We Are Witnessing The Beginning of The Democratic Party Kicking Ass in 2010 As We Know It

[zulchzulu]

Surely, I read the headlines and bloviating dribble from people about how the healthcare legislation, if passed, is not enough or is something that is worse than things are now.

Such absolute cakehole pukeage is so far off the mark and politically as astutely unaware as a Kucinich campaign to be even considered serious.

People, can you just look at what has happened?

The Republican Party is categorically a failure in terms of ideas or leadership. Who are the leaders? Palin? McCain? Boehner? Cantor? The Teabaggers? They are flailing for ideas in RNC batcave meetings and are hoping beyond hope that the economy collapses and the Afghanistan war turns into a far worse quagmire than it will ever be.

Despite all the polls on this or the psychobabble from Beltway Neocon Pundits that it's all going to Hell in a Endtimes Abortion Party Basket, the economy is slowly coming out of the ditch as it is prone to do cyclically.

Sure, older job sectors are gone but new ones spawn. I've read about how old car factories in Michigan linked to GM are now retrofitted and producing wind turbine parts. Smart grid transmission projects are being approved and alternative energy sources arebing deployed.

It's called progress.

So what do the Democrats have to do to convince people in 2010 that the Republicans are nothing more than an old, tired, paranoid group of Naysayers? Or Protectors of the Bush Neocon Agenda? Or Stampeders against Health Insurance for everyone?

It's easy.

This first year of the Obama administration has been quite difficult... as it was indeed predicted. What Obama said on the campaign trail indeed would make anyone who was paying attention realize it was going to be incredibly difficult, outrageously overbearing in terms of mainstream media distortion and something to finally be proud of, considering the alternative.

The Republicans are going to try to paint the Obama administration and its supporters as "socialist", "anti-American", "against God" and other usual filth that anyone who has been around knows how to counter. As in counter like the opponent is, well, a card-carrying errand boy/girl of the old, tired, paranoid group of Naysayers.

Let's not kid ourselves. Elections in between presidential elections get the elderly vote to go from 11% to over 20% in turnout. Oddly, many are conservative. So making sure that progressives know the danger of not participating or voting for third-party nobodies who will get sub-10% turnout is critical.

What messages do Democrats have against Republicans, the Party of No, with barely visible viable candidates to run against?

It's simple. Like Sarah Palin, Republicans QUIT on the American People. When it was time to perhaps address healthcare issues and make appropriate changes, they QUIT.

I would use the term "They QUIT" ad nauseum over the next year or beyond.

[angee_is_mad]

1. Kick

and i will continue kicking!!!!

[Ozymanithrax]

2. The party of Yes we can v. The party of No..How can we lose?

But first the party of Yes we can have to quit crying in our beer because we didn't get exaclty what hey wanted in Health Care or foreign policy.

[still_one]

6. Those that want change will work with their representatives to get the bill amended after

it becomes law

Those that are defeatist, will remain so

[Ozymanithrax]

8. There is a lot of defeatism around here, but...

I am a proud incrementalist...

[still_one]

10. Whether we like it or not, that is the way the process works. One thing I would like to see changed

and that is the removal of the electoral college

[patrice]

17. How can we work to get it amended when the first thing we will have to do is fight off

an assault on Women's Right to Choose? How many issues can we handle at once? There may not be any deadlines in the bill but there are statutes of limitations in people's attention spans.

[still_one]

18. People can handle more than one issue at a time. Woman's rights have been going down hill

since bush I, and you are correct, they have been ignored too long. Everything from equal pay for equal work, to the right of privacy

I wonder what it would take to put a viable candidate up against stupak?(sic)

That is the only way for women and men to regain dignity, is to start cleaning up the garbage in our own party

[patrice]

20. Free women, with economic parity, help reduce dysfunctional families which need higher

levels of health care services and are often too economically stressed to pay for them.

Choice has a direct effect upon the demand for health care in this country.

[still_one]

22. We won't argue on that, I agree with you. I just believe that there are enough

progressive Senators who voted for this current HCR Act, that they will not let it stand without amending it after it becomes law

[patrice]

91. I try not to be an absolutist, but this seems a key point:

We need to reduce the burden on the systems.

If so-called "Pro-Life" wins this one, they MUST pay for it and my price, for this particular piece, is Single Payer. THAT would be REAL Pro-Life.

[PhilosopherKing]

26. We have to make Nelson irrelevant

That is how you prevent these "abortion" deals from being formed in the first place. If we elect a couple more progressive senators, then we can make Lieberman and Nelson irrelevant. We cannot allow Republicans to gain seats. Oh, and lets primary Stupak while we are at it.

[patrice]

93. That's stuf I could get behind, if there are some real viable Progressive candidates to lead the way

and push our messages HARD, but it sure would also be real nice if there were SOME kind of quid pro quo for states such as mine!!! where we are going to have to endure Sam Brownback running for governor. Dennis Moore is leaving and I think, even if we take it on the chin, the party should get behind a real Progressive candidate for Dennis's seat and push, push, push Progressive Policies.

[Gman]

80. There is NO assault on the right to choose in this bill--- NONE!!

[girl gone mad]

63. Your screen name always throws me off.

Whenever I read your posts I look for a sarcasm tag or some sign that it's a joke. Then I realize you're not the real Ozy.

[treestar]

3. The Repukes love adversity and organize and work hard

I'll give them that. The lower level ones don't quit.

We can't afford the luxury of letting them win, either. It'll be hard work, but it can be done.

[patrice]

7. They have the churches, officially or not, that's where they connect.

How can anyone do anything about what a bunch of people talk about at "fellowship" activities in people's homes or on ski trips etc.?

The Democratic Party has nothing that even remotely equals the power of positive weekly meetings of "like minded" folks who just happen to talk a lot about social issues, like abortion and war.

[still_one]

9. When the HCR act becomes law, the republicans are going to have a tough time

explaining why they didn't contribute or have a real alternative, not the 9 page bullshit from bonner from Ohio

[still_one]

4. I am not happy with the HCR bill at all, but this bill is going to be shoved up the republicans ass

in 2010, when in the 9 months it was being worked on, they only complained and obstructed, and couldn't even produce their own

In addition, I believe this bill WILL be amended, for the better, which will add more salt into the republican's wounds

[Wardoc]

72. I'm sorry, but that's not true. This bill is a millstone on us. (nt)

[Skidmore]

83. I see you are agreeing with still_one.

[jesus_of_suburbia]

85. Yep. The Republicans did NOTHING about healthcare when they were in power

and then they tried obstructing us from Day 1.

[yourout]

5. I interact with a pretty wide cross section of America and signing the Senate bill is going to.....

cost us big time.

You vastly underestimate the backlash a mandate without a public option is going to generate.

With a public option even if it was more symbolic than anything we would be alright but without anything to offset the mandate we will be looking a bloodbath.

[still_one]

12. So which states do you interact with? /nt

[patrice]

15. I'm trying hard to be positive, but I'm afraid you are right. The good stuff in the bill

even if it does affect what's left of the middle-class, won't be ready until after the vote. It may get Obama re-elected, but it won't do jack for local candidates, probably be regarded as more give-away to lazy shiftless types who don't deserve it and, believe me, I HAVE been hearing that.

The nice things Senator Sanders listed aside (and they ARE nice and fine and all), by a far, far majority this is going to be perceived as a Mandate + Taxes.

[sandnsea]

23. If the subsidies are sufficient

nobody will care about the public option. There are as many people opposed to being forced to pay the govt as being forced to pay corporations. You vastly underestimate the number of people who just want to see a doctor and know they'll get treated, at an affordable monthly rate.

[cliffordu]

28. NONE of the people I know understand or care much about this at all.

This is a very small crowd we have here at DU, Liberal, Centrist or couch slug like me.....

Sometimes we all gaze too closely in the mirror......

[girl gone mad]

64. Strange, because it seems as if every person I know is..

completely freaking out about this.

[Th1onein]

39. I agree with you. People are going to be PISSED off.

And, to boot, to make it a "tax," and collected by the IRS. It's the kiss of death for our party. Goddamnit, this pisses me off. I'm not going to vote at all in 2010. In the primaries, IF there are primaries, I'll vote. But not in the election, and certainly not if my candidate doesn't win the primary. We need to replace these fucks that sold us down the river to the insurance companies.

[Wardoc]

74. Agreed. It is like watching a car wreck in slow motion and being powerless to stop it.

I think it won't hit home until November next year. When we get punked for 40 House seats and 8 Senate seats I wonder if they will rue their decisions.

[IndianaGreen]

11. I am going to vote for my Congressperson in 2010

and for local races. That is all!

No money to the national party. No volunteering my time as I did last year.

[still_one]

13. and that is your right, however things can change, and we also have the right to change

are mind

[Arkana]

14. What's that song by R.E.M?

It's the end of the world as we know it
It's the end of the world as we know it
It's the end of the world as we know it
And I feel fine...

[Parker CA]

16. Love it...The GOP quit on America. Simple.

[gravity]

19. Yes we can, Yes we can

The Democrats are making the reforms while the republicans ran out of ideas and fighting among themselves. I was so used to it being the other way around. Haha, I am loving it

[NYC_SKP]

21. Kick and Rec... nt

[Kind of Blue]

24. "It's called progress." And might I add

Not Perfection? Starting to look forward to 2010 and the years to come as this bill gets worked for the better.

on edit: forgot KnR

[FrenchieCat]

25. K&R!

[cliffordu]

27. K&R...Yep, yep and yep....

[doc03]

29. So are the people that are forced to buy insurance or

be fined going to vote Democratic in 2010? Are the Union members who fought for their benefits only to have them taxed going to vote Democratic? Are the people that are dropped off their employers health insurance because of the increased premiums going to vote Democratic? Are the people that lose their jobs because of increased health care premiums going to vote Democratic? I can't see anything but a total house cleaning in 2010.

[girl gone mad]

65. I think their new strategy is to completely ignore every substantive question..

It leaves more time for vacuous cheerleading posts.

[Undercurrent]

30. A hearty K&R!

Well said, zulchzulu.

[Ildem09]

31. Actually

the law of odds is going to state that we are going to loose seats in the house and maybe the senate only 2x in recent history has the incumbent party retained or increased their majority in the congress in off year elections. FDR and GwBush were those two, I expect us to retain the majority in both houses albeit reduced

[Splinter Cell]

32. K&R

[saracat]

33. Unfortunately the Democratic party also "quit on the people" and instead tendered its support to

Wall Street, Big Pharma and the banks. .We have no message other than we are not the GOP but the difference is beginning to be minor.As a pro-choice woman, I no longer have anyone to vote for. But the DLC assures me, they don't need my vote anyway.

[AnOhioan]

34. Kicking ass? Get some help...seriously

[scubadude]

35. We may be witnessing the Democrats becoming the Republicans.

First, we are forced to buy insurance from corporations that are guaranteed a large profits, under threat of fines if we don't. That is called extortion, plain and simple extortion. In most modern countries it is against the law to have for profit health care at all, yet here it will be against the law not to pay the profiteers.

Second, suddenly insurance companies have grown generous hearts, promising their 80 billion reduction over 10 years. Insurance companies are governed by corporate boards whose sole duty is to ensure that the company makes more money than it did the year before. Period.

Put the two above said together and what you have is a step towards fascism. The Democrats have virtually become the Republicans. They will try to put a good face on it, but as you know you can put lipstick on a pig, but it's still a pig.

With a stroke of his pen President Obama will force millions of Americans into servitude to the for profit insurance industry.

Blast away!

Scuba

[shadesofgray]

41. +1

[MissDeeds]

87. +1

"We may be witnessing the Democrats becoming the Republicans". Yep.

[DrToast]

36. 2010 will go better than people think

But that's because the economy will be much better in 2010.

[ShortnFiery]

37. This isn't about Democrat vs. Republican but fighting CORPORATISTS of all stripes.

The Corporate Democrats and Republicans (all corporatists) will lose in THE LONG RUN.

Many of us will NEVER AGAIN vote for another corporatist democrat.

[gardenista]

38. K & R

Glad to see some voices of reason remain here!

[eridani]

40. Depending on Repukes to continue to be stupid is a stupid strategy

It may actually work, who knows? A lot depends on what happens between now and then.

[Born_A_Truman]

42. All this talk around here about staying home

in 2010, etc is QUITTING and I am not a quitter.

I plan on going out and registering voters again and doing my part. I would love to see Jerry Lewis out of office (R-CA) as he's my rep and I gag every time I write him.

[lamp_shade]

43. THEY QUIT. Two words that say it all. Thanks.

[Blasphemer]

44. They are toast in 2010. nt

[RoyGBiv]

45. I really enjoyed reading this ...

I'm thankful that some people do still have perspective.

[m448]

97. who

you fooloing

[lunatica]

46. You must be looking into a crystal ball with all that confidence

You don't know any better than anyone else what will happen. We were all fucking surprise that the village idiot from Texas actually got away with stealing the elections. Hell! He not only got away with it, he was actually selected by the Supreme Court! Yet now some people think they can see the future so clearly, no matter how disappointing the nows are.

Anyone who doesn't fall into cheerleading lockstep behind Obama no matter what he does or doesn't do are now 'QUITTERS' just like Sarah Palin.

Don't expect to win anyone over with your hateful terminology. You're attempts to shame people who are registering their disappointment isn't working. It sounds like Republican talking points. Like something limbaugh would say.

[ima_sinnic]

47. unrecc'd for Kucinich-voter putdown right off the bat, but also b/c

you somehow think that having a D after someone's name is somehow superior to an R.

I have to ask you, "So what do the Democrats have to do to convince people in 2010 that the Republicans Democrats are nothing more than an old, tired, paranoid group of Naysayers? Or Protectors of the Bush Neocon Agenda? Or Stampeders against Health Insurance for everyone?"

Actually, I would ask, why are the so-called democrats so zealous about protecting insurance co profits? (Max Baucus come to mind? Remember the "Baucus 13" and the way NOBODY in Washington said jack when they were arrested?) "Health insurance for everyone" should not be the goal--health CARE for everyone is what we need, and as far as I can tell, very VERY few "democrats" are going to fight for that. As far as I'm concerned, a goodly number of "democrats"--like the vast majority--have also QUIT, dropped the ball, on We The People. They all lost me when those doctors and nurses were arrested and nobody said shit in their defense. Congress should have been in an uproar about that, and the "democrats" should have stripped Baucus of his "duties" with the insurance co's when he closed that door on the "hearings."

[RoyGBiv]

48. I'm digusted ...

I'm not even sure why I try to read this forum anymore. (Yeah, I know ... door ... ass ... hope it hits you. Get back to me when you have an original thought.)

This post, which during the last Presidency would have been at the top of the Greatest page within hours, sits here, as of this posting, with 3 recs after being here for for six hours. It had one before I recommended it, and some kind soul came along and gave it another between then and when I came to read it again. Who knows where it will be after I get done with this, perhaps in the basement.

What I was doing prior to coming back to this thread was looking at the Greatest page. I found an interesting thread there which was, well, commenting on the Greatest page. I want to make quite a few comments on just that, a navel-gazing thread being premised on the notion that the denizens of DU are somehow representative of anything other than the denizens of DU, but I simply don't have the energy.

I've never suggested nor commented in a thread about the idea that DU has somehow changed. During all the various uproars about this or that, I've never seen any real significant change. These things happen. But, now I'm saying it. This place has changed. This thread is evidence of it. Some of the loudest voices here have a simple goal: to knock any voice of the Democratic party who does not agree in toto their own personal opinions. Because it's all about "me," you see, all about the "I" in "I want this ..." What others want doesn't matter ... a most undemocratic as well as an un-Democratic position.

But really, it's not even about that precisely. It's about the fact that a thread lambasting Democrats at every turn will be recommended as "Great" with vigor, but insightful, scathing commentary on the opposition gets generally ignored and "un-reced" as though criticizing the opposition is no longer even acceptable.

Holy shit ... where's the Tylenol.

[ima_sinnic]

49. what's so great about this thread?

I have not seen much evidence that the democrats in Congress, with a few notable exceptions, esp. in the House, are that much different from the Rs.
And I won't forget who had single-payer advocates arrested, who earlier had "promised" that "everybody would have a seat at the table," and who said or did nothing in defense of those arrested.

I predict a big drop-off in voters in 2010, and no big "voter approval" of a mandate to contribute to the insurance co. CEO welfare fund.

[RoyGBiv]

50. Oh, nothing in particular ...

... just the fact that it focuses on the actual enemy of progress and seeks to create a narrative whereby we can fight them. I know that's not a high priority in our particular circular firing squad, but I kinda like it.

And I like it a helluva lot better than this nonsense:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=389x7276870

As of this posting, a thread that invokes smoke and butts and seriously compares a terrorist group to an insurance company has 44 aggregate recs. This one, which focuses on criticizing Republicans in a serious and realistic way has 5.

[ima_sinnic]

56. how does it "focus on the enemies of progress"? I don't see name like Baucus, Nelson,

Landrieu, Emmanuel, and a few dozen others with D after their name.

I have to agree, though, that "making sure that progressives know the danger of not participating or voting for third-party nobodies who will get sub-10% turnout is critical," because I fully plan to use my critical vote for PROGRESSIVES=--and I will make every effort to encourage progressives to do the same, because we have the power and aren't fully using it. If there's no progressives on the ballot in the next election, I will vote for the "sub-10%" party candidate.

So rather than blathering about how the "Republicans are quitters," there better be a good alternative, which the OP does not describe. As far as I'm concerned, the Republicans might be quitters, but a great many "democrats" are just losers.

[RoyGBiv]

58. Palin? McCain? Boehner? Cantor?

You didn't see those names, or you think these names are not enemies of progress?

You prefer to focus on Democrats whom you perceive to be enemies of progress rather than those whom, I thought, we could all agree were?

I have a simple question. Is criticizing certain members of the Democratic party more important to you than criticizing the Republicans?

[ima_sinnic]

61. who cares about them? they're obvious. I'm concerned about the stealth enemies of progress

if people are so moronic they'd vote for those republicans, they're not going to switch to any Democrat. As far as "winning by default" because the Democrats didn't vote or voted 3rd party--well, whose fault is that?

[RoyGBiv]

62. Thank you for your answer n/t

[girl gone mad]

66. In your opinion.

But you also though the no strings attached bank bailouts were a brilliant idea, so..

[RoyGBiv]

67. You misrepresent my position ...

Of course, you knew that.

BTW, I'm still waiting on the evidence that Brad DeLong is a "Friedman disciple."

[cornermouse]

51. 2008 Democratic Party Platform

http://www.democrats.org/a/party/platform.html
"Choice

The Democratic party strongly and unequivocally support the Roe v. Wade and a woman's right to choose a safe and legal abortion, regardless of ability to pay, and we oppose any and all efforts to weaken or undermine that right."

Question: How does the health insurance plan as passed support this? Or was it all just lip service?

[RoyGBiv]

53. Nice diversion ...

Seriously. That's a good one.

It's good because the vast majority of comments seeking to undermine Democratic elected officials never even mention it.

I grant that the equivocation on abortion rights is the most realistic troubling cause for concern from a progressive point of view. Unfortunately, how we face this issue will not be clear until a full bill comes out of conference since the House and Senate versions are not the same.

[cornermouse]

54. The 2008 Democratic Party platform is now nothing but

a diversion. Has it now become little more than an annoyance to be reminded of what the democratic party is supposed to stand for?

[RoyGBiv]

55. Your response is incoherent ...

It is, in fact, an example of the anti-Democratic tenor of so many comments on DU of late. It's odd given that the previous comment of your was so good.

If you wish to discuss the abortion provisions in the health care bill, fine, let's.

If you wish to discuss some other issue, then name it.

Your blanket statements without supporting evidence mean nothing.

[ima_sinnic]

57. the post was crystal clear and made perfect sense.

I'm a copy editor for English as a Second Language writers--believe me, I KNOW "incoherent."

[RoyGBiv]

59. Bully for you ...

In the context of what was being discussed, the post was incoherent. Your credentials are in question given your prejudices.

[ima_sinnic]

70. my "prejudices"? did I pass judgment? was just stating a fact

people who do not have a good command of English write English incoherently. In fact, my heart goes out to them. I would not want to try to learn English from "outside" because it mostly follows no real rules and is full of weirdnesses and idioms that only a native speaker can get right, and then only because of what "sounds right" and we're used to hearing, not because they're "grammatically correct."

and in the context, the post was still crystal clear.

[RoyGBiv]

76. Yes, you passed judgment ...

You do have a posting record here, for anyone to see. You agree with the individual who responded to me and are defending that person's commentary against someone you perceive to disagree with your position because of that, not on the force of the argument itself. You have, then pre-judged.

Your position as a copy editor has no bearing on the question of whether the previous respondent's comments were coherent. Now, I could critique your abilities, which would make it relevant in a sense, but I do not wish to do so because I find those who criticize the claimed expertise of others boorish and do not wish to be among that group. Your profession does not provide the rules by which statements are judged coherent or not, and that's all that really needs to be said. (Your mentioning of it, in the manner you did, is also a logical fallacy, which I'm sure you know given your profession.)

The respondent to whom you referred replied to my original post with a diversionary statement intended to focus on a single issue that had not, specifically, been brought into the discussion. Rather than direct the discussion back to the broader issue I raised, I chose to allow the diversion and address that specific issue briefly since it was a good point. The individual's response to me, however, did not address my comments at all. Instead, those comments were a further diversion claiming, without evidence, that the "Democratic Party Platform" is itself a diversion and an annoyance. That statement, in the context of the previous discussion, is incoherent. Outside the context of the previous discussion, it is coherent but meaningless as it refers to nothing specific and offers no evidence.

It is, in other words, incoherent. That a copy editor would not notice that can only suggest that he or she is incompetent, which I do not believe you are, or carries prejudices that allow for conclusions that do not fit the evidence.

[cornermouse]

68. And your statement would

appear to deny that the platform, including the abortion statement, is actually the position of the democratic party. The so called "abortion" provision in the travesty that they passed/moved forward yesterday is a travesty in that poor women's "choice" will be between an economic disaster if they try to get the money for an abortion or having a baby that they don't want and can't care for. It makes the platform little more than a joke. n/t

[RoyGBiv]

69. I have no idea how you got that ...

Please re-read this sub-thread for context.

I granted that the variances in provisions in the House and Senate bills creates a problem.

You replied with a comment that offered a blanket condemnation, which I questioned.

In what was does that sequence result in the interpretation of my comments you have here? Please be specific so that we have no further misunderstandings.

[cornermouse]

71. Let's put it this way.

I've said what I think. You refuse to accept it. That's your right. My right is to refuse to play your game and try to "justify" myself in your eyes. Is that clear enough? If not, too bad.

[RoyGBiv]

77. I accept your postion ...

I simply don't agree with it. That is, I disagree with your apparent position that the health care reform bill currently in Congress should not be passed, which is what I can only assume you are referring to. Accepting that a position is valid and not agreeing with that position are two different things.

However, you've not stopped there. You've called into question the entire Democratic party platform, claiming, without providing evidence, that it is a diversion, without stating for what. Moreover, your indication of what you "think" involves using the abortion issue to argue against a claim I originally made that did not specifically address abortion. It was, in other words, a diversion. It was a good one, as I have admitted three times now, and if you would like to stick to that issue I'm sure we could have an excellent discussion without the personal invective. The way abortion rights have been treated by many Democrats in Congress has indeed gone against the party platform and is certainly open to harsh criticism.

But that's not the point I raised, and I think you know this but are choosing not to acknowledge it.

[zulchzulu]

73. Thanks for checking it out

I welcome dialogue on all sides and usually just chuckle at the noobs dissing the Democratic party as if they would do anything about helping us win in 2010 or 2012 anyway.

Many of us will be out there doing the heavy lifting in the next election cycles and the least amount of whiners out there make it all just a lot easier to do.

[RoyGBiv]

78. The frustrating thing ...

I spent basically two solid days at Annise Parker's headquarters just before the run-off election, and naturally conversation turned to national politics. Consider that the room is full of Democrats, and most of them are solidly liberal. (Parker isn't, btw, but don't advertise that, or it'll make some of her non-Houstonian supporters lose their minds.)

So, I'm sitting there around all these liberals, talking about national stuff, and I don't hear anything *near* the kind of "fuckoffmotherbandfuckhorsespittle" criticism of Democrats I read here. Sure, most people are disappointed at the way health care has gone. There's a lot of anger over the wars. But the discussions weren't so ... I dunno ... personal ... black and white. They were actually intelligent discussions.

Anyway, sorry for the part my comments have played in creating a diversionary topic, but I felt it should be said.

Take care.

[babylonsister]

84. It hurts, doesn't it. Tylenol sounds good. nt

[RoyGBiv]

95. Do they have an extra, extra strength?

I think I may just put _Christmas Vacation_ on in a constant loop and watch it until New Years.

That'll either keep me numb and happy or purge the last remaining remnants of my sanity. Either way, I'm good. :)

[goldcanyonaz]

86. I haven't seen this much infighting since the primaries.

I took over a year off and came back to utter chaos.

I'm surprised at all the negative posts about our president but not shocked.

I have to admit that it's much better than the echo chamber that was once this forum, healthy debate is a good thing.

It's the name calling I can do without.

[DCBob]

52. The GOP is a complete disaster but they can still win if Dem voters dont show up.

The VA Gov race clearly showed that.

[girl gone mad]

60. I'm pretty skeptical.

We've just lost too much credibility since 2006 and it's so unlikely that unemployment will improve significantly. Our base is now disillusioned and apathetic. Their base is riled up. This health insurance giveaway may be the final nail in the coffin.

[Armstead]

75. NO the Democfrats just gave the GOP an easy message -- "The Democrats are con artists."

That's it.

As voters realize that they have been hoodwinked by the Democrats with a bill that forces them to buy or keep insurance by law -- but did not provide any affordable public alternative -- they will say "I'm not going to vote for those con artists again."

[Gman]

79. Big K&R -- Great post

and makes much sense. The so-called "progressives" need to pull their heads out of their asses or they will miss this bus.

OF course those DU'ers here who are not Democrats and/or Obama haters, and who would love to see the demise of the Democratic Party will continue to disrupt here and predict how they will incur such disaster on the party as they have in the past. Fortunately they are a very small minority.

[burning rain]

81. The GOP certainly won't win the 2012 presidential election this way...

but pure obstructionism is a good bet for Republicans looking toward 2010. Republicans destroyed their credibility on foreign and domestic policy, and fiscal prudence in particular. But they don't need a credible program for 2010: making Democrats look ineffectual relative to our whopping majorities will do, and "thanks" to the pathetic performance of Senate Democrats, that's how we're looking. Republican voters will be pumped up in 2010 in any case; if our impotent Senate team, especially, doesn't shape up, our voters likely won't be.

[ProgressOnTheMove]

82. Sounds like a plan to me we'll keep that one in the holster for nearer the time.

[goldcanyonaz]

88. K & R we just have to make sure that people VOTE!

[Techn0Girl]

90. Vote?? Why would I vote for a Party that just ....

... Took away ANOTHER 8% of my salary and GAVE it to a big Corporation.

... Put the heads of Goldman-Sachs, the people who were responsible for out financial melt-down, into key positions in the Treasury department and the Cabinet?

... Extended the heinous Patriot Act that rescinded away many of The Bill of Rights that our country was ostensibly founded upon.

... Began and funded a new war effort costing many trillions of dollars that could have gone to education, child hunger and oh yeah - my freaking Health Care!

Good luck with my vote

[nichomachus]

89. The only asses the pathetic Dems are going to kick are their own

If things go on the way they are, November will be a bloodbath.

All those first time voters and people who had given up on politics, who came out to support Obama because he promised change won't be there. All those AA voters who came out just to vote for a black guy won't be there. A lot of progressives who are turned off by Obama fellating Goldman-Sachs won't be there.

Meanwhile, the Teabaggers and their friends will be out in force.

I would be surprised if the Dems held on to even one house of Congress.

[FrenchieCat]

92. You wish!

while I don't!

Guess we are different that way.

[billh58]

94. +100 n/t

[firedupdem]

99. 'All those AA voters who came out just to vote for a black guy won't be there.'

So you know why all us AA's came out to vote? Really?

Keep hoping and wishing honey, we aren't going anywhere.

[PurityOfEssence]

96. The reactionaries are lost, leaderless, babbling in the corner, and we STILL we suck up to them

and only timidly ask for the meekest of slight encroachment on the "rights" of the corporations and the monied elites. Hell, if they weren't totally routed and in complete disarray, they'd be whipping us six ways from sunday, wouldn't they?

Why do we beseech them for the merest of crumbs when they're so defeated? Why don't we flatly go for full-on single-payer and settle for some kind of seriously controlled private system with a healthy public option? Don't we know ANYTHING about negotiation?

This is all silly philippics, though, because the truth is quite clear: this administration is NOT on the side of the individual. It has been given the most glowing, golden opportunity and it didn't even really TRY. There's a reason for that, and that is that Barack Obama is not what many here seem to think he is; he's a slightly right-of-center ultramoderate, virtually with virtually the same political pH number as Bill Clinton. This shouldn't be a surprise, and we can certainly live with this kind of smiling, glad-handing corporatism, but this is NOT shinola, and I'm sick of being cajoled and demanded to say that it is.

My ire really doesn't matter; I've been singing this identical tune since he first crossed my radar, and it was driven home when he actively courted Religion Incorporated. What DOES matter is the outrage of those who believed in him; THOSE people will cause serious damage to the Democratic Party, and much as it deserves it after this deplorable episode (that is far from over, lest we forget) I hate to see it happen. The Democratic Party is the only realistic engine for decency for our future, and the prospect of seeing its ranks thinned by a feeling of betrayal is not a very pleasant thing to have in the offing.

Your premise is that they will actually fight the good fight, and I don't think they have the least inclination to do anything of the sort. They want to SEEM like it, but even that's a bit open to question with this irritating and endless craving for bipartisanship that drives them to such depths of appeasement.

[Top Cat]

98. Kick