Got a call last night from the Obama camp begging for donations.

[arbusto_baboso]

Me: He doesn't get one more damn dime until he grows a spine.

Caller: Don't you care about what the Republicans are doing?

Me: Yes. Does the President?

Caller: If you don't support him, then the Republicans will make even more headway.

Me: I never said I wasn't voting for him. He's better than the alternative. But now I have to actually think a little bit before I make that statement.

Caller: Your attitude just makes it more likely the Republicans will regain even more control over policy.

Me: Really? It's like you folks STILL haven't gotten the message from the mid-terms. Now matter how much Obama 'reaches out', it ain't gonna work. No matter how much he sells out liberals, Republicans won't support him. And he'll just keep his 'base' dispirited and possibly at home not voting at all. Goodbye. (I hang up)

I hope the drone relayed this message up the chain.

[Fearless]

1. And he keeps reaching out to Republicans... now calling back the DNC support for WI.

[wndycty]

2. As much as celebrate your defiance the caller had a good point. . .

. . .go ahead bite your nose off to spite your face.

[arbusto_baboso]

3. And why don't you tell me just exactly how I'm doing that?

And then tell me how Obama is NOT doing that?

[BlueDemKev]

16. See my post..."100% Agree"

[truebrit71]

4. If the policies enacted are the same, what's the difference...better the devil you know...

..is losing it's lustre as an argument..

[BlueDemKev]

12. 100% Agree

Just look at the Teapublicans today (hopefully you didn't just eat, or it may be difficult to do).

Now,look at Obama and the Democrats. If you can't see any difference you better get your eyes checked.

Many progressives in Wisconsin didn't bother to vote last November and they have no one to blame but themselves that they're now getting raped by Scott Walker and the tea-potty legislature there. Voting in WI last Nov. was down 25% from 2008. Tom Barrett received 650,000 less votes than Obama did two years prior and Scott Walker received 140,000 less votes than McCain. You do the math.

Elections have consequences, folks. Choosing not to support the better candidate because they "haven't done enough" for you invariably leads to catastrophic, and possibly irreparable, results.

[arbusto_baboso]

25. Oh, you are so full of shit.

A) I NEVER said there was no difference between the Obama admin adn the Teapublicans. If you can actually point that out in my OP, please do so. Otherwise, concede this point or look like a complete jackass.

B) Why did the progressives in Wisconsin not vote in 2010? Precisely because many of them felt alienated by their "leadership". You are making an argument similar to that of television executives who give us shit shows like American Idol: "Well, reality shows get good ratings." Yes, and if that's the only crap you air, then of course, eventually people will tire of demanding decent programming and watch your crap. Sorry, but if Democratic Party leadership in uninspired, uninspiring, and does little that beenfits the base, can that same leadership REALLY expect the base to keep enthusiastically turning out?

As I said, I'll vote for Obama. But not happily.

[BlueDemKev]

38. Response

A) I NEVER said there was no difference between the Obama
admin adn the Teapublicans. If you can actually point that out
in my OP, please do so. Otherwise, concede this point or look
like a complete jackass.

No, but your attitude is what encourages otherwise
left-of-center voters to stay home and not bother to vote. 
Not voting is mathematically the same as giving a vote to the
right-wing maniacs.



B) Why did the progressives in Wisconsin not vote in 2010?
Precisely because many of them felt alienated by their
"leadership". 

I wonder how "alienated" they feel now that they've
been robbed of their collective-bargaining rights?  Not to
mention having a governor who opposes abortion even to save
the life of the mother, and believes that pharamacists should
have the "right" to refuse issuing contraceptive
devices?  

Oh, and by the way.....I think Reality TV sucks.  I've never
watched it, and never will.  I'll watch my old classic '70s
& '80s sit-com DVD's until television gets decent again.

[cui bono]

91. It's Obama's and the rest of the DLC's attitude

that "encourages otherwise left-of-center voters to stay home and not bother to vote."

His admin has told progressives to shut the fuck up. He just called off the DNC from supporting WI. He constantly kisses republican ass.

When he starts acting like a Democrat, a REAL Democrat maybe the base will come back out for him. But when he keeps insulting us HE is the one keeping left home. He totally squandered all the enthusiasm he had when he got elected. But then I'm no longer convinced he ever had good intentions. If he did how could he possibly appoint the people he has? We were duped. Big time.

[EFerrari]

31. Evidence that progressives stayed home?

The stuff we've seen so far indicates centrists voted for Republicans.

[BlueDemKev]

44. Evidence

In 2010, voter turnout was down more than 25% in Wisconsin from 2008.

In 2008, Obama received about 650,000 more votes in Wisconsin than Tom Barrett did in 2010 (while McCain received only about 140,000 more votes than Scott Walker). While Obama certainly picked up some "swing" voters in 2008, It is there is no way that over 1/3 of Obama voters decided to vote for a right-wing fanatic (Walker) only 24 months later.

Also, conservative voters were FAR MORE ENTHUSIASTIC about voting in 2010 than liberals were. To say Wisconsin conservatives didn't bother to vote last November while the progressives went out in droves is nonsense.

[EFerrari]

48. That's not evidence, but your opinion. n/t

[BlueDemKev]

75. Facts vs. Opinions

Everything I posted were facts (numbers don't lie) except that conservatives were more motivated to vote than progressives were in 2010. And if you don't believe THAT is true, there's no point in trying to help you see the light.

All I'm saying is PROGRESSIVES NEED TO GET OUT AND VOTE if we are to keep the right-wing fanatics from taking over this country and running it off a cliff.

[demwing]

76. Numbers don't lie, but can be spun wickedly

Your math only shows raw numbers, it doesn't show demographics, voter intent, etc.

BUT..For the sake of argument, let's say you're right.

Tell us WHY? Why did so many stay home? What caused the HUGE drop in enthusiasm over 2008?

[BlueDemKev]

84. Enthusiasm Drop from 2008?

Because Barack Obama and the Democrats couldn't fix every problem in this country and create a liberal utopia in just a few short months.

[demwing]

87. That's one possible answer -

if you haven't been paying attention.

But if you have, then you know there is a more simple, plausible explanation. The progressive base lost enthusiasm because Obama either doesn't care about keeping his word, or he just doesn't care about keeping his word. Take your pick.

And before anyone chimes in about ponies, know that they can make dismissive, condescending remarks all they like, but it's only because they can't refute the harsh truth of Obama's broken promises.

[EFerrari]

78. Your numbers don't speak to the issue and I don't need your "help".

Progressives did vote in 2010. The problem was that the middle voted for Republicans, not that progressives didn't vote.

And right wing fanatics have taken over this country, aided and abetted by right wing and corporate Democrats.

Go yell your caps at them.

[BlueDemKev]

85. Progressives Voting in 2010

Are you actually going to tell me that the progressive turnout was as high in 2010 as it was in 2008? Yes, the "middle" voters or "swing" voters did break more for the Republicans in 2010, however, if the same number of progressives had turned out in '10 that did in '08, we would have won a lot more races last year (including Feingold & Barrett in WI, Sestak in PA, Giannoulis in IL, to name a few).

The point I'm trying to make is this: we progressives MUST vote in EVERY election, even when things are tough for our side. The alternative is allowing tea-baggers to get into power and ruin this country.

Off-the-wall, right-wing, fanatical candidates like Scott Walker, Ron Johnson, & Pat Toomey is enough motivation for progressives to go vote.

[fishwax]

99. as a percentage of the electorate, yes, turnout for progressives was about as high in 2010 as in 08

It would be silly to expect raw numbers to be as high, since midterm elections never draw as many voters as presidential elections do. But as a percentage of the electorate, liberals were 23% of the WI electorate in 2008 and 21% in 2010. Moderates dropped from 47% to 42%. Conservatives (who were still smaller in raw numbers than 2008) jumped from 31% to 37%.

The difference between the number of liberal votes for Jim Doyle (the dem candidate in 2006) and the number of liberal votes for Barrett in 2010 is less than 30000. The difference in moderate votes was almost 120000.

[fishwax]

98. actually, you posted speculation

in addition to fact. Your numbers are basically correct, but it's simply speculation to insist that "While Obama certainly picked up some "swing" voters in 2008, It is there is no way that over 1/3 of Obama voters decided to vote for a right-wing fanatic (Walker) only 24 months later."

[Tesha]

55. Oh EFerrari, don't you know?

No matter what happens, no matter how it plays out,
it's *ALWAYS* the Left's fault.

Tesha

[EFerrari]

59. Sure! That's why the BLUE DOG caucus bit it last election.

And why the PROGRESSIVE caucus did not.

You'd think by now people would get that hippy punching gets them nowhere.

[BlueDemKev]

74. I'm talking about WISCONSIN....

...not rural congressional districts in the deep south where you can count the number of progressives who live there on one hand.

[calimary]

72. AHA!!! THIS is the info I was looking for!

Not 600-thousand votes - 650-thousand, and the differentials for Barrett versus walker compared to Obama versus mcsame.

Thanks BlueDemKev!

[EFerrari]

79. The answer to "the minority should shut up" is

that in America, democracy doesn't cease each time we have an election and the Bill of Rights continues to apply to everyone, just as the founders meant it to.

[calimary]

86. EXCELLENT!!!!! Good God, I was flamed from all directions on Facebook today.

Everybody who gave me a rough time carried on about how the Wisconsin 14 were law-breakers and deserters and despite my pointing out that they WERE doing their jobs and they WERE representing their constituents, especially those whose voices were being ignored. They rolled out all the talking points you can imagine - unions steal, unions greedy, unions baaaaaaad, said they found me "funny" and LOL because I dared to refute their statements, and then accused me of being a bully because I had the nerve to challenge their assertions and stand up for MY beliefs. One of them dismissed me with a cutesy little wisecrack followed by a "toodles" so I quoted her with a little cutesy-ass "toodles" of my own in my final post. I see there are still a couple more posts coming in, but I'm not wasting any further time looking at them anymore. I've even had some snark-sharks on MY Facebook page, and that's when I HAD ENOUGH!!! I actually unfriended a guy, who's since sent me a message which I will NOT be reading. And I've sanitized my page - all posts that I do not find pleasing, I am DELETING. It's MY page. I'll have what I want on there.

[EFerrari]

89. Good for you, calimary. They don't deserve your attention. n/t

[calimary]

106. And my FB page is more or less a CON-free zone.

[cui bono]

92. Another reason for me to keep off Facebook. I don't need that shit

and I don't want to get into political fights with people I may have to work with.

Are those people your RL friends or are you open to friending acquaintances? I couldn't be friends - of any type - with people who think like that.

[calimary]

105. No they're NOT my friends. One of them certainly isn't anymore because I unfriended them.

They were posting on the page of a friend of mine, Leslie Marshall, who's a liberal broadcaster. She brings out the beast in people, I guess. Just really vile assholes. Snarky and smug and dismissive and mean-spirited. Typical GOP.

And I kinda need to be on Facebook a lot - because of my kid's band.

[fishwax]

97. moderates actually stayed away from the polls at the same (actually slightly higher) rate in WI

compared to both the 2008 election (where turnout was, of course, significantly higher than in an off-year election) and the last off-year election in 2006. So it doesn't make sense to blame progressives. What's more, the progressives who showed up at the polls voted for the democrat at almost the same rate as they did in 2008--and actually at a higher rate than they did in 2006. The same can't be said for moderates.

The idea that the result in Wisconsin was the result of progressives "choosing not to support the better candidate" doesn't hold water.

[BobbyBoring]

103. There are countless factors

But I think the big one is a lot of independents and Republicans cast their votes relying on false information. The tea partiers dragged a lot of confused folks to the booths thinking ( I know) they were doing the right thing by voting out "Socialist" that supported Obamas "radical agenda".

Democrats did little to fight the lies.

[sabrina 1]

100. This tactic of blaming the people is utterly ridiculous and it

only alienates people more, AND more people. It is insulting and idiotic. The people are NOT to blame for what politicians do. Politicians who do it, are to blame.

There is now a realization that maybe what the people of Wisconsin did was the very best thing they could have done. Those who refused to vote for 'bi-partisanship and compromise' with some of the most reactionary, evil morons in this country's recent history DID do the right thing.

As a result, something great has happened. Sometimes people have to actually SEE how bad things can get before they wake up. Wisc. has awakened an awful lot of people.

Continuing the status quo for nearly five years now since Dems first won a majority, has accomplished not a single thing for the people except a few crumbs here and there.

We the people MUST decide whether it is better to speed things up as has happened in Wisc by refusing to be coerced or intimidated into continuing a failed tactic, or take a stand against policians who were not and will not work for us.

Let the shit hit the fan if that what it takes for people to realize how corrupt this system has become.

I like what happened in Wisconsin. But it would never have happened if people had followed your advice. Nothing good happens without a little suffering. A quick pain is always better than the long-drawn-out pain we have experienced as we continued with the same tactic over and over again that simply did not work. And you know what they say about repeating the same thing expecting different results.

Wisconsin, contrary to being an example of what not to do, is a perfect example of what a change in tired old unworkable tactics can accomplish.

I'm not sure why you are trying to use it as an example of why we should just keep repeating what didn't work. On the contrary, Wisc is a perfect example of how to get the people back in the game of actually fighting for what they want.

So, stop blaming the people for wanting a better government. All you are doing is enabling irresponsible, corporate-backed elected officials.

[tabatha]

5. That is why the Republicans are winning.

Good job!

[arbusto_baboso]

6. Please explain HOW that is so.

Otherwise, your knee-jerk reaction makes no sense whatsoever.

[tabatha]

10. It was sarcasm.

[arbusto_baboso]

14. Tough to tell sometimes.

I know my thread may be flamebait, so I'm a bit defensive about it.

[jefferson_dem]

19. Not sarcasm...

It's the truth.

Only the Republicans are not winning, and will not win ... much to the dismay of the small handful of serial complainers on the supposed left who desperately root for failure.

[yourout]

11. Bullshit.......the base stayed home because the leaders gave them no.....

reason to get out.

Inspiring people works a hell of a lot better than castigating them.

The Dem leadership is suppose to work for us.....not the other way around.

[Bobbie Jo]

63. And what we have now is the end result....

Now what?

[AlabamaLibrul]

108. The end result started in 2009 and never stopped n/t

[William769]

17. Republicans are winning because they fight to win.

[ljm2002]

29. Precisely. n/t

[EFerrari]

47. Exactly.

[dixiegrrrrl]

7. Notice how they use the Repub as the "problem" that only YOUR money can solve.

[emulatorloo]

67. Republicans have Koch Money and Crossroads GPS money

[cui bono]

93. Yeah, kind of like how the Republicans use Terrorism. n/t

[Divernan]

8. Good for you. You know they're getting lots of responses like yours

because they had a whole list of canned responses ready, not unlike the true believers around here.

On edit: Oh, here they are now - the usual cast.

[Name removed]

9. Deleted message

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

[fascisthunter]

13. It's Like Extortion... "Well, if you don't vote for him blah blah blah"

My reply... don't you ever call my residence and tell me what I should do or think you arrogant washing dc piece of shit!

[undeterred]

107. I wonder how much money they think they can raise with that approach.

[frazzled]

15. "camp"?

What organization are you speaking of? OFA? DNC? 2012 campaign? (this last is not calling anyone yet, I believe).

The mere use of the word "camp" suggests there is a preset notion on your part. Unless you can describe exactly what you were being asked to donate to, I consider this post pretty useless in terms of expressing anything except your own ideas. "You folks" also suggests you hold an "us vs. them" attitude. I just can't figure out who your "us" and "thems" are.

[arbusto_baboso]

21. The Obama re-election campaign. Better?

And also your parsin of my phraseology is mumbo-jumbo. Get over yourself, you are NOT an intellectual.

[Name removed]

24. Deleted message

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

[frazzled]

46. I find that extremely difficult to believe

I live in the headquarters of the re-election campaign, and it is not making calls yet.

You should be careful not to be scammed by fake callers.

[Bluenorthwest]

62. Lots of paid call centers are calling now.

Not volunteers at all, usually. They buy fund raising services for hire, a cut goes to the house, a spiff to the caller.

[jaxx]

18. That's really too bad.

The President and everyone else in the party who will run in 2012 needs to be supported by Democrats. But if it makes you feel better...............

[Divernan]

22. All the Dems who will run in 2012 need to support traditional Democratic principles and values

But if it makes them feel better to continue selling out to Wall Street and the war mongering, profiteering Big Donors/corporate interests. . . .

[jaxx]

26. That bug don't fly.

But then rightwing talking points are useless anyway.

[EFerrari]

33. The right wing never talks about Wall Street. n/t

[jaxx]

35. Sure they do, they want no regulations etc etc etc.

Don't be giving the pubs airs, they don't deserve them.

[EFerrari]

39. They don't frame it as Wall Street but as big government.

No, they don't talk about Wall Street.

[jaxx]

41. Ho hum.

Really, this isn't interesting.

[Divernan]

45. Your debate skills and attention span are equally lacking

Just phoning it in today, are you?

[jaxx]

49. Is this a community project?

Tag team?

[EFerrari]

61. It's never "interesting" to find out that you're not even making sense. n/t

[jaxx]

65. That's what I thought when I read the reply.

[Divernan]

43. You're saying traditional Dem. values are right wing talking points?

I think you went off script, kiddo!

[jaxx]

52. Wasn't me who went off script.

But if it makes them feel better to continue selling out to Wall Street and the war mongering, profiteering Big Donors/corporate interests. . . .


Those are not Democratic values, those are rightwing talking points. What are they doing on DU?

[Divernan]

54. My point is that Obama's policies do NOT reflect traditional Dem. values.

[jaxx]

57. My point is that those named are not Obama's policies.

They are rightwing trashtalk.

[cui bono]

94. The people need to be supported by Democrats too. But that hasn't been happening when it comes

to this Administration. When Obama deserves the support he'll get it. Supporting him now will just bring in more Republican policy and move the Democratic Party right of center.

But if it makes you feel better.......

[AlabamaLibrul]

109. They will find plenty of support from Citizens United et al and none from me n/t

[Turbineguy]

20. I see it the same way

Since Scott Brown got elected. It's smarter to spend energy, thought and money on protecting yourself from the effects of republicans rather than give it to a bunch that are going to squander it.

Until the average Fox watcher figures out that they've been fucked this is going to continue to get worse.

[Edweird]

23. The republicans are winning because the Dems are doing their dirty work.

[Name removed]

27. Deleted message

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

[Rex]

28. People that worry about how Repukes will respond to this and that

don't really care about winning elections, just what people think about them in RL.

[ChiciB1]

30. Same Reply From Me! Told Them "O" Doesn't Have MY Back... NOR

do most Democrats that so many of us voted for and worked VERY hard to elect! At least MY group of Democratic friends! We have Repukes LAUGHING at us right now and it sure feels like getting kicked in the gut!!

More and more people want to see a THIRD PARTY that will REPRESENT "we the people!" Seems that it won't happen, but I'm one very, very, very DISGUSTED Democrat.

Besides, I DON'T have ANY money to give!

[Myrina]

32. The top of the chain already knows ... and doesn't care.

... it's the folks like us who organize and phone bank and GOTV that still have the blinders on, still believing in what our party is supposed to stand for.

POTUS is going to be re-elected ... the deal's already been struck. He's letting the elites have what they want, which is why the GOP is floating NEWT FUCKING GINGRICH. Newt? Seriously? As a candidate? They don't even want a CLOSE race, they just have to throw SOMEONE on the ballot. They still get what they want - what they have wanted and have been getting - from POTUS.

[whattheidonot]

34. disruption not donations.

Disruption not donations. Peaceful all the way. shut it down

[JVS]

36. Extortion masquerading as politics.

[Erose999]

37. I just found out "Win the Future" is the title of a book written by Newt Gingrich. Obamas dead to me

Not one dime. Ever.

[nadinbrzezinski]

42. To be fair that is a common fantasy and sci fi title

and Newt writes both badly.

So that could be coincidence.

Still this president has no fight in him.

[Erose999]

50. Its actually a book about policy. Including education policy. He's got a "WTF" PAC too...

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

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

[nadinbrzezinski]

53. I know, and his policy possitions are full of fantasy

his actual fiction books are a little more coherent.

Oh and that is also a common title for policy papers

[jaxx]

58. Really?

Then why are you posting on the Democratic Underground?

[Erose999]

81. There are plenty of state and local Democrats I do support. Thats the major reason I'm on DU, also

I like to discuss the news.

I wasn't aware that there was a "Do you approve of Obama?" litmus test one had to go through to get a DU account.

[cui bono]

95. Because s/he believes in Democratic values and doesn't want to support someone who enacts Republican

policies?

:shrug:

[emulatorloo]

69. So? There are lots of books with those words in the title.

If you think Obama is 'drawing inspiration from Newt" you are way off.

[Tierra_y_Libertad]

40. He should be dunning the rich he gave the ponies with golden saddles to.

[NoTimeToulouse]

51. Why do you want Sarah to win?

How defeatist of you! :eyes:

[meow mix]

56. all they have left to sell is fear. hope has gone into the garbage

and his change was never anything other than garbage

[cui bono]

96. +1

[SOS]

60. OT - suggestion on donations

Give anonymously with an money order.
If you ever give them your info, you will be called incessantly for the rest of your life.

[krawhitham]

64. caller was right

Caller: Your attitude just makes it more likely the Republicans will regain even more control over policy.

[EFerrari]

71. Thought crimes don't vote. Voters do. n/t

[frylock]

83. republican policies enacted by democrats is what gives republicans more power

[cui bono]

102. +1

[southernyankeebelle]

66. Yes I got the call also. I asked the man to make sure he tells the leaders for Obama to borrow

Pelosi's balls. The democratic party is in a sorry state.

[emulatorloo]

68. Flamebait, and why did you abuse that worker? and call her names?

[cui bono]

101. Why did you defame the poster? and lie about what they said?

Where was the name calling? Please show me. I just don't see it.

I see a trend in your posts. Everywhere I go there you are with senseless arguments because you can't seem to accept that anyone could possibly criticize Obama. But blatantly lying about what another DUer said is a new low.

[Name removed]

70. Deleted message

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

[Name removed]

73. Deleted message

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

[jimlup]

77. Exactly my position

Thanks!

[Tierra_y_Libertad]

80. You should have demanded a refund for false advertising.

[Lorien]

82. Imagine if every "product" were advertised that way

"Buy a Ford, because it's not quite as shitty a vehicle as a Kia!"

Seriously. "The republicans are worse" strategy has worn thin. If they won't give the people a reason to vote FOR their candidate and not just against the other guy he may as well not even bother running.

[Enthusiast]

88. I would have said

something similar.

Voters did not vote for Obama in 2008 believing him to be a conservative. The public voted for Obama because they justifiably expected him to act as a liberal Democrat. Obama and his inner circle can't possibly believe 'a move to the right' is in his best interest politically -as perfectly illustrated by the midterm results. They might act like they believe it, but they actually know better.

[cui bono]

90. I requested a refund of my 2008 donation quite some time ago.

Still waiting...

[defendandprotect]

104. +1000% -- but

unfortunately, this isn't about Obama not having a spine --

This is a purposeful move to the right by Obama on every issue --

from universal health care and his back room deals with Big Pharma and private

h/c industry to his lack of support for LABOR/UNIONS -- on and on!!

Wall Street is running the White House --