What We Should All Learn From The 2000 Elections and Al Gore's Loss

[no limit]

Many people love nothing more than to beat up Ralph Nader voters over the 2000 election since that election gave us the worst president of my life time. And why not beat up Nader and his voters? They are certainly an easy punching bag when your main interest is to protect the Democratic party establishment.

I fell for this line of thinking myself. I was fairly young during the 2000 elections and didn't pay much attention to them. It wasn't until Bush invaded Iraq that I started paying close attention to everything that was going on around me and all the lies that were being told. As I watched Bush destroy the country I could never understand how people could have voted for Nader and given us the disaster that was Bush.

That was until recently when I started to develop similar feelings to those I imagine Nader voters had. Turns out that when you support someone with your heart and soul then that someone turns around and pisses all over the key issues you believe in and the issues they said they were for you start to feel angry and betrayed.

With Clinton and Al Gore you have an entire list to pick from on where they betrayed their base. On equal rights you had them screw us over on DADT and DOMA. On freedom of information you had them implement a telecommunications act which allowed the type of media consolidation not seen in our history. They also tried really hard to censor the internet which the courts eventually struck down thanks to the ACLU. On the death penalty they did everything they could to expend it. In the name of "national security" they limited Habeas Corpus and were perfectly okay with the 500,000 Iraqi children that died as a result of their sanctions. In fact it was the Iraq liberation act that Clinton signed in to law that Bush later used as one of the justifications for invading Iraq.

But what probably put a lot of people over the top was their disastrous economic policies. They gutted welfare programs on just about every level. They signed NAFTA in to law which caused millions of our jobs to be outsourced. And lets not forget that it was their policies that helped wall street create the largest economic disaster since the great depression. Clinton and Gore thought it was a great idea to have people from Goldman Sachs be in charge of this country's financial regulation which is why they repealed Glass-Steagall and fought tooth and nail against any form of derivatives regulation which people in Clinton's own cabinet were pushing for.

So when elections came around the Gore campaign was shocked people weren't buying the argument that they have to vote for them because the other guy was way worse. They couldn't believe that this wasn't a good enough argument to convince just 527 additional people in the state of Florida to vote for them.

Today we are seeing the same thing. Barack Obama (at least in relative terms) was one of the most liberal democratic candidates during the 2008 primaries that had a shot at winning the nomination. In his presidential campaign announcement speech he even called for the withdraw of all troops from Iraq by March 2008. After he had won the primaries Obama moved to the "center", embracing such policies as offshore oil drilling and extending his deadline for Iraq troop withdraw by many years. Then after he had won the election he decided to move even further to the right to the point where on many issues he made Richard Nixon look liberal.

Public option? Gone (don't give me the bullshit about there not being the votes, they used reconciliation and only needed 50).

Wall street reform? Watered down.

The mandate he ran against? Signed in to law.

Promises on lobbyist influence in the white house? Broken.

Cuts to social security? On the table.

Standing up for worker rights? He was just kidding about that.

Hiring millionaire wall street fat cats that were mainly responsible for crashing our economy to run his economic agenda? You betcha.

And now with the 2012 elections gearing up the argument once again is being made is that everyone needs to fall inline and vote for him because the other guys suck worse. How did that argument work out for the democrats in 2000?

Don't mistake this as a post in support of a 3rd party candidate or even a primary challenge to Obama in 2012 on my part. My only point is that the argument that we all need to fall in line no matter what Obama does isn't all that compelling. You can scream this as loud as you want on as many internet message boards, street corners, and other avenues as you'd like. But that argument isn't going to convince all that many people that feel angry and betrayed. You can dedicate as much energy as you'd like in to painting these people as the problem, but if history is any judge that won't work out all that well for you. Maybe it would be more worthwhile to take that energy and use it to pressure the white house in to supporting social security. Or pressure them to stand up for worker rights. Or pressure them to hold wall street accountable starting with the people in their own administration.

The 2012 elections are still over a year and a half away. You can use that time to guilt people in to getting in line or you can use that time to demand real change from this administration. I'm sure there are people that will buy in to the argument that they must support Obama no matter what he does, but don't be surprised when it turns out there are many people out there that won't.

Sorry about this long rant and thank you for reading.

[Moral_Imagination]

1. ThirdPartyUnderground thanks you for your service

:eyes:

[no limit]

2. And I thank you for your well thought out contribution to this thread

[jaxx]

3. To whom was this addressed?

Lots of "you's" in there. Thank you for your concern.

[Bandit]

4. "It's All Clinton's Fault" ... I never heard that one before.....

:crazy: There really are some deluded people around this country aren't there? :shrug:

[no limit]

5. You don't think Clinton had anything to do with Al Gore's campaign?

Or are you disputing any specific thing I said about Clinton in my post?

[BeFree]

52. Gore Stayed Away from Clinton

Until the end of the campaign, Clinton said practically nothing.

Anyway.... all your blather is run over and crushed by the huge fact that:

GORE ACTUALLY WON. THE ELECTION WAS STOLEN
My emphasis added.

[intheflow]

161. Gore stayed away from Clinton but

a) he was still affiliated with Clinton, being VP under Clinton at the time he was running; and
b) he completely compromised himself by choosing Lieberman as a running mate.

Both of these points contributed greatly to so many liberals and progressives voting for Nader. Though you are, of course, 100% correct that Gore won. :thumbsup:

[Le Taz Hot]

191. Thank you.

I ended a "debate" with one of the "party-before-country" DUers last week when he/she had to go as far back as Nader to feebly try and make his/her point. The matter was settled by 2001 and we KNOW why Dubya ended up installed in the White House and it had nothing to do with Nader or Clinton.

[BeFree]

192. Well, to be kind

It is much easier to grok that Nader is the problem.
Because then the real problem of stolen elections can just be ignored.

When you think about it..... that the election was stolen.... and they got away....
Well, damn, wtf.... I mean if they can steal an election and slide away.....

[Scuba]

6. On the money analysis. Thank you. n/t

[ProSense]

7. "Public option? Gone " There

are a lot of things in the health care bill that represent tremendous progress toward universal quality care.

New health care law provisions that kicked in January 1

Vermont Delegation and Gov. Shumlin Hail Obama Endorsement of State Health Reform Waiver Legislation and California.

Wall Street reform is one of the more popular pieces of legislation because of provisions like the Volcker rule and the CFPB. It's implementation is a work in progress

[no limit]

8. ProSense, you can keep reposting this in every thread I make. But it doesn't change the facts

they had the votes for a public option since they used reconciliation to pass the bill (after telling us reconciliation could not be used until Scott Brown was elected). They campaigned against a mandate. That mandate is now law.

And if your only argument for the wall street reform bill is that its popular and it's a work in progress then Im not sure that's much of an argument. You can watch the movie inside job which broke down the exact things that lead us in to our crisis and how the wall street reform didn't go far enough to address those things. And why would it? It is being written by the very people that got us in to this mess.

[ProSense]

15. The claims are wrong. For example

"Cuts to social security? On the table."

Nope.

"Standing up for worker rights? He was just kidding about that."

Also, no.

The President strongly supports unions and collective bargaining.

Created the National Council on Federal Labor-Management Relations


President Obama's statement (Feb. 16):

"Some of what I've heard coming out of Wisconsin, where you're just making it harder for public employees to collectively bargain generally seems like more of an assault on unions. And I think it's very important for us to understand that public employees, they're our neighbors, they're our friends. These are folks who are teachers and they're firefighters and they're social workers and they're police officers.

"They make a lot of sacrifices and make a big contribution. And I think it's important not to vilify them or to suggest that somehow all these budget problems are due to public employees."

Remarks by the President and the Vice President to the National Governors Association

<...>

Those of you who are in this room obviously are on the front lines of this budget debate. As the Recovery Act funds that saw through many states over the last two years are phasing out -- and it is undeniable that the Recovery Act helped every single state represented in this room manage your budgets, whether you admit it or not -- you face some very tough choices at this point on everything from schools to prisons to pensions.

I also know that many of you are making decisions regarding your public workforces, and I know how difficult that can be. I recently froze the salaries of federal employees for two years. It wasn’t something that I wanted to do, but I did it because of the very tough fiscal situation that we’re in.

So I believe that everybody should be prepared to give up something in order to solve our budget challenges, and I think most public servants agree with that. Democrats and Republicans agree with that. In fact, many public employees in your respective states have already agreed to cuts.

But let me also say this: I don’t think it does anybody any good when public employees are denigrated or vilified or their rights are infringed upon. We need to attract the best and the brightest to public service. These times demand it. We’re not going to attract the best teachers for our kids, for example, if they only make a fraction of what other professionals make. We’re not going to convince the bravest Americans to put their lives on the line as police officers or firefighters if we don’t properly reward that bravery.

So, yes, we need a conversation about pensions and Medicare and Medicaid and other promises that we’ve made as a nation. And those will be tough conversations, but necessary conservations. As we make these decisions about our budget going forward, though, I believe that everyone should be at the table and that the concept of shared sacrifice should prevail. If all the pain is borne by only one group -- whether it’s workers, or seniors, or the poor -- while the wealthiest among us get to keep or get more tax breaks, we’re not doing the right thing. I think that’s something that Democrats and Republicans should be able to agree on.

<...>

Summary: Don't vilify public employees; public service is vital; teachers are underpaid; you can't put the burden on workers, seniors and the poor while supporting tax cuts for the rich.

[no limit]

17. Some of what I've heard coming out of Wisconsin...generally SEEMS like more of an assault on unions

wow, what a powerful statement. Quite different from the statements he made about worker rights in 2007 and getting out a pair of comfortable boots, isn't it?

Social security cuts have not been taken off the table.

And as I told you above about the public option they had the votes and chose not to do it. As I said about the mandate they campaigned against it yet that was the first thing that came out in the healthcare debate that they wanted to do.

So with all due respect none of this is "wrong", Obama's record speaks for itself.

[ProSense]

18. So you just dismiss

everything by cynically stating, "wow, what a powerful statement"?

Maybe you should heed Congressman Cleaver's suggestion

Democrats are not going to cut Social Security. Even Claire McCaskill made a definitive statement.

[no limit]

20. Yes I dismiss it. He remained silent about what was going on in Wisconsin

and the only statement he made at the beginning was the one you posted. The one to the governor association didn't come until weeks later.

If you think Obama shouldn't be injecting himself in to the debate then you clearly don't agree with his statement to the governors association. That or you are trying to have it both ways.

What Claire McCaskill said is irrelevent, we are talking about Obama. And he refuses to take it off the table.

[ProSense]

21. "The one to the governor association didn't come until weeks later."

February 16 to February 28 is 12 days, not weeks.

"What Claire McCaskill said is irrelevent, we are talking about Obama. And he refuses to take it off the table."

The President can't cut Social Security without Congress passing a bill so McCaskill's statement is completely relevant.

Again, your claims are wrong.

[no limit]

22. The protests began on Feb 11th. The first statement came on the 16th

ok, not weeks, but he is hardly involved in it. And again, you must think he shouldn't of made the statements that he did to the governor's association because you think that is injecting himself in to the debate. Right?

And so I guess you think the president is just naive? He knows he can't cut social security but he chooses not to take it off the table anyway. Why?

[ProSense]

23. Ridiculous

When should he have made the statement: the 12th through the 15th?

[no limit]

26. He should have made the statement he did on the 28th initially.

Also, you again didn't answer my question.

[ProSense]

27. He made the statement he made on the 16th and

the unions welcomed and understood his position.

"He should have made the statement he did on the 28th initially."

Again, ridiculous.

[no limit]

28. You didn't answer my question again. I'll repeat it for you

when Obama made the statement that he did on the 28th was he injecting himself in to the debate? Do you think he should have?

[ProSense]

33. What's the point of the question?

"I'll repeat it for you when Obama made the statement that he did on the 28th was he injecting himself in to the debate? Do you think he should have?"

Who said the President couldn't comment on the situation? The point is that he should not distract focus from the protests.

Members of his administration also commented.

VP Biden's statement (Feb 24):

"Public employees are not the problem. The problem goes much deeper...We are going to see the economic conditions that they (Republicans) created used as an excuse to fundamentally go after the social agenda that the far right has been trying to accomplish for a long time."

Secretary Solis' statement (Feb. 26):

I’ve been following the developments in Wisconsin, and Ohio, and many other states across the country.

<...>

And we’ve seen our brothers and sisters in the public employees unions willing to give there share, and to negotiate in good faith to help their states get through tough times.

But the governors in Wisconsin and Ohio aren’t just asking workers to tighten their belts, they’re demanding that they give up their uniquely American rights as workers.

<...>

All these workers want is the opportunity to sit down at the table, like grown ups, and work together to solve problems.

That’s what collective bargaining is all about.

[no limit]

38. The point of the question is that you don't seem to be consistent here

In one of the links you posted you said this:

This is why they want to inject President Obama into the debate: to shift it from a state issue to a federal issue so they can ignore the protestors and hold the President responsible for them.

This was in response to my claim that Obama's original statement was weak and unclear. He did come out with a stronger statement, 12 days later which I keep repeating he should have done originally.

So with the statement on the 28th was Obama injecting himself in to the debate? And if not why didn't he make the statement sooner? Why did he wait so long?

[ProSense]

40. Hmmm?

"In one of the links you posted you said this:

'This is why they want to inject President Obama into the debate: to shift it from a state issue to a federal issue so they can ignore the protestors and hold the President responsible for them.'"

How is making a comment injecting himself into the debate by shifting focus away from the protestors?

Like I said, who said or believed the President making a comment on the situation was injecting himself in the debate in such a way as distract focus from the protests?

There have been calls for him to become more vocal, to go to Wisconsin and march with them (something you seem to want him to do). That would make this about the President instead of simply making his position known via an expression of support.

[Rex]

83. Wrong. That is a right wing meme.

The POTUS needs to stand with farmers and union workers, this 'it would be all about him' is what the right wants Dems to believe and it looks like you bought it hook, line and sinker.

He just lost millions of votes over this, but that is okay with you and a small group of other here. Whatever.

[ProSense]

89. "this 'it would be all about him' is what the right wants Dems to believe " Oh

bullshit!

MR. TRUMKA: But this isn't about President Obama.

[Rex]

91. Once again it is a RWing meme please stop using it.

Thanks.

[ProSense]

94. No, and it's absurd to claim that it is. n/t

[Rex]

97. No it is absurd to keep using it.

Thanks.

[sufrommich]

98. Where is it a "right wing meme"? I haven't heard them use it. nt

[Rex]

99. You watch Foxnews?

[namahage]

110. No.

I defer to your expertise in that department.

[Rex]

112. Then how do you know it is/is not a RWing talking point.

What RWing groups have you been following to know otherwise. Just curious.

[sufrommich]

120. I can google "Obama should go to Wisconsin" and see that

there is no such right wing meme.

[Rex]

124. Oh right google is the only way, just like the Internet.

Watch the RWing shows if you can stomach it, they love bringing it up.

[Arkana]

172. Never considered that maybe the RW wants Obama in Wisconsin

because it's easier to demonize him than it is thousands of Wisconsin workers standing up to their tin-pot dictator of a governor?

No, of course you never considered that, because you live in a fantasy world where the media wouldn't turn the story into "Obama vs. Walker" and subsequently take Walker's side (as instructed by Murdoch and Koch, of course).

[Arkana]

171. This claim is 100% pure Grade A bullshit.

It is absolutely NOT a right wing meme. It's the logical conclusion of a thought process not corrupted by the belief that quixotic, symbolic gestures are somehow better for the country than actual results.

And by "millions" of votes, I assume you mean you and your 999,999 cats.

[Name removed]

113. Deleted message

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

[Name removed]

178. Deleted message

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

[no limit]

186. I think you left your caps lock on

[pinto]

128. Hi all, just an FYI -

The best way for all members to help keep a discussion open and ongoing is to avoid making personal sidetracks. We're really working to support discussion of issues not members. Appreciate everyone's help. Thanks.

[Name removed]

139. Deleted message

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

[Name removed]

54. Deleted message

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

[karynnj]

67. They did not use reconciliation alone to pass the bill

The entire structure of HCR was in the Senate bill passed before Brown was elected. The House then passed that EXACTLY, so it could then go to the President to sign it. The reconciliation bill made some changes to the HCR bill that the House would have made if Brown would have lost and the Senate could then have passed a conference bill.

The rules of what could pass under reconciliation were pretty strict and there was concern that something as complex as defing a public option would violate them - and there was concern that if the Senate passed it and another vote was needed in the House including the public option, there might not be the votes.

[sufrommich]

9. Obama ran as a moderate democrat, many here choose to

see a candidate farther to the left than he really was,or ever claimed to be.His administration is pretty much what he said it would be. Bill Clinton continues to be a tremendously popular president with the democratic base as is Obama.Judging from polls of democrats, he's in no danger in losing his base.

[no limit]

24. Really? He didn't campaign on a public option? He didn't campaign against a mandate?

He didn't campaign against lobbyists in his administration? He didn't campaign on reforming wall street?

And on your point about polls. Remember, Nader only got 2.7% of the vote. It didn't take very much to cost Gore the election.

[Name removed]

152. Deleted message

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

[StarsInHerHair]

164. ah, I LOVE you for saying that!

what more can I say?

[NashVegas]

166. Bullshit Bullshit Bullshit Right Back

There were plenty of people on DU who saw straight through Obama's marketing plan and posted as much, but so-called "progressives" and self-identified "liberals" didn't want to see it or hear it, and so shouted down anyone who dared to point out the shell game his campaign playing.

[Ramulux]

168. I didn't mean to imply

that many people didn't see through his act. I was simply reiterating the fact that Obama ran as a hard-core liberal, which the person I was responding to didn't believe for whatever reason.

Its funny how after 2 years of doing the exact opposite of what he promised, all those people he tricked are so delusional that they have begun to purposefully misrepresent his record during the campaign in order to make it seem like he is only doing what he said he would do.

Its really sad, considering liberals should be smart enough to acknowledge when they were wrong and take steps to address that mistake. But instead we have people on this site going around attempting to defend Obama when he adopts "conservative" positions like that's totally normal.

[NashVegas]

193. Obama Gave Many Clues Right Up Front

In the primaries when he spoke of Reagan in admiring tones and called Al Gore & John Kerry polarizing, in not so many words.

[sufrommich]

181. I'll ignore the childish "fucking mental" remark .Here's

Paul Krugman's breakdown of the health care promises made by both Obama and Clinton, Clinton's plan was more liberal than Obama's although many people here chose not to see that:

And both plans seek to make insurance affordable to lower-income Americans. The Clinton plan is, however, more explicit about affordability, promising to limit insurance costs as a percentage of family income. And it also seems to include more funds for subsidies.

But the big difference is mandates: the Clinton plan requires that everyone have insurance; the Obama plan dozen’t.

Mr. Obama claims that people will buy insurance if it becomes affordable. Unfortunately, the evidence says otherwise.

After all, we already have programs that make health insurance free or very cheap to many low-income Americans, without requiring that they sign up. And many of those eligible fail, for whatever reason, to enroll.

An Obama-type plan would also face the problem of healthy people who decide to take their chances or don’t sign up until they develop medical problems, thereby raising premiums for everyone else. Mr. Obama, contradicting his earlier assertions that affordability is the only bar to coverage, is now talking about penalizing those who delay signing up — but it’s not clear how this would work.


http://www.nytimes.com/2008/02/04/opinion/04krugman.html

He also promised to cut federal spending by 10%.

In fact, if you go back and look at the campaigns of both Obama and Clinton,he was the more moderate of the two.I'm not misrepresenting Obama's record during the campaign at all. He was never anything more than a moderate democratic candidate,he was pretty clear in 2008 in stating that his administration would seek to stop the partisan bickering and work toward bi partisan solutions, the fact that many people here chose not to hear it doesn't make it any less true.

[Ramulux]

182. You ignored everything I said

Are you telling me Obama wasn't in favor of a single-payer health care system?

Are you saying he didn't acknowledge the failures inherent in unfettered free-trade and say that NAFTA needs to be massively reformed?

Are you telling me he didn't say he would walk on the picket line with union workers if their rights were threatened?

Are you saying he wasn't for ending the Bush tax cuts for the wealthiest Americans?

Or for ending the prescription drug importation ban?

Those are all things Obama was for during the campaign and magically had a change of heart on when he became president. You have no response to any of those things because you know they are true and it kills you. I just dont get why you seem so intent on ignoring important policy positions that Obama is on the record having said during the campaign. All those positions are liberal positions, there is nothing moderate about them.

[readmoreoften]

156. Yes, and like using Cesar Chavez's iconography and chants weren't intentionally misleading.

Candidate Obama was a moderate Democrat. President Obama is a moderate Republican. And barely moderate.

[TheKentuckian]

10. The Third way types are transactional minded bullies and will do nothing but try to discredit

messengers, whine about TeaPubliKlans while simultaneously defending them and pleading for them to be respected, and propping up corporate enabling politicians while they seek to undermine democratic economic ideals.

They are all about blame the left while desperately seeking the allegiance of rightist by word, deed, and policy.

[StarsInHerHair]

165. absolutely true!

nt

[stevenleser]

11. IBTL - This is essentially a call out of a certain group of DUers

Unrec and IBTL

[no limit]

14. Better remember to hit the alert button as well

[Tatiana]

12. For the most part, you will get no disagreement from me.

If I were to nitpick, I would say a fundamental difference between Clinton and Obama is that Clinton never ran as a liberal or progressive. He pretty much said that he wanted to ease regulations on corporations and intended to gut welfare. He ran as a southern conservative Democrat (as did Al Gore... Gore was pretty conservative as a TN Senator). So I knew what I was getting when I voted for the Clinton/Gore ticket. I just wanted Pappy Bush out of there.

With Obama, it was different. He actually ran (during the primaries, anyway) on a pretty progressive platform. Equal opportunities for all, having a safety net so that single moms like his own could finish school, even if they needed to use food stamps to help feed their children... Closing Guantanamo, restoring habeas corpus, making the wealthy pay their fair share, kicking out lobbyists, increasing transparency in government, etc. The only positions I disagreed with him on were education and escalating the war in Afghanistan.

The back door deals worked out by Rahm in terms of health insurance reform were particularly galling. What happened to open debates on C-Span? Where was the transparency?

Yeah, I really don't disagree with you much at all. However, we are at a time in history where we have the opportunity to get back on track. The protests in Wisconsin and Ohio and Indiana have all been inspirational. People at the grassroots level are taking back their democracy and their state capitols and their rights. People at the grassroots level are organizing recall efforts against some of the most egregious Republicans... not some astroturf or corporate group but real, ordinary people who have had enough of this crap.

That's a positive and that's something that we should take inspiration from.

[no limit]

13. That's a good point, I do agree with you.

[Name removed]

25. Deleted message

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

[mmonk]

16. I think we need to quit thinking in terms of parties now.

We really have no where to go, all we can do is continue to ride zombie economic theory and misplaced blame as far as politics goes. We have to turn to ourselves for solutions. Whether that be society structures that can make life easier under corporate dictatorship or creating movement politics that can help save the standard of living for the common man in this country. My two cents. The bad guys won this round the day the tax cuts were extended. We have to adjust to reality.

[KamaAina]

19. Gore lost? Could've fooled me.

And here I was thinking Selection 2000 was stolen by Katherine Harris and the Felonious Five. :eyes:

[no limit]

29. That's true. But the reason they were able to steal it was a difference of 527 votes

atleast according to the last recount before the supreme court decided to hand the election to Bush.

With a few hundren more votes (out of the 90,000+ that went to Nader) they would not have been able to steal the election.

[BobbyBoring]

41. As much as I would like to believe that

I can't. I think they would have figured out a way for Bush to win. It really shows how deep the corruption in America is today. First off, how the fuck did W even get the nomination? Here's a mental midget that only did one thing right in his life. He was born in to the right family. The Bush family has more influence in this country than most can imagine.

Poppy Bush was a one termer but his job wasn't done yet. After Clintons 2 terms, there was no way the PTB could allow Gore to be POTUS.

It goes way beyond the voting booth ladies and germs. When you wrap your mind around the fact that the candidates whoever they may be are selected far in advance, the picture gets a little clearer.

[ReggieVeggie]

131. must have fooled him since he didn't fight for his rightful place as pesident

[dbt]

30. The one lesson that no one seems to be willing to admit is

That the $upreme Court should never be allowed to elect the Pre$ident. They get it wrong every time.

[dbt]

53. I see nobody's got an answer for this.

Prolly just easier to hate on Nader, innit?

:evilgrin:

[L. Coyote]

31. Ralph Nader voters gave America George W. Bush. END OF STORY.

Yea, yea, yea, but nonetheless, Ralph Nader voters gave America George W. Bush. END OF STORY.

Don't blame Ralph, he's just doing his job. Blame the jokers in Florida who voted for Ralph knowing he did not have a prayer.

And yes, I know Bush crimes stole the election. And, they nearly failed at that! They would have failed were it not for the Nader voters!

[no limit]

32. Yup, it was all the fault of people that were sick of getting pissed on

the people pissing all over progressive values had nothing to do with it.

[L. Coyote]

37. Nope.

I disagree. It was NOT "all the fault" of the Nader voters.
But, they have to live with the facts of the outcome of their actions.

A lot of the fault goes to Bush crimes, caging Dem voters and stripping them off the voting rolls, and, of course, the Supreme Court's Junta Ruling.

[no limit]

39. So again, none of the blame goes to the democratic establishment that pissed all over their base?

[L. Coyote]

123. Generalities.

What is the "establishment" and what is the "base" in our diverse, big tent world.

People need to grow up to play politics, FCS! :rofl:

[JoeyT]

174. Grow up and play politics?

Stop thinking about the results of crappy policy, just think about how bad you can make Republicans look while making crappy policy.
Sure we may end up killing a bunch of poor people and making the middle class poor, but think how many votes it will get us!

This playing politics crap is *exactly* what made people vote for Nader.
I see nothing different here, as Mister "Renegotiate NAFTA" expands and defends NAFTA and creates more middle class destroying free trade policies.

[sofa king]

140. Let's all sing along: "No difference between R's and D's, la, la, la."

Face it, our world is in flames, our children drink more mercury than their grandparents did, air quality has dropped, a third of our "wetlands" are now actually golf course water hazards, endangered species take second place to cattle and new housing developments, your homes and pensions have been stolen from you, and we can look forward to a future of poverty and sickness while the rich people cut down your trees.

All because some of you fools in Florida wanted to make a statement. Every single one of you dumb sonsabitches was told, repeatedly, before the election, what would happen if you did. And it did happen, exactly as we said.

THIS IS YOUR STATEMENT. This f*cked up, piece of sh$t, hell-in-a-handbasket world was created in eight short years, and if just half of you Nader voters in Florida had voted for the real environmentalist candidate, it couldn't possibly have turned out this way.

So f^ck you, Nader voters. I'd laugh at you if it was just you who have to lie in this bed you soiled with your imperfect understanding of the way our government works, but I have to lie in it with you, until I die penniless and uncared for.

[dbt]

47. The $upreme Court gave Amerika george w bu$h.

5-4 We Stand.

[L. Coyote]

176. And those who supplied their votes to Nader instead of Gore in a critical swing state

Gave the Supreme Court the opportunity to pull off a coup.

[ReggieVeggie]

132. 250,000 Democrats voted for Bush

you know, all your centrist buddies

Maybe you could talk to them?

Oh, nevermind. You need your blame-rod.

[L. Coyote]

177. And Republicans voted for Gore. So?

One question. How would this have gone without Nader on the ballot?

O.K. Two questions?

How would this have gone without all the Republican money spent on Nader?

[ReggieVeggie]

184. what Republicans voted for Gore?

You can't just throw stuff out like that without backing it up. And what money was "spent" on Nader?

And, do you believe the election was stolen or legitimate? If it was stolen, your arguments are beyond ridiculous. If it wasn't stolen, then you need to remember how many blacks were disenfranchised. After all that you need to remember you claim to be a Democrat and you should be one to encourage people to run for office and vote how they want to vote. Then you need to remember Ralph Nader was a champion of consumer rights and promoting people over money and power. The absolute need of Democrats to blame someone for their own faults never ceases to amaze me.

[no limit]

189. Great point, thank you.

[Tierra_y_Libertad]

34. They should learn that if you want the votes of the left you have to earn them.

[jtown1123]

35. He needs to hear that we aren't happy with centrist talk and the best way to get votes

is to make some bold progressive moves. Make the Republicans vote against a public option or public works programs. Even if they don't succeed, we can make the Republicans more and more unpopular.

[Name removed]

36. Deleted message

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

[hulka38]

42. K&R

[ChoppinBroccoli]

43. It's This Kind Of Thinking That Gave Us.............

.............Scott Walker and John Kasich.

Speaking as an Ohioan who will try to simply SURVIVE the 4 years Kasich will spend destroying my State, I say "F. You" to anyone who continues to NOT be swayed by the "lesser of two evils" argument.

Your argument is quite compelling. The people who didn't care to vote for the lesser of two evils gave us George W. Bush, Scott Walker, and John Kasich. Disaster after disaster after disaster. You'd think they'd have learned something by now. But some people simply have to keep touching the hot stove every time before they'll believe that it's still hot. Fortunately, the stinging memory of the last burn that hot stove doled out is still fresh in the minds of those of us in Wisconsin and Ohio, at the very least.

[no limit]

44. How did the lesser of 2 evils work out with Clinton?

Did you like the economic crisis that was the direct result of policies started by the Clinton administration?

I guess we have to vote for these assholes no matter what they ever do, correct? So tell me, what actual incentive do these people have to do the right thing if we have to support them no matter what?

[ProSense]

45. How did it work out with Scott Walker?

Lesser of two evils = bullshit.

[no limit]

46. And I'm guessing your argument is that Democrats had absolutely nothing to do with...

the 2010 elections and the lack of enthusiasm on the part of liberals? Is it your argument the elections in 2010 were all the fault of the angry left?

[ProSense]

48. Sure

it's the Democrats fault why Feingold is in Wisconsin and Johnson is in the Senate.

Lesser of two evils = bullshit.

Still, it's interesting that you're trying to justify why voter turnout should have been low or why Republicans won.

[no limit]

49. You have this amazing ability never to answer a single simple question

did the democrats have anything to do with the fact that they got their ass kicked in 2010? Yes or no? Or was it everyone elses fault?

[ProSense]

50. "did the democrats have anything to do with the fact that they got their ass kicked in 2010?" Yes

it's the candidates' fault they lost the support of or couldn't sufficiently motivate voters in their states and districts. Harry Reid won.

[no limit]

51. Why do you think they didn't motivate their voters?

Was it that they simply didn't know how to campaign or was it that their policies weren't good enough to campaign on?

[ProSense]

56. Hmmmm?

"Was it that they simply didn't know how to campaign or was it that their policies weren't good enough to campaign on?"

Like I said, Harry Reid won, and yes to both: he knew how to campaign and people seemed to agree with his position on the issues.

It could be that in some states, as you suggested here, some voters didn't realize which candidate was really the "asshole."

"I guess we have to vote for these assholes no matter what they ever do, correct? So tell me, what actual incentive do these people have to do the right thing if we have to support them no matter what?"


On edit, in Wisconsin, it obvious they know now:

[no limit]

58. Again, who's fault was it why people didn't know who was the real asshole?

and why?

You already said above that democrats were to blame for this as well. But you aren't giving me any specifics on what they did that makes them accountable for this. In what way are they to blame?

[ProSense]

70. "Again, who's fault was it why people didn't know who was the real asshole?"

Ask the people who voted for Johnson and not for Feingold in Wisconsin.

Clearly, you believe that there is some confusion about which one is the "asshole."

[no limit]

74. Are you know backing away from the statement you made above?

That statement being that democrats share blame for what happened in 2010?

If you aren't then you need to give me some specifics. What did they do that they deserve blame for?

[ProSense]

77. Hmmmm?

"That statement being that democrats share blame for what happened in 2010?"

Maybe you should read the comment again.

Every candidate has to campaign effectively and voter needs to be educated. A lot of factors, including spin, impact the outcome.

"Are you know backing away from the statement you made above?"

So that would be a no. You on the other hand seem to want to blame some generic Democrat (or most likely the President) for the a candidate losing his state or district.

Anyone foolish enough to punish a candidate based on a generic Democrat's position or the President has to live with the outcome.

[no limit]

80. So on the part that the democrats are to blame on, what specifically did they do?

Not campaign effectively? Is that it?

If you have any question that I think Obama is in large part to blame then let me clear that up for you. I think Obama is absolutely to blame along with all in the senate and the house that didn't stand up to him. I'd be more than happy to tell you why (you can start at my OP). But that's not the point right now.

Right now what I'm trying to get from you is what you think the democrats did wrong. And I'm not getting an answer to this simple question from you for some reason.

[ProSense]

84. "I think Obama is absolutely to blame along with all in the senate and the house..."

It's the President's fault that Feingold lost?

Sounds Republican-like, similar to blaming Nancy Pelosi for the blue dogs losing.

Ludicrous.

[Name removed]

86. Deleted message

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

[Name removed]

93. Deleted message

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

[no limit]

101. The post you keep pointing to doesn't give any specifics.

It says that each candidate has to campaign effectively. Well, yeah, no duh. Which candidates didn't campaign effectively (Im not really asking you to list each one, you can be generic) and what specific things about their campaign made their campaign ineffective?

[ProSense]

103. "Which candidates didn't campaign effectively "

Just a guess here: the one who lost.

Now I also said voters need to be educated and there are other factors, including spin.

"...what specific things about their campaign made their campaign ineffective?"

The outcome.

Let me break it down for you:

Harry Reid's campaign effective. Sharron Angle's, not effective.

[no limit]

104. So you don't think they countered the spin effectively and they didn't educate the voters properly?

And the republicans did?

[ProSense]

109. Is there any logic

to your thought process?

"So you don't think they countered the spin effectively and they didn't educate the voters properly?
And the republicans did?"

No, they didn't counter the spin effectively, and I don't think Republicans had to counter spin. That would be to assume that Democrats were spinning the same lies that Republicans were. All Republicans had to do is benefit from the RW spin.

[no limit]

116. Do you think there was more spin in 2008 from republicans or more in 2010?

Because in 2008 democrats were able to counter the spin perfectly fine. And I would argue far more spin was around back then (Obama a muslim, terrorist, socialist, etc). Not that this wasn't around in 2010 but not on the same level.

Yet in 2008 democrats were able to absolutely destroy republicans. In 2010 the republicans destroyed them. What changed?

You say that democrats didn't educate the public properly and they didn't counter the spin properly. What happened? Did they loose all their ability to do that in just a matter of 2 years?

I don't think so. You know what I think happened? The american people saw that even if you give them huge majorities and the white house they still can't get shit done. And what they do get done is used against them in elections (healthcare for example).

Now, you can blame that on americans being stupid. You can blame that on the "professional left". You can blame it on whatever you want. Just make sure you save plenty of blame for after the 2012 elections, unfortunately I think you will need to if this shit from the democrats continues.

[ProSense]

118. Oh my!

"Yet in 2008 democrats were able to absolutely destroy republicans. In 2010 the republicans destroyed them. What changed?"

One was a Presidential election and the other wasn't. I know it's hard.


"I don't think so. You know what I think happened? The american people saw that even if you give them huge majorities and the white house they still can't get shit done. And what they do get done is used against them in elections (healthcare for example).

Now, you can blame that on americans being stupid...."

No, you've already done an excellent job of defining "stupid" because that in no justifies why anyone would send Johnson to the Senate instead of Feingold.

[no limit]

121. Okay, so what will you say if democrats get destroyed in 2012?

Will that also be only because they were incapable of educating voters and coutering the spin?

[ProSense]

129. I'll say

you were right, and the complaining will continue.

What will you say if they don't, and will you keep complaining?

[no limit]

130. You'll say I was right about what? That we should push this administration back to the left?

And what will I say? That I hope it's not an excuse for them to move even further to the right. And depending on who the republican nominee is I might even be a bit relieved.

[ProSense]

134. I'll say you were right

about this

"You know what I think happened? The american people saw that even if you give them huge majorities and the white house they still can't get shit done."

And then you can keep complaining about how Democrats are the lesser of two evils.

Again is there any logic to your thought process? Why would someone withhold a vote from a Democrat and then complain when the Republican wins?

Seems pointless, unless the point was to allow the Republican to win.

[no limit]

141. Do you ever think that the point might be to try and get real meaningful progress?

The idea that you must support ANY democrat for ANY reason no matter what this democrat does because the other guy is worse is a really short term way of thinking. That's been the line of thinking in our country since at least the Clinton years. And it hasn't worked out all that well. As you know I could start listing out a laundry list of issues which I know you agree with me on since we already had that discussion many times.

So your solution is to keep voting for them anyway even if that means they have no incentive to do what I know you think is right. I don't buy in to that.

I don't yet know what I will do in 2012, sitting it out or supporting 3rd party is what I would consider the nuclear option. But I am absolutely disgusted with the idea that I must support someone that has no problem screwing over the american people just because the alternative is worse. That is short term thinking which never leads to anything good. If things get bad enough (thats assuming they already aren't) these people need to be made aware that they must work for our vote instead of taking it for granted as they have done time and time again.

[ProSense]

145. Sure

by your logic. After all, not voting for Democrats and allowing Republicans to win is the same as pushing to "get real meaningful progress."

[no limit]

148. I'm glad out of everything I said that's what you got out of my reply

my eyes are tired, Im done for today. Have a good one.

[Rex]

100. No. You should know your question won't be answered.

Just more posts until you get tired of replying. :hi:

[Badfish]

55. unrec for not being accurate.

the Health care bill was NOT passed by reconciliation.

We need to tell the truth , can we do that ?

Pretty please ?

[no limit]

59. Lol what? The healthcare bill wasn't passed using reconciliation?

Let me guess, the game you are playing is that they passed fixes to the healthcare bill using reconciliation therefore that doesn't count as passing healthcare using reconiliation?

What was stopping them from adding the public option to these "fixes"?

[Badfish]

64. What stopped them ?

Start with the House.

Did they send a PO to the Senate ?

[no limit]

65. White house and senate leaders told the house not to pass a PO

You also said I was wrong that the bill was passed using reconciliation. What did you mean by that?

[Badfish]

66. Hey , if there were 50 votes...

then lets see em...

Where are the names ?

[no limit]

68. Are you backing off the claim that I was wrong about reconciliation and now moving on elsewhere?

There was a petition signed by senate leaders that 40 democrats would support it. Obama had 58 senators that caucus with the dems to pick from. If your dont count lieberman thats 57. He only needed 10 out of 17. You dont think he would have gotten 10 out of 17 to support him?

[Badfish]

71. So...

You are now claiming that Max Baucus would have voted for a PO ?

He voted against it TWICE in his own committee.

Lets see the list of 50..

and YES , HCR was not passed by reconciliation , get a clue already.

[no limit]

73. Jesus. What do you mean healthcare was not passed reconciliation?

http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/HealthCare/health-care-bill-back-house-vote-republican-challenges/story?id=10205547

Is ABC news and everyone else lying to you? Explain this bullshit you are spewing.

And ok, Max Baucus not on board. You have 16 DEMOCRATIC senators left. Name the 7 that wouldn't support a public option so we know who to primary next election.

[Badfish]

90. Thats a link to the fix bill genius.

it clearly says so.

The HCR bill was already passed the senate by the time your article was written ... http://articles.cnn.com/2009-12-24/politics/health.care_1_health-care-gop-filibuster-piece-of-social-legislation?_s=PM:POLITICS

The bill passed the senate on dec. 24 2009 , this is a fact.

The "FIX" that you posted to came later and included a few things.

.... And , where is that list of 50 ? ....thats what in thought.

[Badfish]

72. Look here...

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=439x579083

[no limit]

75. You can't possibly be serious.

As evidance that the healthcare bill wasn't passed using reconciliation you link to your own post stating it without any sources or other evidance?

I think I'm getting punked, nobody could be that uninformed.

[Badfish]

78. OMG ,

Are you gonna feel embarrassed... http://articles.cnn.com/2009-12-24/politics/health.care_1_health-care-gop-filibuster-piece-of-social-legislation?_s=PM:POLITICS

[Badfish]

79. Just amazing people are still confused on the issue.

[no limit]

82. Did you not read the ABC news article I gave you

the link you posted above is for the first bill which they then had to fix using reconciliation.

How you could be this arrogant is beyond me.

[Badfish]

87. Yes , the HCR bill was passed

without reconciliation.

It passed with 60 votes , reconciliation was not needed.

AFTER the bill was passed there was a fix that added a few things , like closing the donut hole and increasing penalties on employers for not providing insurance , ect.. Just a few things , certainly not the massive bill that was passed WITHOUT RECONCILIATION.

Just like the article said.

[no limit]

88. Which as I told you at the very beginning is a stupid game you are playing

Without reconciliation there wouldn't have been a healhcare bill.

[Badfish]

92. WRONG.

without recomciliation , the bill wouldn't have included a few small changes.

How about that list of 50 senators ?

[no limit]

105. The only way the house agreed to the original bill...

was if the senate gave them word that they would pass the reconciliation bill.

Or are you not aware of that?

The list I keep giving you and you keep ignoring.

[Badfish]

81. Now , about the list of 50 senators....

waiting.

[no limit]

85. Here you go:

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2010/03/10/public-option-support-now_n_493725.html

They needed 9 more out of 17 that they had. What 8 DEMOCRATIC senators would have killed the biggest legislation of the Obama administration because of a Public Option?

[Badfish]

96. You said there were 50

and posted a link to a list of 40 as proof ? ...trust me , those 17 were being asked if they would support it all the time , there was pressure from other senators and from the public ...but they never came out for the PO ... they could have , but never did.

Thanks for the laugh.

[no limit]

108. I told you there were 41 that said they would and 18 left that didn't say anything

out of those 18 which do you think would have killed the largest legislation of this administration because of a public option? Again, out of the 18 they only needed 9.

Are you able to compute what I am saying or are you still having difficulty?

[paulk]

57. the 2000 election was a coup

and the lesson to be learned is that the conservative powers that be were and are willing to go that far to keep control.

Some of what you post is accurate, but a lot of it is just the usual "sling enough shit and maybe some of it will stick" that is practiced by demagogues on both the left and the right.

[no limit]

60. Can you be specific? What about my post was "flinging as much shit as possible...

and hoping some of it will stick?"

[paulk]

119. you blame everything on Clinton/Obama

as if the Republicans and the controlled media don't exist.

Specifically - on DADT, Clinton tried to make it law for gays to serve openly in the military - DADT was a compromise forced on him by his own party, Sen. Sam Nunn in particular - and even so, DADT was a lot better than what came before.

http://www.towleroad.com/2010/12/former-senator-sam-nunn-reverses-allow-gays-to-serve-openly.html

Clinton responsible for 500k deaths in Iraq? I have always found this argument from the left specious at best. Saddam Hussein gets the blame for this, sorry. He chose to spend the money on weapons systems, not medicine.

And I maintained at the time that NAFTA was not the great evil it's depicted as. It helped some states, hurt others - who's to know what a Democratic administration would have done to fix it's flaws, rather than a Bush admin that clearly was not interested. The Obama admin doesn't seem interested, either.

Welfare Reform was needed, imho, and was backed by an overwhelming majority of Americans - did Clinton go too far? The economy was much different then than it is now - in a functioning government, allowances for present circumstances would be made. Unfortunately our current government is dysfunctional.

Bush's justifications for invading Iraq were lies. That's all that needs to be said. Blaming Clinton for somehow being responsible is a fool's game.

My biggest problem with a lot of this is that these acronyms are thrown out there to mean more than they actually are. They become symbols, devoid of context, without any relationship to the current political realities.


On Obama - he got handed this pile of crap by George Bush. Which isn't to say I'm happy at all with what he's done with it. I find him weak and ineffectual, and will gladly support a challenge to his nomination in 2012. But if he wins the nomination, we can't afford to make the same mistake Nader voters did in 2000.

[no limit]

137. I don't blame everything on Clinton/Obama. But they are a large part of the problem

On DADT, what you say about the politics of it might be true, but when Clinton was needing the money and support from liberal groups he was more than happy to campaign on the idea that gays and lesbians would be able to openly serve.

Saddam gets the blame alone for the fact we denied him the ability to maintain his water treatment plants? So because Saddam was an a-hole we needed to implement policies that would directly kill 500,000 Iraqi children (which they knew would happen ahead of time)

NAFTA was not all that bad? How many jobs would you say it killed in total?

Did Clinton go too far on welfare reform? He sure did. And he did so while the economy was great and there was no reason to.

Yes, Bush's justifications for Iraq were lies. But when it comes to rhetoric Clinton and Bush weren't all that different. The difference ofcourse is one pulled the trigger and the other didn't. But to wash away any responsibility Clinton had by ratcheting up the rhetoric isn't all that realistic.

Any additional context you don't think I'm giving in the case of Clinton I'll be happy to discuss with you.

Obama did get handed a pile of crap by Bush, I would never dispute that. But he has added to that pile of crap on many occasions using his own free will. And I don't yet know how I feel about 2012 (I'm waiting a bit longer to see) but if you support a serious primary challange to Obama I think you might as well be giving republicans the election (assuming Obama wins the primary) which really is no different than voting 3rd party in the general.

[L. Coyote]

125. Junta Day 2000.12.12

No doubt about it. And, the sleeping masses allowed it to happen.

Like a fine dinner party when no one brought enough and everyone assumed someone else would pay.
The cooks and bottle washers are stuck with the bill, and the rich have had their fill of fine food.

[ChoppinBroccoli]

61. You're Hanging Over An Abyss Holding Only A Vine

There are two people standing at the top of the mountain waiting to act on your behalf.

One of them is holding a huge pair of scissors and keeps making snapping motions at your vine.

The other one has promised to do absolutely nothing OTHER than to keep the guy with the scissors away.

Who are you going to choose?

Oh wait, I know. You'll doggedly stand by your very principled decision that it's best to not choose EITHER. I'm sure you'll feel very justified in your (non-)decision when the second guy leaves to go do something else (why wouldn't he? You didn't choose him, so why should he stand around there all day?), and the first guy (who you also didn't choose, but who now sees an opportunity because there's nobody there to stop him) rushes in and cuts your vine. So, yes, you didn't ACTIVELY participate in your own demise, but at the end of the day, you're still falling to your death. Yes, I'm sure that your last words, yelled as you're falling, will be, "The lesser of two evils is still evil! Candidate #2 should have done a better job of convincing meeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeee.......!!!" As opposed to still hanging there, still alive, complaining that Candidate #2 isn't doing enough to help you DESPITE your vote for him. I wonder if, when people tell you, "Yeah, Candidate #2 wasn't the BEST of candidates, but at least you're not falling to your doom," you'll reply, "So what? Big deal!" then.

[no limit]

69. Lol, so you think hanging over an abyss instead of being thrown down it is better?

Well, I guess thats technically true if you want to spend the rest of your life hanging over an abyss.

[ChoppinBroccoli]

107. When The Alternative Is Falling Into It............

...............yes.

[no limit]

133. That's a pretty shitty way to live your life I would think

[ecstatic]

62. The Nader types have never and will never be reliable as a voting block...

They pretend to be liberal, while enabling GOP victories time and time again. I don't know what drives them--are they rich? lazy? spoiled or immature? Or just good old fashioned trolls perhaps?

I'm not sure, but over and over again they have made it clear that they are perfectly fine with the GOP gaining power. Maybe they like the tax breaks? Maybe they are secretly comfortable with the GOP using their power to set back civil rights? Who knows?

BTW, the accomplishments of this administration are quite significant.

http://www.facebook.com/note.php?note_id=121300974589901&id=147153068653456

[no limit]

76. Why would they need the GOP to give them tax breaks? Obama is more than happy to do that

and I see, everything is the fault of Nader and his supporters. The democrats have absolutely no responsibility for any of it.

[JI7]

95. i think they like to feel good about being superior and there are the Ariannas who profit from it

i'm pretty sure most of their activism is on the internet. i mean look at how much outrage there was against Rahm on the internet but they didn't do much in trying to get a candidate to beat him in the mayor election.

[no limit]

102. Did Obama profit off his book?

How about Rahm Emanuel? How much did Goldman Sachs pay him?

I'm not fan of what Arianna is doing but jesus, do you not see the absolute irony in what you just said?

[JI7]

106. Rahm and OBama don't go after others the way Arianna does

if it was someone else who had done the deal she did with aol she would have been outraged about it.

[no limit]

111. Right, I guess Rahm never called anyone fucking retarded

if you had said Obama never goes after republicans the way Arianna does you would have been correct.

And is that your new standard? It's okay to profit off your political career just as long as you are nice?

[JI7]

115. Obama has done more to get changes than Arianna

Arianna just goes on abouthow Obama and other Dems aren't perfect but they haven't made any positive change other than their own profit that they would attack others for.

again why didn't people who complain about Rahm support someone else for Mayor ? most of their ocmplaints are limited to the internet. and it's just complaints. but they aren't up to it in getting out their and campaigning and actually supporting someone else .

[no limit]

117. We are on the subject of politicians cashing in on their position, stop trying to change it

what is your standard for who gets to cash in off their position in politics and who doesn't?

Because so far you have made it clear Obama can, Rahm can, but Arianna can't. What standards are you using to make these judgements?

[JI7]

122. nope, i was responding to another post on nader types being reliable voters

you are the one now claiming it was just about one issue.

i never said Arianna can't profit from it either.

[Radical Activist]

135. They ignore or belittle progressive achievments by Democrats.

They need to believe that both parties are the same. So any progressive accomplishment by Obama will be portrayed as a failure event if it's necessary to exaggerate and mislead. That's the tactic.

Did you notice how hard Nader campaigned for a consumer financial protection agency? At least that is until Obama made it happen. Then it suddenly doesn't mean anything. That's intellectual dishonesty and game playing.

The cynicism they spread doesn't turn people to the Green Party. It turns people away from doing anything meaningful at all after the Greens convince people that it's hopeless to try.

I'm really tired of people who are stuck in the 90's. The usual crowd has been expecting Obama to be Clinton part 2 since before he took office. They're blind to what's really happening around them.

[Ramulux]

150. Right

because we all know that unless you support democrats 100% that means you automatically support republicans. Genius logic.

[Rex]

63. I learned that FOXnews literally called the election and changed

the course of American history for the worse. This is all Fox/Roves fault and I wish them nothing but the fiery pits of hell for the lot. The sooner the better.

[L. Coyote]

126. Never blame Rove when you can blame his bosses.

What a crock, blame the lackey! :rofl:

[Cieran_WI]

114. Amen. Dean/Feingold 2012! n/t

[DeadEyeDyck]

127. who'd thunk this thing would burst into flames?

[tallahasseedem]

136. I spent days...

down at the capitol in Tallahassee protesting this stolen election. "Protest voting" against Obama in 2012 would be disastrous.

[Radical Activist]

138. 90's are over, man. Wake up!

Sorry, but Obama already has more progressive accomplishments in his first two years than Clinton had in 8. There's no comparison. Stop living in the past.

Did you ever notice how much Nader USED to care about getting a consumer financial protection agency? It was a big fucking deal he spent years fighting for. Then Obama makes it happen! And he event appoints the person progressives want to be in charge despite Senate opposition!

Woah now! All of a sudden we don't hear about it anymore. It doesn't matter. People like you come along and dismiss the entire bill as "watered down." But you know what? There was some pretty impressive shit in that bill even if it did get watered down by the Senate. And how can you blame Obama for what a few assholes like Lieberman did in the Senate? Nope, makes no sense.

Nader and the Greens stopped caring about it because Obama did it and they have a burning need to make Obama look bad. You know what I call that? I big heaping pile of intellectually dishonest bullshit. Total fucking bullshit.

[no limit]

142. But you are making stuff up. What do you mean we never heard anything about the CPA and Warren?

After Obama did it lots of people that were otherwise upset with Obama gave him props for that. But just because you do some good things in your term that doesn't erase all the bad things.

And what progressive accomplishments has Obama had? Romney care? That's progressive? Wall street reform that left much of the system that got us into this mess alone?

[Radical Activist]

143. Your words: "Wall street reform? Watered down."

You're pretending Wall Street reform was a failure to make a point. I call bullshit.

Yes, getting HCR after many failed attempts by others is progress. Wall Street Reform that got things Nader and Greens USED to want for years is progress. More investment in clean energy than the last five Presidents combined is progressive. More government regulation over every sector of the economy is what Greens and Nader USED to want until Obama just did it.

Progress isn't getting everything you want all at once. It's taking a step forward, compromising when you have to, and fighting for more. That's how it works in the real world and that's what Obama is doing. This isn't triangulation. Obama is pushing things as far left as the Senate will go. This is what progress looks like.

[no limit]

144. So you think a consumer protection agency fixes all the issues that caused the 2008 crash?

Getting HRC modeled on what Mitt Romney did is not progress. It was republicans that proposed mandates not that long ago. Had it been Bush that did it people here would be screaming bloody murder.

What you call a step forward I sure as hell don't. And where there were steps forward a simple step or 2 wasn't enough. We had the largest economic crisis since the great depression and you are talking about small steps forward? The only ones moving forward are wall street and the banks. After they totally crashed our economy and destroyed millions of jobs they are making more money than they ever have before and they are paying less taxes on that money than they ever have before.

But yeah, that's progress. :eyes:

[Radical Activist]

146. Oh look you're doing it again.

The reform bill was far more than just the consumer financial protection agency. But here you are ignoring the reality of what was passed in order to take a broad-based, fact-free cheap shot dismissing it as nothing. That's the problem I have with the crowd that's perpetually pissed at Obama for never being left enough. They have to keep ignoring the facts of what Obama has done, close their eyes to it, and fall back on the worn out 90's cliches warmed over from the Clinton years.

You're complaining about wall street not paying taxes, but you left out that Obama is trying to cut corporate tax loopholes. Why not help him in that progressive effort instead of falsely implying that he's the problem? Here Obama is fighting for exactly what you want and you're busy forming the circular firing squad. Not very smart.

[no limit]

147. What other things did it include then?

Did it prevent banks from packaging loans in an attempt to defraud customers?

Did it prevent credit rating agencies from pretty much pulling ratings out of their asses?

Did it prevent banks from using your deposits to make risky bets?

Did it go far enough to regulate derivatives?

What did the bill do to address leverage? And do you think that went far enough?

Did it do anything to prevent future bailouts?

If you don't know the answers to these questions you should check out the movie Inside Job. Then get back to me.

And as far as corporations paying taxes and Obama closing loop holes. Show me one loop hole that Obama has closed when it comes to wall street. Show me how my statement about wall street having one of the lowest tax rates ever is inaccurate.

[Radical Activist]

151. So you've chosen to be a non-participant.

I pointed out that Obama is trying to do exactly what you want by closing corporate tax loopholes and making them pay their fair share. I suggested you help in that effort and you've gone back to bitching and moaning about Obama. Basically, you've chosen to not be a participating member of the progressive movement. We have a progressive President pushing progressive policies and all you can do is blame him for what the Senate watered down instead of helping him make more progress.

Sorry, but you're part of the problem. The rest of us are trying to get something done while you sit on your hands complaining. All of those bills could have been better if there had been a united push from the left to pressure the Senate. Instead, half of our left pundits and bloggers were letting the Senate off the hook while they attacked Obama. Massive fail.

[no limit]

153. I asked you what corporate tax loop holes Obama closed, you didn't give me an answer

did you?

I think there were a couple in the healthcare bill. But aside from that he has given far more tax breaks to rich people than he gained from closing the very few (if any) loop holes that he did.

[Radical Activist]

154. This is something being done right now. There's work to do!

Did you listen to the state of the union? He proposed it. Congress could act at this moment. Have you called your members of Congress and asked them to support Obama's effort to close corporate tax loopholes? He's still pushing for it because Obama doesn't stop pushing for more progressive change even when he's forced to compromise.
This is your chance to stop complaining and make a difference. Go for it!

[no limit]

155. I think I gave up all my energy trying to stop the tax cuts for the rich which Obama handed out

so my apologies to you that I don't feel like pressuring congress to do something when the administration itself won't apply any such pressure.

Once Obama puts actual pressure on congress on this issue let me know and then I'll be happy to put some of my energy toward that. Until then I don't buy it.

[Radical Activist]

157. Non-participating cynic

who expects others to do the work. Yeah, that's the usual result of Green arguments. It makes people give up and do nothing. It's another way that they're destroying the progressive movement from within.

Just like I wrote elsewhere in the thread. http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=439&topic_id=577459&mesg_id=580935

[no limit]

158. Like I said, the second Obama applies any pressure on congress to stop these loop holes...

let me know. I'll do what I can to help. Until then try to be a bit less of a...(never mind).

[Radical Activist]

160. I thought people had the power.

That's what I believe. We have more power to pressure Congress than any President. Waiting for Obama to go first is a disempowering, weak cop-out.
I'm a movement activist. All I expect is a President who will respond to the movement. I'm not looking for big brother Stalin to make change for me. The high expectations of authoritarians who want a President to do the work for them is another factor I believe is at the root of those who are unhappy with Obama's work.

Obama applied pressure the second he spoke about it in the State of the Union address. That's using the bully pulpit. So feel free to call your member of Congress and Senator anytime...

[treestar]

169. Why should Congress feel any pressure from Obama?

They are more likely to worry about the voters in their districts. Obama can't vote for them, appoint them, or get them fired. That's the idea. The separation of powers.

[no limit]

187. So Obama has no influance over congress?

Especially one ran by his own party?

[Ramulux]

149. Agree 100%

Sadly there are many people on this site so beholden to the democratic party that pointing out its many failures is met with only sad excuses and rants about how much worse he republican party is.

Obama doesn't listen to progressives and liberals because he doesn't have to. He doesn't have to because of all the blind loyalists who will follow him to the ends of the earth rather than admit how horrible many of his decisions have been. If all the partisan losers found the courage to challenge Obama when he decides that spending cuts are our only option for reducing the deficit he might actually take a look at the other options. If all the democrats just bow their head and go along with whatever right-wing policy position Obama has adopted we are fucked as a political party.

Just a reminder to anyone who thinks Obama is actually on our side, he made Larry Summers his top economic adviser and Tim Geithner his treasury secretary. I dont think Obama could be more obvious about where his allegiance lies, even if he just came out and said that he hates the poor and middle class.

[xchrom]

159. Recommend

[PBS Poll-435]

162. A) Al Gore Did Not Lose, B) The Construction of Your Argument Needs Work

Viait a Home Depot.

[spin]

163. Al Gore was a second place winner ...

the history books will list G. W. Bush as the 43rd U.S. president. The history books also show that J. F. Kennedy was the 35th President of the United States not Richard Nixon.

The election on November 8 remains one of the most famous election nights in American history. Nixon watched the election returns from his suite at the famed Ambassador Hotel in Los Angeles, while JFK watched the returns at the Kennedy family compound in Hyannis Port, Massachusetts. As the early returns poured in from large Northern and Midwestern cities such as Boston, New York City, Philadelphia, Pittsburgh, Detroit, and Chicago, Kennedy opened a large lead in the popular and electoral vote, and appeared headed for victory. However, as later returns came in from rural and suburban areas in the Midwest, the Rocky Mountain states, and the Pacific Coast states, Nixon began to steadily close the gap with Kennedy. Before midnight, The New York Times had gone to press with the headline "Kennedy Elected President". As the election again became too close to call, Times managing editor Turner Catledge hoped that, as he recalled in his memoirs, "a certain Midwestern mayor would steal enough votes to pull Kennedy through", thus allowing the Times to avoid the embarrassment of having announced the wrong winner, as the Chicago Tribune had memorably done twelve years earlier in announcing that Thomas E. Dewey had defeated President Truman.<18>

***snip***

Kennedy won Illinois by less than 9,000 votes out of 4.75 million cast, or a margin of two-tenths of one percent.<19> However, Nixon carried 92 of the state's 101 counties, and Kennedy's victory in Illinois came from the city of Chicago, where Mayor Richard J. Daley held back much of Chicago's vote until the late morning hours of November 9. The efforts of Daley and the powerful Chicago Democratic organization gave Kennedy an extraordinary Cook County victory margin of 450,000 votes—more than 10% of Chicago's 1960 population of 3.55 million<24>, although Cook County also included many suburbs outside of Chicago's borders—thus barely overcoming the heavy Republican vote in the rest of Illinois. Earl Mazo, a reporter for the pro-Nixon New York Herald Tribune, investigated the voting in Chicago and claimed to have discovered sufficient evidence of vote fraud to prove that the state was stolen for Kennedy.<19>

In Texas, Kennedy defeated Nixon by a narrow 51% to 49% margin, or 46,000 votes.<19> Some Republicans argued that Johnson's formidable political machine had stolen enough votes in counties along the Mexican border to give Kennedy the victory. Kennedy's defenders, such as his speechwriter and special assistant Arthur M. Schlesinger, Jr., have argued that Kennedy's margin in Texas (46,000 votes) was simply too large for vote fraud to have been a decisive factor, although cases of voter fraud were discovered there. For example, Fannin County had only 4,895 registered voters, yet 6,138 votes were cast in that county, three-quarters for Kennedy.<18> In an Angelina County precinct, Kennedy received a higher number of votes than the total number of registered voters in the precinct.<18> When Republicans demanded a statewide recount, they learned that the state Board of Elections, whose members were all Democrats, had already certified Kennedy as the official winner in Texas.<18>

In Illinois, Schlesinger and others have pointed out that, even if Nixon carried Illinois, the state alone would not have given him the victory, as Kennedy would still have won 276 electoral votes to Nixon's 246 (with 269 needed to win). More to the point, Illinois was the site of the most extensive challenge process, which fell short despite repeated efforts spearheaded by Cook County state's attorney, Benjamin Adamowski, a Republican, who also lost his re-election bid. Despite demonstrating net errors favoring both Nixon and Adamowski (some precincts—40% in Nixon's case—showed errors favoring them, a factor suggesting error, rather than fraud), the totals found fell short of reversing the results for either candidate. While a Daley-connected circuit judge, Thomas Kluczynski, (who would later be appointed a federal judge by Kennedy, at Daley's recommendation) threw out a federal lawsuit filed to contend the voting totals,<18> the Republican-dominated State Board of Elections unanimously rejected the challenge to the results. Furthermore, there were signs of possible irregularities in downstate areas controlled by Republicans, which Democrats never seriously pressed, since the Republican challenges went nowhere.<25> More than a month after the election, the Republican National Committee abandoned its Illinois voter fraud claims.<19>
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_presidential_election,_1960

Elections are not always fair or honest. Al Gore would have probably been a far better president than Bush the Junior. If Al would have sat in the Oval Office, we would have probably avoid a long useless war in Iraq. Kennedy was probably a far better President than Nixon in his time and place. As President, Kennedy was inspirational. Nixon, when he finally got his chance, was a disappointing embarrassment.

History has many strange twists and turns. Some work out well and others not so well.

[BzaDem]

167. Blaming Obama is like blaming a homeowner for a burgulary because they forgot to lock the door.

If a purported progressive chooses to enable the greater of two evils, that is (by definition) their fault. It is not the action of Obama. Obama presumably would vote for himself, so he (by definition) isn't responsible for some hypothetical Republican victory. Those who enable Republicans in the voting booth, however, are responsible for enabling Republican election victories. This is so obvious it should really go without saying.

What all purported progressives who vote 3rd party eventually realize is that they need the Democratic party FAR more than the Democratic party needs them. It is relatively easy for the Democratic party to move to the right to make up for lost irrational voters of the left. The only question is how much they need to move to the right, and that is completely dependent on how many progressives are irrational enough to enable a Republican candidate in the voting booth.

This is true for another reason as well. Politicians in general really aren't that affected by the policies of the opposing party. So the idea that voting out Democrats is somehow "punishing" them is pure fantasy. If a Democrat is voted out of office, they end up making multiple times what they were making in office. If Republicans start another few wars or pass a flat tax or end Medicare, that really doesn't affect Democratic politicians at all. The only people that are hurt by this fantasy "punishing" of Democrats are those who enable Republicans in the voting booth, since these enablers presumably actually do care about the resulting policies they enable.

"But that argument isn't going to convince all that many people that feel angry and betrayed."

Oh, I agree that a mere argument isn't going to make an irrational voter all of a sudden become rational. Only pure, unadulterated reality can do that. Walker and Rick Scott are examples of this reality, but if such reality is not sufficient for these voters, they can easily get more. There is an unlimited supply of pure reality that will make people become rational so fast your head would spin. The only question is how much damage gets done to their own interests before the transformation occurs.

[Arkana]

170. That's funny--to me, it meant stopping "Green Party" candidates like Nader

who take money from GOP financiers, and don't hire political advisers like Bob Shrum, who seems to be afflicted with a permanent case of loseritis.

As for worker rights, I would really like to hear your evidence that Obama is against them. The mandate is necessary if you want to keep health care costs down, because patients with insurance WILL get screwed by emergency room patients without insurance.

You got Elizabeth Warren as head of the CPA, and yet somehow now she's not good enough.

You sit here, in front of your keyboards, "demanding" real change from the President of the United States. If you want it so bad, then I would encourage you to get off your ass and go be proactive. Otherwise, shut your cakehole.

[tomp]

173. the energy from the betrayal of which you speak....

....has to go somewhere. i suggest the street. and then a third party, from the street.

[Imagevision]

175. Jeb Bush did his share into delivering Florida to W. but most folks know that...

[jimlup]

179. I will vote for Obama but

I will not donate to his campaign which I did liberally in 2008.

I'm more than just a little pissed.

[robinlynne]

180. Al Gore won the 2000 election. So maybe you should rethink your "why Gore

lost" theory. he didn't lose. It was stolen. proven. The votes were counted by the university of chicago. He won every single way they counted. We watched the Supreme Court break the law.
That is what happened in 2000.

[slay]

183. LIEberman

I was sooo disappointed in Gore. I didn't vote for Nader - I voted for Gore, but I didn't blame those who did vote Nader. In the end, Nader has been right about all of it - the similarities of the parties, looking out almost exclusively for the rich no matter who is in charge, limits on freedoms from both parties, etc.

The Dems best follow the example of the 14 in Wisconsin and get to supporting the people and NOW or we (many I know) are about done supporting them. They will not hold me hostage. If we all stand up we can make real change - we don't have to just sit back and take the crappy corporate non-options we are given by those in power. Sooner people realize that the sooner we can see that Real Change.

[travelingtypist]

185. Proud Nader hater here.

Ralph never copped to what he did, his role in the 2000 debacle where the votes he took from Gore in Florida made the state's electors stealable by the Felonious Five SCOTUS traitors.

We wouldn't have the insane off-the-cliff batshit crazies in the Puglican Party now if it weren't for Bush v. Gore or Ralph Nader REFUSING to throw his support behind Gore in key states like Florida so we wouldn't have a National Nightmare known as Bush. Think we'd be dealing with the aftermath of Citizen's United without the presence of John Corporate Shill Roberts or Sammy the Fish Alito -- Bush appointees both -- on SCOTUS? And that's just the first example.

So go ahead and cry and hold your breath and pound on the floor and kick and scream that Obama is governing in the age of insane off-the-cliff batshit crazies in the Puglican Party and never pretended to be anything but the pragmatic centrist that he is.

[TransitJohn]

188. Al Gore won. n/t

eom

[dionysus]

190. "Don't mistake this as a post in support of a 3rd party candidate " who you think you're fooling?

:rofl: