The objective of "the strategy of NO!" is to keep YOU from voting.

[kristopher]

Are you going to be a patsy for the GOP?

[still_one]

1. Yes, that is the gop strategy, however, the Democrats in Congress have not served honorably

and though some like to blame Obama, the real problem is a lot of Democrats in Congress

"In a stunning alliance between Senate Democrats and Senate Republicans, Senate Democratic leadership quietly agreed Wednesday evening to block President Barack Obama from making recess appointments while senators return home to campaign for midterm elections, according to a Congressional newspaper."

http://www.rawstory.com/rs/2010/09/democrats-agree-block-obama-nominees/

They are asking us to support Democrats, when Democrats in Congress don't even support themselves

Yes, I will vote Democratic, THIS TIME, and hope they maintain the majority, and if they do, I will look at them extremely critically for 2012, because if they have NOT learned their lessons from the last two years, and start to listen to progressives, my vote won't be a guarantee for them

[kristopher]

2. Then put MORE Dems in and we will eventually have enough to cancel the BlueCur Dems.

[still_one]

5. easier said then done. Most of the blue dogs are from states that tend to be to the right

[Brickbat]

3. And is what you're saying the Democrats' strategy to get me to vote?

[kristopher]

4. IF you want Dem values enacted into law you'd better get your ass out and vote.

That is simple common sense.

[TCJ70]

6. How in the world do you conclude that based on the last two years? n\t

[still_one]

9. You can't. However, you hope they have learned lessons from the last two years /nt

[kristopher]

10. If you have been in a coma maybe "you can't.

In the real world the fucking BlueCurs have been busting Obama's balls since BEFORE the election. He can't get legislation passed if those pricks are obstructing him at every step. If we give him a couple of extra seats in the Senate none of them will be able to hold policy hostage by refusing to cast the 60th vote.

THE ANSWER IS PUT MORE DEMS IN THE SENATE.

It is simple common sense.

[still_one]

11. That ISN'T MY POINT. My point is you don't EXCLUDE a large base, and that is what they did wit

progressives

During the start of HCR, bacus, and others excluded ANYONE for single payer from the table. That was wrong

They have done it on other issues also

You can argue that progressives votes are a given, but that is the problem

They can vote to get rid of the filibuster, but they won't.

You say the answer is put more dems in the senate. Dems like who? lincoln, nelson, bayh, etc.?

[kristopher]

12. Who is "they" in your rant?

IF you say anything other than Repubics and BlueCurs, you are asleep.

We just need more dems. A large part of the problem is the power that having the 60th vote gives a Senator. They can call the shots to an incredible degree. If there is a cushion of 62 or 63 dems, they lose a great deal of their leverage becaue they can be played against each other.

[still_one]

13. They is the administration who catered to the blue dogs and excluded the progressives. /nt

[Brickbat]

8. Tried it in 2008, haven't seen a whole lot of that.

[still_one]

7. The "hope" that they will have learned from the last two year. Look at it this way

The first two years the administration took the progressives for granted

My argument isn't the best selling point, but I would like to believe that the administration has learned from bending over backwards toward repukes who still voted no

Rahm and others will be leaving, and those a potentially positive signs

I say give them two more years to see

In addition, if repukes ended up with the majority, I do not believe that would further the progressive cause, but make it even more difficult to get a foothold

Not great reasons, but I think it is worth a try

[The Magistrate]

14. Very True, Sir