Nancy Pelosi is the key.

[bluestate10]

It will fall to her as the responsible caucus leader to deliver a bill out of the House that the Senate can accept. The bill must have enough in it for Pelosi and democrats to accept. While progressives will yell as normal, having House democrats resolve the impasse will yield large net positives for democratic candidates in the 2012 election, just in time for critical implementation actions on Health Care Reform. The sun is setting on Boner and his band of jackals.

[MannyGoldstein]

1. The sun was setting for the Republicans in November 2008

How'd that work out?

Perhaps y'all should listen to Progressives rather than making sport of us.

[stklurker]

2. Progressives

The problem right now with the D party is we cant even freaking agree how to tie our shoes, and would rather argue about it than get our shoes tied and move on.. if we are walking we can then talk about how best to tie our shoes if we stop to do it again... but no... we cant even win when we do win.. so the suggestions in here is to fracture even more and pretty much ensure that the R's, who are fractured but UNDERSTAND this concept... always win.

[adhd_what_huh]

5. show me a progressive that has won a national election since

FDR and we might.

[MannyGoldstein]

6. Candidate Obama nt

[daa]

9. Good one and boy did he fool us. When he said change we can

believe in did you think in a million years he would gut social security, Medicare and impoverish the poor and elderly while cutting taxes for the wealthy?

Fool me once shame on you, fool me twice shame on me.

[adhd_what_huh]

11. pretty sure Clinton was the progressive during that

primary.

[bluestate10]

13. Clinton was more progressive, her policy proposals were to the left of Obama's

The Left was not listening, as usual.

[MannyGoldstein]

19. Clinton to the left of Obama? Please remind me on which issues.

Thanks.

[bluestate10]

21. War, women's abortion rights, health care. Just a few that come to mind. nt

[MannyGoldstein]

25. Sorry, not ringing a bell. At all.

Perhaps you can provide links on these three that demonstrate your point.

[bluestate10]

33. Search yourself. The web has the history. nt

[adhd_what_huh]

45. stop harassing people with silly link request....

[joshcryer]

26. Well, I think it's against the rules to rehash it. Go back to Krugman's posts.

She was anti-NAFTA but that blew up in her face because she'd been shown that she supported it during Bill's tenure. And wanted a public option plus a mandate. Obama wanted a public option but he did not want a mandate, that was a big issue for me (and Krugman) during the primaries. The mandate was the sticking point. The worst thing happened where a mandate without a public option occurred, which is pure profiteering and disgusting. The only solace is that Obama managed to get a state option passed so eventually Hillary's mandate + public option idea will be realized (if we don't go full singer payer before then).

edit: the main sticking point for me is that Obama was playing middle of the isle and while Hillary may have been from the DLC camp, I knew she wouldn't play games with the Republicans, those 49 days that we had the House + Senate would've been crazy if we had someone who would've capitalized on it.

[MannyGoldstein]

28. Obama wanted to renegotiate NAFTA, too.

Otherwise, that's what I recall.

[joshcryer]

30. She claimed to have been completely opposed to it.

Obama claimed that because she was there during the meetings (as a First Lady) she was responsible. Gergen claimed she was opposed to it. Obama wants to renegotiate, she wanted to end it.

[joshcryer]

36. Search Google for this to see how passionate I was about this issue:

hillary joshcryer mandate site:democraticunderground.com

Forgive any lapse of judgment or insulting I may have done, it was a very very trying time for me, because I read both of their plans and I knew Obama's was a failure waiting to happen, and I was http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=132&topic_id=5384531&mesg_id=5384749">proven correct.

[joshcryer]

46. OH GOD NO, I just read some of those posts and completely forgot about MI / FL delegates.

:rofl:

Wow. Just. Wow. I wish I wasn't reminded about that. :cry:

MI and FL broke DNC convention rules and voted early, so their delegates weren't supposed to count. DU spent an inordinate amount of time pining for the unlikely scenario where seating the delegates (for the nomination) would rest on Obama, with a less than 50-60 point spread. So basically, if he seated them, the delegates would nominate Hillary, if he didn't seat them, they'd nominate him. Those debates were so hardcore here on DU, I seriously am amazed I wasn't banned (but to my credit I was being just as bad as everyone else).

I remember keep trying to explain to people that MI and FL would be seated or there'd be a brokered convention but people didn't get the math. :P

[Proles]

70. Well, even if Clinton weren't more progressive,

she at least understands republican mentality, and would fight for what she wanted.

[joshcryer]

20. Yep, completely.

Hell, if she went right after being elected we might've wound up where Obama campaigned at. :P

[bluestate10]

12. President Obama.

-Supported the war in Afghanistan, with more covert activity. Just what has been delivered.
-Supported withdrawal of troops from Iraq, IF, conditions on the ground there warranted. What is being done.
-Supported limited financial reform. What was enacted,
-Supported a woman's right to choose, with limits on certain procedures.
-Supported Health Care Reform that could be realized, wanted the individual mandate, depending. The very policy that was enacted.

Progressives saw President Obama as progressive because progressives wanted to believe that a progressive candidate could win the WH. The reality is that NONE of candidate Obama's policy proposals were progressive

[MannyGoldstein]

22. "Any bill I sign must include a public option"

And of course there's http://www.thedailyshow.com/watch/tue-june-15-2010/respect-my-authoritah

As to financial reform: it's a joke. Unless we have Glass-Steagall restored, it's a joke.

[bluestate10]

24. Clinton's positions on your list matched Obama's. Obama was further right

on war and foreign policy.

[MannyGoldstein]

27. Which list of mine are you referring to? nt

[bluestate10]

31. The one that you listed. Did you not see that? nt

[joshcryer]

32. Glass-Steagall isn't the problem, derivatives and CDOs are.

They remain largely unregulated, because the people in charge think they're too complicated to regulate. If they are then they should be banned, otherwise an attempt should be made to regulate them.

[Chan790]

43. LBJ.

The guy gave us Medicare and the Great Society. I think his progressive credentials are above reproach.

[adhd_what_huh]

49. you must be kidding....he refused the Dem party

nomination knowing he would not win because of his war policy. He never ran as a progressive.

[Chan790]

53. Progressivism has nothing to with pacifism and never has.

Or militarism for that matter.

It's a domestic social-policy label. It has to do with favoring or advocating changes or reform through governmental action for the public betterment. It's being pro-safety-net and pretty-much nothing more or less.

The Progressive Movement began in the late 19th and early 20th centuries in cities with settlement workers and reformers who were interested in helping those facing harsh conditions at home and at work. The reformers spoke out about the need for laws regulating tenement housing and child labor. They also called for better working conditions for women.

In the United States, the term progressivism emerged in reference to a more general response to the vast changes brought by industrialization: an alternative to both the traditional conservative response to social and economic issues and to the various more radical streams of socialism and anarchism which opposed them. Political parties, such as the Progressive Party, organized at the start of the 20th century, and progressivism made great strides under American presidents Theodore Roosevelt, Woodrow Wilson, Franklin Delano Roosevelt, and Lyndon Baines Johnson.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Progressivism

[adhd_what_huh]

54. The Gulf of Tonkin was not very progressive.

[Chan790]

56. I want to see you explain that one...

as I just explained, Progressivism is exclusive of foreign policy. It's about domestic social policy.

[adhd_what_huh]

57. So you think Bush could have been a progressive

if you approved of his domestic policy.

You cannot be a progressive while lying us into a war. You may lay claim to progressive domestic policy such as health care but cannot refer to yourself as a progressive while sending your men and women to their deaths in a war based on lies. Otherwise you could say Hitler was a progressive.

[Chan790]

58. Words have meanings.

Just because you don't like what this one means, doesn't mean you can make it mean what you want.

It has nothing to do with what I like, it has to do with adhering to Progressive policies. Those policies are those that extend the social safety net, worker and public protections, and curbs on the abuses of the public by industry...so yes, if Bush or Hitler has passed such domestic policies, they'd be Progressives but their foreign policy would still make them tyrants.

Obama has not engaged in policies that extend the social safety net, worker and public protections, and curbs on the abuses of the public by industry; in fact one can easily argue the opposite, so he's less of a Progressive than your hypothetical bizzaro alt-reality Bush...though more of a Progressive than real Bush.

This is fact not fiction for the first time in years and clearly you can't handle the truth.

[adhd_what_huh]

61. spare me your silly lectures and stop conflating the early

20th century progressive movement with what we Democrats consider a Progressive aka liberal Democrat to be today in 2011.

Obama is not and never claimed to be a progressive or a liberal. I on the other hand am, but I do not require my elected reps to be pure as politics does not allow for it.

[Chan790]

68. So your entire argument is that words have no meaning.

The term as you put it "what we Democrats consider a Progressive aka liberal Democrat to be today in 2011" is undefined and outside of even any feint of a consensus in meaning...literally, Democrats can't agree on what it means or is inclusive or exclusive of. Your personal definition is as meaningless as everybody else because it's not universal.

So...anybody can be a Progressive if they claim to be or is this a Potter Stewart type thing where you know a Progressive when you see one?

That seems handy, perhaps since words have no meanings, we should abandon linguistics altogether?

[adhd_what_huh]

50. Carter gave us one term and Ronald Reagan...

keep bagging on Obama and see where that takes us.

[Chan790]

55. Back to progressivism?

:shrug:

Obama's no progressive and if we can't have a progressive be viable, we're wasting our time when we should be stockpiling for the armed resistance. I obviously don't think that's the case.

[Fearless]

67. Ted Kennedy, Bernie Sanders, Al Franken, just to name a few more.

[Name removed]

7. Deleted message

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

[Safetykitten]

52. It's the pastime of us. Underestimating republicans. It's a game that we never tire of.

[Fearless]

65. +100000!

[Autumn]

3. Sure.

And rainbows will abound.





:spray:

[rucky]

4. Do they even need Dem votes in the House?

[bluestate10]

16. Democratic votes will be needed. If you are watching new casts, that has

been pointed out several times by guests. Pelosi will deliver a large enough mass of democrats that will enact a bill that the Senate will accept.

[Morizovich]

8. I WISH I COULD REC THIS 20,000 TIMES!!!

But I can only do one. :(

[MadHound]

10. Well, that post just shows how clearly where your priorities lie

"having House democrats resolve the impasse will yield large net positives for democratic candidates in the 2012 election,"

Never mind that these unprecedented, record breaking spending cuts will do great harm to millions of people, and sink the economy, all that matters is that it somehow is a positive for Democratic candidates. Putting politics before people:puke:

[bluestate10]

18. The best democrats can do is limit damage. Strong majorities after 2013

elections will allow democrats to enact legislation that will last. People will not be damaged as republicans are put in electoral trouble. The issue that I have with the typical position that you and other extreme progressives take is that any projection that YOU make of the future is the ONLY one that will turn out to be right, that is so teabagger like.

[MadHound]

23. No, the Dems, including the president, can stand strong,

And, as sometimes happens, when the hour is late, gather enough sane 'Pugs to pass through a clean debt ceiling bill. Failing that, Obama can, at the last moment, pull the trigger on the 14th amendment option. Better a Constitutional crisis than an economic disaster.

And again, your preoccupation of having the party look good, being put over the well being of everybody, is simply disgusting. You are willing to sacrifice millions on the altar of politics. Have you no shame.

And http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=edit&forum=439&topic_id=1620021&mesg_id=1620472predicting that the largest spending cuts EVER will be a disaster to this economy is not extreme. Every single economist who is intellectually honest will tell you that enacting such draconian spending cuts in the midst of a very fragile economic downturn will crater the economy. Go, look that up for yourself, educate yourself on some basic economic realities. You are operating under the delusion that somehow we can make massive cuts in spending without any drawbacks, and you are simply wrong. How well will your precious party do next November when the economy is tanked? Ever think about that?

And your labeling of people who are promoting economic sanity as "extreme" simply shows how reactionary you have become. Your "teabagger" insult simply goes to show how intellectually and morally void your arguments and positions have become, without solid factual and moral standing, you resort to insults.

Stay classy. Better yet, stay real.

On edit, let's see what a Nobel winning economist has to say.
""From the perspective of a rational person -- in other words a progressive -- we shouldn't be talking about spending cuts at all now," Krugman said during a roundtable discussion on ABCNews' This Week With Christiane Amanpour. "We have 9 percent unemployment. These spending cuts are going to worsen unemployment. It's even going to hold the long-run fiscal picture because we have a situation where more and more people are becoming permanent long-term unemployed."
<http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2011/07/29/debt-ceiling-deadline-default_n_913809.html#411_krugman-there-is-no-light-at-the-end-of-this-tunnel>

[bluestate10]

29. I favor the 14th Amendment option over all else other than tax increases

in a bill. But the reality is that the 14th looks like it is off the table. So, unless you and other progressives want to see massive damage to your and the country's financial health, the only choice that is left is for Pelosi to take charge of the House. Reality is hard, but ignoring that reality in favor of a wish list helps no one. Believe me, if the country goes into default, the poor and elderly will be destroyed in a matter of months. If a bill is passed, some negative changes will happen, but mass destruction will be averted. Is you position really progressive given the 14th is off the table? You position will lead to mass economic disruption.

[MadHound]

34. Nothing is off the table yet

The pressure of the eleventh hour, and we have not reached that, can work wonders. The Dems and the President need to stand strong. I'm willing to bet that if the Dems hold out to eleven pm Monday, they can get a clean bill pushed through Congress quickly.

And failing that, the 14th is still there, waiting for the President to act. It is not off the table.

The only difference between the damage of us defaulting, and taking this odious bill is the difference between a quick death and a death by a thousand cuts. Both options will bring this economy crashing down. Read that Krugman link I just put up. He, a Nobel winning economist is saying the same thing I am. But I suppose you consider him to be an extremist as well.

[bluestate10]

37. Milton Friedman is a Nobel Prize winning economist. If the prize it the gate,

Friedman and his F'ed up prescriptions for the economy are bona-fide. Let me be clear, I favor implementation of the 14th at this time, but that is unlikely. In light of reality, Pelosi becomes the key player.

[MadHound]

38. Yes, but I've seen you quote Krugman as well,

So that means that you consider him to at least be sane.

And the 14th Amendment is not unlikely, but it will have to be done at the last minute, when all else fails. But it is better than any "deal" that is being done.

[bluestate10]

40. I prefer Krugman's path. I just think his tone is wrong. Friedman=joke. nt

[MadHound]

44. So if you prefer Krugman's path,

Why are you advocating for a deal that would make Friedman proud?

[adhd_what_huh]

47. bluestate10 is on the button.

the rest of you can fall on your own sword and bite off you own nose...

The goal is to win back the house. Period. Get on board or get out of the way.

[MadHound]

48. No, the goal is to do what is best for the American people

Screw politics, putting in these sort of historical, draconian spending cuts will tank the economy and do massive harm to millions of people.

But hey, keep on putting politics ahead of people.:puke:

[adhd_what_huh]

51. I can win the next election and give health care to all

and everything else we want or I can where my purity on my sleeve and loose all for another generation. Please do not be so selfish.

[MadHound]

69. Wow, you can do all that?

Somehow I seriously doubt that, and your delusions of such grandeur make me question both your basic intelligence and sanity.

[Morizovich]

14. REC THIS, GOD DAMN YOU!!!

:argh::grr::cry:

[MadHound]

15. What are you yelling about?

Can I suggest that you lay off the caffeine.

[Name removed]

17. Deleted sub-thread

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

[trueblue2007]

35. God Bless you Speaker Pelosi. You are an intelligent and vital leader!

[LLStarks]

39. Pelosi has been appropriately irrelevant throughout this whole debt ceiling crap. nt

[bluestate10]

42. She steps back in and grabs the mantle today. nt

[Major Hogwash]

64. She sure as hell did! Boehner may have the gavel, but Pelosi holds Excalibur!

And she's going to cut Boehner's nuts off with it!!

You watch, you're omniscient, Pelosi is the key to the whole shebang!

[grahamhgreen]

41. If it's "cuts only", it is not acceptable. Clean bill or 14th amend.

[Major Hogwash]

59. She sure as hell is now!!! Because Reid is giving away the whole fucking farm!

The barn, the horses, everything.
Hell, they're even discussing forming a star chamber to tell Congress what to do by Thanksgiving!!!

Reid is agreeing to $3 Trillion in cuts, with no TAX INCREASES!!

They're discussing it right now in the Senate, as reported on CNN!!
Just now!!

[Major Hogwash]

60. Reid's plan -- NO TAX HIKES!! But, he couldn't even get cloture passed!!

Reported on MSNBC!
Just now!!

Reid couldn't even break the cloture vote!
It's obvious the Republicans are marching in lockstep to gum the works up now!!

[Major Hogwash]

62. The debt ceiling has been raised 89 times and they never held the country hostage before!

Not ever before.
Neither party!

This is ridiculous!!

[Name removed]

63. Deleted message

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

[lonestarnot]

66. On this I agree.

[liberalla]

71. I hope Pelosi can work some magic

A ray of hope...