Ken Burch
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Mon Jul-25-11 10:27 PM
Original message |
If Obama does do a deal with the 'Pugs, he needs to withdraw from the re-election campaign |
|
Edited on Mon Jul-25-11 10:30 PM by Ken Burch
Agreeing to what they want, even half of what they want(and we know it'll be way more than half)will mean he can never do anything progressive again. Progressive things require financial resources. You can't do social change AND austerity. And clearly it means that all "HOPE" for the poor will be gone. A Supreme Court nomination or two(which he wouldn't get to make anyway)can't make up for letting SS or Medicare be tampered with.
Our only chance in 2012 will be with a nominee who realizes that our party HAS to fight for everyone the 'Pugs attack: labor, the poor, the dispossessed, the Rainbow, and everyone who's closer to the streets than the suites.
A centrist can't do that. A right-of-centrist especially can't.
We need to nominate a DEMOCRAT in 2012.
Barack Obama can never be a Democrat again if he works out a deal with the forces of evil in the House. There simply aren't any issues that will remain that could outweigh the destruction of the rest of the New Deal. We don't have to settle for a pro-choice Republican from the mid 1970's.
|
TheWraith
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Mon Jul-25-11 10:29 PM
Response to Original message |
1. OBAMA BAD OBAMA BAD OBAMA BAD. We get it. |
|
You can stop screaming from the streetcorner with your cardboard sign. People have heard you.
|
Ken Burch
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Mon Jul-25-11 10:31 PM
Response to Reply #1 |
3. How can you possibly still trust the guy? |
|
He's only been with us on the side issues that required no risk and no money. Everytime there's been a fight, he's caved. Don't you get it yet? He's not on our side.
|
Doctor Hurt
(472 posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Mon Jul-25-11 10:33 PM
Response to Reply #3 |
8. You're not on our side |
Name removed
(0 posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Mon Jul-25-11 10:35 PM
Response to Reply #8 |
|
Sub-thread removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.
|
TheWraith
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Mon Jul-25-11 10:35 PM
Response to Reply #3 |
13. Because my opinions are determined by FACTS, not paranoia and faith. |
|
Because I don't have a vested interest in seeing the worst possible side of anything he does, even if I have to make it up. Because apparently in your world, not only did he not call for raising taxes on the rich, but apparently there was no fight over healthcare reform, no fight over DADT, no fight over financial regulation, no fight over the stimulus bill...
I trust him because I don't rewrite history to justify thinking he's the spawn of satan.
|
Ken Burch
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Mon Jul-25-11 10:39 PM
Response to Reply #13 |
18. There wasn't a fight if those bills were all we got. |
|
On each of those bills, he gave up everything in them that matters.
A)There's nothing of value in the healthcare bill(the no-preexisting condition ban was made meaningless by the massive insurance company rate hikes that he did nothing to stop);
B)the financial reform bill has no teeth at all, and everyone on Wall Street thinks it's a joke;
C)DADT will not be replaced by a situation in which LGBT people have full equality with heterosexuals in the military(and they were only going to get full equality if it was in the new policy from the start);
Each is a half-measure. Half-measures are never victories.
|
Name removed
(0 posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Mon Jul-25-11 10:43 PM
Response to Reply #18 |
|
Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.
|
defendandprotect
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Mon Jul-25-11 11:21 PM
Response to Reply #18 |
|
C)DADT will not be replaced by a situation in which LGBT people have full equality with heterosexuals in the military(and they were only going to get full equality if it was in the new policy from the start);
can you explain that -- I didn't know it wasn't going to be totally lifted?
|
Name removed
(0 posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Mon Jul-25-11 10:38 PM
Response to Reply #3 |
|
Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.
|
Ken Burch
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Mon Jul-25-11 10:52 PM
Response to Reply #16 |
33. FDR never did any major caves to the 'pugs. |
|
Nothing comparable to this.
|
EffieBlack
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Wed Jul-27-11 05:02 PM
Response to Reply #33 |
|
Cutting a deal with Southern Senators that excluded most blacks and women from Social Security and labor law protections in order to get the votes he needed to get the laws passed wasn't a "major cave."
Of course, the blacks and females excluded might have seen it differently . . .
|
Ken Burch
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Wed Jul-27-11 05:35 PM
Response to Reply #74 |
79. That's one thing compared to the four massive caves |
|
Edited on Wed Jul-27-11 05:36 PM by Ken Burch
on healthcare, card-check for union affiliation, financial reform, and saving the Bush Tax Cuts(the ones we now know will be in place forever). Those were far worse than what FDR did(not that I condone what FDR did).
|
EffieBlack
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Wed Jul-27-11 07:03 PM
Response to Reply #79 |
89. Ah - moving the goalposts . . . |
|
You claimed, in plain English, that "FDR never did any major caves to the 'pugs." I pointed out one major cave that FDR did to the "'pugs," so now you've changed your argument to "he didn't do FOUR massive caves."
You said "he NEVER," not "he didn't do FOUR."
Funny how the standard shifted so quickly . . .
|
defendandprotect
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Mon Jul-25-11 11:23 PM
Response to Reply #16 |
56. FDR didn't adopt the opposition's agenda -- he knew who the opposition was .... |
|
Obama/Rahm see liberals as the "opposition" -- !!
The chess game is over --
Obama is over --
|
LoZoccolo
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Mon Jul-25-11 10:33 PM
Response to Reply #1 |
9. Ken Burch: leading the charge |
Ken Burch
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Mon Jul-25-11 10:34 PM
Response to Reply #9 |
12. I don't do anything more than you do |
|
And this isn't about my ego.
|
LoZoccolo
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Mon Jul-25-11 10:37 PM
Response to Reply #12 |
15. I don't think I try to provoke mass movements and catastrophic change. |
|
At least not like every night.
|
Ken Burch
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Mon Jul-25-11 10:44 PM
Response to Reply #15 |
27. What's wrong with mass movements? |
|
You never get change without them(the post-election Obama switch from "transformation" to "transactional" is proof of that, as was your pal Rahm's success at stopping anything genuinely progressive from happening AND blocking progressive primary challenges to the Blue Dogs).
And nothing I've ever proposed would lead to "catastrophic change".
There isn't any greater good that would be served by Obama willingly agreeing to massive cuts in social spending as part of a deal. Those cuts would never be restored and accepting them would mean this party would forever lose the right to ask poor people to vote for us. We can't WIN without the votes of the poor(and the 'burbs never really backed Obama anyway).
Compromising with Cantor is the same thing as surrender. And we can never fight back after that. We can never fight for more social spending after it. We can never fight to defend anything in Social Security or Medicare if we allow anything in either to be cut.
I want to win and to stop the right-wing crazies. You just want to surrender to them. And Obama never did want to stand up to the Right or to Wall Street at all(he's proven that he backs the suites instead of the streets).
|
mmonk
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Mon Jul-25-11 10:52 PM
Response to Reply #27 |
31. True. Movement politics is our only chance. |
|
We're in the final stages of the corporate state transition. Corporations are rewriting our laws now.
|
LoZoccolo
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Mon Jul-25-11 10:54 PM
Response to Reply #27 |
35. I know what's wrong with /your/ mass movements. |
|
You start one in the evening, come back the next evening and try to start a different one. You have tried to start more mass movements than anyone else I can think of, and they all last less than forty-eight hours.
|
Ken Burch
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Mon Jul-25-11 10:58 PM
Response to Reply #35 |
41. You just try to stop what I try to start |
|
You want all Democrats(based on your posts here)to campaign for Obama no matter what and probably even in the primary, and I strongly suspect you don't even want anyone to fight for a progressive platform.
And the thing is, before you ask, that I am involved in my local party and I do as much nuts-and-bolts stuff as you do...it's likely most of those who are anti-Obama progressives can say the same.
I'm fighting for the spirit of Election Night, 2008...you apparently see that spirit and what the people who fought for this administration wanted as something that had to be extinguished as quickly as possible...because only "the deal", any deal, mattered.
Given that we've repeatedly seen that no one on "the inside" is on the side of the people, why do you give the insiders such a total benefit of the doubt?
|
LoZoccolo
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Mon Jul-25-11 11:01 PM
Original message |
I don't think I even respond to half your threads anymore. |
|
Yet the next day, you've still moved on to something else that's equally as likely to be forgotten the day after that.
|
Ken Burch
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Mon Jul-25-11 11:09 PM
Response to Original message |
49. I just try to put ideas out. |
|
You don't do anything that's any more effective. And it's never a good strategy for progressive gains to accept conservative interim results.
The cuts that will be made in any deal with Congress will never be restored. Doesn't that bother you at all? Doesn't making Social Security and Medicare open to attack bother you? Doesn't having a party leadership with no values it will fight to the death over bother you?
Politics is about struggle. And the only legitimate progressive politics is one that mobilizes all the people left out in the cold by the right-wing power structure. Together, all those people can form a majority. But Obama has never been interested in that. All he's ever really cared about is "bipartisanship", which can never mean anything other than "doing what the Republicans want".
If this is supposed to be a two-party system, then we need a second party. Democrats can't be that party if we join the GOP in being part of the Austerity Coalition. Look at Spain and Greece and see what's happening to the "center-left" parties who are doing that. They're consigned to the political boneyard at their countries next general elections.
|
LoZoccolo
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Mon Jul-25-11 11:14 PM
Response to Reply #49 |
51. "The cuts that will be made in any deal with Congress will never be restored." |
|
Why do you make these claims that have already been shown to be dubious? Obama increased spending over Bush* during his first two years. He didn't have to do these kinds of things until we had a Republican House. Chances are, we will some day have another Democratic congress and president. This claim is hyperbole.
|
LoZoccolo
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Mon Jul-25-11 10:56 PM
Response to Reply #27 |
38. "And nothing I've ever proposed would lead to 'catastrophic change'." |
|
Edited on Mon Jul-25-11 10:57 PM by LoZoccolo
Except for defaulting on the public debt, but that's a little one.
|
Ken Burch
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Mon Jul-25-11 11:01 PM
Response to Reply #38 |
43. Making any deal the Tea Party would accept would also be catastrophic change |
|
And it would be a catastrophic change to forever blur the differences between Dems and 'pugs by agreeing to impose a budget more brutal than anything Reagan or Bush the Second would ever have signed.
It's just not enough to "re-elect 'our guy'", especially when 'our guy' is mostly on the side of Wall Street rather than us.
As a party, we simply couldn't ever recover from being party to the Cantor austerity thing. We'd never have any right to ask poor people or workers to vote for us again(as was the case in '96, when Clinton agreed with Dole on everything that mattered).
|
LoZoccolo
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Mon Jul-25-11 11:11 PM
Response to Reply #43 |
50. "forever blur the differences" |
|
Edited on Mon Jul-25-11 11:17 PM by LoZoccolo
Oh come on. Part of the reason we're in this mess - according to some - is because progressives protested and sat out the 2010 election in order to shake off some blue dogs (which were elected by other Democrats in the primary, by the way, or at least not challenged). I don't believe that, but they used to like to claim that. And don't tell me that the blue dogs voted like the Republicans unless you can name one that did - otherwise I have no reason that you actually looked it up. Also, 80% of the remaining blue dogs voted against the Cut, Cap, and Balance bill, against the Republicans. Every blue dog had a significant partisan voting record, but if you want to name one that didn't, and go on to name five bills where they voted against the Republicans which still aren't important to you, then I will believe that you actually researched this claim that they are not better than the Republicans to you (this information is not difficult to find by the way, and I'll give you a hint that a major newspaper has already compiled it for you at their website).
Do you realize that Obama actually committed more money to the stimulus than the New Deal, even adjusted for inflation? Did you actually know that? Do you really think that he wouldn't reverse some of this damage that the Republicans are inflicting if he didn't have to work with a Republican-dominated House of Representatives, when he has shown in the first two years that he is willing to increase spending when he is in a position to do so?
|
Fire1
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Wed Jul-27-11 04:41 PM
Response to Reply #50 |
65. "according to some?" No, we KNOW that's why we lost the |
|
house. They called themselves "hurting" Obama and look what happened!!! Those dems who stayed home and didn't vote shot themselves in the foot and now want a fuckin revolution!! That's why nobody takes them seriously!!
|
LoZoccolo
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Wed Jul-27-11 05:01 PM
Response to Reply #65 |
73. How do you know that? n/t |
Fire1
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Wed Jul-27-11 06:36 PM
Response to Reply #73 |
85. Do you have a better explanation? I'd like to read it. n/t |
LoZoccolo
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Wed Jul-27-11 07:40 PM
Response to Reply #85 |
91. They were in close districts in red states? |
|
I want to blame splinterist progressives for the mess we're in, but it really makes more sense that the politics of those districts were pretty conservative to begin with.
|
LoZoccolo
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Mon Jul-25-11 11:16 PM
Response to Reply #43 |
52. P.S. The Tea Party is probably the #1 proponent of defaulting. n/t |
Ken Burch
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Wed Jul-27-11 04:29 PM
Response to Reply #52 |
63. All Obama has to do is use the 14th Amendment |
|
There's no case against doing that. Your way is surrender.
|
tnlefty
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Wed Jul-27-11 04:35 PM
Response to Reply #12 |
64. Well, yes you do. You post more than just one liner flamebait |
Ken Burch
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Wed Jul-27-11 07:01 PM
Response to Reply #64 |
|
Thanks for the note of support.
|
phleshdef
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Mon Jul-25-11 10:30 PM
Response to Original message |
2. No matter which direction he goes, he will be the Democratic nominee. |
|
And there isn't a damn thing you can do about it.
|
defendandprotect
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Mon Jul-25-11 11:25 PM
Response to Reply #2 |
57. I don't think so .... not after all he has done -- it's over -- |
|
And if you want to support a candidate like Obama then you'll have to
rely on the rightwing to elect him as far as I can see --
|
BeFree
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Mon Jul-25-11 10:31 PM
Response to Original message |
4. Obama will win reelection. |
Name removed
(0 posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Mon Jul-25-11 10:33 PM
Response to Reply #4 |
|
Sub-thread removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.
|
mmonk
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Mon Jul-25-11 10:32 PM
Response to Original message |
5. He already has. The tax cut deal has brought us to this point. |
Ken Burch
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Mon Jul-25-11 10:34 PM
Response to Reply #5 |
|
And only Wall Street will celebrate if he gets a second term. He's not on our side and never will be again.
|
defendandprotect
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Mon Jul-25-11 11:28 PM
Response to Reply #5 |
58. Exactly -- Obama wrenched the budget with $120 BILLION extended tax cuts for rich... |
|
Edited on Mon Jul-25-11 11:28 PM by defendandprotect
which helped create the fake debt "crisis" --
|
Doctor Hurt
(472 posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Mon Jul-25-11 10:33 PM
Response to Original message |
7. I have an equally intelligent point to make: |
|
BLAGGA BLAGGA BOO BOO BOOP!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
|
Ken Burch
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Mon Jul-25-11 10:48 PM
Response to Reply #7 |
29. OK, I get it. All you care about is having somebody who SAYS he's a Dem |
|
as President.
That gave us the twelve years of nothingness that was the Carter and Clinton years. This was supposed to be different. At least he was supposed to fight to make it different. But he never tried. The whole "bipartisan" thing was a code for "I surrender".
|
Number23
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Thu Jul-28-11 12:52 AM
Response to Reply #7 |
101. HA!!! Ow! My sides!!! |
|
Perfect response. :rofl: :rofl:
|
cottonseed
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Mon Jul-25-11 10:33 PM
Response to Original message |
Pirate Smile
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Mon Jul-25-11 10:39 PM
Response to Original message |
17. Geezus! He has to deal with the friggin House. It is the way our government works. What a ridiculous |
|
thing to say.
You are saying the same NO COMPROMISE crap the teabaggers push.
The idea that you are willing to let the Republicans pick the next couple of Supreme Court Justices - which will probably be replacing liberals on the Court - is absolutely DISGRACEFUL.
Just imagine giving the Roberts Court another crazy RW'er.
Grow Up.
|
Ken Burch
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Mon Jul-25-11 10:51 PM
Response to Reply #17 |
30. A couple of court appointments can't be worth accepting the end of the New Deal |
|
Any compromise means the end of all progressive policy. Don't you get that? You can't have liberalism AND austerity. That just reduces liberalism to some meaningless rights shit and leaves workers and the poor out in the cold.
Unless there's redistribution of wealth from the rich to the non-rich, you don't have a progressive administration. If he makes the kind of deal he's going to make, there will never be any liberal programs again. The remaining antipoverty programs will die. Nothing positive will come of this.
Cuts of this size are never restored.
|
Pirate Smile
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Mon Jul-25-11 10:56 PM
Response to Reply #30 |
40. What you are proposing will get the Scott Walker treatment done to the entire country. |
|
People should really be smarter then this.
|
Ken Burch
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Mon Jul-25-11 11:02 PM
Response to Reply #40 |
46. That's what will happen in any deal as well. |
|
What's the point in fighting for "not as bad"?
You can't win elections that way.
|
defendandprotect
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Mon Jul-25-11 11:30 PM
Response to Reply #40 |
59. We should have been smarter than to elect Obama .... |
|
and any more voting for the "lesser evil" will simply move the party
and the Congress further to the right --
if that's what you want -- you'll get it!
|
Name removed
(0 posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Mon Jul-25-11 10:40 PM
Response to Original message |
|
Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.
|
defendandprotect
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Mon Jul-25-11 11:31 PM
Response to Reply #19 |
60. Unfortunately, most of what we have feared re Obama has actually happened ... !! |
|
:rofl: --
Really humorous, huh?
|
Lil Missy
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Mon Jul-25-11 10:40 PM
Response to Original message |
Name removed
(0 posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Mon Jul-25-11 10:41 PM
Response to Original message |
|
Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.
|
Name removed
(0 posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Mon Jul-25-11 10:43 PM
Response to Reply #21 |
|
Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.
|
Renew Deal
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Mon Jul-25-11 10:42 PM
Response to Original message |
22. Sometimes I get the feeling that people claiming to be "progressive" have the same goals as McConnel |
|
at least in regards to Obama.
|
DevonRex
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Mon Jul-25-11 10:43 PM
Response to Reply #22 |
Pirate Smile
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Mon Jul-25-11 10:55 PM
Response to Reply #22 |
37. It certainly seems like it. |
socialist_n_TN
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Wed Jul-27-11 06:51 PM
Response to Reply #22 |
86. And sometimes I think that people who are OK with |
|
anything Obama does have the same goals as McConnell. Period.
|
Ken Burch
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Wed Jul-27-11 07:13 PM
Response to Reply #86 |
90. And sometimes I think Obama has the same goals as McConnell |
socialist_n_TN
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Wed Jul-27-11 07:42 PM
Response to Reply #90 |
92. I can't disagree at all with you Ken |
SidDithers
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Wed Jul-27-11 08:20 PM
Response to Reply #22 |
onenote
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Mon Jul-25-11 10:44 PM
Response to Original message |
26. apparently you need him to. |
|
Sorry if the rest of us don't have your needs.
|
killbotfactory
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Mon Jul-25-11 10:47 PM
Response to Original message |
|
You want a savior, not a president.
|
Ken Burch
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Mon Jul-25-11 10:54 PM
Response to Reply #28 |
36. I want a "savior" if I don't accept that a Democratic president has to cooperate |
|
in the destruction of the New Deal?
|
defendandprotect
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Mon Jul-25-11 11:33 PM
Response to Reply #36 |
61. Ah ... add that to the list intended to stall and distract from criticism of Obama ... !! |
Fearless
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Mon Jul-25-11 10:52 PM
Response to Original message |
32. Agreed. Destroying our social safety net makes him as good as a Republican. |
Ken Burch
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Mon Jul-25-11 10:54 PM
Response to Reply #32 |
|
The alternative is, he could actually stand up to the bastards...like he's never done the whole time so far.
|
Fearless
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Mon Jul-25-11 11:02 PM
Response to Reply #34 |
villager
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Mon Jul-25-11 10:56 PM
Response to Original message |
39. unrecc'd by the "no move rightward is *too far rightward* for *my* liberal!" crowd |
Indykatie
(416 posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Mon Jul-25-11 10:59 PM
Response to Original message |
|
What DEMOCRAT do you think we could win with if not Obama? Some of refuse to believe that you can't win with the independents and keep thinking we can will a presidential race with a real DEMOCRAT who is left of center. It ain't gonna happen.
|
Ken Burch
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Mon Jul-25-11 11:04 PM
Response to Reply #42 |
47. We could win with a people's candidate who presented him or herself |
|
as a real fighter for those left out in the cold by Reaganism-Bushism. People who gained from that aren't ever going to vote for us anyway, and you can't do anything worthwhile if you've won by sending a "we look down on the same people you look down on" message to upscale voters.
We can win if we fight. It's just that, in the fall, our candidates usually haven't fought.
|
Fire1
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Wed Jul-27-11 04:47 PM
Response to Reply #47 |
66. And most of us are not going to vote for him/her, whoever. n/t |
Ken Burch
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Wed Jul-27-11 05:34 PM
Response to Reply #66 |
78. You wouldn't vote for a candidate who fought for the people? |
|
That's a depressing admission.
|
Fire1
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Wed Jul-27-11 05:58 PM
Response to Reply #78 |
82. Not nearly as depressing as what I've read in this thread. n/t |
treestar
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Wed Jul-27-11 04:51 PM
Response to Reply #47 |
|
Not in this decade.
It's not a "fight." it is about convincing people used to bread and circuses again a media carrying water for the Republicans.
|
Ken Burch
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Wed Jul-27-11 05:30 PM
Response to Reply #68 |
76. And convincing those people IS a fight |
|
Such a fight can't be won through "centrism" and deference to Wall Street.
|
treestar
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Thu Jul-28-11 12:21 AM
Response to Reply #76 |
100. The left has not done a very good job |
|
Of getting voters to hate Wall Street. The left has done a terrible job, though admittedly the media works for the Republicans. So it's an uphill battle. The left comes off as whining and Americans hate that.
|
Ken Burch
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Thu Jul-28-11 12:57 AM
Response to Reply #100 |
102. Would you kindly avoid speaking of "the left" and "Americans" as though they're separate groups? |
|
All leftists in THIS country are Americans. We're just as American as the left-bashers.
|
treestar
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Thu Jul-28-11 11:21 AM
Response to Reply #102 |
105. Where do you get that? |
|
Typical victim posturing.
Leftist Americans are a subset of Americans, not representative of Americans. Therefore the left has to convince the non-Leftist Americans if it wants its visions to become reality.
Centrist Americans are also just as American.
|
Ken Burch
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Thu Jul-28-11 03:12 PM
Response to Reply #105 |
106. I got that because you wrote "Leftists" and "Americans" as if the two never intersected |
|
You were using a right-wing rhetorical tactic.
And of course Centrist Americans are American. It isn't the left who does the "you're not an American" smear.
|
defendandprotect
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Mon Jul-25-11 11:18 PM
Response to Reply #42 |
54. A liberal -- Obama is a corporatist -- |
socialist_n_TN
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Wed Jul-27-11 06:55 PM
Response to Reply #42 |
87. How about a candidate that stands for all of those |
|
New Silent Majority postions? You know raising taxes on the wealthy, no cuts to Social Security, Medicare, Medicaid, ending the wars. Things like that. You know all those positions that a VAST majority of Americans say they favor.
|
TreasonousBastard
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Mon Jul-25-11 11:02 PM
Response to Original message |
45. And then what? The nation that voted in a teabag House is going to vote.. |
|
in a left winger to the White House?
If we can find one to meet your standards, that is. Complete with pony.
|
treestar
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Wed Jul-27-11 04:51 PM
Response to Reply #45 |
|
Reality needs to set in for some people.
|
EFerrari
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Wed Jul-27-11 06:07 PM
Response to Reply #45 |
84. They didn't vote for teabaggers, they voted for JOBS. |
|
Do you think swing voters will come running back to the same policies -- nothing done about jobs -- they rejected in 2010?
|
TreasonousBastard
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Wed Jul-27-11 09:37 PM
Response to Reply #84 |
94. Thery're sure not going to vote for someone to the left of someone they think failed... |
|
for being too far left.
Or just plain ineffective.
|
EFerrari
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Wed Jul-27-11 10:14 PM
Response to Reply #94 |
97. It's not about left and right for those voters. |
|
They said the economy was the most important thing to them, and specifically, jobs. Whoever runs on that, will win.
|
defendandprotect
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Mon Jul-25-11 11:07 PM
Response to Original message |
48. Agree -- damage will have been done ... and DEM PARTY didn't stop him ... !!! |
defendandprotect
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Mon Jul-25-11 11:17 PM
Response to Original message |
53. Wait ... how many deals has Obama ALREADY WORKED OUT "with forces of evil?" |
|
How does anyone forget Obama putting Koch Bros DLC Rahm Emmanuel in White House --
or forget Obama's Wall Street team which created the meltdown --
Or Obama making back room deals with Big Pharma and private H/C industry to trample
single payer -- MEDICARE FOR ALL -- which the nation and suffering Americans desperately need?
How do we forget Obama extending the tax cuts for the rich -- which basically ensured that
there would be a debt "crisis" to be faked?
Treasury is borrowing that money now to cover those tax cuts for rich -- had to increase
interest on it -- $120 BILLION -- by a half of a percent!!
How does anyone forget Obama extending the Patriot Act -- ?
From the beginning, this president was betraying voters -- how do we forget that?
WE NEED TO NOMINATE A LIBERAL IN 2012 --
a small "d" democrat who will show some signs of caring about the public --
And Obama should serve as a lesson for all of us that we need our BS meters turned
waaaaaaaaaay up -- !!
And that we have to avoid candidates who are pre-owned and pre-bought by corporate $$$ --
That's most of them -- so I think we should be looking outside of the party for a new
candidate for 2012 --
AND WE NEED TWO STRONG ANTI-WAR CANDIDATES!!
|
libmom74
(577 posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Mon Jul-25-11 11:45 PM
Response to Original message |
62. I agree Ken Burch and defendandprotect |
|
unfortunately it seems all threads about looking for a real democrat to primary Obama in 2012 now get hijacked by cheerleaders.
|
Tx4obama
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Wed Jul-27-11 05:36 PM
Response to Reply #62 |
80. Obama! Obama! Ooobaamaa! :) |
treestar
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Wed Jul-27-11 04:49 PM
Response to Original message |
|
And there is nothing to say any other President could do better.
|
DCBob
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Wed Jul-27-11 04:53 PM
Response to Original message |
70. I am sure he will take that advice... |
JoePhilly
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Wed Jul-27-11 04:55 PM
Response to Original message |
71. So Obama can't make any deal that stops a default? |
|
But hey ... yet another political masturbatory fantasy of some new uber liberal to run in 2012 ... ignoring that fact that there isn't one.
|
SugarShack
(979 posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Wed Jul-27-11 11:18 PM
Response to Reply #71 |
99. Soc Sec should not be a part of any deal...but OBAMA put it on the table. |
|
He should not be supporting any cuts....in any deal....period.
If he does...it's not their fault. HE put them on the table!
|
one_voice
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Wed Jul-27-11 04:59 PM
Response to Original message |
72. OBAMA IS A BAD MAN!!! |
|
He's responsible for every fucked up thing in Washington.
Thanks for enlightening all of us as to who and who cannot be a Democrat.
|
Ken Burch
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Wed Jul-27-11 05:38 PM
Response to Reply #72 |
81. It was your "it's enough to elect somebody who calls himself a Democrat" |
|
that reduced us to the Reagan-Carter and Clinton-Dole contests.
|
one_voice
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Wed Jul-27-11 05:58 PM
Response to Reply #81 |
83. Be sure not to break your neck coming down.. |
|
off your high horse.
This country is no where close to electing someone like Dennis Kucinich, Al Franken et al to the office of President. The closest we'd get would have been Kennedy...and if you don't think he'd have made concessions you're not being honest. As much as we may want a "more left" President we're not gonna get it...at least no time soon.
I live in the real world. Save your lectures about who is and isn't a Democrat.
|
Name removed
(0 posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Wed Jul-27-11 05:11 PM
Response to Original message |
|
Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.
|
Ken Burch
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Wed Jul-27-11 05:33 PM
Response to Reply #75 |
77. They don't get it that Obama is going to bring the "misery index" back |
|
That's what being a "pro-business Democrat" means---helping corporate power rig elections for the Right.
|
Rosco T.
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Wed Jul-27-11 09:38 PM
Response to Original message |
|
That's all that needs to be said about that.
|
unkachuck
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Wed Jul-27-11 10:09 PM
Response to Original message |
96. kick for the truth....n/t |
Ken Burch
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Thu Jul-28-11 01:55 AM
Response to Reply #96 |
104. Thanks. This whole thread is illustrating the great line Abe Ribicoff had |
|
in his speech at the '68 Democratic Convention(the one he said right after he blasted Daley for "Gestapo tactics in the streets")
"How hard it is to accept the truth".
|
Recovered Repug
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Wed Jul-27-11 11:01 PM
Response to Original message |
98. And the name of this "real Democrat" is? |
|
What "real Democrat" has a realistic chance to win the general election?
|
Ken Burch
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Thu Jul-28-11 01:53 AM
Response to Reply #98 |
103. Anyone that is willing to get out there and fight and be proud of what we stand for |
|
We've never gained votes by having our nominees act as if it's embarrassing to disagree with the Right.
We win when we generate enthusiasm. We win when we inspire passion. That's what we have to do. And those things are far more important than fundraisers with CEO's or corporate luxury suites at our conventions.
|
Urban Prairie
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Thu Jul-28-11 03:42 PM
Response to Original message |
107. We OBVIOUSLY need a "D" in the Oval Office for MORE than just one more term, IMO. |
|
Edited on Thu Jul-28-11 03:45 PM by Urban Prairie
Regardless if you like or dislike Obama, he will be a lame duck halfway through his second term, that is, IF he declares and campaigns to seek his second, and perhaps it would be better if we primaried him with someone like Alan Grayson, IF it means that he MIGHT get a clue that many of his supporters are very disappointed in his performance thus far. Grayson is someone whom I could get behind and would do what I could to help him get elected and would likely vote for in a New York minute. Makes it more likely that we would have a Dem as POTUS for 2 more terms, and perhaps again elect a majority in the HOR hopefully no later than '15. I fear a Rethug being (s)elected as POTUS, not only in '13. but also in '17 as well, when I MAY be reaching age 60. (since I very well might not make it to that "ripe old age" if Medicare and SS are gutted)
|
DU
AdBot (1000+ posts) |
Fri May 10th 2024, 12:18 PM
Response to Original message |