All of those who are disappointed in Obama, and are thinking of not voting in 2012,

[Cal33]

please try to think of the long-term gain, if they did vote for him:

If Obama wins in 2012 and remains the same way he is today, the positive
thing about it is that he would, at least, be preventing a Repub. from being
president for 4 more years.

And during those 4 years, we'll have the chance to make as sure as possible
that the next president would be a Progressive. I believe a Progressive
would do more for our country and attract more people to his side, because
a Progressive will demonstrate more sharply the difference between
a government of, by and for the people, as opposed to the Repub. government
of, by, and for the few rich owners of corporations.

OTOH, If a Repub. president were to be elected in 2012, it would be the
death-knell of democracy in the USA. GW Bush tried to destroy our
Constitution and didn't make it. You can be sure the next Repub. president
is going to continue where GW Bush left off. And with the help of the
corporations, the Neocons, and the Teabaggers, the chances of killing
our Constitution look frightfully good.

If the Repubs. win this time, there might never be another election again.
Or if there should be elections, they would be the Stalin-type sham
elections, which amounts to the same thing as having no elections at all.

Just look at the vast amount of election fraud they have been carrying
out the past 10 years! Do you believe they will change and become
honest, if and when they will have control of the whole country?

Which thinking American would want that to happen?

[Skittles]

1. thinking Americans want to vote FOR someone

not AGAINST SOMETHING

[Cal33]

4. You are correct. Americans would be voting FOR the continuation of democracy in the USA.

[Skittles]

14. ..............

:rofl:

[emilyg]

33. Yes.

[MichiganVote]

2. There is a hairs breath bit of difference between Rep/Dem platforms

Wait...I do believe that Obama knows his History better than Boufant Bachman. Other than that, its a wash.

[gateley]

10. If a Republican gets back in, I think the differences will

become glaringly obvious. Not worth the risk. Plus, we've got good Dems in Congress. All their Senators and Representatives are in lock-step, NONE of them is fighting for the people.

That is just one of the most inadequate "arguments" there is - there is a lot of difference. Too many similarities, agree, but still a lot of difference.

[MichiganVote]

22. I live in Mi. I am well aware of what they will do. But w/o Dem. support-nothing happens

2 stop the train wreck anyway.

[gateley]

27. A few of the good Dems throw a wrench in the works now and

then, thankfully.

It will be interesting to see how the House Dems vote if they feel Obama has given too much on SS and/or Medicare. They're scrappers. :7

[MichiganVote]

43. Indeed it will.

[gateley]

45. Don't know if you saw this from Pelosi --

(representing the Democratic wing of the Democratic party :7):

http://tpmdc.talkingpointsmemo.com/2011/07/pelosi-medicare-and-social-security-cuts-will-compromise-vote-on-debt-limit-bill.php

We fucked up letting the House go to the Republicans.

[Cal33]

20. Over the years the Dems. have been shifting so far right, that what you've

just said is partially true.

I say partially true, because I have in mind people like Scott Walker of
Wisconsin, as well as governors of other states like Ohio, Minn., Fla...
It would be hard to think of any Democratic governor doing what these
jokers are doing.

So, with 4 more years, we'll have more time to make sure that the
congresspeople from 2012 on, and the presidential nominee in 2016
will be more left-leaning.

[mazzarro]

36. How are you going to get left-leaning politicians?

When the Democratic Party is under DLC/New Democrats/Third Way control? When the power brokers, opinion and policy makers are all bought and paid for by the corporations?

[Cal33]

One way: Keep on pointing out the misdeeds of the Repub. politicians - long,

loud, clear and repeat them over and over again. The Repubs. have long
used this stratagem, and very successfully, even with their propaganda and
lies. Dems. have an easier job at this. Dems need only to point at the
truth. For instance: the Repubs' behavior while in office does provide
so much opportunity for criticism.

And Repubs. can't help but provide the opportunities, because their
Party Philosophy is to get rich by hook and by crook -- ripping off the
American people, in short.

Take the recent case of what the governors of WI, OH, NJ, FL. have been doing.
Why don't Dems. shout it out from the roof-tops, and keep on pointing them
out until even some deaf ears begin to hear?

And each time the Repubs. tell a lie that can be easily exposed as a lie,
why don't the Dems. point that out loud and clear. And, as you know, the
Repubs. are lying all the time. It, too, is a part of the Neocon philosophy.

Dems. somehow just don't use the ammunition that the Repubs. are so amply
providing them, and free of charge. They simply let all these golden
opportunities go sailing by -- a total waste. This is so dumb and stupid
of the Dems!

How about changing our style of dealing with the Repubs.? Dems are too passive.
And Repubs. love to make use of passive people.

[MichiganVote]

42. And that was the promise the last election. The problem is in Congress, not the presidency.

We have to fix the Congress. God knows they aren't going to do it.

[CakeGrrl]

31. I think you'll see that there's a hell of a lot of difference if R's get the WH back.

If it were up to only the people on this forum, there'd be a real danger that they wouldn't mind testing the theory.

Thankfully it's up to the Dems/Liberals at large.

[MichiganVote]

41. I already know. I live in Michigan.

[DJ13]

3. It would be easier if Obama tried courting his base

.....instead of courting the opposition.

[gateley]

11. I can't disagree with that, even though I strongly support the OP. nt

[Cal33]

23. I agree with you, but is he going to do it?

[Big Blue Marble]

5. Your line of reason falters in the new reality.

This is not about right or left, progressive or conservative. These labels amount to little more
than a charade to keep us from focusing on the massive theft that is occurring in this country.

Be assured that no progressive candidate will be viable in four years or eight. And it matters little if
s/he be a Dem or a Pub. They are coming after your slice of the piece of the pie. Period.
Can you not see that even now? Yes, the Pubs may squeeze you dry a little faster, but the objective
is always the same, because the real power in this country wants it this way.

[gateley]

15. So -- what will you do? Are you willing to not vote or vote

for another?

Not saying you're wrong, but I'm just curious if you're giving up or will grumble as you trudge to the polls and vote for the Dem.

[Big Blue Marble]

32. As a life-long voter, I am rethinking the value of voting very carefully.

Will I vote next November? Yes, will I vote for Obama? Uncertain, we will see how these negoiations
work out. Would I vote for a Republican for President? No. Would I write in a candidate or vote third party?
It is too soon to say.

For sure I will vote for my "wonderful" blue dog Dem in the House as well as other Dems on the ticket.

[gateley]

35. I'm lucky that I've always had excellent Representatives,

but I'd vote for a Blue Dog, too, if I had to. If Obama DOES give up too much, the House may save us. They're pretty resolute.

I think the value of voting was made apparent in 2008. Going into the race, I thought the country wouldn't accept a Black President (my fantasy ticket: Biden/Obama, Obama gets groomed for 8 years in the ways of the WH, then slides into a victory in 2016 :7), but the voters not only put him in, they pulverized McCain, so I would never be tempted to NOT vote, and glad you feel the same way even though I still think we should vote for Obama.

[Cal33]

28. And how did "the real power in this country" get to be where they

are today? Step by step. They fought long and hard to get there.

We'll have to fight equally long and hard to take back some
of the power we've ceded to them. We'll have to pay for our
past igonorance and passivity.

Nobody said it was going to be easy. And the longer we wait, the
harder it's going to be.

[boxman15]

6. Amen.

The key for 2012 is to put true progressives in Congress. From 2009-2010, Obama was held back by ConservaDems, who watered down any liberal legislation as much as they could. Now, the current Congress is filled with Tea Partiers, who won't even consider anything remotely liberal. That means legislation that is passed will be moderate at best. If we're lucky.

There are 3 options for 2012:

1. Liberals don't show up in 2012. Obama loses. The White House and Congress are now Republican. Expect more draconian cuts and tax cuts for the wealthy, and the continued dismantling of the middle class, along with an even more conservative Supreme Court (imagine that).
2. Obama is re-elected, but at least one house of Congress remains Republican. Expect more of what we're seeing now: partisan games, Congress brought to a halt, and only very slow, incremental change.
3. Obama is re-elected and Congress is filled with liberal Democrats or independents. Expect true change. Expect Obama to push for and for Congress to pass liberal legislation (like, possibly, a public option, support for gay marriage, meaningful, realistic debt reduction, an increase in taxes on the top, the strengthening and preservation of entitlement programs, more stimulus if necessary, stronger financial reform, funding for education and infrastructure, etc.)

If we want true change, if we want Obama to be the progressive president we all want him to be, elect liberals to Congress in 2012. Congress is where the real power lies.

[Big Blue Marble]

9. Good luck with door number 3.

How in the hell would that happen in the environment of the Citizen's United Ruling?

[boxman15]

19. I don't anticipate it happening at all.

CItizens United, a terrible American news media, and a failure on the part of the left to organize well all point to that not happening.

If the left were to somehow organize themselves as well as the Tea Party does, or hell, even like we did in 2008, and get people out to the polls, it can happen. But, it can't happen by whining all day and not facing the fact that the real problem lies with Congress.

Act. Don't react.

[Cal33]

34. Yes, we do need more left-leaning congressmen. This will take time. But the behavior of

the governors of Wisconsin, Ohio, New Jersey, Florida ... do give an idea of
what it would be like to have present-day Republicans as leaders of our
nation. They have already turned off quite a few Independents and Iffy
Republicans. I hope more will be turned off.

This will give Progressive politicians a better chance. I think it will
take time for Progressives to win in large numbers, though. We'll have
to work hard.

The Neocons and Tea Partyers sure do work hard -- corporate execs, too.
I give them credit for that.

[izquierdista]

12. Option 4

Obama moves even further to the right and the bottom 99% lose.

[gateley]

16. Welcome to DU, boxman15!

And don't become discouraged -- this is an emotionally-charged topic.

I like the way you think. Very pragmatic.

:hi:

[Dawgs]

17. "Obama was held back by ConservaDems, who watered down any liberal legislation"

Uh, what legislation has Obama ever proposed that Dems watered down?

He's always started in the middle.

[gateley]

7. I couldn't agree with you more. Regardless of how I view

Obama, the most important thing is to keep the Republicans OUT. I think the Republicans have screwed themselves in many States, so we may get our House seats back. I would PRAY if that were the case we wouldn't squander that opportunity again to kick some ass and make some changes.

Those who say there's no difference between Obama and the Republicans are wrong. If they think it's bad now, just see what happens if a Republican moves back to Pennsylvania Avenue. And even if we get the House back, Bush showed us they have no qualms about circumventing the law in order to achieve their (dastardly) goals.

For those States who are making it more difficult for people to register, we need people to volunteer to HELP them -- drive them, educate them, whatever it takes.

This is serious.

Heartily recommend!

[Big Blue Marble]

13. The way to regain the house

was to argue that the Republicans were threatening Medicare and SS..... Oh never mind.

[gateley]

21. Agree - and that's what my e-mails to Obama have said, that

Bush's ratings plummeted when he was yammering about privitizing Medicare. I'm sure he's read all of my messages. :7

This is not news to me. One of my frustrations is that we don't hammer home the talking points. We don't learn from the Republicans on this -- their approach is very effective. "Job killing Obama care" - over and over, every Republican managed to get that in regardless of the topic. It sticks in peoples' minds.

BUT, since they're not listening to us, we need to do what we can. Not say "they should have..." I won't NOT fight. It's my life they're fucking with.

[Big Blue Marble]

30. I admire your fighting spirit, maintaining courage in the face of

this crisis is important. We do need weapons though to carry on this fight. What will they be? This Obama move,
IMO, undermines the best chance the Dems had to regain control over the house. (And remember the odds are long
that they will be able to keep the Senate this time around.)

One would argue that the truth would be our best weapon. But the propagandists have become so excellent at
obfuscation leaving many confused and angry at the wrong people. We are in unchartered territory now. At least
for now we still have the internet. But then think China and how easy it is to censor dissent.

[gateley]

37. First of all, we need to see exactly what Obama is willing to do,

either way. (Just now saw a shot of him in this morning's meeting and I swear he's gotten way more gray hair in the last week!).

But the best weapon is the same answer for everything -- $$$. Something we don't have, and we don't have the Koch brothers "encouraging" our participation.

Frustrating. :banghead:

And although I don't really think my calls and e-mails would result in Obama to experiencing a great epiphany, I think at least the adding to the volume and having the poor e-mail sorters and operators in the WH place another checkmark in the "Don't Cave" column, MAY help somewhat.

[Big Blue Marble]

39. Actually, I think Obama eats dissent like Popeye eats spinach!

He thrives on it. It confirms in his mind that he is correct in choosing the "middle way." I believe that
Obama is quite disdainful of liberals or those who take an passionate stand for anything. He likes to
think of himself as the consummate dispassionate pragmatist (even if likes to campaign as more of an
idealist.) He also deludes himself that he is far wiser than any who care so deeply and thus can
better choose what is best for this country than the rest of us.

This attitude speaks of a dangerous level of elitism that is blind to the interests of his party and his base,
while being cleverly manipulated by his opponents.

[gateley]

44. Well you know, a President DOES have to represent ALL the people,

but his "middle way" is purely political.

I concur that he's striving to be pragmatic which ultimately is what I want, but again, it just appears it's political.

What about us? ALL of us? :shrug:

He needs to heed Pelosi's stand - just because he's convinced himself, he may not be successful in convincing those of them who "represent the Democratic wing of the Democratic party".

[Big Blue Marble]

47. I am cheering for the the Democratic wing of the Democratic party

to stop him cold in this regard. But every other time, they eventually folded. Think health care and the Bush tax cuts.
They groaned and complaint, but ultimately fell in line. If this goes through, there will be little ground for them to
campaign on. So maybe this time they will stand firm.

As to being President of all the people, that is a nice sentiment, but what other president in your life time did not fight
for his partisan views in caring for all the people? Which one repeatedly sold out his base supporters to the interests of
the opposition?

[gateley]

51. Carter? Maybe? No specifics but that's how I view him

truly "fair and balanced" :7

Pelosi sounds firm (and I believe what she says but she HAS changed her mind before), and other House Dems seem to be saying the same thing. They ALL don't have to vote against it, I don't think.

But you know, we don't know for sure what will actually be the final product that's presented to them, so that may change the whole shebang.

[vaberella]

8. Don't supplicate the masses. They want to think the worst of the President--let them. n/t

[damntexdem]

18. It's not a matter of thinking of not voting for him:

1. if he caves and supports an attack on Social Security, I will DEFINITELY not vote for him;
2. if he pushes back at the Repukes, leaves SS, Medicare, and Medicaid alone, and doesn't support cuts that are too deep, I will vote for him;
3. were he to do that plus push for a more-progressive agenda, I would work for him.

The way I see it, it's up to him.

And damn all the other arguments.

[gateley]

25. And if he doesn't get reelected and the R's take the WH, be prepared

for even more shredding of our rights and jobs.

Just sayin'.

[Cal33]

40. If Obama caves, I'd be just as mad at him as you. But this thought comes to mind:

Sometimes we have to delay gratification and bear with pain and discomfort
for a protracted period of time, in order to prevent a greater evil from
happening. This does happen in life.

[LiberalFighter]

24. Voters need to do more than just elect Obama

They need to keep pressure on him in a manner that he can't noticing their views.

[gateley]

26. Hell, NONE of them seem to notice the pressure. The polls

all say Dems/Reps DON'T want Medicare and SS touched, but it's like we're speaking Klingon and they can't understand what we're sanding.

Although I'm still supporting Obama and will definitely vote for him again, I can't really recall any instance where he DID pay attention to/and act on our views and input. :(

[Vinnie From Indy]

29. Fuck it!

The whole "vote for me becuase you will really get screwed by those guys" simply does not work for me anymore. I will not do it and I am fully prepared to see the lunatics of the GOP take control of everything. It is high time we finally reveal who stands where and quit electing Democrats that are right-wingers in disguise.

[Cal33]

38. I wouldn't even want to risk having another Republican as president

in 2013. Having lived through two terms of Bush was bad enough. And he was
just Part I. The effects of having a Republican president in 2013 will be
considerably more far-reaching. He'll be building on what Bush had already
started. As an example: The Internet will be under total Republican
surveillance and control. How's that for a starter?

[blkmusclmachine]

46. I'm Out.

That ship sailed awhile ago.

[Cal33]

48. I'm not sure if you're saying you're not going to vote for Obama? Welcome to DU, anyway!

[Cereal Kyller]

49. "make as sure as possible that the next president would be a Progressive."

You think Hillary's gonna be any different? HA!

[Cal33]

50. It's not likely that Hillary will run for president.. I read that she has been

in politics most of her adult life, and is getting of it. She'd like to explore
other aspects of living, and she's not getting any younger.