Ken Burch
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Tue Aug-31-10 02:52 PM
Original message |
Poll question: Agree or disagree with the following statement: |
|
"If the Tea Party took Congress this fall, and President Obama were to imitate Bill Clinton's post-1994 strategy of just agreeing with the Republicans on everyting, there would be NO good reason to renominate the man, since re-electing him would be worthless and pointless, as renominating Clinton was in 1996"
________________________________________________________________________
Note, I will be working to prevent such a right-wing nightmare this fall, as much as anyone will be. I hope and PRAY(to any available deity if they exist)that this won't happen. But we do have to think ahead about these things.
And we also need to remember that if a rightward swing meant losing all hope of gaining congress back then, it has to mean the same now.
|
FBaggins
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Tue Aug-31-10 03:01 PM
Response to Original message |
|
But only because renominating President Clinton wasn't a mistake.
|
polmaven
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Tue Aug-31-10 04:59 PM
Response to Reply #1 |
|
:thumbsup::thumbsup::thumbsup::thumbsup::thumbsup:
|
Pirate Smile
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Tue Aug-31-10 03:01 PM
Response to Original message |
Ken Burch
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Tue Aug-31-10 03:08 PM
Response to Reply #2 |
5. We've already had all the justices Obama's going to get. |
|
No R justice is old enough to be close to retirement.
And a Republican Congress wouldn't confirm anybody he'd nominate anyway.
The Court issue is over for now.
|
texastoast
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Tue Aug-31-10 03:20 PM
Response to Reply #5 |
|
You just never know what tomorrow will bring, so while your actuarial numbers might be close, they are not the end of all possibilities.
|
Ken Burch
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Tue Aug-31-10 03:23 PM
Response to Reply #17 |
18. Has any Supreme Court justice in this century died anywhere short of doddering old age? |
|
And you're forgetting that anyone nominated by Obama would be defeated by a Republican Senate unless they were a Republican, so we'd gain nothing by having Obama nominate a moderate conservative instead of a conservative. No one a Republican senate would approve would be worth having.
|
Ter
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Wed Sep-01-10 04:02 AM
Response to Reply #18 |
40. This century is only 10 years old |
Ken Burch
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Wed Sep-01-10 03:57 PM
Response to Reply #40 |
42. Typo on my part....I meant in the LAST hundred years or so. |
|
OR, actually, ever in this country's history.
|
Ter
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Wed Sep-01-10 04:38 PM
Response to Reply #42 |
43. There must be some who died under the age of 80 |
|
Especially if you go way back.
|
Pirate Smile
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Tue Aug-31-10 04:01 PM
Response to Reply #5 |
22. If something would happen to a Liberal Justice then I think it would be "nice" to have them be |
|
replaced by a Democratic President.
Anybody can keel over at any time. It is extremely irresponsible to act like we don't need to worry about the Supreme Court. Yeah, let the Republicans have the Presidency.
That is insanity.
|
Ken Burch
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Tue Aug-31-10 04:18 PM
Response to Reply #22 |
24. The problem is "The Court, The Court, The Court" becomes an excuse |
|
to accept surrender on everything else.
At some point, we have to say "principle comes first", or our principles mean nothing.
|
Pirate Smile
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Tue Aug-31-10 04:37 PM
Response to Reply #24 |
26. It is a valid reason even if you don't like it. |
Ken Burch
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Tue Aug-31-10 04:45 PM
Response to Reply #26 |
27. It can't be worth giving in on everything that matters, as we did in the Nineties |
|
The Court wasn't worth DOMA, Glass-Steagall, NAFTA, punitive welfare legislation AND more executions.
|
Pirate Smile
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Tue Aug-31-10 04:52 PM
Response to Reply #27 |
28. Obama isn't Clinton. He is trying to get rid of a bunch of the stuff Clinton did. |
Ken Burch
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Tue Aug-31-10 05:40 PM
Response to Reply #28 |
33. I know he is as of now. But I'm talking about the direction he'd take in the situation in the OP. |
|
It's almost certain he'd echo the "tack to the center" of post-1994 Clinton(which was actually a tack to the right, since Clinton was NEVER progressive).
|
Ken Burch
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Tue Aug-31-10 05:23 PM
Response to Reply #22 |
31. It couldn't be WORTH having the presidency if the party had to move any further right to hold it |
|
We gained nothing in the Nineties by saying "it's enough that the president calls himself a 'Democrat'". We didn't have to settle for that then, and we wouldn't have to settle for it NOW if Obama followed the same path following a big loss this fall.
Nothing could EVER be worth a repeat of a "Democratic" president signing something as evil as the welfare bill.
|
saltpoint
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Wed Sep-01-10 09:21 PM
Response to Reply #5 |
47. It's never really over, Ken. A judge can live almost |
|
forever or may croak in the next ten days.
Nobody knows.
There are also other judicial appointments up and down the ranks which figure prominently in presidential terms.
|
jobycom
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Tue Aug-31-10 03:02 PM
Response to Original message |
3. That's a completely ignorant opinion of Clinton's administration. |
|
Clinton lost Congress in 94 because he was too liberal for the Southern Reagan Democrat (Sam Nunn) controlled Congress he inherited and made a lot of enemies with Americorp, taxes on the wealthy, COBRA, and the rest of his economic package, as well as for his choices of liberal/progressives for cabinet positions. He spent the next six years getting the absolute most liberal results he could from the most right wing Congress this nation has ever seen. If Dole had been elected, he would have signed Gingrich's roll-back budget without hesitation, and we would now be trying to sneak into Mexico and Canada for jobs, probably without this wonderful Internet thing to hang out and complain on, since the economic conditions which allowed the tech economy to flourish would never have been created.
People who don't know history are condemned to repeat it.
|
Ken Burch
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Tue Aug-31-10 03:12 PM
Response to Reply #3 |
6. It's not as if Clinton was the only person who could possibly have beaten Dole |
|
And Clinton didn't even TRY to get Congress back. He conceded the House to the R's halfway through the '96 campaign. This made the impeachment his OWN damn fault.
But even you would have to admit that nothing would be worse than settling for the last six years of Clinton again, which is what the scenario I laid out above would have to mean.
No good ever comes from a Democratic president just surrendering to the right like that and not fighting them on anything but trivial side issues.
As to the jobs leaving the country...NAFTA caused that, and NAFTA would have died if Clinton had left it to die. He stopped being a Dem the moment he endorsed NAFTA, since globalization never had any non-right wing results.
|
WI_DEM
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Tue Aug-31-10 03:13 PM
Response to Reply #6 |
9. It was under Clinton, too, that we got DOMA and DADT, but nevertheless I think |
|
Clinton was better than having any republican in the WH.
|
Ken Burch
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Tue Aug-31-10 03:17 PM
Response to Reply #9 |
11. Again, you're assuming that he was the only Dem who could've won in 1996 |
|
Edited on Tue Aug-31-10 03:18 PM by Ken Burch
There's simply no reason to assume that, OR to assume that we had to accept his strategy(which Obama will imitate)of never trying to get Congress back again.
It's simple...if we lose Congress this year, we become a resistance culture, whose only chance for revival would be to get this party to nominate an ACTUAL progressive populist in 2012. If Obama is not impeached, we can assume he'll never be popular again if Congress goes right-wing, and we can assume that nothing he'll do will be worthy of non-reactionary support.
To renominate Obama after two-years of a Republican Congress would be, once again, to reduce ourselves to the post-1994 dead zone. No sane Democrat or progressive could want that to repeat.
|
suzie
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Tue Aug-31-10 05:39 PM
Response to Reply #11 |
32. So what miracle worker do you have in mind to run in 2012, because obviously you have one. |
|
Edited on Tue Aug-31-10 05:39 PM by suzie
|
Ken Burch
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Tue Aug-31-10 05:44 PM
Response to Reply #32 |
34. I'm not lined up with anyone in particular at this point. |
|
Edited on Tue Aug-31-10 05:48 PM by Ken Burch
This isn't about any notion that I'm the one person who knows what's good for this party.
But an open primary campaign would almost certainly provide a better candidate than an incumbent who would, having lost Congress, already be mortally wounded in political terms.
There would be no energy in an Obama re-election campaign against a Republcan Congress if he compromised with it and moved right. No one would think such a president(who would obviously remain compromised and pushed-to-the-right if re-elected and would be incapable of being liberal on anything again, as Clinton proved)would be worthy of re-election. It would be a passion-free zone like 1996, which produced a default "victory" that was of no value and would have to lead to a GOP takeover in 2016, as the meaningless 1996 result did in 2000.
We can't ever follow the model of 1990's politics again.
|
suzie
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Tue Aug-31-10 11:59 PM
Response to Reply #34 |
39. You make one assumption after another to build up to your final conclusion--which was your |
|
conclusion to start with--we must get rid of Barack Obama.
It's sorta aggravating to even read through this nonsense. Just come out and say, "I want anyone but Obama in 2012."
|
Ken Burch
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Wed Sep-01-10 08:24 PM
Response to Reply #39 |
44. My position is NOT "anyone but Obama in 2012" |
|
IT's "an Obama Administration that compromised with a Republican Congress couldn't be worth re-electing".
I assume all progressives would agree, since a compromised Obama Administration could never be worthy of progressive support AFTER making compromises with a Republican Congress(since such compromises would also guarantee, as they did in the 1990's, that Democrats could never regain control of Congress during the rest of the administration).
What I'm saying is, if Obama did anything Cokie Roberts and Dick Morris praised him for, that would automatically disqualify him for running again as a Democrat.
I hope it doesn't come to that.
The only ACCEPTABLE strategy for an Obama Administration dealing with a Republican Congress would be total war and total resistance, since nothing that Republican Congress could pass could possibly be acceptable.
|
sharp_stick
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Tue Aug-31-10 03:17 PM
Response to Reply #6 |
10. Did you really just write |
|
"even you would have to admit that nothing would be worse than settling for the last six years of Clinton"
Where the hell were you between 2000 and 2009 or 1980 and 1988, or 1988 and 1992? Pathetic poll, pathetic idea.
Jesus Christ on a trailer hitch, I'm kind of surprised at all the PUMA senitment being dredged out of the bottom of the septic tank.
|
Ken Burch
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Tue Aug-31-10 03:20 PM
Response to Reply #10 |
16. I meant anything that could happen under the rubric of "a Democratic presidency" |
|
We must never reduce ourselves to the pointlessness of another Clinton V. Dole campaign, a campaign where both nominees agreed on everything but trivial side issues. and both parties left workers and the poor out in the cold.
|
Tesha
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Tue Aug-31-10 03:12 PM
Response to Reply #3 |
7. NAFTA, DOMA, DADT, Telecommunications deregulation, etc., etc. ... (NT) |
Ken Burch
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Tue Aug-31-10 03:25 PM
Response to Reply #7 |
20. Glass-Steagall repeal...the event that CAUSED the banking collapse. |
|
There simply couldn't be any hope in such a situation.
|
Fire1
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Tue Aug-31-10 05:48 PM
Response to Reply #3 |
baldguy
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Tue Aug-31-10 03:02 PM
Response to Original message |
4. They would impeach him and Biden in the first week. |
Ken Burch
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Tue Aug-31-10 03:13 PM
Response to Reply #4 |
8. And, unlike Clinton, they'd have the votes to remove him. |
|
We need to work hard to save Congress(unlike our party's leaders, who actually don't WANT to win this year).
|
FBaggins
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Tue Aug-31-10 03:18 PM
Response to Reply #8 |
|
Absent an ACTUAL high crime, there's no way they have the votes to remove.
|
WI_DEM
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Tue Aug-31-10 03:18 PM
Response to Reply #8 |
13. I doubt that--like Clinton he would need 2/3 plus 1 of the Senate to convict and the GOP isn't |
|
going to get anywhere near that many votes in the Senate. I think Dems will keep the Senate the house is dicier. But I agree we have to fight like hell.
|
Ken Burch
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Tue Aug-31-10 03:24 PM
Response to Reply #13 |
19. Especially since our leaders won't. |
Tesha
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Tue Aug-31-10 05:46 PM
Response to Reply #13 |
35. They don't actually need to convict to ensure that the Democrats are emasculated. |
|
Did they convict Clinton? No.
Did Al Gore suffer mightily in the fall-out from Clinton and his Impeachment? Yes. Why do you think he ran with Holy Joe, an other- wise deplorable candidate?
Tesha
|
Ken Burch
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Tue Aug-31-10 06:39 PM
Response to Reply #35 |
37. You're right. HolyWarJoe was on the ticket |
|
Because he looks like he's NEVER had a blowjob.
|
sharp_stick
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Tue Aug-31-10 03:19 PM
Response to Reply #8 |
14. You've got to leave the room |
|
obviously you have too many volatile organic hydrocarbons in your vicinity today.
|
FBaggins
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Tue Aug-31-10 03:36 PM
Response to Reply #14 |
21. But without your keys. |
|
"volatile organic hydrocarbons"... I like that.
|
stevenleser
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Tue Aug-31-10 03:20 PM
Response to Original message |
15. 3-4 part compound question with many conditionals and suppositions. Poorly worded poll n/t |
grantcart
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Tue Aug-31-10 04:20 PM
Response to Reply #15 |
25. and now Mr. Lesser tell us have you stopped beating your wife |
|
Yes
or
No
only
Standard fare for this poster
|
Kahuna
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Tue Aug-31-10 08:57 PM
Response to Reply #25 |
Phx_Dem
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Tue Aug-31-10 04:17 PM
Response to Original message |
23. Scratch of those "Agree" votes. I screwed up and voted wrong. |
Liberal_Stalwart71
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Tue Aug-31-10 04:54 PM
Response to Original message |
29. Basically, I only care about the Supreme Court and lower court appointments... |
|
Bush screwed everything up with the lower appellate courts. We cannot afford to have another Republican making these decisions.
|
Ter
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Wed Sep-01-10 04:05 AM
Response to Original message |
41. If Obama nomitates another gun-grabber, we lose |
|
If a Republican nominates a neo-con, we lose. We can't win either way.
|
Ken Burch
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Wed Sep-01-10 08:26 PM
Response to Reply #41 |
45. Obama hasn't done anything on gun control. |
|
And people who are paranoid about gun control are never going to vote for us anyway.
I mean "gun grabber"? Who the hell does that even refer to?
If he nominated an all out gun control opponent, that would limit his talent pool to right-wing extremists. Do you actually WANT Tea Party types in a Democratic cabinet?
|
Ter
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Thu Sep-02-10 04:51 AM
Response to Reply #45 |
48. He appointed Sonia Sotomayor to the Supreme Court |
|
She voted in the minority and against the 2nd Amendment in McDonald v. Chicago, a 5-4 decision. He also appointed another notoriously anti-gun Justice, Elena Kagan. I am certain she would have sided with the minority decision in that case.
And "Obama hasn't done anything on gun control" because no bills have went to his desk for signing. I don't want him nominating anyone else unless they are firmly on the side of the 2nd Amendment.
|
Ken Burch
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Thu Sep-02-10 02:16 PM
Response to Reply #48 |
49. If you want anyone who isn't a reactionary on the Supreme Court |
|
Edited on Thu Sep-02-10 02:17 PM by Ken Burch
Then you HAVE to accept a gun control supporter as a nominee.
There is no such thing, anywhere in this country, as a judge or lawyer who is progressive on any issues, let alone most, but ANTI-gun control. To get a gun control opponent on the Court, you'd have to settle for a Bork. There's no other possibility.
Why did you want Obama to appoint a neanderthal to the Court?
|
JoePhilly
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Wed Sep-01-10 08:43 PM
Response to Original message |
|
I might vote for an alien overlord who so long as they would prevent the GOP from taking power. The GOP scares the crap out of me.
And so if Obama became an evil borg like entity tied to the GOP, then I would lobby and donate to a 3rd party candidate from another planet who promised to save us, or, failing that, take us back to their home planet.
Bottom line ... I'll do anything to keep the GOP out of power.
|
DU
AdBot (1000+ posts) |
Fri May 10th 2024, 03:45 AM
Response to Original message |