Is there anyone here NOT ANGRY at the republicans by now?

[old mark]

Can we use that energy to try to defeat them in 2012...or must we look forward to the GOP taking over the Federal government completely?

Can we get together despite our individual differences?

mark

[mmonk]

1. That's up to our politicians.

I don't vote Republican anyway.

[Le Taz Hot]

2. I'm angry at BOTH parties.

It's stupid to blame all this misery on one party alone.

[Scuba]

3. Bingo!

[Vinee]

4. but so much easier than any of the alternatives. nt

[stillwaiting]

6. +1

We DU'ers have all been angry at the Republicans for a very long time. On that we're united.

Many of us who are active in trying to get votes for Democrats strongly feel like we were failed by elected Democrats leading up to the 2010 elections. There were very few accomplishments that I could effectively tout to garner support from friends and family for a party that was, for the most part, still heading down the very same road our country has been on since Reagan. My enthusiasm for elected Dems was strongly hampered by their own sell out performance. They have to fight, and they have to expose Republicans for what they are and who they represent, and elected Dems failed to do that. Shock! It should have been easy. Very easy. The filibuster in the Senate on tax credits for outsourcing of American jobs by itself should have tied up Congress for the Democrats if utilized during election season. Which leads me to believe that Dem leadership and many Dems are in on the con. They get paid very well for going along with it. Again, they have to fight for us. Their display from 2008-2010 certainly didn't fit that bill.

I will vote Dem next election (unless a massive movement builds that has a feasible chance of success), and I will TRY to gain support for Dems. They need to begin to act and behave in ways that make me believe they deserve to be elected though. My advocating for them will be much more effective that way. Repubs always seem able to block pretty much everything that liberals want passed when Dems are in power, and Dems just roll over when they could gain political support and power by fighting. It's kind of transparent what's happening in our country I'd say.

Having Republicans behave downright antisocial and batshit crazy while in power and STRONGLY pushing their batshit crazy agenda through and having Dems not fighting hard against it is pretty unforgivable. Dems need to pull out all the stops to make Repubs fail in getting their legislation passed. Dems can do this too, but it will take effort. They will have to block bills and go on national media clearly explaining what will happen to average Americans and why they can't pass Repub legislation. Dems can stop this insane agenda AND gain public support. That is, if its really what they want.

We'll see.

[old mark]

7. Thank you-I am not thrilled by the cowardly Democrats either-far from it- but

the GOP has absolutely no interest in trying to solve any of the problems they mostly created.
Anyone who thinks more republicans in office will help this situation is crazy...or stupid.

mark

[Le Taz Hot]

13. Your claim is that the Democrats haven't fought

for the poor and middle class. I'm saying that the Democrats are COMPLICIT in the destruction of our Democracy. A couple of weeks ago Obama was playing footsies with the Chamber of Commerce -- one of the most corrupt right-wing organizations on the face of the earth. He's going to Florida this week to cozy up with Jeb Bush. You know where he isn't? Wisconsin. Meeting with unions. Hell, I'd be happy with some sort of announcement in support of the unions. Face it. BOTH parties are bought and paid for by the same entities -- the predator class -- and we're left with crumbs. Fuck Democrat/Republican. This is all-out class warfare and NEITHER of the major political party is on our side. When you have to BEG a politician to carry out what is SUPPOSED to be the agenda of their OWN PARTY, something is dreadfully, drastically and FUNDAMENTALLY wrong.

[Little Star]

32. How right you are, Le Taz Hot !

[stillwaiting]

51. Sorry if my post wasn't clear. I agree with you 100%.

When Dems don't fight it's not because they are "weak" or "spineless".

They are complicit. It's their role to often play "weak", and sometimes it's their role to push right wing policy in order to somehow gain support from supposed liberals.

The Dems can't just openly collaborate and support the BS policies that the Repubs push which decimate the middle/working classes, but they can behave just as they have been for the past three decades and ensure that right wing policies get enacted and legitimized.

I admire the Wisconsin Senate Dems. I hope to still be admiring them after this drama plays out, and I wish more Dems would actually do what the Party's platform espouses in standing up for the poor/working/middle classes.

It's time to change the system.

[BzaDem]

8. But considering that those are the two parties (whether anyone likes it or not), doesn't it make

sense to focus one's energy on defeating Republicans, rather than enabling their election in the voting booth?

[boston bean]

9. Doesn't it make sense to fight republican policy everywhere?

If the people of Wisconsin can defeat this measure, the protest and civil disobedience might be stronger than the vote.

[BzaDem]

11. If by "fighting Republican policy" you mean "fighting Democrats at the ballot box," then no.

Since the result of such folly would result in far more right wing policy.

When one analyzes a situation and proposes a course of action, it is important to look at what the resulting outcome of such a course of action would be (and not be blind to it).

[boston bean]

12. NO, not the ballot box, protests, civil disobedience

to make them represent us. Not just be a little less worse than the republicans.

True change.

Help to give the dems a back bone! Make them turn their backs on corporate $$ and learn they can win with the votes of the working people.

[BzaDem]

18. Though I would say that many Democrats already represent most Democrats.

There are of course always some Democrats (blue dogs, Ben Nelson, etc) that do not represent most Democrats. And Obama does often incorrectly get blamed for their actions, given that our political system allows the most conservative elements in our party to essentially dictate terms. But we shouldn't pretend that most Democrats don't Represent us, when in reality, a large portion of the party is quite liberal.

[boston bean]

20. Why are you so against people wanting more from their government?

Why are you so against people who feel strongly in liberal values?

Why are you so afraid of Democrats/liberals/lefties wanting to make the DNC and the ones in control of it know what it is we want?

It's a win win for all of us.

[BzaDem]

21. I'm not. I'm against people blaming the wrong people.

When you make an argument that the Democratic party writ large is not liberal (as opposed to merely a small portion of the Democratic party is not liberal), you are blaming the wrong people. Most of the elected Democratic party is liberal, and feels strongly in their liberal values.

The few that aren't liberal have a disproportionate sway on policy (due to our political system), but that does NOT mean that most of the party is not liberal.

[boston bean]

24. They could do a better job. Get our money back from those they gave it too.

Obama made that deal with the republicans.

If people had stood up then instead of feeling like they would give the repubs the upper hand, it might not have happened. And by people, I mean people like you who are so afraid of Republicans winning with a losing hand.

I'm tired of the circular thinking.

You cannot be afraid of your own shadow.

[BzaDem]

30. "it might not have happened."

I guess that's true in a technical sense. Anything might have happened in a counterfactual.

But the job of our President is to figure out what is likely to happen -- not what might technically happen. In this case, the Republicans would have been more than happy to let all the tax cuts expire (especially for the poor and middle class) and have everyone blame Obama for the resulting tax bill and wrecked economy just in time for 2012. Given that reality, it was obvious who actually had the upper hand (and it wasn't us).

[boston bean]

33. you're right we'll never know. what a shame huh?

[BzaDem]

39. If you follow the implications of your logic, it doesn't end well.

Your view appears to be that because there was a technical chance (no matter how small) that we were going to win, we should have tried it, even if there was a high probability that we would end up with a MUCH WORSE bill.

How would that logic apply in, say, defeating global warming? After all, most climate models say there is an extremely high chances of devastating consequences if it is left unchecked. But they leave a small (say 1%) chance that such consequences will not happen. Should we follow your logic, and ignore the 99% probable outcome, because there is a potential 1% outcome that (if it came true) would result in no negative consequences? Probably not.

A President always needs to take probabilities and likelihoods into account.

[boston bean]

46. hello, if people like you would join the cause vs being afraid of your own

shadow, we might have gotten more.

I don't like to settle unless it's the last resort.

Maybe that's the diff between you and someone like me.

Just because you are really really good at circular repeating, doesn't make you right.

You must be really impressed with yourself.

How about getting off your ass instead of being afraid of your own shadow.

Follow the example of people who are making real change, from the ground up.

I am not arguing with you or even think you are 100% wrong, but your dismissive attitude towards others who have another way is truly disheartening and I think representative of where the party has gotten it wrong.

Stop being such a party pooper!

[BzaDem]

47. I guess it really just depends on what you mean by "the cause."

If you mean supporting the protesters in Wisconsin, supporting labor, supporting achieving the most liberal policy possible at any point given the makeup of Congress at that point, supporting nominating the most liberal candidate for every race that is also electable, and blaming the officials that cause policy to be more conservative (rather than the people on our side), count me in. I have been a part of that general cause for a very long time.

If you mean always holding out for a theoretically possible but extraordinarily unlikely outcome (when the price of doing so, relative to settling, is quite high), I'll pass.

I think though we agree on most areas of substance, and simply disagree on tactics.

[boston bean]

48. People should vote.

People should also hold their representatives, from the president on down, to a standard.

Standards that must be met. Some core principles that must be fought for.

Using civil disobedience and protests is another way. It makes the party stronger.

You think it weakens the party?? Tell me if I'm wrong about that.

If I'm not wrong then we don't disagree simply on tactics, we actually agree.

[Le Taz Hot]

14. You focus your energies where you see fit

and others will focus theirs where they see fit. Dogmatic talking points only work on the choir.

[BzaDem]

19. But if someone is focusing their energies on an action that will only further enable Republiacns in

the voting booth, can they really be considered to be "liberal" or a "Democrat" using any reasonable definition of the words?

Of course Republicans and Republican-enablers can devote their energy to where they see fit to do so. But why should we pretend they are liberal, or Democrats?

[boston bean]

22. Are the protesters in WI enabling Republicans in the voting booth? nt

[BzaDem]

23. No, not at all. n/t

[Le Taz Hot]

25. Well, well, well.

Tell me, who made you arbiter of who is and is not liberal? You follow a dogma -- it's as scripted as any really bad Hollywood script. Tired talking points that have been countered, literally, millions of times. The whole rah-rah party thing is a study in psychology in and of itself but that's another thread. Be that as it may, those of us who see the current Democratic Party as what it is -- the Democratic Wing of the Corporate Party, see otherwise.

Here's my (partial) definition of liberal: Liberals don't keep 2 illegal, immoral wars going while the country is going bankrupt. Liberals believe in workers rights, collective bargaining and unions as a way to make the country STRONGER. Liberals hold ALL people accountable for their crimes, not just the poor ones. Liberals are for marriage equality. Liberals believe in health care for all and not just the wealthy. Liberals believe that everyone should pay their fair share of taxes and, if any group gets tax breaks, it should be the poor and middle class. Liberals believe that the Patriot Act was an abomination and an affront to the Constitution. Liberals believe in a strongly-funded PUBLIC education system. Liberals believe in separation of church and state. Liberals don't advocate outsourcing American jobs or H1B visas. Liberals don't believe in torture. A liberal president would have created WPA-type programs with all those trillions of taxpayer funds instead of giving it all to the banksters and other corporate hucksters.

You know a politician, regardless of party, by their works.

[BzaDem]

27. "Tell me, who made you arbiter of who is and is not liberal?"

Your battle is not with me. It is with the definition. One cannot be liberal if all they do in the voting booth is enable the most anti-liberal candidates possible. One would this is so obvious it would go without saying.

In fact, what I'm saying is essentially a tautology. One cannot favor X if they do as much as possible to ensure X doesn't happen. You are arguing with a tautology.

[Le Taz Hot]

31. You seem to think you are:

"But if someone is focusing their energies on an action that will only further enable Republiacns in the voting booth, can they really be considered to be "liberal" or a "Democrat" using any reasonable definition of the words? Of course Republicans and Republican-enablers can devote their energy to where they see fit to do so. But why should we pretend they are liberal, or Democrats?"

Apparently, you think "liberal" is defined as "not Republican." I was merely pointing out that some of us have more specific criteria.

[BzaDem]

35. I merely think that a necessary condition for being liberal is to not maximize the Republican's

chances of winning. That is not a sufficient condition for being liberal, but it is certainly a necessary one. As I said, if someone says they favor X but then they do whatever they can to prevent X from happening, they are logically incorrect (whether they admit it or not).

One would think that this would be an uncontroversial statement.

[Le Taz Hot]

37. I merely think that many of us,

including myself, are capable of thinking beyond binary terms.

[BzaDem]

40. Well sure -- that would merely mean there are some people who are capable of not understanding basic

logic. I never disagreed with that statement -- though fortunately, for our party's sake and for the sake of education in general, they make up a negligible portion of the party.

[Le Taz Hot]

41. Right up until the time

"liberals" are blamed for your party's losses. Interesting how that works.

[BzaDem]

42. Why do you think there is a contradiction?

In 2000, a negligible portion of the party voted for Nader. But since the election was decided by a margin that was negligible, it flipped the election. So it is entirely consistent to say that the portion of the party that doesn't understand basic logic (that one cannot be against X if they do everything in their power to enable X) is a negligible portion, yet that such a negligible portion can indeed sway an election decided by a negligible margin.

[Le Taz Hot]

43. Nader???

I'm done.

Have a good day.

[BzaDem]

44. Not surprising in the least.

It is quite difficult to defend laughably bad arguments -- especially when they are logically incorrect.

[Little Star]

26. Where did that voting booth get us in 2008? .....

It got us a bipartisan president, not a president who fights for democratic principles. He talked the talk during the primaries and general election, he has not walked the walk he spoke of since becoming president. In fact he has not actually fought or been a leader by using his bully pulpit for any of our long standing principles. He chose a corporatist administration that has helped him undermine said democratic principles. He has brought our party further to the right not to the left!

I say the time has come to take it to the streets! That voting box you speak of has done nothing to further democratic principles.

We need to fight republican/corporatist agenda's where ever they appear even if it is within our party.

GWB used fear and that tired old line about "do we think it would be better under McCain/Palin" is just a fear tactic! Stop trying to scare people it won't work.

Democratic Principles above Party!

Move left by using all tools available to us! Including confronting our own and standing with unions.

Little Star a FDR, union supporting Democrat

[BzaDem]

28. It got you a President as far left as we are ever going to have in your lifetime. n/t

[Little Star]

29. I don't believe that. That is defeatist! We can do better....

and if we work at it we will.

[Octafish]

15. Especially when my fellow Democrats act and govern like Republicans.

Balancing the budget on the backs of the middle class, for instance. Then there's that matter of endless war for empire...

[Modern_Matthew]

45. Yep. The only thing that can be equally distributed in the U.S. is blame. n/t

[boston bean]

5. I'm angry with all Republican policy, from wherever it rears it's ugly head. nt

[GoCubsGo]

10. I'm more angry with the people who keep electing these assholes.

After decades of the republicans screwing up everything they touch, you'd think people would have learned by now.

[Blue_Tires]

16. +1

[LiberalLoner]

17. +1 here too. But I keep hearing from all these Teabaggers that want to

double down on the stupid. They want Sarah Palin for President and still believe everything Faux News tells them to believe.

My husband thinks the teabaggers will be largely gone in another decade. I hope and pray every day that he is right - that another decade will clear out many of the Faux News viewers. I don't see younger people buying into the b.s. the way the current crop of teabaggers do - they seem to understand better that Faux News is lying to them.

[reformist2]

34. I think this is correct. Fox has swayed a *lot* of older people.

Or should I say *scared* a lot of older people into voting Repuglican.

[Shagbark Hickory]

36. Why would I be angry with republicans? It's certain democrats that have ...

... most heavily sacrificed meaningful legislation.
It's those blue dogs (I hate calling them that since I love dogs) that I'm angry with.
Republicans are what they are.

[LeftinOH]

38. I'm not angry with Republicans- they're doing exactly what we expect they'll do,

which is more than we can say of our OWN party. There's an understatement, huh?

[Little Star]

49. Yep, we know who they are and what to expect. Much easier to...

fight that!

[VoteProgressive]

50. They are doing what their supporter want them to do. And they won. But I hate them!!