For those who will not support Obama, or do things to cause his defeat, own your decision

[elocs]

because there will be blood on your hands and people will suffer. Oh, you say, "but people are dying and suffering now" and that may well be true, but it will be a drop in the bucket compared to what will happen if the Republicans gain control of everything: the Presidency, the Senate, the House, and the Supreme Court. Then the poor and the needy, anyone who cherishes the values and ideals of the Democratic Party will know what hell really is.

I live in Wisconsin, so I know what it's like to endure a Republican takeover, but at least we have recall here. If the Republicans take over on the federal level they will follow the example of the GOP here in Wisconsin and they will pay homage to their corporate masters as they work quickly and surely to dismantle any and all Democratic social programs.

Imagine someone like Bachmann or Palen holding important government positions. Imagine a Republican president naming someone to the Supreme Court, replacing a Liberal justice. Imagine the Tea Party holding great influence with a Republican President and Congress. Imagine what will happen to abortion rights, gay rights, and what they will do to teachers and education.

Certainly many of us are disappointed with Obama. I know I have been. In a perfect world we would have many choices as to who we wanted to be our next president and many would be possible. But this is not a perfect world, far from it, and the truth and reality of the matter is that the next President of the United States will either be Barack Obama or the Republican nominee. That's it.

So anything you do that does not help to elect Obama only goes to help elect the Republican. That's your choice, but at least have the guts to own your choice, and realize that no matter how bad things may seem now or how imperfect they may be from a Democratic purity point of view they will be light years worse in a Republican controlled Washington from top to bottom.

It may suck, but it is a simple as that.

[babylonsister]

1. Highly recommend with thanks. nt

[Drale]

2. If Obama where to lose,

those same people would be here bitching about the horrible things the Repukes have been doing.

[AndyTiedye]

3. k/r

[Texasgal]

4. K&R!

Yup! Own it!

[xchrom]

5. Like a Revival Meeting!

4 Damned Horses of the Apocalypse if you don't B-e-e-e-lieve, Brothers & Sisters.
Heathens, you all are don't Conform!

[EFerrari]

6. Not enough drama today, I guess.

And supporting a Demoratic president when he slides to the right only gets you more of the same. I'm happy to support Obama when he behaves like a Democrat. When he doesn't, I'm going to complain.

And we don't have to imagine what Palin or Bachmann would be like. We lived through that cokehead. He's not any better just because he's male.

[MouseFitzgerald]

7. Nice fear mongering

I'm sure threatening people is a great way to get your message across.

[JoePhilly]

13. Screaming that Obama is about to do something evil

based on 3rd hand rumor is a MUCH better way to get a message across.

At least here on DU it is.

[Dawgs]

72. The WH has admitted that they floated idea of raising Medicare age to 67.

Not a rumor.

[pipi_k]

93. Floating an idea

does not equal "written in stone".

And yes...some hard topics have to be broached for discussion.

I'll agree that some things should remain untouchable. But that doesn't mean they can't be discussed.

Apparently some people think that even discussing something means something evil is going to take place.

[mitchtv]

104. floating a bad idea,

is a bad idea

[BlueDemKev]

109. Okay, let's compare this possible choice....

....have the Medicare age possibly raised to 67 or have Medicare DISMANTLED COMPLETELY?

Hmmm.....what a tough choice! :sarcasm:

[EFerrari]

16. Fear mongering is a dog whistle for authoritarians.

‘Fear. Fear constantly pulses through authoritarian followers, and Tea Partiers are mightily frightened. They believe President Obama is a dictator. <…> The people who orchestrate the Tea Party movement know well what button to push first and hardest among social conservatives, and they work it overtime. And they know spreading fear “works” with others as well. Sometimes it seems they are all trying to out-boogie-man each other.’



The Politics of Fear, Megowan

http://dissidentvoice.org/2010/11/the-politics-of-fear/

Fear mongering is not the same as pointing out cause and effect.

[Mimosa]

21. EF, Thanks for the great article! n/t

[SidDithers]

50. Fear mongering like "OMG he's cutting SS by 22%!!!"..

Or "Grandma's gonna be eating catfood!!!"

That kind of fear mongering?

Sid

[EFerrari]

54. Obama put Social Security on the table, not anyone else. n/t

[BlueDemKev]

111. You think the tea-baggers actually WANT to protect Social Security???

Obama "offered" to cut S.S. as part of his offer knowing full well that the Can'tman, the Weeper, and the Mule would reject it and thus expose how inflexible they are! It was a brilliant tactic.

[pipi_k]

22. Fear mongering...

isn't that usually based on fears that are untrue or unlikely to happen?

Is there any reason to believe that what the OP said is not true?

[RaleighNCDUer]

27. You mean, like "Social Security is going BROKE, so we have to

cripple it in order to save it"?

If the president makes bad decisions based on right wing fear mongering, he doesn't deserve to be president. He's supposed to be smarter than that.

[pipi_k]

91. Is that what he said?

I must be reading/hearing different things.

As far as I can tell, it's the Republicans who want to cripple SS and Medicare. Or do away with them completely.


and in terms of possibility vs probability, is it possible for SS and Medicare to be affected in some adverse way? Yes, I suppose it is possible. Probable? I can't say that for sure, and neither can you.

Is it possible that everything the OP stated could happen with a Republican president would happen? Yes. Probable? Damned sure more probable than not, I think.

[RaleighNCDUer]

103. Did you miss the part where he appointed two known SS haters

to lead the debt commission knowing full well that they would recommend cutting SS to help solve the 'budget crisis' (knowing full well because BEFORE appointing them they'd both said as much, many times, very publicly)? That same debt commission was stacked with 17 out of 19 favoring cuts to SS?

I guess you did.

[BzaDem]

26. Why do you implicitly assume fear is a bad thing?

Our species developed fear for a reason.

Obviously, if someone is making someone else fear something that is FALSE, that is something else entirely. But that is not what's happening here. You don't contradict the consequences the OP claims will occur. You just don't like those consequences, so you act like they don't exist.

[Sapphocrat]

40. Fearmongering is fine...

...if all you want to do is trigger the reptilian part of the receiver's brain.

It doesn't work on people with a more evolved capacity for reason; thus, it does not usually have the desired effect on most liberals/progressives.

Unrec'd the OP for just that reason, btw: DUers are not generally receptive to fearmongering. To use the same tactics on us as one would use (with great success, no doubt) on the average Faux News viewer is a waste of time, and, IMNSHO, insulting.

Your mileage, of course, may vary.

[sabrina 1]

59. And it is FALSE to tie SS to the deficit in order to frighten

people into accepting cuts of any kind when those cuts will make zero contribution to reducing the deficit and will serve only to keep money OUT of the hands of those who paid into it and earned it, and put that money INTO the hands of the warmongers and Wall St. crooks.

So naturally people are afraid when they see this coming from a Democratic Administration which they supported to do the exact opposite, as we all know Republicans have always wanted to do this, and people elected Democrats to stop them.

So, who are the people going to turn to now? You say, they should be quiet and support what they oppose for Party Loyalty's sake. Is that your solution to putting a stop to this travesty? 'Be quiet because it won't hurt as much if a Democrat does it'??

[elocs]

33. So please explain what is not true about what I wrote. You're free to do so

rather than throwing out a one line put-down.

[Tennessee Gal]

52. What you wrote is very true.

Some people just don't want to face it.

[EFerrari]

63. True for people motivated by fear. n/t

[Tx4obama]

8. K&R n/t

[Fire1]

9. You just wasted about ten minutes of your energy that you

can't get back.

[elocs]

35. Apparently there are a few DUers posting in this thread which disagree with you.

Again, another post that doesn't refute anything I wrote.

[Number23]

76. I think that poster agrees with your OP but thinks that you wasted your time

trying to communicate with people here that will hear nothing unless it is negative of this administration.

[Tennessee Gal]

10. Exactly right!

Great, simply great. You said it all.

And the best evidence we have to support what you say is the Bush/Cheney 8 years of fiasco.

[CakeGrrl]

11. k/r

Against the tide, but so be it.

[AtomicKitten]

48. +

[Maru Kitteh]

12. A very heartfelt K&R.

[fredamae]

14. Please, Learn from 2010-Many Warned, many Failed

to listen and believe.

I get Mad as hell at Obama, sometimes, I spew, I spout, I vent--and I get over it--I am Still Not sorry I voted for him.
He has disappointed me at times and I'm sure if he were to ever speak to me, maybe he would say, hes disappointed in me for surely I could do More.
He would not be wrong.

He has my support in 2012, mad as hell or not. I'd rather "drive him nuts via phones and emails" than vote against him :)

[elocs]

39. Exactly. That's what happened here in WI. Dems stayed home, Pubs turned out.

Look what it got us here in Wisconsin. I know what it's like when Republicans control everything and I know what they will do, and nobody in their right mind would want that on a national level.

[Tennessee Gal]

15. Seems some people can't handle what you said. nt

[EFerrari]

17. Or maybe they're just out looking for a shovel. n/t

[Adsos Letter]

18. K&R.

[Mimosa]

19. Un-rec for divisive nonsense

This is sooo not helpful.

Elocs, these kind of hysterical posts sow divisiveness.

We all know in 2012 the majority of us will vote for President Obama and other Democrats. There's nowhere else for us to go, no real alternative. We simply won't be as enthused as we were in giddy, happy 2008.

But I for one will not forget those on DU who are stirring up unpleasant animosities which actually don't exist. Some of us are here to discuss issues, policies and direction for our party. *GRRRRRRRR*

[Raine]

20. Yada, yada, yada nt

[Karmadillo]

23. We all have blood on our hands and people are suffering. It seems a little misguided

to blame pitfalls in Obama's future on the obviously insignificant voices on the left who are trying to call the president back to the party's New Deal traditions. Bailing out banksters, promoting more trade agreements, expanding the wars, and furthering Bush era attacks on public education while going after Social Security & Medicare and ignoring job programs is going to do far more to bring about negative electoral consequences in 2012 than those progressives Obama's policies drive away.

[RaleighNCDUer]

24. Fuck that.

IF (for the first time in my life) I withhold my vote from Obama because of his fucking with SS, the blood is on HIS hands, not mine.

And if that causes more pain down the road - well, people wake up when they are in pain. Any country that would put up people like Palin or Bachmann NEED a fucking wake up call.

[Raine]

30. EXACTLY nt

[BzaDem]

31. How could it be blood on his hands? He would presumably be voting for himself.

It would be you that would be enabling Bachmann/Palin/etc, not him.

"And if that causes more pain down the road - well, people wake up when they are in pain."

Ah. The typical cognitive dissonance between

a) I want X
b) I am not going to get X

is to construct an imaginary universe where there is some such way you get X (such as a "revolution" or a "wake up" or other such nonsense). Back in reality, a Bachmann/Palin will certainly lower the baseline for the next 1, 10, and 100 years. But it certainly won't raise it. People said that voting for Nader in 2000 would "wake people up." How'd that work out?

Have you considered the possibility that you are 100% wrong about predicting good future consequences for electing people like Bachmann/Palin, and that you only think otherwise as a coping mechanism? Have you considered that while some things Republicans do can be reversed, that

a) the threshold for reversal is very high, even if Bernie Sanders is elected President, and that he probably won't be able to reverse most of what was done
b) to the extent he can reverse some things, he would be spending all his time doing that, to the exclusion of other priorities
c) much of what Republicans can do (such as appointing Supreme Court justices that can rule any future progressive laws unconstitutional) simply cannot be reversed in many of our lifetimes?

[RaleighNCDUer]

65. And have you considered that as long as Wall Street is running

the White House, it does not MATTER?

I am 100% certain of bad consequenses for electing people like Bachmann and Palin. But really, does it matter if it is Palin who bombs Iran or Obama who bombs Iran? If it is Bachmann or Obama who gives billions away to Wall Street? If it's Pawlenty or Obama who cuts the legs out from under SS and Medicare? We don't need to worry about the Republicans dismantling the New Deal when Democrats are doing it for them.

I will happily support ANY president who stands AGAINST spreading the wars, who stands up to Wall Street, who stands FOR the American people by not allowing the killing of Social Security and Medicare.

Just as I will vigorously OPPOSE any president who does not. Regardless of party.

Don't misunderstand me. I don't believe that any damage that the Palin-ilk can do would be overturned by the next Democratic administration. The difference is, that would be sticking the public hand into a pot of boiling water, as opposed to slowly heating the water around the already immersed hand. 'Shock Doctrine' can work both ways - the excesses of the Bush administration gave Dems a commanding majority in 06 and 08.

Maybe next time we can follow that up by electing a Democrat to the presidency.

There's a basic tenet of 12-step programs - you have to hit rock bottom before you can begin to heal. I actually thought that Bush was the national rock-bottom, but our continuence of so many of the ills of that administration tells me I'm wrong. When we REALLY hit rock bottom, we will prosecute the criminals; we will end the wars and de-fund the military; we will recognise that health care is a RIGHT and that eductaion is a RIGHT, not priviliges to be put in the hands of the highest bidder; that 'entitlements' are exactly that - what we are entitled to by light of our paying in all our lives.

We can either, with a GOOD Democratic administration, begin to work toward those ends, or with a BAD Democratic administration start privatizing SS and the school system, and giving the health insurance leeches millions of more policies without improving healthcare, and pick fights with every little oil-producing country that won't play with our bat and ball.

The alternative is the Republicans. I have no choice in the matter - only my vote. The Dem administration has a choice, and if they choose wrong then, as I said above, the fucking blood is on THEIR hands.

[BzaDem]

86. "the excesses of the Bush administration gave Dems a commanding majority in 06 and 08"

Exactly. But you disliked the outcomes of that majority (and the win of the presidency). My point is simply that the commanding majority of '06 and '08 and WH win is probably as left as we are going to see government for the foreseeable future. If we get a Palin, then maybe there will be enough of a backlash that the next President will be... another Obama equivalent, or someone even more centrist. They will then spend their entire term trying to undo half of what Palin did, and the cycle will continue (at least until the third party voters "wake up" as they did after 2000).

My point is that it is actually quite obvious that much of what you want is never going to happen -- not now and not at any point during your life. (You really think we are EVER going to have a President at any point in the next 100 years that prosecutes a single elected official of the previous administration? Seriously?) Some certainly might, but much of it won't. The same is true of the much larger group of people on the right, who hate Bush for leaving half of the current departments standing. In any democracy, there will always be some on both sides that never get what they want.

But even if you don't believe that this is obvious (as I think is pretty clear), you should at least consider the possibility that it is possible.

"The Dem administration has a choice, and if they choose wrong then, as I said above, the fucking blood is on THEIR hands."

They are certainly responsible for the policies they enact. But they are not responsible for the policies that the next Bachmann enacts, or the consequences that flow from them. The only people who are responsible for those policies are those that didn't vote for the Democrat (which includes them, Republican voters, and other voters who for whatever reason didn't vote for the Democrat). The blood is most certainly on their hands, using any conceivable definition of the term.

[RaleighNCDUer]

94. Spoken as a true Third Wayer.

Not, however, as a Democrat.

Are you such a youngster that you don't remember when politicians who committed crimes actually went to jail? I know that's been unfashionable since the Fucking DLC took the reins of the party, but it really did happen and there is no reason why it should not happen again.

As I see it we have just two choices - stand up and demand justice, and see it done; or, stand up and demand justice and admit we have lost our democracy when we DON'T see it done.

A single man with right on his side is a majority of one.

[Dawgs]

73. +1. Fucking with SS and/or Medicare is my line in the sand. n/t

[we can do it]

87. +1

[pintobean]

25. K&U

[Cool Logic]

28. "there will be blood on your hands and people will suffer"

Sounds worse than Armageddon...but I doubt it could be much worse than what the nation was forced to endure under boy george.

What's ironic, is that many on the right viewed him with same contempt as those on the left view Obama.

[BzaDem]

34. "What's ironic, is that many on the right viewed him with same contempt as those on the left

view Obama"

I don't think that's particularly ironic. There will ALWAYS be people on both sides who will NEVER be satisfied with ANYONE elected from their party. This has always been the case, and will always be the case, in any Democracy.

[myrna minx]

29. Sit down, shut up and wait for the killer bees to come to us. Ok. n/t

[H2O Man]

32. That strikes me as

two very distinct things.

First, not voting for President Obama is an option that DUers can consider, and discuss openly, on this forum. But working against him is a topic not allowed on the forum. (I recognize that a few people who consider themselves to be "sly dogs" try, but I trust the moderators to sort them out.)

A percentage of the DU population is part of the Democratic Left. I do not think that it would be possible for any member of the Democratic Left to not be disappointed with Barack Obama as President. More, I understand why many are actually disillusioned with him. I do not think that President Obama has performed in office in a manner where he could say he has earned their support, and pass a polygraph test.

I do agree with the point of the OP that there are times when voting for a flawed candidate is better than allowing a severely flawed candidate the opportunity to win.

[BzaDem]

36. "I do not think that it would be possible for any member of the Democratic Left to not be

disappointed with Barack Obama as President"

Approval of BO as President among Liberal Democrats is currently 84%, and has ranged between 80 and 90 for his entire term.

[H2O Man]

37. No doubt.

I said the Democratic Left, not liberals. Perhaps you are unaware of the distinction. But it exists.

[RaleighNCDUer]

77. By a weird peculiarity of American politics, I'd estimate that 50%

of self-proclaimed "liberals" are not, and almost as many self-proclaimed "conservatives" aren't either.

You are better served by looking at POLICIES than at labels - 78% of AMERICANS say hands off SS. That's liberals AND conservatives. Yet Obama puts it 'on the table'.

70% of AMERICANS say Obama should take Libya before Congress. He says he doesn't have to.

I'd also bet that half those "liberals" you cite could not define "liberal".

[BzaDem]

84. The problem is that if you define away half the liberals, you only have 10% of the country left.

I wish elections could be more about policy. But they are not.

For example, 80% support higher taxes on the rich. But a large portion of that 80% are conservatives, and they will NEVER vote for a single candidate that will ever support raising taxes on the rich.

We need to look at the universe we live in. Not some other universe, where the conservatives who support raising taxes on the rich start voting for liberals who will do so. The fact that a conservative (who will never vote for a liberal) supports X liberal policy means about as much as the sound of a tree falling when no one is there to hear it.

That doesn't mean we shouldn't push for increased taxes on the rich. It just means we should analyze the electorate in a way that actually takes into account the voting preferences of the electorate. If you want to discount 50% of the 20% of the country that self identifies as liberal, then liberals cease to be a relevant political group.

[RaleighNCDUer]

88. Whoa. You say that only 20% of the country self-identifies as liberal?

THEN WHAT THE HELL ARE YOU GOING ON ABOUT, WITH THE UNFLAGGING SUPPORT OF OBAMA BY LIBERALS IF IT IS SUCH A TINY FUCKING NUMBER?

Poll by labels and you get crap for results. You just said as much. So why not, for a change, support strong Democratic positions and principles, and forget the labels.

Of course, to do that you have to admit it when our 'leaders' stand in violation of those principles. That's uncomfortable, I know, but you can handle it if you really are a Democrat - that's what we do.

[BzaDem]

90. Where did I say that polling by labels gets crappy results?

It certainly gets different results. But that doesn't mean they are less valuable to know. Polling by labels gives a MUCH more realistic picture of the electorate than polling by policy.

Why?

Because the vast majority of self-identified conservatives vote for Republicans. The vast majority of liberals vote for Democrats. Moderates tilt towards Democrats, but are split much more down the middle than the other two groups. Polling by labels (both ideological and party labels) is MUCH more predictive than polling by policy.

This means that conservatives (who poll 40%) just need to dip into a small part of the moderate pool to win the Presidency. On the other hand, Democrats need to dip FAR into the moderate pool to even have a shot (since the liberal pool is only 20%). We sadly have one of the most conservative electorates in the world.

You could ignore this fact, and point to the fact that many conservatives are functionally liberal (support higher taxes on the rich, etc). But how is that relevant if they are always going to vote for a conservative? It does not change a single electoral fact on the ground. It does not explain any vote, or how to get more votes. As I said earlier, the fact that a conservative supports higher taxes on the rich is just as relevant as the sound a falling tree makes when no one can hear it.

Until there stop being twice as many self-identified conservatives as liberals, any Democrat that succeeds in getting elected will only do so because they convince a huge segment of moderates that they are moderate. That's just math.

[Raksha]

67. I'm not going to work against him, but neither will I vote for him.

And that's my right and privilege as an American citizen.

[WillyT]

38. I Hear What You're Saying, Yet You Let Obama And The Democratic Party Off The Hook That Way...

and reinforce the "they have nowhere else to go" bullshit. Not a great way to inspire either loyalty, or activism. Now, he could change that... he could engage in a fight that all of us would be proud to join. The question is will he... and will he do it before it's too late?

As I said in another post explaining why the Warren debacle was so infuriating to me...

See... if Obama had stood behind Warren, and insisted that she was going to be the one, that would have signaled to many of us that he was finally taking the fight to the greedy bastards that run/ruin this country. And many of us would have picked ourselves up, dusted ourselves off, and joined the fight WITH him, because we'd all be fighting the good fight, together, over something we all actually believe in.

Now Courdray seems like a good guy, and yeah... he has Warren's backing. Great.

But at this point... I really don't give a shit any more.

The President did not pick up the banner... he did not lead the charge... apparently he does not need our help.

They're calling it the "Enthusiasm Gap"... and I am completely, utterly, unenthusiastic regarding this President.

Which BTW... for me is a 180 degree turn around from 2008.

So again I ask... What is President Obama's responsibility in all this?

:shrug:

[elocs]

43. There are only two choices, 2. Obama or the Republican. Own your choice.

It's going to be tough to defend the Senate given the numbers. We at least need to have a Democratic president.

I wish that here in Wisconsin we at least had a Democratic governor like Minnesota who would be a check on the Republican controlled legislature. Here, at least for now until after the recalls, Republicans have free reign.

The lesson I hope we have learned in Wisconsin: choices have consequences and choosing not to support Democratic candidates or choosing not to even bother to show up and vote helped to give us the disaster we currently have in this state.

[H2O Man]

44. A person can

limit their thinking that way. But it doesn't apply to everyone.

[EFerrari]

45. No, that's a false dilemma.

There are other choices, like supporting Obama conditionally, which is what participatory representative democracy is supposed to entail in the first place.

[H2O Man]

80. There are many, many

members of the Democratic Left, who are not registered Democrats. (I know that you know this; this post is an addition to your's, not my attempting to tell you anything.) The Democratic Left is not given a place at the table when Democratic candidates win elections; they are always blamed when Democratic candidates lose.

It makes far, far more sense -- at least in my opinion, as a registered Democrat, and a member of the Democratic Left -- for other Democrats to speak respectfully to the democratic Left. This OP, and numerous posts on it, are an example of the approach that only creates a divide. I understand the thinking behind this, but really wish the pro-Obama advocates would realize that this does not help.

[RaleighNCDUer]

97. Doncha know, he has no responsibility.

Anything that doesn't happen is the fault of the big bad republicans and the quisling dems who say mean things about him.

OTOH, anythig that Congress does, no matter how little his input, is credited to HIM - just look at the "wtf has Obama done' links.

[Ikonoklast]

41. And that, my friends, is reality..

If posters here really think Obama is a Republican, a REAL ACTUAL SHITHEAD of a Republican with the House and Senate majorities in his back pocket will show you what a REAL REPUBLICAN will do to fuck up this country.

[RaleighNCDUer]

100. Obama IS a real republican. Difference is, today's republicans

are real fascists.

Going by policies, Obama is to the right of Eisenhower, Nixon, Ford and in many ways Reagan.

Just shows how the nation has declined in the past 30 years, thanks to Reagan, Bushco, the Koch brothers and the Fucking DLC.

[Solomon]

126. Who made you arbiter of who and what a "democrat" is?

You guys kill me. The arrogance.

[lunatica]

42. When they destroy the social programs they will literally destroy the Democratic Party

Then we'll be a one party dictatorship with strong Theocratic leaning.

[Marr]

46. Sorry, but you don't get to pass off a politician's loss on voters.

If Obama loses, it will be because he has employed a losing strategy. Own that.

[emilyg]

64. Oh yes.

[mitchtv]

112. too true

having been a Dem for more than 40 years, I decide if they deserve my vote, it is not automatic.I alWays factor in fear of the R's. Tell the truth, run a good campaign.

[WillyT]

114. + 1,000,000,000... What You Said !!!

Exactly !!!

:bounce:

:kick:

[lumberjack_jeff]

47. "Vote for me and fewer people will get hurt".

At least it has more specificity than "Change you can believe in."

[EFerrari]

61. "Don't move -- or the nose gets it."

[seaglass]

49. I voted for him and now I have blood on MY hands. If I didn't vote for him and he still won

I would only indirectly have blood on my hands.

So it seems that either way I have blood on my hands.

[pipi_k]

96. And people who voted

for anyone other than Gore in 2000 and Kerry in 2004 (or Democrats who didn't bother voting at all), and who made it possible for the numbers to be as close as they were so that Bush sleazed his way into the WH, also have blood on their hands.

Maybe we all have blood on our hands, one way or another...

what can we do?

I don't know...

:(

[SidDithers]

51. K&R...

Good post.

Sid

[elocs]

53. I am not a "my President, right or wrong" kind of guy. I have been disappointed with Obama

as many have here. But I am also a realist and have had first hand experience here in WI as to what Republicans do when they control everything. I cannot imagine the kind of hell that would be on the national level.

As good as it looks for Obama now, things could change dramatically in a year from now. If we get a double dip recession and the economy is still in the crapper with high unemployment things will be a lot tougher for Obama. If Republicans get a candidate who is perceived as not being extreme to the middle (hard core Republicans, unlike many Democrats, are likely to support the party nominee) along with a bad economy it will be tough.

Republicans certainly do not need help from Democrats in trying to defeat Obama.

Let me close with saying that if this were 2008 and I knew then what I know now I would not have supported Obama in the Wisconsin primary, but I absolutely would have supported and voted for him in the general election against McCain because I clearly understand that the president will either be a Democrat or a Republican and I know what Republicans do.

I will pick the Democrat with all of their flaws, faults, and disappointments over any Republican any time.

[mitchtv]

113. generally, I agree and chose D overR

there are a few caveats, as I am Gay, and accept only candidates who value equality. Ask the D state senator who was the only D in and entire ballot who did not get on my almost all D ballot. Yes I am a D, but I don't vote bigot D or R

[cali]

55. ugh. I despise these kinds of posts- whether they're from those

who say if you support this president you have blood on your hands, or those of you who say what you said: these kinds of posts are despicable.

and although I will vote for Obama, no, it's not that simple.

[lib2DaBone]

56. Oh bull... this sounds like Shrub and his "mushroom cloud..."

.. if we don't roll over.. there will be a mushroom cloud over America in 40 minutes.

BTW.. Why did WTC-7 fall down? It wasn't hit by any plane?

[joeybee12]

57. Fear-mongering reaches a new low...glad to see all the unrecs...kur

[Raksha]

58. I own my decision, but the blood isn't on *MY* hands.

It's on Obama's. Unrecommend.

[Sherman A1]

60. Precisely

And one wonders when the OP was appointed to the position of "Thought Police".

[scarletwoman]

83. It is not the fault of Democratic voters that they are presented with a Hobson's Choice. (nt)

[ProgressIn2008]

62. Well, that's taking the "where you gonna go, bitch?" argument to a new height. nt

[scarletwoman]

66. It's July 2011 not October 2012, fer cripesakes. A little early for the "blood on your hands" bit,

don't you think?

I'm sorry you already feel so nervous about the presidential election, but randomly excoriating some amorphous subset of DUers for a possible future-crime may not be the best way of fending off the outcome you fear.

The political system in this country is failing all of us. We ought to be discussing how best to confront this failure now with a united front, instead of chivying each other over an election 16 months in the future.

How we vote in 2012 is one of the least of our problems when we are witnessing our longstanding social compact being destroyed before our very eyes.

sw

[Marrah_G]

68. ffs

:eyes:

[Forkboy]

69. The fear card is suffering from diminished returns. Even Obama knew that in '08.

It wasn't Fear and Change he ran on, right?

[TheKentuckian]

70. Yeah, it is a partnership between those who are Obama or bust and those who say Obama is a bust

The former group has the juice and the machinery and willfully stifles the process and the latter is using the ONLY power they have to try and either move the President or replace him because he is not presently even making a case for their philosophy and often is taking the opposite side.

I really don't know what is expected. You can't tell folks to abandon all hope for a better future and threaten them with a boogieman.

The wise thing for the first group to do would have been to join the second group in demanding better and using their strength to move the Administration more firmly in the direction we all say we are trying to go but that hasn't happened and the second group has been forced into "us against the world" mode, seeing more unity of ideology between the opposition and group one than between themselves and group one.

Everything from the right to marry to a job to medicine has been labeled a pony and group one shows the same love for liberals an average freeper.

Then we have the President opening up fresh wars, firing up the tax cut machines, and preaching austerity while being absolutely untrustworthy on civil liberties and you are asking people to support what they absolutely oppose while threatening them while running hot and cold between their absolute irrelevance and how they must again bust their guts working the precincts, open their empty wallets, GOTV, and rubberstamp the President's agenda with their votes (making them the exact same kind of hypocrite that voted for Bush again while spitting his name) and for nothing in return other than avoiding a President (insert boogieman of the day here), in favor of not benign neglect but another President who also opposes their agenda and mostly seems focused on working shit deals with the opposition in a seemingly vain effort to court independent voters who apparently are seen as softish Republicans.

The absolute worst thing is the President is willfully shrinking the political spectrum by ceding the debate to the right wings core ideology which means a long term and tiny loop of solutions, none of which are real world viable while he is painted as the most extreme of the extreme left, essentially Karl Marx with a tan and a nicer smile so that his policies are allowed to become the extreme left end of the American discussion. Effectively killing New Deal ideology for at least a generation and maybe forever as corporate power is fostered and allowed complete dominance. In effect, abandoning the best solutions for the country on the shelf without so much as a whimper of protest.

What happens in 2016? 2020? 2024??? What is the long range advantage to hanging with Obama without at least making it clear there is more to liberal ideals than a (D) next to the name and neoliberal policy?

[Grrrfun]

71. booo

yeah, 'You'll have a Republican President!' doesn't scare me anymore. I've lived through a whole bushel of them already..

I'll vote for whoever reflects the will of the people at the bottom of the food chain.
I'll criticize those who don't advocate for those that can't advocate for themselves.
I'll write in Sanders or Kucinich if I feel I have to vote for somebody for some reason.. I'm kind of over that whole voting thing now, seeing it fail miserably in 2008 by giving us a half republican half jello desert presidency.

His failure as a leader is his alone, blood on his hands, his alone.. All the lives that have been and will be lost or ruined because he could not say NO to anyone but Democrats and old people, all on him..

[Name removed]

74. Deleted message

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

[Joe the Revelator]

75. K/R x 1000

[21st Century FDR]

78. How about we OWN our country instead?

Instead of continuing to believe the lie that Goldman Sachs, the Koch Brothers, the insurance criminals, and the warmongers do.

[kiva]

79. I already have blood on my hands, I voted for Obama.

Iraq. Afghanistan. Thousands of Americans who have died because they couldn't get health care and universal health care was traded away from the beginning.

No matter who we vote for we have blood on our hands, so please don't pretend there is a "clean" option.

[scarletwoman]

81. +1,000.

[WillyT]

82. + 1,000,000,000... What You Said !!!

Thank You !!!

:hi:

:kick:

[somone]

99. Precisely

[we can do it]

85. It MAy Suck, But the Republican Shit He Is pulling Also Sucks

We had house, senate and white house 1n 2008 and he let it waste away -
trying to compromise with those only intent was destroying him...
not just once but multiple times.
he did not back down when going for the democratic nomination. wtf is he really about? this is an honest question

[frogmarch]

89. K&R n/t

[sendero]

92. LOL..

... your premise is too stupid to even respond to. Your one inch thinking is why our country is in the dumper.

[elocs]

95. If anyone is looking for perfection in our Democratic Party or in our leaders or politicians

they will be bitterly disappointed. Candidates will promise whatever they need to promise to get the nomination (some even sincerely believe it)and then when they get to Washington they are confronted with the reality that they cannot do all they promised.

Likely if an actual far left or Progressive Democrat was actually ever elected (a possibility that only exists in the fantasies of the far left) they also would be confronted with the reality they could not do all they promised. Then there would be the disappointed fist shaking that they are traitors to the Party, how could they do such a thing.

The reality in our 2 party system is that the next President will either be Barack Obama or the Republican nominee. If anyone here cannot bring themselves to vote for Obama I would hope they would at least show up at the polls to support the other Democratic candidates from the local, state, and federal levels.

Good luck in the pursuit of political purity and perfection. You will likely find it in a pot of gold at the end of the rainbow.

[pipi_k]

102. That, I think, is the whole problem...

Politicians promise things. I think most of them honestly want to do what they promise to do.

But it's a far cry from what a person wants to do and reality.

People think they know how someone else should do his job, but they don't have the slightest clue as to what's involved. Well he SHOULD do this or he SHOULDN'T do that.

yeah...OK.

being president is such a cushy, low-pressure job. That's why we see these guys going gray faster and sooner than they might ordinarily have done.


I see people's point about holding our politicians' feet to the fire and ensuring they work for us. But to think we know better than they do how to do their jobs....

nahhhh

walk a mile in their shoes....

[Forkboy]

105. Fear card didn't work, now the purity card gets tried.

Whatever happened to Hope? :shrug:

[Horse with no Name]

98. Is that the best ya got?

:yawn:

[Joe the Revelator]

107. Yes, your one line drive bys....

Are much more interesting....

[Horse with no Name]

125. As opposed to your two-liners?

:rofl:

[Name removed]

101. Deleted message

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

[BlueDemKev]

106. +1,000

I've been saying this forever! We MUST re-elect President Obama in 2012 as well as many Democrats as possible to Congress!! The repeal of health insurance reform, Social Security & Medicare's demise, the Supreme Court being fully-controlled by Samuel Alitos ("Not true", YEAH RIGHT! :sarcasm:), enormous deficits caused by new tax cuts for the wealthiest Americans (supply-side, trickle-down economics), civil rights for gays and minorities rolled back.....SHALL WE CONTINUE?

This is a battle for our country. We will move forward into the 21st century or go back to the 19th!?!

Support, Donate, Volunteer, whatever must be done to elect DEMOCRATS to office in 2012!!!!


:dem: :dem: :dem: :dem: :dem:

[kentuck]

108. The only catch...

is that the Democrats are more likely to agree with the policies of Barack Obama than they would with the Republicans. Which means Barack Obama can get more stuff passed than the Republicans. Which means we hope that what he gets passed are in the interest of the Democratic Party and the people. Otherwise, Democrats may tend to oppose a Repub president and agree more often with a Democratic President. Which is better for the people??

[Hawkowl]

116. +1000

I'd rather lose the presidency and gain the House back with die hard progressives. We've seen how Congress can stop a president. We've also seen how presidents can lead their parties over a cliff.

[Bobbie Jo]

110. K&R

:kick:

[Odin2005]

115. Unrec for red-herring DLC bullying.

[Commie Pinko Dirtbag]

117. First.

[elocs]

118. I've noticed that the vehement UnRecs this thread has gotten are from those not from Wisconsin.

Considering our current situation here, it gives those who live in Wisconsin an unique perspective on what happens when Republicans take control of everything. It would be nice here if we at least had a Democratic governor like Minnesota, but we don't. I know what happens when Republicans run roughshod and do as these please in my state, fortunately most of the rest of you do not.

Democrats in the U.S. will know exactly how we feel here in Wisconsin if we lose the White House and the Republicans take the Senate (not unlikely). If you don't like things well now, you will hate it then.

I wonder, would Canada take political refugees from the United States?

[elocs]

119. I've noticed that the vehement UnRecs this thread has gotten are from those not from Wisconsin.

Considering our current situation here, it gives those who live in Wisconsin an unique perspective on what happens when Republicans take control of everything. It would be nice here if we at least had a Democratic governor like Minnesota, but we don't. I know what happens when Republicans run roughshod and do as these please in my state, fortunately most of the rest of you do not.

Democrats in the U.S. will know exactly how we feel here in Wisconsin if we lose the White House and the Republicans take the Senate (not unlikely). If you don't like things well now, you will hate it then.

I wonder, would Canada take political refugees from the United States?

[jtown1123]

120. I think you're wrong. With a Republican in the White House, Democrats would be unified

in opposition,therefore making it impossible for "deals" to be struck that shred our social safety net. Look no further than Bush's failed SS privatization attempt.

[somone]

122. Ironic and sad

that the New Deal is being "offered" for sacrifice by our own Democratic president

[Logical]

121. I'll vote for him. I can guarantee I won't work my ass off like I did the last election.

[Enthusiast]

123. But Obama is already to the right of center

on the issues most Americans feel strongly about.

[VeryConfused]

124. You can never go wrong with the grown up idea of taking responsibility