Blame Democrats and Give Republicans A Free Pass - The Left Will Express Their Anger Once Again

[TomCADem]

...By boycotting the 2012 elections, as they did in 2010, whereas the right will express their hate for Marxist Democrats by winning elections like they did in 2010.

When the right gets angry, they get organized (with a lot of astroturf assistance), and win elections. When the left gets angry, they stay home and pout (with a lot of encouragement by the corporate media), or at best, vote Democratic grudgingly as they complain to everyone that can hear.

The corporate media has done a great job training both the right and the left to act appropriately.

Now, please respond to this post by offering long explanations as to why staying at home is such a powerful empowerment tool for the left, and why the right simply goes out and wins elections even if it means unseating REPUBLICAN incumbents like Bob Bennett or establishment candidates like Mike Castle in Delaware.

And, when only conservative Americans vote in 2012, the left will act completely dumbfounded when our Nation's politicians adopt and approve policies that lean rightward.

[flamingdem]

Don't in any way encourage the boycotting of elections, that = encouraging facism nt

[Skidmore]

20. I don't think the OP was encouraging such a boycott, just stating a fact.

RWers turned out for the past election and Dems sat home and pouted. Thus we got a whole slew of Teabaggers at all levels of government, and now we see the result both in policy and on this board. I'm so sick of the incessant caterwauling that goes on as though no one on this side of the political spectrum had any responsibility for the CONGRESS we ended up with.

[W_HAMILTON]

1. How about this?

Crazy ass Republicans in government do a far better job of promoting the left's "brand" than do weak and ineffectual Democrats.

[seabeyond]

3. or... repugs dont care the chaos and destruction they create, whereas dems do.

hence, to threaten loss of money to poor, so they can survive or eat doesnt bother repugs at all. as a matter of fact, their threat is far from idle, they want it to happen

[W_HAMILTON]

7. Then the answer should be for Democrats to fight just as hard...

...for those people they purportedly care about rather than throw us under the bus so often.

[seabeyond]

9. they are. and if the debt ceiling is not raised that is exactly what happens.

a whole lot of people get thrown under.

i dont like it either. i will be so pissed if defense, revenue is not a part of it. but i am not foolish enough to believe that not giving anything is for the people. the dems would never let it happen. the repugs will. like it or not, it is the reality. i can sit in being pissed at what is happening, and still know what is happening, instead of ignoring key elements of the issue, so i can bogusly point finger at dems.

blame is on the repugs. solely. totally. absolutely. on the repugs.

[treestar]

30. +1000

[Doctor_J]

The Dems such as the president have adopted a "lie back and enjoy it" philosophy

making deals with the raping, murdering repukes to try and get them to do their raping and murdering in a kindly fashion. This type of appeasement provides no disincentive for the rapist the next time he gets the urge to rape. and it makes it hard for those against "rape" to vigorously support the appeaser.

[seabeyond]

33. hyperbole. and wrong. again, repugs dont care if they destroy the country.

they dont care if people are hurt. their threat is real, cause they will let it happen. the dems wont let it happen. if they didnt cave to the tax reductions, then all those people didnt get their unemployment. having unemployment stop to so many people is not a dem win.

it is bullshit and made up to say "lie back and enjoy it". it is exactly what Op is saying blame the dems. it is ignoring reality to sit in your position and make something up. the same as the repugs. no better.

the teaparty of the repugs would allow the vote not go thru and cause a lot of hurt to a lot of people. that is a reality.

it is on the voters that vote these people in.

[Doctor_J]

39. Giving in to every demand by the fascists IS destroying the country

If the Dems cave in on this (they will, of course), then a few months from now the teabaggers will

1. Bash the Dems mercilessly anyway,
2. Demand even more egregious concessions next time

This deal with the terrorists was screwed up from day 1, with the president offering pre-emptive "compromise" and lamely saying, "both sides are to blame" before negotitations even started. What he should have done was state, clearly, that this debt is money that these same teabaggers already spent, and that while he knows that Joe Walsh is a deadbeat, he didn't think the entire Republican caucus was. And then say every time the microphone is on that this is money already spent by George Bush and the reactionary Congress. Very simple, very accurate - already spent, entirely be Republicans. But he's an appeaser, and so was unable to muster up the courage to tell the truth, and thus lost the debate.

That's not my problem. Well, it sort of is, since I campaigned and voted for him. But if he wants to drum up votes from the far right, any idiot should be able to work out that some from the left will be lost.

[seabeyond]

41. hell ya, i agree. k. fine. so dont raise the debt ceiling and see how that plays out for everyone

dont allow the unemplyment to go thru and see how that does for those people. hey... i will be fine. fuck them. lets make a point.

talking to father today and he told me pissed at both party. will vote for whoever isnt in office. bauchmann? i say. yup. better than what we got. right only wants their stuff. pelosi only wants dems stuff. tired of both.

that is his conclusion. you tell me how anyone can conclude a trillion in cuts is dems only putting out what they want?

i am so goddamn tired of people ignoring reality to stand in their perception.

like it or not, be honest.

i dont like it. bt i also know who is responsible for it.

[Doctor_J]

45. At what point do you suggest we stop giving in to the terrorists demands?

Suppose in September they say, "Cut income taxes to zero or we'll kill every man woman and child in New York". The smart move there would be for the president to sign that repeal of the income tax to keep everyone in NY from getting killed. At some point you must stand up against terrorism, or it will just continue. I am goddamn tired of getting far right policies enacted by people who call themselves Democrats.

[Edweird]

2. I'm not a republican. They don't represent me, don't receive my vote, and are not accountable to me.

[EFerrari]

4. Still waiting for that evidence of a boycott in 2010.

[yardwork]

5. The Left did not boycott elections in 2010 or vote for Republicans. That has been debunked.

Stop spreading that falsehood.

[BumRushDaShow]

6. K&R

:applause:

(although I expect that this post will be rec'd way down into oblivion shortly because it'll touch the root)

[msongs]

8. blame "the left " for the current administration's endorsement of republican policies? ok nt

[villager]

10. blame "the left," but never hold the right -- or your own rightwing policies -- accountable!

Create the usual "Bolshevik phantoms" and pin the nation's ills on them.

A very old trick from a very old playbook.

[treestar]

28. Why is it "endorsement" to compromise where you have to?

Have you never had to do anything you didn't agree with doing, due to preserve some other interest?

It could be said that Boner is "endorsing a Democratic policy" if he signs off of any bill raising the debt ceiling.

[Doctor_J]

34. I looked up compromise, and it doesn't apply to the president

compromise means giving up something to get something in return.

[treestar]

37. You are honestly insisting the Democrats would get "nothing" in return?

[bluerum]

11. I do not "stay at home". I vote. But you go right ahead and continue your broad brush lecture.

And I will proceed to ignore.

[TheKentuckian]

12. False premise for the express purpose of setting up fingerpointing when

the sadsack "sensible centrist" baloney fails again.

In 2010 we elected our rep and tried our best to drag our out of touch "sensible centrist" Senate candidate over the line in the face of Paul even with him shooting himself in the foot adopting failed economics and embracing silly season drug warrior shit, kinda waffling around.

I didn't see any peckerwood "sensible centrists" nor any "pragmatic progressives" till it was time to put on the party clothes, sip cocktails, and wait for the returns and speeches.

Maybe hosted a fundraiser to allow some hobnobbing and face time but that is it.

[lame54]

13. It seems we are here because WE WON an election

[INdemo]

14. The problem is ...It is a shame that with the Presidential race the

only choices we will have will be a Republicrat or a Republican. Now either way middle class Americans will lose..the Seniors will lose and organized labor will lose..Labor unions may not support Obama so that could mean the Republicrat could lose..and one cannot hold a voters hand and walk them to the polls and force them to vote..Now as far as Seniors ..Republicans will find a way of scaring the hell out of Seniors and blame Obama for allowing SS and medicare cuts (and there will be) and wallah will pick up the Seniors vote ..So whether we stay home on not we lose..If voters decide to stay home it will be for the same reason they stayed home in 2010..Its because Obama has given away the store and whatever is left of the Democratic party is up for bids.
Just remember the Democratic voter did not destroy our party..It was the leader of our ticket that destroyed it.
We turned out in record number in 2008 to elect a Democrat...But as it turned out (obviously) we elected a Republicrat and Democratic voters will not make the same mistake twice.

[alcibiades_mystery]

15. The difference between the left and right

When the right sees something they oppose, they threaten political reprisal. When the left sees something they don't like, they transform it into an inherent flaw in the Dem candidate.

[Doctor_J]

18. Oh, sorry, thanks for playing

When the right sees something they oppose, they threaten political reprisal.

Actually that's what we on the left are doing, and what has the necons' and DINOs' panties all twisted up

[treestar]

29. Exactly! Like naval gazing of the dumbest kind.

Followed to its logical conclusion, the left should really blame themselves when Republicans win. Instead they just blame any Democrats who did manage to win!

[Doctor_J]

16. Why should we vote for someone who doesn't represent us?

the president has embraced right-wing ideology to garner votes from "centrists" and "independents". Well, OK, that is a choice he made. But by lurching to the right, he's lurched AWAY from traditional Democratic policies, and it should surprise no one that when he walks away from us, some of us will say good-bye.

Your sentence about the media is ridiculous - Big Media still claims the president is a Marxist. They haven't trained me to do anything, except not listen to them.

[treestar]

32. Because other votes are counted in the total.

The offices will not remain empty because no one who ran for them represents us.

[dameocrat67]

17. it is not us that sat out and wont be next time

self inflicted wounds are sad sad sad. I will fight like hell to keep another rubin ally from getting the nomination for presidency again. This was planned.

[hulka38]

19. People like you and I are not on the same team.

We never were so stop pretending. What makes you think the left will take advice on what's in their best interests from you, someone who supports war mongering, Wall Street controlled, New Deal busting "Democrats". Be the Republican you aways wanted to be.

[ljm2002]

21. I'm sorry, who is calling for boycotting the elections?

Citations please.

Now if you're saying we may see the same dynamic play out as in 2010, you could be right. But you are eager to blame it on "The Left" while being strangely silent about the politicians who have undercut the very heart of what differentiates the Democratic Party from the Republican Party.

No one is giving the Republicans a free pass. But Republicans are merely doing what Republicans always do: support the haves at the expense of the have-nots. Oh, and lie and fearmonger. We already know this about them. What we wanted to see was some actual opposition to their policies. We wanted to see our party actively champion the causes that benefit the middle class and the poor.

Why do you blame "The Left" while giving sold-out Democratic politicians a free pass?

[Doctor_J]

24. This is just another straw man from the fringe right

One one hand they tell us that the president HAS to become a de facto Repuke to court "moderate" voters. Then they tell us that we're to blame for that.

you, btw, hit the nail squarely on the head:

No one is giving the Republicans a free pass. But Republicans are merely doing what Republicans always do: support the haves at the expense of the have-nots. Oh, and lie and fearmonger. We already know this about them. What we wanted to see was some actual opposition to their policies. We wanted to see our party actively champion the causes that benefit the middle class and the poor.

[grahamhgreen]

22. Let this be a warning to any Dems voting for these bills.

[hfojvt]

23. sometimes it is very, very hard not to blame your own team

When they keep punting on second down instead of trying for a first down, when they say things that make it sound like THEY themselves do not care whether we (the people) win or lose. When an opposing linebacker breaks through the line and our glorious quarterback does not scramble, does not stand his ground and throw a strike downfield before getting buried in the turf, but rather just seems to go "eek" and toss the ball to the limebacker and then run downfield cheering for the 'Bipartisan" victory as the other team scores (see, Bush taxcut surrender, December 2010).

Take another example, my former Governor Kathleen Sebelius, who is now Secretary of HHS. When she was Governor, in her final term in 2008 (she is limited by Kansas law to two terms) there was a budget shortfall. The legislature is ruled by Republicans, so they would never pass a tax increase on the wealthy. But did Sebelius even bother to fight for one, or ask for one? Nope, instead she came out with a key Republican talking point, saying "a tax incrase would hurt Kansas families". This is a little bit like having a quarterback get the ball, flip it across the line to the opposing safety and then turn around and kick the fullback in the nuts. Which fucking side are you on? Because on my side we do not believe and we do not spout bullsh*t Republican talking points about taxes.

I expect that from the other team, so I sorta give them a pass (sort of http://journals.democraticunderground.com/hfojvt/133, http://journals.democraticunderground.com/hfojvt/128, http://journals.democraticunderground.com/hfojvt/125, http://journals.democraticunderground.com/hfojvt/120) but I don't expect, nor tolerate that from what is supposed to be my own frigging team.

[treestar]

27. What good would asking and having it shot down do?

She was the governor, so how would it look for her asking the Leg. to do something and have them refuse? And of course she would not want to increase taxes on middle class families.

I swear DU thinks that if Obama would get on TV and make a speak asking Congress to please pass a bill for single payor, nationalizing the oil companies, etc. that the Republican House would move to the left! Instead of laughing their asses off. With the M$M.

No it was not throwing the ball to the other team. The analogy simply does not fit. An Executive is not like the QB of one football team while an opposing legislature is like an opposing football team. The bill has to start in the legislature. Therefore, it is more like a football game with rules like: the home team gets the football every time. There is no way for the away team's QB to have the football. The home team has to decide on its own to give the football to the away team before the away team can even try to play it. Once the away team has the ball, it can either keep it forever or toss it out of the stadium.

[TheKentuckian]

47. Because you must at least present and stand for ideas that might not win today

so they can be a part of the dialog tomorrow when the odds improve.

Accepting the game being played entirely on the oppositions side of the field ensures defeat today and defeat tomorrow. You are left failing to have even made a case for workable solutions and in effect rubberstamping whatever is passed, which makes you own it just like the opposition. In fact by being the executive you own it more in the eyes of the public.

You not only lose this week and all this season but make winning more difficult in the future as well by handcuffing yourself today.

Our opposition never cedes the field. They are willing to take hugely unpopular stances and stick with them come hell and high water until what used to been nearly universally as absurd seeps into the common wisdom.

Sometimes the quarterback has to take a sack or throw the ball away to preserve down or distance and not to make a huge error which gives away the ball in scoring position and nobody fucking punts on early downs.

[treestar]

51. Well when a Democratic politician does say such things

I suspect then you'll say it is just hot air.

Use the bully pulpit! Then the person does it and it's just "hot air."

Gov. Sebelius demanded all that she was to demand and it would just be "hot air."

Too bad you credit Republicans with a bully pulpit where just saying their extreme demands has an effect and when the Ds do the same thing it is just hot air.

[hfojvt]

53. there it is - it's my fault that elected Democrats don't say progressive things

and instead advance the ideas of Reaganomics and Grover Norquist. And the OP where it is my fault for attacking them for advancing Reaganomics and Grover Norquist instead of blaming the Republicans who can be expected to advance Reaganomics - especially when there seems to be no opposition.

[hfojvt]

49. the ball WAS thrown to the other team on the Bush tax cuts

He didn't have to DO anything to just let them expire, but then he could go on TV and keep pounding the Republicans for letting them expire.

As for Sebelius, I think it would do a lot of good to propose a 1% increase on incomes over $100,000. Those people are in the top 10% in Kansas. 90.7% of Kansas households have less than $100,000 in income http://www.ksrevenue.org/pdf/kstaxincidencestudy.pdf see the chart on page 70. The Governor could use that study to point out that the middle class is currently paying a higher percentage of their income in Kansas tases than the rich. 42.7% of households make less than $35,000 and pay an average tax rate of more than 10.5%. Another 38.4% make between $35,000 and $75,000 and pay an average rate of over 9%. Meanwhile those making over $100,000 pay an average rate of 8% or less.

So propose that 1% increase and let Republicans vote it down. Then every Democratic candidate can use that in the next election. Republicans just put a mere 1% increase in taxes on the rich over YOUR schools, YOUR roads, and jobs in YOUR community. YOU are going to lose services and see your property taxes go up. Democrats are on YOUR side, the side of the middle class, and Republicans are not, they are on the side of the rich.

Putting the top 10% ahead of the rest of us should have consequences, and it might if Democrats would even at least TRY to fight for the bottom 90%. They probably couldn't have done worse in the 2010 elections than they actually did.

Again, though, to kill the Bush tax cuts did not even take any legislation. Nor does Obama have to keep proposing regressive tax cuts as a way to stimulate the economy. He is not required to channel Ronald Reagan. He chooses to do that all by himself, probably with an assistance from the cabinet, a group that he picked himself.

[treestar]

52. Well whatever it was Obama got for extending the tax cuts

would certainly be considered caving not to have gotten it. Some people are just never satisfied.

Dems are judged so much more harshly by other Dems that it's a wonder they ever win or get anything at all. Republicans don't judge themselves that harshly.

It's more rather than playing, the D team goes to the locker room to criticize themselves and how they played. The R team uses the time to score.

[treestar]

25. True, in a rare case of Republicans having the same problem

they lost a Delaware seat in congress they could have had. That could happen in reverse, too.

[John Agar]

26. Well, I for one did not boycott, nor do I ever not vote.

I doubt that many here ever do, from what I read, anyway.

The ones to worry about are the less experienced, young and other more or less "new" voters who believed the 2008 promises of hope and change.

With each betrayal and lurch to the right, it is Obama and the Republi-Dems who are encouraging voters to stay home.

[Tierra_y_Libertad]

31. Explain why Democratic candidates don't appeal to left rather than the right/middle.

And, then whine when they don't get the left's votes.

[Doctor_J]

35. There is the "appeaser's dilemna"

in a nut shell. They give us nothing, telling us how they have to "appeal to the centrists", then complain when we don't follow along blindly.

[Aerows]

36. The only Democrats

that think Blue Dogs are a good idea, is the shrinking Blue Dog constituency. My blue dog Rep isn't a rep anymore - he's chummed up with a Republican as a lobbyist.

Both idiots got voted out, and for good reason - they served themselves. I'm fed up with Blue Dogs, because they are Third Way.

Fuck third way, fuck blue dogs, and anyone that actually believes in the principles set forth by the Democratic party will thank me. And thank me again, later.

[LWolf]

38. I vote from the left, I always vote, and, since

I live in a vote by mail state, I always stay home.

[Doctor_J]

40. Actually the president himself gives the Repukes a free pass

This entire budget deficit and the threat of default are their doing. Yet he insists on placing the blame on "both parties".

[nadinbrzezinski]

42. Two points on this screed

1.-Point to me the ones blaming the dems and giving the FAR right wing a free pass?

2.- People are damn tired of the games in DC and guess what skippy... they are tired of BOTH parties... at this point from Real Life conversations the Tea Party is the one getting the brunt of it... but whatever.

[mmonk]

43. When you explain the free pass for Republican style and framed ideology.

[NoodleyAppendage]

44. I blame Obama and our collective gullibility in 2008 to actually buy their dog/pony show.

At this point I'm not seeing much difference between the party leaderships, so I'll vote Democratic locally but I WILL NOT VOTE FOR OBAMA in 2012. He's lost my vote.

As yourself are you enabling the problem by being FEARED into voting Democratic?

J

[SidDithers]

46. Absolute truth, but it won't go over well at DU...nt

Sid

[Odin2005]

48. Unrec for lying about us giving Pukes a free pass.

And it is a LIE.

[JackRiddler]

50. Already coming up with the ass-covering story for a possible 2012 disaster at the polls?

Here's a hint: Don't implement Republican policies. Don't cut Social Security. Expand, don't cut, Medicare. Find your fiscal responsibility where the real spending is, within the discretionary budget: wars, bogus "defense," "homeland security." Stand your fucking ground and present a clear alternative. The world isn't ending, the next election is always coming. Give Americans a choice.

But if Obama cuts Social Security and is therefore hammered at the polls, don't come looking to blame "the left." Pathetic.