Easy to see why republicans win the war of words. dems attack the President as well as

[EV_Ares]

republicans do. With a republican president, republicans don't attack the president with only the other party doing the attacking. This as well as other cases. Then the republicans have a republicans fox media outlet and dems participate by going on that place as well. With dems assisting republicans it does make things difficult at times.

[Drale]

1. The reason they keep winning is because

we are to busy fighting about our "values" that some believe are more important then not being killed by evil Nazis I mean Republicans.

[markpkessinger]

24. That's what happens when a Democratic President acts like a Republican n/t

[derby378]

47. +100 (n/t)

[lob1]

2. It also makes it hard when our democratic president

does republican things.

[frylock]

10. shhhhhhhhh......

[Kurmudgeon]

3. Too true, they'll help put the next Reagan-Dubya clone into office.

[Lasher]

4. Have you ever stopped to wonder why Republicans don't usually criticize a Republican president?

I have reflected on that and I wish you would too if you have not already.

[EV_Ares]

6. Of course we know why they don't. For one they are all on the same page. They do not have all of

the different groups that the Dems have as well and they are for right now pretty well controlled by the right wing.

Your reflection?

[Lasher]

18. In general, Republican presidents support their base more than Democratic presidents do.

That is true of the past 30 years. It is therefore only logical that Democratic presidents would get less support from members of their own party.

[EV_Ares]

21. Good point, hadn't thought about that. but wouldn't that go along with what I

was saying. They have a unified base whereas we have such a larger tent, so many groups that come under the umbrella, we all have our own goals that may get in the way of others and everyone wants a slice of the pie. We are more divergent in race, women, minority groups, environmental, etc. That makes it very difficult for a Democratic president to support the entire base.

[pocoloco]

26. All a dem president needs to do is....

do what is right!!

Not fucking rocket science!

[EV_Ares]

35. And it is not fucking rocket science that when he does what is right, he will not get

a consensus from his base will he, whereas a republican president can do what is right or what is totally wrong and yet get a consensus from his base and that is not fucking rocket science as well.

[Hippo_Tron]

51. The Republican base is also larger than the Democratic base

Roughly 40% of the country considers themself conservative whereas roughly 20% of the country considers themself liberal. Democrats have to attract more moderates than Republicans do in order to win.

[Lasher]

73. Yes, but part of that is because Republicans have managed to make 'liberal' a dirty word.

If you go by party affiliation the split is much more even.

http://www.rasmussenreports.com/public_content/politics/mood_of_america/partisan_trends

[bettyellen]

66. they support joe six pack and jane right to life how exactly?

those are the base voters, and they have been getting nothing but played.

[msongs]

5. actually it is because Democrats, particularly Obama, don't fight back nt

[EV_Ares]

7. That too. Clorrect.

[Kurmudgeon]

34. You only have that perception because right wing media doesn't cover it, hit a search engine.

[global1]

8. If Obama Would Have Went To Congress To Make A Decision On This.....

many innocent Libyan's would have been slaughtered. They can't agree on anything in Congress. How many extensions have we had with the budget and keeping the U.S.Government up and running financially. That's all we needed is for Congress to debate this issue.

What's the old saying about asking for permission versus doing something first and asking for forgiveness.

I guess I don't look at this Libyan initiative as a full blown war like Iraq or Afghanistan. And I still think the President was within his job description to make the decision he did regarding this Libyan initiative. Doesn't he have 60 days to inform Congress.

[Newest Reality]

9. I thought we were open to dissent

and realized its value? Not all criticism of the President can be considered an attack.

There are many promises the candidate made and that the incumbent has either forgotten or has chosen to ignore. I do recall Obama stating that we would MAKE him do these things.

Well, criticism and "attacks" on certain actions are one way to verbally enforce that request as if we could actually cajole some change or even a response. Criticism doesn't have to be taken personally, nor does it have to be a source of insecurity and defensiveness amongst the President's faithful.

Of course, all are free to refute the criticism/attacks in-depth when it is applicable.

Democrats in office could be far more aggressive, active and staunch in support of what matters to the common folks. Largely, except for a few here and there and those in the Progressive Caucus, (applause and support to them) we are seeing the interests of corporates and wealth take precedence for both parties and those interests appear to be very well served while we stand on the sidelines with our jaws agape, scratching our heads over the cognitive dissonance.

[EV_Ares]

14. Your points are well taken and you are correct about dissent and the value of it. However,

there are upon occasions a time to be unified, not saying this was the time or any other. I agree that with debate you usually come out with the better ideas or idea. Just saying that however, with us in disarray or disagreeing all the time & supporting the republicans in other ways, this is what we can expect when we are up against a party as we saw in all the voting including health care that is totally unified. It is the politics of today and we need to find a better way to combat them if we are to win elections.

[mochajava666]

15. Well said

[RKP5637]

16. Exactly!!! "...we are seeing the interests of corporates and wealth take precedence for both parties

and those interests appear to be very well served while we stand on the sidelines with our jaws agape, scratching our heads over the cognitive dissonance."

The solution is to get the money out of elections and basically bribery out of congress. With Citizens United I have no idea how this is going to come about. As it is, we are going to see more and more IMO of what I quoted from you above. Basically, the country is under siege. I still don't think many Americans get what is going on.

Hell, apparently about 1/3 of the country doesn't even know who the VP is... There's not a lot to work with IMO 'till something wakes Americans up, I have no idea what that's going to be anymore. I had thought 8 years of Bush would have done it, but apparently not...

[frylock]

11. it's even more difficult when dem presidents assist republicans with republican-lite policy

[wickerwoman]

12. So what do you suggest?

Lockstep party loyalty?

Democrats lose the war of words because issues are complex, and finding solutions to complex issues takes time, patience, a willingness to question the status quo, and intellectual honesty.

None of which things are appreciated my immature people with low IQs. And since America has many, many immature people with low IQs and those people vote, Republicans are able to appeal to them by offering quick (wrong/self-interested) "solutions".

The solution isn't to stop questioning Democrats and demanding better answers. It's to point out the complexity of issues in simple terms and expose the way that Republicans manipulate people to vote against their own best interests.

[EV_Ares]

17. You word yourself very well & I agree. I just posted here what I did to

another poster. Not sure how you combat the republicans with their lock-step but we need to find a way to do it because what we are doing is not working now. We appear weak, indecisive, unable to get our message out (health care for example).

Your points are well taken and you are correct about dissent and the value of it. However,
there are upon occasions a time to be unified, not saying this was the time or any other. I agree that with debate you usually come out with the better ideas or idea. Just saying that however, with us in disarray or disagreeing all the time & supporting the republicans in other ways, this is what we can expect when we are up against a party as we saw in all the voting including health care that is totally unified. It is the politics of today and we need to find a better way to combat them if we are to win elections.

[RKP5637]

19. The 'Willfully Stupid factor' in this country IMO has grown significantly over the decades. I

think the messaging needs to drop to the level of a 4th grader, then maybe more Americans might be able to comprehend what is going on.

[EV_Ares]

23. Yeah, that one is working well for Fox.

[Shiver]

22. By your own logic, then,

the immature people with low IQs who vote Republican will either not understand the the complexity of the issues or that they are being manipulated, or will think you're trying to talk down to them.

Lockstep party loyalty on all things is not the answer, of course, because that's not what we do. But there are times, I think, when we need to form a united front. Because when we fight, Republicans win, and we get even further from being able to fix the problems they have caused in this country.

[wickerwoman]

42. I don't think this is neccessarily true.

Take Wisconsin as a case study and all the Republicans who jumped ship on Walker. Once it was obvious that his policies were going to hit them in the wallet, they came out and supported the Democrats. They understood the political theatre of Democrats leaving the state to take a stand for their interests.

This is the kind of thing we can do- but haven't been doing. We need to take the time to explain to people in very simple terms why their life is going to be worse when we bust unions, or force them to pay for-profit insurance companies for health care, or lower their parents' social security payments, or build nuclear power plants next to their kids' elementary school. It's just a question of finding better stories to tell- ones that ordinary people can identify with. Turn their own selfishness so that it support policies that help everyone instead of circling the wagons to make sure "those people" don't get something they don't deserve.

[Shiver]

67. A very good point.

And I'm ashamed that I didn't even think of that, and I'm here in Wisconsin.

The problem then is the single-issue voters, such as those who are vehemently anti-choice and vote only for candidates that are the same. To them, it often doesn't matter what the candidates other positions are - if they are pro-choice, they don't get the vote.

[in_cog_ni_to]

13. Well, if he wasn't deserving of dissent, he wouldn't get it. n/t

[howaboutme]

20. The difference between independent thinkers and puppets being led to slaughter

To the Party that I typically support, I'm not a blind partisan, and I never drink Kool Aid so do not expect it. I expect policy that benefits the greater good of the USA.

Sipping Kool Aid is not my thing or a partisan thing. I'd prefer to eliminate the Party monikers and instead vote for candidates and their record and stated beliefs. The main problem with the new DLC Democratic Party is that they are now fed and dependent on banking elites instead of average working Americans, by way of organized labor.

Divide and conquer is the tactic used by the rich to involve us in wars, debt, while taking us down.

[Bluenorthwest]

25. I note the bully posts on this thread. You have issues with

diversity, and you demand that I should stand against my own family's rights to 'support' some politicians religious affectation? Sorry, that is not how it works. Here is what Teddy Roosevelt said on the subject: "To announce that there should be no criticism of the President, or that we should stand by the President, right or wrong is not only servile and unpatriotic, it is morally treasonable to the American public."
I agree with him, not with you.

[in_cog_ni_to]

27. One of my ALL TIME favorite quotes and man is it fiiting these days. n/t

[emilyg]

31. +1

[Raine]

41. Exactly! nt

:thumbsup:

[RandomKoolzip]

28. Repub presidents don't get criticized by repubs because repub presidents and

politicians keep them happy - they give them wars, cultural suppression, lots of promotion of "family values," and economic hardship (which even working class repubs love for some reason - I don't get it either!). Repub politicians give their base all sortsa stuff to keep 'em happy.

Dem presidents get criticized by Dems because Dems get nothing in return for their vote besides contempt.

[howaboutme]

30. BINGO! - nt

[EV_Ares]

43. Would a republican president give you healthcare, how would they handle

gay issues such as Don't ask don't tell. How would they handle collective bargaining for unions, social security issues, medicare, immigration issues, race issues,etc?

Maybe these are not entirely to your satisfaction but are in general OK. No you got and still get these things among others from a democratic president.

[RandomKoolzip]

44. Woah woah...I have healthcare now?!

News to me. Last I checked medical costs were too prohibitive for me to get even check-ups done.

The Democratic presidents I got SS from is long, long dead. Collective bargaining for unions? Did a president give me that? I thought the Labor Movement gave me that.

Again - I'm tired of the Democratic party being the "We're Not as Bad" party.

[EV_Ares]

48. I think you proved my point and everything is not all about you. There

are others involved as well. Thanks for proving my point where he can't satisfy all. You ignored all the other things a democratic president does, guess that doesn't matter to you but it will to others.

[RandomKoolzip]

49. Only if you interpret a refutation as a validation, but you're welcome anyways.

[county worker]

29. Republicans win because they tell lies to a stupid ignorant base that believes the lies.

Obama lies to an intelligent base that hates to be lied to!

[JoePhilly]

32. Here is the key difference.

Republicans will accept ANY progress whatsoever. No matter how small.

Consider this example.

The right wing wants Roe v Wade overturned. Bush and the GOP congress did NOTHING to make that happen in the roughly 7 years they controlled the White House, the Congress, and the Supreme Court. Not one challenge. But they took small steps. A small provision here, another there. They chip away. And the right wing base CHEERS.

We don't do that. We want it all, or we want nothing. Take HCR, or financial reform, or almost any other issue of the last 2 years. If Obama does not deliver the entire desired outcome NOW, folks on the left scream that he screwed everyone for only getting "part".

The GOP takes any ground they get, they cheer that as a VICTORY, and then the work like hell to HOLD THAT GROUND.

We, on the other hand, act like a bunch of yippy dogs all barking at the bone that not one of us can lift alone. The GOP dobermans, sit off to the side an salivate, waiting until we exhaust ourselves, at which point, the regain the majority, walk up, and take the bone while laughing in our faces.

[county worker]

36. How many times will you try to get birds with a dog that won't hunt?

HCR! The stated problem was 40 million people without health care. What we got was not incremental steps in fixing that problem. We got insurance reform! Now we have 50 to 60 million without health care!

[JoePhilly]

52. You just made my point even better than I did ....

My neice who was diagnosed with cancer at 2 is now 14 ...

Before HCR, the best coverage she could get since that early cancer, was for "colds" and simple "kid injuries", falling off the swings, etc.

Now, if she has a relapse, she's covered. Period. Its a huge weight lifted of my sister and her family.

My niece, and thousands, if not millions of other kids, are now covered. That's PROGRESS. And its just one example of how HCR is helping people.

And soon, this kind of coverage for pre-existing coverage, will be true for adults as well.

To me, that is actual progress.

And I CHEER it. I plan to DEFEND IT. And ... I also plan to fight for MORE progress on this front.

You of course, should feel free to sit at home and POUT, while again, making my point better than I did.

[Bluerthanblue]

58. +1000!

baby steps are better than backwards steps.

HCR is a start- and that's more than we've ever had before this.

[JoePhilly]

59. Exactly. Get a foundation in place, build on it. Then repeat. nt

[Shagbark Hickory]

65. Great but gas is over $4 a gallon again. We're in another new war. We're still torturing. Heck we're

torturing our own war heros.

There are some things where anything less than everything we want is not acceptable. War, torture, gitmo, lack of an energy policy... unacceptable.

[xphile]

71. You do understand that 50 or 60 million is MORE than the 40 million that was originally the

problem.

Insurance reform does not solve the problem of people being kept from accessing health CARE. But you got yours so I guess the rest of us can go to hell.

Nice argument. :sarcasm:

[county worker]

76. You got yours so to hell with the other 50 to 60 million!

Your like a baseball player who in the last inning needs to hit a home run to win a game and gets a single. He says, well we didn't win this time but I got another hit for my record! There's always another game tomorrow!

[EV_Ares]

37. Absolutely correct on that. I think anyone with any intelligence could or should

see that if he had gone with the complete total package the left was wanting on health care we would be sitting here with nothing. Pretty much a known fact. Also, remember, same as other bills, the plan was to improve on what we got in the future. All of that is better than nothing.

[TheKentuckian]

39. They can gnaw on a social bone because they have already funneled all the wealth to the top.

They are just biding their time while we scramble to hold on to long settled civil liberties and social advances as they extract our wealth.

This party is dead in the water till we all get the money on our minds and or minds on the money. There is no equality without financial opportunity and a sane distribution of resources. Instead we spend our time on non-economic issues and trying our best to seem like photo copies of the Republicans with more inclusive rhetoric.

Yeah, they'll take small bites on social issues (at times) because the real objectives by the power players are being met with amazing speed. Look at the wealth disparity, wage destruction, diminishing union representation, and rampant corporate capture of both the commons and regulatory structure.

All the shit that takes up your focus is a feint. The money is all they care about, the theocracy is just to keep the mouthbreathers fired up.

[RandomKoolzip]

40. THere's also a key difference in the severity of the problems

you mentioned. Roe v. Wade wasn't an urgent problem that demanded swift action; it also didn't imperil the livelihood of millions and millions of "already born" Americans. Thus, incremental steps toward its repeal - not its immediate destruction - were treated as victories and could be viewed as such in that context by the repub constituency.

Crumbling infrastructure; massive unemployment; unaffordable healthcare - these are pressing, urgent problems that demand immediate action and actual change at the structural level lest they actually do lasting and severe damage, lead us into another Great Depression, result in millions of unnecessary deaths. These are problems whose severity is LIGHT YEARS beyond Roe v. Wade and the only people or groups with any power to fix them sat on their hands, continue to sit on their hands, or proffer band-aids when emergency CPR is needed.

Not jumping down your throat - I see your point, and the lesson of patience is a wise one - but I fear that we are facing problems for which we can longer wait and wait and wait for solutions.

[JoePhilly]

54. I used that example in part it is an obvious example, there are others ...

Immigration is another such front and it has similar characteristics.

A key related difference is that the GOP never tries to do anything that would help "all Americans". Their focus is always on narrow special interests.

On the Roe v Wade point you make ... you and I see that issue as "not so important" or as "urgent" as some other things, but from the right wing perspective, THEY see it as the "murder of millions of innocent children" ... and therefore, they see it as a much more urgent issue than the social programs you and I would place higher.

My basic point as that while they will take any progress (even on an issue like Row V Wade which they see as "urgent", they cheer any progress, they defend it, and then they push for more ... they spend very little effort attacking their own representatives for not getting "everything" all at once.

We on the left "tend to" bicker to a point after which everyone (including the independents) are simply exhausted. We don't cheer success.

Take DADT. For 2 years, loud voices on the left argued that Obama was secretly against repealing it. Now that its going away. Its a forgotten issue, and Obama gets very little credit. Dems have simply moved on to the next thing that isn't "fixed in total" and the bickering begins a-new.

Also ... appreciate your comments ... never felt you jumped down my throat. And I'm not so much focused on "being patience" as I am about making "steady progress", even if its not as fast as I might like.

[RaleighNCDUer]

33. Particularly when the Dem who is assisting the Republicans the most

is in the White House.

[Raine]

38. When we have a Democratic President that acts like a Democrat

then Democrats will defend him. I know I will not defend a Democrat who acts like a repuke.

[Name removed]

45. Deleted message

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

[bluestate10]

46. Nail on the head!!! nt

[Dj13Francis]

50. I ain't gonna stop

criticizing bad things when done by someone with a D next to their name. Sadly, you don't see the same from the other side. Like you didn't know they bloviate ultimate hipocracy...


DavidJamesFrancis.com

[YellowRubberDuckie]

53. Well, DU is attacking the President too.

That is why we are losing. We don't have a party line. Republicans, regardless of if they actually believe in what another one says, always agree with each other. They always back each other.
That is why the Alliance always loses to the Horde on World of Warcraft. The Alliance don't know how to play together or use teamwork and won't stick together. They talk a good game, but have no idea how to stick together. The HORDE are ugly and mean and they are huge on teamwork and war. The Horde wins 80% of all the battles because of this concept.

[EV_Ares]

55. Yeah, right or wrong, easy to see how they win & now they even control

the Supreme Court, they mount an offensive attack, they are united. Not hard to see is it.

You have seen it even here tonight. One person doesn't like something so regardless if overall it is a good thing, takes offense to it.

Say Obama is a republican. That is hard for me to see when you see what a republican is like.

Also, take a look at his record & accomplishments up to now and those are not republican accomplishments.

One thing doesn't make him a republican or 2 or 3 or more.

[ReggieVeggie]

57. DU is attacking the president?

That's probably news to a hell of a lot of people around here.

[YellowRubberDuckie]

60. Do you read GD?

I see all sorts of posts where DU aren't standing by our President. Everyday.

[ReggieVeggie]

63. So DU is supposed to be a monolithic group of cheerleaders?

[YellowRubberDuckie]

64. No, but don't you see that if we'd stand together with our leaders...

...we might not have the same bullshit going on, and they might have a spine occasionally instead of bowing to the fucking GOP's every whim.

[in_cog_ni_to]

68. UH...I do believe pretty much every

fucking Progressive/Democrat in this country stood with BO, got him elected, stood with him the last 2 years and now he takes us to war and you expect people with principles, who are against this war, to stand behind him....just because he's BO? I don't think so. That's just stupid. When something is WRONG, you do not support it...no matter who the hell it is.

[CakeGrrl]

74. Shouldn't be. It happens more and more.

You must not see posts reviling him as "spineless", "weak", a "fucking moron", but also as a "warmonger" and a general corporate "capitulating" tool.

And despite a relative avalanche of legislative accomplishments compared to other presidents at this stage, the willful ignorance to claim that he hasn't done much of anything persists.

Meanwhile the complainers are apparently waiting for the Magical Unicorn Progressive to descend from the skies, sweep the Manchurian President Obama out of office via the Dem Primary, and make all of Washington (apparently even the contentious, crazy Republicans) heed their wishes.

:eyes:

[ReggieVeggie]

56. so, Democrats should be mindless lemmings?

I thought Democrats were proud of discussion and dissent.

[in_cog_ni_to]

69. Nope. Now we're expected to

bow down and acquiesce just because his devoted followers say so. He can do anything he wants. According to them.

[white_wolf]

61. Maybe if the Democrats would stand up for workers and middle-class people then

we wouldn't attack the president's policies. As long as he supports the rich and corporations I oppose him, as should the rest of the Left.

[HughBeaumont]

62. Repubs don't attack their presidents because they share the same brain of dumbshittery.

When Obama is continuing damaging Bewsh II tax cuts even though he "really doesn't want to or agree with it" (Um, if you don't WANT to . . . here's an idea . . . go find a spine, tell your corporate hostage holders to go fuck themselves and START A-HIKIN'!!!!), then sorry, I'm not supporting that. AT all. There is NO GOOD REASON for continuing this garbage. Ending wars would pay for UI.

[Toucano]

70. When the President acts like a fucking DEMOCRAT, dems won't attack him.

Democrats don't go door to door, dial strangers on the phone and drive hoards of old people to the polls on election day to elect a fucking Republican president.

Republicans don't do any of those things to elect a Republican president, why should we?

[Autumn]

72. Republicans win the war of words because

our Democratic leaders don't bother to come out swinging. Democrats, including Obama let them frame the message and go along with it.

[Luminous Animal]

75. If a Dem President stuck to Democratic principles, there'd be less room for attack, eh?

Perhaps Republicans get the candidates they elected and Democrats don't.