Anyone else believe that we've been totally set up?

[Zorra]

The constant harping on and push for bi-partisanship during the first two years of the Obama administration.

A large Democratic Senate majority that always capitulated to republican filibuster and never took anything to reconciliation. Time after time, the House would pass a really great bill, and the Senate Dems would allow a 40 seat republican minority to filibuster it.

Democrats could have ended the filibuster at any time. Many people say this would have been dangerous, because if republicans were in the majority, they could ram any legislation through that they wanted. But they basically did this anyway during the Bu*h administration. If Democrats had ended the filibuster, they could have rammed progressive legislation through the process, and gotten amazing constructive things done that could have countered the onslaught of the the years of constant regressive legislation we were tortured with during the Bu*h administration. and won the hearts and minds of working people everywhere, particularly Democrats. They possibly could have gained a permanent Democratic majority in both Houses.

It almost seems like Senate Democrats purposely destroyed their majority through deliberate ineffectiveness so that they would lose the 2010 election and no longer have to explain why they pass so little constructive progressive legislation.

Their pathetic inaction caused many Democratic voters to lose faith in the Democratic Party. I am one of these voters, I have always voted Democratic, and although I will still probably vote Democratic, there are certain Democrats I absolutely will not vote for because their actions have led me to believe that they are not concerned with or acting in my interests.

This is a primary reason why Democrats got slaughtered in 2010. An accurate public perception of pathetic ineffectiveness. Yes, in non-presidential election years the incumbent majority historically sustains losses. But IMO, if Democrats had stood up and kicked serious ass during the first two years of the Obama presidency, we may actually have increased our majority.

Obviously, the bending over approach they took was a complete failure, unless they wanted to fail, of course. Wouldn't taking the opposite approach be warranted now? Instead of increasing bipartisan cooperation resulting in in further destruction to our nation, how about resisting republican/corportatist bullying that results in regressive legislation and causes further destruction to our democracy and our nation?

So, WTF is going on?

Many inquiring minds would like to get a straight answer to this question.

IMO, the plutarchy has infiltrated the Democratic Party (see DLC) with compromised corporate friendly "liberals" who are now in a position to insure bipartisan cooperation with republicans in order to legislate in corporate interests and against the interests of working people.

And I hate having to diss President Obama all the time. He inherited the worst mess since Roosevelt replaced Hoover. Actually, probably a far worse mess. But I can't help it. I'm honestly calling it like I see it. He's not saying what needs to be said, he's not doing the things that need to be done, in order to fix the problems we face as a nation. This is quite clear if we use the state of the nation as criteria for assessment. We are in deep shit and putting little band aids on the giant deadly cancer does nothing. This is no time for our President to be kow-towing to corporate interests, and that is exactly what he has been doing. If I were a lone voice in the wilderness, I would not be writing this. I would be re-assessing my opinions, because I would realize that I am not seeing things clearly. But there are apparently a very large number of solid Democrats that believe very similarly to, or the same as, what I believe. And no one here has been able to provide me with any substantial evidence that my perceptions are erroneous. So I don't think I'm totally out in left field. (No pun intended).

Certainly the Obama Administration has been a major improvement over the Bush Administration. But that is not saying much really. So much damage was done under Bush that we took 10,000 steps backward. We have taken maybe 5 steps forward since Obama took office.

Republicans are ahead now by a score of, let's see...Republican/Corporatists: 43,647 to Democrats/People 7. (Score tallied since the advent of the Reagan era). Kow-towing to corporate interests and making insincere efforts at passing constructive legislation will only continue the slaughter.

Corporate-friendly liberals are completely useless in effecting substantial, genuine positive change

I believe that it is the time for our President to radically stand up to corporate interests, their republican flying monkeys, and their Democratic allies as well, instead of standing with them.

Time he sided with the People instead of with the Chamber of Commerce.

That would create genuine hope.

That would be change we could believe in.

Peace

[villager]

1. Corporate-friendly liberals are the "kapos" of our current situation

...in that, in selling the rest of us out, they imagine they're saving themselves...

[bjobotts]

66. First: the filibuster rule could only be changed at the beginning of each session

[bjobotts]

67. 2nd: You need to name names rather than just say "Congressional dems" for it was only a handful

[bjobotts]

68. About 5-10 senate dems allowed the minority to rule with the filibuster.Usually only 1 or 2

[bjobotts]

70. 3rd: "Reconciliation" could only be used for budget issues and only once per session.

[bjobotts]

73. Senate dems could and should have changed the filibuster rule the1st day of this session

after witnessing the overwhelming abuse to block over 240 pieces of legislation passed by the house that died in this last senate. There should be income and financial limits on senators as well as old age limits. No millionaires or people over 82 allowed to serve.

[Egnever]

84. They did make an attempt.

[Enthusiast]

157. It was one of the worst failures

of presidential leadership I have EVER witnessed. Just horrible capitulation and timidity by Obama on every issue.

[RUMMYisFROSTED]

192. Note: The Reconciliation Act and the filibuster could have both been changed.

This pretense that they're powerless is hilarious.

[AllyCat]

205. I agree with you. This idea that just a handful allowed all the Puke "power" to show

is just wrong. There were 55 more Dem Senators who did NOTHING to convince their straying counterparts to vote for the people.

I will agree there were a HANDFUL of democratic legislators that did the CORRECT thing.

[jbnow]

300. They couldn't be changed during the year and Reconciliation

would still be only about budget, not policy

That said it's been disappointing since they first gained power in 2006. I remember reading about the great rush to hire Dem lobbyists by all the big industries and my heart sank... please no.

Some of the crime is the 'ethic rules'. How can it possibly be acceptable to have the people writing and forming and voting on laws getting money from the very interests the laws are about? That is more than the appearance of impropriety! At the least those on committees overseeing an industry should not be allowed to get any donations to their campaign or PAC or any damn thing from those industries. The health care debate was bad enough but in the meantime the financial reform bill was being written...
What a horror! There were a bunch of new dems in the house on the committee and after a trip to NY being wooed by Goldman many key items were weakened horribly

before our very eyes... if our eyes were on them... if hearings and meetings were shown and got attention.

Ah but when anyone is asked about the influence of lobbying money they say "It doesn't affect my vote" and that's it. Nothing we can do. That isn't even common sense.

If we don't stop that we won't be able to get anything based on what is best for the people. (We could then get into the crazy amount it costs to run...)

[axollot]

201. I understand your point about millionaires and older folks but..

...we have seen great politicians that come from wealth - whether inherited like FDR or earned like Alan Grayson. Rather than base it on their economic status to get into office we should focus on once in office they cannot use their position to gain wealth - from lobby groups, private institutions etc. The need to pull $$ out of DC is very important.
There should also be a waiting period before a politician can go from working in a field in the public sector to going straight into the same field in the private sector.

Another thing that would help - is showing their conflict of interest. If politician A has stock, holdings or any other conflict of interest when putting together legislation they should be forced to recuse themselves like a judge should be forced to recuse themselves.

Cheers
Sandy
:hi:

[liberalmike27]

220. I wish I could disagree

But I can't. FDR had an encroaching Socialist movement, and Huey Long threatening from his left. He was also dealing with a well-dispersed media, that wasn't under about 7 different corporations, and truth is, people who generally kept up with things, read the newspaper, and voted.

Stupid people back then were smart enough to not speak. These days, Republicans incorporate the stupid to repeat slogans with their canards like "If you raise taxes on the rich we'll lose the jobs." Yea, right, last year taxes were lowest in 60 years, while unemployment was the highest. Cutting taxes on the rich, not surprisingly has only shored up their political control, managed to make both parties along with our narrow political spectrum slide to the right, narrowed our media to a center-right, to far-fetched right reporting.

And free money is flowing into politicians from corporations like never before, they are treated not like people, but far, far better. Instead of being limited, like a person to $2500 per primary, then the same per election cycle, they are allowed to pump unlimited money to get criminals like Scott in Florida elected.

What will it take to fix all of this? At this point, I really don't know. Are we quite to Egypt, Libya, where we need to raise hell in the streets? I hope not, but Wisconsin and the middle east are looking more alike than I feel comfortable with.

[axollot]

272. Fair enough re:FDR - on the rest of your post tho agree 100%!

We will have to all have enough and take to the streets to get through that:

a) Corporations are not people - end corporate person hood
b) get rid of Citizens United AND restore the fairness doctrine
c) campaign finance reform - so politicians don't think their constituents consist of corporations but people.

Those 3.5 things alone would help enormously but it's like moving a mountain and certainly not in the interests of politicians to do so. Basically we go out and demand it if that doesnt work we have to take it. Nothing was ever given to the working folks of this country sadly - they got it through blood, sweat and tears!

Cheers
Sandy

[Zorra]

305. I don't believe that is entirely true. It is my understanding that Reconciliation

can be used only once per fiscal year, not once per session.

They used Reconciliation in FY2010, which ended on Sept 30, 2010. So they could not use it again in FY 2010.

They have not used Reconciliation in FY2011, which began on Oct. 1, 2010.

Why did they not use Reconciliation to end the Bush tax cuts for the wealthy in FY 2011, which would have put, I believe the figure was $700 billion dollars, in government coffers over a 10 yr. period?

This was a budget issue, so it would fall under the guidelines for reconciliation.

Instead, a bi-partisan group of Senators is at present pressuring the President to join in talks about cutting entitlements, mostly for the less fortunate among us.

They could have increased assets by getting the cash from those who don't really need it. Instead, they are discussing ways to take assistance away from those who need it most.

Also, the Constitution allows for the Senate to make its own rules. Theoretically, if the Senate so chose, they could change rules as they go along. Nothing is set in stone, except that the Senate can make its own rules.

[defendandprotect]

104. Didn't Obama push the idea of a "Superman" Lieberman running the show?

[Zorra]

304. It is my understanding that is just some people's opinion. Please post

a credible source for your assertion, if one exists.

Thanks.

Just because some people believe that this is true does not make it true.

[MedicalAdmin]

230. Quislings is what they are...

... And we should deal with them the same way. Find em, expose em and ...

[leftstreet]

2. The voters annihilated the GOP in 2006 & 2008

The Hedge Fund Democrats have been breathing life back into them ever since

:grr:

K&R

[Bardley]

24. the voter is like a mouse between a cat's 2 paws

that's the citizen's true relationship with the 'right and the left'

[2banon]

114. that's a very apt description..

and it's the game of predators...

[leftstreet]

152. ...

[pscot]

75. Hedge fund Democrats is good

I think that's most of them.

[defendandprotect]

105. Obama raised the GOP back from the ashes with "bipartisan" BS + kowtowing to them...

[tomp]

178. exactly. and do you know why?

because without an opposition party the democrats would have no excuse for their treason (aiding and abetting the domestic enemies of the u.s.) and the rich would lose.

obama is nothing but a trojan horse for the right. in fact the democratic party is nothing but a trojan horse for the right. that is, its role, to hold the masses in its sway with high fallutin rhetoric and bones and crumbs.
with obama's pretty speeches its supposed to sound like "organic crumb-encrusted reduced free range sheep shank" but its bones and crumbs all the same.

[defendandprotect]

277. Agree ... and I'm just rereading Wm. Greider's book "Who will tell the People?" from 1992 ...

where he is making this Dem collaboration with Repugs clear from way back in 1978 --

maybe earlier, but that's as far as I am in rechecking.

Will write up a little something on this when I finish rereading and rechecking the book !!

We need to go in and pick up what's left of the Dem Party -- even if it's only the name --

and walk away with it.

Try for someone like Bernie Sanders for 2012 -- and a very strong anti-war candidate for

VP -- Biden has been calling for a year now for Israel to attack Iran, saying that "Israel

would be JUSTIFIED in attacking Iran" -- !!

Msybe Tom Hayden for VP?

Tons of dems out there who can run on the Dem ticket -- but too many of them in Congress

are pre-owned and pre-bribed by corporations --

We need to move away from the set up candidates the corporate-two-parties offer us!!

[tomp]

295. who will or can challenge obama?

the old saying is that if you strike at the king you must kill him, the idea being that if you don't bring him down you will be brought down.

if obama survives a challenge it will be taken to mean a referendum on his record and a mandate for more of the same or worse in the future, and the left will have lost ground. the only exception is that an anti-dem progressive infrastructure may be built and can try again next time. if we get a next time.

who can run against obama and actually win?

[defendandprotect]

298. Sen. Bernie Sanders can run on a Democratic Partty ticket -- he's a better dem

than most Democrats --

We funded Obama -- something like over $850 million -- and another $250,000 came in

from DU alone!

Then he reversed himself and took corporate money!

We could run a campaign on the internet where all third party candidates would also

be covered and heard.

If Obama survived the challenge, we'd be no worse off than we are now --

but I won't be voting for Obama -- I will do a "write in" for any other Democrat my

conscience will allow me to vote for.

[neoralme]

271. Excellent. The GOP is destroying themselves as well as us, and

everything around us. But if the extent of our revolution is signs and emails to Bernie Sanders, we will not win because Karl Roves of their Party will fight with everything they have.

[defendandprotect]

279. Rather than more Democrats walking away from the party as they did in 2010, think we should

involve them in discussions of finding dems outside of the party who can run on the

Dem ticket -- many dems around who are better Democrats than those in the Congress!!

Right wing will always fight with everything they have -- and we have 50+ years of out

in the open rightwing political violence/assassinations to prove that -- not to mention

stolen elections and piles of lies.

What does that mean? That we should be so fearful of Karl Rove that we should avoid

doing anything? What do you suggest we do or not do?

I would be unable to vote for Obama again -- on many points from wars to nuclear reactors,

from BP to his trampling of MEDICARE FOR ALL. I would als obe unable to vote for Biden

again -- I was holding my nose the first time given his performance at the Clarence Thomas

Hearings which covered up for him and permitted him to reach the SC. For more than a year

now Biden has also been calling for Israel to attack Iran. Biden says, "Israel would be

JUSTIFIED in attacking Iran" -- !! Is any of that what you want in 2012?

[neoralme]

289. I want us to fight in-kind. Right now, the Republicans count on us

to only go so far in demonstrations, so what do they have to lose? What actually are they losing now? What are they losing in Wisconsin? Nothing, as of yet. What are they losing on the world stage? We now are in a 3rd war entered into by Nobel Prize winner for peace. Right. Wrong. It makes bad copy. Biden now wants Isreal to go into Iran, and then Iran shuts down the shipping lanes. We have soldiers everywhere at a million dollas per day per man/woman. We have banks screwing us left and right. And what is our protest? France would have shut done the country by down. On Karl Rove, just the opposite. We have to do something more aggressive, out of the box--even maybe violent. Ghandi methodology is not going to win here--too much wrong, and too much closing in, getting claustrophobic... Why are we not sleeping on the floors of the Federal Reserve Bank Building? No, Obama is just part of it. What he is now doing in Brazil will do more harm than good. We need a tiger in No. 1 or we are gone IF it is not too late already.

[defendandprotect]

297. The only way the right wing can rise is via political violence, stolen elections ,lies ....

The idea that we would behave in kind would be insane --

Shall we also steal elections?

One of my biggest worries is that the right wing is trying to move the nation to violence --

and that the T-BAGGERS are another steop in that direction, pushed by Koch Bros.

This has been a long time goal to crate a violent American society -- to create race wars

which they seem to have tried a few times -- unsuccessfully so far.

I'm presuming that you want a French-type of response -- ? However, I've cited the rightwing

history just as a reminder that what we are really up against is rightwing political violence.

One of the saddest things to be said of Libya is that with all the weapons left lying around as

they moved foward, they began to pick them up. Terrible struggle not to do so! And they did.

This now left an opening for Kaddafi to be as brutal with them as possible -- an opening for

Kaddafi to make it look more like a civil war than a citizen uprising against his dictatorship.

You'd be making a huge mistake in trying to recommend a violent response -- won't win on any

level --

Look at the people in NO -- "Katrina" -- who thought they had a right to runs!

Oh, yeah ... !!???


Wholeheartedly agree with you about the wars and much else -- but no violence.












I want us to fight in-kind. Right now, the Republicans count on us
Edited on Sat Mar-19-11 08:52 PM by neoralme
to only go so far in demonstrations, so what do they have to lose? What actually are they losing now? What are they losing in Wisconsin? Nothing, as of yet. What are they losing on the world stage? We now are in a 3rd war entered into by Nobel Prize winner for peace. Right. Wrong. It makes bad copy. Biden now wants Isreal to go into Iran, and then Iran shuts down the shipping lanes. We have soldiers everywhere at a million dollas per day per man/woman. We have banks screwing us left and right. And what is our protest? France would have shut done the country by down. On Karl Rove, just the opposite. We have to do something more aggressive, out of the box--even maybe violent. Ghandi methodology is not going to win here--too much wrong, and too much closing in, getting claustrophobic... Why are we not sleeping on the floors of the Federal Reserve Bank Building? No, Obama is just part of it. What he is now doing in Brazil will do more harm than good. We need a tiger in No. 1 or we are gone IF it is not too late already.

[midnight]

110. We should put a list together and replace them....

[socialist_n_TN]

3. Well my attitude has always been that we have.........

one wholly owned subsidery of the capitalists in Republican Party and another PARTIALLY owned subsidery in the Democratic Party. It's ALWAYS been this way in this dictatorship of the capitalists, but it's worse now than it has been in at LEAST a century.

I'm prouder and prouder every day that I'm a out and out socialist. We ARE the ONLY hope for this world.

[truedelphi]

61. You have chosen to be a socialist only because the Democratic

Leadership has abandonned the middle class (and of coure, anyone below that staus as well.)

Wasn't always this way -- a long time ago we did have a Democratic President who was
for the people.
Young reporter to FDR: "So are you a Capitalist?"

FDR: "No.

Young reporter: "Then are you a socialist?"

FDFR: "No."

Young reporter: "Then what are you?"

FDR: "I am a Democrat!"

[socialist_n_TN]

64. Nope. I've ALWAYS been an out and out socialist.....

Marxist even. HOWEVER, it was just a philosophical choice at one time in my life. Not expecting the dictatorship of the proletariat in my lifetime, I was OK with VOTING Democrat as the CLEAR choice between a party of the wealthy and a party that was MORE fot the average person.

In the last 3 decades though, capitalism, an economic system that I've philosophically HATED all along, has raged out of control and thrown off it's regulatory shackles. It's bought one political party outright and at least HALF the other one. What this has done has brought my philosophical socialism into an ACTIVE advocacy of socialism.

But if you're saying that I would have continued to vote Democratic and kept my socialism to "tea parlor" discussions IF the Dem party hadn't changed into Republican Lite, well you might be right. Or not. I really don't know. All I DO know is that I've become an ARDENT anticapitalist now. I will advocate/agitate/educate for socialism and AGAINST the capitalist system every chance I get. I'm ready to put my philosophical ideas into practice.

[bjobotts]

78. Democratic Socialism ensures both our freedom AND our survival from the plutocracy

Otherwise our corporate overlords will profit from life's needs to our detriment while polluting to our destruction. We should share food and health and energy like we do our air while having the freedom to vote for how we want things to run and who we want to oversee our decided good.

[socialist_n_TN]

209. Agree........

nm

[iowasocialist]

116. Democratic Socialists of America

Good for you!

So I would hope that you check out the Democratic Socialists of America:
dsausa.org

The largest socialist organization in the USA.

After all, everybody needs a political "home"...

[socialist_n_TN]

211. I've thought about it. I might be a little too..........

militant for the DSA. My leanings have always been more SWP than DSA. But maybe I'm misreading DSA.

I've kept the small "s" socialist for a reason though. I've always been too much of a heretic about ALL political parties to feel too comfortable with dogma.

[truedelphi]

134. Well you

Have my support.

I have little intention of ever doing anything to support those in a party that has sold me out.
While whining as they did so that there was nothing else they could do.

[socialist_n_TN]

219. Yep. At some point EVERYBODY has to choose a side..........

We're at that point now. The DLC Dems need to figure this out because the only things in the middle of the road are white lines and dead possums.

[truedelphi]

256. Naw, the DLC Dems are having the time of their lives.

Did you notice how the Clintons went from absolute -0- in their bank accounts to over One Hundred Million Bucks? (Year 2000 to 2005 if IIRC.)

And yah yah, Bill got the money from giving speeches at 100K minimum a pop. But if he had a socialist bent like FDR, I bet those speech-giving gigs would have dried up overnight.

[defendandprotect]

281. Agree -- what advice do you have for us in 2012 -- ??

Are you running for office anywhere?

Is there anything left of the Dem Party, in your opinion, worth saving?

Anything left that we can pick up and walk away with?

What do you think of Bernie Sanders -- or any other dem outside of the Dem Party

who could run on the ticket?

[socialist_n_TN]

294. DAMN, you guys sure know how to flatter an .....

old guy! :) Nope, I'm not running for office. WAY too many personal skeletons in my closet to run in this state. Although, I HAVE thought about it.

Maybe, but it DOES have to get back to it's roots. We need a LOT of FAR leftie primary opponents. That's a way to bring the CONVERSATION back to where it should be, the REAL center. The farther left the candidates, the closer to the center the campaigns get and the better off the COUNTRY is. I would urge EVERYBODY to run on a LEFT economic populist platform and I'd start the conversation out with FDR's Economic Bill of Rights. That's a pretty damn socialist document, ESPECIALLY for today.

I LOVE Bernie even though he's not a Dem. He's not quite as left as I am, but at least he approaches it. He's also the only one outside the Dem party that has enough national recognition to make a viable candidate.

Remember the idea is not necessarily to WIN, it's to bring the campaign and the conversation back to where the center actually IS, not where the politicians THINK the center is.

All that said, UNLESS somebody else jumps in and wins the nomination, I'll be forced to vote for Obama. Maybe. :)

[defendandprotect]

296. Remember that the debates are controlled now by a private corporation set up by the two parties!!

They will prevent any candidate who doesn't bring in enough corporate dollars from

participating in the debate -- remember that they wouldn't ever permit Ralph Nader

to sit in a TV room where the live debate was being covered!! That's what a threat

he is to them!!

They also pushed Kucinich and Rand to the side lines -- later Edwards -- any populist

will be pushed out --

We'd have to count on organizing a counter DEBATE situation on internet --- and think

we could do it. The idea is to simply walk away with the party --

[socialist_n_TN]

301. Well what I would HOPE would happen..........

and maybe even THINK would happen, especially after all this CONTINUING outburst of activism on the left over worker's rights, would be a movement that eventually couldn't be ignored even by the MSM. But that's the point it has to be CONTINUING. If things are still roiled up (and once again, I think it will be thanks to the Republican corporatists) next year at this time, SOMEBODY could take advantage of it. IOW, I think that the timing is better NOW than it has been in almost a century for just this to occur.

And yes, I think that the counter debate by internet is a GREAT idea. It's our news source now anyway, so use it!

[greendog]

4. That's pretty much how I see it.

[RandiFan1290]

5. Why buy one party

When you can own them both?

[tavalon]

142. Two for the price of one!

[Fire Walk With Me]

6. Obama has said that change occurs through the efforts of a united people

so let's unite and change this mess.

[leftstreet]

8. Who knew he had such a brilliant strategy for uniting us

Hmm...must be master chess after all

[Fire Walk With Me]

12. He did say that the last election Nov. 2010 would "determine the course of the country".

I'll say that he was correct there as well.

[Enthusiast]

158. There has never been a more united

people than on that inauguration day. Since then Obama has failed us miserably.

[Fire Walk With Me]

257. Please see my post #12, directly above your reply.

[grahamhgreen]

244. 81% are united to tax the hoarding class, but Obama fought against it. Fact is, in a

Representative Democracy, we are screwed unless our reps actually represent us, espe ially true of a Dem president.

[axollot]

268. Ya know I thought we did a damn fine job of uniting to change this mess

when people came out overwhelmingly to vote for him and work for his campaign. It's a kick in the teeth (or like believing Lucy won't pull the ball away) to say we must unite to change this mess.
How much more united did the Democrats need us? We gave them House/Senate and WH in an huge majority - what did they do with that but bend in the name of "bi-partisan" hackery then Gibbs putting that the Dem base down a couple of times for not liking it.

Oh but the GOP gets in and kicks arse and takes names - screw bi-partisan - they get their agenda through. So please spare us. I'm sure I'll vote democrat as they are better than Republicans but not by much and the gap keeps closing.

Cheers
Sandy
:hi:

[ret5hd]

7. I agree.

[DeSwiss]

9. Here's why:

- K&R

[Autumn]

10. Very well laid out.

I agree, now it's time to change this before they destroy us.

[BzaDem]

11. Until you figure out all the false assumptions you made, you won't understand what's going on.

For example, very little could go through reconciliation. Healthcare reform alone (without a 60 vote bill) certainly could not.

And the idea that Bush got through whatever he wanted is ludicrous. His entire second term agenda (Social Security privatization, immigration, ANWR drilling) was derailed due to the filibuster.

Until people stop believing these fantasies about the Senate and learn about how our government actually works, there will continue to be confusion.

[Angry Dragon]

15. Then tell me how the government is actually working

[Mojorabbit]

89. The house put out huge amts of great stuff

and it went to the senate to die. The senate needs a good housecleaning.

[Swede]

16. You see the same posts with these errors,again and again.

Yet,pointing out these errors does not change this outcome.

[Zorra]

18. Source information is wonderful, no? Here ya go:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_George_W._Bush_legislation_and_programs

Nothing confusing whatsoever about that list, is there?

[Autumn]

21. Impressive list. For an ass who wasn't even elected.

:puke:

[Egnever]

58. Except the part where you are still confused about the senate rules.

[Zorra]

77. The filibuster is not a law. It is something the Senate chooses to do.

Reconciliation can only be undertaken under certain circumastances, such as when the republican Senate majority originally passed the Bu*h tax cuts.

Democrats could have used reconciliation to extend tax cuts for the middle class, and end them for the wealthy. They did not.

Your assumption that I, and other DUers, are so much more ignorant than you regarding Senate rules is very insulting.

[Egnever]

83. Then educate yourself

I am not going to apologize cause you don't understand the rules of the senate.

Reconciliation can only be used once per year and it was used already on the health care legislation. So no, they could not use it to extend the tax cuts.

Seriously, educate yourself on how the senate works cause all you are doing so far is spreading misinformation, and drawing totally incorrect conclusions based on that misinformation.

[Zorra]

97. Sorry, dude, it is you spreading misinformation. Once per year means fiscal year.

The Federal Government fiscal year begins on October 1 and ends on September 30. The Healthcare Bill was passed in March of fiscal year 2010.

Democrats could have used reconciliaion if Democratic "leadership" (see Harry Reid) had bothered to pass a budget resolution for fiscal year 2011. But Harry knew that if they passed a budget resolution for 2011, they would have no excuse for not ending the tax cuts for the wealthy. So they didn't even try to pass a budget resolution for 2011.

The Healthcare Bill was passed in fiscal year 2010. It had no effect on the reconciliation process for fiscal year 2011.

If you want to disagree, fine. But before you call people ignoraant, it would be a good idea to get your facts straight and stop making erroneous statements while at the same time claiming to be the resident expert on the Senate.

So don't be pissing down our backs and be trying to tell us it's raining.

We get way more than enough of that from our leaders.

[Lasher]

245. Ouch, that's gonna leave a mark.

Well done. :thumbsup:

[disillusioned73]

253. +1...

I was thinking the same exact thing.... I am tired of being told not to believe my lying eyes.

[Name removed]

57. Deleted message

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

[Enthusiast]

160. It's so complicated we

can't even understand how wrong we are?

[bergie321]

71. The Senate

Was set up to be a simple majority rules. Having a 60 vote rule gives WAY too much power to the small, less populous states. It should be 50+1 with a REAL filibuster (ala "Mr. Smith Goes to Washington").

[Enthusiast]

159. Utter bullshit.

Failure of LEADERSHIP!

[WiffenPoof]

216. Absolutely Agree...

We can hum and haw at the rules and who did what....But what it really comes down to is a lack of LEADERSHIP especially from the President.

-PLA

[tomp]

179. until you realize that the democrats have failed...

...to lead and have used parliamentary excuses for their failure, you won't know what's going on. what you haven't learned is how the gov't DOESN'T work.

[Name removed]

199. Deleted message

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

[cleanhippie]

226. If what you say is true, please explain what is REALLY going on then.

And I am not being sarcastic or snarky. Seriously, you make a good argument as to why the OP is off-base, so what is your thinking of what is going on?

[Bardley]

13. pay no attention to that donkey kissing that elephant behind the curtain!

It is of no concern to you!

[pokerfan]

14. When I get really down

I tend to think it's something like this:

[Bardley]

19. my favorite cartoon

is just like yours, only there's a line of cows going in, and one of them says 'hey, no cutting in' to a cow that's not in line

[CrispyQ]

264. Gary Larson

Love him! Have many Larson cartoons posted about the house. :hi:

[sellitman]

47. Perfect!

The DNC & the Regressive's are running the show and we thing there is real differences.

There is not.

[2banon]

117. Too perfect.. n/t

[upi402]

136. Do I laugh or

hang my head or
hang my self or...

[tomp]

180. NO! that cartoon is utterly misleading (ironically).

it should read democrat/republican, not left/right.

[Lost-in-FL]

242. I'm so stealing this. nt

[Name removed]

17. Deleted message

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

[Bardley]

20. No matter who you elect, you get the same guy, because he or she will always answer to the same peop

people

and those people aint you

[Bardley]

23. ......

[Raster]

43. There may be two national political parties, but they feed at the same trough and by the same hand.

Both Republican and Democrat kowtow to the almighty corporate dollar. It is almost impossible to attain national public office without corporate cash and blessings. It is almost impossible to keep that public office without corporate benefit. Our system of "lobbying" is a fine example of legalized, institutionalized bribery, where the fattest wallet buys the most votes. The American public ARE being set up.

[Enthusiast]

161. That is why

, when 'we' had the majority there was no push for campaign finance reform or election reform. The sons of bitches like what we have!

[CrispyQ]

266. You give a very succinct summary of the situation.

"The illusion of freedom will continue as long as it's profitable to continue the illusion. At the point where the illusion becomes too expensive to maintain, they will just take down the scenery..." — Zappa


We are not going to be able to fix the system, within the system.

[Raine]

51. Exactly! nt

[alfredo]

22. He's going on record as being willing to compromise. The more

the Republicans show him the back of their hand, the worse they look. It is building a profile of the Republicans. It is a long range strategy. We will lose battles (2010) but the goal is to win the war. Though we lost ground in 2010, that was to be expected. The good news is we didn't lose as much as was hoped for by the GOP. They went in debt and didn't get their money's worth.

People like Walker, McConnell, and Kasich are helping write the script we will use against them in 2012. They are mean, dictatorial, and imperial. They have really given us a lot to work with. We can back it up with examples of how Obama and the Dems were willing to work with the Reps but were rebuffed.

Be patient, be informed, be active.

[leftstreet]

26. We've already seen this movie

People like Walker, McConnell, and Kasich Bush, Cheney, McCain are helping write the script we will use against them in 2012 2006, 2008.

:eyes:

[Name removed]

27. Deleted message

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

[Jakes Progress]

28. Wrong place.

[Zorra]

30. I hope you are right, from the bottom of my heart.

There is some indication that what you say is possible.

But I personally think it is a terrible strategy. We already know about republicans. We got an Advanced Doctorate in republicans during the Bu*h administration. A mere two years after the worst President in history finished completely devastated the nation, republicans were voted into office in a landslide, resulting in a huge republican majority in the House, not to mention their gains in state and local governments.

So this wait and see thing...isn't that maybe a large part of the reason that we lost so badly in 2010?

Meanwhile, the damage and losses continue to accrue.

How much damage, and how many losses, can we sustain before the war is over?

[Enthusiast]

162. PLUS ONE! nt

[disillusioned73]

255. I'd say....

How much damage, and how many losses, can we sustain before we begin to fight? (we, as in Dem leadership)

[JDPriestly]

39. alfredo, I am sorry, but your post is wishful thinking.

The world does not work that way. Obama is simply incapable of negotiating a good deal for anybody outside of Wall Street.

[JHB]

99. So what's the "long range strategy" in accepting Republican framing...

...of issues? Of letting them set the terms of debate?

[alfredo]

119. Republican framing only works on those who are already in their camp.

Obama's numbers have stayed pretty good considering the shit storm he has had to endure. They might be setting the terms of the debate but they keep undermining their credibility with stupidity and meanness, and that is what people remember not policy.

Obama is good at letting his opponents punch themselves out.

[Enthusiast]

163. I'm not buying it.

Their stupidity and meanness only give Obama cover for pursuing the real agenda, an agenda that we do not share.

[alfredo]

232. Obama is not a Liberal, he never was. Why expect him to

act like a Liberal? Look at his voting record in the Senate. Obama is a moderate conservative.

[Poboy]

208. Incredibly naive. Obama's 'fight' is like the Monty Python knight.

[alfredo]

236. Obama's actions are consistent with his past behavior.

I learned a long time ago not to get upset over the twists and turns of real time politics. I try to see how those tactics serve a long term strategy.

I heard the same complaints about Clinton talking like a Republican, rolling over for them, and on and on.

[axollot]

273. And Clinton did...NAFTA is a huge reason we are in this mess. n/t

[alfredo]

299. I know. All our heroes are a mixed blessing.

[ReggieVeggie]

111. The worse they look to whom?

I've heard that "strategy" repeated over and over again yet Republicans keep stealing the narrative and no one cares if they're obstructionist.

[alfredo]

237. Obama has stayed popular, and the Republicans, especially

in the states are losing popularity. Let the Republicans be all they can be. Allow them to show their full range of ugliness. Doing so will help us in 2012.

[Beam Me Up]

25. The situation is far worse than that. What you describe is just the icing on the cake.

We no longer live in a genuine democracy (or Constitutional Republic if you want to be precise). We live in an Empire with a faux democratic veneer that is in place to keep people believing that "politics as usual" (aka, voting and the two party system) actually works at the national level. It doesn't. Not any more. For one thing, we can no longer be certain that our votes are being counted as cast. But even if they are, we see over and over again that the laws of the land are "bent" and "fashioned" to serve purposes often OTHER THAN those publicly stated.

What we have at base is a fascist national security state apparatus that operates beyond the limitations of the Constitution while maintaining rule and cooperation (the consent of the governed) primarily through deception and propaganda. In other words, what we have is rule by a criminal class that is for all practical purposes above the law. Many seemingly controversial things ("free speech" for example) are allowed within the circumference of this apparatus so long as they do not directly challenge, expose, threaten or jeopardize the established structures of fascist (corporate owned) wealth and power. We see precisely what happens when anyone (such as a Bradley Manning) attempts to expose these operations.

This is an radical analysis of our current predicament but if one looks at what government DOES instead of what it "says" it is difficult to come to any other reasonable conclusion. Obama was selected to play the role of "President of the United States" in much the same way that recent previous presidents have been selected. The function of a POTUS today is more that of a PR representative or puppet "flack catcher" for the ruling elite. Love him or hate him so long as social and media attention are focused on the person in that office (and not on those who are actually running the show behind the scenes) all is well. The President has power within a very limited sphere. But beyond that sphere he takes orders from those who "own" his position. He dare not exercise any opinion, position or power that would directly challenge, expose, threaten or jeopardize the established structures of the national security state. To even think of doing so would risk not only his political position but very likely the safety and security of his person and those closest to him.

This is the stark political reality we are now living in at the national level. To operate as if "politics as usual" can extricate us from this predicament is to exist in a state of denial that perpetuates the problem.

edit typo

[Zorra]

31. "Agent Mike, we got another one. Take him away".

I can't disagree.

There is a lot of evidence that much, or all, of what you wrote may be true.

on edit: I added "or all".
;-)

[2banon]

120. You have summarized the situation precisely.

It's time to shed our collective rose colored glasses, renew our prescriptions to see things as they really are. I sense that time is near..

[Enthusiast]

164. Precisely.

That is why they plan to further constrict the internet so that people like you can't say the things you say. Considering the power at their disposal they will achieve their ends. We are screwn.

[Beam Me Up]

222. What I said up above I've been saying for 10 years

It doesn't matter what we think or what we post on internet forums. Again, this provides the illusion that there is free speech and free thinking going on. I'm a nobody so who cares what I say or think anyway? It makes no significant difference. It only becomes important if I begin to have "followers" or if enough people begin to 'wake up' that they feel threatened, feel they have to control the perception.

Deception is not the exception but the rule. It is how we are ruled.

The sickening thing is most people don't want to know the truth. It is too horrifying. They're much happier believing the fantasy, the myth of democracy, Much happier abdicating their responsibility and allowing thugs to rule them and set the agendas on the international stage, persuade them that these wars are necessary and that the economic hardships can't be helped. It's all a lie but so long as we have our gasoline and our TVs and iPads, who cares, right?

But there is a tipping point, a breaking point and once that is reached it isn't going to matter who has control over the internet. Many who currently support this system, once they see what a nightmare they've created for themselves, will themselves turn against it. At that point THE MACHINE WILL BE PREVENTED FROM WORKING AT ALL.

[tomp]

182. a poster after my own heart. excellent summation....

....of current political reality.

only when a critical mass of people really GET that will there be any hope. the only hope i have at this point is that more and more people are seeing obama/democratic party, as the trojan horses they are.

[Poboy]

210. This post is truth. -nt

[BrklynLiberal]

303. Wish I could rec this post.

[Jakes Progress]

29. Let's not let the enablers off the hook.

They like to tell us that everything is just fine, that the president is doing all he can, that we just aren't bright enough to figure it all out.

But have you noticed their numbers are dwindling as reality and realization begins to creep up on them. A few of the crazed stalwarts, but more and more disillusioned and demoralized progressives every day.

[russspeakeasy]

34. Pre-emptive, programmed capitulation wears on people after

awhile. 

[OffWithTheirHeads]

32. I knew something was up when they "reformed" the bankruptcy laws

Those mother fuckers knew what was comming. They planned it and executed it. They are fucking the people and I'm not sure it's not too late to do anything about it. I may be wrong. It is possible that the strategy is to let the Republincan overreach so far that the entire country is up in arms, which they are doing but even if this is the strategery, it is sure hurting a lot of people.

[Enthusiast]

165. There is no other

reasonable explanation. They not only knew it was coming, they planned it.

[Lydia Leftcoast]

206. Yup, can't have too much of the prey wriggling out of the grasp of the predators

God forbid that people overwhelmed by medical bills or job losses should be able to get a completely fresh start.

[Dokkie]

259. lets say that is the paln

shouldn't we be seeing a rollback of those republican overreach when the dem retake power? We all know the answer and that is exactly the problem, these dem politicians play games with our livelihood and expect to be rewarded at the end. This has to stop and it starts with the destruction of both parties

[russspeakeasy]

33. Great post. Thanks.

[leeroysphitz]

35. Are you saying the President Obama should try harder to "reach-out" to the business community?

Just kidding. Great post. It's a real rope-a-dope all right.

[Zorra]

37. Bwaa haa haa. You got it, leeroy! Thanks for the laugh. nt

[Enthusiast]

166. And we were the dopes. nt

[neoralme]

36. Great post. We are sold out at every turn.

[JDPriestly]

38. K&R.

I hate having to be so critical of Obama. But his horrible record gives me no other choice.

[JTFrog]

144. Yea, right. n/t

[cate94]

40. Unfortunately

I think your post is spot on.

[Initech]

41. I've been saying this since Jan. 20th, 2001

[Zorra]

46. It was Dec. 9, 2000 that did it for me. What I had believed since Reagan

became truth on the day the Supreme Court selected the pResident of the US.

Although I was at the Battle of Seattle, I did not really get totally pissed off and active until that SCOTUS decision.

[Initech]

55. Reminds me of a great Jon Stewart quote:

Bush: I do solemnly swear...
Jon Stewart: At which point the rest of the country also solemnly swore.

[Scuba]

42. Bill Hicks was right. n/t

[JJW]

44. Very good at rebuilding

the wealth of the have-mores and bankster. That isn't change and therefore O gets an "F", like his partners in crime Bush/Cheney.

[bongbong]

45. JFK

JFK, Tower, Wellstone, etc were all warnings, and both parties have been listening to those warnings. Too bad America didn't listen to the Founding Fathers, who were aghast at the idea of a Standing Army.

[radhika]

172. You'd hope Progressives would issue their own warnings too

I'm not suggesting death and assassinations. But there are lots of other ways - monetary, legal, media campaigns, effective boycotts and national strikes - to name/shame/defund and undermine the enemies of the people. We don't do that. Hell, our elected officials don't even strip moles of leadership roles in the machine. We make it real easy for the RW and the corps to f**k over us, and we respond to small little petty 'gifts' as if they were precious life blood. Woo-wee, we get to keep our unemployment a few more months!!!!

Progressive have no Long Game. And no Hard Game.

[Name removed]

48. Deleted message

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

[cali]

49. I think you neglect the role of institutional behavior.

[Lydia Leftcoast]

50. I knew BEFORE Obama

The Democratic Party gradually turned into The Party of Lame Excuses.

Al Gore didn't play hardball with Bush during the campaign because that would be "divisive."

They couldn't contest the election of 2000, because that would be "divisive."

Large numbers "had to" vote for all sorts of awful things, including the Patriot Act and the Iraq War, because "they were going to pass anyway." Making a statement by opposing bad legislation, we were told, was "futile grandstanding." (So why not just have a Politburo?)

Other times, it was "We don't have the White House. Wait till we have the White House."

After 2002, it was "We don't have the Senate. Wait till we have the Senate back."

After 2006, with both the House and Senate in Dem hands, it was "Wait till we have the White House."

After 2008, with both the House and the Senate in Dem hands and a popular Democratic president, it was "We have to pander to the Blue Dogs, because they're the only ones who can win in their districts." It was always the Progressive Caucus that had to give in, never the Blue Dogs, even though a higher percentage of Blue Dogs than Progressives lost their seats in 2010.

After 11 years, I have to conclude that with a few shining exceptions, the Dem Establishment is in cahoots with the Republicans. They aren't the opposition. They just play that on TV.

[chill_wind]

82. Nailed it. The endless succession of "reasons" and excuses

for 11 years and now we working on whole new sets of new ones.

They get their paychecks either way. And their lobby firm futures await them with open arms when they're done.

"We'll fix it later!"

[OnyxCollie]

108. Systematic vs nonsystematic.

Obama's capitulations (as well as the Democratic party's capitulations in general), have become predictable, much like Chimpy's "blunders."

Nonsystematic elements should not be predictable. If they are predictable, there must be an unexplained variable.

I believe that variable is one party masquerading as two.

[ctsnowman]

124. I agree 110%

It's so damn sad.

[Enthusiast]

167. Accuracy. nt

[CrispyQ]

263. Excellent post.

I've believe that the dems prefer to be the minority party, because their excuses ring slightly more true when they can blame the repubs.

This is telling: "It was always the Progressive Caucus that had to give in, never the Blue Dogs, even though a higher percentage of Blue Dogs than Progressives lost their seats in 2010."

We need a Liberal Party that stands for the People & we need to go after the non-voters. I honestly believe that the majority of Americans are way more liberal than they are aware. We have to break through the bullshit with some & jar others out of their apathy.

[Drew Richards]

52. good post

Now you know the real reason JFK was killed...shhh or they will come for you too....

[liberation]

53. It is common sense 2 political parties which differ very little can't represent 310 million people

much less a population as diverse ethnically and racially as the USA, never mind our class structure.

Furthermore, people need to realize that most of the members of congress and the senate are millionaires, yet millionaires are the smallest minority in the USA. This is, the smallest social group has by far the largest percentage of representation and power in our government.

It follows from those two simple observations that this system, as it stands currently, can not possibly work to represent the necessities and interests of a big chunk (the majority actually) of our country's population. Regardless of pretty speeches, slogans and color schemes for campaign posters. If Bush was the penultimate expression of patrician corporate power in America, Obama is turning out to represent the might of American marketing.

[KoKo]

276. I hope that in a few years a new "LABOR PARTY" for US will ARISE!

LABOR is what we "out here" now do. LABOR will encompass ALL AMERICAN WORKERS...BLUE and WHITE COLLAR WORKERS!

That PARTY WILL ALLY itself with DEMOCRATS...ONLY WHEN THEY WORK FOR all us WORKERS...and NOT...BANKSTERS AND WALL STREET, plus the GLOBAL POOBAH's!

[USBlues]

54. Oh I have felt betrayed for over year...

Health care, the bank bailouts,appointing nothing but banktsers to oversee the financial BS. Firing people as soon as Fox releases another fake video...I mean holy shit how much can a person take?

Now we have Manning and more wars and we know he'll cave to the deficit hawks. History says he will.

So I learned that voting in the candidate that says all the right things doesnt help. I dont think anything will help...they own us and will not allow the status quo to be harmed in any way. Thats exactly what we are seeing. we will never see Obama stand up against the corporates because he is one of them...near as I can tell.

[Egnever]

56. Passionate post!

However so full of ignorance on how the senate actually works as to be an utter failure of conclusions.

You should start by looking into the rules of our governing bodies. For instance rules on the filibuster can only be changes at the beginning of each legislative session not "at any time" as you try to assert.

Also they tried to change the rules this session and the best they could do was change them so that you could no longer do secret holds where you don't even have to give a name of who wants to filibuster to hold up legislation.

Until you actually see the reality of how our government is run and the rules it goes by I don't see much hope in you making any informed decisions at all. In fact all i see is more bloviating about calling it how you see it despite the fact that your vision is clouded by emotional responses not at all based on reality.

Aside from that its a cool story you spun.

[TheKentuckian]

118. The Constitution always supersedes. The Constitutional option is always operative.

It blows up the whole system and makes the Senate a 50+1 situation.

[tomp]

183. you shouldn't copy bzadem's posts. nt

[Ramulux]

59. I have got a harsh reality check for you

The leaders of the democratic party DO NOT WANT REAL CHANGE. As you said, we had mind-blowing majorities in both houses and the ability to pretty much pass whatever we wanted by reconciliation and we didn't. When the republicans are in power they use every single legislative trick to get what they want passed and they do not tolerate dissension in their ranks. The democrats on the other hand, refuse to use basic parliamentary maneuvers to get around illogical filibusters and we openly praise members who hold up the entire process because of their ego.

The democratic party bases its entire existence and agenda on what the republicans are doing. As a whole we have no principles or convictions, no issues that we refuse to compromise on and no message. We look at what the republicans agenda and act as if they are right about everything. Besides a handful of progressive heros, we seem scared to combat republicans, like we are afraid of them and their ideas. Its pathetic.

Its been said a million times and it never gets less true. We have republicans and republican-lites, there is no truly legitimate democratic party.

[Autumn]

62. I agree n/t

[chill_wind]

93. +100

[femrap]

60. It's all Kabuki theater to me. nt

[lastone]

63. great thread

we have been sold out, free trade is only about where can corp find the cheapest labor without regulation of any kind and both the d and r's are guilty, hail to the Chief Executive Officer Of the United States of America Inc.

[G_j]

65. yep

K&R

[fascisthunter]

69. nail meet hammer

and you can personally thank the trolls for helping in the deception

[Enthusiast]

168. That's why they are here.

It is probably a great source of jobs in a depressed job market.

[lutherj]

72. Good cop, bad cop. That's how I see it. nt

[Bardley]

74. that's precisely what it is nt

[KurtNYC]

113. I see more of a pacification program -- they split the masses using social

issues, then screw us all on financial issues.

The side of the split which most needs pacifying is the side that "wins". Obama is our binkie.

[inna]

133. yep. great thread, btw.

how the american people can be so totally and easily manipulated is... just mind blowing.

[IsItJustMe]

76. Do you remember how easily Gore and Kerry gave up. I pretty much figured it out then. Hell yeah

it's a set up. Smoke and mirrors, that is all it is. It seems to be important for the powers that be keep us hooked into this delusion by having elections.

That way, we can live with the false idea that we are free. But you and I both know that freedom in America is in direct proportion to how much money you have.

But the powers that be do allow the parties to play with such things as gay marraige, guns, and such. It adds to the elusion that there is a difference between them.

[defendandprotect]

95. They're not only corporatising government, they're moving it into back rooms ....

away from the view of the public --

and Obama did exactly that in trampling MEDICARE FOR ALL by making back room deals

with Big Pharma and the private health care industry!

"Cat Food" Commission is yet another method --

[Lydia Leftcoast]

202. While I voted for Obama, I refused to campaign for or contribute to him because

I still remembered how Kerry conceded while people were still lined up to vote in Ohio and while my feet were still sore from spending the entire day going door to door (along with 10,000 other volunteers in Minneapolis) to GOTV, and I decided if the Democratic Party didn't care whether they won or not (it was the Greens and Libertarians who brought legal action against Ohio, remember?), I sure wasn't going to lift a finger for them.

Obama's "fake progressive" act clinched it. As I saw the eager, young volunteers, I couldn't help thinking how disillusioned they would be.

I won't give money or campaign for anyone who doesn't have a strong Progressive track record.

[slipslidingaway]

79. knr nt

[KoKo]

80. Yeah...It's pretty Obvious...but WHAT DO WE DO ABOUT IT?

That's the QUESTION. If we've been set up (and, sadly, I think it's been true for every Dem President since....Kennedy....then why are we so stupid we've allowed it? Does it mean we deserve what we have lived through...all these years with Dem Impostors?

SO......WHAT DO WE DO? :shrug:

[Name removed]

86. Deleted message

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

[defendandprotect]

94. Sen. Bernie Sanders is more of a dem that many Democrats ...

We can try to draft Bernie Sanders for president --

and we can try to pick up what's left of this party -- even if it's only the name --

and walk off with it --

We need two strong anti-war candidates -- maybe someone like Tom Hayden -- ?

Imo, it shouldn't be anyone from inside the party who is pre-owned and pre-bought by

corporations --

Many dems outside of the party we can draft or move in --

Too many here believe what the Dems are telling us -- "Democrats have no where to go!"

I think we should find out if that's true -- !!


:nuke:

[slay]

98. I agree and would LOVE it if Bernie Sanders would run

but he has unfortunately repeatedly said he won't run. We can only hope to convince Sanders, Kucinich, or Grayson to run at some point between now and 2012. Even if they don't win - which they won't - it will force Obama to answer for his actions - live on tv in debates in front of the American people. Perhaps we can shame Obama into being a man of the people. :shrug:

If not, I will be writing in either Grayson, Sanders, or Kucinich at this point.


Here's the bad news of Bernie saying he won't run: http://www.sandersforpresident.org/tag/draft-bernie-sanders-petition/ :(

[defendandprotect]

100. Well, maybe he'll change his mind ... there are still many others we can draft ...

and we need strong anti-war candidates --

anyone from Michael Moore to Susan Sarandon --

there are tons of dems we can consider to push to run --

Bernie would be great because he's a populist who would bring out Dems who stopped

voting long ago -- and those who stopped in 2010 --

he'd also draw liberals from other third parties!!

[Enthusiast]

169. Force Obama to answer for his actions?

That would only work if he was a man of principles. Sadly he has demonstrated that he isn't.

[slay]

261. Good - and sadly true point

:(

[JTFrog]

146. You can try, but Bernie will be supporting Obama for President in 2012. n/t

[jefferson_dem]

204. So the only Senator to caucus with the Dems who is not a Dem is actually the only Dem?

:rofl: Got it.

[JTFrog]

145. Fuck Nader. n/t

[slay]

150. Care to elaborate? Do you think he's super sexy and want him badly?

or are you just being rude and mean for no reason? i'd say more but you are so not worth it.

[JTFrog]

155. No, it means exactly what I said.

Fuck Nader and his divisive bullshit.

And by Fuck Nader, I mean he can go Fuck himself. No need to get jealous. I wouldn't ever want any part of that.

[tomp]

184. can't handle the truth, eh?

[JTFrog]

193. More like truthiness. n/t

[M_A]

194. Correct

And this former lifelong democrat will continue to vote for the most liberal candidates in every election. Sadly, fewer of them have a "D" behind their name these days.

[jefferson_dem]

203. Fuck lamer Nader and your destructive call for a third party.

:thumbsdown:

[Lydia Leftcoast]

207. Fuck "elephants in donkey jackets" who expect blind loyalty to

anyone with a "(D)" after their name.

[jefferson_dem]

225. Like ya!

Celebrating anti-Democrat Nader and advocating for a third party is actually for the Democratic Party's own good. :eyes:

No need for blind loyalty. Just don't be blind ... is all anywone should expect.

[Name removed]

262. Deleted message

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

[Zorra]

123. Seemed to me that clearly outlining the problem is a first step.

Getting folks that don't know about this problem to think about it and then get on board for later actions.

I don't know if there is a political solution anymore. I really want there to be one.

One thing I do know: If enough people don't go to work, and don't buy anything, things will come to a standstill. But before we do anything like that a foolproof workable plan would be wise. And a plan B for when the foolproof plan doesn't work. And X factor preparedness too.

The thing we need to agree on is exactly what we want and then make demands for the changes we want. The last thing the plutarchy and their minions want is for the system to crash because they'll be the first ones "eaten" if they don't flee into exile first.

That is where our power lies. If we don't work, if we don't buy, they lose their money and power.

[pnwmom]

81. Your underlying premise is wrong. Democrats could not have ended

the premise at any time.

I'm disappointed, however, that they didn't do it at they only time they could have -- at the very beginning of the term.

[inna]

137. "Your underlying premise is wrong." LOL, no it isn't - but looks like yours is.

[pnwmom]

143. Yeah, I should have proofed that. But it doesn't change the fact

that the filibuster cannot be changed at any time -- only at the beginning of a term.

[Zorra]

149. pnwmom, if you have a source link where I could read about this information,

I would greatly appreciate it if you would post it.

Sometimes information about the rules of government is difficult to find, and then, when you do find it, it is often ambiguous, vague, and difficult to interpret without having a Doctorate in Law.

I have no dog in this hunt other than that I am a concerned American interested in keeping it all out in the open.

If I am wrong about something, I seriously want to know.

Thanks!

[pnwmom]

251. Here you go.

The "constitutional option" discussed here is also referred to elsewhere as the "nuclear option."

http://voices.washingtonpost.com/ezra-klein/2010/07/how_to_end_the_filibuster_with.html

If you can't manage the 60 votes to overcome a filibuster, you can't manage the 67 votes to change the rules and end the filibuster. At least in theory.

But in practice, there's another path open to the Senate's growing ranks of reformers: The so-called "constitutional option," which is being pushed particularly hard by Sen. Tom Udall, but is increasingly being seen as a viable path forward by his colleagues.

The constitutional option gets its name from Article I, Section V of the Constitution, which states that "Each House may determine the Rules of its Proceedings." In order to fulfill this constitutional order, the Senate must be able to, well, determine its rules. A filibuster, technically, is a way to stop the Senate from determining something by refusing to allow it to move to a vote. Because stopping the Senate from considering its own rules would be unconstitutional, the chair can rule against the filibuster, and the Senate could then move to change its rules on a majority vote.

One caveat: Many people, including Udall himself, believe this has to happen at the beginning of a new Congress. If it doesn't happen at the beginning of a new Congress, then Congress is considered to have acquiesced to the previous Congress's rules, and a filibuster against further rule changes wouldn't interrupt the constitutional right to determine the rules.

SNIP

[Zorra]

270. Thanks for posting that, but

the idea that "many people believe that this has to happen at the beginning of a new Congress" does not make it a Senate rule.

Nor is it a law that the Senate must abide by the previous Senate's rules. Entrenchment of the rules prohibits the Senate from exercising its Constitutional authority to make its own rules.

Here is what it says in Article 1, Section 5 of the Constitution. Nowhere in the Constitution does it say that either House is bound to determine its rules at the beginning of a Congress

Article 1 - The Legislative Branch
Section 5 - Membership, Rules, Journals, Adjournment
<<Back | Table of Contents | Next>>

Each House shall be the Judge of the Elections, Returns and Qualifications of its own Members, and a Majority of each shall constitute a Quorum to do Business; but a smaller number may adjourn from day to day, and may be authorized to compel the Attendance of absent Members, in such Manner, and under such Penalties as each House may provide.

Each House may determine the Rules of its Proceedings, punish its Members for disorderly Behavior, and, with the Concurrence of two-thirds, expel a Member.

Each House shall keep a Journal of its Proceedings, and from time to time publish the same, excepting such Parts as may in their Judgment require Secrecy; and the Yeas and Nays of the Members of either House on any question shall, at the Desire of one fifth of those Present, be entered on the Journal.

[pnwmom]

278. You're right that a Senate doesn't have to abide by a previous Senate's rules.

But a Senate does have to abide by its own rules that it sets at the outset of its term. When has the Senate ever agreed to change the rules mid-term?

[slay]

85. I do indeed feel that way - most of

us who have been paying attention feel betrayed. At best the Dems let the republicans get away with their shit - otherwise - and more likely - they are in on it. Whether by choice, blackmail, who knows. But the actions of the Obama admin are not what I voted for, and they are not in line with the values of anything even resembling a progressive Democratic Party.

[azygous]

87. We've had a silent coop

If every single political appointee in this administration were discovered to have strong union ties, wouldn't we be outraged that a coop by the unions had taken place?

Then why aren't we all similarly outraged that every single political appointee in this administration has strong corporate ties? All of them - CEO's, bankers, corporate attorneys, etc. They've taken over our government. It's a coop. Our politicians are fully aware that they now serve the corporatocracy, not the people.

[BOG PERSON]

107. a silent coop:

[anneboleyn]

122. Those are some quiet chickens.

[CrispyQ]

267. ...

:bravo:

[nashville_brook]

88. damn good piece. well said!

[sendero]

90. Well said ..

..... and quite true and it's too bad so many here can't see what is right in front of their faces.

[defendandprotect]

91. Are we still expecting millionaire and multi-millionaire members of Congress to

legislate and vote in the public interest??

They're voting to enrich themselves --

[loudsue]

92. Rahm Emmanuel is George HW Bush on the Democratic side.

Totally tied in with the corporate/fascist state money, and Obama was his pick.

We have been totally set up by the republicans that infiltrated the democratic party over the years.

[defendandprotect]

102. Agree re Rahm -- but obviously he and Obama are very close ...

Obama is close to everything corporate as we've been finding out!!

[Arkana]

96. I don't, but then again--I listened when Obama talked.

[mochajava666]

221. ...and unquestioningly believed every word he said

[Arkana]

258. No, not really, but carry on with your blanket generalizations.

[Dokkie]

269. bull, rubbish, nonsense

yea, blame the voters for Obama's broken promises. I heard him loud and clear when he said he supported ending the Iraqi war, ending the patriot act, healthcare without a mandate aka public option, supported drug importation, real financial reform etc etc. I will still vote for campaign Obama from his platform, President Obama is the one who is not listening to his promises not us.

[obxhead]

101. Hell, we spent they last 2 years ramming GOP legislation through

at an extreme rate with a Dem majority in both houses. It got rammed through at an even faster rate than when Cheney lead and had a Repub majority.

[defendandprotect]

103. Agree -- !!! But how many here understand that -- ???

[obxhead]

109. It's changing.

I see a lot of people here who would flame me for anything I said against Obama more outspoken than I am now. Change, a little slow on the uptake, but I see it happening.

[JTFrog]

147. Yep, plenty of hate at the new DU.

[slay]

151. Yeah mostly from you and your pointless "Fuck Nader n/t" shit

you've been acting like an ass this whole thread - yet i'm pretty convinced now it's not an act.

[JTFrog]

154. I guess it's always a matter of perspective.

I could say the same thing about most of the posts in this thread.

[obxhead]

215. I don't hate Obama.

I hate the policy decisions he makes and the GOP legislation he signs into law. I hate his support of corporations and the elite over the people.

I'm sure Obama is a fine man, good husband, and spectacular father. It is clear he is not a good Pres for the current crises this country faces though.

[Occulus]

227. Observation: people who bring up "hate Obama", "President Palin", "pony", and "poutrage"

are almost always not interested in actual discussion of how Obama has failed us and in what ways we can make him do what we want him to do- as he himself asked us to do.

I'm getting really tired of how actual criticism of Obama is always met with the same old tired song and dance. It's as though you and others don't want any criticism of Obama, at all, in any form. I'm puzzled by this; if Obama wants to, say, make downloading a movie a felony instead of torture, or, for example, wants to refrain from investigating massive, systemic insurance fraud in the mortgage industry, we should call him to account for that. Isn't that part of our duty as voting citizens?

Yet you and others do not want us to have that reaction. Indeed, you and others do everything you can to shut the criticism down, to bring discussion to an end, to ridicule, denigrate, and, in general, cast asparagus.

Why is that, JT? Don't you want a vibrant community that will hold its leaders to account when they do us damage- or are you one of those "my President, right or wrong" schmucks?

[JTFrog]

241. It's easier to be critical than correct. n/t

[jefferson_dem]

252. Some of my DU friends are so fixated on trying to sound all "protesty" ("truth to power") ...

and all that they forget to pay attention to reality. Then they feign outrage at how others actually support this Democratic President on the Democratic Underground. Quaint, huh?

[slay]

260. And you're neither

you're just plain wrong and rude to other DU posters not even attempting to discuss subjects with them just N/T N/T N/T most of the time. should have called yourself N/TFrog. :eyes:

[Tatiana]

265. Interesting that you didn't get a response to your query.

I'd love to know, as well, why some people have a problem with us holding the man WE ALL VOTED FOR to account for the promises he himself made when campaigning.

What is so wrong with that?

[defendandprotect]

282. +1000% --- Beautiful !!! k/r --

[obxhead]

302. Over the last 8 months or so here I'm finding some change.

Some of the user names here that would flame up at anything anti Obama are actually some of the first posters I see in a new thread that calls out Obama or his admin. It's kind of funny. I got THRASHED by some people here for some mild statements and now they are the first to essentially say fuck the admin or Obama.

Change. We were told to believe in it. I certainly did. I'm only coming to realize it is still to come and it will have a loud war like cry when it arrives. It will not come with a vote and a hope. It will come with a scream and a massive marching movement that has demands. Wisconsin is the first pebble of the avalanche (I now hope) of that war like cry that will bring change.

Things will have to adjust for it to come to be. DU must embrace 3rd party candidates and the support of them as the Dem party overall has moved too far right. A vote 3rd (or 4th) party will have to be considered legitimate instead of thrown away. People will have to give up time (and income) to march in the streets.

I voted for change.

I've realized it's going to take a lot more than voting for another big money politician to help bring it. Some are a little slower getting to that realization, but it is happening.

[jefferson_dem]

197. Let's get this straight. Over the last two years...

all the Democrats (in the government and in the electorate) have been wrong and all the Republicans (in the government and in the electorate) have been right? After all, they are the ones who opposed this "GOP" agenda that you refer to.

[obxhead]

218. Now that we continue the same legislation agenda

the Dems get to cry they are powerless because they lost the majority.

They are essentially the same party, the party of the corporate elite. They have worked in harmony for the same goal.

Some squawking? Yeah, just like Dems will do as they search for votes. That noise you hear about objections is just that, noise to generate votes. Notice how after all the objections to HCR that there has been essentially no push to have it changed or repealed? Yeah, a little noise early, but it was dropped like a hot potato because in the end it is a massive gift to pharma and insurance, friends of both parties.

[jefferson_dem]

224. Work together in harmony?

Are you freaking kidding? Facts say otherwise. DC is more divided now than in just about any time in history. Perhaps you're suggesting they are all just playing some kind of 3-D chess where the Republicans are actually supportive of what the Democratic agenda... They are only pretending like they fucking hate it... and us.

[obxhead]

231. That is noise.

Nothing but noise. They act divided in order to divide us. In the end they are working towards the same legislation objective. Pass everything up to the richest and smallest percentage of people possible.

If war, military spending, the Patriot Act, increased domestic spying, torture, mandates to buy a corporate product, tax cuts for the rich, and cuts to social programs are the new Dem agenda than its time I reconsider party loyalties.

[defendandprotect]

285. +1000% -- k/r

[defendandprotect]

284. Problem is Dems supportive of the Repug agenda ....

[defendandprotect]

283. +1000% --- k/r

[grahamhgreen]

106. Yes. No doubt about it. Conned.

[defendandprotect]

112. kick

[The Doctor.]

115. Welcome to the Dog and Pony show.

Glad to know that you've noticed.

[krispos42]

121. Ending the filibuster would have weakened the Republican minority...

...but not strengthened the Republican majority.


The Senate is biased towards, small-population states, which in our current political cycle are conservative. Therefore, conservatives will be over-represented for the foreseeable future. A year ago, the 40 GOP Senators only represented something like 36% of the population. I haven't done the math to figure out what it is now.

Removing the filibuster would simply mean that a much larger minority would have to block legislation. If the conservatives wanted to block something, then we're talking about 51 Senators representing perhaps 44% of the people.


Same thing to pass a bill. Since liberals apparently don't filibuster anymore, it would take the same 51 conservatives/44% of the population to pass a bill as it does now.

[fadedrose]

125. R & K

[a2liberal]

126. I wish I could Rec this 1000 times

So very well articulated. I've been thinking this for a long time. In fact the reason I lurked here so long before actually joining is that anybody posting this sort of view met with a lot of hostility here on DU for a long time until recently, I was afraid I'd slip and let out what I really think the Dem party is doing and be banned as a troll. (Actually I suppose that's still possible for a newbie... I'm glad the more trusted long-term members like you are willing to post this sort of thing)

[Zorra]

127. Welcome to DU, a2liberal!

:hi:
Just remember - it's democraticunderground

[a2liberal]

138. Thanks! (n/t)

[JTFrog]

148. Welcome back. n/t

[Enthusiast]

171. Yeah, you will meet with hostility.

But, I ask you, what kind of a country do these people want to live in? This is NOTHING like the United States of America of my youth. This is now the nation that Eisenhower warned us about!

[Rex]

128. Nothing, I knew who I voted for when I voted for him.

But the other choice was John McCain. That is like comparing a human to George Walker Bush. For the record I voted for Hillary. Not sure she would have done any better or worse.

We were 'had' the moment the SCOTUS decided who was POTUS in 2000. Everything else was the shit rolling downhill.

[Enthusiast]

173. There was a reason that McCain and Palin

were the chosen Republican opponents.

TPTB had an agenda that could only be achieved with a "Democrat" in the White House. A replay of the 1990s with the Telecommunications Act and the Financial Services Modernization Act of 1999.

[tomp]

185. agreed. nt

[KoKo]

213. In retrospect which two better candidates could Repugs have picked to turn off voters?

Looking back on that whole fiasco, we can see that McCain from statements during and since the campaign show he's either senile or is having some cognative difficulty. Palin allowed a media circus that distracted everyone. Obama looked like a hero compared to those two. Rallies that most rock stars would have wished they could maintain in numbers..compared to "Caribou Barbie" and her clan and McCain with Cyndie who always seemed to be like a statue standing by him at every appearance.

We were fooled, big time. It was hard for many of us to see it at the time because of the media circus and and our huge hopes for freedom from the Bush Years maybe clouded our judgment.

But, it wasn't we the Dem voters fault. It was so well designed to take advantage of our frustrations by the Powers that Be in both parties....we didn't have much chance. We wanted a candidate with charisma. One that would fulfill the aspirations of all of us ...and whom we thought would identify with the struggles of Democrats and all citizens that had been so thwarted during the Bush years and the last years of Clinton's administration.

Poof...we got the Dream Team of Obama and Hillary. The past and the future. We just didn't realize how close the two parties had become through the decades. Now we know. But, what do we do about it?

[Enthusiast]

239. Yeah, the GOP candidates were

bad enough but they even added Phil Gramm as McCain's economic adviser, the man that actually wrote the law that ended the protection of Glass Steagal. Then the stock market crashed.

This was a virtual guarantee that Obama would be elected. They had big plans for Obama.

I bet they still marvel at how easy it was to pull off the greatest heist in the history of the world. Yet still, they remain in charge! And they are not done if what we see in Wisconsin, Michigan and Ohio is any indication. Maybe they plan to weaken the North then fight the civil war over again so they can win this time.

I guess they come up with this shit in those many 'think tanks'.

[KoKo]

288. Yep..what you say...and the Think Tanks.. they rule. nt

[AllyCat]

129. I feel the need to primary most of them along with the POTUS

I cannot believe the things they are doing to hurt us right now.

[inna]

140. "the things they are doing to hurt us right now." - precisely, and this needs to be said

more often.

[myrna minx]

130. kinda

[donheld]

131. "So, WTF is going on?"

I think George Carlin told us

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=acLW1vFO-2Q

[Cobalt-60]

132. They're taking a dive: It's obvious

Its plain as a pikestaff, obvious to the dimmest child - The Democratic leadership is rolling for big business.
The first instant it looks like we have a party other than one of the two right wings of Money to choose I'm there.
For now the only use I have for our formerly great party is keeping Republicans out.
It might be possible to seize control by defeating every sitting democrat ( except perhaps Kucinich ) in the primaries. I'm pretty sure real FDR school democrats would garner more votes than Republican Lite, if we could get rid of the nest of paid off traitors currently in control of the party.

[Enthusiast]

174. They took a dive in 2010

that is fer damn sure.

[Name removed]

135. Deleted message

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

[watajob]

139. Two words...

YA' THINK?!?! :eyes:

[certainot]

141. How can the 'left' evaluate dem success while being almost totally ignorant of the 'right's' most

important weapon. The one that gets to take free pot shots at Dem/liberal/progresssive reps all day long. The one that can message over everything the left does. The one that nearly always allows the right to have it both ways.

Every day for 20 years, since Reagan killed the Fairness Doctrine, the Right has been putting soapboxes on every corner and stump in the country to scream that liberals and our representatives are thieves and liars and traitors. And except for picking out a few comments by the main blowhards now and again the Left has been getting repeatedly beaten by the Limbaugh gang with hardly a peep of complaint.

In their latest victory they successfully stopped a black man in the White House from stealing billions from America's most important white citizens.

Whatever faults Obama has, if you think you're going to get a better president in the near future without recognizing and responding to the Right's most important political and media weapon you're crazy. Everything liberals/progressives/democrats want to do is made significantly more difficult because they ignore the talk radio monopoly.

We let them sell excuses for election theft and we didn't get in the streets. We let them put corporate lawyers and religious fundamentalists on the supreme court. We let them sell torture and phone tapping for fear of a few terrorists. We let them sell the deregulation that allowed syphoning trillions of dollars from hard working Americans. We let them swiftboat good people and destroy Acorn. Without complaint.

We let them convince large parts of the country that the people who use America's infrastructure and resources the most shouldn't have to pay for it because jobs will trickle down. We let them turn a failed silver spooned AWOL frat boy into commander in chief. We let them rationalize the Bush Cheney Rove crimes. We let them lie us into Iraq and equate single payer with communism. We let them threaten and push around our representatives. Without complaint.

Without complaint, students and faculty let their institutions of higher learning broadcast athletic events on radio stations that also broadcast racism and global warming denial on a daily basis. Our unions and progressive and environmental organizations protest at state capitols and get no press while the RW radio stations reach much larger audiences to insult the protesters and distort their message. For those outraged by US torture, how can you let Limbaugh sell his Club Gitmo T-shirts and coffee mugs from your local Limbaugh station without complaining to that station's local sponsors?

Without complaint. When the Left does complain it's often after it's already been pounded into the earholes of 50 MIL Americans and moved into another medium. The collective Left walks by those soapboxes with its fingers in its ears, turns the dial, slides in another CD.

Every day the right wing think tanks use their giant megaphone to feed coordinated and well-timed lies, distortions, and distractions to the rest of the media. They create their own reality so that made-to-order pro-corporate constituencies can scream 2+2=3 at town hall meetings. Irrational, hypocritical, and lying politicians become enabled and acceptable merely because they ride the same talking points bandwagon. Everything the GOP does depends on unchallenged talk radio power.

Obama doesn't have the bully pulpit. Forget trying to get Democrats to 'message' or frame better. If they get any real traction or get lucky with truth and common sense the think tanks notice and counter it. With their giant soapbox they can usually lie, distort, distract, and yell over it. Whether it takes a day or a month.

Whether you want a sports analogy or not, here it is. The Right has extra linebackers and the Left screams that their fallen quarterback is a wimp.

Forget media deregulation and election reform or any other major reform before we fix the radio. Forget bipartisanship or real democracy. Forget sane reactions in national emergencies.

It's too late and probably impossible to get some new Fairness Doctrine, whether it you want it or not. And global warming won't wait for the Left to break through the well protected monopoly and get more progressive radio stations.

But Americans can stop giving right wing radio a free speech free ride. It only works because it is essentially unchallenged, with the national talkers well protected by call screners. Protest, complain to local sponsors, and expose its carnival barkers as the liars they are. Give them the blame they deserve for selling us this disaster. Challenge their credibility on a national level. Recognize Limbaugh as the most powerful man in the GOP - there's no one they're more afraid of pissing off.

As long as the collective 'Left' ignores the radio problem it cannot fairly say it got its representatives' backs. Or Obama's. Neither can it fairly evaluate their performance.

When the 'left' organizations finally stop giving RW radio a free speech free ride - by picketing the radio stations, shaming and boycotting local sponsors, getting universities to stop giving guys like Limbaugh community credibility by broadcasting athletics out of right wing radio stations, then the GOP is done. Samson's will be getting a haircut.

In the meantime the left can will keep losing and analyzing their defeats with little clue as to why.

[Enthusiast]

175. That is why their long term

plan included ending the fairness doctrine. That is why Limbaugh squeals like the fat pig he is when crying about the fairness doctrine.

[tomp]

187. there is no question the media is part of the problem....

....and demonstrating against them is clearly on the agenda. this does not, however, let the democrats of the hook in any way.

the quarterback is not a wimp, he's playing for the other team, as are most of the rest of the players. why do you the think democrats have not taken the media to task and corrected the situation, or have not secured the voting system? i'll tell you: it's because the democrats would rather lose than actually be progressive.

i'm sure you'll need to think about that for a while.

[certainot]

235. the left wastes so much time analyzing in a rush-free political environment

"why do you the think democrats have not taken the media to task and corrected the situation, or have not secured the voting system?"

if you had been listening to the RW that blankets the country 24/7 even fro a few minutes a day for the last 20 years you would know the answer to those questions.

1000 coordinated UNCONTESTED radio stations have a lot to do with what is and what isn't acceptable in politics and media in the US.

like i said, progressives can't expect major election or media reform until they at least challenge the giant fucking corporate monopoly soapbox that sits on every corner and stump in the country screaming about their right to free speech and that all dem attempts to fix the election system are really efforts to rig it- that's what the illegal immigration and acorn and voter ID issues and the bush/rove fired AGs are all about and they were all mostly talk radio generated- all shit that was used to rally the base and keep those senators in line and intimidate enough red (radio) state dem blue (radio) dogs to make real change impossible.

they can create made-to-order constituencies in a day or month (teabaggers) and completely dominate politics in rural states with no people, RW radio only, and 2 senators. try changing that while you're at it.

fix , or at least know what they're selling on the radio, or waste your time wishing for ideal politicians that can handle the daily free potshots rush and the gang take at them because progressives just walk by with their fingers in their ears. or their ipods.

[BumRushDaShow]

189. + infinity!!!!!!!!!!! n/t

[Grinchie]

153. Obama is finished

So is the illusion of the two party system, and acknowledge the new Corporatocracy.

All I can say is good riddance, and it is time to get to work to assist in the Corporations fall.

The only way to take back control is by confounding every model the Corporations have in predicting what the average citizen will do, or how they will react. We will Zag when they expect us to Zig. We will become more self sufficient and conserve more, while at the same time refusing to spend money on crap they think we may be suckered into buying.

We will stop buying their GMO Food until they label it, only then will the brave souls consume it, knowing that they have an audit trail when the illnesses arrive.

We will start living closer to our jobs and demand modern mass transit to get us there while we sleep. We will demand standardized cars that use the same standard set of fasteners and parts, instead of 1000's of different makes of a switch or sensor.

Obama had a chance, but he got into bed with the DLC and ran himself off the cliff with the rest of the corrupt bastards. Rest in Peace.

[lonestarnot]

246. +25!

[Enthusiast]

156. This is what I have tried to say.

When 'we' won a majority in 2006 and 2008 the nation needed big changes and fast. That is why we won! The nation was in a crisis state. Not just because of the economic crash. We needed action on a number of fronts in the face of growing corporate dominance. Did we get it? No, it was just like the OP said. Even with numbers on our side Obama and both houses of congress failed us miserably.

I would like to take every Democrat we elected in 2006 and 2008 and shake them, especially Obama. That's what the nuns in my Catholic school would do to us when we reached a state of 'unreachableness'. This is a fucking emergency!

No, we haven't had an earthquake, but we have had a terribly destructive force undermine our collective interests and 'our' side failed us.

[Le Taz Hot]

170. I "saw the light" in 2004 . . .

almost exactly 30 years after I first registered and started working with the Democratic Party. I knew it was happening during the Clinton administration but with Obama, they don't even try to hide it anymore.

Btw, there is no such thing as a corporate-friendly liberal. There are liberals and there are Democrats. Liberals can be Democrats but, as we've so painfully watched, Democrats are not necessarily liberal. I think a more accurate term is corporate-friendly Democrat, which describes 90% of what we currently have in Congress, the Senate and certainly 100% of the WH.

[Enthusiast]

176. Exactly.

If they are 'corporate friendly' they are NOT liberal.

[tomp]

188. and certainly not "progressive". nt

[tomp]

177. what you are seeing is the role of the democratic party...

....in flagrante delicto, i.e. more open and exposed than usual, exactly because times are so hard. when times were better they could more easily hide their role as defenders of the rich, giving bones and crumbs to the masses while shoveling wealth to the rich. times are too hard now for people to not be asking questions like, WTF...?!!! which they should have been asking decades ago if they had been paying attention and hadn't been suckered by the media machine of the powers that be.

the democrats are as responsible for the situation we're in as the republicans, two branches of the corporatist party. and the sooner people get that the sooner we can do something about it.

the handful of actual well-meaning progressives have been so ineffective as to be part of the problem, continuing to offer faith in the two party system.

harsh, yes. true, yes.

[leveymg]

181. The phrase, "our President to radically stand up to corporate interests" presumes a great deal about

their President, and that he will change in ways we could believe in.

I don't think he's made of the same stuff we hoped for when we worked to elect him.

[WillyT]

186. HUGE K & R !!!

:applause::applause::applause:

:yourock:

:patriot:

:hi:

:kick:

[madokie]

190. If nothing else those two years galvanized in my mind that neither party is worth the spit

in the face it would take to piss any one member of either party off. They're all in it for themselves, All rules have exceptions and so does this one as we do have a few good Democratic Representatives and Senators and one great Independent party Senator but they are very much in the minority. Bernie Sanders, Sherrod Brown, Sheldon Whitehouse, Anthony Weiner and Al Franken, even though Al has only been at it a short time its obvious that he is the real thing.
There may be some more that I'm mis remembering but I don't think that number is very large

[archiemo]

191. This is exactly how I have been feeling. Thanks for posting.

[NorthCarolina]

195. No doubt we've been duped, and there are minions hrere on DU that work to keep you from noticing. nt

[theFrankFactor]

223. So True!

[jefferson_dem]

196. Meh...

I appreciate the passion, and that you are frutsrated, but all the hand-wringing, wet-blanket nihilism is a bit much. There are no secrets here. We haven't been duped. It's called American politics...not always pretty, not always "fair". The policy-making process is riddled with multiple veto points where the opposition party (especially one that marches in lock-step loyalty) can effectively gum things up. Nonetheless, over the last three years, we have all witnessed the most impressive list of *progressive* accomplishments in a generation. I had to chuckle at the 10,000 steps back, 5 steps forward thing. Perhaps one day people will wake up to reality.

[TBF]

198. The interesting thing is that they are not even keeping up the facade anymore -

under this democratic president we are seeing popular programs like social security being selected for cuts and the entire public school system dismantled. They are not even pretending there is an "American Dream" anymore.

[jefferson_dem]

200. You've just stumbled upon a fine illustration of the clear differences between Democrats and Repubs.

Democrats - http://www.dailykos.com/story/2011/03/17/957379/-Reid:-Leave-Social-Security-alone

Repubs - http://www.newsleader.com/article/20110319/NEWS01/103190313/1002/news01/Cantor-Time-make-hard-budget-decisions

[TBF]

214. Good on Reid, but why did Mr. Obama agree to a payroll tax "holiday" that undermines

social security?

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748704657104576142122744337858.html

[Marblehead]

212. the bankers

won, they own everything, almost

[WiffenPoof]

217. I Plce Some Of The Blame...

on the "new" Dems who have little or no idea what it really means to be a Democrat.

Now, get off my lawn.

-PLA

[colsohlibgal]

228. I Don't Think....I Know

We've been sold down the river since the last year or so of the Carter administration. The next democratic president, Clinton, couldn't push for NAFTA and other afreements like it hard enough, cracked down on welfare, "neoliberalism" all the way.

I have particular contempt for wolves in sheep's clothing like Chris Dodd, Max Baucus, Diane Feinstein etc. They act like they are friends of the middle class, Dodd in particular lays it on thick, but they and their ilk are nothing but oligarch enablers, and they are padding their wealth by carrying water for the ruling class.

There are good, decent populists in congress, just not enough of them.

I thought I worked and voted for a populist president in 2008 but it was just another bait and switch deal.

Obama takes office and boom - here come Summers, Geithner, Bernacke, Emmanual and such as his inner circle - he might have just as well had a presser to say "Gotcha, I'm actually in the tank for the banksters and the corporate state, good luck with the scraps left for you middle class".

[KansDem]

229. I began to suspect something was up with "impeachment off the table"

Bush and Cheney lied us into war. And who profits from war? The corporations!

Yeah, we've been set up! BIG TIME!!!

[Xenotime]

233. Agreed. The corporations have paid them off.

[mvd]

234. Good post

I don't think the President (along with most Democrats) has the same goals in mind as the Repukes, but it seems clear to me that neither party wants to shake up the system enough. There are exceptions in the Party, but unfortunately, Obama has acted like a DLC President. I don't get these "huge progressive accomplishments" that have been touted. Health care? 30% increase by Aetna just happened to me! Obama and the Democrats could have stood up to the insurance companies. The law we got was similar to Romney's law, only with more, but probably still inadequate, subsidies. Banking reform? Hasn't been tested yet, and banks still have their way. War? Still not much better on that front. Did anyone notice Obama said there would be no negotiation on Libya? Where was that on domestic items and progressive foreign policy things like closing Guantanamo? The stimulus? That was needed, but we could have used an expansion of it. The environment? Improvements here, but the BP response was disappointing. Some good things socially have happened - end of DADT, equal pay for women law, more education spending, etc. (though Obama also endorses that test-away educational system). And we have nibbled around the edges on things. Obama is still way better than the Repukes. It's not out of fear to think so. Some of these Republicans being talked about as candidates could make the Bush years seem like a cakewalk. And we've had enough trouble fixing Bush's massive mess. So I will vote for Obama, even though a progressive challenger to keep him honest would be nice. I don't want a bruising primary unless that progressive has a great chance to beat the Repuke.

[robcon]

238. Ridiculous OP.

tin foil time

[Zorra]

240. LOL. Great post!

Ever heard of Otis Morks by any chance?

[grahamhgreen]

243. Top of the greatest page. The President has a re-election problem that will be dismissed by his

staffers until it's too late.

[KoKo]

274. If he finishes Bush's "Spreading Freedom & Democracy across the ME..according to CATO/HERITAGE/AIPAC

he will be A WINNER!

And, how do we Progressive Dems..who are really "old time mainstream Dems" gonna DEAL WITH THAT ONE?

The Repugs are going to love him in 2012...(if you heard both SOS, Hillary Clinton's speech this a.m. and Obama's Update on our Latest War in Libya this afternoon around 4:00 p.m....One would believe it was George Bush II's AMERICA we are living in. Both speeches were almost exact repeats of Bush II's "Invade Iraq Speeches" which some think are just "years ago" in their minds...but, to fresh in the minds of DU'ers who have been on this site fighting the Bushies for a DECADE!

We, DU'ers recorded and have file boxes (printed) of all his corrupt speeches about (UN RESOLUTION 9#####) giving us the POWER AND AUTHORITY TO MOVE IN TO SAVE LIVES FROM EVIL SADDAM speeches we would ever need to know. I have hesitated to cut it all up and post it in my local Landfill. then there were the Bush/Cheney DIATRIBES and the terrible things we lived through at that time.

Obama and Hillary are like some kind of "Ground Hog Day" movie with their speeches quoting "UN RESOLUTION #90000...etc.. All designed for MORE WAR...WAR AND WAR...and GLOBAL WAR because as both say:

"THE INTERNATIONAL COMMUNITY WILL NOT TOLERATE THIS KIND OF THREAT!"

When their speeches "go online" be sure to listen and see if it doesn't sound like BUSH dejavu!

[grahamhgreen]

286. Althought they will support him and his neo-con policies, they will NEVER vote for him, IMHO.

[KoKo]

287. Who will never support him? Obama/Hillar are courting the RW...there are the votes

Even the RW is afraid of Palin/Bachman.

But the LEFT are "Fuckin Retards or "Professional Left" which is a lightening rod to Beck, Limbaugh and Faux News!

So...WHO is OBAMA/Clinton Courting? THE RIGHT... Those are the people who LOVE WAR and CUTTING TEACHERS and Firefighters, Police and all our CIVIL SERVICE FOLKS...to appease the Right.

By 2012 the RIGHT will see OBAMA as the "WAR PRESIDENT" who CUT SS/MEDICARE/MEDICADE" ..gave "TAX BREAKS TO RICH and KEPT CAPITALISM GOING with BANKSTER BAILOUTS!" THE RIGHT LOVES HIM..

And..that's WHY the Right pushes the FEARS of PALIN/BACHMAN/WALKER/GINGRICH/TRUMP in the MEDIA!

BE SO AFRAID! THE RIGHTWING CRAZIES ARE RUNNING! Who is the SANE Candidate? BARACK OBAMA FOR PRESIDENT ...2012.. HE FOUGHT THE TERRAISTS ....JUST LIKE BUSH II DID!

[Ship of Fools]

247. Has it occurred to folks

that the Congress is so effed up that even the most well-intentioned have to play the game to some degree? Do you really think that a Bernie Sanders type could saunter in, without corporate backing, and make it all pretty? I'm beginning to think many people at this site are paranoid, and what's really going on is that most in Congress are too STUPID to see what's going on.

Do yourselves a favor: Take a deep breath, then ask yourselves: Do I truly have to patience to keep working for change? If you can't answer that unequivocally *yes,* please stop bitching.

[KoKo]

275. "We Folks" are just looking for our US Constitution to be Honored and for Truth, Justice and what we

though was the AMERICAN WAY to be HONORED. It's been long gone since Reagan.

Give me some facts that dispute what I say! :grr:

[Melissa G]

248. I do believe. Thanks for your post. n/t

[Taverner]

249. Meh - fuggit. I don't give a rat's ass anymore

Fuck the GOP

Fuck the DLC

Fuck the DNC

I give up

[KoKo]

290. I understand what you say..been doing gardening for today..Something will come along..

Things are so bad here, there will have to be a "push back." Until then..we do what we do to keep their pollution out of our lives. It's hard not to peek at what they are doing and get angry. But, something else is brewing. It's different. It will come. At least, that's my hope, and history seems to record..something "else" does eventually come along. Just saying.....

[Taverner]

293. Let's hope so - but I think it will be another Empire that saves humanity

If it is to be saved at all...

[Honeycombe8]

250. You're assuming that all Dems are the same. One of the hallmarks of being a Dem. is that it's a big

tent that accepts varying viewpoints, while Republicans are soldiers who pretty much do what their leaders order (or else...really, or else).

So in a way it's not fair to compare what the Dems can get done with a majority vs. what the Republicans can get done. It's the way the Democratic Party is. They simply cover a wider spectrum of opinion and positions, except that they pretty much all follow the Dem. Party Platform.

Would you really want the Dem. Party members to become soldiers who follow their leaders, despite what their own opinion is? Would you really want that? Sure you would....when you agree with what the leaders want. But then they would also do that, when you don't agree with what the leaders want.

Progressives and far righters don't sweep elections. And there's a reason for that. Most people are somewhere in the middle and don't like extremes. There are sometimes exceptions, but generally, that's the way people are.

We're all disappointed the Dems didn't come together to force through more aggressive progressive bills. But I'm not surprised. Truth is...if there weren't Blue Dogs in the Dem. Party, those senators and reps elected would be Republicans. They HAVE to vote how their constituents expect them to; that's why they were elected. But they are not the same as Republicans. (a check of their voting records will show that. They will vote for Dem. causes much more often than even a moderate Republican will.)

The Dems are how they are: very varied in positions and opinions; disorganized as a coherent unit. That is the way they have always been. And that's the way it is when you have a big tent.

[Zorra]

254. That would be a somewhat plausible argument if lobbyists representing wealthy

private interests did not buy favors from politicians.

But it is a fact that they do.

This in turn, leads many politicians to legislate against the interests of their constituents.

Also,

The "Democratic Party Platform" was arbitrarily altered "without the consent of the governed". Al Fromm and his pals decided that it would be convenient for wealthy private interests to be represented by the Democratic Party (the DLC). The Democratic Party was historically the party of unions and working people up to this point. After being co-opted by the DLC, protecting the rights of working people became secondary to protecting the rights of wealthy private/corporate interests.

The republican party is historically the party that represents wealthy private interests.

So what the DLC did was effectively ambiguate the Democratic Party Platform, arbitrarily incorporating the primary function of the opposing party into the Democratic party platform in order to render the Democratic Party, Unions, and Democratic voters powerless to effect significant constructive change.

Sure, the Corporate Friendly Liberals that control the Democratic Party at the federal level will vote for some Dem programs as long as they are not counter to the corporate agenda. But the corporate agenda is becoming more and more narrow as corporations gain more power, resulting in a snowball effect - meaning the more power they get, the fewer social programs and entitlements they will have to pay taxes to support, the more power they can take away from labor, the less they have to pay labor, the fewer unions they have to tolerate, the fewer social programs corporate friendly liberal legislators are obligated to support, and so on, and so on, ad nauseum.

This phenomenon is the essence of the cause of the recent struggle in Wisconsin. And currently many other states as well.

We have met the enemy, and he is us.

A house divided against itself cannot stand. I would prefer that corporate friendly liberals leave the Democratic party and start their own party.

Because I am 100% sure of this:

If they threw a party, hardly anyone would come

That is why they had to co-opt our party instead of starting their own party. Otherwise, they would have no support and go the way of the Whigs. They infiltrated our party to make us ineffective and guarantee their ability to get elected because now Democrats very often have no choice but to vote for the lesser of two evils, and those two evils are often essentially republicans in nature.

[KoKo]

291. Sorry...but it REALLY IS FAIR to COMPARE. Dems threw away a new movement.

They did it all on their own..by splitting Dem Party for years into factions. We are dead. A New Dem/Labor Party needs to arise out of the ashes of the Daschle/Reid/Pelosi years.

[Octafish]

280. Two Things...

1. There is no change in the power structure: The rich keep getting richer and there is no talk about strengthening social programs to help the poor or middle classes.

2. Endless wars continue: The Pentagon consumes over $1.2 federal budget, who knows what else goes to the military industrial complex?

These, and points made above in your excellent post and thread, stand out, making me believe your analysis correct, Zorra.

[KoKo]

292. No "Change We Can Believe In" (campaign slogan) ...just "Move On" to the Future.

Better to MOVE ON...than to CORRECT. Push it under the table.

Remember when Nancy Pelosi said: "Impeachment is Off the Table."

Remember when newly elected President Obama selected most of his cabinet before the Inauguration. Remember who he picked. And of those who have now left his Administration...think about the ones who have replaced his original picks. Same Old...Same Old. We could have Bush II in there...for all we know that's changed.