto a bill without a public option prior to the election. Why? Because such a video doesn't exist. You can continue to claim it does, but that doesn't make it actually exist.

Thanks to the Internet, it is hard to post false claims on a message board without getting fact-checked. Sorry.

[MannyGoldstein]

73. See Post #25

Feel free to provide your own tortured understanding of what Obama said.

[Bjorn Against]

104. No you can't post false claims on a message board without getting fact checked...

Which is why I am fact checking you.

Tell me where did anyone say "Obama promised that he would veto a bill without a public option prior to the election." Nobody said that, you have moved the goalposts so far back because you know that Obama did campaign on the public option and you also know that he said after the election that any bill he signed must include the public option. His words after the election are every bit as important as his words before the election, and we know that he campaigned on the public option and we also know he promised after the election that any bill he would sign must include a public option. Now he is claiming that he never campaigned on the public option, that is a lie and we don't care if the lie came before the election or after the election because we expect the people we help to elect to remain honest both before and after they are elected.

[spiritual_gunfighter]

184. Why do you keep bringing up "veto"

no one on this thread has said that Obama would "veto a bill without a public option". You are inventing arguments that other people haven't said to support your weak strawman arguments. Try again.

[DCBob]

30. Obama has delivered or tried to deliver on more campaign promises than any President in my lifetime.

and I have been around for quite awhile.

[panzerfaust]

64. You missed Truman, Eisenhower, and Kennedy?

And thus must use some subset of Nixon, Ford, Carter, RayGun, Bush-I, Clinton and Bush-II (perhaps the longest string of looser presidents in American history) as benchmarks?

President Obama has not deviated in any significant way from the policies of his immediate predecessor. The polices that he campaigned he would CHANGE, and the reason that he was elected.

[BzaDem]

31. .

[boston bean]

40. Center what??? What is the center????

There in lies his problem. A President cannot be wishy washy. They must stand for something or they appear weak.

Push for a left agenda, and portray it like it's the center. Works like a charm every time.

What Obama is doing is completely opposite and people are not buying it.

[Moochy]

70. Yeah its not the Constant Mind-Numbing appeals to Bipartisanship that hurt the most

its the campaign promises which I believed.... that turned out were just convenient lies.

I knew in my heart this was the only possible outcome when Rahm was picked.

[tavalon]

50. When I voted for Obama, I voted based on his stirring speeches

I voted for a movement and the illusions I held about who the man was. I have a fuck of a bad hangover. A friend of mine told me he voted for Cynthia McKinney because he didn't feel the Barack Obama was liberal enough and he's having a much easier time than I am. He saw him for who he was not who he imagined. I now see that I was fucking retarded, to quote the Rahminator.

[LWolf]

89. I haven't forgotten any of the reasons he was bottom of my

list of hopefuls for the nomination.

I was told ad nauseum in the GE not to vote for Obama because of his bad policies, but because otherwise I'd end up with McCain/Palin. I was told to vote, then to go after him, to "hold his feet to the fire" over the issues I was concerned about.

Of course, when I did that, after the election, then:

I didn't "get my pony."

I was "whining."

I wasn't giving him "time" to go further down a bad road before I objected.

I was "bitter."

I would rather have McCain!!!!?!

And of course, "you knew what you were getting when you voted for him."

That's right. I knew I was getting a disaster for the party and the nation.

[athenasatanjesus]

34. Centrism just makes the left look on par with the right

despite the complete lack of any actual ideas or solutions from the right wing.

[Hutchewon]

35. A point that is being overlooked by the DNC et al.

I think the term "independent" is very nebulous. There are some independents who have never committed to either party. On the other hand, there are a lot of independents like myself, who have voted a straight democratic ticket for 30+ year, been a local democratic activist, donated to local candidates, and donated to the DNC. I no longer consider myself a big "D" Democrat. I am an independent democrat.

I am leaving the abusive relationship that has become affiliation with the current Democratic party. I have no where else to go. I am a progressive. The DNC has become GOP-Lite. There is no national party representing my interests. Both parties are controlled by the wealthy.I remain a registered democrat so that I can vote in the primaries if need be to help a progressive candidate, but if that is not an option, I plan to vote for a green, socialist,libertarian,CWP etc. Anything but a "centrist" Republican or a Democrat. Anything to disturb the status quo. Anything to broaden the viable political spectrum.

Both parties have become tools of the rich oligarchs who are destroying the middle class and the United States. Since the latest economic meltdown, we have watched the government bail out rather than prosecute the banksters with taxpayer money. We have watched the government pursue at least 3 wars, Iraq, Afghanistan, and Pakistan while deficits continue to sky rocket. Both National parties seem to be able to find plenty of money to finance never ending killing, but have no money for social programs. When the huge deficits are being discussed cutting social programs is always the solution. No one ever mentions the elephant in the room, military spending. People like me who are fed up with being ripped off, misled and marginalized.

My point is this, when you talk about the impact of "independents" on an upcoming election, it is important to realize that you may not be talking about people who have been traditionally referred to as "independents". Those "independents" are centrist (too cowardly or intellectually lazy to commit to any position).You may be talking about disillusioned former Democratic Party activist. People who knock on doors, people who man the polling places on voting day. Dismiss losing these people's support and you will probably be unpleasantly surprised with the next election results.

[tavalon]

52. Yeah, I'm guessing I would be considered an independent

since I now consider myself a democratic socialist leaning strongly toward the socialist end.

[mmonk]

36. Today, there is no middle or "center" and there is no "bipartisanship".

The Republicans refuse to allow that lie to stand. A convenient lie by conservatives in the Democratic Party that can't get the cover from Republicans they need (and why some are resigning).

[melm00se]

38. it won't be the centrists'

fault.

Since the 1942 mid term elections, the incumbent president's party usually does not fair well.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_midterm_election

[wyldwolf]

139. shhhhh! Don't spoil their fun! This is how "progressives" makes themselves feel important

[RUMMYisFROSTED]

194. Enjoy President Mittens.

[wyldwolf]

201. I'll enjoy President Obama in 2012, thank you!

[RUMMYisFROSTED]

204. bkmark

[wyldwolf]

209. wager?

[Ken Burch]

168. In our party's case, it's because the party always disses the base

starting right after the election.

It doesn't HAVE to be that way.

Our leaders could start fighting and raising people's spirits.

They could tell the "bipartisanship" fetishists in the media to fuck off.

Progressive populist ideas are popular. Centrism never is. Blandness never is.

[wyldwolf]

202. what base?

[Ken Burch]

207. Why hello, Rahm...nice to hear from you...

:puke:

:banghead:

[wyldwolf]

208. what base?

:rofl:

[Ken Burch]

211. The one that elected Obama. The country's progressive majority.

The majority you're laughing at, for some mysterious reason.

We are not a "center-right country", no matter what you and Joe Klein want.

[wyldwolf]

213. independents elected Obama. Take them away and he loses.

As i've told you over and over (and I can't count the times you've avoided the point), there is no progressive majority. If there was, Dennis Kucinich types would be winning everywhere.

[PVnRT]

220. Were independents knocking on doors, manning phone banks and setting up rallies?

No, they weren't.

[Hutchewon]

39. Not sure that wiki supports your conclusion...

Just proves we have been in the same dumb cycle since '42. Could be because the Democratic Party always swings to the right after they win an election. That seems to be my experience. This cycle is no different. "Change we can believe in" (do something significant) has been replaced with "bipartisanship" (do nothing significant).

[tavalon]

43. Don't you wish the right people would be blamed?

Rest assured, though, that it will be you and me, the liberals, who will be blamed. By a slimy weasel no less. He will call us fucking retards.

But it doesn't matter. I won't be swayed from my common sense liberal ways. It's just the right thing to do, not the expedient thing, but the right thing. See my sig line.

[3324SS]

49. Sadly Dems will get stomped

because the perception right now is that Obama and the Dems are WEAK.

If Obama and the Dems can't stand up and fight the Republicans on something as simple as HCR that close to 80% of Americans want then America will turn their backs on the Dems.

It is that simple.

If Dems want to stay in power they have to do 3 things...

1. Stand up and FIGHT and fight ugly, mean and unfair. They need to clearly show America that the GOP are America's Enemy.

2. Get rid of the Blue Dogs as fast as possible they are driving the Dems into the ground. IF we are stuck with Blue Dogs then they need to be back benchers, no Blue Dog should be in any leadership position or committee chair.

3. Replace Harry Reid, he is a big cause of most of the Party's Problems today. Senate Leader Al Franken has a very Nice Ring to it.

[elocs]

63. Concerning a public option, either Obama did promise or he didn't,

I don't see what the point is in splitting hairs over when he did. This point should not be so muddled that DU cannot settle on which it is.

Traditionally the party in power loses seats in an off year election. Didn't happen once under FDR and didn't happen once under Clinton. If HCR passes there may still be large losses. If no HCR passes (to the applause of some here) I would expect the fall losses to be massive. I would also expect it to be the end of HCR for another 10-20 years or until our present system totally collapses.

[NNN0LHI]

60. Kinda counting your chickens before they are hatched ain't ya?

[panzerfaust]

61. By trying to be the same, we will be gone: Change means something DIFFERENT

Which is not what president Obama has brought so far - nor does he seem likely to do so.

Voters will ask: Why have republican-lites in power, when you can have the real thing?

Democrats must actually stand for something: Moving to the LEFT, and meaning it, is the only way to win.

[Peacetrain]

62. Bookmarking this thread.. Because it is the "same" message the

republicans are getting from the uber right.

So its a battle of the "edges" you say.

Well it is the appeal to the center, whether through truth or lies that gets people elected President. I cannot vouch for local elections, because where I live, we have that nimrod Steve King.

So you can have the furthest left or furthest right win a local election just by the populace who are majority in that area.. or who fuss with the ballot boxes (but that is another story)

But for President.. you are dead wrong on that .. don't see it historically, and certainly not now. Even that goofball Bush got elected by appealing to the center..then backing it up with terror terror terror..

The compassionate republican, who can forget that lie

I think your premise is probably pretty dead on for state, even congress..but President.. not seeing it..

[hulka38]

74. The independents can be moved depending on the issue, especially if you have a new, popular

"change" mandated President strongly advocating for the issue. He didn't advocate strongly or otherwise for the PO. The maddening thing is that the independents really didn't even need to be moved on the PO. They were already there. With Obama's skills, he could have solidified the support for the PO easily. America was ready. That was the time. Now, the left thinks they've been lied to and they're correct and the middle sees a brutal bill that has "old politics" all over it.

[progressoid]

65. Centrists? You mean like most of Congress and the White House?

I can't disagree with that.

[notesdev]

66. WHEN we get stomped

it will be the fault of people who have something other than improving the economy for Main Street at the top of their agenda.

Nothing else will have anything even remotely close to the impact at the polls.

[sendero]

68. We ARE going to get stomped this fall...

.. and centrists are part of it but MOST of it is Obama. He is not a leader. He had not even tried to keep his promises.

And those who don't get that people will vote for or allow someone "worse" to send a message don't understand politics or the American mindset.

[Moochy]

71. No its not the politician holding these policies up who is to blame

it is the non-centrist voters who don't see the policies as any different than the previous administration, they will be the real reason!

Oh and Nader.

:sarcasm:

[stray cat]

76. IF you don't vote don't complain - if you don't vote for the lesser evil you deserve the worse evil

[flyarm]

94. "if you don't vote for the lesser evil you deserve the worse evil" isn't that what we are told daily

here at DU that we must vote for the lesser of two evils? When we see democrats and a democratic president selling us out..that we should vote for the lesser of two evils?

I sure didn't vote for a democrat to :

Accelerate a war in Afgan.

To give immunity to those who broke our laws ( under FISA) and tap our phones and read our emails.
http://www.alternet.org/rights/135605/obama_administration_quietly_expands_bush's_legal_defense_of_warrantless_wiretapping/

http://www.commondreams.org/headline/2010/01/23

To make excuses to not hold anyone accountable for the breaking of our constitution and bill of rights by a former administration!

To applauds the firing of teachers when he hired a sob who is involved in destroying public education in this country...and who knowingly has military people involved in special training to take over the administrations of our poor schools.
Obama Agrees With Firings At RI's Central Falls - Democratic Underground

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_topic&forum=389&topic_id=7820533



Gives new billions of $$$ contract to the murderous Blackwater in Iraq and the murderers get immunity!!
http://www.democracynow.org/2010/1/4/judge_dismisses_all_charges_against_blackwater


Re-authorize the Patriot act

Does nothing about NAFTA when Americans are losing jobs by the millions.

Bails out Wallstreet and Big banks ..too big to fail..with our tax money..

Food stamp administers ( with Federal and state tax money) outsource the food stamp jobs to India.

And let us not forget the sell out of our health care with secret meetings..that we are not privy to ..in one of the biggest giveaway's and bailouts to AHIP, Big Pharma, and the hospital conglomerates...at the cost of real "HEALTH CARE" FOR THE AMERICAN PEOPLE.


and the lesser of the evils called me a "Fu$#$$%$# Retard" and told me to kiss their a$$!!


Yes we got the lesser of two evils..but do not expect me to vote for them again...I was sold on that bullshit once too many times..I am not buying that pile of HORSE dung again! My job as an American and under my constitution is to hold them Accountable..they are my employees..they work at my pleasure! And I don't forget that.

[Enthusiast]

185. Nice! nt

[Individualist]

130. That dog don't hunt!

[anonymous171]

142. If you vote for someone who doesn't represent you then you are killing democracy nt

[flyarm]

77. This "Fu$#%king Retard" kicks and recs!..

and I will not "kiss Rahms A$$ as he demanded I do! Not today and not tommorrow..and unless Obama gets damn serious about who he and his administration represent ..they will never see another dime from me..and I will rent a bunch of good movies on election days ..

[Tierra_y_Libertad]

79. Making politicians earn our votes is..well..democratic. It's their job to do that.

If they won't do that they don't get the votes.

How's that for political "reality"?

[KharmaTrain]

80. So The Rushpublicans Are The Answer?

Or is this another "we'll show us" type of threat? Many times when I pop on here I wonder who is the real threat to this country, the DLC or the rushpublicans. No matter how negative I feel about many DLC policies, I don't see them as some amporphic monster that somehow came out the day President Obama was elected and all sorts of promises, real and perceived, were somehow ignored or flip-flopped. In many way I see (even in these threads) interpretations being taken as some kind of evidence voters were lied to...but then when one takes a closer look, that's rarely the case.

It's one thing to campaign, it's another to govern. We saw a regime that was in constant campaign mode during the booosh regime and their inability to govern is what has led us to the messes we're in and tied the hands of this administration from the moment it took office. The deal about campaign promises is they tend to run up against reality...or changing political environment. This administration has encountered both. When I saw President Obama discuss his openess (and those were his words) to public option and single payer, that was in May '07...long before the collapse of the banking system and the economic depression that has followed. His priorities have been in putting out the fires from the past. This isn't a cop out, this is how it is. Promises are all well and good, but unfortunately, a President doesn't operate in a vacuum...he needs support from the legislative...which hasn't happened and an educated electorate (don't even get me started on that one).

Passion is all well and good in doing one's job, but it's a loser when trying to get that job. Emotions ignore reality...and it leads to even greater disappointment when those promises aren't fulfilled.

So your option in November is simple...work to support Progressive candidates who are worthy of your support (and/or vote if you're in the district) and hope to expand Progressive influence inside the beltway or curse the wind, blame the DLC or whomever Democrat that makes you feel good and sit back and let the rushpublicans take control of the House and/or Senate and really turn this government into gridlock.

[Moochy]

93. How are the DLC and the Rushpublicans related?

Oh that's right they both get paid by the same corporations to work against the people's interests!

The DLC has to lie about it, and the Republicans get to tell the truth about whom they are fucking over. It just happens their voters have gotten a worse case of stockholm syndrome, and now they demand the abuse their leaders give them.

Democrats are almost there, a few more changey/hopey candidates that screw the people over, and we'll have zero expectations of change, ever.

[KharmaTrain]

106. So Your Solution?

It's easy to cast blame and curse the darkeness. That's what many liberals and progressives did in the 70s and 80s that led to the rise of "raygunism" and the rise of influence of those corporates, the lobbyists and all the evils that have poisoned the political system. It's also not going away...and is trying to do all it can to demoralize those who aren't willing to fight their grip on power. They like the distractions...the teabaggers who are angry but totally clueless and also to hope divisions occur among Democrats that will weaken the party overall and make their influence that much greater.

So what's the solution? Stand back and let the bastards win?

[Ken Burch]

122. Primary EVERY right-wing Dem

And find some way to mobilize outside of the party leadership's control. Because the leadership doesn't give a damn about whether or not we stay in the majority, let alone whether or not we get anything done. They're just happy to have offices on the hill and the people mean nothing to them.

[Odin2005]

108. There is no difference between the Pukes and the DLC Democrats.

Corporatists all of them.

[KittyWampus]

81. Oh, a little preemptive finger pointing and shit-stirring. Sure to get plenty of recommendations

[Moochy]

82. Sure to get plenty of pooh poohs as well

overconfidence is underrated!

[KittyWampus]

83. well clearly, at this point, the woo hoos out number the pooh poohs!

edit- for the record I didn't vote either way. It's more fun just observing this kind of stuff.

[Moochy]

85. Agreed. the WooHoo/PoohPooh ratio is slightly biased in favor of Woo Hoo

Coo Coo Ka Choo.

[KittyWampus]

86. added bonus is your DU User name "Moo-chy".

[DisgustedInMN]

87. I honestly...

...don't believe for one second that Barack Obama doesn't understand EXACTLY what his shit policies and LOUSY leadership are doing to the Democratic Party. The only "victory" he and cohorts are interested in, is the complete selling out of We the People to his corporate masters.

[warm regards]

91. I thought blame games were initiated after the fact.

[stillwaiting]

92. Yep. When neo-liberals were installed in the Obama administration I knew we were screwed.

I just can't call them centrists anymore because for me "center" means they fall somewhere in the middle which might just be reasonable, but they continue the same neo-liberal economic practices of the past 30 years overwhelmingly. Friedman policy making continues to this day. That's not centrist to me, but it might be what the corporate elite want me to think is centrist (i.e. reasonable).

Totally agree with the gist of your post by the way. I just can NOT believe how disspirited so many of my friends are right now, and I don't know if we will be able to effectively lobby on behalf of the Democrats in '10 for the independent vote. More worrisome to me is that I am starting to believe that Obama (and Rahm) absolutely do not care if they lose control of Congress because it will enable Obama to have two years where he can regain his credibility to some extent without there being a real threat of anything ever changing.

He's shaping up to be a real status quo President and that was the last thing our nation needed. It's certainly not what he campaigned on.

Oy vey!

[emanymton]

100. Lead And The Democratic Party Will Stomp Republicant Party.

.

The people of USA voted for Democratic members of Congress and a Democratic President to GOVERN. Members of the Democratic Party _can_ govern without the Republicant Party. It simply takes honesty on the part of Democratic Party members.

The members of the Democratic Party since the elections in November have exhausted every possible excuse trying to avoid doing what the people sent them to do.

Govern and the people will support the leadership of the Democratic Party. But everyone knows this already.

Do nothing and the Democratic Party deserves the people's scorn. November 2010 rests solely in the hands of the Democratic Party.

Ema Nymton
~@:o?
.

[Individualist]

103. Centrist is a label the neocon enabling DLC hides behind.

[Odin2005]

107. The only thing in the middle of the road is yellow stripes and roadkill.

[Lorien]

110. Amen, and a reminder to all: INDEPENDENTS ARE NOT "CENTRISTS"

Independents are Greens and Libertarians and Socialists and Neo-nazis and pot smoking conservatives and Communists and teabaggers and Christian hippies and single issue voters and apolitical people who rarely pay attention and angry voters who hate both parties or those who just dislike labels. Calling yourself an Independent does not mean that you embrace middle of the road policies. More often than not, it simply means that you feel unrepresented-which most of us are. I'm registered as a Democrat because I want to vote in the primaries, but I identify myself to any pollster as an "Independent" because my positions on the issues are to the Left of the current Democratic party.

[whistler162]

112. No obviously it is all your fault!

tin foil get your tin foil!

[ipaint]

113. If we lose this year it will be because of a president and a congress

that refuse to even begin to correct the devastating mistakes made in the last 30 years by conservatives in both parties. Adding another layers of right wing scams, dodges and corporate giveaways is not progress.

Besides that the HOPE meme and the PR machine that created it has been a colossal fail.

[Name removed]

114. Deleted message

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

[girl gone mad]

116. Nothing is a whole lot better than..

the shit sandwich these bunch of clowns are trying to force us to eat.

[KILL THE WISE ONE]

117. can you be a little more specific?

Obama has been busy trying ( with some success ) to avoid a repeat of the great depression. some form of heath care will pass and that is better then anything we have ever gotten. it may not be all I want it to be. I keep in mind that it took years to get this screwed up it can't be fixed in one year.

[Mithreal]

131. You must be kidding? Obama is failing the test of history

what is required to prevent another great disaster. The lower class is already in a depression. The folks at the top are the only ones that have been saved, and even them perhaps only temporarily. Just wait and see.

Sure have done a bang up job transferring more wealth to the top and offering a few crumbs that would satisfy the excuse propagators.

Yeah, we sure have fixed the basics and "the fundamentals of this economy are strong," those Progressives, such whiners.

[Mithreal]

129. But they treated it with ammonia to kill the germs. Eat up. Yum.

I am sick of pathetic weak spineless excuse-glorifying, failure embracing, either for or against Obama, shameless compromised compromisers.

Didn't see the post you responded to, but just made me think of something in Food, Inc.

[Tierra_y_Libertad]

118. No! No! No! It'll be Nader's fault! Isn't it always?

[omega minimo]

119. Rilly, huh. Is this reposted from 2000?

[muffin1]

198. Or that asshat Kucinich!11!!

Or, or TEH GAYS!!!!!11!:eyes:

[Pharlo]

121. I guess it depends on how you define 'We' -

If you define 'We' as the average American, yes, WE are going to get stomped this fall. Because the only choices we seem to have any more are Them (Democratic Corporatists) and Even More THEM (Republicans).

Personally, I've reached the point where I'm disgusted with all of Them - Democrats and Republicans. The don't give a crap about 'Us' or 'We', only themselves.

[Mithreal]

128. Well said.

[Ildem09]

132. We are going to loose seats

I predict about 5-7 in the Senate and 25-35 in the House. The sad thing is. the party will blame us. and the administration supporters will wail and gnash their teeth at us. I just Wish Teddy the great were here to knock some sense into the fools. But alas save for a few the Party of Roosevelt is dead. Democratic Party 1932-2009 (DlC was formed that year) when we were infected with the disease, and 2009 when Teddy the great passed on. Just for once I want to be proud of my party, I Was born in 1983, and save for those few men and women who are the vanguards of FDR's dream I cannot say I have been proud of my party, At least any of the Two whole Presidents we've had

[KoKo]

135. Most Americans really do like STRONG LEADERS... Folks who TAKE A STAND..

Sadly for us Democrats ...the "Strong (Idiot) Leaders and the STAND always comes from the RW and their well-funded THINK TANKS and their Non-Religious Christian Faction that have no more founding in the Teachings of Jesus than Pat Buchanan does.

YET! THEY FORGE ON!

[KoKo]

136. NO! If we are TRASHED THIS FALL it's OBAMA's FAULT...

He is the President. He is the LEADER. HE WAS ELECTED OVERWHELMINGLY BY ALL AMERICANS.

THE BUCK STOPS WITH OUR LEADER. If he doesn't LEAD...HE is TOAST.

[sam sarrha]

137. i'm from Texas... there is noth'n in the center of the road but a Yellow Stripe and dead Armadillo's

[upi402]

138. love that one

Jim Hightower iirc

[creeksneakers2]

140. Very twisted logic

One group shows up to vote and the other doesn't. Then you blame the people who DID show up to vote for losing. If we lose because the far left doesn't vote, it will be the far left's fault we lost. That's obvious.

This has been the most liberal presidency in history. They've done all they could do. They've fallen short because they don't have the votes to get everything done. If far leftism was more popular then there would be the votes there for it. The fact is, the majority of Americans will never go along with it. Its a sure election loser.

The same people who are complaining now have always complained and always will. They aren't worth the trouble they bring. Its better to go after independents who MIGHT vote Dem than far lefties who quit anytime something doesn't go their way.

[anonymous171]

141. "This has been the most liberal presidency in history. "

:wtf:

[wyldwolf]

143. not unusual for the OP, though

Since the 1942 mid term elections, the incumbent president's party usually does not fair well. The OP either doesn't know this or hopes people rec'ing his thread doesn't.

[Ken Burch]

152. Then again, people in YOUR wing of the party don't want us to avoid big losses

You were happiest with Bill Clinton AFTER 1994, even though he wasn't a Democrat after that.

[wyldwolf]

172. how do YOU know when I was happiest? Your reply is completely irrelevant. As usual.

[DisgustedInMN]

146. You forgot to put this:

:sarcasm: at the end of your post.

[Enthusiast]

187. "Far lefties"?

You mean like the ones that expect Wall Street to be regulated after they destroyed the country? You mean far lefties like that 70% that favor the public option. Those far lefties?

[creeksneakers2]

188. No. Obama wants those things

So according to the definition here those things must be centrist.

[Enthusiast]

189. If Obama wants those things

he sure has a funny way of showing it.

[Umbral]

144. I don't know about centrists, but if the Democrats lose it's the Democrats fault. nt

[treestar]

147. That debate has been going on for months now on this board

I'm not convinced. Especially with the threatening to go home the progressives do. If they really don't care if they don't get all they want, I don't think they are "the base."

I tend to distrust any group claiming to be more important and more valuable than others.

[VPStoltz]

148. While I agree in principal, the mood of the electorate is being "massaged" by the Right.

Excellent article in Time.
The Reepers stall government (their base - the wealthy - still gets its fill) and then say government (the party in power) can't get anything done.
The beat this drum (absent all reality, or course), stir up the easily stirred, and win elections.
This strategy took hold during Clinton's time and is now in full flower.

[BrklynLiberal]

154. and we better doa much better job of getting the message out and "Framing the issues"!!!!

[Richardo]

155. A very tea-baggery sentiment

I hear the same thing from the other side every time I hear Limbaugh's show. It's a sure recipe for winning. No really.

[Jakes Progress]

158. Clean out your ears.

I don't listen to Limbaugh, but I doubt you heard him call for single payer or saying he would settle for a good public option if he couldn't get single payer.

[Richardo]

175. Clean out YOUR ears. I'm talking about the anti-Centrist sentiment. Very Teabag.

[Jakes Progress]

205. How is single payer a a tea-bag sentiment? Need a Q-Tip?

[EFerrari]

159. Not really. The conservadems have been in charge.

Whatever happens, they own it.

[CLANG]

156. The last chance for the Democrats

will depend on how they respond to the carnage we are about to see in November. If they don't move much farther to the left, then we will need to start a new party - maybe call it the Progressive Party.

[wial]

160. very well said

I wish there were a formula that could stop people from changing the second they get power. Maybe we could make them make solemn vows? "No matter what secret info they give me once I take office, I know my mission is to serve the dreams and aspirations of the best part of the American people, to serve all the American people and to bring the world and nature back to a sustainable balance. I know especially in midterms the base matters and that the progressive base speaks, as has been proven with numerous polls, for what Americans really want."

Or just "I vow to do good and not listen to Rahm."

[cliffordu]

161. I wonder how Boehner is going to like being Speaker of the House.

Suck it up. Walk it off.

NONE of us are going to get a small fraction of what we want.

Until big business is driven from the halls of congress and the electoral process, THIS is all we'll ever have.

Acting like your own personal agenda means shit is infantile and meaningless under our current "system".

[Ken Burch]

167. Nobody is saying don't fight

But just expecting people to get out and work hard for the Dems in the fall no matter what ISN'T "fighting".

The leadership need to reach out to us.

It was never about expecting everything to be utopia by now. It was about expecting our leaders to make it clear whose side they're on.

We can't just be expected to vote "lesser evil" for the rest of eternity.

Would you at least agree that every Dem who insisted that the public option be taken out of HCR and wouldn't back EFCA should be primaried? Clearly, if a Dem is bad on those two issues, that doesn't leave much of anything he or she could still be good on.

[Sebastian Doyle]

164. Anybody who still believes the DLC's lies about "centrism" should take a good look at Alan Grayson

He speaks the truth, throws their shit right back in their faces, and the REPUBLICANS in his district are voting for him in the primary.

No, that wasn't a typo. REPUBLICANS are voting for a Democrat who ACTS like a Democrat.

There's the reality. Fuck the useless myth of "centrism"

[mister1979]

165. Look Progressives 1994 was not really bad for US.....

.....It really was only "bad" for the "fake" Democrats and their Corporatist Dems because every single defeat of senators and representatives i have saw in defeat except almost all Dems was all of the so-called Dems of the "centrist" Blue Dog nature. Most progressives that year won their races. The pander to the Rightwing and especially the Corporatists came AFTER the election when the DLC Dems and Clinton decided that it was "too conservative" of a country and thinking healthcare reform did them in. The truth is Labor did them in because of Nafta and it was one of the lowest voter turnouts in the history of the country. The Clinton plan is actually what the country wants if only we would have made itmore clearer but the Clintons abandoned it to join the Rightwing. Health Security Act would have been equal of a single payer none other than Social Security Act.

Here is an analysis of Senate, House, And Governor races in 1994 for proof of our losses and even the wins. Most losses were by Blue Dogs while most wins were still won by Progressives. Note Ted Kennedy over a competitive race with Mitt Romney.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_House_election,_1994

House

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_Senate_elections,_1994

Senate

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_gubernatorial_elections,_1994

and even Governors though the GOP had more moderates there.

[mister1979]

166. I am replying to my own comment here to add.....

.....that the voters in 1994 really only turned out the people that were mostly, if not all, AGAINST Healthcare Reform and mainly voted FOR NAFTA freetrade. Corporatist DLC Bluedog Dems along with the rightwing corporate controlled media and the Gop spun it otherwise. I was 15 then and my congressman Lane Evans still was reelected and he was against NAFTA as was my working class dad.

[MissMarple]

170. What is this centrism of which you speak? Seriously.

Centrism is not wishy washy. What the weak kneed Nellie's are doing is not centrism. Centrism is hard, if you can't stand the heat get out of the kitchen, work.

My apologies to Grandma Nell, who had no weakness in the knees, or anywhere else.

[ColesCountyDem]

176. Let me get this straight ....

We 'energize the base', which alienates 90+% of the independents who supported us overwhelmingly in 2008, making us the winners?

Ummmm, OK ....

:eyes:

[depakid]

177. That's about as dishonest a supposition that I've heard in quite a while...

[ColesCountyDem]

186. Not at all dishonest, friend.

That's exactly what will happen, if we do what the OP suggests.

[depakid]

191. Independents- like most Americans hold progressive positions on almost every major issue

which is reflected in the data- time and time again.

[ColesCountyDem]

193. The empirical data reflects just the opposite.

Most American independents, or 'swing voters', tend to more conservative on most issues.

[depakid]

197. That's absolutely incorrect- while it's spouted in the corporate media, the data shows otherwise

and it's one reason why Democrats lose- repeatedly, as noted in the OP.

Dems were elected with a mandate- which bit by bit- they're squandering, while aligning themselves with the very corporate interests that caused the problems in the first place.

The majority (and often the SUBSTANTIAL) majority agree with progressive positions on the issues- as shown quite clearly from credible data (note that data was gather prior to the crash):

The Progressive Majority: Why a Conservative America is a Myth.

http://cloudfront.mediamatters.org/static/pdf/progressive_majority.pdf

Summary: http://economistsview.typepad.com/economistsview/2007/06/why_a_conservat.html
-----

Pew: Trends in Political Values and Core Attitudes: 1987-2007.
Political Landscape More Favorable To Democrats

http://people-press.org/reports/pdf/312.pdf

Summary: http://people-press.org/report/?reportid=312

Thus the appeasement dynamic is a lose/lose proposition- just as it was in the 1990's and early 00's.

Dems end up wrong on the issues- as well as looking weak, complicit and compromised to the point of standing for nothing.

Good luck with volunteer energy and GOTV efforts with that in people's minds.

[ColesCountyDem]

203. Note the dates on your data....

One is March 2007, and the other is June 2007, BOTH well before the worst recession since the Great Depression.

Try again.

[depakid]

206. Your argument is that people have gotten MORE "conservative" after the crash! LOL

Come on now- even in America, profound failure doesn't cause anyone but the most moronic of Republicans (or corrupt Democrats) to double down.

[ColesCountyDem]

215. Don't bet your rent money on that.

Swing voters tend to be performance-oriented, and so far we've been unable to deliver the goods. So as not to lose virtually ALL support from the swing voters in 2010, a shift further to the left is, at best, ill-advised.

[depakid]

216. I agree about performance- Democrats fail to get popular progressive policies passed

because they're still beholden to unpopular corporate interests and refuse to do what's expected of them

Pandering further to the right- looking weak and mealy mouthed, rather than at least standing up and fighting- and more importantly being perceived as standing up and fighting for traditional Democratic values will kill them.

No one like weakness- and as has been said, people will go with the strong and wrong before they go with the weak and right.

Or- as is often the case with the less informed, party A looks ineffectual- we'll choose party B. and visa versa.

[Ken Burch]

214. You reach out to the base and then you get the independents by looking like a strong leader

It doesn't have to be "the base OR the independents". The independents arent' DEMANDING that the base be left in the cold. You can't assume the independents are worker-hating, poorbashing snobs.

[PVnRT]

222. Energized base = campaign workers

Or maybe those apathetic independents will do the work this time. I sure as hell won't.

[twitomy]

180. So let me understand this.

The op claims we will lose this election because the base will not be energized becasue the Admin is to "centrist". Yes, the base definatly is
not happy. But a demoralized base is not enough for the Repubs to win. The
Repubs need the Independents who tend to be Centrists, or Center-Right. And we know the Independents are turning away from Obama in droves. And so they are not turning away from Obama because he is too Centrist.

The Independents are breaking away from Obama becasue:

1.The economy/unemployemnt rate still sucks

2.Federal spending is out of control

3.The HCR bill looks like more of the same of #2, and is seen to be an infringment on constitutional rights per the mandate.

Independents tend to vote more based on performance than ideology. So far, Obamas performance sucks.

[ColesCountyDem]

190. I hope you donned your Nomex fire-retardant suit.

Despite being spot-on correct, actually, you're going to be roasted alive by the 'let the perfect be the enemy of the good' crowd....

:evilgrin:

[twitomy]

212. Oh hell, I have been flamed so many times here

that my hide is now charred broiled; sealing in the juices; The nerve endings are dead so I wouldnt feel a thing! LOL!

[ecstatic]

196. Most of his criticism is coming from the far right and far left

[nadinbrzezinski]

199. They run to "the base" when they need to win elections

and they run away from the base once they got the power...

It is so damn pathethic...

And to paraphrase Rham... it is them lib'ruls who are extremeists... :sarcasm:

Well you guys would not get the power without them crazy lib'ruls... and you will not learn this time either.

[HuckleB]

210. There is no one without blame, IMO.

[gulliver]

217. Never attribute to any cause other than ignorance that which...

...can be adequately explained by ignorance.

Let's say Bush screwed up America at about double speed for eight years. That's 16 units of screw-up that America suffered.

Well, Obama has stopped the bleeding and restored a lot of strength to the country in his one year or so. I'll give him credit for 4 units of improvement, essentially quadruple speed improvement for one year. A great performance.

Alas, that still leaves us 12 points in the hole--all owing to Bush and his Republicans. But to the "low information voter," America is still "inexplicably" twelve points in the hole. Duh. The sad fact is that the low information folks simply find a whole lot of explicable things inexplicable. Obama and the Dems have been on the TV for a while, and things still seem bad. So it must be their fault. What else could it be?

No, the unsatisfied aren't passionate paragons of integrity in the slightest. They wish. They are just folks who don't realize that it is a bad time for our country and the world. We need to be thinking about direction and velocity, not position. Position is Bush's fault.

[The Magistrate]

219. Hear Hear, Sir!

[ShortnFiery]

221. Yes. When you won't stand for something, you'll fall for anything. F**k Centrism! eom