Not getting Obama a progressive congress will be the nations biggest political failure ever

[uponit7771]

...and no, Obama has NOT had a controlling (60 votes in the senate) PROGRESSIVE congress his whole admin.

Your take?

Regards

P.S. - If you remember how our government works you'll have an idea of what I'm truly saying.

P.S.S - Ok, it's real simple...a progressive congress is > a progressive president cause a progressive congress can override vetos AND ....AND shove things through congress faster.
Now, take a progressive congress and a left of center president (Obama promise meter, aka facts) and blammo we got the nation moving in the correct direction faster.

Regards

[kirby]

1. You are funny...

Obama wouldn't know what to do with a progressive congress if he had one. Its a moot point.

[Liberal_Stalwart71]

9. No it isn't. More progressives mean that they can block his non-progressive appointments

The progressives would be a check on his pro-corporate tendencies. Or, do you doubt this fact?

Bottom line: people complain that Obama isn't progressive enough. And yet, we sit and revel over the 50-State Strategy that was implemented by Howard Dean.

The good news is that we got more Democrats as a result. The bad news is that we got more Blue Dogs and DLC types in the Senate.

If you want more progressive policy outcomes, work for progressives at the local and state levels.

[Name removed]

22. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Liberal_Stalwart71]

33. They are operating under the *false* assumption that politics doesn't matter.

And that the Democratic Party is ideologically homogeneous.

That is such a ridiculous assumption. To assume that Blanche Lincoln (Blue Dog/DLC) is the same as Russ Feingold (Yellow Dog/Progressive) is ABSURD!!!!

[uponit7771]

39. RIGHT!! DNC does not = GOP

[uponit7771]

Do you know how our government works....

[msongs]

30. yes we are all totally ignorant about how our government works ...except for you lol nt

[Name removed]

41. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[JuniperLea]

24. This is the kind of bumper sticker rhetoric...

That shows your hand... you got nothing.

[VeryConfused]

166. That is a really dumb comment

[Liberal_Stalwart71]

2. BRILLIANT!!! If I hear or see anyone making the false statement that since Obama was given

a 60 seat majority in the Senate, I will scream!!

We NEVER had a majority of PROGRESSIVE Democrats!! NEVER!!!

More progressive Democrats = More progressive policy outcomes.

Really, it's just as simple as that!

[CrossChris]

7. Hate to break it to you, but 59 is a majority. The 60 seat bar was falsely set.

We never MADE any of the Repubs actually follow through on their filibuster threats. If you want to say that's one of the great political failures in our nation's history, I wouldn't argue.

[SDuderstadt]

12. Oh, yes...

We did. You might want to review all the rules of the Senate.

[uponit7771]

13. You been in the US in the last 2 years? They filibustered EVERYTHING

[CrossChris]

45. No they did not. They threatened to many times, but how many times did they carry it out?

How many times were they forced to engage in those theatrics?

[uponit7771]

46. The threat kills the bill and so do cloture votes, come on people pay attention.

[Liberal_Stalwart71]

49. In counting, let's see, it's been nearly 200 times! Pay attention!! n/t

[polmaven]

62. The "theatrics", as you put it,

were done away with a long time ago. There is no longer a need for "Mr. Smith" tactics, just a statement, followed by a cloture vote. If there are not 60 votes for cloture, a vote is not take no the legislation.

[Liberal_Stalwart71]

70. That's right. It doesn't take 60 votes to stop anything. It takes only 1 Senator

to issue a hold. And it takes 1 Senator to invoke a filibuster. That's it.

Cloture, 60 votes, doesn't matter.

All that matters is the 1 Senator either placing a HOLD on legislation or invoking a filibuster.

And without 60 votes to force the argument on the floor, we got nothing.

[pnwmom]

68. The rules are not the same as they were in the 30's or even the 60's.

They couldn't be changed mid-term and Obama had no power over them at all.

[smokey nj]

57. Democrats could have changed filibuster rules to make it more difficult for Republicans to obstruct

AND neutralize LIEberman and the Senate Blue Dogs. Senate rules can be changed with a simple majority vote at the start of each new Congress, they could have taken care of this problem quite easily but decided not to. I think THIS is the biggest political failure.

[pnwmom]

71. They could NOT change the rules midterm, so it was too late

to neutralize anyone. By 2010, we weren't even close to the 60 vote count.

[smokey nj]

80. If you read more closely you'll see I said they can be changed at the START of each new congress

with a simple majority. Democrats could have taken care of this problem back in January of 2009. Republican obstruction could and should have been anticipated.

[pnwmom]

99. No, it could not have been anticipated because even the Rethugs

had NEVER used the filibuster before the way they have since Obama was elected -- which is, almost all of the time on every important vote and Presidential appointment.

[smokey nj]

105. Republican obstruction most certainly could have been anticipated.

They stated flat out that they wanted to block everything President Obama tried to do and limit him to one term. In January of 2009, the only weapon they had in their arsenal was the filibuster.

[uponit7771]

107. Doing and saying are two different things, I did not anticipate at all that the GOP would be THIS...

...much of open assholes.

There's no way I could've told you that there would be a party of mostly >40 something white people who would form and openly hate Obama's partly for his skin color.

[smokey nj]

110. Really? The previous 8 years didn't give you a clue as to their assholishness?

[pnwmom]

121. Not with regard to the filibuster, because even the Rethugs have never

abused it the way they have since the first black man was elected President.

I think most of us, while we were celebrating, had no idea how much hatred would exist toward Obama -- and this is evidenced in the disgusting birther movement, which is still popular among teabaggers.

At one point not long ago, 70% of Rethugs thought that the birthers' claims might be correct. None of us in early 2009 could have anticipated THAT either. But this view is nothing but disguised racism.

[smokey nj]

Republicans were ruthless during the Bush years, did you expect that to just change?

[pnwmom]

129. As I said, they had never employed the filibuster the way they have been.

[smokey nj]

128. Republicans also had a history of bullying Democrats with the filibuster.

Don't you remember 2005 and the nuclear option?

[pnwmom]

130. Compared to NOW, they rarely used it then. Everything's relative. n/t

[smokey nj]

135. They didn't have to use it during the Bush years, they had the majority for most of his tenure.

But they knew it was there and they knew it was their only weapon, it's foolish to think they wouldn't take full advantage of it.

[pnwmom]

136. Yeah, hindsight is always 20/20. n/t

[smokey nj]

138. No, I and many others saw this coming from a mile away.

[pnwmom]

142. Sure you did. And as to the "many others,"

do you have any links for that? People predicting before 2009 that the Republicans would filibuster practically every bill and appointment that came up for consideration?

[smokey nj]

145. No thinking person expected Republicans to work in good faith with Democrats.

Thinking people took them at their word that they would do whatever they had to, INCLUDING FILIBUSTERING EVERYTHING, to block President Obama's agenda. Don't blame me because you were to blind to see it. Now I'm done with you. Communicating with you is pointless.

[pnwmom]

120. I think racism is at the bottom of most of this. n/t

[pnwmom]

119. Changing the filibuster rules would have had to be done within days of the start of the term.

And even the worst of the Rethugs hadn't started to issue their threats at that point. And nobody anticipated that they would do it through abuse of the filibuster.

[smokey nj]

124. Republicans had a long history of not playing well with others.

Did you expect them to change?

[Zorra]

168. *The Senate can kill the filibuster rule any time. And with only 51 votes.*

It is all convenient political myth that the filibuster can only be ended at the beginning of a term. The myth is nothing but a smoke screen for corrupt politicians needing a last resort excuse for non-action when faced with an issue/legislation that would behoove them, (by virtue of their responibility to legislate in the democratic interests of the American people) to act against corporate interests.

How To End the Filibuster Forever
The Senate can kill the rule any time! And with only 51 votes.
By Akhil Reed Amar and Gary HartPosted Thursday, Jan. 6, 2011, at 2:11 PM ET

Is the Senate like Cinderella—does it have the power to transform itself in only one limited moment, at the opening of the new Congress? That is one of the two big questions in the filibuster-reform debate that is now taking center stage in the United States Senate. The other is whether the Senate can change the filibuster rule by a simple majority vote, regardless of what the rule itself seems to say. The short answers to these questions are that there are no magic moments in the Senate and no need to muster 60 votes to repeal the filibuster rule. The upper house has the clear constitutional authority to end the filibuster by simple majority vote on any day it chooses.

The Times and others are right about the power of the simple majority—more about why in a minute—but wrong about the Cinderella power of the Senate's opening day. A simple majority of determined senators may lawfully change the filibuster rules, even if the existing Senate rules say otherwise, at any time.

Unlike the House, the Senate need not begin its session by approving procedural rules. The internal Senate rule allowing filibusters—Senate Rule 22—is not approved biennially at the outset of each new congressional term. Rather, this old rule, initially adopted by the Senate in the 1910s and significantly revised in the 1970s, simply carries over from one Congress to the next by inertia, since the Senate is a continuing body. Similarly, on Day One in the Senate, no leadership elections need occur. The old Senate's leaders simply continue in place, and the Senate can oust the old leaders at any time—by a simple majority vote. The same goes for old rules, including the filibuster rule. It's that simple.

In fact, neither house has ever formally prescribed a supermajority rule for formal amendment of its rules. Not even Senate Rule 22 has the audacity to openly assert that it cannot be repealed by simple majority vote. Rather, the filibuster rule says that debate on its own repeal cannot be ended this way. If Rule 22 simply means that it should not be repealed without a fair opportunity to debate the repeal, then it is fully valid. But insofar as Rule 22 allows repeal opponents to stall interminably so as to prevent a majoritarian vote from ever being held, then Rule 22 unconstitutionally entrenches supermajority rule. It's a question for each senator to decide for him- or herself—and then to act on, by simple majority rule, just as the framers intended.

http://www.slate.com/id/2280238

(Akhil Reed Amar is the Sterling Professor of Law and Political Science at Yale and the author of America's Constitution: A Biography. Gary Hart is a former United States Senator from Colorado.)

[uponit7771]

76. Yeap, but dems STILL voted for Reid !!!

[Liberal_Stalwart71]

14. NOOOOO!!! It is NOT!! You have BLUE DOGS and DLCers who are NOT progressive!!

Can't you comprehend that?

[CrossChris]

47. And Obama disliked that setup so much that he made DLC architect Rahm Emanuel his first hire.

What did Obama do to help himself have a progressive Congress besides attack the progressive wing of his base to this point?

[uponit7771]

50. Which is irrelevant to getting Obama a progressive congress, there's no buggyman under the bed

[CrossChris]

85. Who did Obama endorse in the Lincoln vs. Halter primary in Arkansas? The progressive?

And that's just one example.

[Liberal_Stalwart71]

52. Obama can't help himself, dear. It is up to us to go out and vote. If we don't vote

for progressives, then don't complain about Rahm Emmanuel, who last I checked, also backed Dean's 50-Strategy. Hell, he tried to take credit for it.

[JoePhilly]

15. Weak response.

When was the last real filibuster used?

Do you know?

[emulatorloo]

38. You don't understand the rules - All they had to do to filibuster was to refuse to vote for cloture

That is all it takes.

It isn't like the old movies -- refusing to vote for cloture kills the bill, that's it.

They did it time and time again.

[pnwmom]

28. Hate to break it to you, but you clearly don't understand the filibuster rules.

[dionysus]

81. fillibusters don't work like they do in the old movies.

[JoePhilly]

10. And he had 60 Dem votes in the Senate for all of 6 months.

From when Frankin was seated, until Kennedy died.

6 months in 2009.

[Liberal_Stalwart71]

16. 60 Democrats, yes! 60 Democrats who were going to support progressive policies?

An emphatic NO!!

[pnwmom]

34. Lieberman was an Independent by then and voting with the Rethugs

most of the time.

[Liberal_Stalwart71]

40. ...as did Ben Nelson, Blanche Lincoln, Mary Landrieu, Mark Pryor, and a whole bunch

of Blue Dogs and DLCers.

There were not enough progresive Yellow Dogs in the Senate. Actually, not in the House, either.

The good news: Blue Dogs got their asses kicked in 2010. Bad news: Republicans did all the ass-kicking.

Our job? To go out there and work hard for progressives. We can't complain about Obama and his supposed lack of progressive policies if we aren't out there helping him elect more progressives.

[pnwmom]

66. I agree completely. Obama won't get progressives policies passed

without a lot more progressives in Congress. I think it may be more difficult than you do, though, to replace Blue Dogs with progressives in conservative parts of the country.

[Liberal_Stalwart71]

78. I agree with you on that as well. Easier in the House if Democrats control

the redistricting process. That is why I've been screaming at the top of my lungs that we need to support local and state Democrats. The Republicans now control 3/4 of all state legislatures and 29 governorships. While we're fixated on what Obama is doing or not doing, we need to be mindful of that.

The Republicans are cleaning out clocks in these states and their *illegal* redistricting schemes will make things much worse.

[JoePhilly]

116. Reinforcing my point

[JoePhilly]

114. You reinforce my point

[joshcryer]

159. HAHA, 2 Senators caucus with the CPC. The Senate can't do diddly.

The Senate can block, but what if we had a CPC that was in the majority and pulled Republican tactics, with someone like Obama in the White House they'd be compelled to just take it.

[pnwmom]

32. Lieberman was one of them and he wasn't a Dem anymore. n/t

[JoePhilly]

115. You reinforce my point

[emulatorloo]

43. Leibermann and Some Blue Dogs made up that 60. Do you have no memory

of that period? We never had a bulletproof majority in the Senate.

That is what the goal is now, and taking back the house. Everytime somebody bitches about not voting for Obama, I tell them 2012 is about THE HOUSE AND THE SENATE. All I hear is crickets.

[JoePhilly]

111. Thanks for reinfiorcing my point.

Those who scream "Obama had 60 votes" ignore that he had 60 votes that CAUCUSED with the Dems, for all of 6 months.

And as many of the angry folks misreading my post correctly note ... a bunch of those are BlueDogs.

Rather then screaming at me ... you guys should be pointing out the "6 month" reality, and then building on it when fighting the stupid people who think Obama had a bullet proof majority from the day he took office.

[Tierra_y_Libertad]

3. All they have to do is convince people to vote for them.

Echoing the Republicans didn't work in 2010. Maybe they should try appealing to the progressives.

[uponit7771]

18. All dems had to do is run in red districts and have a populous message. Or sit on the DNC...

...board in their districts who select DNC candidates and select them yourself

[CrossChris]

4. Nice try. nt

[Name removed]

5. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[JoePhilly]

17. You thnk President Bachmann will support a liberal Congress?

[pnwmom]

25. If you believe in progressive ideals, what would be the point of that?

There is no other Democrat who will be running against Obama. So why would you want a Rethug President with a progressive Congress?

[Liberal_Stalwart71]

56. And why would DU want a center-left president (Obama) and a center-right Senate?

If people really wanted to have more progressive policy outcomes, they'd work harder to elect progressive candidates. We don't do that, however. We bite our own.

[Marr]

79. I can think of a reason.

If Obama wins reelection with the approach his taken, then he will have employed a winning strategy. Anyone can look to his performance and say, "that is a recipe for success".

Some may not consider that good for the party or the country in the long term.

[Name removed]

86. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[dionysus]

84. so basically throwing the presidency to the GOP out of spite. gotcha.

:puke:

[SDuderstadt]

6. Agreed wholeheartedly n/t

[OHdem10]

8. We permit our Democrats in Congress to slide by doing as they

please. It does not help matters any, that the
Controlling Group are the Conservadems.

[demmiblue]

11. It would be nice if he could lead by example. n/t

[uponit7771]

19. lol!! you think conservatives care about "examples"?!?!

[demmiblue]

88. IDC about conservatives, but it would be nice if you would...

indicate what you edited for those that responded earlier. Countless PS's don't count.

Say what you mean and mean what you say.

[Tesha]

20. Maybe Obama should have campaigned for Ned Lamont instead of Joe Lieberman?

After all, Lamont was the *DEMOCRAT* in the race while Lieberman
was running on the Sore Loser's ticket.

Ned would have been that magical 60th vote.

Tesha

[JoePhilly]

36. Huh?

Lieberman won because REPUBLICANS voted for him.

And, as I said above, there were 60 Dems for all of 6 months.

[Tesha]

118. And so did a bunch of DLC Democrats.

You know -- Obama's kind of people.

And yes, Obama campaigned on behalf of Lieberman
and, by definition, *AGAINST* the actual Democrat.
But Lamont was a Progressive, you see, so the
"hold your nose and vote for the D even if you
don't like them" principle didn't apply in this
case; it only applies when the DLC* is trying to
get us to vote for a DINO.

Tesha


* Including their successor organizations

[JoePhilly]

139. Really?? Explain this ...

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/10/26/AR2006102601187.html

[Tesha]

143. Too little, too late. And just talk.

It's Obama's S.O.P.

Tesha

[dionysus]

146. right. he should have campaigned for him, except that time he did...but that doesn't count....

:rofl:

[JoePhilly]

148. Amazing, isn't it.

[Tesha]

149. Yeah, at the end of October. After spending up until August campaigning for the traitor.

Are you kidding? Or do you actually see Obama as having
whole-heartedly supported Lamont?

Tesha

[JoePhilly]

147. Why not just admit you were wrong ... cause you were.

[Tesha]

150. That would be: Because I'm not.

Even the cited article made it clear that Obama
supported Lieberman. (As did a whole bunch of
other Democratic "Big-Whigs" (sic).)

Tesha

[JoePhilly]

151. Obama supported Lamount in the General election, yes, or no?

And he did so OVER Lieberman ... yes or no?

The Dem President will support the incumbent Dem in ANY primary. That is fairly normal.

When Lamont won, and Lieberman ran as an Independent, Obama supported Lamont in the election that counts.

Complain all you want ... that is the fact.

[Tesha]

160. Too little, too late.

Who was the truer Democrat?

Holy Joe or Ned Lamont?

If Obama wanted a real Democrat, he should have been
supporting Lamont all along, not just in October when,
yes, Obama would have looked like a fool to have
*CONTINUED* his previous support of Lieberman.

Face it: Obama doesn't like Progressives, doesn't
want to work with them, and would rather not see
them elected over his DLCish buddies.

Tesha

[WinkyDink]

21. What would he do with it, but ignore?

[uponit7771]

23. You do remember how the government works right?

[WinkyDink]

132. Yeah, and you? Do you remember his Democratic majority?

[21st Century FDR]

26. Did Obama WANT a progressive Congress?

If so, why did he campaign for Blanche Tyson-WalMart?

Why did he not lift a finger to help Russ Feingold or Alan Grayson?

[uponit7771]

29. What kind of question is this?!!?! What difference would it make what he wanted?!

[21st Century FDR]

59. You claim that a progressive Congress would help him act like a Democrat.

So why was he only campaigning for disgusting rightwing pukes like Blanche WalMart, and not for REAL Democrats?

[uponit7771]

63. No, a progressive congress would override his non progressive vetos and move the nation

...in the right direction. You know, that's how our government works right?

[21st Century FDR]

96. So you believe that Obama would veto progressive legislation

and yet, you don't have a problem with that? :wtf:

[uponit7771]

98. No, I beleive Obama is a progressive dealing with a far right congress with some progressives

....thrown in there to make it not stank up the joint.

I explained it all in my op

[21st Century FDR]

100. So Obama is a "progressive"

Who appointed a cabinet made up almost entirely of corporate shills.

I suppose you'll blame that on the DLC congress too?

[uponit7771]

102. FDRs cabinet didn't have corparate shills?!?!!?!?

[21st Century FDR]

123. Corporatism didn't control the Democratic party back then

Hell, it didn't even control the Republican party yet, though it obviously had a presence there (i.e the Prescott Bush fascist wing who were trying to overthrow him)

Besides, this isn't about FDR's cabinet. Those guys are all dead by now. You're claiming Obama is a progressive President being held back by a DLC congress, but that doesn't ring true when you look at his cabinet appointments.

If Obama had appointed a progressive cabinet and was THEN blockaded at every turn by false Democrats in Congress, everyone here would be screaming right along with you. But that is not the reality of the situation.

[Lasher]

155. So if you think Obama is a progressive, why do we need a progressive veto-proof Congress?

Is it so that we can make him do what he already wants to do?

[Marr]

60. It seems like a very good question to me.

Do you have an answer?

[uponit7771]

65. It's assinne at best, we the people give Obama the congress he is GOING to deal with PERIOD...

...end of story.

If he doesn't like the congress we give him then he can quit

[Marr]

87. So to you, the presidency is basically just a pen that signs legislation.

The President himself has no influence on the debate... no power beyond signing or vetoing legislation? And if he doesn't have a completely stacked Congress that offers no resistance whatsoever, he may as well just buy a good set of clubs and go golfing for a couple of years?

[uponit7771]

95. No, I've made my point clear and the system is simple..get a progressive congress and don't worry...

...so much about non progressive ideals being passed

[WinkyDink]

134. Suggesting the President is immaterial?

[Liberal_Stalwart71]

64. Would not have made a bit of damn difference. He would be FORCED to work with a progressive

caucus. How difficult is that to understand?

It's NOT about Obama. He can be pushed in any direction.

1. If you give him MORE Blue Dogs/DLCers and Republicans, then fault him for "behaving" like one of them, it's YOUR fault for not electing more progressives.

2. If you give him MORE progressives and less Blue Dogs/DLCers and Republicans, he would not have ANY choice in the matter but to be pushed in that direction.

But, if you give him Choice #1, then get mad when the outcome is less progressive policies, then I don't know what to tell ya.

[uponit7771]

67. DU is being worked over by Bulgarians or something, they don't know how the US government works!!!

[Liberal_Stalwart71]

27. Look, all I'm saying is that people are complaining that Obama isn't progressive enough, right?

So they get angry, declaring that they will not vote; thereby resulting in Republican gains in Congress and in the state legislatures.

Now they are complaining that Obama's policies are not progressive. They are complaining that he's a Republican.

Does that make any sense?

People decided that they were going to punish Obama for not being progressive by allowing more Republicans into office, then complain that Obama is forced to compromise with Republicans!

What? Come again?

What the fuck sense does that make? It is illogical, and quite frankly, ridiculous!

[uponit7771]

35. Yeap, you can see in some of the responses the irationality of the responses. I don't think

...they realize Obama isn't a magician

[Lasher]

42. Pot calling the kettle black.

What we need is a progressive Democratic President. I'm hoping Alan Grayson or someone like him runs in the Primary.

[uponit7771]

44. Progressive congress > progressive democratic president cause house can overide vetos k?

...Come on people, this isn't hard stuff.

[Lasher]

69. If we have a progressive Congress and President, why is veto override needed?

We had a Democratic Congress for two years. What we needed was a way to defeat the filibuster in the Senate, not a Presidential veto. I'm not sure you understand what you're saying.

[uponit7771]

75. People are saying Obama isn't a progressive, well then fine, the congress can be progressive and ...

...it wouldn't matter if Obama was because they'd just override him.

So if you have a center left president and a progressive congress I can see us going faster in the right direction.

[TheKentuckian]

140. So, the recipe is not just a progressive majority, not just a filibuster proof progressive

majority, but a veto proof progressive majority?

Keeping in mind that if this has ever happened, it was once.

Oh yeah, I forgot in addition to the wish list these Congresscritters also have to have the fortitude to tell their President to go sit and spin at every turn.

Why the fuck are we keeping a guy that has to have a perfect storm to do what he is supposed to do, and if such is reasonably obtainable then why worry about the Presidency at all? Our Ultra Congress will tell President (insert today's boogieman here) to sit their monkey ass in a corner and send us our demanded appointments or we'll impeach your ass?

Plus, I don't see how we are suppose to flip Alabama and Utah or whatever magic map with O'Reagan scaring the living shit out of seniors and everyone and pissing off everyone to the left of William F Buckley (and of course everyone to his right)?

You've declared the President a hood ornament or a knick knack, so why is it important to keep a rudderless semi-puke around?

[Liberal_Stalwart71]

90. Let's assume that you're right, and Obama is really a Republican in sheep's clothing...

Here's what we do:

We can work to elect more progressives in the House and Senate. If the bills that Congress send him are progressive, but he's not and vetoes them, we'd have enough progressives in Congress to override that veto. Is that a better way to understand the point?

We must understand here on DU that the president isn't all powerful! The reason why the Founders gave Congress so much control and authority over the budget, for instance, is because it is the one branch of government that is closest to the people.

So, when we are screaming that we need to work hard to elect MORE progressives at the local, state and congressional level--just as the Republicans have done--then, we mean that we'll have a better chance towards getting what we really want, and that is more progressive policy outcomes.

Even if we don't get everything we want, it'll be a move in that direction.

Put more succintly: Crying about not having more progressive policy outcomes, then allowing Republicans to get into office, then complaining that we don't have more progressive policy outcomes as a result, makes no sense at all. We can't complain and cry over Obama not being liberal enough if we sit back and allow more Republicans, Blue Dogs and DLCers to get elected...and reelected...and reelected again.

[Name removed]

91. Deleted message

Sub-thread removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Lasher]

152. If you think we need that, then shouldn't we be running somebody against Obama in the Primary?

After all, getting somebody like Alan Grayson elected as a Democratic President is easily as likely as getting a veto-proof majority in the House and Senate. And your argument is based on the premise that Obama is unsuitable, so why not replace him? Who would you like to see run against Obama in the Democratic Primary?

[Angry Dragon]

31. What a bunch of garbage

A true progressive fights for what they believe in
I have not seen any fight from this president
so how would giving him more progressives have helped??

Obama asked us to tell him what we wanted and he did not listen, he asked to be held to the fire, and he walked away,
he gives a pretty speech and one is left wondering where he is going next
A good leader lets the people know where he/she wants to go and tells them to follow if they wish
When one does not know where the path is going to lead it is very hard to follow
A great leader gets out in front and leads, they use everything in their power to
get to the goal they have set, they do not quit halfway there and turn around

When the true progressive Obama president shows up , let me know

[uponit7771]

37. "fight"...HOW!!?!?!??!?!?! By speechafying everyone!? Using the non powered "bully pullpit"?! People

...have been throwing these words around for 2 years NOT realizing they don't mean a damn thing.

The government works like the government works, get him a progressive congress and what can he do but progressive things!!

[Angry Dragon]

48. So he wants to lead but can not because he does not

have the tools??

So what you are saying it does not matter who the president is because congress is then the true leader??

I wonder when you debate someone if you just throw opinions back and forth or do you make them prove their stance??

Does the president ever make the republicans prove all the lies they throw out there??

It does not sit well when the leader of the free world comes back and tells the people that he can not get things done because the others will not let him. He surrounds himself with bankers and ceos, does not listen to the American people and lets the other party set the agenda.

A true leader sets the agenda, fights, and fights for what is right.

[uponit7771]

51. He can NOT without a progressive congress, the executive branch is but one branch

....lets not make this complicated

[Angry Dragon]

89. I have understood how the government workd for over 40 years

I remember when candidate Obama went to the people and said "we" can co this, "we" can change how the government is working.
If you vote for me I will work to change the way government works. I have not seen any changes on that front.
The people wanted a public option, taken off the table.
He promised he would not interfere with state MJ medical, he is busting them now and saying there is no medical benefit.
The people do not want any more wars, and he as increased it from 2 to 6 wars.
When he went to the people he did not say I need both houses to get things done.
When the republicans lie about how much tax cuts will create jobs, does he go in front of the people and show them all the graphs and facts showing these are lies??
When the republicans say we need to cut everything does he go in front of the people and show all the grphs and facts showing how much this will hurt people and the economy??
When the banks and wall street tried to destroy this country did he tell his AG that he wanted these people brought to justice.
When people were losing their homes to fraud did he tell his AG to bring these people to justice??
The people are losing jobs due to free trade did he try to change that or did he push for more free trade??
When the unions of this country are under attack what did he do??
When public schools are under attack what has he done??

Show me where I am wrong ......... and I do know we can not get everything we want but why in hell should we lose the things we already have??

[Marr]

53. We gave him one. He blew it on bank bailouts, an insurance industry bailout, and just generally

polishing knobs on Wall Street. I know what you're going to say-- "60 votes, 60 votes"-- but it's silly. He didn't push for the things he claimed to support, and actually paddled the opposite direction on many issues.

I intend to support the left candidate for every local, state, and Congressional race I can vote in, but it won't be in the hopes of providing Barack Obama freedom to enact his 'liberal agenda', because I'm just observant enough to see that he hasn't got one.

[uponit7771]

61. Please list the > 60 senate PROGRESSIVES.....ever in Obama's term?! I'll wait

[Marr]

72. Yeah, I know-- I mentioned that.

Again, Obama chose not to fight for the things he claimed to support in the campaign. He chose to go straight to the backrooms and "compromise", just as he's doing now. And from the beginning, he adopted the right wing's frames on the issues-- just as he's doing now with his talk of austerity and low taxes for "job creators".

If Obama actually wanted to push a liberal agenda, he could've framed the issues to his advantage and taken his case to the public. He could've let his opponents argue against a real populist position and see who ended up beating their own brains out. Had he done that, I expect the midterms would've been a whole lot different.

So no, he never had the kind of massive majority that would've made oratory and charm irrelevant. But that's sort of why we vote for human beings in presidential elections and not rocks and twigs.

[uponit7771]

74. No, I don't see where you mentioned that Obama never had a > 60 PROGRESSIVE congress...Thx

[Marr]

82. Well, I just restated my position on that in my last post, so...

maybe you should just reread and we'll save the electrons.

[H2O Man]

73. There aren't ten

progressives in office in DC.

[H2O Man]

54. Valid point.

Recommended.

[Cali_Democrat]

55. Bush never had 60 votes in the Senate

Look at how he was able to get his agenda through.

[uponit7771]

58. Bush had more than 60 conservatives in the senate, I used the words progressive on purpose

[Major Hogwash]

77. You and me buddy -- we see where all of this shit is headed!! Obama is a sure thing, but Congress

is up for grabs, totally!!!

Finally, someone else gets it!!
All of this balderdash hooliganism is designed to make the Democrats in Congress look bad and then wait 16 months to try and get more Tea Party Mad Hatters elected to Congress!!!

Obama's re-election is going to be a cakewalk compared to keeping the Senate in Democrat's control next year!!!

[bvar22]

83. You guys REALLY want to try and sell this nonsense?

"It was ALL Joe Lieberman's fault.
He was a SuperBully and beat up the President all by himself. :cry:
There was NOTHING the President or the Dem Leadership could do!!!
It was HORRIBLE!!! :cry: :cry: :cry:
Poor, poor President Obama.

You really think that will sell? :shrug:

Most of us KNOW better.

"Johnson was the catalyst, the cajoler in chief. History records him as the nation's greatest legislative politician. In a great piece on the Daily Beast website, LBJ aide Tom Johnson, writes about how his old boss would have gotten a health care reform bill through the current congress. It's worth reading to understand the full impact of the "Johnson treatment" and how effective LBJ could be in winning votes for his legislation."

http://thejohnsonpost.blogspot.com/2009/08/johnson-treatment.html

Can you imagine wimpy Joe Lieberman stamping his foot telling LBJ, "NO!!! I'm NOT going to support your Health care Plan?"
:rofl:

Many on this site will tell you that the Presidency is weak and powerless, and can only do what Congress lets him do.
THAT is a pathetic excuse...and just plain BULLSHIT!!!!

"Strong and successful presidents (meaning those who get what they want - whether that happens to be good for the country or not) do not accept "the best deal on the table". They take out their carpentry tools and the build the goddam piece of furniture themselves. Strong and successful presidents do not get dictated to by the political environment. They reshape the environment into one that is conducive to their political aspirations."

http://www.commondreams.org/view/2010/07/17

"If we don't fight hard enough for the things we stand for,
at some point we have to recognize that we don't really stand for them."
--- Paul Wellstone

[uponit7771]

93. WTF does LBJ have to do with a system that was setup than 200 years ago!?!!

Work the system as written not what you THINK is the system...

It's simple, if BUSH had to deal with a progressive majority congress then he'd be neutralized and I believe Obama is way better than Bush as a leader

[bvar22]

122. I don't believe that Obama is a weak, powerless President...

...who can ONLY do what Congress lets him do,
and that a pathetic little wimp like Joe Lieberman
can Rough House President Obama and the entire Democratic Party Leadership into doing what Joe Lieberman wants.

I've been around too long,
and watched too many Presidents get what THEY want
to believe that President Obama is a weak, naive President.
Fer gawds sake, Obama made it to the TOP in CHICAGO.
He KNOWS how to deal with little brats like Lieberman....
if he wants to.

Bush the Lesser managed to get almost everything he wanted
with much smaller majorities....and even minorities in Congress.
Are you really going to insist that Bush is smarter of stronger than President Obama?
I don't think that is a good image to carry into the campaign..

"WAAAAA! Joe Lieberman made Obama do it." :cry:

The Democratic Party, and President Obama, would be better served
if everybody simply stopped talking about the botched up Health Insurance Bill,
and stopped trying to blame it all on Joe Lieberman.
Joe Lieberman was/is NOT a SUPERMAN.
The Democratic Party could have squashed that little bug anytime it wanted to.

[MadHound]

92. Poor, pitiful, powerless president

Can't do anything at all unless he has a historical anamoly for a Congress. Never mind the examples that other presidents have set, doing much more with much less, this is Obama, he's special.:eyes:

[uponit7771]

94. Yes, historical anamoly like FDR, LBJ and Jimmy Carter?! Seriously people, this isn't hard

[MadHound]

97. No, this isn't hard,

It is easy as all get out to see that you are simply making excuses. Funny how Clinton, or Bush, or countless other presidents have advanced their agenda with a hostile, or at least certainly not a super majority, Congress.

Poor, poor, pitiful, powerless Obama, he's special. He can't do a damn thing without having sixty plus votes:eyes:

[uponit7771]

101. They were white,....

...now you're going to say Obama's skin color doesn't matter to a group of people who implemented the "Southern Strategy" AGAINST BLACKS as a political policy that was apologized for just recently

[MadHound]

103. So now you're saying that in order to be effective,

Obama has to have not just a super majority in Congress, but the racial composition of that super majority has to be black? Really? Is that what you're saying?

Poor, pitiful, powerless Obama, can't do anything unless he has a black supermajority in Congress:eyes:

Ummm, you do realize that your excuses and rationalizations are getting more and more bizarre with each reiteration don't you?

[uponit7771]

104. No, I don't know HOW you got that out of my statement of what he's up against...you guys are now...

...going to the point of just making shit up

[MadHound]

106. Ahh, so you're resorting to projection now, eh?

Somehow that doesn't surprise me.

[uponit7771]

109. WHAT!?!?!?!?! I said NOTHING about a black majority in congress just a PROGESSIVE one. YOU ARE the..

..one coming up with black majority congress shit.

and YES, without a congress Obama IS...IS powerless....my god!!!

[MadHound]

117. You certainly implied that upthread, here, let me quote you

"They were white,...
...now you're going to say Obama's skin color doesn't matter to a group of people who implemented the "Southern Strategy" AGAINST BLACKS as a political policy that was apologized for just recently"

But it is nice to see that you're arguing that despite the historical examples I gave you, and many others, you finally admit that you are arguing that the president is powerless. Geez, if the president is so damn powerless, why do we even bother with one?

Hmm, Clinton, Bush I and II, Reagan, all these presidents and more got their agenda's through, even with hostile Congresses. How? By going out and FIGHTING for their agendas. Hell, LBJ would go out in individual Congress members district and beat them over the head with their opposition. Truman used the bully pulpit masterfully to get his agenda through.

But poor, pitiful, powerless Obama can't do a damn thing without a super majority in the Senate, and/or because he is black, and/or whatever other excuse you will come up with. Never mind the overwhelming historical evidence against your premise.

[Lasher]

170. Entertaining subthread, nicely done.

Thanks, MadHound. That was good for a chuckle.

[Liberal_Stalwart71]

108. No, it was the Republicans who said that we can't do anything without 60 votes.

Where ya been for the last 2.5 years?

And, by the way, LBJ had 67 Democrats in the Senate, and a handful of progressive Republicans who nullified the Dixiecrats that for too long wielded so much power.

Of course FDR and LBJ were able to get things done. They were working with a totally different set of tools in the Congress. Many more progressive Democrats *AND* Republicans!!!

This is such a false comparison, and I tire of hearing it. It's silly and exemplies the lack of knowledge and respect for political history.

[MadHound]

112. And why did the Dems listen to them?

Why didn't we force a real, live filibuster? Why didn't the president pull an LBJ and go into their districts, beating them over the head with their obstructionism and opposition to overwhelmingly popular legislation? Why didn't the President get down and dirty and fight this madness, take their game of chicken and shove it down their throat?

Why did Obama and the Dems play by the 'Pugs made up, capricious rules?

[Renew Deal]

127. Obama has done a pretty good job advancing his agenda.

Look back at what was said about the last congress. "One of the most productive ever." Lots of notable acheivments like health care, DADT repeal, START ratification, stimulus, etc.

[Liberal_Stalwart71]

163. Your smart-ass comments, notwithstanding, if you understood why the Founders

gave the president very limited powers in Article II, you would understand that the president has nothing to do with this process. He can merely veto/sign/or whatever.

Now, had you been paying attention to what's going on, you would see that the president has been making good use of the "bully pulpit" and calling Republicans out on their hypocrisy, and acknowledging that they want to make him a "one term president."

But rather than blaming the Republicans in the House for abdicating their constitutional duty, you target the president who is the WRONG person. Where is your outrage towards the Republicans? Where is your outrage that Eric Cantor stands to gain financially if there is economic catastrophy because his wingnut friends refuse to increase the debt ceiling?

You use up a lot of space attacking Obama and the Democrats, but I see no attempt to hold the Republicans accountable.

Perhaps you should read Article II of the U.S. Constitution:

http://www.usconstitution.net/const.html#Article2

[MadHound]

164. And again, despite such "very limited powers" as you put it,

Presidents ranging from Clinton to Bush to Roosevelt(not FDR) to Truman and many, many more, have all managed to advance and achieve their agenda in the face of a hostile Congress.

Fighting, it is a prerequisite for being a president. Obama either can't or won't fight. His record on the public option, tax cuts for the rich, the budget, the stimulus, all this and more proves my point.

Facts, they do matter.

[Liberal_Stalwart71]

167. Facts matter, but when you refuse to exercise common sense, I can't help you.

You continue to make these foolish, nonsensical comparisons between Obama and previous administration, failing to account for political context, ideological and partisan makeup of Congress, and the use/exploitation of institutional rules! Nothing that you have said thus far makes sense in THIS context! You just keep spewing the same illogical, emotionally-driven dribble throughout this discussion. And worst yet, you offer no solutions and have not directed ANY outrage at the Republican Party for their unethical and outrageous conflict!!

Therefore, there's nothing more to discuss with you. To do so would be a waste of my time and yours. Feel free to continue to revel in your delusion!

[guitar man]

113. nope

Voting that SOB Reagan into office and following a 30 year path of repeated failure in pursuit of a "free market" right wing fairy tale has been our greatest ongoing political failure. :(

[Renew Deal]

125. Now people are against a "progressive congress."

:crazy:

[joshcryer]

158. It's crazy, isn't it? I can't believe this thread and I need to go back to sleep. I think I will...

...just do that. If I can. Wow.

[Long Shadow]

126. They gave it to him for his first two years...

Subsequently, he showed his gratitude by giving away a trillion of their $.

That pissed 'em off...

[mmonk]

131. Wouldn't you need a progressive party?

[joshcryer]

157. The Democratic party is factionalized, it's represented in the Congress by the CPC, CBC, CHC, etc.

A good swath of the Democratic party is in fact progressive, people just don't recognize it. The whole platform lends itself to factionalism.

[Karmadillo]

133. True. A progressive Congress could have checked his rightward march.

nt

[WinkyDink]

137. To sum up: The OP is wishing we had A COMPLETELY DIFFERENT COUNTRY. One where we elected an entire

veto-proof "PROGRESSIVE" Congress, a Congress that would propose, write, and pass Bills of Shangri-La PROGRESSIVISM, the like never seen before. These Bills would perforce become the LAW OF THE LAND, for the President would either sign them so or would ineffectually veto, whereupon the PROGRESSIVE Congress would, in progressive unison, guffaw as it over-rode the Executive's veto.

Prior to this Utopia, the Republican Party would be captured by aliens.

[mmonk]

141. One like we used to have concerning economics would suit me.

[joshcryer]

156. What the hell? The CPC nearly represents a quarter of the entire congress.

It is not inconceivable to have a majority CPC. At all. If you include the CBC and the CHC the necessary requirements to have a progressive congress are even lowered (the CBC and CHC have issues that overlap with the CPC).

Congressional Progressive Caucus
Congressional Black Caucus
Congressional Hispanic Caucus

[WinkyDink]

161. Bwahaha! "Nearly a quarter...." It's a long way to Tipperary. (P.S.There's a Senate, too.)

[JackDragna]

144. The man never had an intention of doing anything progressive.

Hello, McFly. The man nominated bigwigs in the financial and banking industry to his cabinet. He did nothing to push for the public option. Time and again, he refused to play hardball with the other party under the guise of compromise. I know how the government works: it works to stick it to the little guy and has been doing so for the last 30 years.

[CrazyBob]

153. To Whom will the failure belong?

Will it be the public's fault? Or the Dem politicians who do not push for a progressive congress?

[CrazyBob]

154. Maybe Obama should have tried for it...

when we were close. Instead of supporting blue dogs, repeating GOP talking points and inviting them to the White House for photo ops when their party was on the ropes.

He should have been at the mic saying we need to elect more progressives if we want to get anywhere.

[sendero]

162. That would be .

.... a monumental waste of time, like electing Obama was to begin with.

The raft of excuses for his clear and consistent swing to the right along with his continual excorciation of his base is sad and almost Freeper-like in its starry-eyed delusion.

Some of you just won't see reality no matter how blatantly in your face it is.

[Autumn]

165. Let's see, Romanoff and Bennet in Colorado. Who did

Obama support? Oh yeah Bennet. :rofl: :rofl: I do not believe Obama wants progressives in office.



Regards

[loyalsister]

169. Another unfortunate fact....

We do not live in a progressive country. A lot of posters have pointed out that it is impossible to get a progressive elected in their district. Only blue dogs in others. This starts at the very bottom. We need to educate and make our ways into positions that local influence policy and politicians. No Democrat could have pulled us instantly back toward even a more traditional center after the Bush. Let alone left of center. This was never ever marketed as an easy process.
The party leadership here in MO is focused on the pipeline. School boards, city councils, boards and commissions, etc. Rejecting the party as a whole in a process like that is a missed opportunity. If we want our progressive ideas to be a part of a movement like that, get involved from the ground up. Infiltrate and dominate the system itself!