Can somebody explain this to me?

[no limit]

I often hear that if we don't support the president in 2012 the republicans will gain control. When they do they will destroy social security, destroy medicare, destroy unions, destroy abortion rights, destroy gay rights, give rich people everything they demand, destroy the middle class, kill poor people, etc. Because of this any talk of not supporting the president is seen as totally unacceptable.

A lot of what is said the republicans would do is probably true. But here is my question, what does that tell you about democrats?

Becasuse the democrats had full control of our government for 2 years. And not just any control. They had the biggest majorities that we have seen a political party have in decades. And they didn't get much of what they said they wanted done because the republicans blocked them at every corner. When Bush had the white house even when they controlled the house and the senate they allowed Bush to roll right over them.

So for anyone that believes the republicans would destroy this country if they are put in power again can you please explain to me why that gives you any faith in the democratic party? Why would you defend these people? Because it always seems that when they are in power they can't get anything done. And when the republicans are in power they get everything they want done. And I'm the asshole for being fed up with this system and not wanting to contribute to it any longer?

[joeybee12]

1. Because politics is always about fear...be afraid of the other guy...

But the Obama Democratic party is so far to the right the differences aren't so great anymore.

[Poll_Blind]

6. It wasn't about fear in 2008, thankfully, and that's why people came out in droves to....

...vote, hopefully, for real Change.

This time, there's no carrot and it's all stick.

PB

[Autumn]

2. Good question

it tells me that most of the Democrats are fine with it.

[Brickbat]

3. Well said. K&R.

[Fumesucker]

4. Heh... Someone's going to lay "The List" on this thread in 3.. 2.. 1.. n/t

[DrDan]

12. I have been awaiting the "list" all day and am surprised not to have seen it

[RadiationTherapy]

5. It shows me, as I suspected during Bush2, that the minority party has more power to obstruct

than the majority has to enact. End the filibuster and enact some term limits.

[KittyWampus]

7. So you don't understand the filibuster? Moderate Democrats? Oh, and the Democrats actually got quite

a bit done. Even though you like to pretend they didn't.

[no limit]

10. I do, apparently you don't since you missed the point.

The argument is that if we don't support the democrats in 2012 the republicans will destroy this country. That could only be possible if the democrats would allow republicans to destroy this country. Because the filibuster is also available to the Democrats. If for some reason you didn't know that don't feel bad, the Democrats loved to act as if they didn't know what the filibuster was until Obama came in to office and they had 60 votes in the Senate.

[WillowTree]

19. ".......they didn't know what the filibuster was until Obama......." Really?

Try telling that to Miguel Estrada.

[Angry Dragon]

16. I posed this question to someone the other day

What was passed in the first two years that was good, that is not under attack now??

[nashville_brook]

8. we can all leave the veal pen any time we want.

[tnlefty]

18. Stretch,

it feels good!

[LynneSin]

9. and your voting message is?

Republican president is not nor never will be an option in my book.

[no limit]

11. Obama is a republican president

atleast if you go by the definition of what makes a republican.

[LynneSin]

13. I've been very happy with his 2 Supreme Court picks

I highly suspect anyone picked by a republican isn't going to make us happy.

[no limit]

14. The only way a supreme court justice is approved is if the minority party allows it

So if the republicans get to nominate far right idiots to the bench that can only happen with Democratic support.

The reason Obama got his picks was because they were moderate. Which I think it's a shame, they should have been far more liberal. Since when Bush was around he nominated justices that were way out there in the far right, and the Democarts happily allowed them to be approved. Now they act shocked as if they don't know what happened.

[Sarah Ibarruri]

15. Let me explain it to you...

We've done that already. We had a spoiler, and as a result, the pig called GW Bush was elected. We KNOW what he did. We are now suffering what that pig, GW Bush did to destroy our country.

Really, must we have another repeat of this? Really?

[pennylane100]

17. The democrtic party did not do a great job when they were in power.

Unfortunately there are too many DINOs among them. However, the house did pass some fairly good legislation where it went to the senate to die as we did not have a veto proof majority.

I do not know if they will do better next time, but I don't want to think about the alternative. Would you want to live in Michele Bachmann's America or how about President Perry. How do you think these people would rule with a repug congress backing them up.
There is a lot wrong with the democratic party but at this stage of the game, its all we have

[loyalsister]

20. Bush had "bipartisan" support

Republicans hijacked some traditionally democratic issues. NCLB and the Rx drug program were written so that Republicans would support and brag about them, and dems couldn't vote against them.
That was combined with national security issues that dems went along because of the fear of looking unpatriotic or weak on security.

[no limit]

21. So...what does that tell you about Democrats?

[loyalsister]

22. They were afraid

They were backed into a corner on two social issues, and popular opinion was rooting for the "wartime president" because he was presiding over the aftermath of 9\11. He had the luxury of public support and therefore, support from democrats simply out of luck.
Obama is in the exact opposite position. The republicans are not at risk of looking unpatriotic, and the absolutist no tax position is business as usual.
What he is working on is hard and he is doing it via the historically appropriate democratic procedure. He can't do everything via executive order. Our government was designed that way intentionally.

[no limit]

23. You know why I think that's bullshit? Healthcare reform

Before the healthcare debate up to 80% of Americans wanted to see reform. 70% during the debate wanted a public option. So tell me this, why couldn't Obama back the Republicans in to the same corner Bush did when it came to things like the Iraq war? By the time the debate was done support for healthcare reform was down in the 40s. You can look at any other major policy inititive of this administration and the exact same thing happened, wether it was tax cuts for the rich, wall street reform, or even the stimulus. Now we are actually talking about cuts to social security and medicare that Obama himself seems to be pushing.

This means the Democrats are either complicit or incompetent. And I think they are complicit, but even if it was incompetence I don't think incompetence is that much better.

[loyalsister]

24. apples and oranges

Bush had fear on his side. He used the natural existing fear to get people to go along with something that would make them feel safer. Fighting terrorists and getting rid of a dictator.

Obama's challenge was to get people to accept a significant change in health care policy. People fear changes in the way their health insurance works. Fear was not on his side.

Who benefits from the hysteria based on imagined cuts based on meetings if people primary or desert Obama?

This horror show a prime example of how the media and republicans use fear to control people.

[no limit]

25. Democrats have no way to make Americans fear the idea that you won't get the care you need

if anything should happen to you?

3,000 people died on 9/11. As a result we had 2 wars which will cost us atleast 4 trillion dollars, we had our civil liberties taken away, we tortured, and we have to get groped by the TSA each time we fly.

Over 40,000 die each year because they can't get the healthcare they need. What did we get for that? Health insurance "reform" based on a republican plan.

[loyalsister]

26. How do you scare a healthy person who has it pretty good?

Someone who feels safe in their situation can only be scared of changing something about it. The only fear to be found was a fear of losing insurance if anything changed.
If a person knows they are not among the uninsured and aren't likely to ever get sick (according to the invincibility mentality) why would they want to rock the boat?
It's very different to convince people to confront their fears via change than to convince them to get an army to go fight somewhere on their behalf in order to assuage their fears and exact revenge.
Republicans used it to their benefit in both cases. They told people that they could only lose coverage and be among the 40,000 if the health reform succeeded. The loudest citizen voices in that debate were more afraid of any kind of reform than of things staying as they were. Congress was listening to the majority. Obama could only sign or veto what they sent him.
Reality sucks and gets in the way of most of us finding the perfect solution and getting our most desired result.

[no limit]

27. I really hate this defeatist attitude being brushed off as reality

Most people did not think their insurance was safe, huge majorities of Americans wanted reform before the debate started. That's because Americans understood their premiums were going up each and every year, they understood that they could be kicked off their insurance at any time, and they understood healthcare costs were unsustainable.

But as soon as the debate started the Democrats played right in to the Republicans hands by starting the debate on Republican terms.

You say the president can only sign or veto legislation. This isn't just about the president. But if you want to look at just the president that's fine. We can look at all the actions he took during this debate. Such as making deals behind back doors with drug and insurance companies, refusing to pass a public option which he could have easily done using reconciliation, and pushing a mandate which he himself beat Hillary Clinton over the head with during the campaign.

That's reality. Your idea that the Democrats can't ever do anything productive because Republicans are really really mean and really really evil isn't.

[loyalsister]

28. Huge majorities?

I have had to explain the healthcare debate to dozens of people. When I explained the double and triple taxing with bailing out providers and increasing premiums, over and over I heard "I never thought of it that way." If there was the support you believe, it was not passionately. Otherwise they would have held demonstrations that rivaled those of the tea party.
It's interesting how people believe that everyone agrees with them despite evidence to the contrary. I have a circle that mostly agrees with me. More friends who I just have some common ground with and I know a whole lot of people who I disagree with on social issues vehemently.
Do you really believe that healthy, educated gen xers with employer insurance and pension plans and baby boomers in good health already looking forward to living on theirs were afraid of losing their health insurance? That is\was the majority of our middle class. Not afraid of getting sick or injured let alone losing insurance.
In case you missed it, Bush was in office for 8 years. He and republicans were in charge of the dialogue. That is how the minimally involved understand politics. That is the language the majority of voters understand.
Most people are not political junkies.
Refusing to pass a public option or signing a bill that didn't include one? If any kind of health reform was going to pass, Obama had to get behind what was possible. There was no way a public option would pass once the opposition got so vocal and angry.
Obama said that if he were designing it from the beginning he would have designed a single payer system. Let's think about why we can't simply switch over. Many middle class Americans are employed by and own insurance companies. Do you really think HR would have gone anywhere without some support from insurance? Bush made the mistake of NOT negotiating with drug companies when the Rx drug bill was passed. Instead he let them set the agenda entirely.
Unless the president is a dictator and we abandon representative government the president is stuck with what congress sends him.

[no limit]

29. But now you're just totally ignoring what I'm saying, is that on purpose?

You say you had to explain to people about their insurance rates? And you don't see the irony in that? The president has the loudest mega phone on this planet, you don't think he should have explained that to people?

And yes, it was huge majorities. Or do you consider having the largest majority in decades in both the senate and house not to be in any way siginificant?

Finally, you completely ignored what I said about the public option. The president used reconciliation to pass healthcare reform. All he had to do was make the call to house democrats and the public option would have been in the final reconciliation bill which only required 50 votes. Yet you only seem interested in assigning the blame elsewhere, why?

[loyalsister]

30. I live in reality

and I believe Obama is doing the best he can with a rigid, vociferous opposition.
Reconciliation
There is no evidence that the house would have jumped at a call from the president. Congressional districts were shaken up by the tea party protestors during those negotiations. Representative were under pressure to get reelected. It was no time to risk going against their districts.
Aside from that, forcing legislation via executive branch influence\bullying is one thing I hated about the Bush administration.
Obama listens to people who do not agree with him, me, us. While I don't think people are being exactly accurately represented by the republicans, I think a pretty significant number of people- probably a majority do not share my views. Congressional numbers have never indicated otherwise. There are\were many Democrats representing right leaning districts. The same can not be said of republicans for left leaning districts.
Living in a right leaning swing state influences my views. MO started going more and more conservative during the Bush years. There was no change in direction since. What used to be pretty far right of center now is the middle, and I think this state is quite representative of the US as a whole.

[KoKo]

31. Valid point you make. One does start to wonder these days...

K&R!

[librechik]

32. except that the "biggest majority" thing was not true in fact

We had Dems by the number, but Liberman was the 60th vote, and he withheld and stalled things. Not only that, the 40 or so Blue Dogs could not be counted on to vote for the president's programs, and they didn't. Our majority was not a working majority at any time.

[TheKentuckian]

33. Still factually one of the largest majorities ever. Take away Lieberman and Sanders

and you are still talking one of the largest majorities and I believe at worst equal to the historic Republican high, if not still exceeding that.

There have been larger majorities but the count is pretty damn low. If you pick this one then you have to go back and do the same.

What I will grant is historic opposition intransigence but would temper that with it not being called out and tried in the court of public opinion and certainly clearly, un-repentantly, and unfailingly call them on their games and lies.

Certainly, if that is not a governing majority then there are deep structural issues because you are then saying there have been a handful, at most, governing majorities in history.