Will this administration ever stop acting like it doesn't even owe the left any RESPECT?

[Ken Burch]

And if it doesn't, does it really have any right to ask those of us on the left to vote for it again?

(btw..."President Palin" is NOT a valid response to that question...they won't nominate Caribou Barbie anyway).

[aSpeckofDust]

1. What makes you think they are acting? n/t

[leftstreet]

3. LOL

:rofl:

Welcome to DU!

[Ken Burch]

4. I dunno...the makeup and costumes, maybe?

n/t.

[DeSwiss]

12. Very. Well. Put. n/t

[leveymg]

34. This is the darker, satirical version of "West Wing".

More like "Deep Impact" with cases of liquid protein drinks stockpiled in the White House in the face of impending doom.

[Bandit]

43. West Wing after Sorkin left and there was a Republican President.

:shrug: Obama has accomplished more for the Republicans than they could have ever even dreamed of.

[readmoreoften]

65. Si se puede!!!

:eyes:

They were acting when they pretended to respect the left.

[Name removed]

2. Deleted message

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

[Name removed]

5. Deleted message

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

[aSpeckofDust]

6. If your boss asks if you like him, do you put on a happy face and lie

..or do you say what's on your mind and face retribution?

[PeaceNikki]

8. You think the state Senators in WI answer to Obama?

hilarious.

[Capitalocracy]

97. I thought the American people were supposed to be the boss

or is it Goldman Sachs?

[PeaceNikki]

meow

[RufusTFirefly]

18. The W14 weren't happy with Obama...

... they essentially just dodged the question, which was predictable.

They realized that bashing the President, even by inference, would've swamped their message faster than a tsunami in Santa Cruz harbor.

[tabatha]

22. Talk about making stuff up.

I read what they said, and they answered directly that they were happy with Obama and did not dodge the question.

Are you putting thoughts in their minds based on what you want them to think.

[Zorra]

23. Yes. I thought they were extremely gracious under the circumstances. n/t

[Tx4obama]

7. And will the 'left' ever stop acting like it doesn't owe President Obama

& his administration any respect.
It's a two way street.

[Very_Boring_Name]

10. Respect has to be earned

The left has earned it's respect. It supported, donated, and campaigned for this president. In turn this president has returned nothing but contempt.

[Bake]

56. +1000

You said a mouthful!

Bake

[readmoreoften]

67. +1000.

[DeSwiss]

14. We don't. They work for us. Remember? n/t

[ThomCat]

25. Um, You do realize that Leaders are the ones that have to

earn respect from the people they hope will support and follow them. Right? And it is with their choices and actions that they are supposed to earn that respect.

But in the other direction? The leader is supposed to respect those followers from the very beginning simply because they are the ones he is going to begging for support. They are the ones who he wants as followers. They are the ones who will be judging his actions.

This idea that everyone on the left needs to earning his respect implies that the left works for him. It implies that he appoints them, rather them them appointing him. It implies that they answer to him, and their legitimacy comes from him, and their goals and principals should come from him. Otherwise he won't respect them, and that's what you have said they should all want, his respect. Do you see how backwards that is?

He should be trying to earn the respect of the left, because we all know damned well that he'll never have the respect of the left. He should be paying attention to the goals and principals of the left, because so far he has only been implementing the goals of the right, and the center doesn't have any goals other than to stay in that supposedly magical center. It is the goals of the left that actually help people, and therefore attract the support of the people. If he wants to claim populist support then he needs to act like a populist and earn the respect of populists so that populists will rally to him.

This idea that the left has to "respect" Obama is nothing more than the loyalty oaths of days gone by recycled into a new ugly form. Shut up and march in line behind the leader. Someone else thinks his ideas are wonderful, so who are you do dare to have an idea that conflicts or questions? Don't you dare be disloyal by having a conflicting idea. Show respect by giving blanket support for everything, no matter what it is, all the time, like a good little republican would. Only then can our leader achieve real power for the sake of power, and that is the goal!

Silly things like minority rights that only a small number of people care about, or controversial things like environmental protections that businesses don't want us to pursue, or civil rights that used to be important but get in the way of being strong now, all those things will have to be sacrificed as a unified party gets rid of superficial stuff and achieves real power. That's what happens when you support this mythical unity and things like "respect" for politicians instead of respect for constituents. You're actually against the ideas of messy democracy, and you help cover for the consolidation of power and ideas, as some things have to get put by the wayside, and we all know which things go by the wayside.

[bobbolink]

41. .

:rofl:

Humorous.

[Me.]

59. So Getting Him Elected As President Wasn't Enough Of A Sign Of Respect?

[readmoreoften]

66. DIsgusting post. I don't "owe" some full of nonsense politician anything.

He works for the people. I don't work for him. He'll get respect when he earns it. He OWES respect to those who voted for him.

[walldude]

72. He got fucking elected didn't he? He got money and time and

votes from most of us. And we sat and watched him get his ass handed to him oh HCR, Taxes, Afghanistan, Bailouts, Constitutional violations, blah blah blah.


You think I owe this administration RESPECT? I'm worse off than I ever was during the Bush administration. And the Obama administration like it's supporters have no empathy or sympathy or respect for me and people like me, as a matter of fact not only do we not get any respect but we are berated, made fun of and then expected to "get with the program".

As far as I'm concerned they can shove this program up their ass. It's time to take back what was stolen from us, and if the dems don't respect themselves or us enough to do it we'll do it without them.

[ReggieVeggie]

81. Obama owes the left for his presidency

period

[fascisthunter]

88. we voted for him, that's all that is expected

sorry, but you have to earn respect and inactions and actions can make any politician lose respect.

[donheld]

103. Obama has worked very hard to earn the disrespect it gets from the left

He had massive amounts of respect election night. Since then, he's done NOTHING but work very hard to kill that respect.

[Very_Boring_Name]

9. David Frum said it best

Republican politicians fear their base, Democratic politicians despise theirs.

[Mimosa]

24. Wow, I never heard that quote.

But it perfectly describes what i observed up close in Louisiana.

[snagglepuss]

89. I never heard it either. It's right on the mark. nt

[bobbolink]

44. Yet,, we keep taking the abuse.

that doesn't reflect so well on us, does it?

[Critters2]

90. +1 nt

[rhett o rick]

11. This is a tactical move by the president. The candidate that wins the center wins the election.

If he wins the center he will squeeze out the right. So he has to distance himself from the left to win the center.
Good news is that a Democrat will win in 2012. Bad news is that we wont get the progressive legislation we need to heal the country.

[Angry Dragon]

13. Damned if we do .........Damned Damned if we don't

[ThomCat]

26. That's why the Republicans always win in the long run.

The Democrats keep fighting to win the center.

Republicans keep fighting to pull the entire political spectrum to the right, so the center moves with it.

If the center moves to the right, and the Democrats insist on having that center, then the Democrats move willingly to the right too.

And that's what keeps happening. Democrats keep happily moving farther and farther to the right, voluntarily, at the bidding of Republicans. Yet the party constantly thinks they are in the mythical center, so it's all okay.

In response, the republicans just move farther to the right again, moving that center even farther to the right again, and accuse the Democrats of being too far to the left again.

Will the Democratic Party Ever wise up, Wake Up, and stop thinking that the mythical center is some political holy land?

Will the Democratic Party ever realize that they've been badly used precisely because of their addiction to being in this mythical center?

Will the democratic party ever begin to value being on the left again and begin to pull the entire political spectrum back to the left against the pull of Republicans?

I would love to think that somewhere in our party there are experts smart enough to see what is happening, and wise enough to plan a way out of this trap the Republicans have us in. But if, as many say, the two parties are really two sides of the same party then this will never happen, because that would mean that both parties want to see the political spectrum stay on course to the right. It would mean that we don't have a left in US politics anymore.

Unfortunately, that's probably closer to the truth. I think that the left is a "bastard stepchild" in politics that is only temporarily and unhappily housed within the democratic party's tent, but will never be allowed a voice to speak. The right wing within the party took over, probably permanently, ever since Clinton made the fateful decision that the party should be better funded with corporate money than with labor's money.

[readmoreoften]

68. +1

[jp11]

96. +1000

There is no left except for a scant few politicians.

[Ken Burch]

29. In 1996, a Democratic president won re-election by promising not to be progressive

except on a few trivial side issues. Does anybody still think THAT "victory" was worth anything?

[hfojvt]

45. I am still happy that Dole lost

that victory would have done more if we could have won more of the Congressional races.

[Ken Burch]

54. Dole and Clinton agreed on all major issues

Clinton was only non-conservative on a few trivialities. Even on "choice" for example, he still accepted the basic idea that women who have abortions should be pretty much stigmatized.

[hfojvt]

60. well, unless you consider Reaganomics a major issue

"With respect to the issues, Dole promised a 15% across-the-board reduction in income tax rates and made former Congressman and supply side advocate Jack Kemp his running mate." http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_presidential_election,_1996#Republican_Party_nomination

Clinton did eventually sign a huge tax cut for the rich in 1997, but he also did this later

September 23, 1999: Vetoed H.R. 2488, Taxpayer Refund and Relief Act of 1999. No override attempt made.

August 5, 2000: Vetoed H.R. 4810, Marriage Tax Relief Reconciliation Act of 2000. Override attempt failed in House, 270-158 (286 needed).

August 31, 2000: Vetoed H.R. 8, Death Tax Elimination Act of 2000. Override attempt failed in House, 274-157 (288 needed).

December 19, 2000: Pocket vetoed H.R. 2415, Bankruptcy Reform Act of 2000.<24>

[Ken Burch]

61. Clintons' program was still essentially Reaganomics

Clinton didn't stop the cuts in social services. What he did in caving in to the bigots and poorbashers on the welfare bill was morally equivalent to Reaganomics. No Democratic president should EVER, EVER, EVER agree with anything Rush Limbaugh says about poor women. You become a Republican the moment you do.

And four vetoes don't make up for that. Those bills were trivial.

Democrats are NEVER supposed to throw the poor under the bus.

[hfojvt]

76. except that bill happened BEFORE the election, not after it

and there were a couple of vetoes before that.

[Ken Burch]

78. He was supposed to defend the poor from abuse

and to reject the slanders of the Right about the supposed "immorality" of those whose only crime is to be impoverished. He threw them under the bus...because...his short-term political survival, HIS re-election in name, was supposedly the only thing that mattered.

In doing so, Clinton also insulted the American people...by implying that the people would ONLY re-elect him if he agreed to HELP punish the poor for being poor. There was no reason at all for him to believe this about the American people-to believe it was to believe that the majority of the people here are inherently heartless and spiteful towards those with nothing.

And Clinton KNEW, from his own childhood experience, that everything Rush and Co. said about the poor was a vicious, classist, racist lie...and he never challenged ANY of it. The man should feel ashamed of that.

Finally, Bob Dole was so hopelessly lame and out-of-date as a candidate by 1996 that ANY Democrat would have beaten him. We didn't have to settle for a Democrat who was as close to being a Republican as was inhumanly possible. All you HAD to do to beat Dole was to have a pulse and a soul.

[bobbolink]

93. Clinton pushed the demonnization of poverty to such a point, and OBama has continued it

that now we have a safe atmosphere for cries to send the elderly to freeze and die in Siberia, and killing off "defective" kids, etc.

Clinton and Obama have paved the way for this, and it won't be surprising if there are now pogroms on poor people.

[Ken Burch]

95. It sure won't.

Bill Clinton, born poor, became a class kapo.

[bobbolink]

92. What? The demolition of welfare took place in Clinton's second term!

Now he says he wishes he had done it his first term, because it was such a good political move!

FUCK YOU, BILL! Shame on you for throwing poor women and children under your REpub-lite bus!

[bobbolink]

46. Unfortunately,, many do.. Because they prospered.

So what if poor people got sold for 30 pieces of silver.

We don't matter anyway. Our lives are nothing.

[Ken Burch]

55. tens of millions were thrown under the bus in the Nineties.

It was NEVER right for a "Democratic" president to accept right-wing slanders about the supposed immorality of the poor. Only Republicans are supposed to use hate words like "welfare mothers".

[bobbolink]

77. Thank you, Ken. So few give a rip about them. Clinton cared so little that he didn't even

have them tracked, to find out how many ended up homeless, how many died, etc.

Yet, people have conniptions if I say we are ignored and dismissed.

I shouldn't have to listen to that from "Democrats"!!

[Ken Burch]

79. We might as well say it...to Bill Clinton

the poor meant as little as dead Iraqis meant to George W. Bush.

The man was NEVER a Democrat, and we never needed to lower ourselves to nominating a candidate who would actually ABANDON the poor. This isn't a nation of Ebenezer Scrooges, for Gawd's sake.

[bobbolink]

84. I'm not so sure you're right about that. I think Ebenezer Scrooge has been giving classes

in GREED and HARDHEARTEDNESS, and the tickets are selling like hotcakes.

As for Clinton... yup, his disdain for us was HUGE.... but I think it's nor more than Obama's.

:cry:

And the death toll will not be televised. :cry:

[Autumn]

75. That might suit him just fine.

I don't think we have gotten very much of the progressive legislation we needed to heal the country in the last 2 years anyway. So I really have no hope for the next long six years. Only one consolation, if he's the only one running I don't have to listen to anything he says. I just have to show up in November, hold my nose and vote for him.

[slay]

15. Oooh oooh - I can answer this one - NO.

because they don't respect us - they only respect 2 things - money, and power - of which we have very little.

[handmade34]

16. but another

Republican Supreme Court Justice is a valid response!!!!

[Ken Burch]

32. We can assume Obama's nominees will just keep getting more and more conservative, too

Remember, EVERYONE he's nominated so far is to the right of the Justice they replaced. Which means they'll STAY to the right of the ones they replaced.

We don't have to ALWAYS settle for "it could be worse".

[Foo Fighter]

17. In answers to your questions, "No," and "No."

The left only matters so they can give the appearance that we have a two-party system. We don't matter and haven't mattered for quite some time in our one-party system that only serves the interests of the rich and the corporations.

It really doesn't matter what letter is behind the name of the members of Congres or President when they're all owned by the same group of people.

And that "group of people" isn't us.

[DeSwiss]

19. I'm sure they'll squirt a few tears of remorse.....

...about how we've grown apart in the summer months. And then they'll sing a few verses of Auld Lang Syne around August or September in the hopes that all will be forgiven. Making certain that all the while they've warned us and reminded us that a President (insert irrelevant Repuke candidate's name here) would be just terrible by comparison, if we let them take away this election. But the race will already be over. In fact, it's already over now. He's stacked the deck with Wall Street cronies who'll make sure this "sure thing" of theres is retained.

- And then after election day we can become the despicable, irrational and irresponsible Professional Leftists they always thought we were to begin with......

K&R

[bobbolink]

48. Naw, we'll be lectured and called names.

That gambit worked so well last year.

:shrug:

[defendandprotect]

20. Better question is: "When are we going to wake up about this administration"

and Dem Party in general --

We need to pick up what's left of it -- draft Sen. Bernie Sanders for president

in 2012 on a Dem ticket -- and find a strong anti-war VP like maybe Tom Hayden/?

and move on!!

Sadly, it's not just Obama -- the entire Dem Party is loaded with rich people

acting in their own interests -- and that's been going on for decades!!

[readmoreoften]

69. +1

[ProfessionalLeftist]

21. Are any of our names in this list?

http://www.opensecrets.org/politicians/contrib.php?cycle=2008&cid=N00009638&type=C&newmem=N

NO? Then the answer to your question is not NO but Hell no.

WE are not his owners. THEY are.

[hfojvt]

50. those numbers are pretty small

the total for the top 20 is only $1.6 million. Obama spent $741 million.

The total for the 20th largest donor is only $48,000.

Okay, there are at least 2,000 active DUers. If we each put away $5 per month, then by this time next year, we would, collectively, have $120,000 to donate, putting us in 4th place on that list.

The real trouble comes when you can compare what we can easily do, to what the big donors can do. Take 1,000 people (please) who donate the maximum of $2,300. Their total is $2.3 million which dwarfs our puny $120,000.

But look at some other numbers. Supposed 30 million of the 60 million Obama voters are mad at him. Suppose further that half of those people each donate just $5, one time, to Russ Feingold. Bing bang, Russ has $45 million.

[RainDog]

27. Obama's relationship with the Democratic base is starting to remind me of LBJ

when Vietnam was something so many couldn't support - LBJ couldn't go against the military and continued to back failed policy even tho this infuriated the left and radicalized many. but when students were facing the draft - it was also personal.

now it's not Vietnam (tho Afghanistan is a big issue). The financial crisis and the selling of the American commons to corporate interests is the issue that is creating the loss of confidence and belief in the good faith of this administration.

Obama decided he wanted to placate the right wing and they'll just continue to exact more and more concessions to their demands, just like the military did with Vietnam.

[Fuzz]

28. No. If they have any liberal tendencies, it MAY, may show the last year of a second term.

And that's just SUCKS!

[Ken Burch]

31. We were told "don't worry, Clinton will be liberal in his second term"

THEN we were told "Clinton CAN'T be liberal in the second term because it will hurt Gore(or HRC)". If HRC had won, we'd have been told "She can't be liberal...but just WAIT 'til Chelsea gets in..."

:puke:

(I'm expecting them to start the "Obama has to keep the powder dry so that Sasha or Malia will have a chance to be liberal". You just KNOW its coming, people.)

[Beam Me Up]

30. Nope. This administration works for those who own and rule America and it ain't us.

n/t

[TransitJohn]

33. Frankly, I'm amazed this post has been allowed to stand.

My posts asking very similar questions at the time of passage of the Affordable Care Act were completely deleted with no explanation given.

Edited to add: I guess that's progress of some sort.

[quaker bill]

35. In politics, respect is not owed, it is earned then demanded

The entire question, as posed, is self-defeating. The entire notion of conditional support prevents respect from ever materializing.

The better choice question is "we will consistently turn out, work, vote, and contribute heavily, just like we always do, do you (candidate X) want our support?"

This is why the religious right gets respect when their essential numbers are roughly equivalent to the secular left which doesn't get respect. The religious right will be at the polls every time, they turn out by the church bus load all day long. The question they ask is "we are going to be there voting anyway, are you the candidate we are picking?"

After 2010, the left cannot ask the question in this way, because sometimes we just don't feel like voting....

Respect in politics is earned and then demanded, it is never "owed".

[Ken Burch]

39. You're asking us to just give our votes and expect NOTHING in return

That's the same as giving up.

If we just vote for what we're given, there can't ever BE any gains.

[quaker bill]

62. You are mistaken

It is just as simple as I stated it. Respect in politics is earned and then demanded. First you have to earn it, then you can demand it.

Voting in one election does not earn respect. Unions get respect. Why? Because they show up, work the phones, canvass, donate, and vote. They have done so for decades because they know this is how they get respect. They don't just vote for what they are given, they demand and get more because they pay the dues.

Wake up and smell the coffee. Money in the coffers and boots on the ground is what gets respect, and not the just last campaign, but when they know you will be there for the next one and the one after that....

This is not giving up, it is actually doing the work.

[cali]

36. sorry, but YOU don't fucking get to dictate what is or is not a valid response

and whether it's Palin or Pawlenty or some other repub, I have every intention of voting against them.

[Ken Burch]

38. A lot of progressives will vote that way.

I'm just saying that nobody in the Obama campaign has the right to ask them to do so anymore. Do you get the difference?

They've lost any right to ask anything of us now.

[readmoreoften]

70. +1

[mmonk]

37. No because they aren't left.

[Bluebear]

40. Who's acting?

[ecstatic]

42. That doesn't make sense

Everyone is owed respect, not just those who voted for him. Also, respect goes both ways. Your OP comes across as "Obama should stay in his place since we were nice enough to vote for him."

[Ken Burch]

80. No...it's actually more like

"Obama should never have thrown in with Rahm and thrown progressives under the bus. We elected him, he owed us at least the same degree of influence in the administration that the big donors have".

[DearAbby]

47. !!!!! + 1

you can only slap away a dog so many times, one time to often, that dog isn't going to come back, may turn and bite you.

[Tierra_y_Libertad]

49. The only way it will respect us is if they figure they can't count on our votes.

And, come to the realization that "not as bad" isn't good enough.

“The shepherd always tries to persuade the sheep that their interests and his own are the same.” Marie Henri Beyle (Stendhal)

[BzaDem]

52. Why would they court a bunch of irrational voters who think enabling the greater of two evils

is somehow a good option?

Why wouldn't they just move further right to court independents to replace them?

[Tierra_y_Libertad]

53. Which is exactly what they have done.

You think it "irrational" to vote for what one believes in rather than "the lesser of two evils"?

[Ken Burch]

73. Why can't you admit that Obama should stop moving to the right?

Why can't you admit that it's on HIM to mend fences with the left? We don't owe it to him to vote for him no matter what. It's not like he's ABOVE the party.

Yes, there had to be compromises to some degree in the first two years, but the admin didn't have to follow up to those by saying to activists, in effect, "this is as good as it gets and we won't even try to fix what we screwed up and you HAVE to vote for us anyway". If they'd just have said "the fight goes ON!" "We start pushing for a REAL healthcare bill and REAL banking reform the day after the election, AND we admit that it's time to get the hell out of Iraq and Afghanistan!" it would have been a whole different dynamic in 2010. The independents weren't demanding that Obama not do any of that. And the damn independents didn't vote for him in 2010 anyway, despite the contempt he showed to those who elected him in 2008.

We all know he can't ever get the "independents" back now anyway, and that the only chance the guy has is to reach out to those he drove away. Isn't it time for the party leader to admit that the only path to victory is to fire up the base?

[ReggieVeggie]

82. a HA!! SO you admit the the Democrats are evil!

Very big of you.

[readmoreoften]

71. +1

[undeterred]

51. No and no.

[JoePhilly]

57. Oh boy ... another non-specific "Obama hates the left" OP.

Must be Monday.

[Capitalocracy]

98. what level of specificity do you require?

you know what they're referring to. we all know what they're referring to.

[Modern_Matthew]

58. Nope. And I worry about the mental capacity of those that continue their blind support. nt

[Raine]

63. In a word NO, they lied and fooled us making us believe ( at least some of us)

in the things they said 2008. After fooling us they have absolutely NO respect for us and they NEVER will. :mad:

[Lastactiongyro]

64. Only when there is a viable democratic challenger then suddenly we will have worth

[Ken Burch]

85. That's probably right.

If this incumbent is renominated by acclamation, that will guarantee that nothing progressive happens in his second term.

[Capitalocracy]

99. that would buy us plenty of lip service in 2012

but then what happens in 2013?

if there's a viable challenger, maybe we should elect that person.

[Ship of Fools]

74. All right guys

I'm gonna give myself away here, and I'm sure a lot, if not most, of you will not agree with me, but here goes -- GIVE THE GUY A BREAK. I've been getting the feeling that according to some folks, he was supposed to deliver ALL the goods YESTERDAY, when in fact I think it would take two or three GENERATIONS to turn this country in the another direction. IT TOOK US FUCKING 30 YEARS TO GET HERE, how is he supposed to turn it around in TWO years with two wars, near depression, hostile republicorps, a fucking new "T Party", etc etc???? Some people speculate that the US will NEVER be able to be governed from left, so what gives? I really am asking because I want to know.

Repeal of DADT, the slow dismantling of DOMA ... etc. Hell, I'm old enough to be doing a goddamned DANCE now that we actually have a president who isn't pounding his chest, doing a war dance, and using the term *exceptionalism* in every other sentence. My hope is if he gets another four years, we just MIGHT see him unshackled and delivering, if we don't COMPLETELY PISS HIM OFF BEFOREHAND. And another thing. Do people have some kind of special antenna that allows them to hear what's going on behind all those fucking doors in DC??? My guess is that the guy is being held complete hostage from some seriously evil people on Wall Street etc. How the hell is he going to get another four years if he DOESN'T kiss their ass to some degree in the first four?????

This is entirely my opinion. Thank you.

[Ken Burch]

83. OK...here's the big question for you...

If he has to "kiss ass" just to get re-elected, won't this still force him to kiss ass AFTER he's been re-elected?

Remember...we were told "Clinton will be GREAT in his second term". And then we were told "He has to kiss ass in his second term so that Hillary can get in someday-and then SHE'LL be great".

How is this situation ANY different than that?

[bobbolink]

86. Oh, he delivered the goods, alright... to the top 2%.

[killbotfactory]

87. Which left? The ones who didn't bother to vote last time?

The ones threatening to primary him?

[fascisthunter]

91. It's Called Democracy

I voted last time and hope he gets primaried. Sorry if that rubs you the wrong way, but that is my right as an American and a Democrat.

[killbotfactory]

94. People have a right to act against their own best interests.

People do it all the time.

[fascisthunter]

100. your interests aren't mine then know-it-all

[killbotfactory]

102. If you like emboldening republicans for some misguided reason, have at it.

[fascisthunter]

105. I'm not the one Supporting Republican policies

[Arkana]

101. There isn't a rolleyes big enough.

You people have egos the size of the fucking Sun.

[Ken Burch]

104. I think you meant to say that to Rahm.

it's not about "ego". It's about the fact that, after electing Obama, the left wing of the party had the right to at least expect to NOT be left totally out in the cold, and to NOT always lose to the "pro-business" crowd in policy debates.

We had the right, at a bare minimum, to expect that the Cabinet would NOT be a progressive-free zone other than Hilda Solis(btw, we HAVE been vindicated in our predictions that centrist cabinet appointees would never carry out progressive policies).

We had the right to expect, for the good of the country, that NOBODY like Summers or Geithner would ever be put in charge of economic policy.

And we had the right to expect that, if there DID have to be short-term compromises, that the administration would make it clear that it would be fighting to remove those compromises in the NEXT Congress in exchange for a strong Democratic turnout.

None of the above were about anyone's ego...and none were unreasonable.

[old mark]

106. No. nt